A package of legislation that would enable Japan to engage in collective self-defense and significantly expand the scope of Self-Defense Forces' overseas missions has finally reached the Diet. The bills would change Japan's postwar defense posture under the Constitution's war-renouncing Article 9 — which limited the nation's military action to defense-only defense, or repelling an enemy attack on the country with minimum necessary force. Yet it can hardly be thought that the public sufficiently understands and supports the move.

The package consists of two bills — one to amend 10 laws, including the SDF Law, the law that defines Japan's response to armed attacks, the 1999 law on logistic support for the U.S. military in contingencies in areas surrounding Japan and the 1992 law that paved the way for Japan's participation in United Nations-led peacekeeping operations.

The other is brand-new blanket legislation that would pave the way for Japan to provide logistic support for other forces engaged in military operations to secure international peace and security.

In a Cabinet decision in July last year, the Abe administration altered the government's long-standing interpretation of the Constitution to lift the self-imposed ban on collective self-defense — so that Japan can take military action to defend an ally under attack even when the nation itself is not being attacked. The government and the ruling coalition of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito have since been holding talks on the legislation that would implement the Cabinet decision.

Members of the administration say that Japan needs to take such steps in the face of radical changes in the security environment in Asia and the rest of the world, in which it is increasingly difficult for a nation to protect itself by acting alone. They have brushed aside concerns that these measures, by expanding Japan's international security role, would increase the risk of getting involved in military conflicts, and insist that the steps will instead make the nation safer. Abe told a news conference Thursday that the proposed legislation would make it less likely for Japan to come under enemy attack.

A large part of the public, as indicated by media opinion polls, does not seem convinced. One apparent reason behind this wariness is that the proposed legislation — which aims to enable Japan to respond to all possible situations from peacetime to military contingencies in a seamless manner — does not set clear parameters on the scope of SDF overseas missions, thereby failing to dispel concerns that such operations could expand without limit.

Last year's Cabinet decision — which these bills essentially follow — said the "use of force to a minimum extent" by Japan would be permitted "not only when an armed attack against Japan occurs but also when an armed attack against a foreign country that is in a close relationship with Japan occurs and, as a result, threatens Japan's survival and poses a clear danger to fundamentally overturn the people's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" and "when there is no other appropriate means available to repel the attack and ensure Japan's survival and protect its people."

But the difference that emerged even within the ruling coalition over what specific situations would constitute a "threat to Japan's survival" was never fully addressed in the coalition talks. Abe and other LDP leaders said Japan would be able to take part in an operation to sweep mines in the Strait of Hormuz in a contingency in the Middle East on the grounds that disruption in the supply of oil from the region would put Japan's survival in danger. Komeito leaders argued otherwise, but no effort was made in the talks to sort out such gaps — which testifies to the vague nature of the conditions that could initiate Japanese military action in collective self-defense.

In the end, it would be left to the judgment of the administration in power whether any particular situation "threatens Japan's survival" or whether there is "no other means" than military action to cope with the situation.

The revision to the 1999 law on logistic cooperation with the U.S. military, originally created with possible contingencies in and around the Korean Peninsula in mind, eliminates the geographical boundaries on SDF support missions, which has so far been limited to undefined "areas surrounding Japan." The amended law would pave the way for SDF logistic support for U.S. forces and even other militaries in the event of overseas emergencies that "gravely impact Japan's peace and security" — with no geographical limitations.

The guidelines on Japan-U.S. defense cooperation, updated last month for the first time in 18 years along the lines of the proposed security legislation, will, in the words of U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, "help the two countries respond flexibly to the full scope of challenges that we face in the Asia-Pacific and around the globe." It would be left to the government's judgment whether a situation "gravely affects Japan's peace and security" — irrespective of where it's happening. It literally expands the potential scope of Japan-U.S. defense cooperation on a global scale.

The proposed blanket law would allow for dispatch of the SDF to support other forces engaged in military operations coping with "threats to peace and security of the international society." This is unlike past such Japanese missions dispatched on the basis of ad-hoc laws created for refueling ships in the Indian Ocean for coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S. and reconstruction and transport operations related to the Iraq War.

The new law would take SDF missions to a new dimension. While previously the SDF was deployed only to what were defined as "noncombat zones" or "rear areas" to set them clearly apart from forces engaged in combat missions, under the proposed law the SDF could be ordered to provide support for other forces except at the scene of actual fighting. It would significantly increase the risk of SDF personnel on such missions to be considered to be an integral part of the use of force by the other militaries engaged in combat duties — even though the government says the proposed law guarantees against it.

In his historic address to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress last month, Abe declared that Japan is "resolved to take yet more responsibility for the peace and stability of the world." But the way Japan goes about doing that needs to be endorsed by the Diet. On the back of his ruling alliance's dominant grip on the majority, the Abe administration says it's determined to get the security legislation enacted during the current Diet session by extending its term through August. It's inappropriate to set a deadline on the deliberations on a set of legislation of such magnitude even before debate begins. The bills need to be thoroughly scrutinized and all problematic elements corrected.