Since the last Lower House election three years ago, Japan's security policy has undergone radical changes under the administration of former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

The Kishida administration made major revisions to the three key security documents, including provisions allowing Japan to acquire the capability to attack enemy bases, a step that effectively hollows out Japan's principle of an exclusively defensive posture, and a "doubling" of the defense budget.

The three principles on the transfer of defense equipment were also revised, which paved the way for Japan’s exports of lethal weapons. Additionally, the Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. military have been further integrated.

Should Japan continue on this path that overly focuses on enhancing deterrence, which could potentially increase regional tensions? Or should it strive for a balance between enhancing deterrence and stepping up diplomatic efforts to build dialogue and trust?

This Lower House election should be used to re-evaluate this policy shift, which was made without national debate, and explore a strategy that returns to the fundamentals of being a peace-loving nation.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party's campaign platform for the Oct. 27 election clearly promises to continue pursuing a policy of beefing up the nation’s defense capabilities based on the three security policy documents.

It points out an alarming situation where a security crisis involving Taiwan is increasingly becoming a possibility as China and Russia are making no secret of their intentions to attempt to change the status quo through force.

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has repeatedly stated in his policy speech and on other occasions that diplomacy and defense are two wheels of the same cart, but the previous administration's approach clearly lacked a balance.

In particular, direct dialogue with China was insufficient, and mutual visits between the leaders of the two countries have long been suspended.

The main opposition party, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, advocates for a "stable diplomatic and security strategy" anchored on the Japan-U.S. alliance.

However, its manifesto calls for maintaining the traditional exclusively defensive security policy posture, scrutiny of the rapidly increased defense spending and promotion of a "peace-creating diplomacy."

As it aims to replace the LDP as the ruling party, the CDP needs to carefully explain which elements of the LDP-Komeito coalition’s security policy it will continue and which it will change.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo (the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations) for its nuclear disarmament efforts.

However, Ishiba mentioned nuclear disarmament only briefly in his policy speech by saying he would work on “disarmament and non-proliferation," which has since emerged as a point of contention.

In addition to the opposition parties, Komeito, the LDP’s junior partner in the ruling coalition, is also pushing for Japan to attend the conferences of countries that have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as an observer.

Referring to this issue, Ishiba stated, "I will not disregard (this call). I am seriously considering it."

However, he also emphasized the importance of nuclear deterrence and his true position on the matter is not clear.

Japan, as the only country to have suffered from wartime atomic bombings, must not forget that its commitment to play roles based on its unique position is being called into question.

Regarding the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement, which grants privileges to the U.S. forces in Japan, Ishiba has been advocating revisions to the agreement.

But his policy stance on the issue is excluded from the LDP's platform, which only makes a half-hearted promise of seeking to make it what it should be.

However, at a party leaders’ debate at the Japan National Press Club, Ishiba stated, "I will not ignore the sentiments in Okinawa" concerning the issue and "we will discuss it within the party and also hold talks with other parties. I definitely want to realize (revisions to the accord).”

Many opposition parties are clearly demanding a review of the bilateral agreement. It's time to specify concrete items for debate so that there will be a common understanding of the issue.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 20