Today, on the International Human Rights Day, the Japanese government – i.e. the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito party – approved a draft of the new National Defence Program Outline and the fiscal 2005-2009 midterm defence build-up program. Yesterday it decided to extend for another year the presence of the Self-Defence Forces, SDF, in Iraq.
While every security-related decision these years represents a de facto undermining of its Peace Constitution as well as military build-up and integration with the belligerent Bush administration, Japan has built up neither its intellectual nor its political capabilities proportionately. It remains fundamentally dependent, conveniently vague and acquiescing. The image of Japan as a U.S. aircraft carrier is becoming more and more real.
By and large, the Japanese public opinion is against all this, particularly the presence of the SDF in Iraq. But, Japanese democracy is compatible with a government more loyal with a foreign power than with the opinions and security of its own people. Like, say, Denmark and Italy.
Peace means war – and a web of contradictions
Iraq never threatened Japan, so at the outset one may wonder why Japan needs to be in Iraq to practise its self-defence-only policy. For a country with a peace constitution, it ought to be quite impossible to participate in the US aggression and occupation – not to mention transporting U.S. troops with their weapons and ammunition in and out of Iraq. Due to the decaying security situation in Iraq, Japan will now also co-operate more closely with the British troops – not exactly on humanitarian mission there either.
Prime Minister Junichiro Kouizumi argues that SDF support the Iraqi people’s wish to create a stable, democratic state and thus serve Japan’s best interests. Asahi Shimbun states that ” the government, citing the importance of U.S. ties and the needs of Iraqis, decided Thursday to extend the mission.” It can safely be assumed that Japan is in Iraq for the sake of the U.S. and not for the sake of the Iraqi people or a democracy that will never emerge out of this occupation.
So, by being in Iraq Japan only achieves this: ruining its international goodwill capital because it is on the wrong side in this conflict and increasing the risk of a terrorist attack on its troops in Iraq or on Japan itself. In other words, insecurity policy. The Japanese government’s policy is incompatible with any notion of world peace and welfare for the suffering people in the majority world. It’s incompatible with international law and the principles of both its Constitution and the Charter of the UN.
Add to that just a few of the other militarization issues in the Japanese political air:
– participation in the Theatre Missile Defence (serving only to make nuclear war more winnable for the US);
– liberalization of Japanese arms exports,
– increased integration between official (military) peace-building and development assistance,
– the government’s now officially for the first time defining China as the major future threat,
– the Prime Minister’s lack of empathy with the rest of the world in visiting the Yasukuni Shrine,
– Japan’s fundamental lack of an independent-minded constructive policy vis-à-vis North Korea,
and you have a fairly unpleasant cocktail.
Political correctness – incorrect policies
There is not much debate in Japan about all this. NHK, the major national public service media corporation, has told its viewers more about hungry bears attacking a few individuals in the countryside, about typhoons and corporations’ ownership of baseball teams than about Iraq or the deliberations of the government. An expert in security matters seems to be an interpreter of government reports and statements, not someone who raises issues or criticizes government policies publicly.
Political correctness means everything here – however, the policy is anything but correct. If you want to promote peace in the world, that is.
Simultaneously, Japan wants to be seen as a responsible world actor and pays comparatively much to the UN so it wants a permanent seat in the Security Council. But why should it when it supports a war and an occupation that runs counter to the letter as well as the spirit of that organization?
Keep and eye on Japan – and imagine what it could do instead for true peace
We in the West don’t hear or talk much about the international security role of Japan. If the future, as it looks, means increased Japanese militarism at home and abroad coupled with total submissiveness under the U.S. empire, it’s time we begin to.
However, let’s hope that the public opinion and opposition in Japan gains momentum and the country begins to think and act as a sovereign state. Let’s imagine that Japen moves closer to its regional, much more natural allies and sees the EU as its first partner in the West. Let’s imagine that Japan speaks up against weapons of mass destruction everywhere – no country can do it with more conviction. And let’s hope it becomes the champion of real human security and conflict resolution with peaceful means.
It’s all perfectly possible for a sovereign state. Japan could do it. All it takes is a mature relation with the United States. And then it could become one of the most fascinating and useful members to the world community and a natural leader in the UN Security Council and elsewhere. Indeed, there are few limits to the good Japan could do for the world. If only it chooses to and gets its peace – not war – acts together.
© TFF and the author 2004
