Newsletter No. 1416
News-Analysis
July 18, 2009

 

INDIAN OCEAN MISSION: THE TWO FACES OF THE DPJ

DPJ leader Yukio Hatoyama today confirmed that his party does not intend to wrap-up the MSDF Indian Ocean mission should they come to power at the end of August, when general elections are now expected to be held. Hatoyama attributes this remarkable about-face to “diplomacy”: “Continuity is required in diplomacy… Halting it in a rush would be very reckless.”

Does that mean that the mission will be terminated when the legal authority runs out next January? Not necessarily.

Here is what DPJ Secretary-General Katsuya Okada said at a press conference yesterday: “We will make a decision with the mission’s time limit in next January in mind.” Based on that phrasing, we can’t be sure what their intentions really are.

However, compare these recent statements with what the top two leaders of the DPJ were saying less than two years ago:

Ichiro Ozawa

“President Bush launched the war in Afghanistan unilaterally claiming that it was necessary for self-defense. He did not wait for any UN authorization. Simply mentioning Operation Enduring Freedom in a recent resolution does not mean that the mission has been explicitly authorized by the United Nations. I repeat, therefore, that Japan cannot participate in a mission without clear UN approval… Joining a military operation just because the United States tells us, that’s not a consensus of the international community, nor a consensus of the Japanese people… It is not the consensus of the international society, nor the people of Japan, to just obey the United States.”

Yukio Hatoyama

“We have always been fundamentally opposed to extending this law. The upper house elections have shown the country agrees, and so we will be expected to keep that line… War does not end terrorism. Terrorism is caused by social ills like poverty, discrimination, and suppression; and getting rid of such social ills and stabilizing peoples’ livelihoods is an important pillar of anti-terrorism measures and the foundation of peace… We’ll oppose any bill that’s designed to cooperate with a war that has no basis under a UN resolution, regardless of whether it concerns refueling activity or anything else.”

Hardly sounds like the same people, does it?