October 10, 2015
Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has been boasting of “kaketsuke-keigo” (running fast to remote locations to offer armed assistance to foreign troops or civilians) as a selling point to gain permanent membership in the UN Security Council. In fact, he stressed Japan’s commitment to UN PKOs in the UN General Assembly in late September.
“Protection of civilians” is the foremost mission of the UN PKOs. When civilians come under attack, the military of their country will normally protect them. However, in some particular cases, UN PKO units will come to their aid.
“The PKO units will use military means to eliminate groups attacking civilians and will perform a key role in combat under international law,” explained Isezaki Kenji, an expert in international relations and a professor in the graduate school at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Isezaki served in the UN Transitional Administration as the governor of Cova Lima in East Timor in March 2000. In the UN mission in Sierra Leone in June 2001, he was in charge of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR). He also assumed the position of special advisor to the government of Japan for DDR in Afghanistan in February 2003.
Following is an excerpt of the interview with Isezaki which Akahata ran on October 10:
In light of international law, the right to self-defense includes the right to belligerency, whether individual or collective. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, however, renounces the right to wage war.
Protection of civilians entails the use of force, in other words, the right to belligerency, to ostensibly safeguard those who asked for help. As part of the security-related legislation, the revised PKO law allows Japan to engage in the protection of civilians, but Japan cannot take part in this kind of activity in the first place unless it revises Article 9 of the Constitution.
Regarding “kaketsuke-keigo”, the Abe government claims that Japan “will protect UN and NGO staff” but this is a duty that civilian police carries out. In the past, to distinguish between the military and the police in PKO assignments was ambiguous, but now civilian police protect non-military UN and NGO staff members, and PKO units fight in armed conflict as a belligerent party.
If Japan wants to protect non-military UN workers and NGO staff, it should send civilian police. No one in the administration, however, has taken up discussions from that perspective. All they want is to become capable of dispatching the SDF at any cost.
In addition, protection of non-military personnel is simply called protection. The argument of claiming “kaketsuke-keigo” does not exist anywhere in the world. Therefore, I don’t think anyone in the international community would understand what exactly “kaketsuke-keigo” actually means.
Accidental shooting will be diplomatic issue
To use weapons to protect civilians means to kill or injure someone who is pointing a gun at them although PKO unit members are not in physical danger. When it comes to protection, there is always a risk for misfire incidents because it is very difficult to tell the guerrillas from local residents.
Based on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed with countries concerned, UN peacekeepers have privilege of being immune from supplementary indictments against their accidental discharge of weapons. Since a PKO has no military court, those who mistakenly shot someone will be brought to a military court in their own country.
In Japan, individual SDF officer may have to take responsibility for an accidental shooting because Japan does not have a military court. So far, the SDF has not fired a weapon at anyone in its overseas missions. I believe this is extremely lucky, bordering on a miracle. From now on, however, accidental shooting incidents are bound to happen.
In addition, the issue of liability for compensation may arise. The UNGA has discussed the responsibility of PKO personnel for wrongful deaths and injuries.
If it turns out that PKO members are to blame, the UN would pay for damages. In case SDF members shoot someone by mistake during PKOs, however, Japan may be required to further increase its financial contributions to the UN. In any case, mistaken firings by PKO staff will develop into a diplomatic issue. I do not think that the Japanese government considered this matter during the Diet deliberations on the security legislation.
Japan should maintain its unarmed and neutral policy
In South Sudan, armed guerrillas are active beyond national borders. Kenya and Uganda, both bordering South Sudan, are taking part in the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) as well. This is because if the present situation in South Sudan is left as it is, a large influx of refugees from the country could threaten the security of the two neighbors.
To ensure the neutrality of its activities, the UN had been reluctant to receive help from neighboring countries for its operations in a politically unstable nation. However, the UN recently began to allow adjacent countries to join PKO units. This means that UN PKOs, which were originally measures for the UN’s collective security, have come to contain an element of collective self-defense. Many countries do not want PKO units which are only composed of foreign developed nations to engage in battles in their region to protect local people.
PKO members’ recent sexual assaults on local women have a connection with the fact that UN PKOs have taken on a military coloration. The UN, which is tasked to protect human rights around the world, actually violates human rights. In South Sudan, UN troops have even caused friction with the government forces.
What Japan needs to do, along with providing funding support, is to join a UN Military Observer Group (UNMOG). The UNMOG is the only unarmed and neutral organization involved in UN PKOs.
JCP proposal is timely
The recently-enacted security legislation should be repealed because it is constitutionally illegal. I fully support the Japanese Communist Party’s proposal to cooperate with other opposition parties to form a coalition government in order to abolish the laws.
At the same time, it is necessary to reflect on the fact that Japan has dispatched SDF troops abroad based on unconstitutional special measures acts. To stop the pacifist Constitution from turning into a dead letter, such an examination is essential.
“Protection of civilians” is the foremost mission of the UN PKOs. When civilians come under attack, the military of their country will normally protect them. However, in some particular cases, UN PKO units will come to their aid.
“The PKO units will use military means to eliminate groups attacking civilians and will perform a key role in combat under international law,” explained Isezaki Kenji, an expert in international relations and a professor in the graduate school at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Isezaki served in the UN Transitional Administration as the governor of Cova Lima in East Timor in March 2000. In the UN mission in Sierra Leone in June 2001, he was in charge of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR). He also assumed the position of special advisor to the government of Japan for DDR in Afghanistan in February 2003.
Following is an excerpt of the interview with Isezaki which Akahata ran on October 10:
In light of international law, the right to self-defense includes the right to belligerency, whether individual or collective. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, however, renounces the right to wage war.
Protection of civilians entails the use of force, in other words, the right to belligerency, to ostensibly safeguard those who asked for help. As part of the security-related legislation, the revised PKO law allows Japan to engage in the protection of civilians, but Japan cannot take part in this kind of activity in the first place unless it revises Article 9 of the Constitution.
Regarding “kaketsuke-keigo”, the Abe government claims that Japan “will protect UN and NGO staff” but this is a duty that civilian police carries out. In the past, to distinguish between the military and the police in PKO assignments was ambiguous, but now civilian police protect non-military UN and NGO staff members, and PKO units fight in armed conflict as a belligerent party.
If Japan wants to protect non-military UN workers and NGO staff, it should send civilian police. No one in the administration, however, has taken up discussions from that perspective. All they want is to become capable of dispatching the SDF at any cost.
In addition, protection of non-military personnel is simply called protection. The argument of claiming “kaketsuke-keigo” does not exist anywhere in the world. Therefore, I don’t think anyone in the international community would understand what exactly “kaketsuke-keigo” actually means.
Accidental shooting will be diplomatic issue
To use weapons to protect civilians means to kill or injure someone who is pointing a gun at them although PKO unit members are not in physical danger. When it comes to protection, there is always a risk for misfire incidents because it is very difficult to tell the guerrillas from local residents.
Based on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed with countries concerned, UN peacekeepers have privilege of being immune from supplementary indictments against their accidental discharge of weapons. Since a PKO has no military court, those who mistakenly shot someone will be brought to a military court in their own country.
In Japan, individual SDF officer may have to take responsibility for an accidental shooting because Japan does not have a military court. So far, the SDF has not fired a weapon at anyone in its overseas missions. I believe this is extremely lucky, bordering on a miracle. From now on, however, accidental shooting incidents are bound to happen.
In addition, the issue of liability for compensation may arise. The UNGA has discussed the responsibility of PKO personnel for wrongful deaths and injuries.
If it turns out that PKO members are to blame, the UN would pay for damages. In case SDF members shoot someone by mistake during PKOs, however, Japan may be required to further increase its financial contributions to the UN. In any case, mistaken firings by PKO staff will develop into a diplomatic issue. I do not think that the Japanese government considered this matter during the Diet deliberations on the security legislation.
Japan should maintain its unarmed and neutral policy
In South Sudan, armed guerrillas are active beyond national borders. Kenya and Uganda, both bordering South Sudan, are taking part in the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) as well. This is because if the present situation in South Sudan is left as it is, a large influx of refugees from the country could threaten the security of the two neighbors.
To ensure the neutrality of its activities, the UN had been reluctant to receive help from neighboring countries for its operations in a politically unstable nation. However, the UN recently began to allow adjacent countries to join PKO units. This means that UN PKOs, which were originally measures for the UN’s collective security, have come to contain an element of collective self-defense. Many countries do not want PKO units which are only composed of foreign developed nations to engage in battles in their region to protect local people.
PKO members’ recent sexual assaults on local women have a connection with the fact that UN PKOs have taken on a military coloration. The UN, which is tasked to protect human rights around the world, actually violates human rights. In South Sudan, UN troops have even caused friction with the government forces.
What Japan needs to do, along with providing funding support, is to join a UN Military Observer Group (UNMOG). The UNMOG is the only unarmed and neutral organization involved in UN PKOs.
JCP proposal is timely
The recently-enacted security legislation should be repealed because it is constitutionally illegal. I fully support the Japanese Communist Party’s proposal to cooperate with other opposition parties to form a coalition government in order to abolish the laws.
At the same time, it is necessary to reflect on the fact that Japan has dispatched SDF troops abroad based on unconstitutional special measures acts. To stop the pacifist Constitution from turning into a dead letter, such an examination is essential.
