Japan to withdraw [refuelling] ships supporting US-led war in Afghanistan

TOKYO (AFP) — Japan on Thursday ordered home ships engaged on a refuelling mission in the Indian Ocean, halting the close US ally's main role in the "war on terror" due to domestic opposition.

Japan, which has been officially pacifist since the end of World War II, has supplied fuel to US and other forces operating in Afghanistan under legislation first passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

But the government failed to extend the mission as the main opposition party, which controls one house of parliament, has vowed that Japan should not take part in "American wars."

Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba issued orders at 3:00 pm (0600 GMT) for Japan's two ships in the Indian Ocean -- the destroyer Kirisame and the supply ship Tokiwa -- to return to Japan.

Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, whose predecessor quit in September in part due to his failure to prolong the deployment, vowed to "do my utmost for the swift passage" of new legislation to resume the operation.

"Terrorism is a challenge against free and open societies. The war on terrorism affects our national interests," Fukuda said in a statement.

"It is surely necessary for us to continue refuelling activities in order to fulfil our responsibilities in solidarity with the international community which is trying to eradicate terrorism," he said.

But public opinion on the mission is sharply divided in Japan, whose military has not fired a shot in combat since the United States imposed a pacifist constitution after World War II.

Coalition nations had tried for weeks with no success to persuade the opposition to change its mind.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer voiced "concern" about Japan's move.

"Defeating terrorists is one of the highest security challenges the world faces. It is a global challenge and combating terrorism is a collective responsibility," Downer said.

However, criticism has been growing of military operations across nations taking part in the deadly campaign against remnants of Afghanistan's extremist Taliban regime.

The German parliament last month extended the country's troop deployment despite waning public support.

But Japan is in a unique political situation. The opposition in July won control of one house of parliament on a backlash over a raft of scandals under the government of then prime minister Shinzo Abe.

Main opposition leader Ichiro Ozawa -- ironically a longtime proponent of an active military role for Japan -- has vowed to fight Fukuda on his legislative priorities until he calls early general elections.

US ambassador Thomas Schieffer at one point warned that Ozawa's intransigence could harm the two countries' alliance, although Washington later softened its tone.

Ozawa's Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in turn accused the government of politicising the dispute.

"The battleships are coming home and they want to put the blame on the DPJ. This is an Afghan trap to make the DPJ look evil," said Kenji Yamaoka, the party's parliamentary affairs chief.

The Indian Ocean mission at the time was groundbreaking for Japan, although it later went a step further and sent troops, since withdrawn, on a non-combat reconstruction mission to Iraq.

Eager to show it remains committed to the "war on terror," Japan said it would look at stepping up aid to Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, a frontline US ally in the war.

Japan, which has already pledged some 1.2 billion dollars to Afghanistan since the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001, will consider further funds for refugees or disarmament, chief government spokesman Nobutaka Machimura said.

Japan has long relied on foreign aid as the main tool of its diplomacy, but successive conservative-led governments have argued that Tokyo needs a greater military role to boost its credibility in the world.

First off, where the heck is the coverage of this story. They say they will act swiftly to resume operation's but why did they way until it was halted rather than resolve it ahead of time?

"Terrorism is a challenge against free and open societies. The war on terrorism affects our national interests," Fukuda said in a statement.

Japan, America's top ally in Asia, has refueled coalition warships in the Indian Ocean since 2001, but opposition parties, bolstered by recent election wins, effectively scuttled the mission by raising concerns it was too broad and possibly violated the Constitution.
Legislation had been passed repeatedly to renew the mission, but the latest extension expired Thursday amid a stalemate in parliament. Japan refueled its final ship on Monday.

The two ships in the mission — a destroyer and a refueler, with 340 troops aboard — were to begin heading for Japan later Thursday. They were expected to take about three weeks to return, navy spokesman Kozo Okuda said.

I keep running into Japanese officers at Ft Bliss and McGregor, learning how to run Patriot missile systems. I wonder if they’ll find this too controversial as well.

Interesting. One of the reasons that Japan's self-defense force has been forced to maintain a limited size is to prevent it from rebuilding to pre-WW2 strength. Despite the lack of many resources to fuel the nation at the time, Japan was able to build a formidable military that came very close to destroying the US' ability to defend itself, much less take the battle back to Tokyo.

It is fascinating to me that, as leftists gain control of countries like once powerful Japan, they want to pull their country's support of wars such as the current one on terror, and bring their troops home in order to "boost its credibility in the world". Did I miss something, or is the lack of logic in that statement obvious to anyone else?

Eager to show it remains committed to the "war on terror," Japan said it would look at stepping up aid to Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, a frontline US ally in the war.

So they save face by turning tail? I don't get it...

It is the “once powerful Japan” that got itself forced into a pacifist constitution by the US. The pacifist constitution wasn’t drafted by the impotent Japanese leftists. I think the lesson is that extremism is a bad deal for everyone. Left or right. The Kamikaze was just a glorified suicide bomber.

It is the “once powerful Japan” that got itself forced into a pacifist constitution by the US.

Valid point, however, at the time we forced Japan into the pacifist constitution, we had just finished a major world conflict with them and didn't want to have to possibly face them again in the foreseeable future. The same was true for Germany. Today, those agreements should probably be re-thought.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.