by Shigeru AOYAMA
Senior Member of Research Committee, DRC
The unpredictable incident that commercial airplanes collided intentionally by terrors with the buildings of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and caused enormous casualties in the United States on September 11th this year gave intense shock not only to the American people but to the whole world mankind. This terrible incident must be memorized in the world history in the beginning of twenty first century noting a turning point. The U.S. President George W. Bush said “It is a new war!” and an economic magazine “The Economist (September 15~21)” expressed “The Day the World Changed” and “The New Enemy” on titles of articles.
According to the press, the most probable suspect is seemed to be Islam fundamentalist Osama bin Laden who is regarded as to be harbored by Taliban with effective power in Afghanistan. It is neither a nation nor a state which committed the attack to the U.S. symbolic targets, but a transnational and networked terrorists group. This attack, at the same time, caused big economic damages in the United States and these extended to the free world.
There seems to be some background which caused this transnational terrorism. In the present global information age emerged with innovation and by rapid progress of communications and electronics technologies such as satellite and computer and development of various transportation means, the world economic system has been much internationalized as well as strongly interdepended. That is “globalization”, which is a phenomenon emerged after the Cold war, worldwide economic markets and international manufacturing by transnational transference of fund, technologies and human resources, in other words, a phenomenon of open or worldwide integrated economy.
Coping with the challenge by the terrorists against freedom and democracy, U.S. President Jorge W. Bush is actively promoting necessary diplomatic and economic actions, while he is preparing the military operations to eradicate whole organization of the terrorism by military operations and monetary freeze. These efforts include ensuring cooperation and building up solidarity with allied and friendly nations and even Islamic nations such as Iran and Pakistan under the economic sanctions.
Such kind of terrorism imposes serious influences broadly to national politics, economy, social activities and so forth, and then these damages extend to international communities. So international cooperation is essential to deal with this kind of terrorism even super power such as the United States, because any issues or things generally dealt by a nation may become much influenced by international environment and internationally interdependent, and international chains and solidarity are required for dealing with such qualitatively diversified and complicate issues. I would like to think about Japanese national security with its’ qualitative characteristics in these international environments.
1. Transnational and Globalized International Systems
After the Cold War, international communities have become diversified. It seems to me that the U.S. basic strategies and policies for coping with the terrorism are to combine the diplomacy, economy and military engagements, as well as establishment of international solidarity is also its fundamental goal.
The end of the Cold War increasingly brought regional armed conflicts originated in ethnic, religious, territory and other issues, instead of diminished ideological and global military confrontation including threats of nuclear warfare. Coping with such dramatically changed environment of international security, the United Nations’ activities such as Peace Keeping Operations (PKO) are vitalized, and as the results of these are appreciated and expectation to the UN is enhanced, the roles of the UN have been becoming expanded. Fifteen PKOs with approximately 43,000 personnel including 35,000 soldiers and 8,000 civil police from 88 nations are under operations as of the end of April 2001. United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) at Golan Heights which is only PKO in which Japan participates with 45 soldiers, is shaping multinational solidarity composed of a thousand of soldiers from six nations including Austria, Canada, Japan, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden.
The 50 resolutions had passed in the Security Council of the UN last year, and 36 have already passed as of September 18 this year. With regard to the terrorism on September 11th, the Security Council of the UN had already passed some resolutions. These are Resolution 1267(1999) of 15 October 1999 which condemned that the Taliban controls Afghanistan and provides harbor to terrorist Osama bin Laden, Resolution 1333(2000) of 19 December 2000, Resolution 1363(2001) of 30 July 2001. Dealing with the terrorism on September 11th in the United States, on September 12th the next day of the incident, the United Nations General Assembly expressed condolence to the victims and adopted the resolution to judge the criminals, their organization and supporters and to ask international cooperation promptly to prevent and eradicate terrorism. On the same day, the Security Council also adopted Resolution 1368(2001) of 12 September 2001 which reconfirmed the spirit of the UN Charters and determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The fact showed very quick response to international solidarity.
There is another transnational and globally networked organization named “Non-Government Organization (NGO), which presents international solidarity and has been expanding its influence and widening sphere of activities after the Cold War. According to the definition by the UN Public Information Center, “NGO is a non-profit and civil volunteer party which is organized by regional, nation or international community.” We find the word “NGO” on Charter of the UN Article 71, that is “The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence.” Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the UN stated in “the Role of the United Nations in the 21st century”, that groups and individuals more and more often interact directly across frontiers, without involving the States, and we must expand the UN’s relationship with civil society organizations, as well as with the private sector and foundations.
On the other hand, emerging tremendous number of refugees caused of various regional conflicts is also one of serious international phenomenon. Concerning to the definition of refugee on the text of the 1951 Convention, as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. Provisional number of persons who requires assistance by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is approximately 21.1millions as of January 1st 2001(approximately 14.9 millions in 1990).
There are some peoples whom human rights are restraint or persecuted. Though the issue of human rights is originally regarded as domestic affairs, Charter of the UN says at its beginning that we the peoples of the United Nations determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” declared at the UN general assembly in 1948 is also defined as common criterion which every peoples and nations should achieve. So, the human rights are now recognized as international common theme rather than domestic problems.
The security environment after the Cold War might have emerged from the results that many nations composed of multiple races or religions gained independence as developing countries. The fact means, at the same time, that geographical distribution of identical race and religion is different from a national territory border. Such identical ethnic and religious ties across national borders sometimes stronger than a national unity, and these factors may make regional conflicts more complicate.
In the future, such transnational
actions will become more active in broad area, while globalized economy which
is core of a national interest may strengthen its tie with diplomacy and
military affairs.
2. Qualitative Change of Threats―Asymmetric
Threat Brought by RMA and Proliferations of Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD)
After the Cold War, the United States is pursuing RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) in the process of reconstructions of military strategy, forces and postures mainly establishing information oriented military systems. Once such modernized forces are deployed in the battlefield in future, combat situations would be developed with too high speed and tempo, the space where combat power reaches would be too expanded and accuracy and destructive power of weapons and weapon systems would be too enhanced, to cope with traditional combat methods. RMA must cause to force to review military doctrine, organizations and operational concept and so on fundamentally, that is reason why we call “revolution”.
On the other hand, NATO countries such as UK, Germany and France are promoting their own original modernization of military forces exploiting information technologies, and Russia and China with much concern over RMA also seem to have been working with their financial and technological capabilities.
For many other nations, especially developing countries, it seems difficult to pursue the RMA as the same direction and level as the U.S. does even though they have much concern about it, because of technological and financial restrictions.
Continuing rapid progress in various information and communication technologies such as computer, satellite and others, these are “DUT (Dual Use Technology)”, has brought revolutionary change in general community from the industrialized age to information age. In the military area, it has been enable that C4I capability has dramatically improved and specific weapons and equipments with which advanced technologies are fully exploited such as missiles, robots, platforms became comparatively easy to acquire and develop. Farther, as the weapons of mass destruction including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons concerned as serious threat by proliferation are combined with these advanced technologies or equipments, they may intend anywhere and anytime to make surprise attack and neutralize or confuse national crucial functions with asymmetric means such as long range missiles, terrorism (especially with nuclear, chemical and biology) against RMA forces or nations. Probability to sustain enormous damage to human life would be increased.
According to a taskforce report of the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on “Cyber Crime, Cyber Terrorism, Cyber Warfare”, there is a warning that if we could chose ten hackers based in the U.S. and have ninety days grace period, we will be able to surrender this country. They also suggest that in order to obtain deterrence in information age, we should put more stress on ability of recovery for infrastructures than on that of retaliation.
It is normally difficult to
predict the time and place of such asymmetric attack (threat) and prevent it,
and also to determine quickly the enemy with its means and organizations. So in
order to cope with the threats effectively, it is indispensable that we should prepare
in peacetime to respond and recover against the attack as analyzing all
thinkable probabilities, and gather and exchange information not only across
inside of a nation but also through international solidarity.
3. The U.S. Security and Military
Strategies―Consolidating Homeland Defense and
Strategic Mobility
During the Cold war, the U.S. had adopted the forward deployment strategy as basic national military strategy to contain the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations and their forces within the Eurasia Continent. As the homeland defense, the U.S. seemed to have focused on the Soviet strategic nuclear missiles by preparing nuclear deterrence and arms control talks, and infiltration of communism and communist forces from Central America such countries as Cuba, Nicaragua into the U.S. territory.
As stated on the Bottom-Up Review issued by DoD in 1993, the basic national military strategy reviewed after the Cold war is to maintain sufficient military power to be able to win two major regional conflicts (MRC) that occur nearly simultaneously. On the first quadrennial review for the Bottom-Up Review in 1997, although the stresses were put on Small Scale Contingency (SSC), asymmetric threats and overseas presence rather than MRC (revised as MTW: Major Theater War), the basic strategy has been continued.
In 2001, the second quadrennial defense review is to be issued this fall, it is the first comprehensive national defense strategy by Bush Administration. According to testimonies in the congress by President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and official comments by military leaders, at present, the U.S. attaches great importance to the homeland defense emphasizing on ①national missile defense, ②dealing with terrorists’ attack, ③dealing with cyber attack. It seems probable to revise the policy to maintain military power to be able to win two MTWs. Related to this strategy, based on the lessons learned from Kosobo operations, Army’s strategic troops organized by two types―a heavy division (brigade) for MTW with 70 tons main battle tanks (Abraham) and a light division (brigade) for SSC―are to be unified into medium weight brigade which possesses enough combat power to win MTW with strategic high mobility and less logistic requirement. Goal of the Army troops is an ultimate “Objective Force” and “Interim Force” which is possible to develop with existing technologies.
This large-scale terrorism must have urgently caused of homeland defense as top priority on the development of U.S. national defense program. Although total strength of the U.S. forces is to be maintained as it is, and forward deployment forces are focuses on the Asian region, it must be inevitable to reduce overseas deployment strength in order to consolidate U.S. homeland defense. Therefore the U.S. would ask allied nations such as NATO nations, Japan and South Korea to strengthen partnership and cooperation. Even for such nation with super power as the United States, it is essential to have international solidarity and cooperation including with the UN both to gather information and retaliate against transnational and globally organized terrorists’ attack.
4. Asian Nations―Seeking Multilayered and Comprehensive
Security Systems
There are still split nations in Asian region as Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and China and Taiwan after having been more than ten years since the end of the Cold War. Socialism nations such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Myanmar which had been involved in the fires of war during the Cold War are still unstable and on the way to recover and reconstruct them toward democratic states and open market economy system. China and North Korea still adhere to communism with single political party.
Regarding threats of WMD, there are nations that possess nuclear weapons (include possessing capabilities to produce them) in the region; these are Russia, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. According to “The Korean White Paper for National Defense” (Advance summary in 2000), North Korea has the capability of producing one or two rudimentary nuclear weapons. Eight different factories in North Korea have produced lethal chemical agents, and at present they are stored in six different facilities. Their quantity is estimated to be somewhere between 2,500~5,000 tons. It is suspected North Korea has the capacity to grow the bacteria for anthrax and produce other kinds of biological weapons, and to deliver these through field artillery, fighters, missiles (long range: Nodong-1; 1,300km, Daepodong-1; 2,500km, Daepodong-2; 6,700km) and other means. There are also territory and territorial waters issues in this area which might be cause of conflicts. Though Asian region holds most causes of instability and conflicts in the world and existing bilateral alliances such as the U.S.-Japan and the U.S.-Korea security relations contribute to the Asian regional security, multilateral and regional security system similar to the NATO in Europe does not exist in this area. Both Japan and South Korea have alliance with the United States and seek to consolidate mutual reliance and friendship with each other. But there has been barrier of the aftermath of World WarⅡ. South Korea expressed on the White Paper as their basic direction of defense policy to improve the Republic of Korea (ROK)-US alliance and strengthen security cooperation with neighboring countries. It must be common interest, I think, to improve more the relations between both countries which are located geographically very close with each other, and have common sense of values in their politics, economy and others.
ASEAN which established in 1967 with five nations of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand is now composed of ten nations and is active by organizing ASEAN Ministerial Meeting including U.S., Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and the representative of European Union, and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in which North Korea has participated since last July. The activity of ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) similar to EU in Europe and NAFTA in North America is also to start in 2002. Thus Asian people firmly recognize that in order to seek the economical development and prosperity of each country, regional peace and stability never exposed by conflict or fires of war is essential. Therefore they regard ARF which established in 1994 as important for the field of security talks in Asia-Pacific area in spite of having quite a few problems in it. The ARF that held in Hanoi July 2001 agreed to promote the role of ARF from current “Confidence Building Measures (CBM)” to “Preventive Diplomacy”.
I found that Asian nations’ basic politics for seeking their securities has never changed, when I visited Southeast Asia (Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia) in July 2001 for research activities after three years absence. They are actively contributing to the regional security through promoting multilateral military exchanges, conducting joint military exercises and participating PKO, while they prepare for individual defense structures depending on predictable threats and risks in the region. But their strongest concern for the regional and national security seems the U.S-Japan-China triangle relations as the security frame. These three major powers on politics, economy and military strength (except Japan) are key to regional security and economy in the region, and they also seem to recognize that the three major nations’ stable and balanced relations would be a condition to the regional peace, stability and economic prosperity. Therefore, they will never want such situations as Chinese expansionism with militarization connected with the U.S. withdrawal of military power from the Asian region, and/or bipolar confrontation between the U.S. with Japan and China. And these Asian nations seem to steadily seek and try to establish national and regional securities taking all possible means into the multilayered security systems.
It evidently seems that every nations I mentioned here place security policies in the top priority of their national functions and they regard defense policy and strategies as national comprehensive functions with politics, diplomacy and economy. In Thailand, about hundred civilian executive officials of the government and about fifty high rank officers in each military service were studying national security at the National Defense College in the every morning for two months. The Chulalongkorn University of Thailand and Nanyang Technological University of the Republic of Singapore organize a strategic institute for national security and international affairs, where they research and study security issues on politics, military and economy that is critical for their nations and the Asia-Pacific region, and propose the results to their governments and provide them for the students’ educations of the graduate school.
In Indonesia, “The LEMHANNAS
(National Resilience Institute) which basic duties encompass the performance of
the duties of administration in the strategic research sector regarding various
national and international issues including political, economic, social and
cultural organizations and defense and security as required by the President
and other determiners of national policy and is used to belong under the
national defense ministry, but it has recently shifted under the command of the
President. At the same time, position of the Governor converted from a military
general to civilian official and composition of civilian students have also
increased up to 70% (Soldiers students down to 30%).
5. Japanese Response―Coping
with the Changing Environment of International Security
I have examined and pointed out the important and influential factors for our national security. Then I’m going to think about how Japan should do for the national security and defense.
It is not easy to cope with effectively such asymmetric threats as large-scale terrorism and invisible cyber attack. Attackers are generally able to obtain sufficient results for their goals by comparatively small-scale strength and fund, while defenders are usually difficult to get necessary information and predict and prevent these attacks in advance and to specify criminals or enemy including their organizations and states, and to retaliate and recover the damages.
As the terrorists attack in the U.S. on September 11 showed, it is almost impossible to deal with such incident only by single nation through the prevention to retaliation, and it is inevitably necessary that every nations in the world centering the UN take rapid actions with strong solidarity. When we take a counterattack or retaliation against these attacks, besides military operations, diplomatic and economic means including monetary should be employed comprehensively.
When Japan is attacked by such terrorism in future, it is obvious that actions supported by international solidarity of many nations only enable to cope with it. We must alter the way of thinking, for challenging against such threats wherever happened, that we should share the responsibilities for international solidarity, and it doesn’t mean to support or assist other nations exposed by the threats. Therefore, it would not be basically allowed to avoid the execution of international responsibility because of such domestic situations as the national laws or other reasons.
(2) To Treat National Security and Defense Policies on equal Basis with Other Critical Measures Comprehensively
In Japan, we may not be able to deny the fact that substantial debate on national security and defense has long been intentionally avoided and its’ policies are very behind to follow the change of international situations, because of renunciation of war by the Article 9 of the Constitution and existing of a part of political parties which insist protection of the Constitution.
As seeking to import various kinds of raw materials, energy, food, and others and exporting many kinds of products to overseas markets, Japan highly depends on international communities for her existence and national interests. This tendency will be more extended as globalization in the international community is much developed in future. Here are some figures of statistics by MOFA June 2001: number of Japanese residents abroad which had indicated approx. 586,000 in 1989 continued to increase year by year, and reached approx. 812,000 (permanent residents: 285,027, long term residents more than three months: 526,685) in 2000; number of Japanese foreign voyagers which had been one million something in 1972 and marked ten millions in 1990, reached 17,800,000 (provisional number but more than 10% of population) in 2000. Thus the international movement and exchanges of Japanese people are getting more active related to the diplomatic and economic activities. It is responsibility of our government to secure the safety and activities of Japanese people overseas, and it is also important measures for protecting the national interests.
As international society is fighting against the terrorism on September 11 in the U.S. with comprehensive solidarity; not simply by means of military, but linked synthetically with politics, diplomacy and economy, Japanese security and defense policies also must be examined and determined synthetically with diplomatic and economic policies at equivalent level.
Japan sustains alliance with the United States through the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements, which also contribute to peace and stability in Asian region. But in the future, as the U.S. consolidates her homeland defense, and on the contrary, when forward deployed forces are reduced or power projection forces towards Asian region are slimed down, Japanese sharing roles, especially host nation support and logistic support as allied partner with the U.S., may increase. Japan has also to accomplish our own responsibility to maintain Asian peace and stability as an Asian nation.
When I visited Southeast Asian countries this summer to discuss Asian security, not a few knowledgeable persons and specialists asked Japan to grapple with Asian security more actively, to endeavor to promote confidence building in the Asian region through conducting joint exercises and trainings. And some one pointed out that Japanese defense policies seemed for them like American’s shadows, while they understood the importance of the U.S.-Japan Security Arrangements. The relations with South Korea which possesses quite a few senses of common value with us are also important for Japan, though there are historical issues between both nations. Japan should consider earnestly what South Korea requires for the peace and stability and peaceful reunification of the Korean Peninsular, and collaborate for them concretely considering what Japan should do as a neighbor nation.
In conclusion, Japan must make more efforts in the long term to contribute to peace and stability in the Asian region and to prosperity for Asian nations as a major advanced and democratic nation in the region, while maintaining firm alliance with the United States.