It is no exaggeration to say that Arashiyama is my home garden.
After all, several years ago, I spent 100 days a year photographing spring, summer, fall, and winter in Arashiyama.
I often go there on New Year's Day.
Today was no different.
I was lucky enough to be seated in a four-seater from Kyoto Station.
I was reading the February issue of the monthly magazine Sound Arguments, which went on sale yesterday.
It featured an interview between Ms. Sakurai and Mr. Oda at the beginning of the issue.
As I was reading, I almost cried.
Ms. Sakurai said, "I almost cried listening to it."
It is a must-read not only for the people of Japan but for people all over the world.
Recently, I have often left out reading the monthly magazine "Sound Arguments."
Japanese citizens who can read the printed word must buy this month's issue at their nearest bookstore and read it carefully during the New Year vacations.
The emphasis in the text other than the headline is mine.
Japan, Wake Up! Restore the Spirit of Public Service!
Kunio Oda, Special Professor at Reitaku University and former Air Force General, and journalist Yoshiko Sakurai
-Congratulations to Mr. Oda on winning the 38th "Sound Arguments Award."
The decision to award the prize was unanimous among the judges.
Oda.
It is an honor beyond my means, and I have carried a heavy burden.
From the first to the 37th award, including Dr. Sakurai's, distinguished university professors, cultural figures, and journalists have received the award, but I am just a former Self-Defense Force officer.
The other day, I asked Dr. Sakurai if it was all right for me to receive such an award, and she told me that I should receive it because it would encourage my junior colleagues, which made me feel better.
The other day, I asked Dr. Sakurai if it was appropriate for me to receive such an award, and she said, "You should receive it because it will encourage your junior colleagues," which made me breakthrough.
I am just an alumnus of the JSDF among the intellectual giants above the clouds.
The only thing I can boast about is that I have spent about half of my life, 35 years, on the front lines of national defense, defending my country.
Just as people say that Asahi is for drinking, not reading, I used to think that "Sound Arguments" was for reading, not writing.
Since my only raison d'etre is to be on the front lines for 35 years, I thought that my perspective would be different from that of scholars and journalists, and in 2021 I accepted the invitation to write for the Sankei Shimbun's "Sound Arguments" column.
I never thought I would be awarded the "Sound Arguments Grand Prize," but I am honored.
Sakurai
I said, "for the sake of my juniors," but I also believe that Mr. Oda's award is also for the sake of the senior members of the Self-Defense Forces.
It is hard to realize how fruitless and unrealistic the discussion of national defense has been in the Japanese political arena until now.
As Mr. Hiroomi Kurisu, Chairman of the Joint Staff Council, once said, "Even if we are attacked by surprise by a foreign nation, we cannot move until the prime minister gives the order to mobilize for defense, which means that we cannot protect the people. As a result, we have no choice but to take extrajudicial action to protect them."
The same statement today would not cause any problems, but then-Defense Agency Director General Shin Kanemaru dismissed Mr. Kurisu.
Mr. Kurisu was abused by the progressive forces and was unsuccessful in his bid for the upper house of the Diet, which put a damper on the latter half of his life.
Such a painful and frustrating path of his predecessors led to the current state of Japan.
What Mr. Oda is saying is not only for the sake of his juniors but also to respond to the hardships of his seniors.
You are making an astounding statement as a representative of the Self-Defense Forces, the national armed forces.
Oda.
Thank you very much.
Since September 2021, when I started writing in the Sankei Shimbun's "Sound Arguments" column, I have been concerned about the words of the SDF alumni and juniors, who have said, "You have said it well.
The flip side of "we can't speak up yet" gives me mixed feelings.
Even now, there is what Mr. Jun Eto calls a "closed language space" regarding the military, nuclear weapons, and security, and what is discussed as a matter of course in the U.S. cannot be said.
Immediately after the war, there was indeed a "closed language space," and Mr. Kurisu and others experienced considerable hardship.
Today, one would think this situation would have disappeared, but surprisingly, it has not.
As soon as one hears the words "three non-nuclear principles," there is still a situation where one cannot take a single step forward from there, as if by magic.
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida says, "I am from the A-bombed city of Hiroshima, so that I will uphold the three non-nuclear principles.
It is logically incorrect.
I would agree with him if he said he would uphold the three non-nuclear principles because they are the best policy for protecting the Japanese people. Still, I wonder if he has considered other options before reaching this conclusion.
Who is going to correct the situation where such taboos exist?
The only way is to use the "Sound Arguments" forum to make a statement.
Sakurai.
By the time this dialogue article is published, the three security-related documents are expected to have been revised. Still, the issue of nuclear weapons was not discussed at all in the discussions at the Council of Experts, which is supposed to play a significant role in the revision.
Prime Minister Kishida's statement, "I am from Hiroshima, and I will observe the three non-nuclear principles..." is a completely ridiculous argument that turns the focus away from the nuclear issue.
If as you point out, the three non-nuclear principles can protect the country and its people, but that is not the case.
One more thing, Mr. Kishida is from Hiroshima, but he is the Prime Minister of Japan.
I would like you to think about that.
People tend to think of nuclear weapons as frightening and used for evil purposes, but we must not turn our eyes away from the fact that nuclear weapons are the most excellent deterrent.
We must calmly consider the positive aspects of nuclear weapons' role in our security.
Oda.
After free and vigorous discussion, it would be fine if the three non-nuclear principles were decided upon after considering the overall situation.
Still, the problem is that they are being decided without any discussion.
More than 40 years ago, Ikutaro Shimizu pointed out in his book "Japan, a Nation: The Nuclear Option" that Japan may have a sense of privilege as an "A-bombed nation" and that no country would refrain from nuclear attack just because it is an A-bombed nation.
Are the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and the Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy Reasonable?
Oda.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that some strange things are still in effect.
Take, for example, the concept of "Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy.
Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy" means "to use defensive force only when attacked by an armed opponent.
The UN Charter is similar to this.
However, it goes on to say, "The manner of use of defense force shall be limited to the minimum necessary for self-defense, and the defense force to be maintained shall be limited to the minimum required for self-defense.
It is ridiculous.
The "basis of Japan's defense policy" is an Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy, not to become a military superpower, the three non-nuclear principles, and ensuring civilian control.
Even if we accept an Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy, it is based on the premise that our citizens will be sacrificed or injured.
A policy based on such a premise cannot be a policy.
If that is the premise, then the government's policy must never allow war to occur and to deter it absolutely.
Inevitably, then, solid military power and skillful diplomacy become indispensable.
On the other hand, "not to become a military superpower" includes the phrase "not to become a threat to other countries.
Will deterrence be effective with the minimum necessary military force that does not pose a threat to other nations?
In the first place, "an Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy" and "not to become a military superpower" are contradictory.
No one can complain that the government and the Ministry of Defense proudly uphold this contradictory basic policy.
It was recently agreed by both the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Japan that Japan would have the "ability to counterattack." Still, even there, the phrase "Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy" was used without much thought to its substance, which is incorrect.
To protect the people at all costs, if we adopt the "Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy" position, we must have a strong defense force that will never allow war to break out.
No one says so.
Sakurai.
They stay at the superficial interpretation of words and don't think deeply.
The term "Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy" is probably just thrown around in people's minds as they reflect on the fact that "Japan fought a bad war" by not attacking from our side.
However, politicians and journalists have a responsibility to explain that an exclusively defensive policy presupposes that the people will be sacrificed.
Oda.
Inevitably, Japan's land will become a battlefield.
Sakurai
The "Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy" is based on the premise of sacrificing one's family and friends, and that is fine, isn't it?
As for "minimum necessary," I believe that the Self-Defense Forces are always doing their utmost to dispatch personnel to various areas for disaster relief.
What would happen if they were told, "Please dispatch the minimum necessary personnel for disaster relief"?
If you try to protect the country with the minimum necessary, you may end up in a total collapse if the enemy is unexpectedly strong.
It is the kind of system that could lead to a decision to leave and return, even for disaster relief.
The postwar Japanese lack imagination and their ability to think has deteriorated to the point where they can no longer imagine what reality means.
Oda.
There is a part of the world where politicians know about the irrationality of the "Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy" but turn a blind eye to it.
Even big-name members of the Diet have said in private that a "minimum necessary response" is absurd, but in public, they are not so sure.
It must change the policy of "Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy."
If we cannot change the name of "Exclusively Defense-Oriented Policy," we must redefine what it means.
Without discussing the issue, we think "something is wrong," but we turn a blind eye and swallow it.
It is what politics must refrain from doing.
The same is true of the "three non-nuclear principles." I am sure many Diet members think it would be safer to have nuclear weapons, but they cannot say it out loud. They cannot even discuss it.
I believe that a consensus cannot be reached without free and vigorous debate, but it seems that a "closed language space" still exists.
Sakurai
Mr. Oda's role is similar to that of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
Former Prime Minister Abe said, "The Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency and a Japan-U.S. Alliance contingency."
Many people must have heard this and thought, "Well said!
He also said that we must discuss nuclear weapons, including atomic sharing, and that we must raise defense spending to 2% of GDP.
He threw a ball that we must recognize and discuss.
Likewise, Mr. Oda is looking one step ahead and making proposals that the current members of the Self-Defense Forces are aware of but have yet to be able to say.
I want to express my respect again for that.
Oda.
Mr. Abe has thrown the ball well and created a ripple effect.
In that respect, if I throw the ball poorly, I might be treated as just another right-winger and ignored, so I try to be very careful in my writing, even in "Sound Arguments."
Sakurai.
The basis of national governance seems to shift from the economy to the military.
The need to discuss the military will increase in the future, but it is difficult for us military amateurs to think about the military.
If you can raise more and more specific issues there, they will become seeds and materials for thinking.
This article continues.
2023/1/1 at Arashiyama
