Lower House deliberations on the fiscal 2023 budget plan are in the final stages.

For the first time in postwar history, the plan calls for the issuance of construction bonds to finance defense spending. If approved, it will break Japan’s unwritten law of “not going into debt to fund defense expenses.”

Do we really want to throw away the invaluable lesson we learned from our disastrous defeat in World War II?

No, we cannot allow this rule--so crucial to the spirit of our pacifist Constitution--to be discarded without thorough deliberations.

KISHIDA’S IRRATIONAL ANSWERS

The government’s budget plan seeks a total of 434.3 billion yen ($3.22 billion), earmarked for the improvement of Self-Defense Forces facilities, the construction of destroyers and other defense expenditures, to be raised by construction bonds for public works projects.

This spells a drastic change in government policy, as the government has never treated defense expenses as public works expenses.

In the National Security Strategy compiled in December, the government advocated stronger collaboration between the Japan Coast Guard and the Defense Ministry.

For this, according to Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, “the defense budget is made eligible for funding by construction bonds the same as costs for Coast Guard vessels are covered with construction bonds."

But the Coast Guard is banned by law from carrying out military functions. Just because it will be working with the Defense Ministry does not justify treating the budgets of both entities equally.

And not to be overlooked is this response Kishida made in the Diet: “Some of the expenditures that used to be funded with deficit-covering bonds will be covered by construction bonds.”

He probably wanted to say that since the uses of deficit-covering bonds are not specified, some of the bonds have been used for defense spending.

But when the nation’s first postwar deficit-covering bonds were issued in fiscal 1965, then-Finance Minister Takeo Fukuda stated unequivocally, “The government will never use the bonds for military purposes.”

Does Kishida intend to tell the public that Fukuda’s statement was false?

There is a fundamental difference between deficit-covering bonds that cover overall budgetary deficits and government bonds that are issued specifically to cover defense expenses.

Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who advocated “departure from the postwar regime” during his lifetime, used to say government bonds should take care of defense expenditures.

Could it be that in casually agreeing with Abe’s thinking, Kishida has been pushing his inane argument that is full of inconsistencies?

EROSION OF LESSONS FROM HISTORY

The relationship between defense spending and government bonds has to do with the basics of the Constitution and the Public Finance Law.

Article 4 of the 1947 Public Finance Law forbids the issuance of deficit-covering bonds. Maintaining the nation’s fiscal health was not the only reason for stipulating the article.

Heiji Hirai, a former Finance Ministry bureaucrat who was deeply involved with the enactment of that law, declared in his book “Zaisei-ho Chikujo Kaisetsu” (Article-by-article explanation of the Public Finance Law): “I can say with complete conviction that without issuance of public bonds, there would be no war. I would also say that Article 4 underwrites the war-renouncing stipulation of the Constitution.”

The Finance Ministry’s official publication, titled “Showa Zaisei-shi” (Financial history of the Showa Era), also concludes that, in view of the nation’s disastrous wartime financial experiences, the ministry “sought deterrence to the issuance of government bonds in the Public Finance Law.”

In issuing deficit-covering bonds in contravention of Article 4, the government refuted any connection between the article and pacifism.

While the background and the government’s rationale are not clear, Takehisa Hayashi, a University of Tokyo professor emeritus of fiscal science, surmises: “To issue government bonds to pump the economy amid strong public resistance, the government may have wanted to reduce the resistance as much as possible, and therefore refused to acknowledge any connection between Article 4 and pacifism."

Since then, the government has reiterated similar explanations every time it issued deficit-covering bonds.

During the current Diet session, Finance Minister Shunichi Suzuki said, “I believe the sole purpose of the Public Finance Law was to maintain the nation’s fiscal health, not to prevent war as such."

It is a fact that history is fated to be interpreted in accordance with the socio-economic background of the time. And therein lies the danger of eroding important historical lessons.

Until now, the government at least refrained from using government bonds to fund defense expenses, even while negating any connection between Article 4 of the Public Finance Law and pacifism.

But the new reality now is that the continued erosion of the lessons over the last half-century is finally about to reach the unwritten law.

THOROUGH DISCUSSION NEEDED

Once the unwritten law is broken, will the sky become the limit for the growth of the nation’s defense budget, turning pacifism into just a concept? We cannot help worrying that this may lead to an endless arms buildup race with our neighboring nations.

“We will not rely on construction bonds to increase defense expenses,” Kishida insists.

But once a hole has been punched, it is bound to grow with time in the absence of a new deterrent. And that’s what history has shown us so far.

When the prewar Bank of Japan underwrote the government bonds, it was intended only as a “temporary measure of convenience.” But the discussions ended in midair, resulting in rampant debts and the unstoppable escalation of war.

The postwar issuance of government bonds also failed to serve its intended function as a temporary economic relief measure.

More recently, the massive reserve funds, originally meant for measures to curb the COVID-19 pandemic, were used for expanded purposes, including for dealing with rising prices, effectively turning financial democracy into an empty concept.

With respect to the reinforcement of Japan’s defense, the government is set to allow Japan to possess enemy base strike capability, which is tantamount to shaking the very foundations of the nation’s “defense only” security policy. Various rules that have so far supported Japan’s pacifism under the Constitution are being eliminated in one fell swoop.

Transforming Japan into an “ordinary nation” is an appealing idea. But the last thing Japan needs is to do so hastily without thoroughly assessing its accumulated postwar experiences that were built on massive sacrifices made at home and abroad.

We demand a thorough discussion at the Diet.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 22