Going Trivial Further

It is undeniable that the Japanese are willing to contribute world peace and security. On the other hand, they are proud of post-war pacifism which has been a benchmark of this nation. Sending troops of Self-defense Force has always been restricted by provision of the Constitution that prohibits use of force in overseas. Some are proud of that self-restraint and others are frustrated with the limitation. The government of Japan, basically on the frustrated side, is complicating the discussion over the dilemma by introducing new regulation making no sense.

Japan made a new step in its international contribution to recovery effort from conflict when it sent its self-defense force to Iraq in 2003. It was the first expedition of the force to a country at actual war. To hedge constitutional restriction on use of force in overseas, the government created a concept of “non-combat zone,” in which Japanese force could only be deployed. But this conceptualization proved to be making no sense, because there was no line between combat and non-combat zone in Iraq.

In the current discussion for international contribution, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe did not back off his intention to broaden Japan’s effort. His staffs raised four conditions for sending troops in combat zone, in which Japan would not get involved. Since it meant removing all restrictions except joining actual battle, coalition partner of leading Liberal Democratic Party, New Komeito, strongly opposed it.

Three days later, Abe’s staffs gave the four conditions up and proposed newer three conditions instead. They were that self-defense force would not be deployed to area with actual battle, the force would finish its activity when battle occurred, and humanitarian effort should be continued. Fatal contradiction of the proposal was that it created new concept of “combat or non-combat zone” inside existing concept of combat zone. The proposal ignored the basic reason of the review, which was distinguishing “non-combat zone” from “combat zone” was impossible.

It is inevitable that sharp argument over determination of area for deployment will be raised, when actual demand for Japan’s contribution exists. Other talking points, such as firearms Japanese force can bring or definition of enemy Japanese troops can strike, is still remaining.

The problem of this discussion is that government of Japan is still in an effort to send troops with distorted conceptualization and politics has no gut to find a breakthrough with their leadership and political responsibility. Current discussion will never lead to the final solution.