:: Shingetsu Institute ::

MSDF IRAQ STORY STARTING TO COME INTO THE LIGHT

At the end of Shingetsu Newsletter No. 737 I appealed for the mainstream press to begin seriously addressing the issue of whether or not the MSDF Indian Ocean mission was supplying fuel to US forces operating in Iraq rather than Afghanistan. The story is indeed now appearing in some form in the press -- although I feel rather certain that what has been reported so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

A number of groups now say that they are “investigating” the story. One of these is the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ); another is a Japanese peace group called Peace Depot; and yet another is the US military itself.

In regard to the third of these “investigations,” I have serious doubts whether the real point is to discover information or rather to control the flow of information to the public (and opposition lawmakers).

The commander of US forces in Japan, Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, clearly didn’t want to say anything at all to the press at this time: “Anytime our elected officials of the two governments ask questions, our two militaries are able to work closely together to answer these questions. We are continuing to respond to questions… I think the best way to answer this is neither exclude the possibility nor acknowledge there is a possibility.”

Err… thanks for clearing that up, General Wright!

The specific allegations raised by Peace Depot have focused on possible refueling of the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in February 2003 for Iraq War operations. US Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer denied those specific allegations yesterday, pointing out, as others also have, that any fuel provided to the Kitty Hawk would have been depleted well before the carrier reached the Persian Gulf.

My own sense is that Peace Depot may have seized on a false lead, but I also have the strong suspicion that it is pretty much common knowledge both in the US military and in the US embassy that Japanese ships have indeed been refueling ships involved in the Iraq War for a long time. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that even a majority of the fuel given by Japan to US forces this year was being used in the Iraqi conflict and not for Afghanistan. This may even have been the case for several years.

The huge difficulty that US policymakers now face is that the story is breaking at precisely the wrong time for them -- exactly when the DPJ is openly challenging the whole mission. The reality of refueling for Iraq may not be new, but it is new to the general public, and therein lies the political problem.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

THE WASHINGTON POST VERSUS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF JAPAN

On the 13th the Washington Post wrote what I felt was a violently anti-DPJ editorial regarding the Indian Ocean mission. I noted the piece at the time, and was annoyed to see the supposedly “liberal press” once again doing a hatchet job on behalf of the Bush Administration. Today, however, there was an interesting twist. Tetsundo Iwakuni, the DPJ’s director-general of the party’s international department, responded with what I find to be a rather articulate and effective response. I wish that Japanese politicians would learn to respond this way more often.

Below is the original editorial and the letter in response.

A Japanese Retreat? The Prime Minister's Resignation Raises Questions about Tokyo's Commitment to its Allies in Afghanistan

Washington Post

September 13, 2007

Though abrupt, the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was not surprising. Though he did improve relations with South Korea and China initially, Mr. Abe more recently inflamed feelings by denying that Japan had coerced Asian women into sexual slavery during World War II. Four of his cabinet ministers have been forced to resign amid charges of dishonesty or incompetence; another committed suicide. Small wonder that his Liberal Democratic Party absorbed a huge defeat in national elections two months ago, ceding control of the upper house of parliament to a coalition led by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ).

Ordinarily, we'd welcome the opportunity for Japan to make a fresh start. But the circumstances of Mr. Abe's downfall make it a cause for concern. In recent days, he has come under attack from the DPJ and its leader, Ichiro Ozawa, for sending Japan's navy to the Indian Ocean in support of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Japan's mission is limited to refueling allied ships. Given Japan's pacifist constitution and its militarist past, this deployment was bound to be controversial. But Mr. Ozawa has stepped beyond the bounds of serious debate by denying the legitimacy of the Afghanistan operation itself, announcing, absurdly, that "the U.S. started this war unilaterally without waiting for a consensus to be built in the international community."

Mr. Ozawa swore to use the DPJ's clout in parliament to prevent renewal of the special law that permits Japanese ships to support the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Until this week, Mr. Abe had sworn just as firmly that he would rather quit than lose on this issue. His resignation makes it clear that that was a pretty poor calculation. It also sends Mr. Ozawa and others the dangerous signal that exploiting anti-U.S. sentiment can be a winning gambit in Japanese politics.

Now that they no longer have Mr. Abe to kick around, there are many good reasons for Mr. Ozawa and his party to rethink their position. Japan's presence in the Indian Ocean is by no means trivial. But it is modest compared with the commitment of allies such as Canada, Germany, and France, which have forces on the ground in Afghanistan, at some political cost to their governments. In 2001, when Japan first stepped up to help in Southwest Asia, it demonstrated that then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi wanted Japan to assume international security responsibilities commensurate with its economic might. This is still the right policy. To reverse it now for short-term partisan political advantage would do lasting damage to American and international perceptions of Japan's reliability.

Japan’s Role in Afghanistan

By Tetsundo Iwakuni

September 28, 2007

The Post's editorial board is certainly entitled to its own opinion regarding the Democratic Party of Japan’s opposition to legislation authorizing deployment of Japanese Self-Defense Forces in support of U.S.-led operations in Afghanistan. However, we have been consistent in opposing the legislation since it was first proposed to the Japanese Diet, and thus under no circumstances can our present position be characterized as opportunistic.

Nor is the issue about stirring up anti-U.S. sentiment. The DPJ and its leader, Ichiro Ozawa, believe firmly in the importance of the Japan-U.S. alliance.

The implication that Japan, in comparison with other U.S. allies, is not pulling its weight in the international arena is unjustified, for Japan has specific constitutional restrictions on engaging in military operations overseas. Let us remember that it was, quite ironically, the United States that strongly influenced the adoption of a pacifist Japanese constitution prohibiting such involvement.

Moreover, the DPJ's stance does not preclude Japan from assuming "international security responsibilities commensurate with its economic might." We simply feel we should first explore the ways in which Japan can fulfill its obligations without having to override its own constitution.

YET MORE EFFORTS TO PRESSURE THE DEMOCRATS

It seems like I’ve been writing this same story for the past two months, but we are witnessing even more efforts to overtly pressure the DPJ to “reconsider” its position on the MSDF Indian Ocean mission. As we mentioned in Shingetsu Newsletter No. 743, the US embassy has been gathering some of its close allies to make a joint representation to the DPJ.

A joint statement by eleven countries was released yesterday calling Operation Enduring Freedom “unique and vital” and expressed their “hope that Japan will continue its important contribution.” The countries represented in the statement were the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I presume that other countries opted not to sign.

In addition to the embassy, the Decider himself has made more comments on this issue. Bloomberg reports that in his congratulatory call to Yasuo Fukuda a couple of days ago, President Bush added that “he hoped the refueling operations for Afghanistan will be renewed by the Diet.”

As for Fukuda and the new Japanese administration itself, they have already pledged to try to reestablish the mission within this year. However, it remains to be seen how much attention they are really going to devote to Washington’s pet project when they have their plate already filled with crucial issues of party survival. Fukuda himself said to Bush, “I will make efforts to make it possible to continue the mission, although the parliamentary situation is severe.”

The latest Yomiuri Shinbun poll found 47% of the public in favor of extending the mission and 40% against. However, as I noted before, I believe that a strong majority of the Japanese public is actually against the mission, but that there are fears about how the United States will react to a rejection. From a public opinion perspective, I think that Ozawa and the DPJ are still on pretty safe ground.