The Right of Collective Self-Defense and the Greater Danger Facing Japan
KIMURA Masato / Journalist
August 9, 2014
On July 1, the Japanese cabinet acknowledged the country's right to exercise the right of collective self-defense within a limited scope. It would be fair to say that the issue was met with indifference in the United Kingdom. The results of an advanced search on Twitter for the keywords "Japan" and "constitution" revealed there had been two tweets by individuals under their real names, of which one was a journalist. The rest showed a total of three tweets by two lobbying groups and two tweets by someone using a pseudonym.
A further search based on the keywords "Japan" and "right of collective self-defense" yielded a single tweet by a risk management company specializing in conflict areas, which quoted from a statement issued by the new British defense secretary Michael Fallon welcoming the Japanese government's decision to reinterpret its constitution regarding collective self-defense. British sentiment towards Japan - which had been affected by perceived Japanese atrocities against British POWs during World War II - improved dramatically as a result of the reconciliation efforts that were launched upon the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. One could see this change reflected in the defense secretary’s statement.
Ordinary British citizens are unable to offer any accurate response to questions concerning the "right of collective self-defense" – mere technical jargon in the area of national security. The only country in the world without the right of collective self-defense is Costa Rica, which has abolished a standing army, according to the British newspaper The Financial Times. By continuously renouncing this right, Japan had become something of an anomaly.
Japan is allied to the United States, the world's most powerful military nation, and remains protected by its "nuclear umbrella." How was Japan able to forge a military alliance with the United States, dispatch its Self Defense Forces to Iraq, engage in supply missions in the Indian Ocean, or deal with pirates off the coast of Somalia, without exercising its right of collective self-defense? It is difficult to explain unless you are an expert on diplomacy and national security with an intricate understanding of Japan.
The British media can be roughly divided into national and international media. What matters to Japan is how the issue was reported by influential international media, such as The Economist magazine or The Financial Times.
On July 2, the online edition of The Financial Times published an article by David Pilling - Asia editor and a tough critic of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, titled: "Pacifist Japan is inching towards being 'normal'." And in another article carried by its online edition on July 13, Peter Tasker, a commentator well-versed in Japan, cited China's growing military prowess and declared flatly that "Japan's constitution is not fit for the 21st century."
In its July 19 edition, The Economist offered a detailed report describing how Japan has set rigorous limits to the exercise of its right of collective self-defense. The article also warned the Abe administration against rushing to resolve the abduction issue with North Korea in its attempt to recover its plummeting popularity in the polls. It was a balanced piece of reporting. I have been working out of London for the past seven years, and have seldom encountered a fellow Japanese in my reporting activities nor heard them speak out. Therein lies the greatest reason why Japan is misunderstood in the world. And taking their cue from the Japanese media, whose reporting still retains the shades of vehement ideological rifts in the past, the foreign media add a further bias to their reporting.
To prevent misunderstanding and prejudice from becoming amplified, it is crucial for the Japanese government to make a sustained effort for direct communication on delicate matters concerning its foreign and national security policies. However, more often than not, cases of direct communication to the foreign media in the past began with prodding from politicians angered by the way a certain issue was being reported overseas and ended with the local Japanese embassy expressing its "strong protest." There is nothing to be gained by criticizing the news media. It only gives way to a vicious spiral of mutual distrust.
Since taking office at the Japanese embassy in the U.K., Ambassador Hayashi Keiichi and minister in charge of political affairs Shikata Noriyuki have mobilized the entire team in a game of diplomatic "baseball" aimed at scoring consistently by "hitting the ball to the right field" and returning their players to home base. Minister Shikata was almost always to be seen at meetings I covered, voicing his view. Before you knew it, the bases were full and the team was scoring. And the results are manifest in the way Japan is being reported now by The Economist or The Financial Times.
The true risk facing Japan does not concern its right of collective self-defense. It lies instead in the swell of its ethno-centric hubris that has its origins in the homogeneity of the Japanese nation and its organizations. There are conspicuous moves in Japan, South Korea and China that use social media to spread mutual animosity, based on a view of the other country as seen through a prism distorted by a sense of either superiority or inferiority. Political confrontation gives fuel to narrow-minded nationalism. And once it catches fire, it is no easy task to extinguish the flames. In Japan, a section of the media has also been actively fanning nationalistic sentiments. We should not leave them unattended any longer.
Masato Kimura is a journalist based in London.
A further search based on the keywords "Japan" and "right of collective self-defense" yielded a single tweet by a risk management company specializing in conflict areas, which quoted from a statement issued by the new British defense secretary Michael Fallon welcoming the Japanese government's decision to reinterpret its constitution regarding collective self-defense. British sentiment towards Japan - which had been affected by perceived Japanese atrocities against British POWs during World War II - improved dramatically as a result of the reconciliation efforts that were launched upon the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. One could see this change reflected in the defense secretary’s statement.
Ordinary British citizens are unable to offer any accurate response to questions concerning the "right of collective self-defense" – mere technical jargon in the area of national security. The only country in the world without the right of collective self-defense is Costa Rica, which has abolished a standing army, according to the British newspaper The Financial Times. By continuously renouncing this right, Japan had become something of an anomaly.
Japan is allied to the United States, the world's most powerful military nation, and remains protected by its "nuclear umbrella." How was Japan able to forge a military alliance with the United States, dispatch its Self Defense Forces to Iraq, engage in supply missions in the Indian Ocean, or deal with pirates off the coast of Somalia, without exercising its right of collective self-defense? It is difficult to explain unless you are an expert on diplomacy and national security with an intricate understanding of Japan.
The British media can be roughly divided into national and international media. What matters to Japan is how the issue was reported by influential international media, such as The Economist magazine or The Financial Times.
On July 2, the online edition of The Financial Times published an article by David Pilling - Asia editor and a tough critic of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, titled: "Pacifist Japan is inching towards being 'normal'." And in another article carried by its online edition on July 13, Peter Tasker, a commentator well-versed in Japan, cited China's growing military prowess and declared flatly that "Japan's constitution is not fit for the 21st century."
In its July 19 edition, The Economist offered a detailed report describing how Japan has set rigorous limits to the exercise of its right of collective self-defense. The article also warned the Abe administration against rushing to resolve the abduction issue with North Korea in its attempt to recover its plummeting popularity in the polls. It was a balanced piece of reporting. I have been working out of London for the past seven years, and have seldom encountered a fellow Japanese in my reporting activities nor heard them speak out. Therein lies the greatest reason why Japan is misunderstood in the world. And taking their cue from the Japanese media, whose reporting still retains the shades of vehement ideological rifts in the past, the foreign media add a further bias to their reporting.
To prevent misunderstanding and prejudice from becoming amplified, it is crucial for the Japanese government to make a sustained effort for direct communication on delicate matters concerning its foreign and national security policies. However, more often than not, cases of direct communication to the foreign media in the past began with prodding from politicians angered by the way a certain issue was being reported overseas and ended with the local Japanese embassy expressing its "strong protest." There is nothing to be gained by criticizing the news media. It only gives way to a vicious spiral of mutual distrust.
Since taking office at the Japanese embassy in the U.K., Ambassador Hayashi Keiichi and minister in charge of political affairs Shikata Noriyuki have mobilized the entire team in a game of diplomatic "baseball" aimed at scoring consistently by "hitting the ball to the right field" and returning their players to home base. Minister Shikata was almost always to be seen at meetings I covered, voicing his view. Before you knew it, the bases were full and the team was scoring. And the results are manifest in the way Japan is being reported now by The Economist or The Financial Times.
The true risk facing Japan does not concern its right of collective self-defense. It lies instead in the swell of its ethno-centric hubris that has its origins in the homogeneity of the Japanese nation and its organizations. There are conspicuous moves in Japan, South Korea and China that use social media to spread mutual animosity, based on a view of the other country as seen through a prism distorted by a sense of either superiority or inferiority. Political confrontation gives fuel to narrow-minded nationalism. And once it catches fire, it is no easy task to extinguish the flames. In Japan, a section of the media has also been actively fanning nationalistic sentiments. We should not leave them unattended any longer.
Masato Kimura is a journalist based in London.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
集団的自衛権より危険なもの
木村 正人 / ジャーナリスト
2014年 8月 9日
日本で７月１日に閣議決定された集団的自衛権の限定的行使容認が英国でどれほど関心を持たれたかというと、まったくなかったと言って良い。「日本」「憲法」というキーワードをツイッターの高度検索にかけたところ、実名個人でツィートしていたのは２人、うち１人はジャーナリスト。残りはキャンペーン団体が２つで計３件、仮名個人が２件ツィートしただけ。
「日本」「集団的自衛権」というキーワードでは、紛争地でのリスクマネジメント会社が、集団的自衛権の解釈変更に関する日本政府の決定を歓迎するファロン新国防相の声明を引用した１件だけだ。日本との間に大戦中の戦争捕虜（ＰＯＷ）虐待問題を抱える英国の対日感情は、戦後50年を節目とした和解の取り組みにより劇的に改善した。それは新国防相の声明からも読み取れる。
英国の一般市民に「集団的自衛権」という安全保障の専門用語を質問しても、正確に答えられる人はいない。集団的自衛権を持たない国は、世界では常備軍を廃止した「コスタリカだけ」（英紙フィナンシャル・タイムズ）。集団的自衛権を放棄してきた日本は稀有な存在だったわけだ。
日本は世界最強の軍事大国、米国と同盟を結び、その「核の傘」に守られている。集団的自衛権が行使できないのに、どうして日米同盟が結べたり、イラクへの自衛隊派遣、インド洋での補給活動、ソマリア沖の海賊対処行動に参加したりできるのか、日本通の外交・安全保障専門家でもない限り、説明するのは難しい。
英国メディアは国内メディア、国際メディアに大別できる。日本にとって重要なのは、国際的な影響力を持つ英誌エコノミスト、ＦＴ紙がどう報じたかである。
ＦＴ紙は７月２日付（電子版）で、安倍晋三首相には辛口のデービッド・ピリング・アジア編集長が「反戦主義の日本が少しずつ『普通』に近づいている」と報じ、13日付（電子版）で知日派の論客ピーター・タスカー氏が中国の軍事的台頭を念頭に「日本の憲法は21世紀にはそぐわない」と断言した。
エコノミスト誌は19日付で、日本が厳格に集団的自衛権を行使できる範囲を定めていることを詳細に伝えた。急落した支持率を回復させるため、安倍政権が北朝鮮の拉致問題に前のめりになることに警鐘を鳴らしている。バランスのとれた報道ぶりだ。筆者はこの７年、ロンドンを拠点に活動しているが、取材先で日本人に会うことは数えるほど。発言するのを聞くことは滅多にない。日本が世界で誤解される最大の原因はここにある。海外メディアは、激しいイデオロギー対立が残る日本メディアの報道を見て、さらにバイアスをかけて報道する。
誤解や偏見が増幅されないよう、繊細な外交・安全保障政策については日本政府が直接、情報発信していく努力が欠かせない。しかし、これまでは海外メディアの報道に激怒した政治家の意向を受け、現地の日本大使館が「強い抗議」を表明して見せるケースがほとんどだった。メディアを批判しても、何も生まれない。相互不信という悪循環を生むだけだ。
在英日本大使館では、林景一大使、四方敬之公使（政務担当）になってから全員野球、確実に塁を進める「ライト打ち」に徹した外交を展開してきた。筆者が取材する会合に四方公使は必ずと言っていいほど顔を出し、発言されていた。気がつけば、塁は埋まり、得点できるようになっていた。エコノミスト誌やＦＴ紙の報道を見れば、その成果は歴然としている。
日本が抱える真のリスクは集団的自衛権ではない。国家や組織の同質性からくる自民族中心主義の膨張である。優越感や劣等感という歪んだプリズムを通して、相手国への憎悪をソーシャルメディアで拡散させる動きが日本、韓国、中国で目立つ。政治の対立が偏狭はナショナリズムに拍車をかける。ナショナリズムに火がつけば、消すのは容易ではない。日本でも一部メディアが盛んにナショナリズムをあおるのをいつまでも放置していてはいけないと思う。
（筆者はロンドン在住ジャーナリスト。）
「日本」「集団的自衛権」というキーワードでは、紛争地でのリスクマネジメント会社が、集団的自衛権の解釈変更に関する日本政府の決定を歓迎するファロン新国防相の声明を引用した１件だけだ。日本との間に大戦中の戦争捕虜（ＰＯＷ）虐待問題を抱える英国の対日感情は、戦後50年を節目とした和解の取り組みにより劇的に改善した。それは新国防相の声明からも読み取れる。
英国の一般市民に「集団的自衛権」という安全保障の専門用語を質問しても、正確に答えられる人はいない。集団的自衛権を持たない国は、世界では常備軍を廃止した「コスタリカだけ」（英紙フィナンシャル・タイムズ）。集団的自衛権を放棄してきた日本は稀有な存在だったわけだ。
日本は世界最強の軍事大国、米国と同盟を結び、その「核の傘」に守られている。集団的自衛権が行使できないのに、どうして日米同盟が結べたり、イラクへの自衛隊派遣、インド洋での補給活動、ソマリア沖の海賊対処行動に参加したりできるのか、日本通の外交・安全保障専門家でもない限り、説明するのは難しい。
英国メディアは国内メディア、国際メディアに大別できる。日本にとって重要なのは、国際的な影響力を持つ英誌エコノミスト、ＦＴ紙がどう報じたかである。
ＦＴ紙は７月２日付（電子版）で、安倍晋三首相には辛口のデービッド・ピリング・アジア編集長が「反戦主義の日本が少しずつ『普通』に近づいている」と報じ、13日付（電子版）で知日派の論客ピーター・タスカー氏が中国の軍事的台頭を念頭に「日本の憲法は21世紀にはそぐわない」と断言した。
エコノミスト誌は19日付で、日本が厳格に集団的自衛権を行使できる範囲を定めていることを詳細に伝えた。急落した支持率を回復させるため、安倍政権が北朝鮮の拉致問題に前のめりになることに警鐘を鳴らしている。バランスのとれた報道ぶりだ。筆者はこの７年、ロンドンを拠点に活動しているが、取材先で日本人に会うことは数えるほど。発言するのを聞くことは滅多にない。日本が世界で誤解される最大の原因はここにある。海外メディアは、激しいイデオロギー対立が残る日本メディアの報道を見て、さらにバイアスをかけて報道する。
誤解や偏見が増幅されないよう、繊細な外交・安全保障政策については日本政府が直接、情報発信していく努力が欠かせない。しかし、これまでは海外メディアの報道に激怒した政治家の意向を受け、現地の日本大使館が「強い抗議」を表明して見せるケースがほとんどだった。メディアを批判しても、何も生まれない。相互不信という悪循環を生むだけだ。
在英日本大使館では、林景一大使、四方敬之公使（政務担当）になってから全員野球、確実に塁を進める「ライト打ち」に徹した外交を展開してきた。筆者が取材する会合に四方公使は必ずと言っていいほど顔を出し、発言されていた。気がつけば、塁は埋まり、得点できるようになっていた。エコノミスト誌やＦＴ紙の報道を見れば、その成果は歴然としている。
日本が抱える真のリスクは集団的自衛権ではない。国家や組織の同質性からくる自民族中心主義の膨張である。優越感や劣等感という歪んだプリズムを通して、相手国への憎悪をソーシャルメディアで拡散させる動きが日本、韓国、中国で目立つ。政治の対立が偏狭はナショナリズムに拍車をかける。ナショナリズムに火がつけば、消すのは容易ではない。日本でも一部メディアが盛んにナショナリズムをあおるのをいつまでも放置していてはいけないと思う。
（筆者はロンドン在住ジャーナリスト。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟