ISIS recently beheaded a Japanese reporter after asking for $200 million. The Japanese reporter thought his being Japanese would somehow give him immunity to the issues involved.
My question. Will this change Japan’s pacifist ways and hands off policy to the worlds problems?
When you think about it Japan, as far as I know, doesnt have dedicated military teams like Navy SEALS, British SBS, or Russian Spetznaz who are ready and able to intercede anywhere in the world where Americans are threatened. Japan usually doesnt send troops to be part of multinational military operations and (by post WW2 treaty) never have taken part in foreign combat operations. Also Japan doesnt seem to have an equivalent to the CIA which keeps tabs on the world’s problem areas.
Will we see that all change? Will Japan change how it deals with Muslims or Muslim countries?
I’m hoping some SD Japan experts could give insight.
Not a Japan expert, but a somewhat long-term resident, and the Japanese that I’ve spoken to on the matter generally regarded the two captives as being foolish for having gone into the troubled areas, and not a matter of much concern. Many* Japanese view the rest of the world as a generally dangerous place anyway; I first heard about the incident from a close Japanese friend who told me that the two had been kidnapped, I asked where and was told “gaikoku” (literally "In a foreign country), as if that explained it all.
*I say “many” to mean just that, not most or all. The citizens of my host nation, like people everywhere, have wildly varying levels of knowledge and concern about the world outside their home.
The Japanese have the Tokushu Sakusen Gun (Special Forces Group), which is a dedicated Special Operations and anti-terrorist group. They also have the Chūō Sokuō Shūdan (Central Readiness Force), of which the Special Forces Group is a part, which is the branch of the SDF that handles foreign operations.
And the Self Defense Forces have participated in UN Peacekeeping Forces in Cambodia, Nepal, Iraq, the Golan Heights, Somalia, Haiti, etc.
The government is headed by nationalists who would probably love to get out and start shooting up the rest of the planet, but that’s been true for the last 60 years and the Japanese people haven’t let them. It’s the one area of politics where the population seems to actually pay attention to what the government is doing. Staying in power requires acceding to the people and staying a peaceful nation.
Paying up is an option, though. Hopefully, Japanese pride keeps Abe from doing it, but he might anyways just out of spite. I guess we’ll see.
It has already changed a lot, they have airborne divisions and special forces, but the military remains hamstrung into a defense position and opinion in Japan is divided on changing that policy. And the Japanese already had citizens kidnapped and one of them beheaded.
I was aware that Japan was part of the “coalition of the willing” in the second Gulf war and also supported monetarily the first one. And that there was also a lot of money Japan sent to support the efforts of reconstruction and security. It is not likely that the ISIS guys were not aware of it. And the protests that did take place in Iraq against occupying forces like the one from Japan. (As usual, a note: just because I do understand why they would had a beef with Japan it does not mean I approve of what they did).
As it turned out a lot of that effort was not worth it. And a lot had to do with restrictions on the troops deployed in Iraq.
This article matches a lot of what I do remember from the Japanese involvement:
From what I can tell, reporter Kenji Goto is still alive. They killed Haruna Yukawa, a “security consultant” and aid worker and all around weird dude (he attempted self-castration. I don’t know if that means he was successful and sounds like “root and stem”). The former sounds like a bigger concern for Japan.
Decent article, though the writer made one rather glaring error. Abe wants to amend Article 9 (politically very difficult), not remove it (utterly impossible).
First of all, it’s important to understand that article 9 of the constitution is the most divisive issue in Japanese politics. There are people on the left who believe it’s the greatest thing in the history of the world. There are people on the right who believe it’s an unfair, anachronistic and dangerous burden. Abe would like a constitution that allows more freedom in how the self defense forces can be used. Short of being able to actually amend the constitution, instead they wish to change the way article 9 is interpreted.
These policies have received the support of the United States, and are at least in part a response to pressure from the U.S. Government who want a more militarily useful ally in Eastern Asia to counterbalance China and North Korea. While Japanese nationalists like to talk about a strong Japan, it’s hard to argue that the United States doesn’t have a huge influence on Japanese policies, especially where defense is concerned.
All that to say that, IMO, Japan’s defense policies should only be taken in the context of East Asian geo-politics and U.S. - Japan relations. Koizumi sent the SDF to Iraq because Bush asked him to. Japan had no real direct interest in Iraq.
On the other hand, Abe has been trying really hard to play a more active role on the world stage, especially with regards to emerging countries. One of the first things he did after he was elected was invite almost all African leaders to Japan for a big summit. In this context, Japanese politicians and businessmen have been playing the peace card heavily. “Japan is a peaceful country. We cannot go to war. Literally. We’re everybody’s friend” is the official diplomatic position and we heard Abe trot it out again in his response to the kidnappings.
And so, when you ask about relations with muslim and muslim countries, the answer is that Japan is trying very hard to establish good relations with Indonesia. This is for economic and geo-political reasons. http://rt.com/op-edge/224071-japan-military-china-apec/
When there were signs that Iran would perhaps open itself more to the world, there were enthusiastic calls in Japan to seize the opportunity and play the “everybody’s friend” card. This enthusiasm was tempered by the need to uphold promises and treaties made with the U.S. This is typical of Japanese foreign policy where politicians need to balance the desire to play a more independent and active role on the world stage while also being highly dependent on the U.S.
For example, would they have been able to mount a rescue operation or even an operation to take out a bad guy like the US did when we went after Bin Laden?
Isn’t the very existence of the SDFs - which are, really, military forces for all practical intents and purposes (let’s just call a spade a spade) - already in violation of the Japanese constitution, technically speaking?
So, really, isn’t Article 9 simply being paid lip service to in real life but it practically speaking doesn’t amount to that much?
No and no. Japanese troops cannot legally fight abroad. Koizumi was only able to send troops to Iraq after some seriously contorted legal arguments and only under the pretence of a humanitarian mission with the promise that they would not take part in any combat.
A more problematic scenario has been piracy off the coast of Somalia. Japanese vessels were potential targets, and some argued that the maritime self-defence force could get involved because defending Japanese ships is a form of self-defence.
One of the point politicians who favour amending Article 9 keep on bringing up is that it forces unrealistic and dangerous rules of engagements on Japanese troops. Military vessels can escort civilian ships but they can only fire in self-defence, which is interpreted as meaning that they can only shoot after the enemy starts shooting at them. The argument is that, “he shot first” isn’t a valid tactic when it’s missiles flying.
One of the consequence of these legal barriers is that while Japan has one of the best equipped militaries in the world, it’s purposefully lacking in anything resembling deployment capabilities.
What are the penalties if Japan does violate the law? (For instance, let’s say hypothetically, a Japanese prime minister orders Japanese special forces to conduct a commando raid to rescue Japanese hostages in the Middle East).
Does the prime minister get recalled by the legislature? Get fined?
In practice this would be difficult because the SDF doesn’t have the means to get the commando there in the first place. The only possible scenario would be a joint mission with U.S. troops. This would have to be secret. If it became known that the prime minister had issued an unlawful order, I would expect a non-confidence vote in the Diet. I would also expect some action in the courts but as IANAJL I can’t say for sure what would be the opposition’s legal recourses and possible consequences. If the government loses non-confidence vote, it must dissolve and elections are held.
These seems to be the prevailing Japanese opinion. There is anger from the Japanese people towards the government because they were considering taking action. The Japanese people view the hostages as foolish for getting themselves in the situation and don’t want any of their taxes to go towards rescue effort or ransom.
I doubt this incident will cause any meaningful policy changes. I guess ISIS needs to capture people the Japanese might me more sympathetic towards, which doesn’t seem to be anyone who would willingly go to that area of the world.
I’m not entirely sure that a commando raid on IS to rescue the hostage would be in violation of the Japanese constitution as it’s currently interpreted because (its pretensions aside) IS is a non-state actor. The JSDF is authorized to undertake anti-piracy operations outside Japanese home waters which strikes me as somewhat similar. But there’s nothing in the current SDF Law authorizing the prime minister to order such action without the approval of the Diet, so it would almost certainly be illegal.
How the Japanese public reacted to the raid would be the decisive factor, IMHO. Abe’s party has a safe majority in the Diet, but he doesn’t have all that strong a grip over the membership. His coalition partner, the Komeito, is far more dovish and would likely jump ship. But if he could maintain control of the party, I think he’d be able to avoid most consequences. The Japanese Supreme Court is pretty cowardly and I’m not sure it would stick its neck out.