Current Events: Increasing Closet Space for Skeletons: Japan’s Secrecy Law

If there is one thing the year 2013 demonstrated, it is that the adage, “Secrets don’t make friends,” is as true for government as it is for people. Edward Snowden’s revelations of numerous National Security Agency programs, including those where the United States spied on its allies and collected enormous numbers of phone records, has heightened our fear that the government can know everything about us, while we are left knowing very little about it. As a result outrage has spurred demands to review the practices of security agencies, to increase the transparency of those agencies, and to strengthen protections for citizens. How these demands have taken shape in the past few months has varied by nation. In Japan however, it seems to have had the opposite effect.

The same week Angela Merkel sharply responded to allegations that the NSA had tapped her phone, Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, introduced a new secrecy bill to the Diet. Although the bill allowed a number of ministries to label information as secret while only vaguely defining what constitutes a secret, it called for harsher penalties for those who released state secrets (up to 10 years in prison), and included no oversight body. It quickly became law on December 6, 2013.

The public reaction? Not so hot. Thousands of protestors filled the streets surrounding the Diet before the law passed, and many in media and academia, including Nobel Prize winners, continue to attack what they believe is a threat to democracy. The law even had some opposition party members breaking with Japanese cultural norms (possibly after taking pointers from England’s Prime Minister’s Questions sessions) when they started yelling and accosting other members in an attempt to postpone a vote. As a result, polls taken after the bill passed show a considerable drop in Mr. Abe’s approval rating.

Mr. Abe’s government has responded to the criticism by arguing that the law is necessary for Japan’s new U.S.-modeled National Security Council to function properly. More importantly, he suggests the new law benefits national security in that it dissuades “people and entities from helping foreign countries seeking to obtain such information” and increases the amount of intelligence other countries are willing to share. Although if it’s any consolation (it’s not), Mr. Abe now admits that perhaps more should have been done to educate the public and assuage their fears.

In a larger context this law can be seen as an extension of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s more nationalistic policies. Most are familiar with Article 9 of Japan’s post World War II constitution, in which Japan renounces war and the means to conduct it. However, what is not consistently mentioned, although apparent given the historical context, is that Japan’s constitution attempts to keep power centered in the Diet, rather than in the hands of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Yet, throughout his time as Prime Minister, Mr. Abe and his political party, the Liberal Democratic Party, have pursued policies that both move away from the pacifist nature of Japan’s constitution and offer the Prime Minister and his Cabinet room to operate independently of the Diet. An expansion in the role of Japan’s Special Defense Force, an increase in the Prime Minister’s functions, and the recent enactments of a National Security Council and this law support his policy aims. Mr. Abe sees all of the above as being critical to quickly confront crises, especially those that may occur due to the escalating tensions in East Asia, tensions that these moves ironically also heighten.

To be fair Mr. Abe is not the only one welcoming these changes. The United States government for a long time has pushed Japan to move into a direction where responsibility of the nation’s defense is shared. President Obama’s White House has also welcomed the current law and it should come as no surprise that Japan’s National Security Council’s first direct hotlines will be with the United States and Britain. Given Mr. Snowden’s leaks, the close relationship between the Japanese and American governments may just validate the public’s concern for potential abuses by the government.

Returning to Mr. Snowden, it appears his actions then have had little effect on Mr. Abe’s policy aims. The same cannot be said for the effect on the public; it has revived the argument worldwide that citizens have a right to know what their government is doing. At bare minimum the right to know what safeguards and policies will be put in place to protect their rights. As of now this law’s vague definition of a secret and a lack of oversight only work to intensify the public’s fear. It should go without saying that Japan has a history that supports such fears. If 2013 taught us the damage secrets can cause, perhaps as a New Year’s resolution for 2014, we, rather than our governments, can set the example and pursue a year of honesty and transparency.

Sean Mulvihill