Japan’s Equivocal Defence Posture

JAPAN'S latest Defence White Paper argues that threats to national security no longer come from conventional conflicts among nation states, or from imperialist designs, but from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and from terrorism.

The reasoning has a plausible ring to it, but Japan may be accepting external definitions of conflict rather too easily, and could find its new policies outdated even before they are implemented. The White Paper suggests that, compared to dealing with conventional conflicts, it is difficult for individual countries to tackle the diffuse threats arising from terrorism. It advocates defence cooperation with other nations, including the use of 'regional security frameworks' to deal with this situation. Yet, at the same time, three of Japan's nearest neighbours (North Korea, China and Russia) are mentioned in the defence review as sources of potential threats to Japan.

In tones reminiscent of those employed by the Bush administration, the White Paper says that 'in the new security environment where issues that cause threats to, or exert influence over, peace and safety, such as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism are becoming obvious, Japan must acquire necessary capabilities and make qualitative improvements'. Priorities include promotion of a ballistic missile defence system, defence against guerilla or special forces attacks, against suspicious vessels, and against nuclear, biological and chemical attacks. Japan must also acquire destroyers with improved communication and command communications and helicopter capabilities as well as precise guidance systems for the accurate guidance of the bombs it possesses, the White Paper says. The document then notes the threat from North Korea. It notes China too possesses missiles 'capable of striking Japan and the rest of Asia', and Russia's nuclear capability.

All this may provide a suitably scary scenario to justify some 5 trillion yen (S$78.5 billion) of defence spending in the current fiscal year and 25 trillion yen for a mid-term defence programme up to March 2006, but it does not sit well with efforts to create an Asian economic community, of which Japan is supposed to be a part. It is rather as though Germany or France were to cite each other as potential enemies in justifying their defence budgets. The White Paper argues that 'the Asia-Pacific region features a diversity of geography, population, religion, ethnic groups, political systems and views on national security, and this variety and complexity clearly set it apart from Europe and other regions'. Such statements seem designed to create, rather than to bridge, divisions and they underline the failure of politicians in Japan and elsewhere to work towards Asian unity with anything like the vigour and imagination shown by so many of the region's businessmen.

Two voices

Defence is clearly important in the overall context of national policy. But it should march in step with efforts to improve diplomatic and economic relations that tend to reduce threats to national security. However, in Japan's case, the nation seems to speak with two voices at the political and economic (or business) level.

The White Paper can be faulted at the particular as well as the general level. It stresses Japan's potential vulnerability as an island nation highly dependent upon imported commodities. Yet, there is no obvious reference to the need to address threats such as those to the Straits of Malacca, where - as Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan stressed, on a recent visit to Tokyo - acts of terrorism threatening one of the world's most vital sea lanes could easily occur. Japan could show leadership by supporting the idea of an international force to guard those sea lanes.