秘密と国会 追認機関ではいけない

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 31
EDITORIAL: Watchdogs of state secrets designations fail in first reports
（社説）秘密と国会　追認機関ではいけない

The Board of Oversight and Review of Specially Designated Secrets of both Diet houses on March 30 submitted their first annual reports to the president of the Upper House and the speaker of the Lower House.
　特定秘密の指定や解除の運用をチェックする衆参両院の「情報監視審査会」がきのう、年次報告書を衆参両院の議長に提出した。

The boards are tasked with checking the designation and declassification of state secrets by the government under the state secrets protection law, which came into force at the end of 2014.
２０１４年末に特定秘密保護法が施行されて以来、初めての報告書である。

Sadly, the documents indicate the watchdogs have done a poor job of monitoring the government’s moves to classify or declassify specific information. They can hardly claim to have carried out their responsibilities as the Diet organs consisting of lawmakers representing the people.
　しかし残念ながら、「監視」の名に値する内容とは程遠かった。これでは国民の代表としての国会の責任が果たせたとは、到底言えない。

The boards examined a total of 382 cases in which 10 government organizations, including the defense and foreign ministries, designated about 189,000 pieces of information as state secrets. To carry out their tasks, the panels referred to related documents, including a record book about the designation of specific pieces of information as state secrets, in addition to interviewing officials of the 10 organizations.
　防衛省や外務省など１０行政機関が指定した特定秘密３８２件（約１８万９千点）について、概要を記した「特定秘密指定管理簿」などをもとに、各省庁から聞き取りして確認した。

But only a few pieces of classified information have been disclosed as a result of the boards’ efforts. Most of the accounts about classification contained in the record book submitted by the government are too vague to help the boards judge whether the designation was appropriate or not.
One typical description about classified information in the document is “information provided by a foreign country.”
　だが、開示された特定秘密は数点だけ。政府が提出した管理簿の記述は「外国から提供を受けた情報」などあいまいで、指定が適正かどうか判断できる内容ではなかった。

The biggest problem is the flawed secrecy law itself, which doesn’t clarify the criteria for classification and could allow arbitrary and capricious withholding of information by the government.
　最大の問題は、何が秘密にあたるかが秘密、その範囲が恣意（しい）的に広がりかねないという、秘密法それ自体にある。

The opposition parties demanded that the government be mandated to submit information about designated secrets to the Diet. But the ruling coalition led by the Liberal Democratic Party rejected the demand, saying the government’s administrative power should be respected from the viewpoint of separation of powers.
　野党側は国会への情報提供を義務づけるよう求めたが、与党側は「三権分立の観点から行政権を侵してはならない」と受け入れなかった。

Why, then, did the ruling camp agree to set up secrecy watchdogs within the Diet?
ならばなぜ国会に監視機関を置いたのか。

The checks and balances system based on separation of powers requires the legislature to monitor and check the actions of the administrative branch of the government.
　三権分立だからこそ、行政権をもつ政府に対する、国会の監視機能が重要なのだ。

The watchdogs are the only institutions that can monitor the implementation of the state secrets law from outside the government.
政府の外から特定秘密の運用を監視できるのは、唯一、国会の審査会だけである。

The Diet should be alarmed by the situation and take steps to enhance the capabilities of the monitoring bodies.
国会は強い危機意識をもち、監視機能の強化をはからねばならない。

What is especially disappointing is the boards’ failure to make any judgment about the government’s decisions to classify specific information. Instead, the bodies only called for improvements in the way the law was implemented as their “opinions.”
　審査会の対応で物足りなかったのは、政府の特定秘密の指定状況が適正かの判断に踏み込まず、運用改善を「意見」として求めるにとどめたことだ。

It is hard to think of any good reason why they didn’t admonish the government to mend its way.
より強い「勧告」になぜ踏み込まなかったのか。

Even so, the boards’ “opinions” contain some ideas worth serious consideration.
　一方で、「意見」の中身には耳を傾けるべきものもある。

For example, they proposed that the Cabinet Office’s inspector general for public records management, who is responsible for reporting on the appropriateness of classification to the prime minister, should also report to them. The government should give serious thought to this proposal.
　例えば、秘密指定が適正かどうか、首相に報告する内閣府の「独立公文書管理監」に対し、審査会にも報告するよう求めたことだ。政府は真剣に検討してもらいたい。

The new national security legislation took effect on March 29, giving the government more power and discretion to take policy actions concerning the deployment of the Self-Defense Forces and other issues.
　安全保障法制が施行され、自衛隊の運用など安保政策をめぐる政府の裁量の幅が広がった。

If the secrecy watchdogs lack the teeth needed to properly monitor the way the secrecy law is implemented, the government could make a wide range of arbitrary decisions without knowledge of the people.
そのうえ特定秘密への監視機能の弱さが放置されれば、国民の目の届かないところで、政府の恣意的な判断が際限なく広がる恐れがぬぐえない。

The Diet needs to recognize its responsibility to monitor the government’s actions in this respect as the representative of the public and make constant efforts to improve the implementation of the law and rectify its problems. Such efforts would put necessary pressure on the government.
　国会が「国民の代表として監視する」という責任を自覚し、運用改善と法改正に向けた検討を不断に重ねることが、政府に緊張感を持たせるはずだ。

The boards must not become watchdogs in name only that merely rubber-stamp the government’s decisions.
　形ばかりの監視で、政府の追認機関になってはならない。