I'm encouraged to read that Japan intends to send peacekeepers to Iraq. Although the story says that America criticised Japan for only sending money and not troops during Gulf War I, that's a lot more than many nations sent. (I don't remember the US being critical, considering we designed their pacifist Constitution, but I was pretty young then.)
The dispatch, expected to begin over the next month, will involve elements of Japan's land, sea and air forces.Japan is one of the richest nations in the world, and generally a strong ally of the United States. I'll be glad to have them involved in rebuilding Iraq, and I think it will be beneficial to the world (particularly East Asia) if the Japanese become more active militarily.
According to media reports, 600 ground troops will be sent, along with armored vehicles and up to six naval ships, including destroyers. Eight aircraft, including three C130 transport planes, will also be deployed.The total number of troops would be about 1,000. ...
The troops will stay for six months to one year, and, as defensive measures, carry rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other arms that Japanese peacekeepers have never used, reports in most major newspapers said, quoting unnamed ruling party sources.
In the meeting with ruling party executives earlier Tuesday, Koizumi stressed the need for Japan to live up to its international responsibilities, "instead of just talking about them," according to the Kyodo news service.
You alluded to the Japanese Constitution, but I'm not sure how familiar you are with the full import of Japan's decision to send members of its Self-Defense Force to Iraq.
Article IX of the Japanese Constitution (forced on the conquered nation by the United States at the end of WWII) prohibits the creation or maintenance of a Japanese army, and explicitly relinquishes the right of the Japanese to use force as a tool of international relations. Calling it a "Self-Defense Force" has enabled the Japanese to build up one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world, but Article IX has, until now, prevented use of the Self-Defense Forces beyond the borders and immediate territorial waters of the nation itself. Until now, the dominant interpretation of Article IX held that the Self-Defense Force was for use ONLY in a circumstance where Japanese soil was under direct *attack.* Hence the purely financial support of Kuwait during Gulf War I.
The decision to send elements of the Self-Defense Force to Iraq represents a fundamental shift in Constitutional interpretation and is the product of much heated debate in Japan. This decision might also be a sign that Constitutional amendment of Article IX is on the horizon. If this is the case, Japan's role in international affairs will reach heights unseen since the first half of the 20th century.
I suppose that I am pretty much reiterating what you said in your post, but I want to emphasize that this decision is a HUGE deal in Japan, the object of much controversy. And it means that the Japanese are gradually, yet fundamentally, attempting to redefine their role in the world.
it means that the Japanese are gradually, yet fundamentally, attempting to redefine their role in the world.
Because they have yet to admit their responsibility for Pearl Harbor, continuing to blame the U.S. in a tit-for-tat response similar to the Palestinian meme, this concerns me to no end.
Nick: Yeah, I'm generally aware of the situation, and I'm sure it is a huge deal in Japan. Are most Japanese people actually pacifistic, or are they simply more isolationist, or what?
S3: That's a good point, and one I hadn't considered.