Diplomacy and Security: A Strategy Based on Pacifism

Published in Asahi Shimbun
(Japan) on 21 October 2021
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Owen Hester. Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
In an era of extreme confrontation between the United States and China, how can we protect peace and stability in Japan and in the region based on the principle of pacifism as enshrined in the constitution? Each party must clarify its philosophy and then present a comprehensive strategy and concrete measures to the voters.

The security environment in East Asia is becoming increasingly severe, with North Korea repeatedly launching ballistic missiles and China using force to coerce Taiwan. The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, which is aiming for a change of government, has not changed its position that the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan's foreign and security policy.

However, Japan's security cannot be protected simply by obeying the U.S. As we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. diplomacy, which relies on military power, sometimes leads to major mistakes. Based on the values that Japan has maintained since the end of World War II, such as the maintenance of a restrained defense capability through self-defense and the emphasis on international cooperation, the U.S. needs to take the initiative in asserting what it needs to assert.

The same is true for relations with China. Japan has deep historical and economic ties with its neighbor, and it is necessary to do its best to build trust and ease tensions through dialogue rather than solely confronting China. There are many issues that require cooperation, such as dealing with the climate crisis and the outbreak of COVID-19. We need to encourage China to join the framework of multilateral cooperation.

In this regard, I cannot help but be concerned about the Liberal Democratic Party's pledges to increase its emphasis on power.

For one thing, the LDP pledges to substantially strengthen Japan's defense capability and aims to increase defense spending close to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries' defense budget target of 2% or more of GDP.

Japan's defense budget has been less than 1% of GDP since 1990, and 2% would be double that. There are concerns that setting a target that has not been achieved by other major NATO nations, such as Germany and Italy, will encourage an arms race.

Another point was the reference to potentially possessing an "enemy base attack capability" as in "the ability to intercept ballistic missiles and other missiles within the territory of the opponent.” In the past, the government has said that such a capability could be considered within the scope of self-defense only if no other means were available, but that it was only a legal possibility and that it would not be put into practice.

While acknowledging the need to strengthen missile defense, the Constitutional Democratic Party’s representative, Yukio Edano, has expressed a negative view, saying, "It is not a realistic capability for the Self-Defense Forces to acquire on their own," based on the difficulty of detection and the division of roles between Japan and the United States.

The public's understanding and cooperation are indispensable for the defense of the nation. I would like to ask each party to engage in an in-depth debate that will help this process.


米中が厳しく対立する時代に、憲法が定める平和主義の原則に立って、日本や地域の平和と安定をどう守るか。各党は理念を明確にしたうえで、総合的な戦略と具体的な方策を有権者に示さねばならない。

 北朝鮮が弾道ミサイルの発射を繰り返し、中国が台湾を武力で威圧するなど、東アジアの安全保障環境は厳しさを増している。日本の外交・安全保障政策の基軸が日米同盟であるという立場は、政権交代をめざす立憲民主党も変わらない。

 ただ、米国に従うだけでは、日本の安全は守れまい。イラクやアフガニスタンで見られたように、軍事力に頼る米国の外交は時に大きな過ちも犯す。専守防衛による抑制的な防衛力整備や国際協調の重視など、日本が戦後維持してきた価値観を踏まえ、米国にも主張すべきは主張する主体性が求められる。

 中国との関係もそうだ。日本は歴史的にも経済的にもつながりの深い隣国であり、対峙(たいじ)一辺倒ではなく、対話を通じた信頼醸成や緊張緩和に力を尽くす必要がある。気候危機や新型コロナへの対応など、協力すべき課題も多い。中国を多国間協力の枠組みに引き込むような働きかけが求められる。

 その点、力への傾斜を強める自民党の公約には危惧(きぐ)を覚えざるをえない。

 ひとつは、防衛力の大幅な強化を掲げ、北大西洋条約機構(NATO)諸国の国防予算の対GDP比目標である「2%以上」を念頭に防衛費の増額をめざすとしたことである。

 日本の防衛費は90年以降、ほぼ1%未満で推移しており、2%なら倍増となる。必要な装備を積み上げたわけではなく、コロナ対策や社会保障費の増大で財政の逼迫(ひっぱく)度が増すなか、現実的な数字にはとてもみえない。NATOでもドイツやイタリアなど主要国が達成していない目標を打ち出すことが、軍拡競争を助長する懸念もある。

 もうひとつは、「相手領域内で弾道ミサイル等を阻止する能力」という表現で「敵基地攻撃能力」の保有に言及したことだ。政府はこれまで、他に手段がない場合に限り、自衛の範囲内といえるが、あくまで法理的な可能性であり、実際には持たないとしてきた。

 立憲の枝野幸男代表は、ミサイル防衛強化の必要性は認めながらも、探知の困難さや日米の役割分担を踏まえ、「自衛隊が自前で獲得する能力としては現実的ではない」と否定的な考えを示している。

 国の防衛には国民の理解と協力が欠かせない。その助けとなるような突っ込んだ論戦を、各党に求めたい。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: Musk Turns Away from Trump in Bid To Rescue Tesla

Germany: Trump’s Momentary Corrective Shift

Austria: The US Pope Will Not Please Trump for Long

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Topics

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China