Japanese security policy that turns into "active pacifism"

The National Security Council (Japanese version of the NSC) was established on December 4 after the establishment of the NSC installation law on November 27, 2013.In addition, the specific secret protection law, which has a close relationship with the law, was enacted on December 6 (promulgated on December 13, and within one year).Furthermore, at the Cabinet meeting on December 17, the “National Security Strategy” (NSS: NATIONAL Security Strategy) and a new “Defense Planning Charter” (Defense Charter) were decided.Thus, at the end of last year, important policies in Japanese security were realized one after another.In this article, I would like to consider the significance of this.

Attempts of the first Abe Cabinet (2006-7 years) to strengthen security

First, let's check the background to the achievement of the above policy.

The first Shinzo Abe Cabinet, which was established in September 2006, tried to implement some reforms with the aim of strengthening security.First, in November of the same year, the "Government Enhancement Conference on National Security Enhancement Conference" was established (Prime Minister Abe himself).The purpose was to strengthen the functions as a control tower for the national security of the Prime Minister's Office.The proposal of the Governor's Residence Enhancement Conference on the establishment of the Japanese version of the NSC was issued in February 2007.Based on that, the NSC installation bill was created and submitted to the ordinary parliament in 2007.However, the first Abe Cabinet did not be established in the first Abe Cabinet due to the flow of political situation due to the reversal of the ruling and opposition in the Upper House election in July of the same year and the resignation of Abe's illness in September.

The next Yasuo Fukuda Cabinet (established in September 2007) was not interested in the realization of NSC.The Cabinet has stopped promoting the NSC -related bills, stating that the "Security Council", which had already been set up in the official residence, is unnecessary.It was a well -known fact that existing security conferences have become a skeleton and have not become a place for effective policy examinations, so not only inside the LDP but also from the opposition and the Democratic Party has been criticized.

The first attempt to reform the first Abe Cabinet was established in May 2007, a "round -table conference on reconstruction of the legal foundation of security," (the chairman was the former Ambassador of the US Toshiji Yanai).This is the beginning of a study on the right to collective self -defense, which has been interpreted as an impossible exercise in the Constitution.Among the main agenda, there were four types of security issues regarding security.It is (1) whether Japan can protect the U.S. ships that have been attacked in the waters of Japan, (2) a missile that passes over Japan and shoot down a missile to other countries, and (3) UN Peace Maintenance activities (PKO).In the event that a unit of another country was attacked, it was possible to rescue it, or (4) the pko was to rarely provide backdrop support for other countries, but this was fine.

The report of the security law was submitted to Prime Minister Fukuda in 2008 after Prime Minister Abe's resignation.The outline is (1) under the current legal system, but (2) is a great negative for Japan's national interests, so it is possible to all be possible.It should be (4) that it was possible by changing the interpretation of the constitution without changing the constitution itself.However, Prime Minister Fukuda was so cool against this proposal and never worked on shelves.

Reform that started again in the second Abe Cabinet (2012)

After this, Abe was re -pitched to the Prime Minister in December 2012 after working in the Cabinet Aso and the Democratic Party's three Cabinet (Yukio Hatoyama, Naoto Suga Cabinet, and Yoshihiko Noda).Abe, of course, emphasized his proposal of the security law -based socially launched in his first cabinet, and began to realize it immediately after the second Cabinet was launched.First, on February 8, 2013, the Security Law System was re -launched.Although the members remained the same, Chairman Yanagi was the director of the International Marine Court and resident in Hamburg, and it was effectively impossible to attend, so I was appointed to the chairman and decided to summarize the discussion.

At the same time, on February 15, the "National Security Council Conference on the Council of the National Security Council" was established, and in June 2013, the Prime Minister made a recommendation to the Prime Minister in June 2013 based on the NSC installation bill, which was failed in 2007.In response, the Abe Cabinet submitted a new NSC installation bill to the Diet.This was approved and established in November 2013, and was launched at the end of the year.

Furthermore, on September 12, the "Reviews on Security and Defense Force" was established (Anti -Kai) and was ordered to be involved in the creation of a national security strategy (NSS) and the creation of a new defense rope.Is appointed.

Security and Defense Charter

The Secretary is a meeting of experts, which is usually created before creating a new defense rope, and a Defense Charter will be created based on the proposal.In 1994, the Hosokawa Cabinet at the time established an expert meeting, and based on the proposal, a new rope was created in 1995 by the Murayama Tomo City Cabinet.The security challenge at this time is how to deal with the situation after the end of the Cold War, and the importance of the US -Japan Security Treaty has been reconfirmed due to alleged nuclear development in North Korea, and the day.It led to the red definition of the US Alliance.

In 2004, the Cabinet Koizumi was also established and a new rope was created, but this was 9 in 2001..11 The challenge was to deal with situations that were found in multiple terrorism.In 2009, the Aso Cabinet also made a security, and made a proposal, but the Liberal Democratic Party to the Democratic Party has postponed a new rope.The following year, in 2010, a newly established Establishment of the Democratic Party's Kan Cabinet made a proposal, and a large rope was created in December of the same year.This is the so -called "2010 Daikuna".

Under the Democratic Party's government, the 2010 Generation has changed the "basic defense power" since the Cold War era, which was the biggest interest in how to deal with China's rise, and has been focusing on preparing for the Soviet invasion.It was an emphasis on "dynamic defense power".Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, the fact that this conversion has finally taken place has shown how Japanese policies are more likely to flow and it is difficult to correct orbit.

At this time, the process of creating the large rope was also changed.Until then, the Ministry of Defense has led the proposal of the expert conference, writing only that the Ministry of Defense and the Self -Defense Forces is involved, and tends to rarely mention in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Japan Coast Guard, and other relevant ministries and agencies.there were.This was changed by an expert and relevant ministers discussing this in the form of restricted the involvement of bureaucrats and creating a large rope with a more comprehensive perspective.The background behind this was the lack of comprehensive preparation for crossing ministries in the confusion over the Chinese fishing boat collisions that occurred off the Senkaku Islands in September 2010.

Formulation of Japan's first national security strategy (NSS)

One of the most important notes in the 2013 Security is the formulation of the National Security Strategy (NSS).Despite both diplomacy and defense, there was no comprehensive security strategy in both of them, despite the two wheels of security.This is an incredible story, given the common sense of the world.

However, in terms of defense, a document was created in 1957 called "Basic Defense Policy".It is simple and well done, but it is no longer the current situation because it is a document 56 years ago.At that time, Japan was still poor in the East and West Cold War, and the Japan -US Security Treaty was not revised, and Okinawa was not returned.This is completely inadequate to point out the direction of Japan's security strategy.In addition, more and more countries are publishing their own security strategies.It is understood that it is effective not only to gain the understanding of the people, but also to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings from neighboring countries.

"Positive pacifism" is the basic philosophy

What Abe launched as a basic philosophy of NSS is aggressive pacifism based on international cooperation.It changes conventional passive pacifism.Relaxed pacifism is the idea that the more unarmed of Japan, the more peaceful the world.At the time of enacting the Constitution in 1946, most of the Allies would have thought so.However, Japan is one of the great powers in the world now.It is expected to contribute aggressively to realize world peace.Just declaring "do not do bad things" is not enough.

During the past decade, Japan's defense costs are almost maintained, but China's defense costs are quadrupled.The development of North Korean missiles and nuclear weapons is also accelerating.In light of these situations, it is clear that Japan's suppression of armaments did not contribute to relieving tension in Asia.This is the most evidence that the passive pacifism is incorrect.

Abe's aggressive pacifism is not a sudden change.Since the 1950s, Japan has contributed to the stability of the Asian region by providing government development assistance (ODA) to Southeast Asian countries.Participated in the United Nations Peace Maintenance activities (PKO) in 1992, and in the late 1990s, presented the concept of "human security" ( * 1) to help the poor region and create a country after the civil war ended.I have contributed.These are all indicates of pacifism, and will be further enhanced in the future.

In both the world and Japan, there is concern that Prime Minister Abe is right or a pre -war return, but that is not the case.As a matter of fact, the Abe Cabinet is trying to affirm Japan's diplomacy and develop further.In addition, the majority of countries around the world are strongly agreed that they are trying to implement them in the framework of international cooperation, not Japan alone.Only China and North Korea are opposed.South Korea has expressed concern, but if you calmly consider it, you will understand that there is no disadvantage in your country.

"Integrated migration defense power" launched by the New Defense Charter

In the defense rope revised after the formulation of NSS, the need to secure the "amount" of defense force is also emphasized, and in the "medium -term defense power development plan" (medium -term defense), which is embodied, the vertical disconnection and land transport aircraft.The introduction of the V-22 Osprey and the unmanned reconnaissance aircraft into the SDF.There is an opinion that only these points criticize the Abe Cabinet policy as being hard, but this is a completely misunderstanding.The policy that emphasizes the rule of law in the ocean and cooperates with countries with the same values and ideas is exactly the center of software.In China, the New Gunlope has always opened the door to a dialogue, emphasizing the further strengthening of the construction of "strategic mutual benefits."

However, it is important to have defense power at the same time, even though it is a software center. The concept of "integrated migration defense power" was newly launched in the large rope. This is to focus on the integration operation of the land, sea and air and the flexible development of the southwest west and islands. The integration operation of the land, sea, air is necessary for all the army, but it is especially important in countries with strong sexualism between organizations like Japan, and it is especially necessary for defense in the southwest. Is a timely manner. On the other hand, emphasis on flexible development in the southwest area (specifically reducing tanks, increasing aircraft, Aegis, and submarines, etc.) is the continuation and strengthening of the 2010 large rope. In this way, it was relatively close to the 2010 Daikuna under the Democratic government and this time, and rather, the same LDP was gaped with security policy between the Abe Cabinet and the Fukuda Cabinet. In short, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party are in conflict, but in fact, the security policy in the center is close. Japan's defense policy is gaining support beyond the party.

Regarding the defense budget, it has increased as a whole, although it is more than 2%.The maintenance costs in the next five years, which are defined by the medium -term defense, are increasing by more than 1 trillion yen compared to 2010.It is smaller than the fact that China's defense budget is increasing in acceleration, but it is important to indicate Japan's will.

By the way, in the formulation of the Defense Charter, an expert and ministers discussed and proceeded, and eventually decided at the Cabinet, based on the discussions in the Security Happy.This incorporates a Democratic administration's 2010 major rope formula.

Therefore, there is no proposal for the security itself, and there is a slight difference between the discussion in the peaceful social and the final conclusion of the government. For this reason, I was the chair of this round -table conference, but there are some points that I think it should be improved in the government's decision. First, the final conclusion is that the Ground Self -Defense Force's capacity increased by 5,000 to 159,000. Rather, we believe that the capacity should be reduced and the equipment of the Maritime Self -Defense Force and the Air Self -Defense Force should be enhanced. Fighter and submarines were further enhanced and wanted to enhance counterattacking ability to enemy bases. I think this is difficult to determine the destination if it is a preemptive strike, and in addition to being alerted by neighboring countries, it is necessary if you can fight back, so it is necessary to have a counterattack ability. On the other hand, he wanted to take a more flexible attitude, such as calling for the resumption of historical dialogue to China, but did not realize. Nevertheless, I think that the Great Country formulation process was a significant thing as a whole.

Toward a review of the constitution of the right to collective self -defense

What remains in the future is a discussion of a discussion on the reconstruction of the security foundation of security (security legislation).Prime Minister Abe has been discussing a variety of examinations because in addition to the four types considered in 2007, we would like to discuss other things in the security legal system if there are any insufficient places in security.ing.The most important thing is the review of the government's interpretation of the right to collective self -defense.

In the first place, the fact that the Japanese security law system is often inadequate is maintaining an unprecedented clause in the world, which is an unprecedented world in the Japanese Constitution, "The Land, Navy and Air Force and other strengths do not retain this" (Article 9, paragraph 2).I'm coming from where I'm doing it.

In 1946, when the constitution was first enacted, the government had no strength.However, in 1950, the Korean War broke out, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was concluded in 1951, and Japan's independence in 1952 would have to change the position of abandoning any force.rice field.Therefore, in 1954, the government has interpreted that it is natural that the sovereign state has the minimum military power, and Article 9, paragraph 2 does not prohibit the minimum strength.This interpretation has not been denied in the Supreme Court, so it is a fixed interpretation.

At the same time, the government has inserted the constitutional interpretation that the exercise of individual self -defense is good, but it is impossible to exercise the right to collective self -defense.In other words, if Japan is invaded, it has the right to defend, but if other countries are invaded, it cannot help.Japan has the right to collective self -defense, despite the fact that it is specified in Article 51 of the United Nations, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the former New Japan US Security Treaty (1951, 1960).I have had an indispensable interpretation.

Originally, the right to collective self -defense was presented by Central and South American countries during the enactment of the United Nations Charter, and as stipulated that the attack on a country is regarded as an attack on all allies, small and medium countries protect and maintain safety.The idea is to do.It was thought that reliable countries protect each other to prevent dispute, and that this was also the right to self -defense.The interpretation that the right to collective self -defense is more dangerous than the right to individual self -defense is incorrect, not calculating the concept of deterrence of collective self -defense rights.

Inconvenience caused by the current interpretation over the right to self -defense

As a result of strangely twisting the definition of the right to self -defense, there are many inconveniences.Specific examples are basically only allowed to use weapons for self -defense, and the use of weapons of the minimum necessary weapons to achieve the mission, and the use of weapons necessary for defending other countries.It is not allowed.

The problem here is that the understanding of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution is incorrect.Article 9 (1) of the Constitution prohibits the use of force to resolve international disputes.However, the international dispute in that case refers to a dispute between Japan and other countries, derived from the Kerogg Brian Treaty (Treaty of Fail).This does not include the meaning of banning weapons in PKOs.Also, what is prohibited in Article 9, paragraph 1 is "exercise of force", not "weapons use".If the interpretation of Article 9, paragraph 1, which is incorrectly understood in this way, is changed in accordance with the international standard, the PKO weapon in the 2007 security legislation in 2007 (3) and (4).The problem of use should be cleared immediately.This is what we are trying to change the interpretation of the constitution.

Type 4 types regarding security related to the right to collective self -defense

The next problem is the interpretation of the Cabinet Legal Bureau that the right to collective self -defense exceeds the right to individual self -defense and is not allowed.If other countries are closely related to Japan seek Japanese assistance in an unfair attack, and if that situation has a significant impact on Japan's safety, Japan will use this ability.It should support the country.In terms of security, such actions seem to be natural.In this way, the fact that some of the right to collective self -defense is included in the "minimum necessary" of the Legal Bureau is another point that is trying to change the constitution.

Other problems are that the exercise of individual rights is constitutional, but in fact, the legal system is inadequate.For example, if Japan receives an armed attack, the Self -Defense Forces can order defense, but this armed attack is an organizational and planned invasion.There is no regulation on how to deal with smaller invasions, except for police behavior.

Some say that the constitution should be changed without changing the interpretation of the constitution, but the Japanese Constitution is an extremely difficult hard constitution. According to Article 96, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, the Diet shall have more than two -thirds of the constant of the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors, and the majority of the referendum shall have a majority. Not only has it been revised so far, but it has not been considered to be launched. Trying to change the article of the constitutional amendment from now on it will take at least 10 years. Considering the deterioration of the security environment in Japan, we can't afford to spend much time, and changed from a change in constitutional interpretation in 1954, that is, to "minimal maintenance". Compared to this, acknowledging Japan's right to collective self -defense is only a small interpretation change. This is why security laws are not constitutional amendments but in interpretation changes.

The activities of the security legislation are still ongoing.However, I would like to make a proposal around March 2014.The following prospects are based on the proposal, and the government changes the constitutional interpretation of the right to collective self -defense, etc., and then implements necessary legislation, and has a Japan -US Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministerial Council (Japan -US Safety.We would like to revise the Japan -US Defense Cooperation Guideline in 2014, which has been agreed on the Secondary Council, 2 Plus 2).

Japan, which started to walk to the normal country level

As you can see from the above, whether it is NSC, NSS, or exercise of the right to collective self -defense, make a small change in Japan's conventional security policy and approach the world's normal country level.It is just that.

Nevertheless, there are no concerns about Japan's military power, so let's add a word.

As a researcher in Japanese political diplomatic history, I have summarized five reasons for Japan's military expansion before the war.The reason for this is that (1) the idea of gaining safety and prosperity (market and resources) in Japan, and (2) the military power of the partner country (China) was neglected.(3) The neglect of the sanctions of the international community, (4) the government's control of the government was weak, and (5) the freedom of speech was restricted.

All of these are now decisively different. Regarding (1), there is no call for geographical expansion in Japan today, and it is well understood that the foundation of prosperity is stable in the world order. It is impossible to break this from Japan. In addition, (2) There are few people who have a nuclear weapon, have intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and other attack weapons, and are neglecting the People's Liberation Army, which is a significant part of Japan. 。 (3) It is clear that the sanctions of the international community are highly developed as in Japan and rely on resources and markets overseas cannot withstand sanctions from the world. Furthermore, (4) the prime minister's control over the army is overwhelmingly strong, and (5) freedom of speech is now much more. There is a power criticizing the specific secret protection law for pre -war returning, which is a completely ridiculous story.

Rather, it is China that all of these five conditions apply.He is still expanding with the aim of resources and national glory, and is gaining considerable confidence in its military power.Sanctions from the international community are extremely unlikely to be accepted because they have a veto as a permanent director of the United Nations Security Council.Moreover, the relationship between the government and the military is delicate, and the freedom of speech and the rule of law are often infringed.That is why Japan is concerned about China.

The above is the outline of the development of a new security policy in Japan.All of these are natural policies, and criticisms that lead to Japanese militarism are out of order.We think that it should be greatly evaluated as a smaller but important step to a more normal security policy.

( * 1) ^ (Editor -in) Human security is a concept that the Japanese government has raised as a major diplomatic theme.With the increasing number of threats that cannot be handled by the "national security" that protects the borders and the people, such as refugee issues, poverty issues, and economic crisis, focuses on each human being and is released from fear and deficiency.Aiming to create a society that can fulfill a dignified life.Specific means include (1) "protection" from threats, "capacity enhancement" approaches that enable choices and actions against threats, and (2) "Comprehensive and cross -sectional approaches for diverse threats.(3) There are nations, international organizations, non -governmental organizations (NGOs), and "participating approaches" that promotes the involvement of civil society.