The angry reaction of the Asahi Shimbun to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s recent comments on Japan’s right to collective self-defense was predictable. During Diet deliberations on February 12th, Abe had simply noted: “I am the person responsible (for the government’s interpretation of the Japanese constitution). It is I—not the director-general of the Cabinet’s Legislation Bureau—who take full responsibility for the government’s answers and face the people’s verdict.” These apparently straight-forward statements, however, were not to the liking of the Asahi.

　　　Two recent editorials—carried respectively in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) dated February 6th and the Asashi dated February 15—are useful in judging how each views Japan’s right to collective self-defense. Below is a brief rundown of the two editorials, which take diametrically opposed views in virtually every respect.

　　　First let us look at the WSJ, which values the moves made by Abe to reinterpret, or revise, Japan’s peace constitution, particularly in light of China’s arbitrary establishment recently of a new air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over a vast expanse of the East China Sea. Stating that “the principle that democracies should band together to face the threat of dictatorships is a linchpin of the post-world War II world order,” the WSJ cites the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as an example of a framework that deterred the Soviet Union.

　　　The WSJ also points out that, in the absence of a powerful, NATO-like multi-national security body, “a coalition of democracies led by Tokyo could be a more effective counterweight to China’s encroaching authoritarianism,” enabling Japan to “step into the breach.” The daily further opines that one way for Japan to play a larger role in contributing to the stability of Asia would be a “reorganization of Japan’s parties in which right-of-center elements of the opposition come over to the LDP (i.e., Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party),” with the pacifist Komeito Party leaving the government.

　　　The WSJ concludes that Abe is praiseworthy for “trying to make Japan into a normal nation that can play a leadership role in the region.” At this juncture, however, there is no knowing if such a prognosis will come true. And yet the analysis by the WSJ is based on the realities surrounding Japan, demonstrating a readiness to grapple with impending issues rationally by taking a broad view of the Asian situation. I find the daily’s commentary quite persuasive in that it takes into account the mechanisms of realpolitik, stipulating that to maintain peace and order in today’s international community, power is required to effectively counter any country that seeks to destabilize a region.

China Trying to Change Trajectory of Missiles

　　　Such views and ideas are totally missing in the February 15th editorial of the Asahi, which declared that Abe’s remarks during the Diet deliberations make one suspect that he may be thinking “dismissively of the basic functions of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau” when claiming that “a prime minister can change at will the government’s interpretation of the constitution that has been established through Diet debate over years if only he wins a public mandate in an election.” (The Cabinet Legislation Bureau, which has been the ‘guardian of the law’ within the government, has interpreted the constitution as banning Japan’s right to collective defense.) The Asahi described Abe’s views as “unacceptable,” continuing:

　　　“(If Abe’s argument is acceptable) the government’s interpretation of the constitution can change every time a new administration takes over…It would mean there would be no need for constitutional revisions. Abe totally misunderstands the basic principles of democracy if he really thinks that winnng elections gives him a mandate to enable Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense through a mere change in the interpretations of the constitution, while sidestepping strict procedures for constitutional revisions.”

　　　The Asahi persistently insists that the government must under all circumstances respect the constitutional interpretation that has been presented by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. In point of fact, the government’s interpretation, established in October 1972, is that Japan as a sovereign democracy is entitled to its right to collective self-defense under international law but that it is banned from exercising it under the Japanese constitution.

　　　This grossly contradictory interpretation—that it has the right but cannot exercise it—has survived thanks to the unusual reality of the international situation of that time, as Japan was relatively secure without needing to make further efforts towards its national defense. China still was under-developed and North Korea devoid of nuclear weapons. Amidst the cold war between the East and the West, Japan as an ally of the West managed to live in peace under US protection.

　　　But the international situation has undergone sweeping changes. With control of the South and East China Seas—including the Senkaku Islands—in mind, China will in this one year realize a 50-ship fleet by adding 20 brand-new large patrol ships in excess of 1,000 tons. China is also building 10,000-ton class patrol boats, which Japan doesn’t possess. China is also in possession of certain advanced missiles not available to Japan. Masahisa Sato, an LDP member of the Upper House of the Diet, who previously was commander of the Reconstruction and Support Group in Iran for the Japan Ground Self-Defense Forces, recently expressed grave concern during an Internet television show which I host. Sato noted:

　　　“Chinese missiles constitute a real threat to Japan both in terms of quality and quantity—especially the DF-21s with a range of 1,700 to 2,500 kilometers, putting Japan easily within its reach. The Chinese have an estimated 75 to 100 of these at present, and are additionally working on the WU-14 missiles, which are hypersonic. Supersonic missiles travel two to three times—and hypersonic missiles ten times—the speed of sound. Hypersonic missiles cannot be shot down by PACs, which are the interceptor missiles employed by Japanese and US forces.

　　　Sato expressed further concern that the People’ Liberation Army is in the process of developing a technology designed to alter the trajectory of missiles, explaining:

　　　“The standard of US technology has reached a state where a missile’s trajectory can be abruptly changed as it nears the surface of the earth. The Chinese have yet to reach that stage. But there is no question that they are aiming at that goal. Because we are committed to intercepting missiles on the assumption that they will take a predictable parabolic trajectory, effective defense against Chinese missiles would become extremely difficult if they are made so as to suddenly change their trajectories at the last minute.”

　　　We must clearly bear in mind that while the Chinese are endeavoring to perfect their version of hypersonic missiles, they are also working on other missiles that will make our current interceptor technology obsolete.

Meaning of “Constitutional Interpretation”

　　　China has been pushing plans to become a major oceanic power since the 1970s. While the international community failed to take China seriously, she has in fact managed to build up her naval power much faster than anticipated. We should expect China to also succeed in developing hypersonic and trajectory-changing missiles. Faced with such new threats, we Japanese must clearly bear in mind that not only do we not have attack missiles, we are lacking in sufficient defensive military capabilities as well.

　　　We can no longer sit idly by, allowing ourselves to be virtually defenseless in the face of this Chinese threat. It is the responsibility of the government, as well as all of us now carrying on our lives in Japan, to do our utmost to protect our motherland. For that purpose, the strengthening of the US-Japan security system is mandatory, and so is the exercising of our right to collective self- defense.

　　　Despite the seriousness of the current situation, the Asahi insists on our honoring the government’s 42-year-old interpretation of the constitution as regards our rights to collective defense. It may possibly be that the Asahi is trapped in a world of ideas, unable to come to grips with the harsh realities of the international situation surrounding Japan. I don’t suppose there is one single soul among the commonsensical people of Japan who would want to see our sovereignty violated as a result of single-mindedly honoring a constitution written by Americans and interpreted by unelected bureaucrats.

　　　It appears that the Asahi is turning a blind eye to the harsh realities facing Japan, while at the same time being highly concerned about other perceived risks which in fact do not exist. As mentioned earlier, its editorial declared that a revision of the constitution would be unnecessary if one accepts the prime minister’s assertions. Perhaps the editorial writer totally misunderstands the meaning of “interpretation,” which in no way implies “abrogation.” To clarify, “interpretation” means staying within the framework of the constitution—certainly not violating it. There is absolutely no possibility of repeated reinterpretations replacing the need for legitimate constitutional revisions, and it is irresponsible of a media organ like the Asahi to state such would be the case.

　　　I further suspect it may have never entered the heads of the Asahi editorial board that the right to collective self-defense will be exercised exclusively for defensive purposes—certainly not for invading other countries. Before and during the Greater East Asia War, the Asahi increased its circulation by leaps and bounds by developing strongly-worded, militaristic assertions, driving the nation to war. Is the Asahi now advocating that we deny ourselves the means of protecting our land and its people, yet again leading us to ruin?

(Translated form “Renaissance Japan” column no. 596 in the February 27, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)