Four years have passed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
During that time, Japan has debated expanding its defense capabilities and easing restrictions on arms exports.
At the same time, thousands of Ukrainians have found temporary refuge in Japan under a complementary protection framework.
Both discussions use the same word:
Security.
But do they mean the same thing?
1. Security as Deterrence
In policy debates, security is often framed in terms of military capability.
- Strengthen alliances
- Increase defense spending
- Expand arms exports
- Enhance deterrence
From this perspective, security is about preventing external threats through strength.
It is a logic of state survival.
And it is not inherently wrong.
Every sovereign state has the right — and responsibility — to protect its citizens from armed aggression.
2. Security as Human Protection
Yet security has another dimension.
The Ukrainian families now living in Japan are not abstract geopolitical actors.
They are parents, children, workers, students.
They fled missiles.
They fled destruction.
They fled fear.
For them, security is not about deterrence.
It is about:
- A stable place to live
- Access to education
- Work opportunities
- Dignity
This is security at the human level.
3. The Hidden Tension
Here is the tension:
If we define security only as military strength,
we risk overlooking the security of people.
If we define security only as humanitarian protection,
we risk ignoring geopolitical realities.
Public discourse often separates these domains.
Defense policy is treated as one conversation.
Refugee protection as another.
But they are not separate.
They are two responses to the same global instability.
4. The Balanced Coexistence Perspective
The Balanced Coexistence Model does not choose one side.
It asks a different question:
Can a nation strengthen deterrence while also strengthening human protection?
True security is layered.
- National security — protection from armed threats.
- Social security — protection from exclusion and instability.
- Human security — protection of dignity and life.
If any layer is ignored, the structure becomes fragile.
A country that exports weapons but fails to protect refugees undermines moral legitimacy.
A country that welcomes refugees but neglects social integration risks internal backlash.
Balance is not softness.
It is structural stability.
5. The Deeper Question
Security is not merely about what we defend against.
It is about what we defend for.
Are we protecting territory?
Or are we protecting a way of life grounded in human dignity?
If the answer is the latter,
then refugee protection is not separate from national security.
It is part of it.
6. Beyond the False Choice
The global trend today is polarization.
Some argue:
“Close borders. Prioritize national strength.”
Others insist:
“Open doors. Prioritize humanitarian values.”
The Balanced Coexistence Model rejects this binary.
Security must not become a justification for exclusion.
Humanitarianism must not become detached from institutional realism.
A stable society requires both deterrence and inclusion.
7. Toward an Integrated Concept of Security
In a world of war, migration, and political polarization,
the question is no longer whether we need security.
The question is:
What kind of security will define us?
If security becomes fear institutionalized,
society contracts.
If security becomes dignity protected,
society stabilizes.
The future will depend not on how loudly we speak of security,
but on how wisely we define it.