On December 17, the Chair of the DPJ’s General Research Committee on Defence, Toshimi Kitazawa, released the following statement.

Today, a “National Security Strategy”, “National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2014 and Beyond” and “Mid-term Defense Program (FY 2015-2019)” were approved by the Cabinet.

In the “National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG) for FY 2011 and Beyond” established under the DPJ administration in December 2010, the existing “Basic Defense Force Concept” was replaced by a “Dynamic Defense Force”. The following were also clearly stipulated: strengthening distribution of resources relating to the defense of the southwestern region and strengthening offshore island defense, as well as engaging in structural issues, such as achieving a balance in personnel organization within the constraints of a limited budget. Furthermore, a transformation of the NDPG into a document befitting the times was realized by sloughing of the remnants of the Cold War era. This was achieved, for example, by redefining the Japan-US Alliance, calling for it to be deepened in the midst of changes in the global security environment, and proposing the establishment of a national security council. The fundamentals of this NDPG can be evaluated as fully capable of responding to the current difficult security environment.

Despite Prime Minister Abe’s vacuous description of the newly announced NDPG as an “historic document”, it is basically an extension of the 2011 NDPG. There is little difference between the newly introduced “Dynamic Joint Defense Force”, and the “Dynamic Defense Force Concept”, which was highly evaluated by our ally the United States, and had become well established both at home and abroad. Efforts toward strengthening joint operations have already been engaged in on a regular basis, and the fruits of this were visible at the time of the Great East Japan Earthquake. This is nothing new. Despite this, the decision to force a change in the name of the basic concept due to the politically-motivated calculation of the ruling parties will cause Japan to lose credibility overseas. We find such a move incomprehensible.
Although Prime Minister Abe has relied on trumpeting fine-sounding slogans prior to acting, he has come under fire from people in various fields, and even from members of the ruling parties, and this NDPG is also noteworthy for the paucity of its content. The concept of a “proactive contribution to peace” is still not clearly defined, and combined with Prime Minister Abe’s advocacy of a return to pre-war reactionary values, is likely to send the wrong message to the international community. Furthermore, amidst the current escalation of tensions between Japan and China, the document should have emphasized in more concrete terms that comprehensive measures need to be implemented in order to prevent unforeseen contingencies from occurring. Such measures should include establishing a hotline and mechanisms for sea-line communication.

The words “moderate defense buildup” have been deleted from the basic policy of the Defense Guidelines, and there have been regressions from the perspective of using limited resources effectively and rationalizing the Self Defense Forces’ personnel structure. There is no sense that consideration has been given toward creating sustainable and balanced defense forces. With regard to the establishment of a comprehensive command structure for the Ground Self Defense Forces (GSDF), strong doubts remain that this will do little more than add another layer to the command structure while the system of dividing the GSDF into five separate Regional Armies still remains in place.
With regard to the National Security Strategy, this is supposed to be a comprehensive strategy operating from a long-term perspective, but the overall vision lacks coherence, failing for example to clearly establish the position of food security. Furthermore, no small part of the document consists of short-term policies, and so it is rather doubtful whether it can truly be described as a mid to long term security strategy for Japan.

Normally, when documents such as this are drafted, after the release of a report by a panel of experts, much care is taken to ensure the transparency of the process, policy consistency and obtaining public understanding, by for example holding detailed discussions between the various government bodies concerned. However, on this occasion, such significant documents as the national defense guidelines, which can be said to form the basis of the nation’s existence, have been drafted in a politically-motivated fashion, without such a careful process and with almost no debate taking place in the Diet.

The Democratic Party of Japan will continue to closely monitor the movements of the government and ruling parties, and to carefully study and scrutinize the details of all of the documents related to national security which were approved today.