Wider peacekeeping role
Government must first be forthright at home.
The Asahi Shimbun Tokyo
An advisory panel headed by Yasushi Akashi, former United Nations undersecretary-general and head of the UN peacekeeping operations in Cambodia and Yugoslavia, has submitted its report to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
The report says traditional peacekeeping operations are not sufficient to deal with cross-border violence, civil war and terrorism, and recommends instead multilateral "peace-building" to prevent conflicts, establish stability and post-conflict nation-building.
The report recommends Japan's involvement, first by establishing or improving the infrastructure and personnel resources for such missions.
The panel advocates amending the Self-Defense Forces Law to establish peacekeeping operations as part of the primary SDF mission and to create a rapid reaction force. It also recommends making police part of peacekeeping work, with a special unit for that purpose to be established within the National Police Agency.
The panel advises that Japan's official development assistance to developing countries be put to more positive use, that government and nongovernmental organizations cooperate more closely, and that the bureaucratic barriers of government be broken down.
Japan needs peace to survive. The nation must accept its heavy responsibility as an economic power to take a larger role in global peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. We support the general thrust of the panel's recommendations.
At the same time, however, some points of the recommendations will need more careful study. One such point is the suggestion that legislation be considered that would enable Japan to extend logistical support such as medical care, communications and transportation to support action by multinational forces involved in actions sanctioned by UN resolutions.
We should note here that multinational forces can be involved in many different kinds of missions, with different duties and on different scales, such as the military coalition for the Persian Gulf War or the present International Security Assistance Force that helps keep order in Afghanistan.
Even with a UN resolution, Japan should not become involved in forms of cooperation that would amount to exercising the right to collective self-defense. This issue cannot be resolved without considering the constitutional implications.
The International Peace Cooperation Law establishes conditions for Japan's involvement in peacekeeping operations: Agreement on a ceasefire and consent to Japan's participation in the peacekeeping operations by the parties to the conflict. But Akashi's panel wants these conditions to be more flexible. Japan's dispatch of troops to East Timor was delayed as a party to the conflict was routed.
With differing forms of armed conflict, there may be many cases in which principles in the existing legislation do not apply. This is a problem in which a conclusion should be drawn while seeking for harmony with the international community, provisions in the Constitution and public opinion. The same holds true for easing the conditions under which members of peacekeeping missions can use weapons.
As Japan takes on more international responsibilities, political decisions about the extent of our involvement in armed conflict become more important. This is especially true now as the UN Security Council is likely to be influenced by unilateral U.S. actions.
In the role of cooperating for world peace, Japan remains between the developing and the developed. Improving present legislation involves public consensus. In seeking such consensus, the government must be open and forthcoming.
The government, however, was negligent about disclosure and explanation of dispatching the Aegis destroyer Kirishima to the Indian Ocean and dealing with Iraq. There was also no exercise of civilian control of the Self-Defense Forces by the Diet. If the government hopes to apply lofty ideals of contributing to world peace, it must first be more forthright about what it does at home.