Japan
continues to be governed by the ?Peace Constitution? imposed by the
United States
in the aftermath of World War II. Article 9 of this Constitution stipulated
Japan
?s renunciation of war and the threat of using force to settle international disputes as a sovereign right.
?
Till recently, domestic debates for a more assertive defence policy were non-existent or muted. This probably arose from the difficulties in amending Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution by reaching consensus within the entire Japanese political spectrum.
?
In the current global situation, it is an anachronism for
Japan
?s Armed Forces to continue to be designated as ?Self-Defence Forces.? The present Japanese Prime Minister, Junchiro Koizzumi, rightly questioned this nomenclature and said that it would be more appropriate to call them Japanese Army, Japanese Navy and Japanese Air Force as other countries do.
?
Japan
, despite being an economic superpower and possessing highly rated and modern defence forces has not played an active role in maintaining international security. This was due to constitutional restraints. To offset this limitation,
Japan
has made generous financial contributions for international security. For example, during the Gulf War in 1991,
Japan
contributed about US$ 15 billion i.e., about 25 percent of the US$60 billion spent on the war.
?
In recent years,
Japan
had been providing its defence forces personnel for United Nations peace-keeping forces. Again, due to constitutional restraints, these forces have performed unarmed roles by providing logistic support duties in non-combat operations.
?
Many Japanese have started feeling that this is not in keeping with their political standing, more so since
Japan
is an aspirant for the United Nations Security Council Permanent Member seat.?
?
The Cold War era ensured an uneasy but stable and predictable security environment in
North East Asia
. However, the decade following its demise generated many uncertainties in the security environment. The indulgent security policies of the
United States
towards
China
, the disintegration of the
Soviet Union
, the flash points of
Taiwan
and
North Korea
all combined to present
Japan
with a military dangerous security scenario.??
?
Japan
was jolted out of its traditional post-World War II defence mind-set and forced to face the military turbulence in its vicinity. Consequently, many Japanese politicians of the younger generation stirred a domestic debate on
Japan
?s security policies. Calls were made for amending Article 9 of the Constitution, establishing a separate Ministry of Defence and constitutional amendments to permit full participation of Japanese Defence Forces in international security. It is reported that even within Japanese opposition parties the resistance to such changes in its security policies has becoming muted, thereby enabling Prime Minister Junchiro Koizumi to initiate changes.
?
Surprisingly, the moves towards more assertive security policies have not been trigged by military events in
Japan
?s neighbourhood alone but also by distant military developments. The American counter-terrorism operations in
Afghanistan
after the bombings in
New York
and
Washington
spurred
Japan
into initiating changes in security policies. These international developments influenced the Japanese domestic debate.
?
In this context, the draft legislation which Prime Minister Koizumi submitted for parliamentary approval on 12 October 2001 proposing the dispatch of Japanese Armed Forces to join the US-led coalition forces can be termed a path breaking step. The legislation stands approved, initially, for only two years.
Japan
would now be permitted to send its Defence Forces to assist the coalition forces on all humanitarian, logistic, medical and administrative tasks. All three services of the Armed Forces will be provided for these tasks. For the first time they will be armed and have the right to retaliate in self-defence.
?
Within this framework, it can be envisaged that Japanese naval ships, transport aircraft and helicopters would join logistic operations in South West Asia or manage coalition logistic dumps in the
Central
Asian
Republics
. This would be a significant shift in operational tasks earlier confined to homeland defence of its sea lanes upto 1600 kms from
Japan
.
?
Japan
may not have sought amendments to Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, but it has moved significantly forwards assertively making its Defence Forces available to the global coalition against terrorism. It is possible that
Japan
, with the present legislative precedent, would move further to eliminate the constitutional provisions limiting its legitimate role in global affairs.???
