This essay examines the issue of local government cooperation in recruiting Self-Defense Force personnel and the related constitutional debate. Drawing from a Sankei Shimbun editorial, it explores discrepancies between media claims and operational realities.

2019-02-18
I will write later about the maliciousness of the Asahi Shimbun, but another fundamental problem is that many professors—who could be described as traitorous without exaggeration—exist within universities that educate future civil servants.

The following is from today’s Sankei Shimbun editorial.

Which Is Fake?
The Self-Defense Force Recruitment Issue

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s call to correct the situation by explicitly stating the Self-Defense Forces in the Constitution—citing that more than 60% of local governments are not cooperating in recruitment—has sparked debate.
The Asahi Shimbun and opposition parties criticize his statement as incorrect, claiming that “about 90% of municipalities are cooperating.”
However, is it not Prime Minister Abe who points to facts, while the Asahi Shimbun and opposition parties speak falsely?
In the Diet, Abe stated that more than 60% of municipalities had failed to provide the cooperation necessary for recruitment, calling this deeply regrettable.
He argued that clearly stipulating the SDF in the Constitution would help change this atmosphere.
The Self-Defense Forces Law and its enforcement ordinance designate the submission of necessary recruitment materials as a statutory entrusted task for local governments.
The Ministry of Defense requests municipalities provide lists containing names, birthdates, gender, and addresses of recruitment-eligible individuals, either on paper or electronically.
In fiscal 2017, only 36% of the 1,741 municipalities complied, while the remaining 64% did not.
In 53% of municipalities—excluding sparsely populated areas—recruitment officers had no choice but to hand-copy or inspect vast records using provisions of the Basic Resident Register Law.
The Asahi Shimbun and opposition parties add this 53% to the 36% and claim about 90% cooperated, criticizing the prime minister.
Are they serious?
Simply providing the data on paper or electronically would have sufficed, yet instead they forced enormous labor on SDF personnel handling recruitment.
Such behavior cannot be called cooperation.
It could rightly be called sabotage of recruitment duties.
It is more reasonable for the prime minister to state that lack of cooperation from more than 60% is a fact.
Rejecting his problem-raising through strained logic likely reflects the desire to argue that this cannot serve as a reason for constitutional revision.
Yet many constitutional scholars, citing Article 9, argue that the SDF is unconstitutional.
Everyone knows there exists within pro-constitution public-sector circles a tendency to dislike and downplay the development and utilization of the SDF.
This atmosphere leads to non-cooperation in recruitment.
Constitutional revision debates must be advanced vigorously in both houses of the Diet.
I will write later about the maliciousness of the Asahi Shimbun, but it is also fundamental that many professors—who could be described as traitorous without exaggeration—exist in universities educating future civil servants.