Asia Centre

The opposition seized on two scandals to hold up the start of debate in the Upper Chamber. The one concerned a case of corruption implicating Moriya Takemasa, a former administrative Head of the Ministry of Defence. This was the fact that the fuel supplied by the the Self-Defence Forces in the Indian Ocean went to ships that were used by the United States in Iraq (an “association with the use of force”, forbidden by article 9 of the Constitution) without the SDF informing their Minister.

The Minshutō indicated in October that it was hoping that the SDF would take part in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF, mandated by the ONU under NATO supervision) and that they would give food and medical aid, as well bolster administrative and police structures[1]. It also proposed sending non-uniformed SDF members, attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as part of civilian regional action groups, once favourable conditions had been created to enable civilians to be sent[2]. The proposal, made on 21 December, “for the eradication and the prevention of international terrorism and to help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan” (“kokusaitekina terorizumu no bōshi oyobi konzetsu no tame no afuganisutan fukkōshientō ni kansuru tokubetsusochihōan”) restricts the deployment of the SDF to those regions where there is a ceasefire in place and to providing humanitarian aid. Supply of oil would be a possibility if based on a United Nations Security Council resolution. The SDF are given the right to use their weapons to remove an obstacle that would otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their mission (something excluded by the law as it stands at present)[3].

Public opinion, although in favour of the government’s draft bill, does not want it to be rushed through Parliament[4]. It would, however, have understood the need for this if the Minshutō had appeared to be just stonewalling for the sake of it. The Minshutō therefore resolved to put its own proposal to the House, although this is highly unlikely to get through as the Party has only a relative majority of seats (fewer than 121). In any case, the government and some NGOs are already engaged in civilian humanitarian aid work, and ceasefires or UN resolutions seem rather unlikely.[5].

The subject of Japan’s role in the fight against terrorism in the Indian Ocean was raised during Mr Fukuda’s visit to the United States on 16 November, and later during the visit to Tōkyō by the secretary-general of NATO. The government is not in principle opposed to participating in the ISAF which would enable Japan to put in place the closer cooperation NATO is hoping for.  aux États-Unis le 16 novembre, puis lors de la visite du secrétaire général de l’Otan à Tōkyō. Le gouvernement n’est pas opposé au principe d’une participation à l’ISAF qui permettrait au Japon de mettre en œuvre la coopération plus étroite à laquelle il aspire avec l’Otan.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was in Tōkyō on 13 December for his second visit after first being there in April 2005. Meanwhile, Abe Shinzō and the Defence Minister, Kyūma Fumio, had gone to Brussels, in January and May respectively. High-level discussions were also held in Tōkyō in March, part of an ongoing series that have taken place on a regular basis since 1990. Japan has observer status for some NATO exercises, and also takes part in some of its seminars (on proliferation, and assistance to Afghanistan, for example). It participates in twelve of the projects carried out by NATO’s regional reconstruction teams, and in December sent an officer to liaise with NATO’s representative in Kabul.

The situation in Afghanistan and Iraq shows that the United States is now finding it impossible to be the sole guardians of the international community. The US president began the war in Afghanistan with the declaration that he did not need a UN resolution because it was a legitimate war of self-defence. But in fact they did not act alone and sought the help of the international community. World peace cannot be achieved without the combined forces of all, as laid out in the UN charter.

If Japan is to be a true ally of the US, she must tell the Americans (and it would be the same with any other ally) that they must behave as a leading member of the international community. And to that end, it is absolutely essential that Japan herself should make every effort to share the responsibility for keeping world peace. That has been my position since the Gulf War in 1990, when I was general secretary of the LDP. Japanese people are still not sufficiently aware of this necessity.

To get back to the «problems» in my statement picked up by the article named above, I have never said that Japan should not take part in the fight against terrorism. I just think that the Self Defence Forces must not be deployed overseas unconditionally. In accordance with the terms of article 9 of the Constitution, Japan must not use force to settle an international dispute. According to established interpretations, the deployment of the SDF is only permitted in cases of legitimate self-defence or if there is a fear that Japan might be attacked in connection with a crisis in the surrounding area. But the Japanese Constitution also expresses an aspiration towards peace and a respected place in the international community. That is why we must play an active role in UN operations. The Cabinet Legislation Bureau (CLB) still holds to this day that even actions under UN auspices fall into the category of legitimate collective defence, and that consequently Japanese participation in any operations authorised by article 42, chapter 7 of the UN charter (military or peace-keeping operations) would be unconstitutional. Since all the states taking part in the Afghan operation do so in the name of legitimate collective defence, how could we have taken part? At the time of the first Gulf War, when I believed that, without sending any armed units, we could provide logistics for equipment and medicine, the CLB and the different ministries were opposed to it, on the grounds that even logistical support constituted an «association with armed force» [an exercise enabling the use of force]. So what does the CLB say now about deployment in Afghanistan or Iraq? The Liberal Democrat government says that it is not a matter of using force or making war[1]. For my part, I believe that Japan must not send troops to fight for the legitimate self-defence of another state, whether that is the United States or any other country. On the other hand I am still convinced that participating in the actions of the UN, even when they involve the use of force, is not contrary to the spirit of the Constitution [...] [Essentially] UN peace-keeping actions take precedence over legitimate self-defence, which is a matter of national sovereignty.

The article goes on to argue that there are no legal provisions governing the interpretation of the right to collective defence or the use of armed force overseas, but since they are covered by accepted international standards there is no particular need for legal quibbles.

It then went on to claim that there was no agreement in the Minshutō on these issues, but this clearly shows that he had not read the policy statement which we published in December 2006[2].

Moreover, the fight against terrorism is not just a matter of American military operations. This fight mainly calls for a resolute approach, involving a close watch on developing countries and the movement of funds. If we enter into government, we will participate in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

The government claimed that after the September 19th resolution renewing its mandate, the UN praised Japan’s contribution to its actions. But the naval units of the Self Defence Force are not working with ISAF but with the American military’s self-defence operations. Our position is that they must be part of joint forces like ISAF which participates in UN operations.

As for the argument that any decision to participate in UN actions provided they are authorised by the international community, means that there would be nothing to prevent sending SDF units to Iraq on the basis of the special law of 2003, since this claims in turn to be based on the UN resolution authorising a multinational army of occupation [sic], it is mistaken on two counts. Firstly, resolution 1483, which is the basis for that law, did not authorise the creation of a multinational army but only actions to maintain order through the agency of the United States and the United Kingdom. Secondly, although I do maintain that we must participate in actions based on UN resolutions, that does not mean that we could do absolutely anything on the grounds that it was allowed by the Constitution. Even when a resolution has been passed, the government ought to decide on each occasion whether to participate or not, and in what way and to what extent.

The Iraq war took the form of an attack by American and British troops, in spite of the opposition from France, Russia, and China. The ensuing failure of the occupation has plunged Iraqi society into chaos. The United States, which began the war on its own, has found itself obliged to seek international co-operation. This is the only reason behind the series of resolutions on the rebuilding of Iraq.