Japan’s new national security strategy: background and challenges

On 16 December 2022 the government of Japan released its new National Security Strategy (NSS),1 National Defence Strategy (NDS)2 and Defence Build-up Programme (DBP).3 In Japan these are seen as one set of documents and they are usually called the ‘three national security documents.’ The NSS is a revised version of the 2013 strategy document, the NDS is a revised version of the national defence policy established in 2018 called the National Defence Programme Guidelines (NDPG) and the DBP is the medium-term defence programme to achieve the aims established in the NDS. The government had been working on these three documents since the start of the current Kishida Cabinet in October 2021. The documents contain some bold unprecedented decisions, including a number of new capabilities and a sharp increase in the defence budget. In the new NSS the government declares “While maintaining the fundamental principles of Japanese national security, … the strategic guidance and policies in the strategy will dramatically transform Japan’s national security policy since the end of WWII in terms of its execution.” It is unusual for the government to admit a dramatic transformation when it changes its national security and defence policy. Previously, it tended to emphasise the continuity in the policy in order to minimise the impression of a drastic shift and avoid a political backlash, but now the Japanese public is more security-minded than before due to tension in the region, particularly between China and Taiwan and on the Korean Peninsula, and also because of the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on East Asia

Implications of Revision of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan on the Defense Policy of Japan

On December 20, 2018, a P-1 patrol aircraft of Japan’s Maritime Defense Force was flying within Japan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Sea of Japan as part of ordinary intelligence collection and warning and surveillance activities, when it observed a destroyer, and a patrol and rescue vessel of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). While photographing the Korean vessels, the Japanese P-1 patrol aircraft was suddenly irradiated by a fire-control radar from the Korean destroyer. A crew member of the P-1 aircraft tried to communicate with the Korean ship in English, saying, “This is Japan Navy. This is Japan Navy. FC antenna is directed to us. What is the purpose of this act? There is nothing wrong for the crew to identify themselves as “Japan Navy” in this kind of communication. But this incident reminded the Japanese public witnessing the video, released by the Ministry of Defense at the end of 2018, that there existed a gap between the reality and the constitutional requirement. Japan has its armed forces while Article 9 of the Constitution prohibits “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potentials.

Implications of Revision of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan on the Defense Policy of Japan

On December 20, 2018, a P-1 patrol aircraft of Japan’s Maritime Defense Force was flying within Japan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Sea of Japan as part of ordinary intelligence collection and warning and surveillance activities, when it observed a destroyer, and a patrol and rescue vessel of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). While photographing the Korean vessels, the Japanese P-1 patrol aircraft was suddenly irradiated by a fire-control radar from the Korean destroyer. A crew member of the P-1 aircraft tried to communicate with the Korean ship in English, saying, “This is Japan Navy. This is Japan Navy. FC antenna is directed to us. What is the purpose of this act? There is nothing wrong for the crew to identify themselves as “Japan Navy” in this kind of communication. But this incident reminded the Japanese public witnessing the video, released by the Ministry of Defense at the end of 2018, that there existed a gap between the reality and the constitutional requirement. Japan has its armed forces while Article 9 of the Constitution prohibits “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potentials.