Disturbing Reasoning of Air Strike

It is getting obvious that Japan cannot welcome the air strike operation on Syrian territory by the United States. U.S. explained that the operation was an exercise of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense as reflected in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In the discussion of collective self-defense of Japan, Shinzo Abe administration tried to strictly define what self-defense meant. U.S. activity on Syria is different from the argument in Japan.

Japanese media reported that U.S. military strike on Syria was exercise of both collective and individual self-defense. Strike for the purpose of protecting Iraq with request of Iraqi government must be an operation for collective self-defense. On the other hand, preventing further beheading of U.S. citizens or removing terrorists such as Khorasan Group that had plot of terrorism in U.S. were recognized as exercise of individual self-defense.

Problem for Japan is the reasoning on individual self-defense. In the Budgetary Committee in the House of Councillors on July, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fumio Kishida, told that individual self-defense could be exercised only the state itself was attacked. “In general, it is impossible in terms of international law for our nation to justify use of force as exercise of individual self-defense with broad interpretation of individual self-defense in spite of no actual attack on us has been made,” told Kishida.

U.S. strike on Syria was made without any previous attack on U.S. soil. According to Kishida’s interpretation, international law is prohibiting broad interpretation of threat in Syria as U.S. did. Although Abe and other senior officials of Japanese government expressed “understanding” on the U.S. military strike, it must have meant that Japan actually supported illegal activity of its ally.

If Japan realizes U.S. air strike as individual self-defense, there will be an argument that it will need to exercise individual self-defense when the terrorist group will behead a Japanese citizen in Syria or other countries. In broader interpretation, Japan may offend a country in which a Japanese tourist is killed by robbery.

Such a contradiction stemmed from rough-and-ready discussion over reinterpretation of the Constitution of Japan over collective self-defense. The way Abe tried to persuade the public, taking advantage of wisdom of bureaucrats around him, was filled with stories of “if.” He reiterated in the way “If something happens, we need collective self-defense.” Japan may have to use its collective self-defense for other country, before it does for itself.