Japan should not shirk real engagement in Afghanistan
TANAKA Koichiro / Director of JIME Center ＆ Board Member, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
October 21, 2008
Afghanistan is still far from being stable. In fact, the challenges from the armed groups such as Taliban have intensified year by year. The tragic incident that cost a Japanese aid worker his life brought to the attention of a number of people the danger inherent in that country, which had been overshadowed by Iraq or Georgia. The last time that Afghanistan came into public focus was only a year ago when the controversy on extending the duration ofthe Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law resulted to the change of leadership in Japan.
It is not that the Japanese have not been involved in Afghanistan. At the time of 9/11 simultaneous terrorist attacks in the United States, Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan, then under Taliban control, as the base from which to plan and stage the attacks. Thus it was in Afghanistan that the war on terrorism called the "Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)" was launched. It is well remembered here that Japan, with its considerable constraints under its Constitution, hastened to enact the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law which enabled the dispatching of the Maritime Self Defense Force refueling vessels to the Indian Ocean. Japan went on to co-host the International Conference on the Reconstruction of Afghanistan in January 2002 and has been active as one of the top donors. It has extended assistance to help dissolve and disarm the warlords. Its NGOs and charity organizations have been carrying out steady and impressive activities to improve the life of the Afghan people.
However, since 2003, Japanese public attention shifted to the war in Iraq and the dispatching of the Ground Self Defense Force personnel to Samawah. In the meantime, in Afghanistan, which had been put on the back burner, attacks by Taliban and other insurgents intensified. This year, to deal with the mounting crisis, the troop strength of the NATO and US-led OEF forces has been augmented to the tune of 70,000. Even this is not sufficient to prevent the worsening of the situation. The situation in Afghanistan is now at its most fluid since the start of OEF.
Why is it that the responses by the international community including Japan have not yielded tangible results? Many Japanese, including politicians, have been content with the illusion that Japan's Self Defense Forces are contributing to the stabilization of Afghanistan through their supply activities to the maritime interdiction operations (MIOs) under the old and new Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law. The relevant UN Security Council resolutions refers to the MIO in its preamble, and the Afghan government, careful not to annoy the donor, loses no opportunity to express its appreciation for it. But, in reality, this make-shift response since last autumn falls far short of what it claims to achieve.
As far as the MIO is concerned, the center of maritime interdiction has now shifted away from the north of the Arabian Sea to the waters off the coast of Yemen and Somalia. It has even less significance than ever to Afghanistan, a land-locked country.
The OEF, PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative), anti-piracy measures, sea lane defense and control of narcotics traffic are all important tasks that Japan should tackle proactively in fulfilling its responsibility as a member of the international community. That said, it is wrong to lump them all together under the banner of "contribution to Afghan stability" without examining how Japan can effectively involve itself in each of these issues with a view to removing the multitude of threats at high seas.
The underlying message of the UN Security Council resolutions cited in the old and new Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law is that the fight against terrorism has become a universally accepted value for the civilized society in which we live. Thus, it is only natural for Japan to fulfill its share of responsibility. But, in reality, Japan has yet to confront the essence of the threats lurking in Afghanistan and its neighbor, Pakistan, and again, tries to deal with the situation only on the basis of temporary legislation. This approach is highly questionable. It is no longer the time in which "emergency measures" work. Haphazard, make-shift operations are not only ineffective, but can end up benefitting the Taliban and other groups that are bent on destabilizing the situation even further.
By pushing the banner of contribution to the MIO up front, Japan has shirked real engagement in Afghanistan that would contribute to the stability of that country on the frontline of the fight against terrorism. As has been the practice since the Gulf War, we have neither really debated the issues of our Constitution and our security, nor have made any decision. The Japanese political leadership and the Japanese people are both equally to blame for allowing the situation to drift thus far. When will it ever be that there will be a real debate which will free us from this self-imposed shell? Now is the time to initiate the discussion, at least.
The writer is Director of JIME Center and Board Member of The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan. This article first appeared in the October 9, 2008 edition of Fuji Sankei Business i.
It is not that the Japanese have not been involved in Afghanistan. At the time of 9/11 simultaneous terrorist attacks in the United States, Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan, then under Taliban control, as the base from which to plan and stage the attacks. Thus it was in Afghanistan that the war on terrorism called the "Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)" was launched. It is well remembered here that Japan, with its considerable constraints under its Constitution, hastened to enact the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law which enabled the dispatching of the Maritime Self Defense Force refueling vessels to the Indian Ocean. Japan went on to co-host the International Conference on the Reconstruction of Afghanistan in January 2002 and has been active as one of the top donors. It has extended assistance to help dissolve and disarm the warlords. Its NGOs and charity organizations have been carrying out steady and impressive activities to improve the life of the Afghan people.
However, since 2003, Japanese public attention shifted to the war in Iraq and the dispatching of the Ground Self Defense Force personnel to Samawah. In the meantime, in Afghanistan, which had been put on the back burner, attacks by Taliban and other insurgents intensified. This year, to deal with the mounting crisis, the troop strength of the NATO and US-led OEF forces has been augmented to the tune of 70,000. Even this is not sufficient to prevent the worsening of the situation. The situation in Afghanistan is now at its most fluid since the start of OEF.
Why is it that the responses by the international community including Japan have not yielded tangible results? Many Japanese, including politicians, have been content with the illusion that Japan's Self Defense Forces are contributing to the stabilization of Afghanistan through their supply activities to the maritime interdiction operations (MIOs) under the old and new Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law. The relevant UN Security Council resolutions refers to the MIO in its preamble, and the Afghan government, careful not to annoy the donor, loses no opportunity to express its appreciation for it. But, in reality, this make-shift response since last autumn falls far short of what it claims to achieve.
As far as the MIO is concerned, the center of maritime interdiction has now shifted away from the north of the Arabian Sea to the waters off the coast of Yemen and Somalia. It has even less significance than ever to Afghanistan, a land-locked country.
The OEF, PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative), anti-piracy measures, sea lane defense and control of narcotics traffic are all important tasks that Japan should tackle proactively in fulfilling its responsibility as a member of the international community. That said, it is wrong to lump them all together under the banner of "contribution to Afghan stability" without examining how Japan can effectively involve itself in each of these issues with a view to removing the multitude of threats at high seas.
The underlying message of the UN Security Council resolutions cited in the old and new Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law is that the fight against terrorism has become a universally accepted value for the civilized society in which we live. Thus, it is only natural for Japan to fulfill its share of responsibility. But, in reality, Japan has yet to confront the essence of the threats lurking in Afghanistan and its neighbor, Pakistan, and again, tries to deal with the situation only on the basis of temporary legislation. This approach is highly questionable. It is no longer the time in which "emergency measures" work. Haphazard, make-shift operations are not only ineffective, but can end up benefitting the Taliban and other groups that are bent on destabilizing the situation even further.
By pushing the banner of contribution to the MIO up front, Japan has shirked real engagement in Afghanistan that would contribute to the stability of that country on the frontline of the fight against terrorism. As has been the practice since the Gulf War, we have neither really debated the issues of our Constitution and our security, nor have made any decision. The Japanese political leadership and the Japanese people are both equally to blame for allowing the situation to drift thus far. When will it ever be that there will be a real debate which will free us from this self-imposed shell? Now is the time to initiate the discussion, at least.
The writer is Director of JIME Center and Board Member of The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan. This article first appeared in the October 9, 2008 edition of Fuji Sankei Business i.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
日本はアフガニスタンへの本質的関与を回避すべきではない
田中浩一郎 / 日本エネルギー経済研究所理事・中東研究センター長
2008年 10月 21日
アフガニスタンの安定はいまだ遠い。むしろタリバンを始めとする武装勢力からの挑戦が年を追うごとに激化している。日本人ＮＧＯ関係者が落命した不幸な事件によって、イラクやグルジアなどの前に隠れていたこの国の危うさに改めて気づいた人も多いだろう。前回、アフガニスタンが注目を集めたのは、テロ特措法の延長問題が政局を動かした、ほんの１年前のことだったはずだ。
日本人がアフガニスタンにかかわってこなかったわけではない。同時多発テロに際し、アルカーイダがタリバン支配下のアフガニスタンを発進基地としたことで、彼（か）の地で「不朽の自由作戦」（ＯＥＦ）、すなわち対テロ戦争の火蓋（ひぶた）が切られた。憲法上の制約が多いわが国が急遽（きゅうきょ）、テロ特措法で対処したことは周知のとおりだ。続いて日本は、２００２年１月にアフガン復興に向けた国際会議を東京で共催し、主要なドナーとして名を連ねてきた。軍閥の解体や武装解除に対する支援も行っている。民生支援に取り組むＮＧＯや慈善団体の地道な活動も光る。
だが０３年以降、日本人の目はイラク戦争とサマーワへの陸上自衛隊の派遣に移り、影が薄くなったアフガニスタンではタリバンなどによる攻撃が激しさを増した。今年、危機に対処するべく増派中である米軍やＮＡＴＯ軍は７万人に届くまで膨らんだ。これでも情勢の悪化を食い止められず、アフガン情勢はＯＥＦ開始以来、もっとも流動化している。
わが国を含めた国際社会の対応の成果が現れないのはなぜか。政治家を含め、日本人の多くは、新旧のテロ特措法の下で海上阻止活動（ＭＩＯ）への補給活動を通じ、わが国の自衛隊がアフガニスタンの安定化に貢献しているという幻影に満足してきた。国連安保理も決議の前文でＭＩＯに言及し、ドナーの機嫌を損ないたくないアフガン政府もその意義を讃（たた）えることに忙しい。昨秋に始まったこの泥縄式の対応は、まったくのところ看板に偽りがある。
ＭＩＯについては、今では海上警戒の中心が北アラビア海を離れ、イエメンやソマリアの沖合に移った。海を持たないアフガニスタンとはいっそう縁遠くなった。
ＯＥＦ、拡散に対する安全保障構想（ＰＳＩ）、海賊対策、シーレーン防衛、麻薬取締など、いずれも国際社会の一員として日本が主体的に取り組む意義と責務の大きい課題だ。だが、海上でのさまざまな脅威を除去するため、各々（おのおの）の問題へのわが国の関与のあり方について議論することなく、「アフガニスタンの安定化への貢献」という切り口上ひとつで、一緒くたに行われるべきものではない。
また、新旧のテロ特措法が引用する安保理決議が謳（うた）うように、テロとの闘いは、われわれが生活する文明社会にとって普遍的な価値となった。日本が応分の役割を負うのは当然のことだ。だが、わが国は依然として、アフガニスタンおよび隣接するパキスタンにこそ存在する脅威の根源と向き合うことなく、また、時限立法に基づいて対峙（たいじ）する構えだ。これには疑問を感じる。もはや緊急措置で済まされる時期ではなく、暫定的な別働作戦で効果が上がるはずもない。これこそ不安定化を望むタリバンなどを喜ばせるばかりだ。
日本は、ＭＩＯへの貢献を前面に押し立てることをもって、テロと戦うアフガニスタンの安定に寄与する本質的な関与を回避してきた。湾岸戦争以来の伝統でもあるが、われわれは、憲法と安全保障に関する議論も決断も行ってこなかった。ここまで漂流する状態を容認してきた日本の政治と国民の双方に等しく責任がある。何時になったら殻を破る議論を始めるのだろうか。
（筆者は日本エネルギー経済研究所理事・中東研究センター長。本稿は２００８年１０月９日付フジサンケイビジネスアイに掲載された。）
日本人がアフガニスタンにかかわってこなかったわけではない。同時多発テロに際し、アルカーイダがタリバン支配下のアフガニスタンを発進基地としたことで、彼（か）の地で「不朽の自由作戦」（ＯＥＦ）、すなわち対テロ戦争の火蓋（ひぶた）が切られた。憲法上の制約が多いわが国が急遽（きゅうきょ）、テロ特措法で対処したことは周知のとおりだ。続いて日本は、２００２年１月にアフガン復興に向けた国際会議を東京で共催し、主要なドナーとして名を連ねてきた。軍閥の解体や武装解除に対する支援も行っている。民生支援に取り組むＮＧＯや慈善団体の地道な活動も光る。
だが０３年以降、日本人の目はイラク戦争とサマーワへの陸上自衛隊の派遣に移り、影が薄くなったアフガニスタンではタリバンなどによる攻撃が激しさを増した。今年、危機に対処するべく増派中である米軍やＮＡＴＯ軍は７万人に届くまで膨らんだ。これでも情勢の悪化を食い止められず、アフガン情勢はＯＥＦ開始以来、もっとも流動化している。
わが国を含めた国際社会の対応の成果が現れないのはなぜか。政治家を含め、日本人の多くは、新旧のテロ特措法の下で海上阻止活動（ＭＩＯ）への補給活動を通じ、わが国の自衛隊がアフガニスタンの安定化に貢献しているという幻影に満足してきた。国連安保理も決議の前文でＭＩＯに言及し、ドナーの機嫌を損ないたくないアフガン政府もその意義を讃（たた）えることに忙しい。昨秋に始まったこの泥縄式の対応は、まったくのところ看板に偽りがある。
ＭＩＯについては、今では海上警戒の中心が北アラビア海を離れ、イエメンやソマリアの沖合に移った。海を持たないアフガニスタンとはいっそう縁遠くなった。
ＯＥＦ、拡散に対する安全保障構想（ＰＳＩ）、海賊対策、シーレーン防衛、麻薬取締など、いずれも国際社会の一員として日本が主体的に取り組む意義と責務の大きい課題だ。だが、海上でのさまざまな脅威を除去するため、各々（おのおの）の問題へのわが国の関与のあり方について議論することなく、「アフガニスタンの安定化への貢献」という切り口上ひとつで、一緒くたに行われるべきものではない。
また、新旧のテロ特措法が引用する安保理決議が謳（うた）うように、テロとの闘いは、われわれが生活する文明社会にとって普遍的な価値となった。日本が応分の役割を負うのは当然のことだ。だが、わが国は依然として、アフガニスタンおよび隣接するパキスタンにこそ存在する脅威の根源と向き合うことなく、また、時限立法に基づいて対峙（たいじ）する構えだ。これには疑問を感じる。もはや緊急措置で済まされる時期ではなく、暫定的な別働作戦で効果が上がるはずもない。これこそ不安定化を望むタリバンなどを喜ばせるばかりだ。
日本は、ＭＩＯへの貢献を前面に押し立てることをもって、テロと戦うアフガニスタンの安定に寄与する本質的な関与を回避してきた。湾岸戦争以来の伝統でもあるが、われわれは、憲法と安全保障に関する議論も決断も行ってこなかった。ここまで漂流する状態を容認してきた日本の政治と国民の双方に等しく責任がある。何時になったら殻を破る議論を始めるのだろうか。
（筆者は日本エネルギー経済研究所理事・中東研究センター長。本稿は２００８年１０月９日付フジサンケイビジネスアイに掲載された。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟