Japan Debates Whether U.S. Protection is Enough

According to this article from Japan's Kyodo News, Japanese officials are openly discussing a pre-emptive attack on North Korea's missile bases, which would be a distinct departure from its dependence on America's security umbrella and, some argue, its pacifist Constitution, which outlaws any offensive military capability.

July 10, 2006
Japan - Kyodo News - Home Page (English)    

TOKYO: Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said on Monday that Japan must study and promote debate about building the capability to counterattack against foreign bases in the event of a missile attack on Japan, after chief of the Self-Defense Forces, Fukushiro Nukaga, made a similar remark the previous day.

''It is necessary to conduct research from the standpoint of what needs to be done to protect the Japanese people, land and state,'' Abe told a news conference.

Abe's comments were in response to questions concerning Nukaga's remarks on Sunday, that such a debate should be conducted within the scope of Japan's pacifist Constitution, after North Korea conducted ballistic missile tests in the Sea of Japan.

''As a sovereign nation, it is natural to consider the idea of possessing an essential minimum [defense] capability,'' Nukaga told reporters.

Abe said there needs to be ''deep discussions'' on building a counterattack capability against overseas enemy bases, given the government's position expressed in a last session of the Diet [Parliament], that such a capability is within the scope of Japan's pacifist Constitution when no other course of action is available. In determining whether Japan should possess such a capability, Japan's top government spokesman also said that consideration must be paid to the Japan-U.S. alliance.

However, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi appeared more cautious, saying, ''There is no harm in discussing how to respond after a missile has been launched ... but that's different than saying that Japan should conduct a preemptive strike before actually being attacked. This is a constitutional issue and must be studied very carefully.''

''I believe Japan must have deterrent capability, but to decide the form that this should take, we will have to listen carefully to experts, because there are a variety of situations that can arise,'' Koizumi said, in response to reporters' questions. ''From now on, this will be an important job for us.''

At a separate news conference, Defense Agency Vice Minister Takemasa Moriya said that right now, Japan doesn't possess the capacity to counterattack, because this is provided by the U.S. under our bilateral security arrangements.

''For the time being, we don't intend to possess such a capability, but the Defense Agency head [Fukushiro Nukaga] made the remarks because he wants the issue of our nation's defense to be discussed at the Diet, now that a realistic ballistic missile threat exists,'' Moriya said.

The Defense Agency chief referred to the government's 1956 response to Parliament, which was that it would be within Japan's legal framework to attack enemy bases if there were no other way to defend Japan from enemy missile attack.

But Japan never pursued such a capability, because it was determined in 1959 that the Constitution doesn't allow the country to possess weapons that would pose a threat to other nations.

On Sunday, Nukaga said that to realize the proposal [to pursue methods of striking an enemy base], consensus needs to be reached among the governing coalition -- the Liberal Democratic Party and its partner New Komeito.

''There are various problems involved in possessing such a capability. We should fully explain the matter to the Japanese people and proactively seek legislation,'' LDP Secretary General Tsutomu Takebe said on Monday.

While knowing that it is being targeted for missile attack, Takebe said that Japan should not fall into a situation in which it can do nothing, adding that Japan-U.S. security arrangements must be made to function in such circumstances.

But New Komeito Party leader Takenori Kanzaki expressed caution, telling reporters separately, ''If we were to attack a base, it would be outright war. It should be considered carefully.''

Nukaga also told Fuji television on Sunday, ''I understand that in order to defend Japan, we can choose to attack an enemy when an enemy targets Japan with a means to attack and has its finger on the trigger.''

North Korea on Wednesday fired seven missiles, including a Taepodong-2 long-range missile, all of which came down in the Sea of Japan.

Nukaga said that three of the seven missiles were medium-range Rodongs, including the newest version, and the remaining three were short-range Scuds.

Separately on Sunday, Foreign Minister Taro Aso also said that under certain conditions Japan could exercise its right to self-defense by attacking North Korea's missile bases.

''If a missile is targeted at Japan, doing nothing until we suffer damage is not an option,'' Aso said in an NHK news program.

In January 2003, then Defense Agency chief General Shigeru Ishiba aroused controversy in connection with a possible preemptive strike on North Korea, when he said that if that country displayed an intent to carry out a missile attack against Japan and began making preparations to do so, Japan could ask the United States to launch a strike on missile North Korean bases.