Defence cooperation with Japan
DR Ahmad Rashid Malik

JAPAN is not only Pakistan’s important trading, economic, and investment partner; it is fasting becoming an important defense and security ally of Pakistan in recent times. Their defense and security cooperation can be seen in the broader context of 9/11. Following attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, Japan quickly responded by sending its Senior Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Seiken Sugihara, to Pakistan on 25-28 September 2001. Visits by Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori on 20-21 August 2000 and Junichiro Koizumi on 30 April – 1 May 2005 to Pakistan respectively and President General Pervez Musharraf visit to Japan 12-15 March 2002 and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s visit to Japan on 8-11 August 2005 largely helped converge security and defense understanding reached between the two countries over the past several years. The Musharraf-Koizumi parleys held in Tokyo largely focus on security cooperation and both leaders agreed to establish a Security Dialogue to discuss disarmament, non-proliferation, terrorism, and regional situation.
It is in the same context of growing defense and security cooperation that Japanese Defence Minister Ms Yuriko Koike made an official visit to Pakistan as special envoy of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on 22 August. She met with President General Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister Aziz, and her counterpart Federal Defence Minister Rao Sikandar Iqbal. Besides exchange of views on mutual interests, regional and international situation, Ms Koike discussed matters related to defense cooperation between the two countries and both countries’ respective roles combating global terrorism. The importance of the visit also lies in the fact that it was the first visit by a Japanese defense Minister to Pakistan. Japan’s defense minister was appointed in January this year as well as its Defence Agency was up-gradated to the level of Defence Ministry at the same time. Japan’s first Defence Minister Fumio Kyuma resigned after he made controversial remarks about Japan’s responsibility in World War II. Later Koike resigned on 28 August after taking the responsibility of information leaked by her Ministry on the Aegis defense system of the Maritime Self Defence Forces. Masahiko Komura was appointed as Japan’s third Defence Minister on 28 August within eight months since January 9 this year.
Defence cooperation between Pakistan and Japan was made possible under the Operation Enduring Freedom-Maritime Interdiction Operation (OEF-MIO), after passage of the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law passed in October 2001 to combat global terrorism in the wake of terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001. As the international community, United Nations, and Group of Eight (G-8) are making a common effort to tackle the menace of terrorism, Japanese contribution came in the form of OEF-MIO with focus on the situation in the South East & South Asia such as Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
For the last four years, since the approval of the anti-Terrorism Law by the Japanese Diet, as many as 45 countries have been participating under the OEF operation by dispatching military personnel. Like many other countries, Japan cannot refrain from such an important task of combating global terrorism that can be detrimental to its security and economic interests. Under the OEF-MIO, Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) provides refuelling and fresh water facilities to multilateral forces’ vessels and helicopters including Pakistan’s naval vessels participating in the operation in the Indian Ocean. Pakistan is the second largest in receiving vessels’ refuelling after the United States up to March this year. In terms of receiving helicopters refuelling, Pakistan ranked on the top of the list of the countries participating in the OEF-MIO. Other large receivers of refuelling facilities are France, Canada, Italy, Great Britain, and Germany.
Therefore, from Pakistan’s point of view, OEF-MIO is highly beneficial to shoulder the growing defense and security responsibilities of Pakistan in the wake of terrorist attacks in the United States. In other words, OEF-MIO is defense assistance to Pakistan. Additionally, Pakistan’s maritime cooperation under OEF-MIO further strengthen its defense and security cooperation with a number of important countries in the Indian Ocean that includes the United States, Japan, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, and New Zealand – much bigger than the SEATO of the 1950s. Therefore, it is in Pakistan’s vital interest that defense cooperation with Japan should continue under the OEF-MIO. Oceans can be havens for terrorist activities. Terrorists can escape from mountainous terrain to destroy ports and ships, blocking trade and energy lanes and to use seas as havens for their terrorist activities. In this sense, maritime interdiction is a crucial strategy to fight against terrorism. Additionally, under MIO, Japanese Maritime SDF intercepts vessels regarded as suspicious. It was believed that exchange of information and capacity-building will further enhance their cooperation in the areas of security and defense.
During talks with Koike, Foreign Minister Main Khurshid Mehmoud Kasuri greatly lauded Japan’s contribution toward OEF-MIO as ‘Pakistan considers Japan’s cooperation imperative to war on terrorism’ in the Indian Ocean. Pakistan wants Japan to continue its efforts with regard to security and defense in the Indian Ocean to combat global terrorism, which is also vital for the uninterrupted promotion of trading links between the two countries.
Japanese maritime cooperation with Pakistan depends on the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law passed by the Japanese Diet in 2001. The law has been extended three times beyond its original two-year period of application. The law considerably increased Japanese maritime responsibilities in the Indian Ocean thus making several countries including Pakistan to effectively respond to any untoward situation in this vast Oceanic region stretching from Japan to the Arabian Sea.
At the moment, a point of concern is related whether or not the Japanese Diet would extend the on-going Anti-Terrorism Law when it expires on 1 November this year. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) does not want amendments in the bill but to oppose it. DPJ does not want the dispatching of SDF overseas. Secretary-General of the DPJ, Yukio Hatoyama, is reported as saying that Japan can contribute other than ‘refuelling multinational warships’ by extending civilian support to Afghanistan to alleviate the country’s poverty ‘instead of supporting U.S.-led operations intended to eliminate remnants of the former Taliban regime’. DPJ won majority in the Upper House elections on 29 July elections. Hope Japanese lawmakers would take into these considerations Pakistan’s related defense cooperation with Japan while deliberating on the renewal of the bill after 1 November.
There is a likely fear that if the Diet could not get extension of the law, Japan would not be able to continue its commitment under OEF-MIO to several countries including its anti-terrorism cooperation with Pakistan. For several reasons, war on terror is not gone for Pakistan yet as it is true for many other countries. Pakistan needs continuous support from the United States, NATO, Japan, the United Nations, and the international community to successfully overcome the deadly menace of terrorism along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Amid this effort to combat terrorism, it would not be astute for the Japanese Diet not to extend the Anti-Terrorism law after 1 November. Japan already has limited means to cooperate with other countries in matters of defense and security because of de-militarization commitment under its Pacifist Constitution and Japanese Peace Treaty of 1951. Earlier, the Peace Keeping Operation (PKO) bill passed by the Japanese Diet in June 1992 is the only legal authority that allows Japanese non-combat SDF to participate in trouble areas under the UN umbrella. The Anti-Terrorism Law does not allow the threat or use of threat by Japan as envisaged in its Peace Treaty. A democratic and a transparent mechanism has been adopted to monitor Japanese defense activities under the Anti-Terrorism law as defense report goes to the Japanese Diet for approval. These checks and balances prevent any danger.
Narcotics control is also a part of the OEF-MIO. Afghanistan has been flourishing with narcotics trade. Since December 2002, a large portion of narcotics has been seized together with weapons that were confiscated by the forces working under the OEF-MIO. This effort must be continue, otherwise narco-dollar would continue to finance global terrorism. Besides ensuring security in the Indian Ocean, the Japanese Anti-Terrorism Law is an effective instrument to control narcotics trade in the Indian Ocean.

(Writer is Research Fellow (East Asia) at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute)

Will Basra prove US wrong?
Linda Heard

IT looks as though the British are slinking out of Basra in the hope their retreat won’t be noticed. Their headquarters at Saddam’s old palace was bequeathed to the Iraqi military at 4.30 a.m. yesterday. Or to be precise uniform-wearing Shiite militias, which control the south.
For now, the 5,500 British remnant of the original 45,000 contingent is to be holed up at the airport on the city’s outskirts awaiting a politically opportune moment to depart. We’ll probably wake up one day to discover they’ve all flown home to mom, tea and sympathy. In some circles this is being billed as an ignominious defeat. Right-wing US publications hint at betrayal. There are questions as to whether the “special relationship” is still as special.
Others, such as the American Thinker is more forthright: “The British retreat from Basra is simply the culmination of the BBC’s anti-American hate campaign for the last few decades,” goes the article, which blasts Britain and calls for a US withdrawal from NATO. “If we do not receive full reciprocity (from our allies), they do not deserve our protection,” is its bitter sting in the tail. Some Iraqi politicians warn of a power vacuum and an ensuing bloodbath. Firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who commands the Mehdi Army, is openly gleeful.
“The British have realized this is not a war they should be fighting or one they can win,” he told the Independent. “They are retreating because of the resistance they have faced,” he said while praising his Mehdi Army for its role in driving them out. It’s interesting that Sadr has ordered a six-month moratorium on attacks against coalition forces. He said this will give the Mehdi Army time to regroup but there is some suggestion it may be part of a deal with Britain.
The British deny any such collusion but, let’s face it. Both parties benefit. British troops can withdraw relatively free of pursuing bullets and missiles, and due to their absence Sadr can tighten his grip on the south. Moreover, in the admittedly unlikely event peace were to reign, this would provide grist to the mill of those calling for a US withdrawal. British newspapers are at odds over the pullout. The Sun is awash with photographs of grinning, thumbs-up British soldiers under the heading “The job’s done for our boys.” “British troops took the first steps toward handing power back to the Iraqis last night — feeling proud of a job well done,” writes the Sun’s defense editor.
“The momentous move could spell the end of Britain’s disastrous campaign in Iraq” is the message from the Mirror. The Independent asks, “What was achieved?” and runs a column by Patrick Cockburn titled “Ignominious end to futile exercise that cost the UK 168 lives.” The Guardian highlights the cheers of people in Basra as British troops left and quotes a local resident as saying, “We are pleased that the Iraqi Army is now taking over the situation — we as an Iraqi people reject occupation, we reject colonialism — we want our freedom.”
Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his senior ministers are naturally more upbeat. Brown told the BBC that far from being a defeat the move was organized and pre-planned. Defense Secretary Des Browne and foreign secretary were driven to write a joint article that was published in the Washington Post defending the British action. The pair admit the British force “could not create in four years in Iraq, the democracy, governance and security that it took Great Britain and the United States centuries to establish”, while putting the blame on “decades of misrule, deliberate neglect and violent oppression under Saddam Hussein.”
British generals are less diplomatic, heaping abuse on the US. Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, who led the 2003 British invasion, recently labeled the approach of the then US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “intellectually bankrupt” and blames his refusal to commit troops to nation building for the mess Iraq is in today. Retired Maj. Gen. Tim Cross, responsible for postwar planning, termed the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq as being “fatally flawed”. Peter Kilfoyle, a former defense minister, agrees with both of them but regrets they failed to speak out earlier.
These attacks on the US military are going down like a lead brick in Washington with top advisers to George Bush blaming Britain for a deteriorating security situation in the south. Bush still urges coalition allies to stay the course. “We need all our coalition partners,” he told Sky News. He said he understood that “everybody has got their own internal policies” but stressed there was more work to do defeating Al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed insurgents.
The US President is increasingly isolated in his “dog with a bone”, ideologically based approach. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has gone out of his way to show he’s no Washington puppet and refuses to take the fall for US failures. Veteran Republican Sen. John Warner has openly called for US troops to be withdrawn by Christmas.
Some 49 percent of the American public believes the so-called surge has failed even before the verdicts of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker expected to be delivered to Congress next week. Bush’s famous promise to stick with the plan even if Laura and his dog are his only supporters may soon become an unpalatable reality.
The war gang consisting of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzalez have disappeared under various clouds. Only Cheney is left. The British defection could signify a fatal blow to Bush’s credibility at home. As a Brit who was against this war from day one I’m delighted we’re on our way out of the fray. This was Blair’s blunder. Gordon Brown should be saluted for his “better late than never” decision.
I only pray the Iraqis will put aside their differences and step up to the plate to show the world that they’re the only ones who can rebuild their nation and put hurt feelings to rest. If Basra emerged as a model, US arguments for sticking around where they weren’t wanted would be demolished. That’s my hope but, in truth, I’m not holding my breath. —Arab News
 

Insulting and dangerous
James Huang

A LITTLE over a month ago Taiwan’s president, Chen Shui-bian, submitted a fresh application for the country’s admission to the United Nations. Within days, the UN secretariat answered the request with an outright rejection.
This is now the 15th year in a row that Taiwan has been denied participation in this august global body, an organisation that has pledged to be “open to all ... peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained” in the UN charter. For many peoples and nations around the world, Taiwan has been an active and willing diplomatic and trading partner. It is the world’s 18th-largest economy and the European Union’s 10th-largest trading partner, and is well known as a vibrant and liberal democracy. In a rational world it would no doubt be a valuable and indispensable member of this international society. Yet the reality is that it has long been blocked from the UN. This year Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, took it upon himself to determine that Taiwan’s letter of application “could not be received”, despite the fact that it was not his decision to make. The United Nations charter and rules grant only the security council and the general assembly the authority to decide on the admission of new members. The Secretary-General defended his decision by citing UN general assembly resolution 2758; he said that this resolution asserts that Taiwan is a part of the People’s Republic of China. However, this interpretation is not only improper, but false and dangerous.
It is improper because resolution 2758 does not mention anything about Taiwan — the word “Taiwan” simply does not appear — let alone Taiwan’s representation in the UN or the statement that “Taiwan is a part of China”. The fact is that Ban Ki-moon is not empowered to exercise this kind of discretion to review or screen UN membership applications based on his own interpretation. His interpretation is false because it ignores and contradicts the widely recognised fact that Taiwan is a free and independent country that has never been under the rule of the People’s Republic of China. And his interpretation is dangerous because it provides China with a convenient rationale to arbitrarily alter the status quo of Taiwan without the consent of the Taiwanese people.—Khaleej Times