Developments in Japan's Defense and Security Policy-With a Focus on Cooperation with AustraliaDr Tatsuo Akaneya
The University of Tsukuba(This paper was presented at the Fifth Japan-Australia Track 1.5 Dialogue, co-hosted
by the Japan Institute of International Affairs and the Australian Strategic Policy
Institute, Tokyo, July 23-24, 2009. The views presented here are the author’s own anddo not represent the views of the Japan Institute of International Affairs)
On 7 January 2009, Prime Minister Taro Aso created a panel of nine experts on
Japan’s security and defense capabilities (“Anzenhosho to Boeiryoku ni kansuru
Kodankai”), an informal advisory council to the Prime Minister himself. The panel wascomprised of a businessman and academics as non-official civilian members; and former
high ranking bureaucrats of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Defense
Agency, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Japanese Self-Defense
Forces (JSDF) as “expert members”. (See the list)
The Council on Security and Defense Capabilities<non-official member>
Setsuko Aoki, Professor, Keio University (specialist on International Space Law)
Chikako Ueki (Kawakatsu), Waseda University (specialist on Asian security)
Tsunehisa Katsumata, Chaiman of Tokyo Electric Power Company (Chair)
Shinich Kitaoka, Professor, Tokyo University (Diplomatic historian and IR specialist)
Akihiko Tanaka, Professor, Tokyo University (IR specialist)
Hiroshi Nakanishi, Professor, Kyoto University (IR specialist)<expert member>
Ryozo Kato, (Japanese Ambassador to the U.S. 2001-2008)
Ken Sato, (Vice Minister, Japanese Defense Agency 2001-2002)
Shoji Takegochi, (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2001-2003)
Ministries, local governments and business organizations concerned with Japanese
security, U.S. bases and defense industry (such as the Ministry of Defense, the Ministryof Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, Yokosuka city and Japan Business1Federation) would provide basic data and materials for reference. The Cabinet officewould provide the panel with full logistical supports. Tsunehisa Katsumata, Chairmanof the Tokyo Electric Power Company, was appointed chairperson of the panel. Afterseveral meetings of deliberation, the council was originally reported to be submitting areport to the Prime Minister by July 1 . If earlier precedent is to be followed, in spite of its
unofficial character, its report would be made the basis for the next National Defense
Program Guidelines and Mid-Term Defense Program which would be adopted by thegovernment by the end of this year.
The National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG) is an official document which
provides for Japanese security strategy and defense policy. A table is attached to the
NDPG which lists the numbers of SDF personnel, the numbers and sizes of major
military units and equipments. The latest National Defense Program Guidelines(NDPG 2004) was the one adopted by the Security Council of Japan and subsequently
by the Koizumi Cabinet in December 2004. The present NDPG would be effective for, it
was specified, the next 10 years, yet a review should be made in 5 years time. Prime
Minister Aso was acting in accordance with the provision.
Since the adoption of NDPG 2004 there have been significant changes in the security
environment surrounding Japan. Japan and the world today are in a global financial
and economic crisis (called “a crisis in one hundred years time”). North Korea conductednuclear and ballistic missile tests in 2006 and again in 2009 and now says that the 6parties talk is over for good. China has been modernizing its nuclear arsenal, expressed
her intension to possess aircraft carrier combat groups, and invigorating militaryactivities in the South and the East China Seas and other sea areas adjacent to theJapanese territorial water. The relative influence of the United States, Japan’s only ally,
appeared to have declined owing to her prolonged military engagement in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the world-wide economic crisis originating in the collapse of American
financial systems. The American economy today is dependent on Chinese willingness ofcontinued possession of U.S. Treasury bills. It was in this rapidly changing security
environment that Prime Minister felt a need to re-examine the present Japanese
security strategy and defense policy.
As mentioned, a new National Defense Program Guidelines is scheduled to be madeand adopted by the end of this year, yet a new situation has arisen. Prime Minister Taro
1 The Council eventually submitted its report on 4th August 2009 (“Katsumata Report”)

which is available on the following web site of the Prime Minister’s Office.
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ampobouei2/200908houkoku.pdf
2

Aso has dissolved the Lower House for general election; and the date for voting is set on
30 August. According to the opinion polls conducted by several mass media, theopposition party Minshuto, Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), is said to be likely to win
the election. A change of government from the current ruling coalition of the Liberal
Democratic Party and New Komeito to a coalition centered on the DPJ would affect theplanned schedule of the formation of a new National Defense Program Guidelines; it
might also affect the contents of existing Japanese security strategy and defense policy.
DPJ’s leader Hatoyama in a press conference for foreign correspondents suggested the
postponement of a revision to the National Defense Guidelines saying that the newly
elected government would need time to review the National Defense Guidelines. He also
said he did not have intention to increase defense budget 2 .
Given the envisaged change of government, the present time may not be opportune
for predicting future Japanese security strategy and defense policy.

However if astate’s security strategy is or should be primarily shaped by the international security
environment surrounding that country, we will be able to guess the future directions
and trends of Japanese security strategy. In mid July, being asked about DPJ’s
Manifesto for the general election regarding defense and external relations, DPJ’s
leader Hatoyama remarked that he thought diplomatic continuity was important andthat he wanted to establish a good relationship of trust with American President
Obama if his party won the election. He also said that the party would consider whatroles Japan could play to stabilize Afghan regions 3 . Hatoyama’s stand on major issues
regarding Japanese security policy appears to have been a bit shaky throughout theelection campaigns.

Nevertheless, given his pledge and pragmatism, we might be able

to expect a basic continuity of Japanese security and defense policy even if the DPJ
comes to power.
Since the formation of the so-called 1955 regime, Japanese politics has beencharacterized as a de facto one party dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party. For
the first time in the post W.W.II political history, there is a possibility of change ofgovernment as the direct result of a general election which might change the leading
party in the Lower House. In this uncertain situation, the countries which have close
relationship with Japan such as the United States, Australia and Republic of Korea are
2 “Hatoyama Daihyo Yasukuni Sanpai sezu”, (Leader Hatoyama will not visit Yasukuni
Shrine), Yomiuri 12 August 2009 (2).
3 “Hatoyama Daihyo, Indoyo deno Kyuyu Keizoku Bei ni Hairyo ‘Genjitu Rosen’ ni,(Leader Hatoyama, Oil Supply Operation in the Indian Ocean to be continued,"Realistic Policy" with care to the U.S.), Kyodo News, 17 July 2009.
3

showing a growing interest for the future direction of Japanese security strategy anddefense policy. With this increasing international concern in mind, this paper aims atinvestigating the following questions:
1.

What are the main features of present Japanese security strategy anddefense policy? What are the current problems and challenges facing Japan’s
security?
2.

What are the focal issues of contention in the current re-examinationof Japanese security strategy and defense policy? What new revisions are likely
to be made to the existing security strategy and defense policy?
3.

What common security concerns do Japan and Australia share? Whatwould be the possible areas of cooperation and collaboration between the twocountries?
Additional related questions to be asked will be:
1.

How did Japanese Security Strategy and Defense Policy evolved?

What were/are the factors triggering the changes?
2.

What implications do the possible changes in the existing security

strategy and defense policy have with respect to Japan’s basic security policy inthe past?
These two questions may be peculiar to Japan which as a result of the Second Worldwar has had adopted a very restrained defense policy. Historically, Japanese
governments

haveadoptedthefollowing

basic

principles:(1)

Exclusively

Defense-Oriented Policy, (2) Not Becoming a Military Power posing a threat to othercountries. (3) Three Non-Nuclear Principles (Not possessing nuclear weapons; Not
producing nuclear weapons; Not permitting nuclear weapons to be brought to Japan)and (4) Ensuring Civilian Control. Some of these principles are still regarded as valid,
yet inflexible categorical application of some of these is today called into question.
Section 1 Japanese system of making a security strategy and defense policyFirst, a brief explanation about Japanese system of making defense policy and its
historical evolution is in order.
National Defense Program Guidelines describes the basic points regarding thebuild-up, maintenance and operations of Japan’s defense capabilities in light of the4security environment surrounding Japan. A table attached to NDPG lists the total
numbers of SDF personnel, the numbers and sizes of major military units andequipments for Ground, Naval and Air Self-Defense Forces. These numbers are thetarget levels which a government is expected to attain within a specified time period.
The government then makes a mid-term defense program with a time period of three tofive years; and subsequently yearly budget for the SDF will be determined.

Procedure for making defense policy and budget
National Defense Program Guidelines(With a table of SDF personnel, force-units and equipments)

Mid-term Defense Program

Annual Budget for Self-Defense Forces

There have been four NDPGs made, that is, NDPG 1976 which was effective between
1977 and 1994; NDPG 1994 covering the 1995-2004 period; NDPG 2005 covering the
2005-2009 period. (If a NDPG 2009 is to be made, it will cover the 2010-2014 period.)
From the diagram, it can be seen that there was an interval of around 20 years
between the adoption of Basic Policy for National Defense (which is still effective today)
and the adoption of NDPG 1976. The conservative LDP governments built up
Self-Defense Forces through the 1st to 4th Defense Procurement Program in the periodof high economic growth. The guiding defense concept in the period was "required
defense force" (shoyo boeiryoku) which meant acquiring a defense force that wasnecessary to counter conventional invasion by an enemy.
There was also an interval of around 20 years between NDPG 1976 and NDPG 1994.
The period was characterized as a period of low economic growth after the oil shock of
1973. Reflecting this economic situation, NDPG 1976 formulated the “basic defense
5force concept” (kibanteki boeiryoku) meaning a minimum level of basic force whichenable Japan to counter a “limited and small-scale conventional invasion” by an enemy.

NDPG 1976 also set the target of 1% of GNP as a ceiling for the military budget.

Successive National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG)

1976

1957

1994

2004

Unrealized NDPG
(Basic Policy for
National Defense)

2005

2014

NDPG
2004

NDPG 1976
NDPG
1994

NDPG
2009

After about 20 years of the NDPG 1976 era, a new NDPG was adopted in 1994 in
response to the end of the Cold War. NDPG 1994 was effective for about 10 years. Now 5
years have passed since the adoption of NDPG 2004, the government was considering arevision to it or a new NDPG this year. It can be seen that the intervals at which a new
NDPG was adopted became shortened, from around 20 years to 10 years, and then to 5
years, which suggests that the Cold War period was a period of relative stability interms of Japan’s defense policy, yet the post Cold War era and the post 9/11 era were theperiods of instability and rapid change 4 .
Following the establishment of the Self-Defense Forces in July 1954, the National
Defense Council (Kokubo Kaigi) was to be established which would deliberate andformulate a “National Defense Program Guidelines” as the basis for mid-term defense
procurement. But the Council was not set up owing to domestic political difficulties. It
4 A very informative work concerning Japanese security strategy in the post 9/11 isDaniel M. Kliman, Japan’s Security Strategy in the Post-9/11 World: Embracing a New
Realpolitik, (Forworded by Michael H. Armacost), The Center for Strategic andInternational Studies, Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger, 2006.

6was a time just prior to the formation of the Liberal Democratic Party which was
created as a result of the merger of two conservative parties. The major conservative
opposition party Kaishinto (the Progressive Party) demanded that the National Defense
Council should include a non-official member from the civil society in order to preventthe possible abuse of military power by a dictatorial prime minister. The ruling Liberal
Party was opposed to this demand, anticipating that, contrary to the argument of theProgressive Party, accepting its demand might result in a crisis of civilian control of themilitary. For it was feared that the opposition party was intending to send a former
officer of the imperial army to the National Defense Council as a non-official citizen
member 5 .
After the establishment of the Liberal Democratic Party in 1955, the Hatoyama LDP
government eventually succeeded to get a bill through the Diet which provided for theestablishment the National Defense Council which was comprised of only Cabinet
ministers. By this time, however, the government had lost an interest to make a
National Defense Program Guidelines to clarify its ideas about defense policy. Defense
was an extremely touchy and divisive political issue in Japan in those days of theheightened Cold War tension. Left-wing opposition parties and political forces madevehement objections to the creation of the Self-Defense Forces as unconstitutional andcriticized the security treaty with the United States. There was still a strong pacifist
ethos among a wide spectrum of Japanese people who suffered from the disastrous war.
It was under the Kishi government that the Basic Policy for National Defense(Kokubo no Kihon Hoshin) was adopted in May 1957.

It was in essence a short list offour basic principles which should guide Japan’s defense policy 6 . A literal reading of
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution should have indicated that the possession of
military forces was prohibited.

By presenting the Basic Policy for National Defense to

the public, the LDP governments which established the de-facto military forces wanted
to be accountable to the Japanese citizens.

5 Akihiko Tanaka, Anzenhosho: Sengo 50nen no Mosaku, (Japanese Security Policy: 50
Years of Groping Trial), Yomiuri Shinbun, pp.134-135.
6 The four principles were (1) Support the United Nations’ Activities and promoteinternational cooperation to achieve world peace. (2) Stabilize the people’s livelihoodand establish the foundations for national security. (3) Establish effective defense
capabilities. (4) Defend the nation on the basis of the Japan-U.S. Security
Arrangements.
7Based on the Basic Policy for National Defense (which is still effective today),National Defense Program Guidelines have been made since 1975. Each National
Defense Program Guidelines adopted by Cabinet is a relatively short policy document
on security in comparison with corresponding policy documents of, for instance, theUnited States which has been a global superpower. This situation is unfortunate for an
academic observer of Japan’s defense policy, for the document does not contain detailed
analysis of security environment and the reasoning behind the defense policy adopted.
However since NDPG 1976, there have been panels of experts on defense and security
whose reports contained rich information for an outside observer regarding backgroundof governmental security policy.
At the time of establishing NDPG 1976, the then Director General of the Defense
Agency, Michita Sakata set up a panel of civilian experts on defense policy called Boei oKangaeru Kai (Panel to deliberate on defense) and resumed issuing Defense of Japan ora White Paper on Defense (Boei Hakusho) that was published in 1970 yet had not been
issued since then.

Sakata’s intension was that without the understanding and supportof the Japanese people to the Self-Defense Forces, it would not be useful in time of
emergencies even if SDF built-up military equipments. The panel included members
from business and academic sector such as Mr. Kiichi Saeki (Director of the Nomura
Research Institute) and professor Kosaka Masataka of Kyoto University, who later
developed the idea of “comprehensive security” which influenced governments’ security
strategy from the late 1970s to the 1980s.
Prior to the making of NDPG 1994, Prime Minister Hosokawa established anadvisory panel called the Council on Security and Defense Capabilities as a private
consultative body to Prime Minister. Its final report called Higuchi Report (after thename of the chairperson of the Council who was then the Chairman of the Asahi Beer
Company) was submitted to the next Prime Minister Murayama. Since then, it appears
that prime ministers have made it a rule to set up similar panels of experts on security
strategy and defense before they create new defense program guidelines. The
chairpersons in the three successive Councils on Security and Defense Capabilities
were all from the business sector; and their final reports go by the name of chairpersons
such as Higuchi Report, Araki Report and Katsumata Report 7 .
The Reports by the Councils presented a systematic analysis of security environment
7 It is believed that the actual drafters of the Council Report were academics who took

part in its deliberation. For example, Professor Akio Watanabe of Tokyo University
wrote the so-called Higuchi Report.
8

surrounding Japan and built up a systematic argument for a security strategy for Japan.
The concept of security strategy was broader in scope than the concept of defense policy.
A security strategy was comprised of, besides defense policy, diplomatic efforts,
intelligence, provision of ODAs, economic policy, reformation of governmental structure,reform of top decision-making and the others. The Reports by the Councils madeproposals for a defense policy within a broad framework of grand security strategy.
We need to analyze the basic framework of Government’s security strategy anddefense policy by looking at both a NDPG and each Council Report whose idea obviously
underlay the corresponding NDPG 8 . But foreign observers might wonder why a private
advisory panel whose members were comprised of businessmen, academics and former
bureaucrats could have strong influence on governmental defense policy. An answer tothis puzzle would be that the governments selected Councils’ members from thosepeople whose thinking on security and defense, they knew, were basically identical withthat of the governments. In this respect, an explanation by Professor Akihiko Tanaka ofTokyo University (who happened to be in both Araki and Katsumata panels) may besuggestive. He argued in his book on Japanese security policy that the basic outlines ofthinking such as the one which was later to be called the Basic Defense Force Concept(Kibanteki Boeiryoku) contained in the final Report of Boei o Kangaeru Kai could befound in the arguments which Takuya Kubo, Vice-Minister of the Defense Agency, haddeveloped in his earlier papers 9 . This indicated that the policy ideas of the top-ranking
bureaucrat in the Defense Agency was reflected in the deliberation of the panel to the
Director General of the Defense Agency.
Section 2 Present Japanese security strategies and defense policy
The present Japanese security strategy and defense policy are outlined by National
Defense Program Guidelines of 2004. It can easily be ascertained that the basic ideas
and policy prescriptions contained in the Araki Report are reflected in it.
The main features of the present Japanese security strategy and defense policy are as
8 Japanese security strategy is strongly affected by Japan’s alliance relationship with

the United States, which will not be covered in this paper. For American influences, see
Magosaki Ukeru, Nichibei Domei no Shotai: Meiso suru Anzenhosho (A True Characterof Japan-U.S. Alliance: Japan’s Security Straying), Kodansha, 2009. Tsuyoshi Sunohara,
Zainichi Beigun Shireibu, (U.S. Forces, Japan), Shinchosha, 2008. Tsuyoshi Sunohara,
Domei Henbo: Nichibei Ittaika no Hikari to Kage (Alliance Transformed: Light andShadow of Integrating Alliance), Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2007.
9 Tanaka op. cit., p.256.
9

follows. First, the goals of security strategy are comprised of (1) Defense of Japan fromdirect threats and (2) Improving international security environment. The primary task
for a government is to attain these goals in a complex security situation surrounding
Japan. The first requirement for the task is an accurate analysis and assessment of
security situation Japan is faced with.
Today, Japan is confronted with new-types of threats and complex security situations.
As exemplified in the 9/11 attacks, non-state actors such as terrorists and international
criminal organizations possess lethality which only states had in the past. Worse still,they are very difficult to identify; and they operate on a global scale. Secondly, Japan isconfronted with an instable regional security environment. China and Russia possess a
substantial nuclear arsenal. China is rapidly modernizing its nuclear weapons, building
a blue-water navy, and expanding military activities in the South and East China Seasand the sea areas close to Japanese territorial waters. Thirdly, North Korea isfrantically developing Weapons of Mass Destruction and their delivery systems. Its
leaders now say that the six-party talk is over for good. These are the current security
situation surrounding Japan. Japanese governments have developed a variety of policy
responses.
As for conventional threats, a major change of policy took place from the period of

NDPG 1994, that is, the abandonment of the Basic Defense Force Concept (Kibanteki
Boeiryoku) and the adoption of a new concept of “Multi-Functional Flexible Defense
Force”. The Basic Defense Force Concept, which reflected security situation in the Cold
War period, assumed the contingency of conventional invasion from the North.
However, the likelihood of a Cold-War type major military clash is now regarded as very
remote.

International security situation surrounding Japan today gave rise to a new

demand for a highly mobile, flexible and effective force, and a force capable of fulfilling
diverse duties and tasks.
It may be reminded however that NDPG 2004 considers some elements of the Basic
Defense Force Concept as still valid, given the uncertainties in the regional security
environment. In this respect, the government’s defense stance has been cautious.
Nonetheless, the priority has been shifted from the defense of Hokkaido to the defense
of offshore and remote islands and south-western frontier of Japanese Archipelagofacing the East China Sea. Relocation of major divisions of Ground SDF from the Northto the South-West is now envisaged as a policy direction for the future.

10Second, for nuclear threats of various kinds, it has been the Japanese policy to rely on
the extended deterrence of the United States, while keeping the three non-nuclear
principles. Recently, Mr. Ryohei Murata (a one-time Japanese Ambassador to theUnited States; a one-time Vice Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs) revealed theexistence of a secret understanding with the United States that the introduction of
nuclear weapons onboard American vessels to Japanese ports did not constitute a
violation of the three non-nuclear principles. This simply confirmed the remarks to thiseffect in 1981 by Edwin Reischauer (U.S. Ambassador to Japan 1961-1966). Murata’s
remark was interpreted as implying that the actual Japanese policy was based on a 2.5
rather than the three non-nuclear principles. But the government so far has made nocomment on this.
Responding to North Korea’s developments of nuclear weapons and deployment of
mid-range ballistic missiles targeting Japan, the Japanese government purchased very
expensive Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems from the United States. The
Aegis-equipped ships with SM-3 and PAC3 anti-missile systems were deployed at thetime of Hokkaido Toyako G8 Summit (July 2008) and North Korea’s test of a long-range
ballistic missile (April 2009). The streamlining of conventional weapon systems wasmade necessary to aquire the costly BMD systems.
Third, participation in the activities of international peace cooperation is today madea primary mission of the Self-Defense Forces by making a revision to the Self-Defense
Forces law. In the past, this mission was regarded as a secondary or supplementary
mission for the Self-Defense Forces whose primary mission was the defense of Japan
itself. There have been growing Self-Defense Forces’ oversea activities under the newlegislation. Ground Self-Defense Forces were sent to Iraq and successfully fulfilled its
mission. This mission was conducted within a framework provided by the Special
Measures Law for Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance in Iraq. Maritime
Self-Defense Forces are now engaged in logistical support activities supplying oil toforeign naval vessels conducting interdiction mission in Operation Enduring Freedom
in the Indian Ocean. This mission is based on the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law.
Maritime Self-Defense Forces are now deployed for anti-piracy operation in the Gulf ofAden, off the coast of Somalia, which is based on the Law on the Penalization of Acts of
Piracy and Measures against Acts of Piracy. Two Japanese P3Cs dispatched to theregion are now engaged in surveillance mission of suspect vessels in cooperation with
American and German P3Cs.

11

As stated earlier, Japanese security strategy is not confined to defense policy in anarrow sense. Rather it is comprised of other diverse activities. Araki Report advocatedan Integrated Security Strategy which has diverse aspects and components.
To repeat, there are two major goals of security strategy: (1) Defense of Japan fromdirect threats and (2) Improving international security environment. To attain these
two goals simultaneously, Araki Report and NDPG 2004 expanded the idea of athree-fold approach to security, that is, approach via (a) Japan’s own efforts, (b)Cooperation with an Alliance Partner, and (c) Cooperation with the International
Community.
Since there are two goals and three approaches for each, there are six fields ofactivities to realize the security goals. An Integrated Security Strategy is comprised of
all the activities in the six fields in order to enhance security of Japan as well as toimprove international security environment. Some activities involving the SDF in Cells{(1)(b)}, {(2)(b)} and {(2)(c)} have some implication in conflict with the traditional
Japanese basic defense policy, which includes (i) “collective defense” constrictions, (ii)arms-export prohibitions and (iii) a self-imposed principle of not-sending SDF overseas
for combat operations. These activities by SDF therefore raised political concerns anddebates in the Diet and mass media.

New Priority Fields and Their Implications for traditional policy
constraints(1) Security of Japan (2) Improvingfrom Direct Threats
International
Security
Environment(a) Japan’s Own
Efforts(b) Cooperation withan Alliance Partner(c) Cooperation with
the International
Community(1) (a)(1) (b)(2)(a)○(2) (b)○(2) (c)○(1) (c)Besides a three-fold approach to security, there are other aspects to Integrated
Security Strategy. These are (i) Integration of roles/functions of various actors (stateorgans, local authorities, police, fire brigades, and citizens), (ii) Creation of integrated
top decision-making for crisis management, (iii) Creation of integrated intelligencecapability and (iv) Operating and Utilizing intelligence satellites (Basic Law for theDevelopment of Space was enacted in May 2008 for this purpose). One salient feature of
Araki Report and NDPG 2004 is its emphasis on the importance of collecting, analyzing,12

sharing and utilizing information/intelligence. An underlying idea is that under thebudgetary constraint and the inevitable downsizing of military units and theirequipments, what supplement it will be a timely and effective utilization of
information/intelligence for security 10 .
Section 3 Prospect for A New National Defense Program Guidelines
As stated at the beginning, Japan is now in the period of general election for theHouse of Representative, whose outcome decides the next Prime Minister. Prospect for a
New National Defense Program Guidelines will be significantly affected by it. It ispremature to predict the future at this stage. Yet, Katsumata Report was finalized andsubmitted to Prime Minister Aso on 4th August which contained several concrete policy
proposals. Katsumata Report is reported to reflect more or less the views of Prime
Minister Aso, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, and Ministry of Defense. For thisvery reason, if there is a change of government from the LDP-led coalition to the
Democratic Party, a new government may intentionally neglect some aspects of the
Katsumata Report and postpone proposed revisions to the present National Defense
Program Guidelines. Besides, currently the Democratic Party needs the cooperation of

Shaminto (the Social Democratic Party) to obtain majority in the House of Councilors.
The Social Democratic Party inherited the strong left-wing anti-military ethos from theformer Socialist Party of Japan. Though the current leadership of the Democratic Party
is comprised of realistic conservative politicians, it will be obliged to make compromises
in security policy to the ideologically committed pacifist Shaminto if DPJ decides toform a coalition with it.
Owing to uncertainties surrounding Japanese domestic politics, the prospect of future
Japanese security strategy and defense policy is unclear. Nevertheless, based on the
points made in the Katsumata Report, we can explore what will be the focal points ofcontention concerning a New National Defense Program Guidelines. First, we areconcerned with the budget for the SDF for the next Fiscal Year. The Liberal Democratic
Party made a policy proposal for A New National Defense Program Guidelines in June
2009. Some LDP parliamentarians are worried that there are too many diverse duties
for the SDF under the condition of declining budget and the limited number of adequate
personnel. They think that it is time to change it. The Aso government and the ruling
LDP changed their stand of budgetary restraints after the global economic crisis and
10 Concerning criticism to NDPG 2004 by a policy research institute of the Japanese

government, see Chapter 8 of Higashi Ajia Senryaku Gaikan (East Asian Strategic
Review) , The National Institute for Defense Studies, Japan, 2009, pp.230-262.

13the resultant Japanese recession and unemployment came to the fore. This new
situation will provide LDP politicians with ammunition for demanding a larger budget
for the SDF, yet if a change of government is to take place, a newly elected government
may not easily accept it.
Second, ever since the tests of nuclear explosion and ballistic missiles by North Korea,
there has been a heated debate as to the desirability of possessing the capability to
attack missile bases with sea launched cruise missiles (SLCM). The Japanese
government intends to further develop BMD systems in close collaboration with theUnited States. However, the BMD systems which are extremely costly are viewed as
unreliable defense system. Japan will continue the three non-nuclear principles andrely on the extended deterrence provided by the United States. Yet, some have doubts as
to the effectiveness of such deterrence. North Korea will resort to nuclear weapon, if
they actually do, in a desperate, suicidal manner in an ultimate situation. For thisreason, some Diet members requested an examination of another supplementary option.
There has been a division of mission between Japanese and American forces: while
the former plays the shield mission, the latter plays the spear mission. The acquisition
by Japan of a certain capability to attack missile bases will somewhat change thisdivision of labor. Katsumata Report made a point that such traditional principle as

Senshu Boei (Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy) needs to be re-examined fromtoday’s point of view. It also proposed that Basic Policy for National Defense which wasmade more than 50 years ago needs a review in light of rapidly changing security
environments.
Third, conservative LDP as well as DPJ parliamentarians are reported to be worried
about a high speed of modernization and growth of Chinese military power and theirvigorous military activities in the East and South China Seas. Defense ofoffshore/remote islands in Japan’s South is given priority in today’s strategic thinking.
How and to what extent, divisions of SDF are to be reallocated from the North to theSouth-West of Japan will be a focal point of expert attention.
Fourth, a recommendation has been made for creating a more effective
information/intelligence organization and a decision-making body in the Prime
Minister’s Office. The Japanese government is planning to further develop and utilize
intelligence satellites. In tandem with the efforts to gathering and utilizing
intelligence/information, it is proposed that top-decision making in national
14

emergencies needs to be strengthened. In this connection, a proposal to set up aJapanese National Security Council of an American type has been made. Whether a
new government will materialize it or not is a point of public concern.
Fifth, there is a wide concern as to whether or not a change is to be made to thegovernment’s position on the exercise of the right to collective defense in light of Article
9 of the Japanese Constitution. The questions to be asked are: With respect toSelf-Defense Forces’ operation of the BMD systems, is it legal to destroy ballistic
missiles which are heading for the territory of the United States? Is it legal for Japanese
Self-Defense Forces to use weapons to protect foreign personnel who are working
together in international peace cooperation? Are Maritime Self-Defense Forces allowed
to use weapons to defend U.S. naval vessels in an emergency situation in the areas
surrounding Japan? The Council on Reconstructing Legal Basis for Security which wasestablished in May 2007 by Prime Minister Abe already examined these questions andmade a proposal to change the present governmental interpretation of legality
regarding the exercise of the right to collective defense 11 . Katsumata Report strongly
endorsed the stand of the Yanai Report and encouraged the government to adopt it.
Sixth, we are concerned with the outcome of proposed reconsideration of the threeprinciples of arms export restrictions. The development of state of the art weaponssystems today are increasingly conducted within a framework of joint international
research, development and co-production. A pre-condition for further co-development of
BMD systems with the United States is an exemption from the principle as far as export
to the United States is concerned. Whether such exemption should be extended to otherfriendly countries is a matter of policy choice. Japan has been unable to take part in aninternational consortium to co-develop F35, a next generation fighter airplane, owing to
the existing arms-export-ban regime.
Finally, Katsumata Report made a recommendation to enact a general law underwhich Japan can send Self-Defense Forces more promptly if a need for it arises. Japan
has dispatched Self-Defense Forces for international peace cooperation under ad hoc
special measure laws which limited the mandate and the duration of the operations.
Each time a special measure law was deliberated in the Diet, it has been a heated point
11 The Council on Reconstructing Legal Basis for Security was established by Prime
Minister Abe. Its final report (Yanai Report of June 2008) was submitted to Prime
Minister Fukuda who however paid scant attention to it. It may be noted that Foreign
Minister in the Abe Cabinet who took the initiative to start the deliberation was Prime
Minister Aso.
15

of contention between the government and opposition parties. DPJ leader Hatoyma
remarked that if elected his government would reconsider the current logistical support
operation of Maritime Self-Defense Forces to supply oil to foreign vessels when the bill
authorizing the operation ceased to be effective in January next year. However we are
not sure whether his can actually carry out this policy for it would undoubtedly cause
political frictions with Washington. This sort of difficult experience may create acondition in which a newly elected government find some merit in accepting the
proposal to enact a general bill for international peace cooperation involving
Self-Defense Forces.
Section 4 Prospect for Japan-Australia cooperation to improve international security
environment
As explained, the present National Defense Program Guidelines and the Araki Reportwhich underlay it adopted an Integrated Security Strategy which had two goals andthree approaches, namely (1) Defense of Japan from direct threats and (2) Improving
international security environment, as the two goals; and (a) Japan’s own efforts, (b)Cooperation with an Alliance Partner, and (c) Cooperation with the International
Community, as the three approaches. In contrast, Katsumata Report advocated a“Multilayered Cooperative Security Strategy” which had three goals (1) Defense ofJapan, (2) preventing threats from materializing, and (3) maintaining and constructing
an international system; and four approaches which were (a) Japan’s own efforts, (b)cooperation with its ally, (c) cooperation with countries in the region, and (d) cooperation
with the international society.
It can be seen that goal (3) and approach (c) were newly added to the present security
strategy under NDPG 2004. The underlying reason why this change was proposed wasthat in the Asia-Pacific region, threats to Japan and international systems have been
increasing while there have been lacks of an effective regional security framework. It
should be noted that Katsumata Report in this connection emphasized the importanceof further developing cooperative and collaborative linkages with Australia and theRepublic of Korea, the two regional partners which share the same basic values withJapan and also are close allies of the United States. There are diverse areas ofcooperation and collaboration for the three countries such as international disaster
relief operations, UN PKOs and international peace cooperation. They can make joint
efforts in information sharing, procurement, supply, transportation, and medicine.

16Japan and Australia, as close American allies, today share a wide range of common
concerns regarding international security situation in Asia and the Pacific. They include,for example, uncertainties surrounding China’s future. China’s expanding economy andtechnological basis have allowed her to modernize her nuclear weapons, spacetechnology and blue-water naval forces. If this trend continues, it will have security
implications for the two countries. There is also uncertainty regarding Chinese top
political leader’s ability to maintain civilian control over the world’s biggest militaryforces. A slow-down in economic growth may result in the destabilization of Chinesepolitics, which in turn creates an unfavorable security situation with implications forthe world.
On one hand, Japan and Australia highly appreciate the stabilizing effects ofAmerican military presence in the region where there are uncertainties about China’s
future. On the other hand, both countries welcome the constructive and responsibleroles China can play in regional and world affairs. Hence, Japan and Australia areinterested in promoting dialogue and exchanges with China at all levels.
Japan-China-South Korea’s Trilateral Summit provides a good opportunity of shuttle
diplomacy to build trust and confidence among the top leaders.
Japan and Australia today have valuable venues for collaboration at bilateral andmultilateral levels. One of them is Japan-Australia strategic dialogue. A member of theCouncil on Security and Defense Capabilities raised an idea of making Japan andAustralia “a quasi-alliance”. Japan, Australia and China are members of ASEAN
Regional Forum (ARF) and East Asia Summit (EAS), both of which also provide goodvenues to promote exchange of views and collaboration between the three countries12 .
As BRICs countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) grow further, Japan will berelegated to the status of Middle Power. A comparative advantage for a Middle Powerwill be in the area of information/intelligence, agenda setting and conference diplomacy.
Japan and Australia may be able to collaborate in collecting and sharing high-quality
intelligence, and thereby improve diplomatic position in their joint effort to enhanceinternational security.
A promising area of cooperation, or rather Australian assistance to Japan, will be ineducational exchange program. There will be increasing opportunities for Japan and
12 As for the current Japan-Australia strategic relationship, see for example, Yusuke

Ishihara, “Partnership Adrift: Reshaping Australia-Japan Strategic Relations”,
Security Challenges, vol. 5, no. 1 (Autumn 2009), pp. 103-122.

17

Australia working together in international peace cooperation. Yet given the lingua

franca status of English, Japanese lack of communication capability in English is asignificant hindrance. Australian educational assistance in this to the future generationof Japanese officers, academics and bureaucrats will be highly appreciated.

18