Originally published on February 12, 2020. This article introduces “Media Back-Report Card” from this month’s issue of Sound Argument and criticizes the unreality of the Asahi Shimbun’s year-end and New Year editorials and its “The Current Position of the Japan–U.S. Security Treaty” series, which call for diplomatic efforts and Japan–China consultation while avoiding concrete discussion of constitutional revision or strengthening Japan’s defense capabilities.

February 12, 2020
The only thing Mr. Iokibe says is “the Japan–U.S. alliance plus Japan–China consultation,” is it… Oh!
That is a flower garden in full bloom with the Asahi taste.
The following is from “Media Back-Report Card” in this month’s issue of the monthly magazine Sound Argument.
Preface omitted.
Is It “The Lost Asahi” or “The Asahi That Never Learns”?
Professor
Let us also look at the Asahi’s editorials over the year-end and New Year period.
In the morning edition of December 28, under the headline “Self-Defense Forces to Middle Eastern Waters: The Danger of Overseas Dispatch by Gradual Erosion,” it says, “There is no military solution to this problem.
The path Japan should choose is precisely to thoroughly pursue diplomatic efforts together with the countries concerned.”
Editor
How blissfully naive.
Professor
It is equivalent to saying that, no matter what happens in the world, protect Article 9.
It is “Article 9 religion.”
The Asahi has begun a series titled “The Current Position of the Japan–U.S. Security Treaty.”
It is about considering what Japan should be as the international situation changes dramatically, the Japan–U.S. alliance can no longer necessarily be called rock-solid, and with the addition of China as a factor, confusion and unease increase.
It even uses commentators not typical of the Asahi until now, such as Makoto Iokibe, former president of the National Defense Academy, and Kōji Murata, professor at Doshisha University.
Editor
I suppose it is a series that raises the question of whether the Japan–U.S. alliance can be maintained in such circumstances.
Naturally, the discussion should then turn to what Japan should do and what other options exist, but there is absolutely no discussion of constitutional revision in it.
Professor
Originally, if the situation is that serious, Japan should move in a direction where it can respond independently and defend the nation, but that part is neatly cut out.
The perspective of constitutional revision is missing.
Under the current Constitution, there is no concrete answer at all to the question: then what should Japan do?
The only thing Mr. Iokibe says is “the Japan–U.S. alliance plus Japan–China consultation,” is it.
Editor
Oh!
That is a flower garden in full bloom with the Asahi taste.
Professor
Mr. Iokibe says that the basic line is “the Japan–U.S. alliance plus Japan–China consultation,” and that “militarily, it is important to have a deterrent power that cannot be taken lightly.”
Editor
A deterrent power that cannot be taken lightly?
Then what exactly does that mean?
Strengthening defense capabilities?
Constitutional revision?
Professor
There is no explanation of that at all.
Teacher
The editorial the professor pointed out earlier is also like that.
It says, “The basis for the dispatch is ‘research and study’ under Article 4 of the Ministry of Defense Establishment Act… However, Article 4 is merely a provision listing the affairs under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense.
‘Research and study’ has mainly been applied to warning and surveillance around Japan in peacetime.
To make it the basis for a long-term unit dispatch to the Middle East, far from Japan and under tension, is clearly an expansive interpretation.”
I think that is exactly right, but as the professor says, this editorial has no answer anywhere to the question, “Then what should be done?”
The far greater problem is that there is no basic provision for warning and surveillance.
They criticize the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to the Middle East as gradual erosion, but the erosion starts with this Article 4.
If the Asahi wants to criticize something, it should criticize that.
Professor
I understand criticism in the direction you are taking, teacher, but the Asahi editorial is not like that.
After all, it says, “There may be a need to play a certain role in easing tensions.
But is dispatching the Self-Defense Forces that role?”
Teacher
While I am at it, let me say something about Iokibe’s “deterrent power that cannot be taken lightly.”
In technical terms, there are deterrence by denial and deterrence by punishment, and the two are completely different concepts.
Suppose, for example, a ballistic missile is flying toward us.
Intercepting it is deterrence by denial.
By contrast, striking the enemy’s attack base is deterrence by punishment.
Iokibe is in favor of the former, but rejects the latter.
He does not accept “If they hit you, hit back!
Double payback!” like in Hanzawa Naoki.
So the phrase written by the Asahi, “deterrent power that cannot be taken lightly,” is implicitly saying that striking enemy territory is unacceptable.
Editor
For the Asahi, using Mr. Iokibe allows it to ride the current trend.
It can avoid criticism that it is turning its eyes away from present reality and only engaging in empty arguments.
At least, it does not deny looking at reality and “preparing in order to defend.”
But its true intention is still to think only about how to bind the Self-Defense Forces, isn’t it?
Professor
I do not know what kind of series this will become, but since it writes, “How should Japan protect its own security, and what role should it play in the international community?” it should write concretely about the essential question of how Japan should protect its own security.
Editor
Is it “the lost Asahi,” or is it “the Asahi that never learns”?
Either way, I certainly hope that from now on it will write constructively and concretely.