HANABUSA Masamichi
Chairman, The
English-Speaking
Union of Japan
Think Twice, America, Before Attacking Iraq:
Japanese Views on the US Attack on Iraq
In America, a military attack against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from
power seems to be a foregone conclusion. US newspapers have been rife with
various battle plans proposed by the generals.
However, President Bush's single-minded pursuit of victory against the
"terrorists" who perpetrated the infamous September 11 attacks has its
dangers. It would be particularly risky if top priority is given to the
attack on Iraq, putting aside more urgent problems of the world such as the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the recovery of US economic vigor and the
precarious state of Latin American economies. President Bush would be better
advised to spend the rest of this year attending to these more urgent
issues. The world is more interdependent than Americans are prepared to
accept. Any immediate attack would undermine the innumerable delicate
balances that exist among divergent forces and interests in the world.
It is good, therefore, that the decision to go ahead seems to have
temporarily been postponed until some time next year. Taking advantage of
this respite, it would be worthwhile to tell our American friends how the
average Japanese view the prospective US military strike against Saddam.
First, most Japanese are not convinced that Iraq is providing direct support
to the Al Qaeda terrorist group. So far, the Japanese government seems to be
giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt. But when the attack comes
and begins to directly affect Japan - for example, by America requesting
Japan to provide financial or military support for its military campaign -
crucial differences in opinion between Japan and America will come to the
fore. In Japan, war on Iraq this time round will not be considered the same
as the Gulf War. The Japanese government will find itself unable to persuade
the nation to support unilateral American action in Iraq.
Second, even if Saddam was removed one way or another, the post-war
rebuilding of a peaceful Iraq will not be easy. Many Japanese are reminded
of what the Americans did to Japan during their occupation after Japan's
defeat in 1945. There are still a considerable number of Japanese, both old
and young, who resent the systematic demolition of old Japanese values and
the planting of American systems under the occupation. Systemic reform of
Japan succeeded because much of what the Americans brought to Japan after
the war was progressive in nature and not incongruous with Japan's own
history of wholesale Westernization that followed the Meiji Restoration.
More importantly, Japan had the Emperor, a figure of authority who commanded
the respect of his people.
In the case of Iraq, however, it would require a superhuman effort on the
part of the occupying force to establish a credible regime there. The
creation of an acceptable government in Iraq must start from scratch against
a hostile indigenous population where no alternative authority exists. Iraq
is many times more intractable than Afghanistan, where the local populace
did not object to seeing foreign Al Qaeda elements ousted from their land.
Third, if the Americans unfortunately chose to use nuclear weapons in their
preemptive military strike against Iraq, the vehemence of Japanese anger
would be far greater than any American could imagine. It will touch a raw
nerve of Japanese sensitivity. I would hate to see all the post-war goodwill
the Japanese had shown America despite its nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki evaporate overnight and be replaced by a deep-rooted distrust and
even hatred of the Americans.
Lastly, the Japanese are seriously concerned about the probable consequences
the attack would have on the Middle East world. If the attack takes place
without first having allayed Arab suspicion that the destruction of Iraq is
to lend support to Israel against the Palestinians, it is much feared that
the delicate balance that currently exists in the Middle East - both
regionally and nationally - would be irrevocably lost. Although there would
be no love lost between most Arab nations and Iraq, a "Western" attack on
Iraq would be considered a war waged by the Jewish-Christian world against
the Islamic world. The war would inevitably force even moderate Arabs and
regimes friendly to the West to close ranks with radical Islamic forces
along the divisions of civilization. And should moderate Arabs resist doing
so, they will be washed away from power by a powerful anti-Western tidal
wave that will arise in the Islamic world. For the Japanese, too, a Middle
East composed of regimes hostile to the West would not be in their interest.
If Americans expect the Japanese to overcome these qualms and go along with
the attack, they must provide conclusive and overwhelming evidence that Iraq
has been supporting terrorists in such a way that only a systemic change in
its regime can stop it. Otherwise, an American war on Iraq would be seen in
this part of the world as a pursuit of its own national interests, perhaps
based on some hidden agenda.
The writer is Chairman of the English-Speaking Union of Japan |
