Japanese Media Editorial: Pursuing 'War' as a Default Framework Sparks Public Backlash

A November 11 editorial published by Japanese magazine *Fujin Kōron* highlights growing public concern and opposition toward the current government’s defense policy.

The government is revising its “defense strategy,” with the “Three Security Documents” set for update by year-end. The revised framework will explicitly emphasize strengthening “sustained combat capability”—the ability to maintain operations and defense over prolonged conflicts.

The “Three Security Documents” constitute key policy instruments outlining Japan’s defense posture, comprising the *National Security Strategy*, the *National Defense Strategy*, and the *Defense Build-up Plan*. The government plans to finalize revisions before the end of the year, currently undergoing extensive consultations.

A central focus of the revision is the concept of “enduring war capability.” This refers to the Self-Defense Forces’ capacity to sustain operations and defensive readiness in emergency scenarios. In essence, it denotes the logistical endurance required for protracted warfare—specifically, securing adequate stocks of ammunition and precision-guided missiles, maintaining and upgrading military equipment, ensuring fuel reserves, reinforcing defensive infrastructure, and developing essential support systems.

In light of the increasingly tense global security environment, the government frames these capabilities as necessary for enhancing deterrence and preventing armed aggression by other states.

Yet public attention has turned toward remarks previously made by the Prime Minister on social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), particularly regarding the expansion of sustained combat capacity.

A video from a press conference held in December of last year circulated widely across X and other platforms. In it, the Prime Minister referenced the accelerated revision of the “Three Security Documents” and the ongoing situation in Ukraine, stating: “We must strengthen Japan’s ability to sustain combat operations.”

She further explained that this would be financed by increasing national income tax by 1 percentage point starting January 2027. This, she noted, amounts to a de facto “defense tax increase.” However, she also asserted that household financial burdens would not rise, due to an extension of the reduced special reconstruction income tax introduced after the 2011 East Japan earthquake. Indeed, according to her explanation, this “special defense income tax” is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025.

A journalist from the international politics department of a major newspaper stated: “The Prime Minister clearly stated that funds for military spending will come from a 1-percentage-point increase in national income tax beginning January 2027—this is effectively raising defense-related taxes. Yet she argued that household burdens would remain unchanged through extending the lowered rate of the post-earthquake special reconstruction income tax. In fact, this ‘special defense income tax’ is set to begin collection on January 1, 2025.”

Nevertheless, skepticism is mounting online regarding both the push for sustained combat capability and the associated taxation measures linked to military defense. Many citizens express discomfort with the framing, arguing that treating war as an inevitable outcome risks indefinite prolongation.

“What if war continues indefinitely? Shouldn’t we exhaust all efforts to prevent war from breaking out in the first place?”

“Sustained combat capability? Does that mean we must keep fighting even in peacetime?”

“Treating every issue as a prelude to war—this is deeply unsettling.”

Political figures have voiced concern over the government’s drive to enhance sustained combat capacity. Sena Utagawa, a 58-year-old member of the Constitutional Democratic Party’s House of Councillors, posted on X: “Have you forgotten that Japan’s constitution renounces war and upholds peace?” At 41, fellow House of Councillor Taku Yamazoe cited the Russia-Ukraine conflict on X, questioning whether Japan could realistically sustain military operations for four years. He criticized the proposed military buildup as unrealistic, accusing policymakers of being trapped in a fantasy of “military deterrence.”

Amid such strong public and political backlash, former senior officials have issued sharp criticism of the government’s stance. Ichirō Ozawa, 84, former House of Representatives member, posted on X: “They provoke conflicts without authorization, escalating tensions one after another with neighboring countries—evidence of poor diplomatic capacity. They also manipulate state media to stoke public fear, as if war were imminent.”

Furthermore, Ozawa questioned the need for revising the “Three Security Documents,” urging clarity on how long Japan could endure a prolonged war, whether the population could bear such strain, and whether the nation could truly commit to “fight until victory” (a slogan used during World War II, echoing the phrase “we will not stop until we win”).

Thus, the public is urged to reflect critically: What is the real significance of supporting this cabinet?

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881527852863488/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.