Yet another irregularity has been exposed in the Defense Ministry and the Self-Defense Forces, where a line that should have been drawn between officials in active service and retirees was crossed.

A Maritime SDF captain was recently referred to prosecutors and dismissed in disgrace on suspicion he violated the Law on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets, among other things.

A central question here revolves around the institutional mold of an organization that is operated in a top-down manner and does not lend itself easily to checks.

The captain is said to have leaked sensitive information, including specially designated intelligence data concerning Japan’s national security.

The specially designated secrets law was enacted in 2013 when the Abe administration was in power for a second time. 

Under the law, the government designates secrets in the four fields of defense, diplomacy, counterintelligence and antiterrorism. Leaking sensitive information in these fields is punishable with a maximum prison term of 10 years.

As of the end of June, a total of 693 state secrets had been so designated under the law, of which 392, or more than half of the total, concerned the Defense Ministry.

The latest case is the first to be exposed under the new law.

The captain served as commander of the Fleet Intelligence Command, an MSDF unit that specializes in handling intelligence.

He is suspected of knowingly sharing with his one-time boss, a former vice admiral who had retired after serving as commander-in-chief of the Self-Defense Fleet, sensitive intelligence concerning the “situation in areas surrounding Japan” when he briefed his former superior on national security.

In light of growing public interest in matters of national security, former senior SDF officers now have more opportunities to provide commentaries on media outlets. SDF officers in active service no doubt feel that retirees represent no threat and are entirely on their side.

While it was unusual for the head of the specialized intelligence unit to brief the retiree in person, the captain in question had in fact been told by his boss to brief the retired vice admiral.

It could be said that both officers overstepped their authority by being too nice to the retiree.

This by no means marks the first time that retirees have been made privy to Defense Ministry and SDF secrets, which constituted leaks of information.

Investigators determined that the former vice admiral did not share the secret intelligence with others. Still, experience shows that caution should be exercised.

In 2015, action was taken against a former senior Ground SDF officer on suspicion he instigated former subordinates to obtain insider documents which he then handed to a Russian agent.

There have also been cases of information on public tenders being leaked to former Defense Ministry workers who had been re-employed in defense-related industries, although the data involved was not at the same highly classified level.

Strict discipline must be imposed to prevent a recurrence of similar irregularities.

The ruling parties used their weight of numbers to steamroll the bill for the specially designated secrets law through the Diet, overriding strong opposition that the legislation could allow public administration bodies to monopolize information and restrict the public’s right to know as well compromise freedom of reporting.

Few means are available to review from the outside whether the designation of special secrets is appropriate because areas designated as special secrets remain just that, secret. That makes it difficult to put the brakes on arbitrary implementation of the law, a structural problem that persists to this day.

Defense Ministry officials said only that the latest leak of specially designated secrets included “information gathered with regard to the situation in areas surrounding Japan.” That makes it impossible to tell whether the information really warranted special secret designation.

There are things that could and should be done, such as strengthening the functions of the Boards of Oversight and Review of Specially Designated Secrets, which were set up in both chambers of the Diet to check the way the specially designated secrets law is being implemented.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 29