Every country that has sent troops to aid America's war and occupation in Iraq is under pressure, as the decision by the Philippines to withdraw its small contingent shows.
But for Japan, the question of whether to continue to aid for Iraq's reconstruction extends beyond the merits of this particular policy and goes to the heart of Japanese notions of security and what constitutes the national interest.
Throughout the Cold War, Japan's national security policy appeared to waver between "UN first" and "alliance first" principles. In essence, its alliance with the US dominated Japan's course. That tendency remains dominant.
YUSHA
But the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US helped Japan recognize that it had to exercise greater autonomy and independent judgment in its national security policies. The paradigm of international security that had long dominated Japan's military thinking had shifted, and policymakers realized that they had to shift with it.
For Japan nowadays, security policy must satisfy a trinity of criteria: national interests, alliance, and international cooperation.
This trinity is not something new for Japan, but has deep historical roots. It may be helpful to look back to Japanese actions at the time of the Boxer Rebellion (1900), as well as during World War I.
Of course, there are huge differences between the situations then and what Japan faces now. But those historical contexts shed light on Japan's response to events in Iraq and the wider world today.
At the time of the Boxer Rebellion, Japan responded to requests for help from the international community and won world trust through the sacrifices it made.
As a consequence, and despite the anti-Japanese "yellow peril" propaganda then raging in Europe, Japan entered an alliance with the most sought-after partner of the time, Great Britain. That alliance enabled Japan to help defeat Russia in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905).
During the World War I, however, Japan was reluctant to send troops to Europe despite repeated requests from its allies. Although Japan did receive some appreciation for its dispatch of naval squadrons to the Mediterranean, it endured wide criticism for its refusal to send ground troops.
As a consequence, after that war Japan lost Britain's confidence, which eventually resulted in the end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. From that time on, Japan trod a lonely path that ended with its defeat in World War II.
At the time of the Boxer Rebellion, Japan understood that to contribute to the world for the "emergency protection of foreign residents" was a matter of national importance.
During World War I, on the other hand, Japan was blinded by its eagerness to protect small but immediate benefits, and failed to appreciate what a true "matter of national importance" was. Its passivity cost Japan the trust of the international community.
In the light of this history, how should Japan's stance in Iraq be viewed? Will Japan's humanitarian aid in Iraq secure a long-term national interest?
With the exception of terrorists and remnants of former president Saddam Hussein's regime, almost everyone, including Iraqis who eye America's occupying forces with suspicion, wishes to see Iraq rebuilt, both politically and materially. For Japan, too, there is justification in responding to such global expectations.
Of course, restoring peace and security is taking much more time than expected.
With almost daily terrorist attacks, ordinary citizens victimized by weapons fire and misconceived bombing, the abuses of Iraqi prisoners and the hostility of Iraq's Shiites -- on whom the US had pinned high hopes for the peace process -- American policy is in danger of failing.
The question for Japan is this: what will happen, both in Iraq and in the world, if America withdraws in failure? It is in recognition of the possible consequences -- bolder terrorists and a return of US isolationism -- that many countries sent and retain troops in Iraq.
Indeed, Russia, France and Germany, which confronted the US and Britain at the UN over the Iraq war, and the UN itself, which withdrew early in the occupation, are all now searching for ways to assist in Iraq's rehabilitation.
In the end, they agreed on international efforts under UN Security Council Resolution 1546. France and Germany will now participate by helping to train Iraqi security forces.
Considering all this, Iraq represents a decisive moment and a "matter of national importance" for Japan. Thus its Self Defense Forces must continue their humanitarian and restoration efforts while cooperating with Japan's key ally, the US, as a member of an integrated multinational force under UN leadership.
Even if dangerous situations arise, Japan must not flinch. Only by demonstrating dignified resolve will Japan's national interests be defended.
True autonomy for Japan, as in the past, depends on active and cooperative engagement in containing a world crisis.
Hideaki Kaneda is a retired vice admiral in Japan's Self Defense Forces and is currently director of the Okazaki Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS