This year's defense white paper, released last week, specifically calls for both quantitative and qualitative improvement in SDF capabilities, including weapons replacement and modernization under the midterm defense-buildup program. More significantly, it points to a need to enact contingency legislation to facilitate military activities in the event of aggression against Japan. Clearly, the message is that Japan should build a more efficient defense force.

It is natural that the defense authorities should try to improve SDF capabilities. However, that should be only part of the nation's efforts to protect its territorial integrity and the safety of its people. Ensuring national security requires a comprehensive strategy, including efforts for conflict prevention. In the absence of such a strategy, there is something disquieting about the emphasis the report places on SDF buildup.

The latest defense white paper, published in the milestone year of 2001, is of special significance. As expected, it looks back to the past century, which witnessed so much confrontation and turmoil throughout the world, and explores the prospects for peace and stability in the 21st century. Specifically, it analyzes the military situation in the Asia Pacific region in the second half of the 20th century and attempts to forecast how it will develop in the years ahead.

Of particular interest is how the report looks at the future of the Asia Pacific situation. First, it is held unlikely, if not unthinkable, that confrontation between nations will lead immediately to a wider confrontation involving other nations. In other words, the possibility of a Cold War-style faceoff occurring in the region is considered to be very small. The implication is positive: There is a good prospect of eliminating the remaining Cold War structure and building a solid basis for stability in this region.

On the other hand, the report says that the possibility of two groups of nations squaring off -- one group centering on the United States and the other comprising nations seeking a multipolarization of the world, such as China and Russia -- "cannot be ruled out" in the long run. In this regard, it is worth noting that the report devotes considerable space to China, indicating a wariness of that country's military buildup.

The annual report's cautious approach in analyzing the Asia Pacific situation is basically correct because potential trouble spots remain in this region. It is disappointing, however, that the report only analyzed the situation. It could have gone a step further and expressed at least a willingness to build a regional framework for achieving long-term peace and stability through conflict prevention.

Regarding contingency legislation, the defense report says it is "something that should be kept ready even under normal circumstances." That is in line with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's statement in his inaugural policy speech that his administration will "continue studies" with the aim of enacting such legislation. But whether such a policy will gain strong public support or not is a different question.

Many Japanese wonder why Japan needs "emergency legislation" at a time when there is no immediate tension in surrounding areas and when, by all indications, no nation is contemplating, still less planning, a direct military attack on Japanese territory. They also have their doubts about its conformity to the pacifist principles of the Constitution. To convince the skeptics, the government needs to offer a credible explanation, not just matter-of-fact assurances that any such law will be enacted within the framework of the national charter.

The government also needs to do a lot of explaining about the right to collective self-defense, an issue that is looming large in connection with Japan's response to the U.S. missile-defense plan. The official position on this issue is that Japan has this right under international laws but is prohibited from exercising it under the Constitution.

The defense report, while confirming this interpretation, hints at the possibility that it might be modified. It carries a government reply to an opposition leader that the constitutional interpretation "may be studied from various angles, although (the government) must be careful about changing it." Thus the report effectively acknowledges the need for such studies, including a possible revision to the interpretation.

This is a divisive issue that touches the heart of the nation's basic defense policy, which imposes strict limits on the use of force under the Constitution. Consequently, this issue must be handled with utmost caution. But caution is not enough. It must also be discussed thoroughly in the context of a well-defined security strategy.