A ruling party proposal to give the Self-Defense Forces the ability to strike enemy bases would be a clear deviation from Japan’s constitutional “senshu boei” principle of exclusively defensive self-defense and trigger a fresh arms race to undermine stability in the region.

It also raises many questions, such as whether such an ability would really serve as an effective deterrent to protect Japan’s national security. The Kishida administration should try to develop a comprehensive security strategy that is not focused excessively on military capabilities and firmly anchored by diplomatic efforts.

The Liberal Democratic Party’s Research Commission on Security on April 21 approved a package of recommendations designed to set the tone for policy debate on a new National Security Strategy the government plans to work out by the end of the year. The party will submit the defense policy recommendations to Prime Minister Fumio Kishida next week.

The LDP’s proposals include some troubling elements that represent a major shift from the restrictive security policy Japan has maintained in the postwar period. They need to be scrutinized and debated rigorously from a broad perspective.

The most controversial of the proposals would allow the SDF to acquire the military capability to attack bases in enemy territory, an idea first floated during the second administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, which came to power in late 2012.

Although the LDP has changed the term to describe its proposal from “attack” to “counterattack,” it does not mean the proposed ability would be used only for counteroffensive operations mounted when Japan is attacked. Former Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera, who chairs the commission, says Japan would be able to strike targets in enemy territory when it recognizes that the adversary is gearing up to attack this country.

But ascertaining whether a country was indeed in the process of staging an attack against Japan would be no easy task. A mistake in judgment could lead Japan to stage a pre-emptive strike that violates international law. It would be a highly dangerous step.

The recommendations point out that rapid progress in missile technology has made it difficult to intercept incoming missiles. They maintain that acquiring counteroffensive capabilities would deter attacks against Japan.

But this argument raises many questions about the quality and scope of the attack capabilities needed to deter an enemy with a huge arsenal of missiles. Another key question is whether Japan has the ability to identify and locate the targets it should strike. What would Japan do when deterrence fails and it comes under attack? The proposal is riddled with practical problems that undermine its viability.

The LDP’s document also says possible enemy targets would include not only missile bases but also “command and control functions.” This term can naturally be interpreted to mean that the enemy nation’s nerve center as well as its military command headquarters could be targeted. The ruling party may contend that this possibility helps enhance deterrence. But it could also alarm a potential enemy and trigger a pre-emptive strike against Japan.

The party’s recommendations say the “minimum necessary self-defense capabilities” required for Japan’s “senshu boei” policy should be determined in light of the prevailing international situation and other circumstances, such as advances in science and technology. This statement smacks of a sneaky attempt to hollow out the principle of exclusively defensive self-defense while pretending to uphold it.

The LDP also says the government should aim to “achieve the necessary levels of defense spending within five years,” apparently with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s target of 2 percent or more of gross domestic product in mind.

Japan’s current defense spending is around 1 percent of GDP. Doubling the amount in five years under the current fiscal crunch does not seem to be a realistic target.

A reasonable case can be made for Japan to enhance its defense capabilities steadily in response to growing security risks and threats. But the guiding principle for such efforts requires a careful assessment of the cost effectiveness to determine and approve truly necessary defense expenditures.

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 23