11-18-2016, 11:58 PM
*** 19-Nov-16 World View -- Japan's troops in South Sudan become first test of new 'collective self-defense' policy
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
****
**** Japan's troops in South Sudan become first test of new 'collective self-defense' policy
****
![[Image: g161118b.jpg]](http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g161118b.jpg)
Japanese Self-Defense Force soldiers in South Sudan, wearing United Nations blue helmets (Diplomat)
Japan has had peacekeeping troops from its Self-Defense Force (SDF) in
South Sudan since 2012, but they were restricted to doing only one
kind of thing -- rebuilding the country's infrastructure, such as
roads and refugee camps. In particular, they were forbidden from
taking part in any military operation of any kind, because Japan's
pacifist constitution, written at the end of World War II, restricts
military action to Japanese soil, and then only for self-defense from
an invader.
Japan's prime minister Shinzo Abe has approved a change taking effect
on November 20 that will deploy 350 SDF troops to South Sudan and
allow them to engage in combat if they're attacked, or if other
nations' peacekeepers are attacked.
This seems to be a relatively mild change in military orders, but in
fact it's a major change in policy. Based on campaigning by Shinzo
Abe, in 2015 Japan adopted new "collective self-defense" laws,
partially departing from the pacifism in the constitution. The old
self-defense clause of the constitution has been interpreted to permit
military action only when Japan itself is being attacked, and only on
Japanese soil. The new collective self-defense laws reinterpret the
self-defense clause to include "collective self-defense," which would
permit military action anywhere in the world under some circumstances
when an ally (such as the United States) is attacked. I discussed the
meaning of "collective self-defense" in detail in 2014 in "5-May-2014 World View -- Japan debates 'collective self-defense' to protect America and Japan"
.
The reinterpretation of the self-defense clause has been extremely
divisive in Japan, and at the time it was passed it even resulted in
some fists being thrown in the Diet (Japan's parliament). Abe said
that the change was essential for the survival of Japan, while
opponents say that approving the exercise of the right to collective
self-defensive is a "slippery slope" that will keep expanding to
permit additional non-defense military activity.
Opponents of the South Sudan deployment in Japan do indeed view the it
as the first step on a slippery slope. According to an editorial in
Japan Times:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"Possible use of weapons by the SDF troops in rescuing
> civilians under attack might trigger counterattacks by enemy
> forces, which could erupt into unexpected fighting. The chance of
> such developments cannot be ruled out in the extremely fluid
> security situation in South Sudan. The Abe administration may
> think that the new mandate, which will be given to the 350 Ground
> Self-Defense Force personnel to be dispatched there next month,
> will bring Japan’s peacekeeping mission closer to international
> standards. But the government should also be aware of, and be
> accountable for, what it could possibly entail."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Deutsche Welle and Japan Times and Asahi Shimbun (Tokyo) and The Diplomat
Related Articles
****
**** United Nations warns of mass atrocities in South Sudan
****
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is warning of a “very real risk of
mass atrocities” in South Sudan and that peacekeepers deployed in the
country will not be able to stop such a bloodbath. According to Ban,
"There is a very real risk of mass atrocities being committed in South
Sudan, particularly following the sharp rise in hate speech and ethnic
incitement in recent weeks."
The mass atrocities are occurring as a result of renewed ethnic
fighting between the Dinka tribe of president Salva Kiir and the Nuer
tribe, led by former vice president Riek Machar. Kiir and Machar
signed a peace agreement last year in August, but it fell apart
several months ago.
The last generational crisis war between the Dinka and Nuer tribes
climaxed in 1991 with the "Bor Massacre," in which hundreds of
thousands of Dinkas in the Bor community were starved, displaced or
killed by invading Nuer militias led by Machar. Thus, South Sudan is
in a generational Awakening era, and there are many survivors of the
Bor Massacre from both sides who do not want to see anything so
horrible happen again, and will do anything they can to prevent it.
So an event similar to the Bor Massacre will not occur, and Ban's
concern about a new full-scale civil war are not realistic.
What we're seeing in South Sudan is a familiar pattern that I've
described many times in countries like Syria, Burundi, Thailand, and
Zimbabwe, starting 5-15 years after the climax of a generational
ethnic crisis war. The leadership in the country, which represents
one ethnic tribe or group, decides that in order to prevent a new
civil war, it's necessary to impose "security" by having the security
forces commit atrocities against the other ethnic group. AFP
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Japan, Shinzo Abe, Self-Defense Force,
collective self-defense, South Sudan, Ban Ki-moon,
Salva Kiir, Riek Machar, Dinkas, Nuers, Bor Massacre
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- Japan's troops in South Sudan become first test of new 'collective self-defense' policy
- United Nations warns of mass atrocities in South Sudan
****
**** Japan's troops in South Sudan become first test of new 'collective self-defense' policy
****
Japanese Self-Defense Force soldiers in South Sudan, wearing United Nations blue helmets (Diplomat)
Japan has had peacekeeping troops from its Self-Defense Force (SDF) in
South Sudan since 2012, but they were restricted to doing only one
kind of thing -- rebuilding the country's infrastructure, such as
roads and refugee camps. In particular, they were forbidden from
taking part in any military operation of any kind, because Japan's
pacifist constitution, written at the end of World War II, restricts
military action to Japanese soil, and then only for self-defense from
an invader.
Japan's prime minister Shinzo Abe has approved a change taking effect
on November 20 that will deploy 350 SDF troops to South Sudan and
allow them to engage in combat if they're attacked, or if other
nations' peacekeepers are attacked.
This seems to be a relatively mild change in military orders, but in
fact it's a major change in policy. Based on campaigning by Shinzo
Abe, in 2015 Japan adopted new "collective self-defense" laws,
partially departing from the pacifism in the constitution. The old
self-defense clause of the constitution has been interpreted to permit
military action only when Japan itself is being attacked, and only on
Japanese soil. The new collective self-defense laws reinterpret the
self-defense clause to include "collective self-defense," which would
permit military action anywhere in the world under some circumstances
when an ally (such as the United States) is attacked. I discussed the
meaning of "collective self-defense" in detail in 2014 in "5-May-2014 World View -- Japan debates 'collective self-defense' to protect America and Japan"
.
The reinterpretation of the self-defense clause has been extremely
divisive in Japan, and at the time it was passed it even resulted in
some fists being thrown in the Diet (Japan's parliament). Abe said
that the change was essential for the survival of Japan, while
opponents say that approving the exercise of the right to collective
self-defensive is a "slippery slope" that will keep expanding to
permit additional non-defense military activity.
Opponents of the South Sudan deployment in Japan do indeed view the it
as the first step on a slippery slope. According to an editorial in
Japan Times:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"Possible use of weapons by the SDF troops in rescuing
> civilians under attack might trigger counterattacks by enemy
> forces, which could erupt into unexpected fighting. The chance of
> such developments cannot be ruled out in the extremely fluid
> security situation in South Sudan. The Abe administration may
> think that the new mandate, which will be given to the 350 Ground
> Self-Defense Force personnel to be dispatched there next month,
> will bring Japan’s peacekeeping mission closer to international
> standards. But the government should also be aware of, and be
> accountable for, what it could possibly entail."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Deutsche Welle and Japan Times and Asahi Shimbun (Tokyo) and The Diplomat
Related Articles
- Japan finally adopts 'collective self-defense' laws, departing from pacifism (19-Sep-2015)
- Japan debates 'collective self-defense' to protect America and Japan (05-May-2014)
- US reaffirms defense of Japan's Senkaku Islands (28-Apr-2015)
****
**** United Nations warns of mass atrocities in South Sudan
****
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is warning of a “very real risk of
mass atrocities” in South Sudan and that peacekeepers deployed in the
country will not be able to stop such a bloodbath. According to Ban,
"There is a very real risk of mass atrocities being committed in South
Sudan, particularly following the sharp rise in hate speech and ethnic
incitement in recent weeks."
The mass atrocities are occurring as a result of renewed ethnic
fighting between the Dinka tribe of president Salva Kiir and the Nuer
tribe, led by former vice president Riek Machar. Kiir and Machar
signed a peace agreement last year in August, but it fell apart
several months ago.
The last generational crisis war between the Dinka and Nuer tribes
climaxed in 1991 with the "Bor Massacre," in which hundreds of
thousands of Dinkas in the Bor community were starved, displaced or
killed by invading Nuer militias led by Machar. Thus, South Sudan is
in a generational Awakening era, and there are many survivors of the
Bor Massacre from both sides who do not want to see anything so
horrible happen again, and will do anything they can to prevent it.
So an event similar to the Bor Massacre will not occur, and Ban's
concern about a new full-scale civil war are not realistic.
What we're seeing in South Sudan is a familiar pattern that I've
described many times in countries like Syria, Burundi, Thailand, and
Zimbabwe, starting 5-15 years after the climax of a generational
ethnic crisis war. The leadership in the country, which represents
one ethnic tribe or group, decides that in order to prevent a new
civil war, it's necessary to impose "security" by having the security
forces commit atrocities against the other ethnic group. AFP
Related Articles
- The African Union proposes an all-African peacekeeping force for South Sudan (20-Jul-2016)
- Fears that renewed South Sudan tribal fighting could spiral into larger war (11-Jul-2016)
- Conflicts grow in South Sudan and Central African Republic (29-Dec-2013)
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Japan, Shinzo Abe, Self-Defense Force,
collective self-defense, South Sudan, Ban Ki-moon,
Salva Kiir, Riek Machar, Dinkas, Nuers, Bor Massacre
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
