Japan embraces the notion of preemptive strike

The upper house of the Diet passed the three bills by an overwhelming majority that saw the ruling coalition gaining support in parliamentary debate and voting from the opposition Democratic Party and Liberal Party. Only the Social Democratic and Communist legislators opposed the bills branding them as clear examples of flagrant violation of country's peace constitution.

Under the new legislation, only a cabinet approval would be required before the government responds to a situation it regards as an organised and planned military attack or an expected strike by another nation. Of the three bills placed before the Diet, one sets out general procedural guidelines for response to an attack and outlines the legal framework. The other two bills revise Japan's self defence forces law and the law of establishing the security council of Japan. The aim of the revision of self-defence forces law was to ease the movement of troops in times of emergency.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

With necessary legislations now in force, it can be presumed that the Japanese government is already prepared to counter any military offensive directed against the nation not only within the territorial borders of the country, but also beyond that. This second option raises some uneasy questions about the real motive behind such new legislations.

It has been clearly mentioned in the legislations that the government will be in a position to respond to a situation that it recognises as an organised military attack as well as an expected strike by another nation against the country. The legislation also gives approval to the idea that only a cabinet decision would be required for the government to response in such an emergency situation. As nothing has been explained in detail of how the term 'expected strike' is to be defined, we can presume that the use of such wording has been intentional to water down the hawkish tone of the more widely used term 'preemptive strike', and contains more or less the same meaning. In other words, the new legislations virtually paved the way for Japan to launch preemptive strikes against any country that the cabinet might think is in the process of preparation for launching a military assault against Japan. As the cabinet in Japan had never been heard of its fame for being a forum of heated discussion, this option also opens alarming possibility that a hurriedly drawn conclusion might take the country along the road to a war no less destructive than what the nation has experienced in the past.

The most difficult part for the Japanese government in relation to the new legislations, hence, will not be the one to convince the opposition within the country, which is now virtually confined within the traditional left that has been increasingly marginalised since the end of the Cold War, about its benefits, but to convince the neighbours that it has not been directed against all of them but the evil one. But how far Japan's neighbours are going to be convinced about Tokyo's real intention remains questionable. The South Korean government and opposition political parties of the country have already made their position clear by strongly criticising Japan for moving the country on war footing. China too was quick to express dissatisfaction and anger as Beijing was already keeping a close eye over related developments in Japan.

The passage of the new legislations was preceded by the decision of the Japanese government to go ahead with the programme of deploying the US made missile defence system as an important means to combat missiles and nuclear threats from North Korea. Under the programme, Japan is scheduled to deploy the system by the year 2006, which will be composed of advanced Patriot Missile System and missile interception system equipped with Aegis destroyers. The Japanese government earlier claimed that the decision was based on country's deteriorating relationship with North Korea and argued that the deployment of the missile system would serve as a deterrent to any future threat from Pyongyang and is a justifiable means of self defence. China has already dismissed such claims as unconvincing and groundless, mentioning that the possibility for North Korea, a country much smaller than Japan and stricken by economic hardship, to launch a military strike against its economically and militarily stronger neighbour is extremely slim. China, no doubt, sees herself as Japan's possible target and therefore skeptical about the real motives of Japanese leadership behind raising a foul cry against Pyongyang.

The war in Iraq has most likely opened a Pandora's box where issues surrounding state sovereignty, security and self-governance are all put into debate. If the invasion of Iraq can be justified, despite the fact that no proof has so far been produced to show the world that the regime accused of specific guilt was in fact guilty, no country in this world, including even the most powerful, can any longer feel its existence as sovereign state safe and secure. As a result, a new arms race of an unprecedented scale covering all aspects of political life of nations is already under way. The new legislations approved by the Japanese Diet forms only a legal part of that broader arms race and it is bound to accelerate the pace of the unhealthy competition at a time when the economic health of Japan and her neighbours are badly in need of closer attention.