# Japan considering pre-emptive strike on North Korea



## Cloud Cover (10 Jul 2006)

Interesting, but I don't blame them for at least considering a strike. 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  


Japan debates strikes on N. Korea
Discussions signal harder stance ahead of U.N. vote

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible U.N. Security Council vote on Tokyo's proposal for sanctions against the regime.

While Japan talked of sanctions, China -- North Korea's top ally and benefactor -- pressed ahead with its diplomatic efforts to draw North Korea back to stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear weapons program, dispatching a high-profile delegation to Pyongyang on Monday.

U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill huddled with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso and other officials in Tokyo on a tour of the region to coordinate a common strategy on the North's missile tests last week and urge Pyongyang to drop its months-long boycott of the nuclear talks.

North Korea's missile tests last week caused no injuries or damage, but they sparked international condemnation. Officials in Japan -- badly shaken by the tests -- said Monday they were mulling whether their pacifist constitution allowed pre-emptive strikes on North Korean missile targets.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe.

Japan's U.S.-drafted constitution, untouched since it was enacted after World War II, foreswears the use of war to settle international disputes, but the government has interpreted that to allow defensive forces. The question is whether such a pre-emptive strike could be defined as self-defense.

The discussions Monday came ahead of a possible vote Monday in the U.N. Security Council on Japan's U.S.-backed resolution to prohibit nations from procuring missiles or missile-related "items, materials goods and technology" from North Korea.

While the U.S., Britain and France were behind the measure, the other two veto-wielding members of the council, China and Russia, favor a softer approach. Speculation was high that Russia would abstain if it came to a vote, but a Chinese veto was still considered a possibility.

U.S. officials were calling for China to take a bolder stand with the North and to use its influence with Pyongyang to persuade it to return to the six-party talks, which are hosted by Beijing. Hill said Washington was working with both China and Russia to force a common approach.

Still, he raised a rare question about how influential Beijing really was with the enigmatic regime.

"I must say the issue of China's influence on DPRK is one that concerns us," Hill told reporters. "China said to the DPRK, `Don't fire those missiles,' but the DPRK fired them. So I think everybody, especially the Chinese, are a little bit worried about it."

The DPKR refers to the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Despite the opposition, Japan showed no signs of backing away from the U.N. resolution.

"It's important for the international community to express a strong will in response to the North Korean missile launches," Abe told reporters. "This resolution is an effective way of expressing that."

China was also active on the U.N. front.

Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing "exchanged views" by phone Sunday with his counterparts from 11 council members and South Korea, the Foreign Ministry said on its Web site. He "stressed that any action should be conducive to maintaining the peace and stability in the region and the unity of the Security Council," the two-sentence statement said without elaborating.

On Monday, Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, China's chief nuclear negotiator, and Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu arrived in Pyongyang for a six-day stay. The two governments exchanged congratulatory messages marking the 45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between the neighbors.

The Chinese government hasn't said whether Wu or Hui would bring up the six-nation nuclear talks. But a ministry spokeswoman said last week that China was "making assiduous efforts" in pushing for a resumption of the negotiations.

Talks have been deadlocked since November because of a boycott by Pyongyang in protest of a crackdown by Washington on the regime's alleged money-laundering and other financial crimes.

A North Korean delegation was expected in China on Tuesday to mark the treaty anniversary.

North Korea agreed in September 2005 to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for aid and energy, but no progress has been made to implement that accord.

As a way out of the impasse, China has suggested an informal gathering which could allow Pyongyang to technically stand by its boycott, but at the same time meet with the other five parties. Hill backed the proposal on Saturday, and said Washington could meet with the North on the sidelines of such a meeting.

Hill said he discussed the proposal with Japan's Aso, but he refused to provide any details.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Find this article at: 
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/us.nkorea.ap/index.html


----------



## probum non poenitet (10 Jul 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Officials in Japan -- badly shaken by the tests -- said Monday they were mulling whether their pacifist constitution allowed pre-emptive strikes on North Korean missile targets.



I'm no constitutional lawyer, buuuuttttt ...... I think "No more surprise attacks" was sort of the whole idea.

Let the Pearl Harbor jokes begin ...


----------



## Fraser.g (10 Jul 2006)

I think this has been posted before but it somehow seems apropreate to send this link out again.

http://www.nk-news.net/index.php


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jul 2006)

Not sure what they could use for strikes on North Korea. They could buy TLAM attack missiles,but would need to change their legal framework to allow for offensive operations.Seems to be more bluster than real threat.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Jul 2006)

F-15 with PGM's?


----------



## GAP (10 Jul 2006)

Did not Japan reconstitute it's Armed Forces under a "Defense Force" umbrella a few years back. I remember the controversy over the legality of it when they started building ships capable of attacking, not just defending.....I may be out lunch, if so make it tasty...I'm hungry
 ;D


----------



## purple peguin (10 Jul 2006)

I think it would take care of some problems if they went with the "go ahead" maybe cause some new problems while they are at it. You never know , maybe it would balance itself out in the longh run.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Oct 2006)

Bump..

An interesting article in today's Washington times regarding the impending re-emergence of Japan as a "normal state" with a constitution permitting [or at least unshackling] broader use of military force for "collective self defense." I would see this as a message to North Korea and China that Japan will not tolerate military intimidation or aggrression within their part of the world - even the offshore part of their world.

Reproduced under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act. 

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japan and regional security
Published October 5, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
  
Washington should be thoroughly pleased with the pledges from the newly elected Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to repeal the military restrictions of Article 9 of the U.S.-imposed constitution. Lacking a normal military force has hamstrung Japan's diplomatic presence in Asia and has left Japanese foreign policy adrift. As Mr. Abe leads Japan from a peace state to a normal state, the United States should expect a close ally to start to reshape the security dynamic in Asia and to take a larger role in the war on terror. 
    Mr. Abe has been a strong proponent of allowing his nation's self-defense force to participate in collective self-defense -- a change which would permit Japan to participate in military operations with the United States. Mr. Abe's predecessor, who also favored strong relations with the United States, had sent troops to Iraq in 2003. But they could only serve in a strictly noncombat role. Japan was also precluded from supplying troops for the coalition in the 1991 Gulf War, although it did furnish $13 billion, and was understandably displeased when Kuwait failed to thank it publicly for the effort. 
    Japan should couple its move away from constitutionally imposed military restrictions with strengthening, not estrangement, of relations with its Asian neighbors. Mr. Abe is a strong nationalist, but his first efforts at regional diplomacy have come within a week of assuming office. Because he must be conscientious of how China and South Korea -- both countries with searing memories of Japanese imperialism during World War II -- will respond to such a change, his government is working to arrange summits in Seoul and Beijing. Visiting these two other Asian powers before coming to Washington is not a slight to the United States, but rather a demonstration of Japan's interests in improving regional relations that have faltered in recent years. Along with engaging India, freeing Japan from its military limitations will help to balance Chinese hegemony in Asia. 
    Even though he has strong popular support for his plan, revising the constitution will be a challenging political issue for Mr. Abe and may be the defining political battle of his tenure as prime minister. Mr. Abe has maintained his commitment to revise Article 9, but told lawmakers recently that "criticism that the purpose of our plan to revise the constitution is to become a country that wages war overseas is totally off the mark." Statements such as this are important to reassure domestic as well as international critics that Japan's transition will be from pacifism to military preparedness, not to military aggression. 
    The nationalism prevalent in Japan today is markedly different than the militarism of the early 20th century that lead Japan into World War II, but Mr. Abe will likely be required to make that distinction often. 
    



Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to the article  
  Want to use this article? Click here for options!
Copyright The Washington Times


----------



## cameron (7 Oct 2006)

History has shown that everything only lasts for a time.  Japan's U.S. designed post WWII constitutition which prohibited any offensive military action by Japan was justifiable and necessary, considering the circumstances of that time.  Times have however changed, and Japan should not be held hostage to nuclear threats from some psychopath in '60 era Elvis suits and shades.  If Japan decides to launch a preemtive strike against North Korea, then more power to them.  Every country has the right to defend itself and Japan has put up with more than enough provocation from Lil Kim. :threat:


----------



## orange.paint (8 Oct 2006)

He's ronery,so ronery...
sorry back to serious conversation.


----------

