Joining Forces
Against Terrorism:
Japan's New Law Commits More Than Words to U.S. Effort
The
Heritage Foundation
BY Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D.
November 5, 2001
Japan gave its ally, the United States, a strong
show of support in the war on terrorism by passing a significant
Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law on October 29. This new
law will enable Japan to "contribute actively and on its
own initiative to the efforts of the international community
for the prevention and eradication of terrorism." By moving
beyond the country's prior policy of non-involvement, the law
will allow Japan's self-defense forces (SDF) to support the
efforts of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The SDF would be
able to use their weapons not only to protect themselves, but
also to protect "others who are on the scene and have come
under their (SDF) control while conducting their duties."
For example, under this new law, Japan's ships, even Aegis
destroyers, could be deployed to the Persian Gulf to become
part of the U.S. air defense umbrella, ready to use their missiles
to defend U.S. forces should they come under attack. This move,
welcomed by the United States, also has been welcomed by Australia
and Singapore, both of which offered the use of their naval
facilities to Japanese ships in transit to the front.
In framing the significance of anti-terrorism legislation,
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi emphasized that Japan should
begin to take a "proactive" stance in trying to eradicate
terrorism. For Japan, this new approach means the Diet must
amend the laws governing the self-defense forces and the Maritime
Safety Agency. For Asia and the rest of the world, it means
that Japan, while maintaining its "peace constitution,"
would take a significant step toward becoming a more active
international power that will contribute to other defense actions
or international efforts under U.N. mandates. For the United
States, it means that Japan continues to uphold their long-standing
alliance as especially important in maintaining peace and stability
in the Asia-Pacific region and around the world.
The Bush Administration
should welcome this assistance from a strong ally. There will
be some concerns around Asia that Japan may be abandoning its
"peace constitution." Therefore, the Administration
should support Japan through active diplomacy around the Asia-Pacific
region and through its own "proactive" public diplomacy
program. Finally, when Japan's self-defense forces do deploy,
they should be fully integrated into the defense architecture
in regions where the war on terrorism is being waged.
Japan's New Role in
Preserving Peace
Japan's defense activities are severely circumscribed by Article
9 of its Constitution, which states that "the Japanese
people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation
and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international
disputes." It also asserts that "land, sea and air
forces, as well as other war potential" to accomplish such
aims "will never be maintained." As Heritage analyst
Balbina Hwang has observed, "while Japan's Constitution
does not explicitly prohibit collective self-defense actions,
Japan's non-involvement in such activities has been the accepted
interpretation of Article 9 since its adoption in 1947."
Former Ambassador Hisahiko Okazaki, now head of the prestigious
Tokyo think tank, the Okazaki Institute, has observed that "Japan
has the right of collective self-defense, but it is a right
that Japan will not exercise" because of public opposition.
The practical effect of this restrictive interpretation of Article
9 has been to limit logistical support from Japan in peacekeeping
operations and in maneuvers with the United States that involve
joint exercises.
Describing the operative effects of that interpretation of
Article 9 in a speech at the Atlantic Council in Washington
last July, Okazaki noted that if a U.S. warship conducting exercises
in the Sea of Japan were attacked by enemy fire, the Japanese
self-defense forces would be prohibited from coming to its aid.
Yet, if a Japanese ship involved in the exercises were attacked
by enemy fire, the United States would be obligated under its
bilateral treaty alliance to assist Japan.
The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law passed by the Diet
is consistent with Article 9 of the Constitution because, while
it permits logistical and other support, it does not permit
Japanese forces to participate in direct offensive combat. Implicit
in the new law is the assumption that Japanese ships could engage
in defensive actions with the U.S. Navy in the event of attack.
By passing the anti-terrorism law, permitting Japan's self-defense
forces to deploy to the Persian Gulf, the Diet has greatly aided
Prime Minister Koizumi's effort to develop a new consensus in
Japan on collective self-defense.
Since he became Prime Minister on April 26, Koizumi has sought
such a consensus that would permit at least an early reinterpretation
of Article 9 to facilitate stronger alliance cooperation with
the United States. His long-term goal is to make Japan a more
"normal" power with a stronger defensive capability,
and he has been encouraged to do this by many foreign policy
experts in the Bush Administration and around the United States.
Until the terrorist attacks on September 11, Koizumi and his
allies used the need for ballistic missile defense cooperation
to advance this effort. The attacks on the United States propelled
the political consensus in Japan that he sought. A survey by
the respected Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun found that
83 percent of respondents support or accept the U.S.-led anti-terrorism
campaign, which is widely viewed as a defensive action.
A Critical Reinterpretation
of Japan's Constitution
Japan's right to collective self-defense is not explicitly
denied by its Constitution. Rather it is denied by a 1960 government
interpretation of Article 9, the result of heightened expectations
of a Soviet invasion of the island of Hokkaido. But this restrictive
interpretation has burned itself into the public consciousness
to the point that it has carried the strength of dogma. Indeed,
it is one of the reasons political limitations were imposed
on the breadth of cooperation between the United States and
Japan on ballistic missile defense.
Reluctance in Japan to
establish a robust defense establishment dates back to 1954,
when the National Police Reserves and National Security Force
were renamed the Self-Defense Forces. The Japanese Defense Agency
was also created at that time, with ground, maritime, and air
self-defense components. The major factor reorienting Japan's
defense policy, to the alarm of many East Asian nations who
recalled Japan's wartime history, was a communique issued by
President Ronald Reagan and Japanese Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki
on May 8, 1981. It acknowledged that "both countries desire
a greater sharing of defense roles and thus, Japan should increase
its defense capabilities...." From a practical standpoint,
this meant that Japan would defend Japanese territory and the
seas and skies surrounding Japan up to a distance of 1,000 nautical
miles, something that the United States had promoted for some
time.
Since then, the political climate in Japan limited further
expansion of this defense role, including the participation
of the SDF in U.N. peacekeeping operations. In the Gulf War,
Japan contributed $13 billion and six minesweepers, but no real
military support. Despite pressure from a small number of conservative
Diet members for a reinterpretation of Article 9, there has
been little movement to do so until now. The release of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1368 after the September attacks
on America, which calls on countries worldwide to "redouble
their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including
by increased cooperation," provided Koizumi and the Diet
the legislative opportunity to reinterpret the Constitution
so as to be able to dispatch forces in support of the U.S.-led
coalition against terrorism.
A U.S. Response to
Japan's New Law
The Bush Administration should publicly acknowledge this show
of support from Japan. Specifically, it should:
- Encourage Japan to continue pursuing
a posture of collective self-defense .
Washington can do this by ensuring that the SDF ships and
personnel Japan deploys to participate in the war on terrorism
are fully integrated into U.S. defensive formations.
- Using public
diplomacy, make clear that the United States welcomes Japan's
efforts to be a more
"normal" world power, which would help strengthen
the U.S.-Japan alliance. Public diplomacy programs should
also emphasize that this is not a move toward militarism on
the part of Japan.
- Work to strengthen
other forms of U.S.-Japan defense cooperation ,
such as sea-based ballistic missile defense research.
This is a major interest of Japan because of the growing threat
of missile attack posed by North Korea's aggressive ballistic
missile program.
Conclusion
The passage of the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law by Japan's
Diet is a strong show of support for the United States in conducting
a global war on terrorism. It also signals Asia and the world
that the U.S.-Japan alliance remains strong. The United States
should publicly acknowledge this step by pointing out the contributions
Japan can make to peace and security not only in the Asia-Pacific
region, but also around the world, by providing defensive support
for its ally.
--Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D., is Director of the Asian Studies
Center at The Heritage Foundation.
出新書
「無悔」揭秘辛