How China and Japan reacted to the war on terror - Essay Example

How China and Japan reacted to the war on terror s Submitted by s: Introduction Consequent to the attack on 9/11, the US instigated a push towards a new order through an effort towards adoption of the role of global policemen that was previously abandoned at the culmination of the Cold War (Rushefsky, 2014, p. 141). Nevertheless, although the US does not allowed any other country to get a similar degree of power, it still has not brought changes to world system that is comprised of sovereign nations. There continues to be threats from non-state actors such as the Al-Qaeda, but provided there are radical changes in the world system, it remains clear that the US will have natural restrictions to the capacity of the US to act as a self-acknowledged policeman. The attack in US surprised the entire planet while simultaneously triggering some paradigm shifts throughout the globe, but the latest shift has not resulted in a situation that can be equated to that of the cold war period when the US paradigm was the model that was used by other nations (Seidler, 2013, p. 72). Japan and the fight against terrorism Tokyo’s population has been wondering whether a prolonged war on terrorism might obligate the prime minister to utilize his political capital to take part in the coalition to fight terrorism, thus leaving limited resources to address the nation’s economic issues. Recently, scholars at a seminar considered newer roles for four nations: the US, Japan, Russia and China, with all of them contributing through military and politically towards the war on terror (Borgu, 2004, p. 52). It is likely that the degree of meaningful cooperation between the nations in this strategic alliance will escalate out of necessity. The importance of China will increase and as a member of the WTO and the UN Security Council as well as a GDP of 7 percent annually and experience in dealing with terrorism, China will most definitely be a strong partner. Additionally, the close relationships that China has with Pakistan will assist in keeping the Islamic nation in the coalition that is led by the US. The economy of China will benefit from the accession to WTO as resources will be allocated in a more efficient manner moving into the labor-intensive industries of China. There is probability of China reaping benefits from the US war on terror with obvious political benefits (Hunter, 2003, p. 4). It is also likely that the US will have less room in its criticism of China’s crackdown on separatist. Some of the economic benefits that will be faced by China may include its highly educated citizens living in the US may consider it as the new land of opportunity as well as comparative safety. If these citizens continue returning to their homeland, it would have an augmenting effect on the nation’s stock capital. Two schools of thought have developed in Japan with one group advocating for the transformation of Japan into a normal country with adequate military capabilities to defend its citizens and eve rescue hostages. The other faction considers the best policy as sticking to the traditional image of Japan as a pacifist country that does not deploy combat troops overseas and only to non-military situations. The former experts assert that Japan should consider the killing of the two Japanese citizens in 9/11 and take part in the global war on terrorism (Hughes, 2004, p. 429). The government of Japan must defend its citizens and now targets terrorist through any possible means. The group has for a long time advocated for japan to take a bigger military role in global affairs. The horrific killings of two Japanese hostages demonstrate that Japan should redouble its anti-terrorism measures as well as its military capabilities. The Japanese government has started strengthening the collection of information related to terror through deploying more Self-Defense Forces abroad, reinforcement of surveillance of bank transactions appearing to be having connections with terrorist activities and increasing security at its transportation centers (Midford, 2003). Subsequent to the hostage crisis, Japan’s foreign ministry took away the passport of a Japanese journalist who wanted to travel to Syria. Critics considered this as an outright violation of the constitutional right of freedom to travel while the ministry justified the action that limited human rights as a necessary measure to safeguard the Japanese citizen. The important issue is if japan should make amendments to Article 9 of its constitution in order to increase its defense since amendment to the constitution is imperative to the protection of lives and assets of the Japanese people (Loc.gov, 2015). According to the Japanese prime minister, the present interpretation of Article that forbids forceful settling of any force of international disputes and maintenance of regular armed forces creates a challenge to the safeguarding of Japanese citizens in the new security setting. The section that advocates for strengthening of the security capabilities of Japan have become more vocal in the recent past as a reaction to China’s military expansion as well as the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. The current administration has already instigated a secrecy law that will impose stringent penalties on people who leak state secrets; ease the ban on the export of arms to foreign nations while deciding to execute the freedom to collective self-defense in assisting operations of the US military. The prime minister of Japan seized on the killing of the Japanese hostages in making appeals for a more robust military as he considers that since the people of Japan have become aware of the murders, they will be more likely to accept the adjustments with little protest. Nevertheless, there are is a group, which opposes the objectives of the prime minister and is of the view that if Article 9 of the constitution is changed to begin military operations in the Middle East, the nation will become a target for radical militant groups. In the opinion of this group, the Japan that was not involved in occupation of territories and exploitation of people in the Middle East experienced favorable treatment compared to the US and European nations. Nonetheless, since Japan was in support of the Iraq War and deployed SDF troops on the request of the Bush administration, some critics have developed negative views of Japan as a close ally of the US (Heginbotham and Samuels, 2002, p. 111). Critics agree that if Japan amends its constitution and abandons its peace policies, this action will counter Japan’s perception as a friend of Muslims leading to Japan facing attacks as a perceived enemy. Consequently, Japan should maintain its focus on the provision of humanitarian assistance (Dittmer, 2002). Opponents of the Japanese prime minister further question Japan’s military ability particularly with the US military’s failure to rescue its hostages, it becomes unimaginable that the SDF can be able to rescue Japanese hostages even with improved capabilities. Polls on public opinion demonstrate a reluctance to involve SDF in rescue missions with only twelve percent supporting the deployment of SDF abroad for rescue missions while almost sixty percent stating that the county’s support in the Middle East should remain non-military. However, it should not be misconstrued that remaining pacifists will deter terrorists from holding Japanese people as hostages or planning to attack Japanese interests. Additionally, it is impractical to believe that decreasing the pacifism and increasing the capabilities of the military will decrease the threats from Islamic states as well as other terrorists (D’Amato, 2002). This means that Japan should identify ways of political contributions through which the country can serve the people in the region better through approaches like active engagement in peace talks of Syria and other negotiations that seek to end conflicts and enhance the living conditions in the regions. Japan has been avoiding taking up these roles despite its high reliance on Middle East energy, however, Japan’s goodwill efforts to foster peace for the region’s people may restore the reputation of Japan as a friend to Muslims. In regards to the role of the military, the poorest reaction would be hastening the change in implacable vein. This would bring Japan, which is a symbol of peace, development and democracy, down to a level a volatile country and this will result in Japan losing the war on terrorism to the Islamic states. China’s war on terrorism In 2014, official from the western province of Xinjiang in China proclaimed they were considering an anti-terror legislation in the region. This legislation would presumably fill the voids in the national criminal law through addressing the exceptional challenges associated with terrorism. The first legal recognition of terrorist crimes, the 1997 criminal law, listed them among other crimes that endangered public safety. Subsequent to the 9/11 attack the US, China made changes to its legislation to incorporate punishment for persons who offer financial support for terrorism and more stringent punishments for terror activities. Nonetheless, the legal definition of terrorism and terrorist crimes among others continues to be obscure therefore allowing wider interpretations to incorporate various groups. In December 2001, this abstruseness was highlighted through the description of riots and beats, as well as smashing and looting as activities that constitute terrorism. The Criminal law is merely a section of a complicated network of overlapping legislations related to security that constitute a legal approach to the security of the nation, all of which have ramifications on the Country’s fight against terrorism (Pollack, 2002, p. 20). The State Law, which was implemented in 1993, is parallel to the criminal law while focusing on the collusion with foreigners in the organization and execution of espionage, conspiring with separatists and acts of terror. Legal uncertainty encompasses the entire apparatus of national security legislations since there no laws that are made specifically for terrorism. Since the attack that occurred in Kunming in 2014, people in China have developed more awareness of the limitations of the criminal law provisions to support efforts of dealing with terrorism. Beijing continues to face increasing pressure for laws meant to specifically deal with attacks but the intricacy of terrorism issues make the achievement of a national anti-terror legislation an endeavor that will take time. The declaration that Xinjiang was to come up with a draft regional law was followed by the explanation that this was merely the first phase in a process that would take several years towards getting the legislation passed. China continues to lack national laws against terrorism; however, Beijing has taken measures towards removing legal uncertainty (Chung, 2002). The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress described terrorist activities as the activities, which threaten the security of the public, or put state organs and global firms in jeopardy. Even though human rights organizations consider the legal uncertainty that surrounds counter-terrorism as a bonus to a Chinese regime that seeks to maintain stability whatever the cost, Beijing may consider it as a barrier to legitimacy and successful counter-terrorism that undermines its long-term legalization project. Instead of merely defending the claim of the communist party to the rule of law, legislations on national security can be influential in gaining support for a stretched scope of state authority. The Martial Law of 1996 was adopted by China in reaction to disapproval of the 1989 decision to declare martial law with the legislation permitting the government to make a declaration of martial law while suspending various legal rights with the aim of restoring order. This may be tested in the event that the situation prevailing in Xinjiang becomes worse. The Higher People’s Court of Xinjiang executed thirteen people on charges of terrorism after the attacks that occurred in Kunming and Urumqi station, while others received delayed death penalties and prolonged prison sentences. The consequences of the terrorist attacks that took place in China was not given a lot of media attention in the US but remains a key component of Beijing’s strategy. The proclamation of prosecutions and punishments are critical for China’s push for political rightfulness through the rule of law. Xinjiang authorities have also employed the use of sentencing rallies to conduct mass trials so that numerous people can witness them with fifty-five people being sentenced on terrorism, separatism and murder charges in May 2014. Even though this approach to sentencing is clearly a demonstration of force and political theatre, there is an additional aspect of demonstrating the legislation at work (Gladney, 2003, p. 458). Political rightfulness is not the sole motivation for the enactment and implementation of better national security legislations since wide and vague legislations may be abused under the guise of legality while limiting the efficacy of security personnel. Since the criminal laws in China do not provide precise regulations concerning terrorism, acts of terror are considered like ordinary crimes, in that criminal liability is founded on the form of criminal activity rather than the intention of the terror act. For instance, the criminal law does not categorized threatening violence against the government under terrorism. Legal analysts in the country therefore consider the lacking of clear and specific laws to deal with terrorism as being harmful to the security of the nation. Precise laws that give special authority in activities to counter-terrorism allow security personnel to go past the regulations imposed by the conventional criminal cases (Laqueur, 1996). After the occurrences that took place in July 2009, the National People’s Congress enacted the People’s Armed Police Law that gave the police more authority to hold up and investigate in order to deal with riots, attacks from terrorists as well as rebellions among other serious criminal acts. An anti-terror legislation for the country would possibly define the duties of various law enforcement agencies along with the processes for the activation of emergency measures. Additionally, decentralizing authority has remained a hindrance for effective and harmonized counter-terrorism. Conclusion In the shorter time, the priorities of the US have shifted as a consequence of the war on terror to the war itself in the longer term and this is likely to force attention to be focused in changes in strategic environments created by the anti-terrorism coalition (Crotty, 2004, p. 267). Preceding the September 11 events, the core concern of US was growth of China, but after the occurrences, all the issues in Asia began to be considered through the perspective of fighting terrorism. The changes in the characteristics of the occupance of US in regions of East Asia have implications that have a high likelihood of becoming obvious for a long time (Oliker and Szayna, 2003, p. 294). Subsequent to the 9/11 occurrences, the association between the US, Japan and China became enriched intensely after the formation of anti-terrorism coalition, while allowing American influence in Pakistan and India to increase. Additionally, the newly acquired strategic environment has changed as the US has been able to station troops in the Central parts of Asia, which is in China’s backyard (Campbell and Tatsumi, 2002, p. 35). These occurrences may be considered by China as mid to long term plans by the US to rope China in, and even though the attacks led to a better relationship between the US and China, China continues to be more and more cautious. Bibliography Borgu, A. 2004, Combating terrorism in East Asia—a framework for regional cooperation, Asia-Pacific Review, 11(2), pp.48-59. Campbell, K. and Tatsumi, Y. 2002, In the Aftermath of the Storm: US Foreign Policy in the Wake of 9/11 and its Implications for the Asia-Pacific region, Asia-Pacific Review, 9(2), pp.31-44. Chung, C. 2002, Chinas "War on Terror": September 11 and Uighur Separatism, Foreign Affairs, 81(4), p.8. Crotty, W. 2004, The politics of terror, Northeastern University Press, Boston. D’Amato, P. 2002, International Socialist Review, [online] Isreview.org. Available at: http://www.isreview.org/issues/24/pacifism_war.shtml [Accessed 19 Apr. 2015]. Dittmer, L. 2002, East Asia in the “New Era” in World Politics, World Politics, 55(01), pp.38-65. Gladney, D. (2003). Islam in China: Accommodation or Separatism?. The China Quarterly, 174. Heginbotham, E. and Samuels, R. 2002, Japans Dual Hedge. Foreign Affairs, 81(5), p.110. Hughes, C. 2004, Japans security policy, the US-Japan alliance, and the war on terror: Incrementalism confirmed or radical leap?, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 58(4), pp.427-445. Hunter, R. 2003, After 9/11: US Policy in Northeast Asia, Asia-Pacific Review, 10(1), pp.1-20. Laqueur, W. 1996, Postmodern Terrorism, Foreign Affairs, 75(5), p.24. Loc.gov, 2015, Japan: Article 9 of the Constitution | Law Library of Congress. [online] Available at: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/japan-constitution/article9.php [Accessed 19 Apr. 2015]. Midford, P. 2003, Japans Response to Terror: Dispatching the SDF to the Arabian Sea, Asian Survey, 43(2), pp.329-351. Oliker, O. and Szayna, T. 2003, Faultlines of conflict in Central Asia and the south Caucasus, RAND, Santa Monica, CA Pollack, J. 2002, Chinese Security in the Post-11 September World: Implications for Asia and the Pacific. Asia-Pacific Review, 9(2), pp.12-30. Rushefsky, M. 2014, Public Policy in the United States, Taylor and Francis, Hoboken. Seidler, V. 2013, Remembering 9/11, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Read More