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.