During a March 22nd visit to Matsuyama City, Ehime Prefecture, Natsuo Yamaguchi, head of the junior coalition partner stated his position on Japan exercising its right to collective self-defense. However, his contentions failed to make sense. He raised the following points:

　　　1) “Our party will not approve the right to collective self-defense
　　　　　unless a thorough discussion is conducted on why and how it
　　　　　should be exercised”;
　　　2) “Viewed from nations that have fought a war against Japan in the
　　　　　past, we may be creating an impression that Japan is making it
　　　　　constitutionally possible to make war on them once again”; and,
　　　3) “It would be truly outrageous of the government to declare that it
　　　　　has ‘re-interpreted the Japanese constitution overnight so that the
　　　　　right to collective self-defense could suddenly be exercised
　　　　　starting today.’”

　　　I find point 1) extremely irresponsible, coming from the head of the junior coalition partner of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s ruling Liberal-Democratic Party (LDP). In the December 2012 lower house elections which brought the Liberal-Democrats back to power, as well as in the July 2013 upper house elections, the LDP made a campaign promise to authorize Japan’s exercising of its right to collective self-defense. It was none other than Komeito itself that closely cooperated with the LDP in the elections, campaigning together, fully aware of its senior partner’s election pledge, winning seats, and attaining the position of LDP’s junior coalition partner.
　　　That said, Mr. Yamaguchi most likely will claim that his party cannot sanction the government’s defense posture on the grounds that a thorough discussion has yet to be held. In point of fact, however, since the first Abe administration was inaugurated in August 2007, there has been an extensive exchange of opinions on this matter, with deliberations centering around several specific cases that would call for Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense. What has Komeito done since to contribute to a meaningful debate of this subject? Isn’t it rather Komeito’s admission of its own laziness as a political party to complain that there has not been enough discussion?
　　　The international situation has undergone sweeping changes. As a Japanese political party friendly with China, Komeito must be well versed in the reality of Beijing’s abnormal military expansion. In light of this threat, isn’t Komeito aware that Japan is being thrust into a grave situation in which safeguarding the security of its land, seas, and people all by itself is becoming more and more difficult? As a Japanese politician, how does Yamaguchi view the lives of our people and their security? As a responsible political party, Komeito must under all circumstances consider strengthening the nation’s power in all respects—including an authorization of the exercise of the nation’s collective self-defense—in order to thwart any aggression by foreign nations.

Imperialistic Aggression

　　　In point 2), Yamaguchi is obviously concerned about Japan sending its armed forces to other nations in order to wage war after the government authorizes Japan’s right to collective self-defense. However, shouldn’t it be the responsibility of a Japanese politician to explain to the world the true intention of his nation? The foundation of Japan’s security is a commitment to an exclusively defensive security posture. The on-going discussions in Japan are solely aimed at safeguarding Japan’s security, rather than engaging other nations in a war. For a head of a political party to sound as though Japan were preparing to launch a war against other nations is extremely irresponsible, laying himself open to misunderstanding, domestically as well as internationally.
　　　As regards Yamaguchi’s point 3), I wish to remind the reader that there have been cases in the past in which the government reinterpreted the Japanese constitution. For instance, when the Japan Self-Defense Force (JSDF) was established in 1954, its personnel were regarded as “civilian employees” of the Japanese government. However, eleven years later, in 1965, the government reinterpreted the constitution to come up with a diametrically opposite conclusion about their status—that they “should not be categorized as civilians.” Even provisions of the constitution cannot be expected to remain forever fixed. They may be subject to change, depending on the time and circumstance.
　　　As Yamaguchi maintains his inflexible stance on this key issue, what is going on in the surrounding region? How are various countries in East Asia and the Pacific viewing Japan? As a leader of the ruling coalition, Yamaguchi must by all means come to grips with the reality of the international situation.
　　　Putin’s tyrannical annexation of the Crimean Peninsula demonstrates an entirely new and critical phase of international politics. With Crimea ripped away from an order based on international law, the world now faces a new era where imperialistic aggression through the use of military force could possibly again become commonplace.
　　　When the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, Ukraine had nearly 1,900 nuclear warheads, including strategic nuclear weapons. Gravely concerned about the possibility of nuclear proliferation, the US, Britain, and Russia urged Ukraine to turn over all of the warheads to Russia and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The three nations assured Ukraine of territorial integrity, signing the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994.
　　　Later, China and France agreed to also assure Ukraine of territorial integrity in separate attachments to the Budapest Memoradum.
　　　This time, however, no nation could prevent Russia’s annexation of Crimea. I do not believe Russia’s coercive diplomacy will be tolerated forever, but we no longer live in an age when security can be safeguarded by memoranda or treaties alone.
　　　The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in its March 19th editorial noted that one lesson of Ukraine’s tragedy to the world is that “nations that abandon their nuclear arsenals do so at their own risk.” Nations without nuclear weapons, like Ukraine today, are wrestled down. America, once the superpower of the world, will not come to their aid. Noting that the “world’s nuclear rogues, such as Iran and North Korea” would be “even less likely to give up their nuclear facilities or weapons,” the daily predicted:
　　　“Japan and South Korea are sure to consider their nuclear options as China presses its own territorial claims.”
　　　WSJ expects Japan to seek nuclear capability as a natural option. It is common sense in today’s world that, against an impending crisis, nations must gather every strength they can, including nuclear arsenals, to protect their people.
　　　Nations around the world are forging ahead with measures to strengthen self-defense, especially now that the US has ceased to be the world’s policeman. As long as America’s intervention remains diplomatic efforts based merely on words of denunciation, Russia—governed by naked power and espousing unreserved might—as well as China, guilefully implementing intricate strategies several cuts above Russia’s, are least bothered.

Japan’s Nuclear Choice

　　　What Japan must pay particular attention to under such circumstances is the steps President Obama is taking to build a new model of a US-China relationship, responding to a proposal by his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. The possibility is not small that Obama will place US-China relations above the US-Japan alliance.
　　　In the Nihon Keizai Shimbun dated March 7th, Professor Arthur Waldron of Pennsylvania University sounded an alarm about a tricky situation he predicts Japan will likely face within the next decade. Prof. Waldron notes that those who value China over Japan are exerting influence in Washington, D.C. today. Over the next ten years, the professor predicts, China will drastically increase its conventional and nuclear arsenals while the US will implement arms reduction.
　　　At present, US military power is superior to that of China—the US being about 20 years ahead. On the other hand, as of February this year, the US had deployed only three of the 11 submarines in its fleet, according to Steve Cohen, former director of the US Naval Institute. America’s military power is being rapidly reduced.
　　　In the event of an armed conflict between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, Prof. Waldron expects the US to urge Japan to give up sovereignty over the Senkakus. Instead of backing its Pacific ally, predicts Waldron, the US will urge Japan to seek a compromise with China. Waldron therefore warns Japan to expeditiously develop military capabilities in order to be able to defend itself. Waldron even goes so far as to propose that Japan develop comprehensive and independent military power, including a minimum nuclear deterrence like Britain and France.
　　　Let there be no underestimating this harsh Asian situation, which explains why no small number of experts view nuclear armament as a natural option for Japan. Let me stress that these are intellectuals craving for peace and order in the international community—certainly not irresponsible agitators or bigoted militarists. I would strongly urge the Komeito head and those others who oppose Japan’s exercising its right to collective self-defense to heed the opinions of the international community, and remind themselves that Japan has a responsibility to do everything in its power to never allow China, of all countries, any chance to take advantage of it.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 601 in the April 3, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)