Akihiko Tanaka

Professor, Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies and

Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies,

University of Tokyo

　

The September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States posed a major problem for the global system of the twenty-first century, because depending on how the world community's response, the new century could be overshadowed by terrorism and fear. It was deemed essential to bring to justice the individuals and groups responsible for these terrorist acts and to eradicate their organizations, networks, and funds to ensure that such acts would not be repeated. And if certain countries supported the activities of such groups, they had to be identified as responsible and steps taken to make it impossible for them to offer further support.

Although little need be said to justify the legitimacy of this fight to eradicate terrorism, in legal terms the action represents the right to self-defense of all responsible nations in the international community, including Japan, and is considered an action to guarantee collective security. For Japan, this means starting from the realization that twenty of its nationals were intentionally killed. If this kind of terrorist network is allowed to exist, there is a very strong risk that Japanese lives will once again be imperiled, so our action is one of self-defense.

　Further, in terms of the international community as a whole, as UN Security Council resolution No. 1368 states, terrorism is a threat to global peace and safety. In that sense, a fight in self-defense by many countries is already part of the battle for collective security of the global community.

　At this point, it is formalistic to argue [-as some are doing in Japan-]that there needed be a UN resolution that would state in more strongly worded language that this is a fight for collective security and that UN member countries should take strong measures. Most of the countries preparing to join the fight against the terrorist acts perpetrated, including China and Russia, are not that particular about the need for a pro forma UN resolution, although it is desirable for the UN to draw up resolutions as needed, as in the case of the one adopted at the end of September freezing the funds of terrorist organizations. However, it is incorrect to assume that no moves toward collective security cannot be taken in the absence of such resolutions. In any case, we should be more aware that the fight against terrorism being waged by the countries of the world, including Japan, under the leadership of the United States, is a fight in self-defense as well as a battle for the sake of the collective security of the world community.

In his policy speech at the Diet on September 27, prime minister Junichiro Koizumi stated that "I talked with President Bush of the United States on September 25 and we are agreed on the need for all the world's countries to band together and take a firm stand in combating terrorism. I further conveyed to President Bush that Japan offers the United States its strong support and will take all measures possible in response to the terrorist acts. Terrorism is Japan's problem too. We will take effective measures against the threat on our own initiative as well, working in cooperation with the international community."

　This is indeed the correct approach, although it must be said that the Koizumi Cabinet's response immediately after the events of September 11 was initially somewhat weak. Some of the points on which the Cabinet may be faulted are the fact that prime minister Koizumi failed to hold a press conference stressing a firm stand against terrorism immediately after the tragedy, and that a memorial ceremony for the victims only took place only on September 20. Holding the ceremony was certainly a positive under-taking, but it should have been held earlier. However, the Basic Policy and the Immediate Measures, announced on September 19, are excellent and deserve strong praise. In addition to paving the way for Japan's Self-Defense Forces to provide medical, transport, and supply assistance, the measures were comprehensive as they also included domestic security (providing security for U.S.military bases, as well as other important facilities, in Japan), information-gathering activities by Maritime Self-Defense Force ships, and so on.

These measures were appropriate, because even if there had been no debate over the Constitution relating to security it was obvious that, given the country's actual capability, these should be Japan's main activities. They were not decided upon because they were all Japan could do within the scope of restrictions imposed by the Constitution. When Japanese really think of what their country can do in the fight against terrorism, medical and rear-echelon logistical support, domestic security and information-gathering are the areas where its actions will be the most effective.

　In my view, Japan is already taking part in self-defense and collective security together with many other countries. The contention that such actions are linked with military action and, therefore, the same as exercising the right to collective self-defense, which is forbidden by the Constitution, is a quibbling argument at best. Such a pointless argument should never be allowed to impede the effectiveness of Japan's actions.

Some, especially within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, complain that the Koizumi Cabinet's response, with the prime minister taking the initiative,is"undemocratic" or "makes light of the Diet." This is an utterly disgraceful attitude that fails to show any understanding of the concept of leadership in an emergency After all, is not prime minister Koizumi the leader of the LDP?

　In the future, Japan's security policies will not focus solely on the fight against terrorism. However, the vital issue at the moment is that the international community must defeat terrorism.

　The United States forces began bombing Afghanistan on October 7. In Japan, the special measures law on counter-terrorism was enacted and the prime minister declared that "the framework allowing Japan to cooperate with the international community at its own initiative is in place at last." The aim of the new law, however, is not to support the United States. The issue, which must be squarely faced, is self-defense as a democratic nation.