Our View

Since the simultaneous terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the world has entered a grave global crisis. The actions of Islamic extremists causing loss of human life are to be condemned, and their crimes are to be exposed, punished and policed internationally.

However, defining such terrorist acts as war and retaliating through war will not solve the problem, but will only lead to the sacrifice of further innocent victims. Such a course brings the danger of worsening the situation in a vicious circle of meeting violence with violence. The logic of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism", which declared not only the terrorist organizations but also the Taliban government as its enemy, is wanting both ethically and legally.

We are opposed to the American-led war in Afghanistan. Solutions must first be found to the structural injustice which causes terrorism, for example the stationing of United States forces in Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian problem, and the wider problems of poverty, hunger, and the disparity between developed and developing countries. As these problems are solved, popular support for Islamic extremism will wane, and the extremists' position will weaken. A radical solution to injustice, combining this global structural reform with strengthened policing, should be our aim.

Sadly, as a result of the war in Afghanistan, many innocent lives have been lost through mistaken bombing, and the number of lives lost in this way already exceeds that of the victims of 11 September. Moreover, the logic of "war against terrorism" has been extended to Israel, leading to intensification of the Palestinian conflict and the effective collapse of the Oslo Accords, while aggravating the India-Pakistan conflict to the point of the threat of nuclear war, as well as providing an excuse for suppression of the Chechen people by the Russian authorities. These developments have already provoked further acts of terror by Islamic extremists.

Describing Iraq, Iran and North Korea as constituting an"axis of evil", President Bush has raised concern that war will be extended to these areas. The war front has already been extended on a small scale, with the sending of military advisors to such countries as the Philippines and Yemen. The Bush administration has also set out a new strategic doctrine enabling pre-emptive strikes against countries developing or possessing weapons of mass destruction, and has quietly adopted a policy of allowing nuclear attacks in response to the use of biological or chemical weapons. This will lead to the breakdown of international law and order, whose aim is the prevention of war, and will bring about the danger of nuclear war. The unilateralism of the Bush administration can only be called a form of military imperialism. It is in clear contravention of international law and order, and seriously impedes the cause of global public welfare.

Thus, "war against terrorism" is being expanded to a war with no connection to terrorism, under the pretext of the "development and possession of weapons of mass destruction". No clear connection linking Iraq with terrorism has been established, and the possession of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction has not been proven.[1] Moreover, the Security Council has not acknowledged this as a threat to peace or decided to take military action to deal with such a threat. The use of armed force under the pretext of development and possession of weapons of mass destruction is, therefore, in contravention of international law.

If in spite of this an attack were to take place against Iraq, the lives of many innocent people would be lost once again. Moreover, such a war carries the danger of being extended to Iran and North Korea with yet further loss of life, and the possibility indeed of nuclear war cannot be ruled out. The nuclear problem in North Korea is a particularly serious one for Japan.

The development and possession of weapons of mass destruction has no logical relation to the events of 11 September, and a war based on this pretext should not be conducted as part of any "war against terrorism". If a war is fought against Iraq on this pretext, the danger of a similar war against North Korea will increase. In such a case, there is a danger of heavy human and material loss in the surrounding countries, including Japan. To prevent this danger, war on Iraq should be opposed. The country with the most weapons of mass destruction in the world is the United States, and so the question of double standards in any war led by the United States on the grounds of possession of weapons of mass destruction cannot be avoided. Fortunately, the opening of hostilities threatened in late January has been postponed, under the influence of worldwide anti-war opinion. The United States attempted to justify war on Iraq with Secretary of State Powell's intelligence presentation, but the "proof" was extremely inconclusive. In particular, the assertion of the existence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida was unconvincing.[2] In their report to the United Nations Security Council on 14 February, chief weapons inspector Dr. Hans Blix and Director of the International Atomic Energy Authority Mohamed El Baradei, while admitting that cooperation had not been fully satisfactory, were positive on aspects of Iraqi cooperation with the inspections, and indicated their wish for the inspections to continue (in closed session). Supported by voices against war across the world, a majority of members of the UN Security Council including France and Germany opposed the new draft resolution proposed by the United States and Great Britain and the commencement of war against Iraq (by 12 to 2, as at 14 February).

In contrast, the government of Japan has not only failed to articulate its opposition to war, but, while not clarifying its position at home, argued in open session of the UN Security Council on 18 February for the adoption of a new draft resolution, in support of the United States and Britain. Expressing support in this way on the international stage while domestically avoiding any explanation is a reckless defiance of the principles of democracy. Appealing for support for the new resolution is active participation in the commencement of a US-led war. It can be supposed that further support for a war on Iraq is planned. If the new resolution is not adopted, the United States has shown its readiness to ignore the Security Council and go ahead with war on Iraq regardless.

Any war, which brings about loss of human life, is to be avoided if at all possible, and if unavoidable can at best be said to be a "necessary evil" Accordingly, for as long as the possibility remains for the development and maintenance of weapons of mass destruction to be prevented through continued and strengthened inspections, these measures should be exhausted, and on no account should resort be made to pre-emptive strikes. This war, therefore, is not even a necessary evil, but is a global evil against global public welfare.

As members of the United Nations, the United States and Great Britain too should pursue peaceful solutions as far as possible in accordance with the spirit of the UN Charter[3], and should not resort to military action against Iraq. At the present time no armed attack by Iraq against the United States or Britain is taking place, and therefore, even more so than in the case of Afghanistan, the use of military force in exercise of the right to self-defence (Article 51) cannot be carried out. On the basis of the spirit of the United Nations Charter, we are opposed to the precipitate use of force. As is argued by the majority at present within the Security Council, the Security Council should not pass a new resolution approving military action. A pre-emptive strike without even a Security Council resolution is nothing less than unlawful aggression. Giving tacit approval to such an action will bring about the collapse of international law and order and invite lawlessness on a world scale. Decisions on the political future of Iraq should be entrusted to the Iraqi people, and while the people of the world should support their right to democratic self-determination, a military attack from outside with the aim of overthrowing the Hussein regime should not be allowed.

We criticize the Japanese government's actions in supporting the adoption of a new Security Council resolution on the international stage and exerting diplomatic influence in favour of adoption while avoiding any clarification of its intentions at home. Here we see clearly the state of consistently US-led foreign policy and the lack of an independent Japanese "public philosophy" in diplomacy since World War II.

As for the Japanese government's military participation in war, this is in clear violation of the pacifist Constitution, and cannot be allowed[4] . The spirit of "trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world" (Preface) and "international peace based on justice and order" (Article 9) would demand support for settlement of disputes by peaceful means, following the basic principle of the United Nations Charter expressed in Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4. Support of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq is in clear violation of the Constitution, which declares that "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."[5]

Internationally, war on Iraq is an unjust act leading to the breakdown of international law, while Japanese support for such a war is an unlawful act leading to the collapse of the peace constitution and of constitutionalism. Not only is the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law an unconstitutional law, but its application to Iraq is contrary to the spirit and purpose of that law. Military support on this basis contravenes this unconstitutional law itself, and is contrary to the rule of law. Thus, war on Iraq and support for such a war are wrong morally, politically and legally.

From the standpoint of respect for dignity of life and global public interest, we oppose war on Iraq and we appeal for peace. Japan must, in accordance with the peace constitution, make clear its opposition to war on Iraq and appeal to the world for the importance of a peaceful solution. Believing in the significance and value of Article 9 of the Constitution in the history and theory of civilization, it is our prayer that a future civilization of life and peace may be built on the foundation of its spirit. Desiring "peace for all time andcdeeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship" and "trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world" (Preface to the Constitution), we hereby present the above statement, in solidarity with all people living in the world.