The world attention to DPRK missile tests has undergone a
dramatic diversion recently. The Japanese reaction was so strong
and its gesture so rigid, that the whole international community
was "at a loss".
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the United
States have been sharply divided and are antagonistic to each other
over the issue of financial sanctions against the DPRK. The DPRK
missile test, in addition to military exercise, was meant to prompt
the U.S. to agree to bilateral contacts. But Japan obstinately
passed itself as the main target of the missile test.
Japan obviously has ulterior motives for its willingness to serve
as the "target". First, to gain an upper hand in its relations with
the DPRK; second, to use the event as an excuse to accelerate its
building of an external-oriented military setup; third, to carry
favor with the United States on the question of containing the
DPRK; fourth, to seize the opportunity for a favorable turn in its
pursuit of a permanent seat in the United Nations (UN) Security
Council.
Japanese Defense Agency chief Fukushiro Nukaga said on July 9 that
it is natural for Japan to have the capacity for a "preemptive
strike". His remark was echoed by Foreign Minister Taro Aso on the
same day. The following day, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe
said it is necessary for Japan to consider having the "capacity for
attacking enemy bases".
As people still remember how Shinzo Abe became notorious for his
hardliner stance towards the DPRK as early as in 2002, who was then
followed by a handful of hawkish politicians. But recently they had
to pull in their horns when Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi's hard line diplomacy was driven into an impasse. The
missile test, however, posed an opportunity for them to restart the
race.
The grace-gaining by hawkish politicians is an outcome of
prevailing neo-conservatism and neo-nationalism in Japanese
society. To "demonize" the DPRK has become a means to fan up
xenophobia. Any prod at the country might be "diplomatically
wrong", but "politically safe and favorable in public opinion".
Media say this performance of "super hardliners" was all directed
by Abe. Among his cast is Kenzo Oshima, Japanese Ambassador to the
United Nations, who put on an over-bearing gesture and really
shocked diplomats of other countries.
The Japanese "preemptive strike" theory naturally met with
opposition at home. Ichiro Ozawa, chief of the Democratic Party of
Japan, said Tuesday that without being attacked (from the other
side), we cannot launch attacks (on its bases). And leader of the
Social Democratic Party Fukushima Mizuho said: there emerged the
theory of "attacking enemy's bases" within the government at the
present stage. I'm deeply concerned as it will heighten the tension
in Northeast Asia.
The Japanese abnormal behaviors have also drawn negative comments
from the international community. China has voiced its opposition
to the Japanese "sanction draft" on the DPRK submitted to the UN
Security Council, saying that it will do no good to maintaining
peace and stability in Northeast Asia, to keeping the unity of the
UN Security Council or to safeguarding the six-party talks. Russia
is also in opposition to any act that would worsen the situation.
Even the United States has stressed repeatedly on solving the
crisis through diplomatic channels. The New York Times holds that
Abe's remarks are meant to stir up public anger, and then to
translate such public will into forces for revising the pacifist
constitution.
The Republic of Korea worries more about Japan than the missile
tests by DPRK. President Roh Moo-hyun said Tuesday: "The remarks by
Japan's political leaders have given rise to new circumstances, and
this could possibly exacerbate the situation." A spokesman for the
ROK presidential office said that Japanese leasers are taking the
missile test as an excuse for taking the road for military
expansion. A ROK government official even said: from a historical
and long-term point of view, Japan is our security threat.
The "preemptive strike" is creating a new crisis before the
"missile crisis" is over. The relevant parties should be prudent
and exercise cautions and take real responsibility for regional
security and stability. The "preemptive strike" theory much
resembles an echo of what Japanese politicians made six or seven
decades ago.
