だいぶ久しぶりにブログを更新します。最近、ForesightやNewsweek、文春オンラインやJanetといったウェブ媒体に書く機会が増えたので、なかなかブログに書く時間がなくて恐縮です。
2017年の年の瀬でクリスマスの直前なのに、中国のCGTNから出演の依頼があったので、スカイプで出る事になりました。たぶんやり取りする時間は3分間くらいなので、言いたいことも言えないと思いますが、とりあえず、先方から来た質問とそれに対する私の回答を書いておきます。中国側がどんな関心を持っているかの参考にもなるかと思います。
本日（2017年12月23日）日本時間20:00からの番組で放送予定です。ライブはオンラインで試聴出来ます。https://www.cgtn.com/channel/en.do
Q1: Some experts think that the Abe administration is using the DPRK threat as leverage to upgrade its defense system and expand the country's military power. What's your take on Abe's intention?
You may call it "leverage", but there is a genuine fear among Japanese people to do something for preventing DPRK's missile. The sound of J-Alert is scary for most of people. Japan has pledged not to repeat the atrocity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we don't have means to deter DPRK's nuclear missiles. So the best effort is to shoot them down.
Also, there is a pressure from the United States to buy more armaments. Japan needs to strengthen the alliance especially when the leader of the ally is so unpredictable as President Trump. We need to make sure that the US is committed to defend Japan, otherwise we would not have assured deterrence against DPRK.
For these two reasons, it is widely accepted to increase the spending on missile defense system such as Aegis Ashore. I don't think it is unilateral push from the Abe Administration. It is a government response to the demand from its own people and the US pressure.
Introducing long-range missile may be a step beyond traditional defense policy of Japan, but many Japanese feel that we don't want to DPRK and China to take advantage of the lack of Japanese offensive capability. The government explains that the long-range missile is still a "defensive weapons" because Japanese government defines that ballistic missile, strategic bombers, and aircraft carriers are the offensive weapons to attack other countries. So the air-to-surface missile or cruise missiles are not defined as offensive weapons.
Q2: The increase in Japan's defense spending can worsen regional tensions. Some experts suggest stepping back rather than building up the country's arms. What's your take on this?
I think it is quite the opposite. Deterrence needs credibility. If Japan does not have its deterring capabilities, it won't make a credible threat to DPRK. Since Japan does not have capability to strike DPRK's soil and it does not have intention to do so, the only possible deterrence is the deterrence by denial, which means that DPRK's missile attack on Japan will be useless because we shoot them down. If there is a belief that DPRK's missile will be shot down by Japanese missile defense, then it would increase the cost for DPRK to attack Japan.
This deterrence by denial capability, together with the US and South Korean forces, will constitute the deterring capability for DPRK to refrain from taking first strike. Thus, it is reasonable for Japan to increase defense budget especially on missile defense.
本日（2017年12月23日）日本時間20:00からの番組で放送予定です。ライブはオンラインで試聴出来ます。https://www.cgtn.com/channel/en.do
