hankyoreh

By Gil Yun-hyung, Tokyo correspondent

Japan unveiled the outline of its plans for exercising collective self-defense, which are scheduled for a final report in April.

The plans are expected to trigger an outcry at home - to say nothing of neighboring South Korea and China - with terms that open the way for Japan to involve itself in virtually any global conflict.

Shinichi Kitaoka, deputy chairman of the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security, held a press conference at the Japan National Press Club on Feb. 22 to announce the five terms for collective self-defense exercise that are currently being discussed by the panel.

According to Kitaoka, the terms include situations where a country “in a close relationship” with Japan is under attack, where failure to take action is expected to have a grave impact on Japanese security, where the country under attack has made a request, and where the Prime Minister has made a comprehensive decision and received the consent of the Diet. They also would require the consent of any country whose territory or waters would be traversed but is itself not under attack.

The panel plans to complete a report by April for submission to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. After reviewing it, Abe is expected to revise the current Constitutional interpretation - which repudiates the exercise of collective self-defense - within the regal parliamentary session in late June.

If developed into a final plan, the change is expected to have major repercussions at home and throughout East Asia. The main reason is the inclusion of terms - such as “situations where failure to take action is expected to have a grave impact on Japanese security” - which, if read broadly, could widen the scope of Japan Self-Defense Forces activities to anywhere in the world.

In contrast, the panel’s first report in June 2008 provided four highly specific instances, including situations where a US vessel is attacked in open sea or the interception of a ballistic missile headed for the US. Because the examples were specific rather than abstract, there was little concern that an arbitrary interpretation could broaden the cope of JSDF activities.

The example of a “grave impact” that Kitaoka provided on Feb. 23 - interruption of Japanese petroleum transportation routes - did little to allay concerns.

In this case, Japan would be able to intervene in a wide range of armed disputes to protect its routes - everywhere from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, Strait of Malacca, and the South and East China Seas. And with the Japanese media quoting several government sources as saying petroleum route protection would be included in the scope of collective self-defense exercise, it seems very likely to be reflected in the final plan.

For South Koreans, the idea of requiring permission for JSDF passage in the event of an exercise of collective self-defense is especially troubling. As an example, Kitaoka said the JSDF “could pass through South Korean waters when going to the aid of a US vessel under attack on the coast of the Korean Peninsula.”

“In such a case, we would want to obtain consent,” he added.

His example made it clear that Japan would have to obtain Seoul’s consent when the JSDF passes over South Korean waters or land while aiding the US in the case of an upheaval in North Korea. The potential for controversy lies in the fact that it can also be interpreted as saying the JSDF, in principle, wouldn’t necessarily be obligated to obtain that consent when intervening directly in such a scenario. The idea of Japan intervening in an incident on the Korean Peninsula without South Korean consent is unacceptable to Seoul, since it would not only tweak nationalist sentiments among Koreans but also potentially threaten peace and stability in East Asia.

Meanwhile, many in Japan are expressing concern about Abe’s plans to introduce the new Constitutional interpretation on collective self-defense by Cabinet decision -- without a review by the Diet.

Yohei Kono, who issued an eponymous statement as Chief Cabinet Secretary in 1993 on comfort women, voiced his worries in an interview with the Tokyo Shimbun newspaper.

“Is it right to change the government’s interpretation of the Constitution through a simple expert panel discussion, where everyone is in favor?” Kono asked. “I feel quite uneasy about it.”

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]