Shifting Japanese Position on Article 9

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution confines Japanese military action.  This has meant since the end of WWII and the commissioning of this Constitution under the rebuilding of Japan led by General MacArthur that Japan did not maintain a standing air force, army, or navy.  A small self-defense force was established.  recently the Japanese announced the intention to export military hardware to other countries.  Now Prime Minister Abe is in Singapore saying this:

"Japan intends to play an even greater and more proactive role than it has until now in making peace in Asia and the world more certain," Abe said.

Japan is also apparently working to increase its military development for the purpose of potentially deploying troops in Southeast Asia.  You can read the full article here.  But the following paragraph is the one that strikes me as most significant.

Abe's government has been trying to ease constitutional restraints on Japan's military, which currently can only be used in its own self-defense. He says Japan's pacifist constitution restricts its global contributions and should be revised, but that for now its war-renouncing Article 9 should be interpreted more broadly to allow Japan's military to help defend foreign troops. The government relaxed arms export rules in April.

For my two cents allowing Japanese troops to engage in missions outside of Japan can in now way be deemed as a broad interpretation of article 9.  Since section 2 (see below) says forces will never be maintained, how can it be reinterpreted to allow "forces" be used to help defend foreign troops unless those foreign troops are on Japanese soil defending the Japanese?  I just do not see how short of amending article 9 the Japanese can say using troops outside of Japan is constitutional.

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Interesting and Scary

Apparently land mines planted during fighting in the Balkans are now moving across borders due to flooding in the Balkans.  You can read this article for more information.  Nasty little boogers these landmines.  I do not believe that treaties that attempt to ban them and other munitions are well thought out, nor do I believe most of those treaties and agreements to be enforceable in any meaningful way.  These thoughts, on my part, do not change the facts that thousands of innocent people die each year from contact with landmines.  For my two cents, hats off to the "landmine chasers" out there, people who will risk their own life and limb to go out and mark landmine fields and seek out landmines along paths, roads, and trails in former war zones are probably crazy, but they are also heroes.

It's My Birthday, Part II

So, now that remembrances are done, how will I celebrate this great day of the year?

I am a hair band fan, and Animal House is one of the all time great movies, so plenty of this:

DoD did teach me to shoot, and I still love it, so I'll probably be out doing some of this (though I don't plan on missing as much):

And because I am an academic, I'll even relax a little and read, just picked up this:

It's My Birthday Part I

It's my birthday, keep your comments about stone tablets, dinosaurs, etc. to yourself.  Being of a maudlin sort about these things, I decided I would recognize the great influences in my short life.  So here goes, thanks for your input and helping me reach this point in my life.

1) DoD--Dear Old Dad--taught me to pray, taught me to shoot, taught me to be me.
2) Mom--reinforced what dad taught, wiped my nose, etc.
3) Uncle Charles--taught me to have fun.
4) Staff Sgt. Vigil--basic training is not supposed to be fun.
6) Master Sgt. Stephenson--train like you mean it.
7) Dr. Charles Hartwig--patience, study, work a little harder.
8) Dr. Ross Marlay--quit wasting my time and space, decide to do it well or do something else.
9) Dr. Cherie Maestas--yeah, I do actually like econometrics now.
10) Dr. Stephen Saideman--work harder, do it right, read some more.
11) Dr. Bill Anderson/Dr. David Ayers--brought me to GCC.

So, there is my maudlin sentiments list.  Thanks folks, and for the others out there, well I never said I went through life alone, I simply said:

  

We Were Right Once, Redux

And now we were right once, again...

4.  Bilateral Cooperation with Vietnam?  The Philippines and Vietnam will have to bridge an enormous cultural gulf and set aside decades of mutual hostility to cooperate in resisting Beijing's encroachments. The incentive is high and both sides are making a real effort... (Marlay and Stanton, 1999. "China vs. the Philippines in the South China Sea," in Head and Clausen, Eds. Weaving a New Tapestry, p. 156.)

Today I read this article as I start my day with my head buried in the latest offerings in the various news services. I was beginning to wonder if this possible outcome would ever happen.   

Is Snowden a Traitor?

I have not blogged, written, spoken much about Snowden.  Mainly because I thought him something of a coward and potentially a traitor.  But after reading my mentor's blogpost earlier today (read Saideman's take here), I decided to write something about Snowden.  To be fully honest, I must first say that I am a child of the Cold War, I am a former Cold Warrior (having spent the majority of my military service during the Cold War), and I am at the least quite sympathetic to the Realist theoretical perspective on international relations.

I agree with Saideman that Snowden crossed the line.  "The line" you say, which line is that line you ask.  As my friend and mentor pointed out, Snowden did not just let fly in the media that the NSA was doing what I told my students it was doing since 2001, namely intercepting all of, or a majority of, our electronic conversations and then deciding what to do with these communications and any information that might be gleaned from these communications without informing the public that our communications were being intercepted and stored.  If all Snowden did was blow the whistle I would be one of his biggest fans.

The problem is that Snowden first downloaded documents that according to some sources contain information that if examined will exhibit means of intercepting and modes of interpreting information used by intelligence agencies of the U.S. in pursuit of their duty to help secure the population and property of the population of the U.S.  After collecting all of this information, Snowden fled the country.  From afar Snowden blew the whistle.  How much afar, well he was not in Ontario or Mexico City, he was in Hong Kong.  The Chinese government told him to get lost--I conjecture, or given that I have a PhD, I analyze this to mean that the Chinese government saw a hot potato that could do nothing good for already fragile relations with the U.S. government.  So, where does Snowden go--Russia.

Our current relations with Russia are poor.  Much of the poor quality of relations is probably due to poor diplomacy on the part of the Obama administration, the "W" Bush administration, and the Clinton administration (yeah, we've been screwing this one up for a long time).  Putin has, in my estimation, shown himself to be a Cold War relic in his diplomatic behavior.  He has also shown himself to be a realist in how he leads Russia's response to NATO expansionism in central and eastern Europe, and that places Putin and Russia at odds with U.S. political behaviors (and some might argue interests, but not I).  Putin understands that intelligence is weapons grade information that is highly useful in politics.  Guess what Putin gets from giving asylum to Snowden?  Weapons grade information about how the U.S. intelligence community collects information and processes information.  The line Snowden crossed is giving aid to a foreign government.  If you think Snowden did not turn over everything he took from the NSA to the Russian's come see me ASAP, because I have a business deal to discuss with you.

Is Snowden guilty of treason?  After consideration of the fact that words have meanings and definitions, the answer is no. Russia is not classified as "the enemy" (of course we could have some interesting discussions about defining the word "enemy").  I will point out something, however, Israel is a friend, ask Mr. Pollard how it worked out for him spying on the U.S. on Israel's behalf, and Russia is hardly considered a friend even if not an enemy.  For my two cents, Snowden is guilty of espionage because he crossed the line from whistle blower to provider of intelligence to a foreign government.  I believe this assessment is a plain, simple reading of the facts we have in evidence.  So, as much as I appreciate being proven right by Snowden showing evidence of the NSA interception of domestic electronic communications, he is no hero, he is a spy.   

At Last, I was Right Once...

Way back in 1999, after completing my MA thesis that used the South China Sea dispute between China and ASEAN states (primarily focusing on the Philippines from among the ASEAN states), Ross Marlay (my MA Thesis supervisor) and I co-authored a piece that was picked up as part of an edited volume of case studies about Asian security post-Cold War.  In the published book chapter we laid out the claims and actions of claimants to the Paracel and Spratly Islands through 1998 and focused on the conflict between China and the Philippines over the Spratly Islands.  In our conclusions we offered the following:

2.  Renewed military ties with the United States?  The Philippine senate's decision not to renew the Mutual Security Treaty with Washington meant, among other things, the termination of all American military aid.  Joint exercises are still conducted with U.S. forces once a year...Manila and Washington denied that this [recent exercise] was intended as a signal to China, but of course it was exactly that... (Marlay and Stanton, 1999. "China vs. the Philippines in the South China Sea," in Head and Clausen, Eds. Weaving a New Tapestry, pp. 153.)

Well, it only took 15 years for it to happen, but hey what do we call this:  "Will New Defense Pact Impact US Support for Philippines in Sea Disputes?"   The agreement (Enhanced Defense Coopeartion Agreement) allows the U.S. to store equipment at select installations (Subic Bay, Clarke Air Base) for the next 10 years. The agreement will also, as you can read in the above article create more bilateral military exercises.

Now, of course, my next question is whether or not this action is the best action for the U.S. to take if our actions are targeting Chinese economic and military growth in the region as antithetical to U.S. interests in the region.  For my two cents, I am simply not so sure that direct action versus other forms of security maintenance are best given U.S. interests, more on that at a later date.  For now, just glad that I actually saw something coming years ago.

Shout out

Hey, don't know who you are, but I noticed when looking at my blog stats (I do this on occasion) that two views of my blog have occurred in the last week involving someone or some people in Lebanon.  So here's to ya'll, thanks for reading.

Deterrence

Last night I participated in a panel discussion.  I was allowed a few minutes to respond to a presentation about U.S. policy (how it came to be, what it is, what it might be) regarding nuclear enrichment in Iran.  Of course, as happens on occasion, my Realist side came out to play.  I argued that fundamentally it does not matter what policy exists or could exist in the future if we start from a position that says the U.S. must be intimately involved.

All states including the U.S. have the fundamental interest of state survival.  What other material interests, political interests, social interests that evolve are all connected to the goal of survival of the state and the population represented by the state.  One way in which we work to ensure the survival of the state is to deter other states from attempting to alter the existence of the state.  Nuclear weapons are a great deterrent to this behavior.  Has anyone engaged in an invasion of a seriously nuclear armed state?  You probably are thinking the same thing as I am--Israel?  Well, Israel has not been invaded since it became a known member of the nuclear weapon owners club.

What is most interesting to me is that those opposed to nuclear proliferation gainsay the nuclear deterrent value by referencing the fact that we do still have militarized interstate disputes involving members of the nuclear owners club.  Why yes, we do have those disputes.  But did the former USSR invade the U.S. during the cold war?  Did the former USSR invade the territory of our close allies who we promised military support and protection?  Was the U.S. able to use nuclear diplomacy to gain ends that might otherwise not be achieved?

Nuclear deterrence will not stop Russia under Putin from taking control of parts of Ukraine, and potentially parts of the Baltic states and other Eastern European territory not connected to NATO where a large Russian population exists.  Why not?  Because the U.S. has not made a commitment to the protection of those states to the level of offering are own nuclear capability as a defense against an aggressive Russia. Nuclear deterrence only works when it is credible and it can only be credible when offered where the U.S. truly has interests.  The rest of the world should recognize that we do not have interest in every single human politically motivated issue in every possible location on the face of the earth.  Trying to say that we do leads to lack of credibility.  For my two cents, the liberal and conservative internationalists should also come to recognize that interjecting the U.S. into every politically motivated issue in every possible location on the earth is also killing U.S. credibility.  These bad behaviors are also undercutting the ability of deterrence to work in the world.  Oh, by the way internationalists, before you start yammering about isolationism, etc.  I never mentioned isolation, I do not live in a vacuum, so stop the gainsaying before you start.