Former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama was among six one-time political heavyweights who recently voiced strong objections to current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s efforts to expand Japan’s international security role. Murayama, 91, expressed his views June 9 in a press conference jointly called with former Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) leader Yohei Kono, 78. Murayama’s Japan Socialist Party (JSP) and Kono’s LDP formed a coalition government with the New Party Sakigake in the mid-1990s, with Murayama serving as the prime minister. Four other elders, including Hirohisa Fujii, 82, former Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), called a joint news conference three days later to harp on the same subject.

　　　　　All of these elders—including Mr. Fujii, whom I have come to respect for his coherent views on financial matters—appear to inexplicably lose all control over rational thought processes when it comes to security issues. A nation’s power is based on its economic and military strengths. Naturally, all nations conduct their political and diplomatic affairs fully utilizing these strengths. And yet, these elders persistently maintain that Japan must continue to abide by the rules laid down by the Americans during the Occupation that banned Japan from pursuing an independent security policy or becoming a truly independent nation. They also insist that under no circumstances should Japan attempt to revise the postwar “peace” constitution drafted by MacArthur’s General Headquarters. In fact, these political elders are among those in Japan who have untiringly endeavored to prevent Japan from becoming a “normal” nation again, constantly plotting to weaken it.

　　　　　Before criticizing Abe for the security legislation currently under Diet deliberations, however, I believe Mr. Kono must make a point of explaining to the nation the serious errors he has previously made in his interpretation of Japan’s wartime history and apologize sincerely. Concerning the “Kono statement” he made in August 1993 as Chief Cabinet Secretary, in which he falsely stated that the Japanese military had coercively recruited non-Japanese women as so-called “comfort women,” he has granted interviews selectively, refusing to be interviewed by those media that are critical of what he had to say. Kono has met journalists who pledge to not rebut him, tirelessly asserting in such encounters that all he did was convey the facts about Japan’s wartime history. He has also expressed anger at Abe, saying: “I am genuinely indignant at the Abe administration.” Mr. Kono completely fails to comprehend that it is the people of Japan who are “genuinely indignant” at him.

　　　　　Murayama emphasized to the press that the Abe administration must engage the nation in a fuller debate over such important legislation as that related to security. His remarks instantly reminded me of the dictatorial leadership he had exercised as prime minister, reminiscent of a despotic monarch.

　　　　　Murayama became prime minister after steadfastly maintaining over decades that he and his party were opposed to the Japan Self Defense Forces (JSDF) because they are “unconstitutional.” As soon as he became prime minister, however, Murayama swiftly changed sides, now declaring the JSDF as “constitutional.” Did he himself take sufficient time as prime minister to engage JSP supporters across the nation in extensive discussions at the time, explaining his actions and answering their questions? While prime minister, Murayama did not hesitate to conduct reviews of JSDF soldiers and officers, donning a formal tailcoat while instructing them to discharge their functions honorably. Did he explain his action sufficiently to JSP supporters at the time?

　　　　　I have yet to hear that the Socialist prime minister bothered to adequately explain those actions to his own party or its supporters. If his dereliction had at least stopped there, people might perhaps have had some comfort. But his unprincipled actions saw no end. As soon as he resigned as prime minister in January 1996, Murayama immediately began chanting the old slogan that the JSDF is unconstitutional after all.

Obama’s Aversion to Use of Military Might

　　　　　The JSP, a forerunner of today’s DPJ, had a long history of its own, backed by a fair number of enthusiastic supporters. One wonders to what extent Murayama explained to JSP supporters why he had kept changing positions on the JSDF—from “unconstitutional,” to “constitutional,” and back again to “unconstitutional.” This unquestionably is the most crucial issue concerning Japan’s national security. It is hardly possible that Murayama had persuasive discussions with JSP supporters, or those around him. Instead of criticizing Abe, Murayama needs to reflect on the dictatorial changes in policy that he himself made while in office.

　　　　　Have these elders ever considered what a sea change the world has undergone—and wondered why—while insisting on Japan abiding by its constitution?

　　　　　As is obvious to everyone, America’s influence has waned everywhere across the globe—from the Middle East to Europe to Asia. By marked contrast, China has steadily been expanding militarily. It was the chaos in the Middle East that triggered this change. As I have detailed in my Enemies of Japan (Shincho-sha, Tokyo; March 2015), President Obama’s hesitation to militarily intervene in the problems of the Middle East—due to his failure to come to grips with the significance of military might in international politics—has led to the rise of terrorist forces in that part of the world.

　　　　　The democratization movement that started in Tunisia in December 2010　quickly spread to Egypt and Libya. At about the same time, general elections in Iraq saw the birth of a three-party coalition government made up of the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, as the Iraqis managed to maintain some degree of stability thanks largely to the stationing of US forces and their support. Although cooperation among the three ethnic groups had begun to take shape, Iraq’s future as a nation still hung in a delicate balance. Despite this, Obama completed the US armed forces’ withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011 as scheduled.

　　　　　As is evident from the fact that he became President by committing himself to withdrawing US troops from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama probably has the strongest aversion of all the US presidents in history to resorting to military force.

　　　　　In fact, on September 10, 2013, Obama declared in an address dealing with the Syrian situation that the US would not intervene militarily because it no longer is the world’s policeman. His statement destabilized the rule by the Iraqi administration, making it impossible for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to look after the minorities such as the Sunnis and Kurds. As a result, only the needs of the Shiites were heeded. But Obama would not actively get involved in the series of problems facing Iraq under the Maliki administration. As chaos grew and discontent spread among the general populace, the radicals gained force, creating the “Islamic State” forces that threw the Middle East into greater turmoil. In a nutshell, it was Obama’s do-nothing policy that was the chief cause of the chaos and anarchy in the Middle East.

Power to Safeguard Japanese Lives and Territory

　　　　　China has accelerated the pace of its unlawful land reclamation projects in the South China Sea in the past year and a half. Russian President Vladimir Putin deprived Ukraine of the Crimean Peninsula a half year after Obama’s statement that the US is not the world’s policeman. In other words, it was America’s declaration that it would not intervene militarily that drove China and Russia to their outrageous actions in total disregard of international law.

　　　　　The highest responsibility of any state is to safeguard the lives of its people, their land and territorial waters, and their right to pursue their lives in line with the traditions of their culture. The state must fundamentally shoulder such responsibility on its own.
　　　　　
　　　　　However, at present Japan is not equipped with the ability to protect its people or territory by itself. The existing constitution bans Japan from performing such functions. That is why there has always been a framework since the end of World War II under which the US is to protect Japan. However, the US has said it is not the world’s policeman. Under such circumstances, Japan must obviously acquire the ability to safeguard its people’s lives and territorial land and seas against hostile adversaries. The security-related legislation now under Diet discussion is aimed precisely at making such actions possible.

　　　　　Although the afore-mentioned elders bitterly oppose the legislation, what would likely happen if the proposed series of security law reforms are not to be implemented by the end of the current deliberations? It will undoubtedly cause the Chinese to gross underestimate our true intentions concerning our resolve to defend ourselves. The real danger to Japan will come if and when the Chinese view our resolve toward our own national security as insufficient and our real military strength as negligible.

　　　　　To have sufficient deterrence to discourage any potentially dangerous adversary from taking military action against us is the best method of defending ourselves. In other words, we must by all means be ready to demonstrate sufficient ability, preparedness, and resolve. Obama has ended up creating chaos not only in the Middle East but elsewhere in the world for his failure to demonstrate exactly that. I would like to earnestly ask those elders I’ve earlier referred to how they plan, as politicians, to assume responsibility, should Japan’s inaction this time, resulting from the same inertia as Obama’s in connection with the Middle East, entice the Chinese to commit an act of aggression against Japan in the not too distant future.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 660 in the June 25, 2015 issue of The Weekly Shincho)