Japan's government and National Security Council plan to revise the country's National Defense Program Outline (NDPO) by the end of this year.
A draft of proposed changes submitted to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi assigns three key tasks to the Self-Defense Forces (SDF): effective response to new threats, participation in international peacekeeping activities, and defense against invasion.
Today's complex security environment, with terrorist attacks by non-state actors occurring alongside traditional state-to-state wars, demands a nimble, integrated strategy.
The draft revision of the NDPO seems to recognize this, emphasizing the need for Japan's own defense efforts, cooperation through the Japanese-US alliance, and contributions to multilateral missions. Moreover, the National Security Council has indicated the need to introduce a new plan for multi-functional flexible defense forces.
Unfortunately, key components of Japan's emerging security strategy remain vague and contradictory. For example, while the likelihood of an invasion threat is judged to be low, the Defense White Paper of 2004 argues that the SDF's "most fundamental function" is to prepare for the worst, because sufficient defensive power cannot be developed overnight. In other words, Japan will clearly assert its will to defend the nation, and to prevent invasion in combination with the Japan-US security system. On the other hand, the National Security Council proposes "scaling down the size of defense forces," implying mitigation of the will to defend.
Indeed, the failure to suggest any possibility of an "emergency expansion" of the SDF compounds this anxiety. To be sure, the government is ultimately responsible for determining the appropriate scale of defense power in line with fiscal considerations.
But it is also the responsibility of the government to prepare a detailed and realistic policy aimed at securing the necessary level of defense capability in the event of unforeseen threats. Japan's government should thus give a clear indication of a true will to defend the country's security.
Of course, defense capability cannot be judged solely according to force levels.
The draft NDPO's vision of a new, more adaptable, mobile, flexible, and multi-purpose SDF, with advanced technological resources and information gathering capacity, calls for a fundamental reassessment of the existing organization and equipment.
In conformity with the international community's efforts to secure peace and stability, the draft also creates a core unit within each of the military branches, and establishes an integrated operational system.
The military reorganization that the NDPO envisages is far-reaching. Japan's ground forces are to re-orient their current structure, which is geared to combat capability in response to large-scale invasion, toward increased adaptability for military action in less severe circumstances.
The navy is to shift its focus away from the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability of the Cold War era, creating a structure aimed at defending islands, monitoring and responding to ballistic missiles, and combating illegal spy ship activities.
The air force is to continue its monitoring activities in neighboring airspace and maintain response readiness against air attack, while modifying invasion response tactics somewhat as the likelihood of an attack from the air diminishes.
One problem is the dilution of ASW capability. Japan needs to develop well-balanced defense forces with the capacity needed to respond to new threats, such as the rapid build-up of China's navy, especially its submarine forces.
The importance of ASW capability in the Western Pacific has not waned.
On the contrary, recent illegal violation of Japanese territorial waters by Chinese nuclear submarines suggests that, rather than being reduced, ASW capability should be built up further.
If Japan does decide to scale down its defense forces in this respect, a bold and qualitative change is inevitable. In particular, this could mean the introduction of what has so far been viewed as somewhat taboo equipment, such as light aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines.
In this age of uncertainty, when even the nature of the threats that nations face is uncertain, Japan's strategic and military planners must continue to seek ways to adapt the SDF to today's myriad current threats. But they must do so in a way that provides genuine direction, and that Japan's people, military, and neighbors find convincing.
Hideaki Kaneda, a retired vice admiral in Japan's Self-Defense Forces, is director of the Okazaki Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US