& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Japan embraces the notion of preemptive strike

Monzurul Huq writes from Tokyo
***The war in Iraq has most likely opened a Pandora's box where issues surrounding state sovereignty, security and self-governance are all put into debate. If the invasion of Iraq can be justified, despite the fact that no proof has so far been produced to show the world that the regime accused of specific guilt was in fact guilty, no country in this world, including even the most powerful, can any longer feel its existence as sovereign state safe and secure.***
THE South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun arrived in Tokyo last Friday for a weekend summit seeking to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis in a peaceful way. Hours earlier the Japanese parliament passed a set of three bills outlining the principles of dealing with a military strike against the country. The timing of passing the bills, hence, couldn't have been worse for a diplomatic initiative to welcome the head of the state of an important neighbour whose all out cooperation would be considered essential if the North Korean issue is indeed to be resolved peacefully. The South Korean response to the new Japanese legislation was therefore, as expected, an angry one. In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, the ruling and opposition parties in South Korean parliament expressed outrage on Japan for passing the set of security bills on the day of the arrival of President Roh in Tokyo on a four-day
state visit. While the ruling Millennium Democratic Party expressed shock over the decision, the opposition Grand National Party criticized Japan for committing a diplomatic outrage and called on the government to come up with countermeasures.
The upper house of the Diet passed the three bills by an overwhelming majority that saw the ruling coalition gaining support in parliamentary debate and voting from the opposition Democratic Party and Liberal Party. Only the Social Democratic and Communist legislators opposed the bills branding them as clear examples of flagrant violation of country's peace constitution.
Under the new legislation, only a cabinet approval would be required before the government responds to a situation it regards as an organised and planned military attack or an expected strike by another nation. Of the three bills placed before the Diet, one sets out general procedural guidelines for response to an attack and outlines
the legal framework. The other two bills revise Japan's self defence forces law and the law of establishing the security council of Japan. The aim of the revision of selfdefence forces law was to ease the movement of troops in times of emergency.
With necessary legislations now in force, it can be presumed that the Japanese government is already prepared to counter any military offensive directed against the nation not only within the territorial borders of the country, but also beyond that. This second option raises some uneasy questions about the real motive behind such new legislations.
It has been clearly mentioned in the legislations that the government will be in a position to re-
spond to a situation that it recognises as an organised military attack as well as an expected strike by another nation against the country. The legislation also gives approval to the idea that only a cabinet decision would be required for the government to response in such an emergency situation. As nothing has been explained in detail of how the term 'expected strike' is to be defined, we can presume that the use of such wording has been intentional to water down the hawkish tone of the more widely used term 'preemptive strike', and contains more or less the same meaning. In other words, the new legislations virtually paved the way for Japan to launch preemptive strikes against any country that the cabinet might think is in
the process of preparation for launching a military assault against Japan. As the cabinet in Japan had never been heard of its fame for being a forum of heated discussion, this option also opens alarming possibility that a hurriedly drawn conclusion might take the country along the road to a war no less destructive than what the nation has experienced in the past.
The most difficult part for the Japanese government in relation to the new legislations, hence, will not be the one to convince the opposition within the country, which is now virtually confined within the traditional left that has been increasingly marginalised since the end of the Cold War, about its benefits, but to convince the neighbours that it has not been
directed against all of them but the evil one. But how far Japan's neighbours are going to be convinced about Tokyo's real intention remains questionable. The South Korean government and opposition political parties of the country have already made their position clear by strongly criticising Japan for moving the country on war footing. China too was quick to express dissatisfaction and anger as Beijing was already keeping a close eye over related developments in Japan.
The passage of the new legislations was preceded by the decision of the Japanese government to go ahead with the programme of deploying the US made missile defence system as an important means to combat
missiles and nuclear threats from North Korea. Under the programme, Japan is scheduled to deploy the system by the year 2006, which will be composed of advanced Patriot Missile System and missile interception system equipped with Aegis destroyers. The Japanese government earlier claimed that the decision was based on country's deteriorating relationship with North Korea and argued that the deployment of the missile system would serve as a deterrent to any future threat from Pyongyang and is a justifiable means of self defence. China has already dismissed such claims as unconvincing and groundless, mentioning that the possibility for North Korea, a country much smaller than Japan and stricken by economic hardship, to launch a military strike against its economically and militarily stronger neighbour is extremely slim. China, no doubt, sees herself as Japan's possible target and therefore skeptical about the real motives of Japanese leadership behind rais-
ing a foul cry against Pyongyang.
The war in Iraq has most likely opened a Pandora's box where issues surrounding state sovereignty, security and selfgovernance are all put into debate. If the invasion of Iraq can be justified, despite the fact that no proof has so far been produced to show the world that the regime accused of specific guilt was in fact guilty, no country in this world, including even the most powerful, can any longer feel its existence as sovereign state safe and secure. As a result, a new arms race of an unprecedented scale covering all aspects of political life of nations is already under way. The new legislations approved by the Japanese Diet forms only a legal part of that broader arms race and it is bound to accelerate the pace of the unhealthy competition at a time when the economic health of Japan and her neighbours are badly in need of closer attention.