Newsletter No. 226
March 30, 2006

 

THE FEAR GAME REVISITED: HOMELAND SECURITY CHIEF CHERTOFF IN TOKYO

Hot on the heels of FBI Deputy Director John Pistole earlier this month, another high-level American official has come to Tokyo to raise fears of Islamic terrorism in Japan. This time it is Michael Chertoff, chief of the U.S. Homeland Security Department.

Part of what he is saying is quite sensible. For example, he is asking Tokyo to install equipment to detect radiation and biological threats that may be contained within US-bound freight. That seems fair enough.

However, he stepped over the mark with the following comment at a news conference: "We know that bin Ladin has talked about Japan as an enemy, a country that he wants to punish. We could never assume that something won't happen."

As a point of fact, what Chertoff said here is entirely correct. The problem is who said it, and in what context. This comment makes him just the latest American official to come to Japan and ratchet up fears about terrorism inside Japan. As we can perceive from John Pistole’s comments reported earlier this month, these fears are then turned to the political benefit of stronger “anti-terrorism” laws and rightwing Japanese politics in general.

Yes, Bin Ladin did indeed identify Japan as an enemy that may face a future attack. But let us ask the key question: Why is this so?

It was a clear response to Tokyo’s growing alignment with US policy in the Islamic world, especially in regard to the invasion of Iraq. If Japanese leaders really fear terrorism in the country, then there are two possible paths along which they could proceed:

1) Increase surveillance on the public, pass draconian anti-terrorism laws, fingerprint all foreigners, remove trashcans from all train stations, make continual public announcements about unattended bags on public transportation, and slowly drain the vitality out of Japanese democracy until a new militarism really takes hold in the country; or…

2) Make it clear that Japan is not just America’s sidekick in the Islamic world, and thus immediately remove the only real source of radical Muslim discontent with Japan.

Personally, I think that the second option would be better for Japan’s future in almost every respect. However, my expectation is that the self-defeating Option Number One is what we are more likely to actually witness.

 

COMMENTARY

1) From Yoav Herman of Tsukuba University on March 31, 2006.

The key question is not why Bin Ladin would identify Japan as an enemy that may face a future attack. That is obvious - every one who doesn't fall into Bin Ladin's point of view of how the world should be like faces an attack. This is terrorism. And what are Bin Ladin views? A radical Islamic world where the Koran is the only law, where women are being executed for having an affair outside their marriage, when women are not allowed to get an education or walk the streets without their husbands. Bin Ladin and his pals had their radical Muslim utopian state in Afghanistan. What did it look like? Executions for women in the football field on Friday afternoon, blowing up one of the oldest Buddha statues in the world because it was not Muslim, forcing men to grow a beard, and so on. The involvement of Japan in Iraq is an excuse. The 9/11 attack happened before the war in Iraq; Bin Ladin will terrorize any superpower that won't follow his radical point of view.

If Bin Ladin did threaten Japan, why did the American official step over the mark by saying that? Japanese involvement in Iraq is not a good excuse to kill Japanese civilians by terror attacks and therefore the context of what Chertoff said is irrelevant.

The worst thing would be for Japan is to respond to threats of a terrorist by changing its foreign policy. If Japan wants to increase its positive involvement in the Muslim world, it should do so regardless of what Bin Ladin says but not as a response to his threats. Responding to terrorist attacks by changing your policy is the worst possible tactic. Adopting these tactics will signal to those radicals that their murderous ways are working, and achieving goals by killing innocent people pays off.

I am an Israeli and so I know that your first option: Increase surveillance on the public, remove trashcans from all train stations, and make continual public announcements about unattended bags on public transportation is a horrible way to live, but in some countries we have no choice but to do that. On the other hand, changing one's policy to suit terrorist demands is worse.

2) From Wataru Tenga of TransNet International on March 31, 2006.

Japan does not have to change its *original* policy concerning involvement in the Muslim world, which has generally been a friendly one. It has to reverse a wrong turn it took when it decided to align somewhat with the US policy post-9/11. In that sense, it was then that it made the mistake of "responding to [perceived] threats... by changing its foreign policy." Admitting publicly that this was a mistake would be the wisest course at this time.

If the policy was bad to begin with, changing it is a good idea. Otherwise you fall into the same trap as the Bush administration (and of previous administrations regarding Vietnam, etc.), of being unable to admit to a failed approach for fear of looking reactive and weak.