EDITORIAL: Defense policy review

A major policy shift is being contemplated. We cannot help but be concerned.

We are referring to a set of proposals put forth by the prime minister's advisory council on security and defense capabilities, which is made up of private-sector experts.

The aim of the report, submitted to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, is to revise the current National Defense Program Guidelines.

We agree with the report's goal of building "peace-making nation." But we are concerned that the report indicates the need for the "logic of force," in other words, military force should be used to deal with threats.

The report rejects the concept of basic defense capability, which has long supported the principle of an exclusively defensive security stance. The report says the concept is no longer "valid."

The report also calls for review of the constitutional interpretation that bans the use of the right of collective self-defense, and the easing of the nation's three-point ban on weapons exports.

Moreover, the report questions the ban on the introduction of nuclear weapons into the country--one of the nation's three non-nuclear principles. It says banning the U.S. military from transporting nuclear arms through Japanese territory is "not necessarily wise."

What we cannot overlook most of all is a proposed reversal of the nation's defense capabilities. Ever since the National Defense Program Guidelines were established in 1976, the premise was one of restraint--the nation would "not directly confront a threat, but maintain a bare minimum defense force so that it would not become a destabilizing factor itself."

However, the report, in a drastic policy switch, says Japan should become a country that confronts threats.

What has changed?

The report points to the waning of U.S. military supremacy, the modernization of China's military and North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile development. It is true that the possibility of increasing regional instability must be carefully watched.

However, at the same time, it is a fact that interdependence with the neighboring countries is deepening further and that the Japan-U.S. security alliance has grown stronger. To contend that there are nations ready to attack at any moment is not a well-balanced argument.

A defense buildup that seeks to match threats will lead to an increase in costs, an arms race and regional friction.

It would also deviate from the nation's postwar principle of a defense-only military posture based on the nation's promise that it would never become a threat to other nations.

It is necessary to think how such a shift would be viewed by other Asian countries.

National security issues are not the Democratic Party of Japan's forte. Since its opposition days, the party has failed to address these issues in earnest. This is clear just from looking at the way the DPJ government handled the the Futenma airbase issue in Okinawa Prefecture.

The fact that the DPJ outsourced the defense policy revision, despite its stance that politicians call shots in policymaking, is proof that the DPJ is weak on national security. The council barely made mention of how its members were selected or what their deliberations were like.

The government is to start putting together a basic defense program based on this report. Is it acceptable to barge ahead on such a major policy shift without appropriate oversight by politicians?

The government should re-examine the policy review process from scratch.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 28