I. Introduction
A. Background Information
B. Thesis Statement
II. The current situation of the Security Alliance
A. Purpose of the Alliance
B. Japan’s support for US bases
1. Okinawa bases
2. Omoiyari Yosan
3. US economic bargaining
III. The problems with the Alliance
A. Japan’s dilemma between the Constitution Article 9 and US nuclear deterrent
B.Suspicion raised in the East Asia Pacific region
C. Biased political cooperation
1. Japan’s refueling in the Indian Ocean
2. Dispatch of SDF to Iraq
IV. Solution
A. The United Nations
1. Ideology
2. Mechanism
B. Japan’s contribution to the United Nations
V. Conclusion
Minako Hayashi s101065
Prof. James
Theme Writing
February 21, 2008
Japan’s Foreign Policy:
Weakening the US-Japan Security Alliance and enhancing the United Nations
I. Introduction
At the beginning of this year, there were debates about whether Japan should continue refueling American ships in the Indian Ocean. The debates were controversial because Japan’s refueling did not mean Japan’s mere support for the US activity but also support for “war against terrorism”. The USA uses the oil given by Japan to fight against terrorists in Afghanistan. Even if Japan does not participate in the actual combats, refueling the American ships indirectly encourages the war. Japan is almost in the same situation in the matter of the Iraq War led by the USA and Japan’s support by dispatch of the SDF to Iraq. Even though many Japanese may not agree with the US position about the Afghanistan War and Iraq War, Japan is under pressure to continue the refueling because rejecting the US expectation may damage the US-Japan Security Alliance between the two countries. However, compliance with the US decision is not the only choice and this paper proposes an alternative solution to the problem. Japan should weaken the US-Japan alliance and focus its foreign policy on the United Nations in order to establish its credible and autonomous international status.
II. Current situation of the Security Alliance
The US-Japan Security Alliance was agreed during the Cold War. At the time, the United Nations did not function well in protecting a country in times of emergency because Russia and the USA exercised veto in the Security Council. Japan, which had no army or self defense force at the time, was vulnerable in that situation. If left alone, Japan could be Russia’s target to expand the communist territory, and, the USA chose to defend Japan under the US-Japan Security Alliance (Shibata 164). Therefore, the alliance was signed as a temporary means of protecting Japan during the Cold War, and it was thought to be unnecessary and to end when the Cold War ended and the United Nations started to work as World’s security operator. To people’s unexpectation, however, the alliance lasted after the end of the Cold War. This is because the alliance was still beneficial to both countries even in the new World order.
During the Cold War, protecting Japan itself was beneficial to the US benefit as well as to Japan in order to sustain the US power in the World against Russia. However, when there was no longer communist threat over Japan, the US morale to defend Japan was weaker. The USA protecting Japan and Japan enjoying the security guarantee by its ally seemed asymmetrical to many, especially to Americans. In order to balance the alliance, Japan offered areas of Japan’s land for US bases which enabled operation of the US forces in times of contingencies in East Asia and the Middle East, as well as in Japan. As well as lending land, Japan backs the US protection of Japan by offering financial support. This is called Omoiyari funding. Omoiyari means considerate and kind, indicating that the funding is not given to serve a specific purpose but the USA can use the funds whenever and wherever necessary. In addition, Japan allows US economic bargaining. For example, the USA often imposes high tariff on products imported from Japan whereas in the other direction, the tariff barrier is usually lower (Difilippo 135). In spite of Japan’s efforts to compensate for its lack of participation in maintaining security in its country, some still criticize Japan as a “free rider” (Kliman 134). Whether the criticism that Japan takes a free ride and that the USA has a disadvantageous burden, is correct or not depends on stance. However, one thing that is true about the alliance is that, at the present, the USA has the upper hand, and Japan has been cautious about internalizing US expectations or demands from fear of being abandoned.
III. Problems with the Alliance
As explained above, the alliance has persisted because of benefits to both countries. In other words, the alliance exists to enhance their national interests. However, their national interests do not always match with the benefit of all countries in the world. Pursuing the national interests brought by the alliance could degrade the world’s overall order as a result. Because of the alliance, Japan, now, faces three main dilemmas between national interests and world-wide security.
First, the US nuclear deterrent contradicts Japan’s stance that all nuclear weapons in the World should be abolished (Osius 66). Japan is the only country that has experienced the devastation of nuclear weapons, and therefore Japan should continue to send the message and encourage other countries to dismantle the nuclear weapons that they possess. However, the fact that Japan relies on the US nuclear deterrent as the ultimate solution undermines Japan’s persuasiveness.
Second, the alliance and the presence of the US forces in Japan’s land itself raises suspicion in the East-Asia Pacific region. The 1997 Revised Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation allowed the operation of the USA and Japan in the “areas surrounding Japan” in times of emergency (Huges 200). This expanded operability derives from the belief that the countries around Japan are “dangerous” and have to be watched. The attitude of Japan and the USA towards Japan’s neighbor countries makes them wary, and prevents Japan and surrounding countries from fostering friendly relationship. China fears that the US forces may be waiting to interfere with the matters of Taiwan. Also, North Korea is cautious about US actions because the US might assist South Korea to absorb North Korea that is a “trouble-maker”. The joint research between the USA and Japan on “Theater Missile Defense” amazed the surrounding countries especially. The system of the Theater Missile Defense has been developed in order to stop missiles being dropped on Japan, not to attack or retaliate against an enemy. However, whatever the intention, it has given the message that Japan and the USA are ready to act against possible attacks (Difilippo 70).
Last, the most important point is that the criteria used to judge the “enemy” to act upon cooperatively under the alliance is often biased. Usually, the judgment on who the enemy is depends on the country’s perspective such as national interest, and there is rarely an absolute enemy. Therefore, judgment on the “enemy” worth being eliminated should be made based on deep consideration from many different perspectives. Cooperative actions between the USA and Japan reflect only two countries’ opinions and may serve their interests only. In many cases it is not even two countries’ common opinion, but it is the US opinion only and Japan follows it because Japan wants to maintain the alliance. Examples are the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. Japan is not so much concerned about Afghanistan and Iraq, but Japan is concerned more with endorsing US opinion, whether it is right or not. Although Japan’s support for the USA in these areas was prohibited by the Constitution Article 9 originally, the interpretation of the Constitution was expanded to meet the expectation of the USA. The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law was passed to allow Japan to refuel the US ships in the Indian Ocean, and the Iraq bill was passed to legitimatize the SDF humanitarian activities in rear areas in Iraq (Tamura 146). In order to have its own opinion and contribute to world peace, Japan should not overemphasize the security alliance. As seen so far, Japan’s national interests from the security alliance obstructs the achievement of world order, and therefore, Japan should shift its weight from the bilateral policy with the USA to a more international and multilateral organization.
IV. Solution
Japan should revitalize the United Nations and participate more in its activities as well as weakening the US-Japan alliance because of the ideology and the mechanism of the organization.
The United Nations was established so as not to repeat the tragedy of the First World War and the Second World War. The goal is world peace, and the unit is the world, not sovereign states. Therefore, global security is prioritized over national interests of sovereign states. In addition, the United Nations is basically opposed to using armed forces to solve problems as armed forces caused the Wars. The organization aims to maintain world peace by collective security. The system of collective security enables all members of the United Nations to impose a sanction on a country which has taken rogue action, such as trying to invade another country. The sanctions against a “dangerous” country start with political and economical ones. Military sanctions are the last option and they are imposed only when the “dangerous” country does not respond to the ultimatum (Shibata 164).
The mechanism of the United Nations guarantees neutrality to a great extent, though not completely. Every country, whether it is powerful or not, has one vote in the General Assembly, meaning that any member of the organization has an equal opportunity to express its position in theory. The decisions taken by the United Nations, therefore, are more likely to be consensus among the members, rather than biased conviction.
Although the system of the United Nations has more potential to accomplish and maintain peace than the US-Japan security alliance, its multilateral framework still has flaws that need to be improved in order that it functions well enough as the powerful coordinator of the world. Therefore, Japan should proactively support the enhancement of the organization by from financial assistance to humanitarian one. One way is to spread the anti-nuclear movement even more. Another is to give economical support. Japan has been the number one contributor to ODA since around 1990, and Japan should continue this support in the future too. Last, Japan should participate in Peace Keeping Operation activities more as logistical and humanitarian supporters within the constraints of the Constitution Article 9, showing that Japan is not a country of “checkbook diplomacy” as it was once called (Ikezawa 39). As well as supporting the United Nations, Japan should augment its own influence within the multilateral framework by becoming a permanent member of the Security Council.
V. Conclusion
The USA pledged to protect Japan under the US-Japan Security Treaty during the Cold War and this alliance has persisted since then due to the benefits that the two countries give to each other under the treaty. However, Japan which is in weaker position has been careful about meeting US expectations to sustain the relationship. Although the alliance gives Japan security, it places Japan in dilemma between its national interests and global security. The concern with maintaining the alliance has prevented Japan from taking its own decision which it thinks is the best for the overall world. To get out of the dilemma, Japan should keep more distance from America and place more importance on the United Nations. Japan should revitalize this potential multilateral framework by endorsing it economically and politically, and also by boosting Japan’s influence within the organization. At the present, the refueling in the Indian Ocean for the war in Afghanistan is continuing, and some SDF members are still working in Iraq. In order that Japan shifts its foreign policy, Japan should end the refueling and return the SDF from Iraq to Japan. (1883 words)
Works Cited
Difilippo, Anthony. The challenges of the US-Japan military arrangement: competing security transitions in a changing international environment. New York: M.E.Sharpe, 2002.
Huges, Christopher W. Japan’s Security Agenda: Military, Economic & Environmental Dimensions. New York: Lynne Rienner, 2004.
Ikezawa, Natsuki. I don’t know about the Constitution. Tokyo: Shueisha, 2003.
Kliman, Daniel M. Japan’s security strategy in the post-9/11 world. New York: Praeger, 2006.
Osius, Ted. The US-Japan security alliance: why it matters and how to strengthen it. New York: Praeger, 2002.
Shibata, Yoshinobu. Politics and Economy. Tokyo: Hamajima, 2005.
Tamura, Shigenobu, and Yoshio Suginoo. Japan’s Security. Tokyo: Huyou, 2004.
2008年2月21日木曜日
2008年2月9日土曜日
Minor Assignment 8: Full-length Draft
Japan’s foreign policy:
Weakening the US-Japan Security Alliance and enhancing the United Nations
At the beginning of this year, there were debates about whether Japan should continue refueling American ships in the Indian Ocean. The debates were controversial because Japan’s refueling did not mean Japan’s mere support for the US activity but also support for “war against terrorism”. The USA uses the oil given by Japan to fight against terrorists in Afghanistan. Even if Japan does not participate in the actual combats, refueling the American ships indirectly encourages the war. Japan is almost in the same situation in the matter of the Iraq War led by the USA and Japan’s support by the SDF dispatch. Even though Japan does not necessarily agree with the US position about the Afghanistan War and Iraq War, Japan is under pressure to continue the refueling because rejecting the US expectation may damage the US-Japan Security Alliance between the two countries. However, compliance with the US decision is not the only choice and this paper proposes an alternative solution to the problem. Japan should weaken the US-Japan alliance and focus its foreign policy on the United States in order to establish its credible and autonomous international status.
Weakening the US-Japan Security Alliance and enhancing the United Nations
At the beginning of this year, there were debates about whether Japan should continue refueling American ships in the Indian Ocean. The debates were controversial because Japan’s refueling did not mean Japan’s mere support for the US activity but also support for “war against terrorism”. The USA uses the oil given by Japan to fight against terrorists in Afghanistan. Even if Japan does not participate in the actual combats, refueling the American ships indirectly encourages the war. Japan is almost in the same situation in the matter of the Iraq War led by the USA and Japan’s support by the SDF dispatch. Even though Japan does not necessarily agree with the US position about the Afghanistan War and Iraq War, Japan is under pressure to continue the refueling because rejecting the US expectation may damage the US-Japan Security Alliance between the two countries. However, compliance with the US decision is not the only choice and this paper proposes an alternative solution to the problem. Japan should weaken the US-Japan alliance and focus its foreign policy on the United States in order to establish its credible and autonomous international status.
The US-Japan Security Treaty was agreed during the Cold War. At the time, the United Nations did not function well in protecting a country in times of emergency because Russia and the USA exercised veto in the Security Council. Japan, which had no army or self defense force at the time, was vulnerable in that situation. If left alone, Japan could be Russia’s target to expand the communist territory, and, the USA chose to defend Japan under the US-Japan Security Alliance. Therefore, the treaty was signed as a temporary means of protecting Japan during the Cold War, and it was thought to be unnecessary and to end when the Cold War ended and the United Nations started to work as World’s security operator. To people’s unexpectation, however, the alliance lasted after the end of the Cold War. This is because the alliance was still beneficial to both countries even in the new World order.
During the Cold War, protecting Japan itself was beneficial to the US benefit as well as to Japan in order to sustain the US power in the World against Russia. However, when there was no longer communism threat over Japan, the US morale to defend Japan was weaker. The USA protecting Japan and Japan enjoying the security guarantee by its ally seemed asymmetrical to many, especially to Americans. In order to balance the alliance, Japan offered areas of Japan’s land for the US bases which enableds operation of the US forces in times of contingencies in East Asia and Middle East as well as in Japan. As well as lending land, Japan backs the US protection of Japan by offering financial support. This is called Omoiyari funding. Omoiyari means considerate and kind, indicating that the funding is not given to serve a specific purpose but the USA can use the funds whenever and wherever necessary. In addition, Japan allows US economic bargaining. For example, the USA often imposes high tariff on products imported from Japan whereas in reverse direction, the tariff barrier is usually lower. In spite of Japan’s efforts to compensate for its lack of participation in maintaining security in its country, some still criticize Japan as a “free rider”. Whether the criticism that Japan takes a free ride and that the USA has a disadvantageous burden, is correct or not depends on the stance. However, one thing that is true about the alliance is that, at the current, the USA has the upper hand, and Japan has been cautious about internalizing the US expectation or demand from the fear of being abandoned.
As explained above, the alliance has persisted because of benefits to both countries. In other words, the alliance exists to enhance their national interests. However, national interests do not always match with the benefit of all countries in the world. Pursuing the national interests brought by the alliance could degrade the world’s overall order as a result. Because of the alliance, Japan, now, faces three main dilemmas between national interests and world-wide security. First, the US nuclear deterrent contradicts Japan’s stance that all nuclear weapons in the World should be abolished. Japan is the only country that has experienced the devastation of nuclear weapons, and therefore Japan should continue to send the message and encourage other countries to dismantle the nuclear weapons that they possess. However, the fact that Japan relies on the US nuclear deterrent as the ultimate solution undermines Japan’s persuasiveness.
As explained above, the alliance has persisted because of benefits to both countries. In other words, the alliance exists to enhance their national interests. However, national interests do not always match with the benefit of all countries in the world. Pursuing the national interests brought by the alliance could degrade the world’s overall order as a result. Because of the alliance, Japan, now, faces three main dilemmas between national interests and world-wide security. First, the US nuclear deterrent contradicts Japan’s stance that all nuclear weapons in the World should be abolished. Japan is the only country that has experienced the devastation of nuclear weapons, and therefore Japan should continue to send the message and encourage other countries to dismantle the nuclear weapons that they possess. However, the fact that Japan relies on the US nuclear deterrent as the ultimate solution undermines Japan’s persuasiveness.
Second, the alliance and the presence of the US forces in Japan’s land itself raises suspicion in the East-Asia Pacific region. The 1997 Revised Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation allowed the operation of the USA and Japan in the “areas surrounding Japan” in times of emergency. This expanded operability derives from the belief that the countries around Japan are “dangerous” and have to be watched. The attitude of Japan and the USA towards Japan’s neighbor countries makes them wary, and prevents Japan and surrounding countries from fostering friendly relationship. China fears that the US forces may be waiting to interfere with the matters of Taiwan. Also, North Korea is cautious about US actions because the US might assist the South Korea to absorb the North Korea that is a “trouble-maker”. The joint research between the USA and Japan on “Theater Missile Defense” amazed the surrounding countries especially. The system of the Theater Missile Defense has been developed in order to stop missiles being dropped on Japan, not to attack or retaliate against an enemy. However, whatever the intention, it has given the message that Japan and the USA are ready to act against possible attacks.
Last, the most important point is that the criteria used to judge the “enemy” to act upon cooperatively under the alliance is often biased. Usually, the judgment on who the enemy is depends on the country’s perspective such as national interest, and there is rarely an absolute enemy. Therefore, judgment on the “enemy” worth being eliminated should be made based on deep consideration from many different perspectives. Cooperative actions between the USA and Japan reflect only two countries’ opinion and may serve their interests only. In many cases it is not even two countries’ common opinion, but it is the US opinion only and Japan follows it because Japan wants to maintain the alliance. Examples are the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. Japan is not so much concerned about Afghanistan and Iraq, but Japan is concerned more with endorsing the US opinion whether it is right or not. Although Japan’s support for the USA in these areas was prohibited by the Constitution Article 9 originally, the interpretation of the Constitution was expanded to meet the expectation of the USA. The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law was passed to allow Japan to refuel the US ships in the Indian Ocean, and the Iraq bill was passed to legitimatize the SDF humanitarian activities in rear areas in Iraq. In order to have its own opinion and contribute to world peace, Japan should not overemphasize the security alliance. As seen so far, Japan’s national interests from the security alliance obstructs the achievement of world order, and therefore, Japan should shift its weight from the bilateral policy with the USA to a more international and multilateral organization.
Japan should revitalize the United Nations and participate more in its activities as well as weakening the US-Japan alliance because of the ideology and the mechanism of the organization. The United Nations was established so as not to repeat the tragedy of the First World War and the Second World War. The goal is world peace, and the unit is the world, not sovereign states. Therefore, global security is prioritized to national interests of sovereign states. In addition, the United Nations is basically opposed to using armed forces to solve problems as armed forces caused the Wars. The organization aims to maintain world peace by collective security. The system of collective security enables all members of the United Nations to impose a sanction on a country which has taken a rogue action such as trying to invade another country. The sanctions against a “dangerous” country start with political and economical ones. Military sanctions are the last option and they are imposed only when the “dangerous” country does not respond to the ultimatum.
Japan should revitalize the United Nations and participate more in its activities as well as weakening the US-Japan alliance because of the ideology and the mechanism of the organization. The United Nations was established so as not to repeat the tragedy of the First World War and the Second World War. The goal is world peace, and the unit is the world, not sovereign states. Therefore, global security is prioritized to national interests of sovereign states. In addition, the United Nations is basically opposed to using armed forces to solve problems as armed forces caused the Wars. The organization aims to maintain world peace by collective security. The system of collective security enables all members of the United Nations to impose a sanction on a country which has taken a rogue action such as trying to invade another country. The sanctions against a “dangerous” country start with political and economical ones. Military sanctions are the last option and they are imposed only when the “dangerous” country does not respond to the ultimatum.
The mechanism of the United Nations guarantees neutrality to a great extent, though not completely. Every country, whether it is powerful or not, has one vote in the General Assembly, meaning that any member of the organization has an equal opportunity to express its position in theory. The decisions taken by the United Nations, therefore, are more likely to be consensus among the members, rather than biased conviction.
Although the system of the United Nations has more potential to accomplish and maintain peace than the US-Japan security alliance, its multilateral framework still has flaws that need to be improved in order that it functions well enough as the powerful coordinator of the world. Therefore, Japan should proactively support the enhancement of the organization by from financial assistance to humanitarian one. Three kinds of contribution can be suggested. One is to disseminate the anti-nuclear movement even more. Another is to give economical support. Japan has been the number one contributor to the ODA since around 1990, and Japan should continue this support in the future too. Last, Japan should participate in PKO activities more as logistical and humanitarian supporters within the constraints of the Constitution Article 9, showing that Japan is not a country of “checkbook diplomacy” as it was once called. As well as supporting the United Nations, Japan should augment its own influence within the multilateral framework by becoming a permanent member of the Security Council.
The USA pledged to protect Japan under the US-Japan Security Treaty during the Cold War and this alliance has persisted since then due to the benefits that the two countries give to each other under the treaty. However, Japan which is in weaker position has been careful about meeting the US expectations to sustain the relationship. Although the alliance gives Japan security, it places Japan in dilemma between its national interests and global security. The concern with maintaining the alliance has prevented Japan from taking its own decision which it thinks is the best for the overall world. To get out of the dilemma, Japan should keep more distance from America and place more importance on the United Nations. Japan should revitalize this potential multilateral framework by endorsing it economically and politically, and also by boosting Japan’s influence within the organization. At the present, the refueling in the Indian Ocean for the war in Afghanistan is continuing, and some SDF members are still working in Iraq. What Japan can do now to shift its foreign policy, Japan should end the refueling and return the SDF from Iraq to Japan.
The USA pledged to protect Japan under the US-Japan Security Treaty during the Cold War and this alliance has persisted since then due to the benefits that the two countries give to each other under the treaty. However, Japan which is in weaker position has been careful about meeting the US expectations to sustain the relationship. Although the alliance gives Japan security, it places Japan in dilemma between its national interests and global security. The concern with maintaining the alliance has prevented Japan from taking its own decision which it thinks is the best for the overall world. To get out of the dilemma, Japan should keep more distance from America and place more importance on the United Nations. Japan should revitalize this potential multilateral framework by endorsing it economically and politically, and also by boosting Japan’s influence within the organization. At the present, the refueling in the Indian Ocean for the war in Afghanistan is continuing, and some SDF members are still working in Iraq. What Japan can do now to shift its foreign policy, Japan should end the refueling and return the SDF from Iraq to Japan.
Minor Assignment 7: Works Cited
Works Cited
Tamura, Shigenobu, and Yoshio Suginoo. Text book: Japan’s security. Tokyo: Huyou, 2004.
Huges, Christopher W. Japan’s security agenda: military, economic & environmental dimensions. The US: Lynne Rienner, 2004.
Difilippo, Anthony. The challenges of the US-Japan military arrangement: competing security transitions in a changing international environment. The US: M.E.Sharpe, 2002.
Osius, Ted. The US-Japan security alliance: why it matters and how to strengthen it. The US: Praeger, 2002.
Kliman, Danlel M. Japan’s security strategy in the post-9/11 world. The US: Praeger, 2006.
Ikezawa, Natsuki. I don’t know about the Constitution. Japan: Shueisha, 2003.
Tamura, Shigenobu, and Yoshio Suginoo. Text book: Japan’s security. Tokyo: Huyou, 2004.
Huges, Christopher W. Japan’s security agenda: military, economic & environmental dimensions. The US: Lynne Rienner, 2004.
Difilippo, Anthony. The challenges of the US-Japan military arrangement: competing security transitions in a changing international environment. The US: M.E.Sharpe, 2002.
Osius, Ted. The US-Japan security alliance: why it matters and how to strengthen it. The US: Praeger, 2002.
Kliman, Danlel M. Japan’s security strategy in the post-9/11 world. The US: Praeger, 2006.
Ikezawa, Natsuki. I don’t know about the Constitution. Japan: Shueisha, 2003.
2008年1月30日水曜日
Revision of Minor Assignment 4: Working title, thesis & outline
Japan's foreign policy: weakening the US-Japan Alliance and revitalizing the United Nations
Thesis: Japan should weaken the US-Japan Security Alliance and realign with the United Naions in order to establish its international pacifist and impartial stance.
Outline
I. Introduction
A. Background information
B. Thesis Statement
II. The current situation of the Alliance
A. purpose of the treaty
B. US pleage to protect Japan
C. Japan's support for the US bases
1. land for bases
2. Omoiyari Yosan
III. The problems with the Security Alliance
A. suspicion raised in the East-Asia Pacific region
B. Japan's dilemma between the Article 9 and the US nuclear umbrella
C. little attention to World peace and excessive weight on national interests
IV. The United Nations as new foreign policy trajectory
A. concept of the UN
1. World peace
2. collective security
B. Japan's contribution to the UN
1. becoming a memger of the Security Coucil
2. participation in PKO activities
3. economical support
4. antinuclear movement
V. Conclusion
Thesis: Japan should weaken the US-Japan Security Alliance and realign with the United Naions in order to establish its international pacifist and impartial stance.
Outline
I. Introduction
A. Background information
B. Thesis Statement
II. The current situation of the Alliance
A. purpose of the treaty
B. US pleage to protect Japan
C. Japan's support for the US bases
1. land for bases
2. Omoiyari Yosan
III. The problems with the Security Alliance
A. suspicion raised in the East-Asia Pacific region
B. Japan's dilemma between the Article 9 and the US nuclear umbrella
C. little attention to World peace and excessive weight on national interests
IV. The United Nations as new foreign policy trajectory
A. concept of the UN
1. World peace
2. collective security
B. Japan's contribution to the UN
1. becoming a memger of the Security Coucil
2. participation in PKO activities
3. economical support
4. antinuclear movement
V. Conclusion
2008年1月29日火曜日
Revision of Minor Assignment 5: Full length draft
I. Introduction
Iraq War has yet not ended and the debate on whether or not Self Defense Force should be dispatched to Iraq is still going on. The crucial reason for the deployment of SDF to Iraq is to strengthen or, at the minimum, to maintain the US-Japan Security Alliance. Many elites argue that Japan should endorse US stance on the “war on terror” as an ally. On the other hand, pacifists and some Japanese citizens argue against the SDF dispatch which is prohibited by Article 9 of the constitution if defined narrowly. Following the Constitution Article 9 strictly and embracing the pacific sentiment that has existed since the end of the Second World War, Japan should take its own choice not to dispatch SDF to Iraq.
II. Legitimacy Article 9 or the Japan’s constitution, the war renunciation clause, admits the use of force as self defense only;
“(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. (Blue 67)
The clause has long been interpreted as to legitimize the use of SDF to retaliate against attacks against Japan. However, the Article does not allow collective defense, meaning that even if any country other than Japan is attacked, Japan can not counterattack against “the enemy” unless the attack directly influences Japan. The United States, though is US-Japan Security ally and promises to protect Japan from any military threat, is not an exception. Iraq neither attacked Japan nor threatened Japan’s security directly, and therefore Japan has no rationale to align with the US on the matter of the Iraq War.
However, what kind of military situation is regarded as a direct threat to Japan’s security may vary depending on the perception of the country or the person. The 1997 Revised Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation referred to Japan’s functional military scope. The Guidelines indicated that Japan and the US can cooperate in times of contingency in the “area surrounding Japan”. The area covered was not specific because, according to Japanese government, the functional scope was “situational” rather than “geographical”. (Agenda, 178) The stated purpose of the expansion of the scope was to maintain the stability in the entire East Asia Pacific. However, Iraq definitely is not included in this scope. Therefore, dispatch of SDF to Iraq is against the Defense Guidelines as well as the Constitution.
The SDF dispatch to Iraq contravenes the International Peace Cooperation Law (PKO law) passed in 1992. This law was established as a reaction to the international criticism of Japan as a country which operates “checkbook diplomacy”, not making a human contribution to peace, but just money. (Blue 69) This law does allow SDF dispatch to area outside the scope determined under the Defense Guidelines. However the conditions for SDF dispatch is clarified strictly by the five PKO principles that
(1) agreement on a cease-fire should have been reached by all parties in the conflict
(2) the parties involved in the conflict should give their consent to the deployment of PKO forces and the participation of Japan in the operation
(3) the PKO force shall remain impartial and not favor any party in the conflict
(4) should any of the proceeding guidelines be broken, Japan may withdraw its contingent
(5) the use of weapons is limited to that necessary to protect directly the lives of personnel
Only when all the principles are satisfied, can SDF be deployed. Also, when SDF dispatch is sanctioned, it means that it is more likely to be a consensus of many countries and not a extreme stance. Although PKO activities are permitted only if the Constitution is interpreted widely, the participation in UN PKO activities are essential both to acquire international support as a pacifist country and to contribute to peace. However, in the case of Iraq War, the SDF dispatch is not sanctioned by the UN, but just the US. The fact that Japan and the US are engaged in the Security Alliance does not give enough rationale to deploy SDF.
III. Pacifism
Since the end of the World War, Japanese citizens’ antiwar sentiment has been strong because of the repentance for Japan’s imperialism over Asia and the experience of the nuclear weapons dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People have hoped that there will never be a war ever again, and Japan has made efforts to address the importance and fragility of peace to the world.
Japan has demonstrated great support for disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Japan adheres to its non-nuclear principles, and also, took the lead in building the international framework to achieve the world with no nuclear weapons. Japan signed the Non Proliferation Treaty in1970 and convinced other countries to join or remain in the NPO. For example, Japan induced China to sign the NPO, with China’s eventual accession in 1992. Japan has expressed support for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty too. The Japanese government responded to China’s nuclear tests in 1995 and India’s and Pakistan’s tests in 1998 by freezing financial support. In addition, Japan proactively backed the establishment of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and disarmament in1998. (agenda 198)
As well as disarmament on world-wide level, Japan has taken steps to maintain security stability in the East Asia Pacific. The concept of this forum is attractive because it encourages cooperative security based on a structure of peaceful relations among members.
Even though Japan has stressed pacifism by taking initiatives in activities such as the elimination of nuclear weapons and the foundation of the regional forum, excessive military cooperation between the US and Japan may spoil the efforts. China, Korea and Russia perceive that the purpose of the US-Japan alliance has shifted from the protection of Japan to maintaining the stability, if not hegemony, of the East-Asia Pacific region. The presence of US forces on Japan’s land itself creates tension and suspicion. The functional scope extended by the 1997 Revised Defense Guidelines conveys the message to countries around that they are potential “troublemakers” which have to be watched always. The joint research of Theater Missile Defense raised suspicion even more because of its total lack of transparency. If SDF is dispatched to Iraq and the dispatch causes the East-Asian countries to recognize the US as the world’s hegemonic power and Japan as its subordinate, the regional peace will be difficult to achieve. (challenge 70)
IV. Problems with US-Japan Security Alliance
The US-Japan Security Treaty was signed in 1951, when the whole world was involved in the Cold War. Japan was on the side of the United States and the US needed to protect Japan from the Soviet. The treaty, therefore, was established to enable the military cooperation against the common communist power as shown in the Article 4;
“This Treaty shall expire whenever in the opinions of the Governments of the United States of America and Japan there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements or such alternative individual or collective security dispositions as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance by the United Nations or otherwise of international peace and security in the Japan Area.” (challenge 49)
The alliance was considered to be a temporary one in order to defend Japan while the veto was exercised excessively in the Security Council during the Cold War and the UN could not provide international security because of the Cold War. Now that the Cold War has ended and the Security Alliance can be replaced by the UN, the alliance is not necessary, according to the original intention. The alliance remained in spite of the Article because the benefits of the two countries overlap. However, the Article clarifies that the alliance is not something that Japan must adhere to.
The Security Alliance perceived as asymmetrical and Japan is condemned as a “free rider” which cuts the military cost for protecting Japan by placing US forces on its land. The United States has stronger bargaining power both in politics and economy because of the fact that the United States guarantees the protection of Japan. Japan and the United States are not genuinely equal partners. Japan should become more independent from the United States and should not internalize the expectations of the United States to meet its demands. (Challenge 61) It is desirable that this independence is achieved within the Security Alliance. Because of fear of being abandoned by the US, Japan has refrained from taking autonomous behavior. However, the Security Alliance will be still advantageous to the US even if the two countries become real economic and political equal partners. Of course, the possibility is not zero. To prepare for the case that Japan is abandoned, Japan should support the system and activities of the United Nations so that the multilateral system will serve as a stabilizer and protector of Japan in times of military threat in stead.
There are two main dilemmas that Japan is faced because of the Security Alliance. One is the contradiction between Japan’s anti-nuclear stance and the protection of the country by the US’s nuclear deterrent. Another is the fact that Japan focusing too much energy on enhancing the bilateral relationship obstructs the formation of friendly and cooperative relationship in the East-Asia Pacific region. As explained above, Japan has taken steps to strengthen the image of the country as pacifist. Japan has stressed the importance of eliminating the nuclear weapons, Japan relies on the nuclear weapons of the United States as the ultimate solution to Japan’s contingency. This attitude indirectly endorses the necessity of nuclear weapons, and weakens the credibility of Japan when it internationally emphasizes its antinuclear stance. In order to establish the image of Japan as truly pacific country, Japan should take behavior that is compatible with its foreign policy. Also, Japan has prioritized the bilateral alliance over the regional relationship in spite of the public support for a stronger ARF. The strengthening of the multilateral framework has been made in a way that does not threaten the Security Alliance probably because the ARF is based on the concept of friendly military relationship, not on collective defense, meaning that the framework does not guarantee the protection of Japan once Japan is attacked. As a result, the Asian countries such as China, Korea and Russia continue to have suspicion of the Security Alliance between Japan and the United States. Japan is not independent in the ARF and other regional frameworks, and there is always the powerful United States behind Japan. The Theater Missile Defense joint research is especially symbolic of an obstruction to military reliability among the Asian countries. In order to become a stabilizer in the Asia-Pacific region, Japan should take independent and neutral behavior that moderates the tension. (Challenge 198)
V. Trajectory change from the Security Alliance to the United States
The purpose of the UN establishment is not to repeat the tragedy of the World War and maintain peace in the World. Therefore, the UN is neutral and serves for the good of all people in the World by its character while a country’s foreign policy focuses on its national interest the most. The Security Alliance, like any country’s foreign policy, aims at the achievement of national interest in the end and does not necessarily promote peace when seen in a big picture. If Japan really aims to arrange the world wide security framework based on reliability rather than defense, Japan should shift its focus from the Security Alliance to the United States. The endorsement of the multilateral system will save Japan from its dilemmas and Japan will be able to take the lead in bolstering the United States as a pacifist country.
The contribution to the stronger UN should be comprehensive rather than tilting only on the military dimension. Japan should participate in the UN activities especially in the areas of disarmament, economical support and SDF dispatch to PKOs. The problem that Japan has in the UN is that Japan can not operate the collective security due to its defense-orientated policy. In order to compensate for the lack of deployment of combatants, Japan should enhance security by supplying poor countries with economical support and by dispatching the SDF to non-combat areas and giving logistical and humanitarian aid.
VI. Conclusion
The public attention of the Security Alliance within has been focused on the guarantee of Japan protection, and Japan has complied with the policies of the United States not to be abandoned. As a consequence, the Alliance generated many incompatibilities with Japan’s unique defense-orientated policy, threatening its international credibility. The fact that Japan dispatches the SDF to Iraq without the UN sanction indicates that Japan complies with the United States and prioritizes the Security Alliance over the United Nations. In order to contribute to the peace, Japan should become more independent from the United States and choose to work for a stronger UN.
Iraq War has yet not ended and the debate on whether or not Self Defense Force should be dispatched to Iraq is still going on. The crucial reason for the deployment of SDF to Iraq is to strengthen or, at the minimum, to maintain the US-Japan Security Alliance. Many elites argue that Japan should endorse US stance on the “war on terror” as an ally. On the other hand, pacifists and some Japanese citizens argue against the SDF dispatch which is prohibited by Article 9 of the constitution if defined narrowly. Following the Constitution Article 9 strictly and embracing the pacific sentiment that has existed since the end of the Second World War, Japan should take its own choice not to dispatch SDF to Iraq.
II. Legitimacy Article 9 or the Japan’s constitution, the war renunciation clause, admits the use of force as self defense only;
“(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. (Blue 67)
The clause has long been interpreted as to legitimize the use of SDF to retaliate against attacks against Japan. However, the Article does not allow collective defense, meaning that even if any country other than Japan is attacked, Japan can not counterattack against “the enemy” unless the attack directly influences Japan. The United States, though is US-Japan Security ally and promises to protect Japan from any military threat, is not an exception. Iraq neither attacked Japan nor threatened Japan’s security directly, and therefore Japan has no rationale to align with the US on the matter of the Iraq War.
However, what kind of military situation is regarded as a direct threat to Japan’s security may vary depending on the perception of the country or the person. The 1997 Revised Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation referred to Japan’s functional military scope. The Guidelines indicated that Japan and the US can cooperate in times of contingency in the “area surrounding Japan”. The area covered was not specific because, according to Japanese government, the functional scope was “situational” rather than “geographical”. (Agenda, 178) The stated purpose of the expansion of the scope was to maintain the stability in the entire East Asia Pacific. However, Iraq definitely is not included in this scope. Therefore, dispatch of SDF to Iraq is against the Defense Guidelines as well as the Constitution.
The SDF dispatch to Iraq contravenes the International Peace Cooperation Law (PKO law) passed in 1992. This law was established as a reaction to the international criticism of Japan as a country which operates “checkbook diplomacy”, not making a human contribution to peace, but just money. (Blue 69) This law does allow SDF dispatch to area outside the scope determined under the Defense Guidelines. However the conditions for SDF dispatch is clarified strictly by the five PKO principles that
(1) agreement on a cease-fire should have been reached by all parties in the conflict
(2) the parties involved in the conflict should give their consent to the deployment of PKO forces and the participation of Japan in the operation
(3) the PKO force shall remain impartial and not favor any party in the conflict
(4) should any of the proceeding guidelines be broken, Japan may withdraw its contingent
(5) the use of weapons is limited to that necessary to protect directly the lives of personnel
Only when all the principles are satisfied, can SDF be deployed. Also, when SDF dispatch is sanctioned, it means that it is more likely to be a consensus of many countries and not a extreme stance. Although PKO activities are permitted only if the Constitution is interpreted widely, the participation in UN PKO activities are essential both to acquire international support as a pacifist country and to contribute to peace. However, in the case of Iraq War, the SDF dispatch is not sanctioned by the UN, but just the US. The fact that Japan and the US are engaged in the Security Alliance does not give enough rationale to deploy SDF.
III. Pacifism
Since the end of the World War, Japanese citizens’ antiwar sentiment has been strong because of the repentance for Japan’s imperialism over Asia and the experience of the nuclear weapons dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People have hoped that there will never be a war ever again, and Japan has made efforts to address the importance and fragility of peace to the world.
Japan has demonstrated great support for disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Japan adheres to its non-nuclear principles, and also, took the lead in building the international framework to achieve the world with no nuclear weapons. Japan signed the Non Proliferation Treaty in1970 and convinced other countries to join or remain in the NPO. For example, Japan induced China to sign the NPO, with China’s eventual accession in 1992. Japan has expressed support for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty too. The Japanese government responded to China’s nuclear tests in 1995 and India’s and Pakistan’s tests in 1998 by freezing financial support. In addition, Japan proactively backed the establishment of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and disarmament in1998. (agenda 198)
As well as disarmament on world-wide level, Japan has taken steps to maintain security stability in the East Asia Pacific. The concept of this forum is attractive because it encourages cooperative security based on a structure of peaceful relations among members.
Even though Japan has stressed pacifism by taking initiatives in activities such as the elimination of nuclear weapons and the foundation of the regional forum, excessive military cooperation between the US and Japan may spoil the efforts. China, Korea and Russia perceive that the purpose of the US-Japan alliance has shifted from the protection of Japan to maintaining the stability, if not hegemony, of the East-Asia Pacific region. The presence of US forces on Japan’s land itself creates tension and suspicion. The functional scope extended by the 1997 Revised Defense Guidelines conveys the message to countries around that they are potential “troublemakers” which have to be watched always. The joint research of Theater Missile Defense raised suspicion even more because of its total lack of transparency. If SDF is dispatched to Iraq and the dispatch causes the East-Asian countries to recognize the US as the world’s hegemonic power and Japan as its subordinate, the regional peace will be difficult to achieve. (challenge 70)
IV. Problems with US-Japan Security Alliance
The US-Japan Security Treaty was signed in 1951, when the whole world was involved in the Cold War. Japan was on the side of the United States and the US needed to protect Japan from the Soviet. The treaty, therefore, was established to enable the military cooperation against the common communist power as shown in the Article 4;
“This Treaty shall expire whenever in the opinions of the Governments of the United States of America and Japan there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements or such alternative individual or collective security dispositions as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance by the United Nations or otherwise of international peace and security in the Japan Area.” (challenge 49)
The alliance was considered to be a temporary one in order to defend Japan while the veto was exercised excessively in the Security Council during the Cold War and the UN could not provide international security because of the Cold War. Now that the Cold War has ended and the Security Alliance can be replaced by the UN, the alliance is not necessary, according to the original intention. The alliance remained in spite of the Article because the benefits of the two countries overlap. However, the Article clarifies that the alliance is not something that Japan must adhere to.
The Security Alliance perceived as asymmetrical and Japan is condemned as a “free rider” which cuts the military cost for protecting Japan by placing US forces on its land. The United States has stronger bargaining power both in politics and economy because of the fact that the United States guarantees the protection of Japan. Japan and the United States are not genuinely equal partners. Japan should become more independent from the United States and should not internalize the expectations of the United States to meet its demands. (Challenge 61) It is desirable that this independence is achieved within the Security Alliance. Because of fear of being abandoned by the US, Japan has refrained from taking autonomous behavior. However, the Security Alliance will be still advantageous to the US even if the two countries become real economic and political equal partners. Of course, the possibility is not zero. To prepare for the case that Japan is abandoned, Japan should support the system and activities of the United Nations so that the multilateral system will serve as a stabilizer and protector of Japan in times of military threat in stead.
There are two main dilemmas that Japan is faced because of the Security Alliance. One is the contradiction between Japan’s anti-nuclear stance and the protection of the country by the US’s nuclear deterrent. Another is the fact that Japan focusing too much energy on enhancing the bilateral relationship obstructs the formation of friendly and cooperative relationship in the East-Asia Pacific region. As explained above, Japan has taken steps to strengthen the image of the country as pacifist. Japan has stressed the importance of eliminating the nuclear weapons, Japan relies on the nuclear weapons of the United States as the ultimate solution to Japan’s contingency. This attitude indirectly endorses the necessity of nuclear weapons, and weakens the credibility of Japan when it internationally emphasizes its antinuclear stance. In order to establish the image of Japan as truly pacific country, Japan should take behavior that is compatible with its foreign policy. Also, Japan has prioritized the bilateral alliance over the regional relationship in spite of the public support for a stronger ARF. The strengthening of the multilateral framework has been made in a way that does not threaten the Security Alliance probably because the ARF is based on the concept of friendly military relationship, not on collective defense, meaning that the framework does not guarantee the protection of Japan once Japan is attacked. As a result, the Asian countries such as China, Korea and Russia continue to have suspicion of the Security Alliance between Japan and the United States. Japan is not independent in the ARF and other regional frameworks, and there is always the powerful United States behind Japan. The Theater Missile Defense joint research is especially symbolic of an obstruction to military reliability among the Asian countries. In order to become a stabilizer in the Asia-Pacific region, Japan should take independent and neutral behavior that moderates the tension. (Challenge 198)
V. Trajectory change from the Security Alliance to the United States
The purpose of the UN establishment is not to repeat the tragedy of the World War and maintain peace in the World. Therefore, the UN is neutral and serves for the good of all people in the World by its character while a country’s foreign policy focuses on its national interest the most. The Security Alliance, like any country’s foreign policy, aims at the achievement of national interest in the end and does not necessarily promote peace when seen in a big picture. If Japan really aims to arrange the world wide security framework based on reliability rather than defense, Japan should shift its focus from the Security Alliance to the United States. The endorsement of the multilateral system will save Japan from its dilemmas and Japan will be able to take the lead in bolstering the United States as a pacifist country.
The contribution to the stronger UN should be comprehensive rather than tilting only on the military dimension. Japan should participate in the UN activities especially in the areas of disarmament, economical support and SDF dispatch to PKOs. The problem that Japan has in the UN is that Japan can not operate the collective security due to its defense-orientated policy. In order to compensate for the lack of deployment of combatants, Japan should enhance security by supplying poor countries with economical support and by dispatching the SDF to non-combat areas and giving logistical and humanitarian aid.
VI. Conclusion
The public attention of the Security Alliance within has been focused on the guarantee of Japan protection, and Japan has complied with the policies of the United States not to be abandoned. As a consequence, the Alliance generated many incompatibilities with Japan’s unique defense-orientated policy, threatening its international credibility. The fact that Japan dispatches the SDF to Iraq without the UN sanction indicates that Japan complies with the United States and prioritizes the Security Alliance over the United Nations. In order to contribute to the peace, Japan should become more independent from the United States and choose to work for a stronger UN.
2008年1月27日日曜日
Minor Assignment 6: Revised title, thesis & outline
Japan's independence: the US-Japan Security Alliance and the SDF dispatch to Iraq
Thesis Statement: In order to establish Japan's independent stance in the international world, Japan should follow the Contstitution Article 9 strictly and take its own choice not to dispatch the SDF to Iraq.
I. Introduction
A. Background information
B. Thesis statement
II. Legitimacy
A. Article 9 of the Constitution
B. Regional Contingency Law under the 1997 Defense Guidelines
C. International Peace Cooperation Law
III. Pacifism
A. History of Japan’s security
1. Imperialism over Asia
2. Experience of nuclear weapons dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
B. Contributions to World Peace
1. Renunciation of war
2. Disarmament
3. ASEAN Regional Forum
C. Suspicion raised by SDF dispatch without UN sanction
1. China
2. North Korea
3. South Korea
IV. Problems with US-Japan Security Alliance
A. Security alliance treaty IV
B. Asymmetry of the alliance
C. Japan’s dilemma between pacifism and US nuclear umbrella
V. Change to UN-centered security policy
A. Purpose of establishment and the covenant
B. Japan’s participation in UN activities
1. Disarmament
2. Economical support
3. SDF dispatch to PKOs
VI. Conclusion
Thesis Statement: In order to establish Japan's independent stance in the international world, Japan should follow the Contstitution Article 9 strictly and take its own choice not to dispatch the SDF to Iraq.
I. Introduction
A. Background information
B. Thesis statement
II. Legitimacy
A. Article 9 of the Constitution
B. Regional Contingency Law under the 1997 Defense Guidelines
C. International Peace Cooperation Law
III. Pacifism
A. History of Japan’s security
1. Imperialism over Asia
2. Experience of nuclear weapons dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
B. Contributions to World Peace
1. Renunciation of war
2. Disarmament
3. ASEAN Regional Forum
C. Suspicion raised by SDF dispatch without UN sanction
1. China
2. North Korea
3. South Korea
IV. Problems with US-Japan Security Alliance
A. Security alliance treaty IV
B. Asymmetry of the alliance
C. Japan’s dilemma between pacifism and US nuclear umbrella
V. Change to UN-centered security policy
A. Purpose of establishment and the covenant
B. Japan’s participation in UN activities
1. Disarmament
2. Economical support
3. SDF dispatch to PKOs
VI. Conclusion
2008年1月19日土曜日
Minor assignment 5: First Draft
Self Defense Force dispatch to Iraq
I. Introduction
Iraq War has yet not ended and the debate on whether or not Self Defense Force should be dispatched to Iraq is still going on. The crucial reason for the deployment of SDF to Iraq is to strengthen or, at the minimum, to maintain the US-Japan Security Alliance. Many elites argue that Japan should endorse US stance on the “war on terror” as an ally. On the other hand, pacifists and some Japanese citizens argue against the SDF dispatch which is prohibited by Article 9 of the constitution if defined narrowly. Following the Constitution Article 9 strictly and embracing the pacific sentiment that has existed since the end of the Second World War, Japan should take its own choice not to dispatch SDF to Iraq.
II. Legitimacy
Article 9 or the Japan’s constitution, the war renunciation clause, admits the use of force as self defense only;
“(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. (Blue 67)
The clause has long been interpreted as to legitimize the use of SDF to retaliate against attacks against Japan. However, the Article does not allow collective defense, meaning that even if any country other than Japan is attacked, Japan can not counterattack against “the enemy” unless the attack directly influences Japan. The United States, though is US-Japan Security ally and promises to protect Japan from any military threat, is not an exception. Iraq neither attacked Japan nor threatened Japan’s security directly, and therefore Japan has no rationale to align with the US on the matter of the Iraq War.
However, what kind of military situation is regarded as a direct threat to Japan’s security may vary depending on the perception of the country or the person. The 1997 Revised Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation referred to Japan’s functional military scope. The Guidelines indicated that Japan and the US can cooperate in times of contingency in the “area surrounding Japan”. The area covered was not specific because, according to Japanese government, the functional scope was “situational” rather than “geographical”. (Agenda, 178) The stated purpose of the expansion of the scope was to maintain the stability in the entire East Asia Pacific. However, Iraq definitely is not included in this scope. Therefore, dispatch of SDF to Iraq is against the Defense Guidelines as well as the Constitution.
The SDF dispatch to Iraq contravenes the International Peace Cooperation Law (PKO law) passed in 1992. This law was established as a reaction to the international criticism of Japan as a country which operates “checkbook diplomacy”, not making a human contribution to peace, but just money. (Blue 69) This law does allow SDF dispatch to area outside the scope determined under the Defense Guidelines. However the conditions for SDF dispatch is clarified strictly by the five PKO principles that
(1) agreement on a cease-fire should have been reached by all parties in the conflict
(2) the parties involved in the conflict should give their consent to the deployment of PKO forces and the participation of Japan in the operation
(3) the PKO force shall remain impartial and not favor any party in the conflict
(4) should any of the proceeding guidelines be broken, Japan may withdraw its contingent
(5) the use of weapons is limited to that necessary to protect directly the lives of personnel
Only when all the principles are satisfied, can SDF be deployed. Also, when SDF dispatch is sanctioned, it means that it is more likely to be a consensus of many countries and not a extreme stance. Although PKO activities are permitted only if the Constitution is interpreted widely, the participation in UN PKO activities are essential both to acquire international support as a pacifist country and to contribute to peace. However, in the case of Iraq War, the SDF dispatch is not sanctioned by the UN, but just the US. The fact that Japan and the US are engaged in the Security Alliance does not give enough rationale to deploy SDF.
III. Pacifism
Since the end of the World War, Japanese citizens’ antiwar sentiment has been strong because of the repentance for Japan’s imperialism over Asia and the experience of the nuclear weapons dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People have hoped that there will never be a war ever again, and Japan has made efforts to address the importance and fragility of peace to the world.
Japan has demonstrated great support for disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Japan adheres to its non-nuclear principles, and also, took the lead in building the international framework to achieve the world with no nuclear weapons. Japan signed the Non Proliferation Treaty in1970 and convinced other countries to join or remain in the NPO. For example, Japan induced China to sign the NPO, with China’s eventual accession in 1992. Japan has expressed support for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty too. The Japanese government responded to China’s nuclear tests in 1995 and India’s and Pakistan’s tests in 1998 by freezing financial support. In addition, Japan proactively backed the establishment of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and disarmament in1998. (agenda 198)
As well as disarmament on world-wide level, Japan has taken steps to maintain security stability in the East Asia Pacific. The concept of this forum is attractive because it encourages cooperative security based on a structure of peaceful relations among members.
Even though Japan has stressed pacifism by taking initiatives in activities such as the elimination of nuclear weapons and the foundation of the regional forum, excessive military cooperation between the US and Japan may spoil the efforts. China, Korea and Russia perceive that the purpose of the US-Japan alliance has shifted from the protection of Japan to maintaining the stability, if not hegemony, of the East-Asia Pacific region. The presence of US forces on Japan’s land itself creates tension and suspicion. The functional scope extended by the 1997 Revised Defense Guidelines conveys the message to countries around that they are potential “troublemakers” which have to be watched always. The joint research of Theater Missile Defense raised suspicion even more because of its total lack of transparency. If SDF is dispatched to Iraq and the dispatch causes the East-Asian countries to recognize the US as the world’s hegemonic power and Japan as its subordinate, the regional peace will be difficult to achieve. (challenge 70)
I. Introduction
Iraq War has yet not ended and the debate on whether or not Self Defense Force should be dispatched to Iraq is still going on. The crucial reason for the deployment of SDF to Iraq is to strengthen or, at the minimum, to maintain the US-Japan Security Alliance. Many elites argue that Japan should endorse US stance on the “war on terror” as an ally. On the other hand, pacifists and some Japanese citizens argue against the SDF dispatch which is prohibited by Article 9 of the constitution if defined narrowly. Following the Constitution Article 9 strictly and embracing the pacific sentiment that has existed since the end of the Second World War, Japan should take its own choice not to dispatch SDF to Iraq.
II. Legitimacy
Article 9 or the Japan’s constitution, the war renunciation clause, admits the use of force as self defense only;
“(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. (Blue 67)
The clause has long been interpreted as to legitimize the use of SDF to retaliate against attacks against Japan. However, the Article does not allow collective defense, meaning that even if any country other than Japan is attacked, Japan can not counterattack against “the enemy” unless the attack directly influences Japan. The United States, though is US-Japan Security ally and promises to protect Japan from any military threat, is not an exception. Iraq neither attacked Japan nor threatened Japan’s security directly, and therefore Japan has no rationale to align with the US on the matter of the Iraq War.
However, what kind of military situation is regarded as a direct threat to Japan’s security may vary depending on the perception of the country or the person. The 1997 Revised Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation referred to Japan’s functional military scope. The Guidelines indicated that Japan and the US can cooperate in times of contingency in the “area surrounding Japan”. The area covered was not specific because, according to Japanese government, the functional scope was “situational” rather than “geographical”. (Agenda, 178) The stated purpose of the expansion of the scope was to maintain the stability in the entire East Asia Pacific. However, Iraq definitely is not included in this scope. Therefore, dispatch of SDF to Iraq is against the Defense Guidelines as well as the Constitution.
The SDF dispatch to Iraq contravenes the International Peace Cooperation Law (PKO law) passed in 1992. This law was established as a reaction to the international criticism of Japan as a country which operates “checkbook diplomacy”, not making a human contribution to peace, but just money. (Blue 69) This law does allow SDF dispatch to area outside the scope determined under the Defense Guidelines. However the conditions for SDF dispatch is clarified strictly by the five PKO principles that
(1) agreement on a cease-fire should have been reached by all parties in the conflict
(2) the parties involved in the conflict should give their consent to the deployment of PKO forces and the participation of Japan in the operation
(3) the PKO force shall remain impartial and not favor any party in the conflict
(4) should any of the proceeding guidelines be broken, Japan may withdraw its contingent
(5) the use of weapons is limited to that necessary to protect directly the lives of personnel
Only when all the principles are satisfied, can SDF be deployed. Also, when SDF dispatch is sanctioned, it means that it is more likely to be a consensus of many countries and not a extreme stance. Although PKO activities are permitted only if the Constitution is interpreted widely, the participation in UN PKO activities are essential both to acquire international support as a pacifist country and to contribute to peace. However, in the case of Iraq War, the SDF dispatch is not sanctioned by the UN, but just the US. The fact that Japan and the US are engaged in the Security Alliance does not give enough rationale to deploy SDF.
III. Pacifism
Since the end of the World War, Japanese citizens’ antiwar sentiment has been strong because of the repentance for Japan’s imperialism over Asia and the experience of the nuclear weapons dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People have hoped that there will never be a war ever again, and Japan has made efforts to address the importance and fragility of peace to the world.
Japan has demonstrated great support for disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Japan adheres to its non-nuclear principles, and also, took the lead in building the international framework to achieve the world with no nuclear weapons. Japan signed the Non Proliferation Treaty in1970 and convinced other countries to join or remain in the NPO. For example, Japan induced China to sign the NPO, with China’s eventual accession in 1992. Japan has expressed support for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty too. The Japanese government responded to China’s nuclear tests in 1995 and India’s and Pakistan’s tests in 1998 by freezing financial support. In addition, Japan proactively backed the establishment of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and disarmament in1998. (agenda 198)
As well as disarmament on world-wide level, Japan has taken steps to maintain security stability in the East Asia Pacific. The concept of this forum is attractive because it encourages cooperative security based on a structure of peaceful relations among members.
Even though Japan has stressed pacifism by taking initiatives in activities such as the elimination of nuclear weapons and the foundation of the regional forum, excessive military cooperation between the US and Japan may spoil the efforts. China, Korea and Russia perceive that the purpose of the US-Japan alliance has shifted from the protection of Japan to maintaining the stability, if not hegemony, of the East-Asia Pacific region. The presence of US forces on Japan’s land itself creates tension and suspicion. The functional scope extended by the 1997 Revised Defense Guidelines conveys the message to countries around that they are potential “troublemakers” which have to be watched always. The joint research of Theater Missile Defense raised suspicion even more because of its total lack of transparency. If SDF is dispatched to Iraq and the dispatch causes the East-Asian countries to recognize the US as the world’s hegemonic power and Japan as its subordinate, the regional peace will be difficult to achieve. (challenge 70)
2008年1月18日金曜日
Revision of Minor Assignment 4
Self Defense Force dispatch to Iraq War
Thesis Statement:
Following the Constitution Article 9 strictly and embracing the pacific sentiment that has existed since the end of the Second World War, Japan should not dispatch Self Defense Force to Iraq.
I. Introduction
A. Background information
B. Thesis statement
II. Legitimacy
Article 9 of the Constitution
Regional Contingency Law under the 1997 Defense Guidelines
International Peace Cooperation Law
Iraq Reconstruction Support Law
III. Pacifism
A. History of Japan’s security
1. Imperialism over Asia
2. Experience of nuclear weapons dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
B. Contributions to World Peace
1. Renunciation of war
2. Disarmament
3. ASEAN Regional Forum
C. Suspicion raised by SDF dispatch without UN sanction
1. China
2. North Korea
3. South Korea
IV. Problems with US-Japan Security Alliance
A. Security alliance treaty IV
B. Asymmetry of the alliance
C. Japan’s dilemma between pacifism and US nuclear umbrella
V. Change to UN-centered security policy
A. Purpose of establishment and the covenant
B. Japan’s participation in UN activities
1. Disarmament
2. Economical support
3. SDF dispatch to PKOs
VI. Conclusion
Thesis Statement:
Following the Constitution Article 9 strictly and embracing the pacific sentiment that has existed since the end of the Second World War, Japan should not dispatch Self Defense Force to Iraq.
I. Introduction
A. Background information
B. Thesis statement
II. Legitimacy
Article 9 of the Constitution
Regional Contingency Law under the 1997 Defense Guidelines
International Peace Cooperation Law
Iraq Reconstruction Support Law
III. Pacifism
A. History of Japan’s security
1. Imperialism over Asia
2. Experience of nuclear weapons dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
B. Contributions to World Peace
1. Renunciation of war
2. Disarmament
3. ASEAN Regional Forum
C. Suspicion raised by SDF dispatch without UN sanction
1. China
2. North Korea
3. South Korea
IV. Problems with US-Japan Security Alliance
A. Security alliance treaty IV
B. Asymmetry of the alliance
C. Japan’s dilemma between pacifism and US nuclear umbrella
V. Change to UN-centered security policy
A. Purpose of establishment and the covenant
B. Japan’s participation in UN activities
1. Disarmament
2. Economical support
3. SDF dispatch to PKOs
VI. Conclusion
登録:
投稿 (Atom)