Liberal Japan

This is a long rambling post about Japan’s Indian Ocean operation. I also discuss the situation in Afghanistan as well.

A great post on the issue of Japan’s Indian Ocean operation was Jun Okumura’s entry at GlobalTalk 21 on October 4th:

Will the DPJ Push Mr. Ozawa’s Legal Argument and Normal Country Inclinations to Their Ultimate Conclusion?

There the following assertions were made:

• “There is no difference of opinion between the LDP and the DPJ over the basic legal prerequisites for Japanese involvement in military operations in and around Afghanistan.”
• “the two parties differ when it comes to the specific application of this legal principle.”
• There are two operations in regards to Afghanistan, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)
• LDP favors involvement in OEF because of practical considerations (it’s safer).
• DPJ favor involvement in ISAF because it follows logically from their legal arguments that it’s appropriate, while the status of OEF is less clear.

Jun Okamura sums up the situation very well:

…we have the intriguing situation where the LDP for practical reasons is limiting Japanese participation to modest proportions, while the DPJ is considering accepting the conclusions of its legal position (which has some force, if not quite a slam-dunk argument) and leapfrogging the LDP to the more dangerous phase of the operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Then concludes that:

I think that the practical consideration will prevail with the safety-first Japanese public.

I tried to challenge this a little bit by commenting I preferred Ozawa’s opinion because not only was it principled, but it allowed Japan to assert its independence by snubbing America and the LDP, yet in the end showing even more commitment.

A very detailed and thoughtful response followed, part of which stated:

Thus, Japan has evolved a Peace Constitution woven out of text and custom that is every bit as clear and consistent, and respected in practice, as the written form to which the modern world has become so accustomed. It is a constitution, a consensus of sorts … is it bad for Japan? I’ve become more inclined to reserve my judgment on that, particularly in light of the experience of the post-Cold War years and even more clearly this millennium, when the global community has so often been ineffectual, ineffective, or even counterproductive in that respect.

Now, let me ask the following questions:

1. Does the Japanese government have a legal (constitutional) right to engage in either ISAF or OEF?

2. Has a consensus been reached in Japan for engagement in operations such as either ISAF or OEF?

3. Should Japan participate in ISAF or OEF (regardless of what the constitution says)?

Politicians prefer to blur distinctions as this allows them greater freedom of action (though it gives the electorate less). So I think the discussion in Japan has primarily been over question 2 above.

When I read Jun Okamura’s response to my own comments, I thought this. These comments explain very well the extent of the discussion taking place in Japan. A discussion entirely transfixed on my question 2 above.

However, none of this really answers questions 1 or 3 above.

I’m going to try and answer questions 1 and 3 above.

Does the Japanese government have a legal (constitutional) right to engage in either ISAF or OEF?

No.

Look, here it is, article 9:

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.

Japan should not even be maintaining a navy, much less providing fuel to ships that are nation building in Afghanistan.

I understand that consensus to allow for a self-defense force has slowly been built up for (what appear to be) very compelling reasons. But ultimately, any argument that some how ends with the conclusion Japan can maintain land, sea, and air forces will directly contradict the statement, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.

The reason we have the law is to hold those who govern accountable. If those who govern can’t be held accountable, it goes without saying this poses a direct threat to the governed. While this threat, as best I can tell, has not yet manifested itself, it certainly could in the future.

The idea that people still vote and choose leaders in Japan can be raised as a counterpoint here, saying those who govern are still accountable in that sense. That’s true. But on what basis are they evaluated? If they can so easily ignore an explicit rule in the constitution, how do we even know by what standards they are being evaluated.

It seems to me that most people who address this issue honestly are quickly pushed to the fringe of Japanese politics, which is a shame.

Should Japan participate in either ISAF or OEF?

Okay, presuming it were actually constitutional, then should Japan participate?

I try to take in as many different opinions as I can to any given subject, but I do have a (bad?) habit of finding one person who sounds knowledgeable and makes sense and then latching on to their opinion. I then spend quite some time studying the ins and outs of their opinion.

In this case, I’ve been following MIchael Scheuer. I’ve been reading his book, Imperial Hubris on and off for the last few months; I’ve been following his opinion pieces where ever I can find them (here’s one place); and something I found especially useful were two radio interviews he gave to antiwar radio:

• Scott Horton interviews Michael Scheuer (September 10th, 2007)
• Scott Horton interviews Micheal Scheuer (May 19th, 2007)

Sadly, many (neo)conservatives in America have written Scheuer off as a left-winger, who hates America first. Of course, none of this could be farther from the truth. Scheuer has never voted democrat and is a nationalist. (And gosh dawgonit — I don’t even like nationalists.)

Here are some of the points Scheuer makes:

1. Interventionism in the middle-east fuels terrorism. The less intervention the better.

2. War is bloody and dirty and harsh, and if you fight or impose a regime under the pretense you can do in a way that isn’t brutal, you’re being unrealistic.

3. People who attack you need to be pursued and destroyed.

Here’s part of Scheuer’s analysis of what’s happening in Afghanistan now as the Taliban return:

Western leaders in Afghanistan are also finding that many Afghans are not unhappy to see the Taliban returning. Much of the reason lies in the fact that the US-led coalition put the cart before the horse. Before the 2001 invasion, the Taliban regime was far from loved, but it was appreciated for the law-and-order regime it harshly enforced across most of Afghanistan. Although women had to stay home, few girls could go to school and the odd limb was chopped off for petty offenses, most rural Afghans could count on having security for themselves, their families and their farms and/or businesses.
 
The coalition’s victory shattered the Taliban’s law-and-order regime and, instead of immediately installing a replacement - for which there were not enough troops in any event - coalition leaders moved on to elections, implementing women’s rights and creating a parliament, while the bulk of rural Afghanistan returned to the anarchy of banditry and warlordism that had prevailed before the first Taliban era.

Do I think the Taliban are good in any sense of the word? No.

But I don’t think America or the United Nations has adequately appreciated the role they were playing in Afghanistan. They did not govern by virtue of strength alone, but because at least on some level they resolved problems. (The same can probably be said of Saddam Hussein.)

When your stomach’s empty and you’re scared to go outside, who cares if you can vote or not?

Supposedly America has brought democracy to Afghanistan (and Iraq) but are the people happier? Better off?

The idea that America could topple the Taliban and then sort of replace it on the cheap with a functioning government was not at all realistic. It is not working.

Either America needs to formulate a more realistic policy or it needs to abandon Afghanistan altogether. For now, it’s in a sort of neutral holding position that would seem destined only to cause more people to suffer and to prolong an inevitable withdrawal.

The following two policies are realistic:
1. Complete withdrawal.
2. A massive building up of troops in Afghanistan (enact the draft) with especial attention paid to the Afghan border. Preparations to invade Pakistan’s border regions also would need to be made.

If America is going to wage a war, policy makers had better get the draft going and fire up the nukes. Otherwise, America is just fueling the hate and taunting the terrorists of tomorrow. (At least, as I understand it, this is near to Scheuer’s opinion.)

Okay, okay, maybe this whole analysis is way off. But let me ask you this … how well is this debate being being played out in Japan? Let’s listen in for a minute:

The U.S. has told Tokyo that none of its warships taking part in the Iraq war has received fuel from the Japanese vessels supporting the antiterrorism mission in and around Afghanistan … A Japanese peace group said last month that the logbook of the U.S. supply ship Pecos and other documents suggest that fuel from the Maritime Self-Defense Force ship Tokiwa found its way to the U.S. carrier Kitty Hawk, which took part in the Iraq war … A U.S. administration official said fuel provided by MSDF vessels “doesn’t get diverted” to U.S. operations in Iraq. … The government has faced difficulty securing Diet approval to extend the refueling mission since the opposition camp took control of the House of Councilors following the election in July … With the Pentagon’s explanation, the government will try to persuade the opposition camp to support extending the refueling mission, the sources said. (link)

See … whose talking about Afghanistan? Who talking about what’s going on there? Whose talking about Pakistan?

I’m mean really? If this is the extent of the dialogue in Japan, then just forget it … Japan’s not ready.