Photo/Illutration Prime Minister Fumio Kishida speaks at the Jan. 25 Lower House plenary session. (Koichi Ueda)

Opposition parties finally got their chance to press Prime Minister Fumio Kishida about his radical changes to Japan’s defense and energy policies, but they failed to elicit detailed explanations on the issues.

During the Lower House plenary session on Jan. 25, two days after the ordinary Diet session convened, Kenta Izumi, head of the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, hammered away at Kishida.

Izumi targeted the revised national security documents approved by the Kishida Cabinet in late December to give the Self-Defense Forces the capability to strike enemy bases preparing to fire missiles at Japan.

“The government itself should not unilaterally decide,” Izumi said. “We have heard such concerns raised by many members of the public.”

When opposition lawmakers asked Kishida in the autumn extraordinary Diet session about plans to change the defense policy, the prime minister only said that such matters were under consideration.

Almost as soon as that session ended, the Cabinet decided to move away from Japan’s long-standing exclusively defensive posture. It also raised the possibility of building new nuclear reactors.

After the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in 2011, the government pledged to reduce the nation’s dependence on nuclear energy as much as possible.

But the Cabinet not only approved the building of new reactors, but it also extended the operating life of existing reactors to beyond 60 years, the previous maximum, in principle.

Izumi also blasted Kishida for deciding to raise taxes to pay for the huge defense buildup over the next five years without debate on the issue in the Diet.

Regarding the new strike capability, Izumi said, “Currently, it is close to impossible technologically to possess such a capability, and using it would constitute a first strike that violates international law.”

Kishida touched upon the increasingly severe security environment surrounding Japan, saying the strike capability would be a defensive measure of the minimum required level when its use is unavoidable to prevent an enemy attack.

While Izumi said greater emphasis should be placed on renewable energy sources, Kishida pointed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and said there was a need to move toward both a carbon-neutral future and a secure and stable energy supply.

The prime minister said priority would be placed on renewable energy sources, but all possible options, including nuclear energy, should be used.

Izumi rattled off his party’s concerns and criticisms about the government instead of holding back-and-forth exchanges with the prime minister on specific topics. This nature of questioning allowed Kishida to pick and choose which comments he felt warranted a response.

So while Izumi brought up various changes in policy by the Kishida administration, the prime minister did not provide a clear reason for making those changes.

At the Upper House plenary session on Jan. 24, Kishida said there was no problem with his Cabinet’s decisions because adequate discussions were conducted beforehand between the government and ruling coalition.

But the opposition has pointed out that such a stance ignores the Diet in the policy decision-making process. Lawmakers will likely continue bringing up the issue in the days ahead.

Related News