Japanese Navy Hits Somali Seas

Japan’s Security Council in mid-March moved to deploy two destroyers heading toward Somaliawhere they will contribute to an international anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden, one of the world’s busiest sea lanes.

Two Japanese destroyers equipped with two patrol helicopters, carrying 400 soldiers including members of the navy’s special force unit as well as the Japanese Coast Guard left Japan on 15 March.

The legal basis for the multinational mission is a December 2008 UN Security Council resolution authorizing foreign vessels to enter Somalia’s territorial waters with advance notice to stop piracy and armed robbery at sea.

On 30 March, Japan joined the multinational mission against piracy, which includes vessels from the US, South Korea Britain, Iran, the US, France, Germany and China.

Sailing with the 'big boys'

“The maritime anti-piracy operation is a case of Japan wanting to be out there with the big boys and not wanting to be left behind, particularly in the wake of China’s participation,” Professor Aurelia George Mulgan from the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defense Force Academy in Canberra, told ISN Security Watch.
 
“It was China’s engagement that triggered Japan’s; so the primary driver is political, relating to Japan’s international image and not allowing China to get the jump on them.”

This time around, Ren Xiao, research professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, told ISN Security Watch that China, for its part, was not worried about the Japanese military deployment.

“This time, the reactions in China to the Japanese deployment overseas were more moderate and more relaxed than before. We ourselves have sent anti-piracy naval ships there and I would welcome it if the Chinese and Japanese navy cooperated in the waters off the coast of Somalia,” he said. 

It “could be useful to start working together in Asian waters in the future,” he added, referring to the long-standing Sino-Japanese dispute over the ownership of a chain of unpopulated islets in the East China Sea.

Capacity conundrum

The Japanese navy’s first assignment was to escort three Japanese vessels carrying cars and two tankers on their way from Oman to the Gulf of Aden. But this is only the very modest beginning of what lies ahead.

According to Japan’s Shipowners’ Association, roughly 2,100 Japan-related vessels are estimated to be in need of protection from Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) destroyers in the Gulf of Aden this year. However, the Japanese navy has the capacity to guard only some 730 ships annually, based on Defense Ministry calculations, which hold that two destroyers are capable of providing security for five ships per operation, or 10 ships in five days.

As such, unless Japan decides in the coming months to deploy additional destroyers to area, these vessels will have to rely on protection from the navies of other countries - above all in the route connecting the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. On 22 March, the need for additional protection was demonstrated when a vehicle-carrying vessel belonging to Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd was fired on by pirates about 1,500 kilometers south of the zone in which the MSDF destroyers are currently operating.

To strengthen the navy’s surveillance capabilities, the government plans to send an MSDF P-3C patrol aircraft to the region to cover this wider stretch of sea. The government envisages that the aircraft will monitor the movement of pirates from the air and provide information to navies participating in the anti-piracy missions off Somalia.

Controversies and contradictions

Predictably, the Japanese naval deployment was preceded by long and cumbersome debates centered on the issue of whether the move would violate the Japanese Constitution’s “pacifist” Article 9.

Although Article 9 does not allow Japan to have armed forces in the first place, the country maintains armed forces - though they are referred to as “Self-Defense Forces” or “Jietai” - equipped with an annual budget of US$46 billion, and their presence is increasing in conflict areas or at least close to them.

Since 2001, Japan’s navy has provided logistical support in the Indian Ocean for US and other warships engaged in the war in Afghanistan, and in 2004 deployed a 1,000-strong contingent to southern Iraq, where it stayed until 2006 providing, among other things, infrastructure, medical and humanitarian aid.

Still, doubts about the constitutionality of the newest mission did not appear to be a major concern for the government of Prime Minister Taro Aso, which ordered the deployment with cabinet approval on the basis of Japan’s so-called Self-Defense Law. In accordance with that law, the two destroyers deployed to Somalia will only be allowed to escort vessels directly linked to Japan: Japanese-registered ships or foreign ships with Japanese nationals or cargo on board.

What’s more, due to the absence of a law authorizing the use of force other than for individual self-defense, Japan’s navy is only allowed to use weapons for issuing a warning, in self-defense or to make an emergency evacuation.

Grey areas

But there are plenty of grey areas, according to George Mulgan.

“The legal authority for the MSDF to use force is pretty ad hoc. There could be issues when a pirate boat approaches a Japanese vessel about whether or not firing at them constitutes self-defense or whether the Japanese vessel has to be attacked first,” she said.

To circumvent the ambiguity, the Japanese cabinet approved an anti-piracy bill on 13 March, which will provide the navy with a legal framework to protect not only Japanese but also foreign vessels and fire at pirate ships if they ignore warning shots.

The bill will be submitted to the parliament in the coming weeks. But it will meet with strong opposition. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPF) is expected to use its majority in the Upper House to delay the adoption of the bill for a few months. Still, it is expected to become law when push comes to shove, many analysts agree.

Prime Minister Aso’s Liberal-Democratic Party will likely use its two-thirds majority in Japan’s Lower House to make a law out of a bill as stipulated by the constitution. In cases of “national emergency,” the constitution states that the government party commanding a two-thirds majority in the Lower House can adopt a bill with or without the opposition’s approval.
A year ago, when the opposition sought to block the extension of the law authorizing Japan’s refueling mission in the Indian Ocean, the government did exactly that and there is little doubt that also the mission in Somalia is a “national emergency” as far Aso and his and followers are concerned.

Constitutional revision always on the agenda

Advocates of constitutional revision will use, as they have in the past, Japan’s missions abroad and the legal ambiguities as proof that the country must revise its constitution - meaning the troublesome Article 9.

Constitutional revision has been on Japan’s agenda for years, but realistically it is unlikely that Article 9 will be revised any time soon. In order to change the constitution, a two-thirds majority is needed in both chambers of the parliament. This is impossible to achieve under Japan’s current political constellation, which is increasingly characterized by an emerging two-party system, with the LDP and DPJ commanding roughly equal shares of the popular vote.

A two-thirds majority in the parliament would then have to be followed a popular referendum, and although the Japanese public is increasingly in favor of more visible and concrete contributions to global peace and security, opting to officially end what is left of Japanese pacifism is still a different matter for the electorate.

Constitutional issues aside, “The deployment is significant, but hardly a major step in the evolution of Japan’s defense and security policy,” George Mulgan said. “It could be described as a new role for Japan’s military, but because it’s being undertaken under existing legislation, it is not really not breaking much new ground.”

Indeed. The issues and controversies surrounding the deployment of the Japanese military abroad will continue to be same in the years ahead: violation or non-violation of the constitution, the use of force and the question of whether or not to allow the armed forces to execute the right to collective self-defense.

No more free rides

Despite a recent financial scandal involving the DPJ leader Ichiro Ozawa, the party is still expected to win upcoming Lower House elections (to take place in October at the latest) and realpolitik suggests that the DPJ could turn out to be less opposed to Japan protecting commercial interests in Gulf of Aden once in power.

Either way, there is a growing consensus in Japan that leaving the protection of 2,100 Japanese commercial vessels in the Gulf of Aden up to others while hiding behind half-hearted pacifism and constitutional debates is increasingly becoming less of an option for Japanese policymakers.

“So far, Japan has been enjoying a free ride and had other countries protect Japanese ships,” Hidekazu Kawai, emeritus professor at Gakushuin University, Tokyo, said in a recent interview with the Japanese press. “It would not be natural for Japan not to send forces to protect civilian ships.”