A Battle of Baghdad?

     The ISIS forces are said to be within 5 to 10 km from the city of Baghdad, the capital of Iraq.  Will they try to storm it?  And who will welcome such a battle to see this historic city to be flattened by naked violence?  The Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff has said that they need at least 15,000 land troops in addition to the air power to stop the tide of the ISIS, or to reoccupy the area taken by them.

     Mr. Obama went so far as to say, one wonders if this is the right moment to say such a thing, that they have been underestimating the power of the ISIS forces and overestimating that of the Iraqi forces.  He sounded rather more optimistic when he made a 15-minute speech on the occasion of the 9/11 anniversary this year.  He said four things.  (1) The ISIS would be stopped by the air power of the broad coalition.  (2) The land forces of the countries in the region would be strengthened.  (3) The outsiders should be stopped from joining the IS forces.  (4) Humanitarian aid would be provided.

     Would these be enough?  Were they not overwhelmingly militarily oriented, even though the US would not be sending the land forces?  Apart from the humanitarian aid at the end, presumably meaning dropping food and water, etc., they were about intensifying bombing, arming the local forces for the use of the modern equipment, and curtailing the incoming of the would-be new soldiers on the other side.  Are they enough?  The above statements by General Dempsy and Mr. Obama were effectively saying that they were not, already, in three weeks' time.

     This writer is not saying that more armed action, let alone the sending of the US boots, are necessary.  Rather it is my view that the US, NATO, or whoever else, who together with Obama looks at the IS as 'a terrorist organization pure and simple' must really sit up and think why this split has occurred, and if the US occupation of Iraq under Maliki, particularly from 2010 onwards, was not instrumental in alienating and distressing the Sunnis.  They should try to isolate by all means available the Sunni masses from the presumably small number of die-hards, rather than to go on annihilating them as terrorists 'pure and simple', which would become increasingly difficult to explain even to the US citizens.  That is the only possible way to avert the Battle of Baghdad.

     But that is not enough in the long-term view.  On the West of the region, there is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  It has been the US and European policy so much in favour of Israel and so much prejudiced against the Palestinians that has made the conflict so persistent and insoluble till today, and probably tomorrow.  Without in the least defending the IS, the Sunni masses must be under the dual psychological oppression, anti-Sunni and more general anti-Muslim.

     On the East, there is the "AfPak" problem, which got worsened by the "Obama's Wars", referring to the US military surge in 2009.  I will not go into this here.  But the question of the possible Battle of Baghdad should be placed in the whole spectrum of this East to the West to find a political solution.  They are all related.  The new President was inaugurated in Afghanistan yesterday.  Let us wish all the best to his, and the new CEO's, administration.      

      

The US Middle East Policy and Japan

     Then what would be Japan's position with regard to the emerging situation in the Middle East as described in the previous column?  It is not possible to discuss it without reference to the US policy toward the region.  Mr. Obama is scheduled to announce his new, or new but old, policy in a day or two, on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary.  So here we will present our opinion on the basis of some hypothesis concerning the Japan-US relations.

     We have discussed how the UN Charter defines the concept of 'self-defence' several times already.  It refers both to the right of the individual self-defence and the collective self-defence. It has been the policy of the Japanese Government that Japan has the right of the former and can exercise it by the Self-Defence Forces(SDF), but cannot exercise the latter in view of Article 9 of the Constitution although she possesses it.

     But the Article 9 says that we will not resort to war.  We will not have any war potential. And we will deny the right of belligerency. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is doubtful if Japan has even the right of the individual self-defence, let alone of the collective self-defence.  Almost all the wars in modern history, not only of Japan, have been fought in the beautiful name of self-defence.  According to the Government's view, however, almost everything is allowed even under this Article, except to wage war together with some allies.  This is exactly what the present Abe Government has wanted to make possible.

     Therefore they have adopted in the Cabinet meeting on 1 July this year a document in order to, in their eyes, fill the gap.  This lengthy document states toward its end that 'not only in case of an armed attack on Japan, but also in case of an armed attack on another country in close relations with Japan which would endanger the existence of our country, it will be allowed by the Constitution to use force to the minimum degree to expel the said danger if there is no other way to do so'.(translation by this writer)

     Thus the Government has introduced a grave change in the interpretation of the Article 9.  It has publicly proclaimed that Japan will go to war for the sake of other country or countries.  The document adds that in terms of international law such action may be based on the right of collective self-defence.  The Cabinet decision has become known widely in the nation as one that has made the right of collective self-defence exercisable, and as such been very unpopular.  But the document itself has placed its emphasis on the interpretation of the Constitution, and not on the application of the UN Charter.  This leads us to suspect that the document itself is part of the preparation for the revision of the Article 9, which in the opinion of many has been the framework of the post-war Japan.  That means this is effectively a Constitutional amendment.

     What should be emphasized here is that the above statement on the use of force refers to no geographical limit.  It may well include the Middle East.  The close country to Japan is another name of the US.  Suppose the US puts pressure on Japan to be a part of the new anti-ISIS coalition?  We will watch Obama's 9/11 speech carefully.  Hopefully it will be worth serious consideration.