Based on a July 2020 Sankei Shimbun column by journalist Ryusho Kadota, this essay examines Japan’s debate over enemy-base strike capabilities, the state’s duty to protect its citizens, postwar security policy, and the role of the media.

July 12, 2020
【Background】
This essay is based on a column by journalist Ryusho Kadota entitled “The Enemy Within Is Destroying Japan,” published in the Sankei Shimbun on July 12, 2020.
Kadota has continued to question Japan’s national security, historical understanding, and media responsibility from the fundamental standpoint of determining what is most important for the nation and its citizens.
I regard him as one of the most important journalists working in Japan today.
At the time the column was published, Japan was debating whether it should possess the capability to strike an enemy’s missile-launch facilities.
The debate emerged after the suspension of the planned deployment of the land-based Aegis Ashore missile-defense system.
China and North Korea were rapidly improving their missile technologies, raising serious doubts about whether Japan could intercept every missile after launch.
The essential question was what Japan should prepare in order to protect the lives of its citizens in the real world.
【The Supreme Duty of the State】
How should the lives of the people be protected?
It goes without saying that this is the supreme duty of the state and its political leaders.
The primary reason for the existence of a state is to protect the lives, freedom, and property of its citizens.
Yet in Japan, this most fundamental principle has often been lost in national-security debates.
Instead of directly confronting the intentions and capabilities of countries that threaten Japan, some arguments have treated Japan’s possession of defensive capabilities as the greater danger.
Kadota uses the severe expression “the enemy within” to describe politicians, media organizations, and activists whose actions may benefit hostile foreign powers, even while they remain unaware that their positions could endanger Japanese lives.
【Kadota’s Central Argument】
Kadota writes:
“How should the lives of the people be protected? It goes without saying that this is the supreme duty of the state and its political leaders. Unfortunately, however, few politicians or media organizations in Japan appear to understand this.”
Concerning the debate that followed the suspension of Aegis Ashore, he argues that if a missile cannot always be intercepted after launch, it is only natural to consider the ability to prevent the launch itself.
If Japan rejects even the capability to counterattack a missile base preparing to strike the country, Japan will remain unable to act until after it has been attacked.
That would amount to abandoning the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens.
【The Newspaper Debate】
At the time, the Asahi Shimbun argued that possessing enemy-base strike capabilities could provoke opposition from China, North Korea, and Russia and might worsen the regional security environment.
The Mainichi Shimbun similarly argued that such capabilities could increase suspicion among neighboring countries and depart from Japan’s exclusively defense-oriented policy.
The primary focus of these arguments was not what Japan required to protect its citizens, but how China, North Korea, and Russia might react.
Japan’s defense policy, however, must first be determined according to the safety of the Japanese people.
If Japan abandons necessary defensive capabilities because it fears objections from countries expanding their ability to attack Japan, deterrence may be weakened and the danger of attack may increase.
The Yomiuri Shimbun took a different position, warning against empty arguments claiming that such capabilities would automatically lead to a war of aggression.
The Sankei Shimbun called for serious consideration of counterstrike capabilities as a clearer and more realistic method of protecting citizens from missile attacks.
Although the newspapers addressed the same issue, their fundamental starting points were entirely different.
One focused primarily on the reactions of neighboring states.
The other focused on the practical means of protecting Japanese lives.
【The Asahi Shimbun and Postwar Japan】
Until around August 2014, I believed that the Asahi Shimbun was one of Japan’s representative newspapers.
That belief was fundamentally overturned as serious problems concerning its reporting, including its coverage of the comfort-women issue, came to light.
Readers in Japan and abroad must examine the effect that the newspaper’s reporting has had on Japan’s historical reputation and international standing.
Under the postwar occupation and information policies of the General Headquarters of the Allied Powers, negative attitudes toward Japan’s history and national identity became deeply rooted.
In my view, the consequences remain visible in Japan’s Constitution, security policy, education, and media environment.
They have made it difficult for Japan even to discuss freely its natural right to defend itself.
The Asahi Shimbun became one of the principal representatives of this postwar ideology.
It has repeatedly criticized efforts to strengthen Japan’s defenses.
The question is whether it has demonstrated an equal sense of urgency toward the military expansion, missile development, and human-rights abuses of the Chinese Communist Party and the North Korean regime.
【Who Is the “Enemy Within”?】
The phrase does not refer merely to those who criticize the government or hold different political opinions.
In a democratic society, criticism of the government and debate over policy are essential rights.
The problem arises when political or media arguments disregard the realities necessary to protect Japanese lives and, as a result, benefit states preparing to threaten Japan.
China and North Korea would naturally prefer Japan to remain incapable of counterattack and unable to act until after an attack has begun.
When political or media arguments within Japan produce the same result, citizens must calmly examine whom those arguments benefit and whose lives they endanger.
Even when people believe they are acting from good intentions, they cannot escape political and social responsibility if the consequences of their actions place citizens in danger.
【The Turntable of Civilization】
I have described humanity’s movement toward freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human dignity as the advancement of the “Turntable of Civilization.”
Propaganda, political manipulation of history, military intimidation, and one-party dictatorship obstruct that advancement.
Arguments that ignore the military expansion and human-rights repression of the Chinese Communist Party and North Korea while treating Japan’s defensive capabilities as the principal problem cannot be regarded as arguments for the protection of a free society.
People in Japan and throughout the world must examine which governments and political systems have ultimately benefited from the reporting of the Asahi Shimbun and other media organizations.
【Conclusion】
Protecting the lives of citizens is the supreme duty of the state and its political leaders.
Nothing can take precedence over that principle.
Is intercepting missiles only after they have been launched sufficient?
Who will be responsible for the lives lost if an interception fails?
Would possessing a counterstrike capability truly cause war?
Or would the absence of such a capability tempt a hostile state to attack?
The Japanese people must look beyond emotional slogans and determine which policies can actually protect their lives.
They must also examine whose position the newspapers and television networks represent and whose interests their arguments ultimately serve.
Who wants Japan to “remain exactly as it is”?
Who most fears Japan acquiring the ability to defend itself?
Kadota’s argument confronts the Japanese people with these fundamental questions.