alternative news


December 15, 2015 By Joseph P. Farrell

A few days ago you'll recall I posted a "tidbit" article about Japan's apparent lack of a "Muslim terrorist problem," and the reasons for that lack, namely, a policy that makes it all but impossible for Muslim's to gain entry to that country, and a policy on the part of the Japanese government that essentially deems Islam as fundamentally incompatible with Japanese culture, institutions, and democracy. This in itself would seem to point out the politically hypocrisy that reigns int some places in the West, and particularly its political left, for I don't recall hearing anyone in the United Kindgom recently suggesting that no Japanese should ever be allowed to visit that country. At the time I posted that tidbit blog, I didn't comment about it, but there was method to my madness, for I also suggested in yesterday's blog about China's call for a new global security policy, that Japan's rearmament under Mr. Abe's government might have as much to do about terrorism, as anything else, and the need to be able to intervene should any threat emerge to Japan's energy supplies.

I have also suggested, in past articles and blogs, that Mr. Abe's rearmament policy, while it might be publicly sold and spun as compliance to Washington's wishes, and to contribute to its "Pacific pivot," was also covertly about Japan's probable, though never voiced, hesitancy over its relationship to Washington, its current reliance on American power for its own national defense, and America's growing "craziness" on the international stage. In short, it's a case of "with friends like this, who needs enemies," and "can we really trust them for our defense?" I suspect Mr. Abe's government and the quiet circles of Japanese power have answered that last question with a no, in which case, Japan needs to be able to defend itself against all potential threats. And let's face it, a larger Japanese military will give it greater leverage and maneuverability on the geopolitical stage, transforming the Pacific from a one or at best two-power show between China and America, into a three-power show.

But I also suggested in yesterday's blog that Mr. Abe's rearmament might also have to do with something else, and that is, Japan's ability to interdict any potential terrorist threat, and to respond accordingly.

And this brings us back to that tidbit article I shared two days ago: what terrorist problem in Japan? What terrorist acts as have been perpetrated in that island nation have been more of the home-grown variety having little to do with Islamic terrorism. So why even connect Japan with the latter?

The connection is in this article, shared by Mr. S.:

Note carefully what the article states, and this coming from a nation which, again, has virtually no track record of Islamic terrorist attacks on its own soil:

The deadly terror attacks in Paris have prompted the Japanese authorities to speed up the launch of their first ever anti-terrorism intelligence unit.

The International Counterterrorism Intelligence Collection Unit will begin its operations on Tuesday, earlier than the originally planned launch date of April 2016, Yoshihide Suga, chief cabinet secretary, said.

Suga explained the move was due to the “severe safety situation” around the globe, with unnamed Foreign Ministry sources telling Reuters that the Paris attacks were the reason for the change of date.

The unit will consist of employees from the Foreign and Defense Ministries, the National Police Agency as well as the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office, the chief cabinet secretary said.

Its representatives are to be sent to Southeast Asia, the Middle East, northwestern Africa and other areas with high terrorist activity, he added.

"Sharing information gathered by relevant government ministries and agencies as well as the unit, we would like to establish an 'all Japan' system to promote antiterrorism measures," Suga said, as cited by Kyodo news agency.

Suga added that the launch of the unit will be accompanied by set of other anti-terror measures, including the strengthening of information gathering and analysis regarding terrorism, beefing up security at ports, airports and other key facilities, and enhanced antiterrorism training.

"We will take the best possible measures to prevent terrorism in advance in cooperation with the international community," he explained.
In other words, Japan is not going to wait for terrorism to strike its own soil, it is taking preemptive action, notably, in words almost reminiscent of China's recent international security statement "in advance in cooperation with the international community," and it has made clear that "its representatives are to be sent to...the Middle East," where two Japanese nationals were recently beheaded by, you guessed it, ISIS, which is supported by Turkey, aided by disastrous policy in Washington, and funded and further aided by... "you-know-who."
So my high octane speculation here is that one might read Japanese statements in a manner similar to reading recent German statements, not only as a quiet, discrete, but very firm moving of "you-know-who" from the "friend" to the "fiend" column, and additionally, I would aver that one must read it as a subtle rupture between Tokyo and Washington, in spite of Mr. Abe's government, like Mrs. Merkel's government, continuing to toe the Washington party line in other political statements, for it will be as apparent to Japanese analysts, as it is to Russian and European analysts, that Washington's Middle East Policy since the Gulf War has been a tapestry of errors, errors made at the behest of Wahabbist regimes anxious to overthrow the secular states in the region to create the power vacuum that they can fill. To drive this point home, if there is any doubt about it, one must recall that in spite of ongoing disagreements between Tokyo and Moscow about the Kurile islands, Japan and Russia are also cementing agreements for Japanese assistance in developing Siberia and its infrastructure, and Russia scored a key victory in its efforts to bypass western systems of financial clearing by being granted access to Japan Credit Bureau's system of clearing in the Pacific rim.
The real test of this interpretation of Japanese intentions will, of course, emerge over time, for it is one thing to have a domestic policy that recognizes the nature of a particular type of international threat. But how Japan will act upon that externally is now the key, and this may be revealed by pondering two "high octane hypotheticals". In one scenario, one might imagine Mr. Assad inviting this Japanese terrorist unit into that country to participate in on-the-ground operations against Isis in conjunction with the French and Russian air efforts. If Japan accedes(and it would have reason to do so, given the murder of the two Japanese nationals in that country), it would constitute a de facto break with Washington and its increasingly bizarre list of toadies. Japan might, of course, invoke the "Hollande Option," and coordinate with Russia while reserving the right to influence later decisions about the continuation of Mr. Assad's government. In another scenario, Japan might be asked by Washington to "provide on-the-ground assistance" to its own proxies in the region, say, Sultan Erdogan I. What this suggests is, once again, that one has to look carefully at what Japan will actually do with the capability, and not at what it says it is doing. In other words, once again time will tell if any of these high octane speculations are true or not. But when it comes right down to it, I can more easily see a Japanese response to the murder of its citizens by ISIS, than I can see blindly following Ankara's and Riyadh's playbook.
See you on the flip side...