Shinzo Abe when appointed Prime Minister in December 2012. He is steadily altering Japan's defence policies and laws, in response to the threats from China, North Korea and terrorism.
---
Japanese air force F-15s, based in Okinawa. They mainly protect Japanese territorial interests in the East China Sea area. Amended laws will provide greater legal backing for broader Japanese military activities.
---
Japan's competitors (Germany and France) in the submarine sale to Australia have policies and legal systems well in place to sell to Australia. Japan's own defence sales legal system probably needs years of work to make sales to Australia sufficiently legal under Japanese law and more acceptable to the broad Japanese public. The time-lag is made more serious by Australia being Japan's first multi-billion dollar weapons customer. So as things stand today Japan is at a legal disadvantage compared to established weapon exporters Germany and France.
The Abe Government also needs to establish greater legal certainty while Abe's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has so many seats in both the lower (House of Representatives) and upper (House of Councillors) houses of the Diet (Parliament).
In July 2014 the Cabinet of Japan’s Abe Government agreed on three new requirements for using the right of collective self-defence. The three requirements were (and are) that:
1. there is an imminent and illegitimate act of aggression against Japan and also in some cases its allies,
2. there is no appropriate means to repel this incursion other than the use of force in self-defence, and
3. the use of force is confined to the minimum level needed to repel the attack.
On March 6, 2015a council meeting of the majority LDP and its coalition partner Komeito further discussed revising laws. It was decided that an outline of security legislation will be formulated by the end of March 2015, and the government will start writing the texts of the bills in April 2015. The bills will amend such laws as:
- the Law on Response to Armed Attack Situations, and
- the Self-Defense Forces Law
The LDP sees actual changes to Japan’s Constitution as a long term goal requiring agreement in the Diet and also a referendum. Article 96 of the Constitution provides that a proposed amendment must first be approved by both houses of the Diet, by at least a super majority of two-thirds of each house (rather than just a simple majority). It must then be submitted to a referendum in which it is sufficient for it to be endorsed by a simple majority of votes cast. A successful amendment is finally promulgatedby the Emperor, but the monarch cannot veto an amendment.
Soryu to Australia
The legislative changes mentioned above add legal legitimacy and also help build consensus for a non-pacifist Japanese defence policy. Actual Principles and Guidelines form part of the mass of decisions and documents required to sell Soryu submarines to Australia. Principles and Guidelines include:
1. The Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology of April 1, 2014 http://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press22e_000010.htmland
2. The Implementation Guidelines for 1 Implementation Guidelines for the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000034954.pdf
This was adopted by Japan's National Security Council on April 1, 2014 .
Within the Guidelines I understand that Provision 1,2)A will be applied in possible the Soryu or related technology transfer to Australia. The Provision is:
1. Cases in which Overseas Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology may be
Permitted
2) Overseas transfers that contribute to Japan’s security, only if the transfers have positive meaning from the viewpoint of Japan’s security, and that:
A. are related to international joint development and production with countries
cooperating with Japan in security area including the U.S.,"
2. The Implementation Guidelines for 1 Implementation Guidelines for the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000034954.pdf
This was adopted by Japan's National Security Council on April 1, 2014 .
Within the Guidelines I understand that Provision 1,2)A will be applied in possible the Soryu or related technology transfer to Australia. The Provision is:
1. Cases in which Overseas Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology may be
Permitted
2) Overseas transfers that contribute to Japan’s security, only if the transfers have positive meaning from the viewpoint of Japan’s security, and that:
A. are related to international joint development and production with countries
cooperating with Japan in security area including the U.S.,"
COMMENT
The Abe Government appears to be steadily working towards changes in laws needed to permit such exports as the Soryu to Australia.
The agreement of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) with its more centrist coalition partner Komeitoseems required for these changes in laws. Komeito’s power comes from its centrist nature and its numbers in both the lower and upper house of the Diet (Parliament). Komeito’s agreement to the wording the LDP wants in the laws may be an obstacle, if Komeito hesitates from April 2015 onwards.
It is difficult to assess whether the Principles and Guidelines needed to sell Soryus to Australia are currently overly strict or prescriptive. There are sensitivities in the Australian military over how Sweden, due to Sweden’s export guidelines, decided to embargo Carl Gustav anti-tank weapon ammunition to Australia during the Vietnam War. Sweden’s decision not to sustain the Carl Gustav weapon system with ammunition, in time of great need, was probably the main Australian concern.
I do not know whether Japan’s submarine sale competitors, Germany and France, have similar Principles and Guidelines that may potentially restrict sale or sustainment of their submarines.
Japan's defence laws may be modified to be less pacifist but most depends on how they are interpreted, by politicians, the judiciary and the public.
I would be grateful to Japanese readers if you could comment whether I have an accurate view or not.
Regards
Japan's defence laws may be modified to be less pacifist but most depends on how they are interpreted, by politicians, the judiciary and the public.
I would be grateful to Japanese readers if you could comment whether I have an accurate view or not.
Regards