TOKYO, March 28 -- Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abetalked glowingly and proudly of his country's new security legislation in a recent interview, which ahead of his trip to the United Statesmade reference to new legislation in Japan that will enable it to rescue U.S. forces if they come under attack.

In the interview with the Washington Post released Friday, Abe said the new security legislation that Japan is looking at "is to cope with aggression or infiltration." But for the prime minister, the question must be asked as to what he actually constitutes " aggression" as being?

The prime minister has reiterated many times that there is no worldwide recognized definition of "aggression," and has been criticized many times due to the absurd viewpoint.

When quizzed on the government's definitions of "colonial rule" and "aggression" in the Murayama Statement, the Abe administration replied in a statement on March 20 that it has no reply to the question as there are various definitions of "aggression" internationally.

Due to the same reason, a group of experts in Abe's panel to provide him with advice on crafting his statement for the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII also suggested that the word of " aggression" should not be used in the so-called "Abe Statement."

"I would like to state very clearly that the Abe cabinet upholds the position on the recognition of history of the previous administrations, in its entirety, including the Murayama Statement, " Abe was quoted by the newspaper as saying.

But yet more questions and confusion remain. Surely if Abe has no definition of "aggression," how can he intelligibly, virtuously and honorably uphold the Murayama Statement in its entirety? The 1995 statement said, "Japan ... through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries."

For Abe, as an individual, it is easy to say that historical issues are "a matter of debate" and "it should be left in the hands of historians and experts," but as a politician, even a leader, the remarks are irresponsible since if he has no correct historical perception, he could lead the country in a precarious direction again.

By incessantly hyping of the "China threat" cliche, Abe has explored a way to boost Japan's defense forces by unconstitutionally calling the Self-Defense Forces "our military" and launching the country's first postwar aircraft carrierIzumo which Japan has tried to pass off as a destroyer.

For the region, it is dangerous to have anyone, let alone Japan 's prime minister, running around rabidly and rampantly flexing their muscles without a modicum of understanding as to what constitutes aggression.

Unfortunately, the damage that Abe is causing could impact the lives of the future generations here and without actions, they would suffer from the future fallout from his current errant ways.