A problematic move of the government

From Asahi Shimbun's Editorial on August 28 朝日新聞８月２８日社説より。日本語は下記を参照。

EDITORIAL: Defense policy review
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201008290167.html

2010/08/30

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

http://www.asahi.com/paper/editorial20100828.html#Edit2

新安保懇報告―「力には力を」でいいのか　

大きな方向転換がもくろまれている。懸念をもたざるをえない。

　民間有識者でつくる「新たな時代の安全保障と防衛力に関する懇談会」が報告書をまとめ、菅直人首相に提出した。日本の安全保障の指針「防衛計画の大綱」の見直しに向けたものだ。

　「平和創造国家」を目標にすえるのはいい。しかし、脅威には軍事力で対抗するという「力の論理」があちこちに顔をのぞかせている点が危うい。

　たとえば、専守防衛の理念を長く支えてきた基盤的防衛力構想を、「もはや有効でない」とはっきり否定した。

　集団的自衛権の行使を禁じる憲法解釈の見直しや、武器輸出三原則の緩和なども求めている。

　また戦後、「国是」とされてきた非核三原則のうち、米国の核持ち込みの禁止について「必ずしも賢明ではない」と疑問を投げかけている。

　とりわけ見過ごせないのは、防衛力のあり方をめぐる方針転換である。

　防衛大綱は１９７６年に初めて策定されて以来、「脅威に直接対抗せず、自らが不安定要因にならないよう必要最小限度の防衛力を保有する」という抑制的な考え方を継承してきた。

　ところが報告書は一転して、脅威対抗型にかじを切るべきだとしている。

　なにが変わったのか。

　報告書は米国の軍事力の優越性にかげりが生じていることや中国の軍事力の近代化、北朝鮮の核・弾道ミサイル開発などをあげる。地域の不確実性が増す可能性には確かに注意が必要だ。

　しかし同時に、近隣諸国との相互依存はますます深まり、日米安保体制はより強化されてきた現実もある。日本周辺に、あたかも本格的な軍事侵攻を仕掛ける勢力がいるかのような指摘はバランスを欠いていないか。

　相手の脅威に応じた防衛力整備は、防衛費の増大ばかりか軍備競争や摩擦の拡大にもつながる。

　戦後一貫して、他国の脅威とならないとし、専守防衛を掲げてきたわが国の理念からも逸脱しかねない。

　それがアジア諸国の目にどう映るのか、いま一度考えてみる必要がある。

　安全保障問題は民主党政権の苦手分野といっていい。野党時代から、このテーマにきちんと向き合ってこなかった。沖縄の普天間移設問題の迷走一つを見ても、それは明らかだ。

　政治主導を掲げながら、大綱見直し作業を外部の有識者に丸投げしていたことも、その証左だろう。懇談会は、人選の理由や議論の中身についてさえほとんど明らかにしなかった。

　その報告書をもとに、政府は年末に向け新たな防衛大綱をつくる作業にはいる。適切な政治のグリップなしに大きな政策転換に突き進んでいいのか。

　時間をかけてもいい。作業の進め方そのものから見直すべきである。