Protecting citizens’ lives is the highest responsibility of a state and its political leaders.
Based on Ryusho Kadota’s July 12, 2020 Sankei Shimbun column, this article examines Japan’s debate over enemy-base strike capabilities, compares the positions of major newspapers, and considers the problem of the “enemy within” that weakens Japan’s national security.

July 12, 2020
The most troubling fact is that some of these people devote themselves enthusiastically to their activities, believing that they are doing something good, without the slightest awareness that they may be placing Japanese lives in danger.
The following discussion is based on a serialized column by Ryusho Kadota titled “The ‘Enemy Within’ Will Destroy Japan,” published in the Sankei Shimbun on July 12, 2020.
Ryusho Kadota is one of the finest journalists working in Japan today and has continued to perform work that is both correct and necessary.
Japanese citizens and people throughout the world who, until six years earlier, believed that the Asahi Shimbun represented Japanese journalism would feel ashamed if they fully understood the reality of that newspaper.
At the same time, people in other countries would probably feel relieved.
They would realize that the newspapers representing their own countries are not so foolish.
They would realize that their national newspapers do not publish reporting that so seriously damages the interests of their own countries and citizens.
They would also be compelled to reconsider the ideological influence that the Allied Occupation, led by GHQ, exerted on postwar Japan.
Even seventy-five years after the end of the war, the Japanese people continued to suffer from arguments of such a low standard because of the self-denigrating view of history instilled by GHQ and the harmful effects of the postwar Constitution imposed to keep Japan permanently weakened.
The Asahi Shimbun became one of the most prominent representatives of that postwar structure.
China and South Korea took advantage of it.
The Asahi Shimbun has played a leading role in obstructing the progress of what I call “The Turntable of Civilization,” an expression of divine providence.
It has helped create an unstable and extremely dangerous world by enabling the expansion of the Chinese Communist regime and forces on the Korean Peninsula that have relied upon profound wrongdoing and plausible falsehoods.
The people of the world will eventually come to understand this truth fully.

Protecting the People Is the State’s Highest Responsibility

How should the lives of the people be protected?
It goes without saying that this is the highest responsibility of the state and its political leaders.
Unfortunately, many Japanese politicians and members of the media have failed to understand this fundamental duty.
The problem goes beyond the complacency created by many decades of peace.
There are even people who act in ways that ultimately endanger Japanese lives while benefiting foreign states.
I have described such people as the “enemy within.”
The most troubling fact is that some of them devote themselves enthusiastically to their activities, believing that they are doing something right, without the slightest awareness that they may be placing Japanese lives in danger.
They do not even understand that their arguments and actions ultimately benefit China and North Korea.

The Debate over Enemy-Base Strike Capabilities

Consider the debate at that time over Japan’s ability to strike enemy missile bases.
After the deployment plan for the land-based Aegis Ashore missile-defense system was suspended, a renewed debate arose over whether Japan should possess the capability to destroy an enemy’s missile facilities before a missile could be launched.
Once a missile has been launched, Japan must attempt to intercept it.
However, if the interception fails, the lives of Japanese citizens will be exposed to catastrophic danger.
To protect the population, it is therefore important to consider not only intercepting missiles after launch but also possessing the capability to prevent an attack before the missiles are fired.
In Japan, however, there are political and media forces whose arguments appear to place the protection of an enemy missile base ahead of the protection of Japanese lives.
These included opposition parties such as the Constitutional Democratic Party, the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party, as well as powerful elements within Komeito, a member of the governing coalition.
Missile technology is advancing rapidly.
China and North Korea possess or are developing missiles that may be increasingly difficult for existing interception systems to defeat.
Nevertheless, not only these political forces but also the Asahi Shimbun and the Mainichi Shimbun strongly opposed Japan’s acquisition of an enemy-base strike capability.
In its July 8, 2020 edition, the Asahi Shimbun argued:
“Such a move could provoke opposition from China, North Korea, Russia and other countries, and could consequently worsen the security environment.”
On the same day, the Mainichi Shimbun argued:
“If Japan possessed the capability to strike enemy bases, neighboring countries would become more alarmed, and the security environment could deteriorate.
Any departure from Japan’s exclusively defense-oriented policy must not be permitted.”
This is precisely the kind of argument that would be welcomed by China and North Korea, the countries directing missiles toward Japan.

The Reality Recognized by the Yomiuri Shimbun and the Sankei Shimbun

The positions of the Yomiuri Shimbun and the Sankei Shimbun were markedly different.
In its June 23, 2020 edition, the Yomiuri Shimbun stated:
“The discussion must not be confined to empty arguments claiming that such a capability would lead to a war of aggression.”
In its June 29, 2020 edition, the Sankei Shimbun stated:
“To protect the public from missile attacks, the present approach must be replaced with a more clearly effective method.
Japan should seriously consider possessing an ‘enemy-base strike,’ or counterstrike, capability that would allow it to attack missile-launch sites.”
The difference between these positions lies in whether the realities of national security are examined from the standpoint of protecting the lives of the Japanese people.
It is an enemy state that would launch a missile attack against Japan.
Forces that attempt to prevent Japan from acquiring the ability to neutralize such launch sites inevitably become, in their practical effect, enemies of the lives of the Japanese people.
Who is benefiting China and North Korea as they smile and say, “Japan, please remain exactly as you are”?
The Japanese people must confront this question.
They must also judge newspaper arguments by whether those arguments ultimately benefit states that threaten Japan.

Words Such as “Peace” Cannot Protect the People

National-security policies cannot be judged by the good intentions of the people advocating them.
No matter how strongly a person claims to desire peace, if the practical result of that person’s policies is to weaken Japan’s defenses and benefit China or North Korea, that reality must be confronted.
An argument that worries primarily about the objections and suspicions of a potential attacker while treating the lives of the Japanese people as a secondary matter reverses the proper order of priorities.
Debating the defensive capabilities necessary to protect the population does not mean desiring war.
Building a deterrent that persuades potential aggressors not to attack is one of the state’s essential responsibilities for preventing war.
The absence of defensive power does not create peace.
War is deterred when potential aggressors understand that an attack will fail to achieve its purpose and will impose serious costs upon them.

Conclusion

How should the lives of the people be protected?
The first question in any national-security debate should not be how Japan’s actions might be perceived by foreign governments.
The first question must be whether the lives of the Japanese people can actually be protected.
Who is genuinely attempting to protect Japanese lives?
Whose arguments would ultimately benefit China or North Korea?
Citizens must judge politicians and newspapers not merely by the beautiful words they use, but by the actual consequences their arguments and policies would produce.
Who is repeatedly advancing the arguments most convenient for China and North Korea, as those countries say, “Japan, please remain exactly as you are”?
The Japanese people must confront the answer.