Japanese Debate On MSDF Piracy Response

[FSTargetDrone]

From The Japan Times:

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Debate starts on bill to free up MSDF

By MASAMI ITO
Staff writer

The Lower House began deliberating on an antipiracy bill Tuesday to create a permanent law that would let the Maritime Self-Defense Force protect ships of any nationality against pirates and remove certain limits on the MSDF's use of force.

Prime Minister Taro Aso told the chamber that a new antipiracy law must be enacted quickly because of the dramatic increase in pirate attacks off Somalia and the Gulf of Aden, and the need for Japan to play a bigger role in solving the international problem.

"Piracy is a life-or-death matter that threatens Japan's national interests of securing the safety of transport by sea," Aso said. "The pirates off the coast of Somalia are especially a threat to the international community, including Japan, and emergency measures need to be taken."

The Liberal Democratic Party-New Komeito ruling bloc and the government want the bill passed before the Diet session ends in June. But if the opposition camp refuses to cooperate, the ruling bloc might have to extend the session.

The Democratic Party of Japan, the largest opposition force, is urging the government to amend the bill to require prior Diet approval for a dispatch. Aso had the MSDF dispatch two destroyers for antipiracy patrols off Somalia in March.

"The antipiracy measures bill lacks a provision for advance Diet approval should the MSDF be dispatched in case of an emergency — but it is necessary from the viewpoint of civilian control," DPJ lawmaker Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi said. "We also think it is necessary that a dispatch plan clarifying the mission and region be reported to the Diet."

Last month, Japan for the first time used the maritime police-action provision of the Self-Defense Forces Law to send two MSDF destroyers to Somalia. However, the MSDF is only allowed to escort vessels linked to Japan, including Japanese-registered ships or foreign ships with Japanese nationals or cargo on board.

Nevertheless, the destroyers seem to be scaring potential pirates away from freighters unrelated to Japan as well.

The MSDF is not allowed to attack pirates except in limited circumstances, including in an emergency evacuation or in self-defense based on Article 7 of the Police Execution of Duties Law, which limits the use of arms to incidents deemed necessary.

The new law would permit the MSDF to fire at pirate boats that ignore warning shots.

Arguing emphatically against the bill was Japanese Communist Party lawmaker Seiken Akamine. "We absolutely cannot tolerate this bill, which would pave the way for the use of armed forces abroad — which is prohibited by Article 9 of the Constitution — by enabling the SDF to be dispatched abroad and expanding their right to use weapons," Akamine said.

Aso contends that the antipiracy measures do not violate the Constitution, which prohibits the use of force, on the grounds that piracy is a crime.

I hope it's alright for this in a new thread, considering we have at least 2 other piracy threads (one of which seems to have turned into a general discussion on piracy response, but I digress). It seems clear enough that some Japanese lawmakers don't want to escalate things by having the MSDF's ships actively looking for trouble when it doesn't involved Japanese vessels. I wonder how fast this is going to change, given recent events.

[Redleader34]

This is an excuse, Japan has been gunning for a way out of the Article 9 related items, they even commissioned a helicopter carrier, so I can't take this will full faith and credit right here. It doesn't help that internally the LDP (Japan's majority party in Parliament) is in crisis mode with a joke of a prime minister and the elections held back as much as the constitution allows for it!

[Stark]

Eh? Having a helicopter carrier isn't prohibited so long as they use it solely for self-defence (and frankly it sounds pretty useful to them as islands). While I believe various elements in the Japanese government have been chafing under the military restrictions placed on them after WW2, I don't think there's anything wrong with them deploying ships to look after their own stuff instead of projecting power in a way they're not supposed to.

[Tanasinn]

It's not really surprising they're chafing under the restrictions, with an ascendent China and a North Korea that is as zany as ever.

[Stark]

They're perfectly allowed to conduct 'defensive war' (however practical that might be) and those threats certainly suggest the need for a small carrier, but I believe the issue is 'power projection' or 'aggressive' military operations. Whether it's secret warmongers or an open desire to participate in the global communities' efforts throughout the world, I can't say.

[Sea Skimmer]

Eh? Having a helicopter carrier isn't prohibited so long as they use it solely for self-defence (and frankly it sounds pretty useful to them as islands).

That is, and has been hotly debated by the Japanese government. Its not clear either way, but its enough of an issue to get them officially classified as destroyers. The Self Defence Force has also gone out of its way to ever avoid mentioning anything but the light ship placement of the Hyuga class (13,500 tons), because no one was going to believe that an 18,000 ton warship was a destroyer. It would have been easier for them had DD(X) not been cut down into DDG-1000, since it was near 16,000 tons.

Article 9 itself says nothing about specific weapons; it just bans having a formal military. The stuff about aircraft carriers and other ‘banned’ weapons all comes from enabling legislation; and to a large degree simply from public statements by various different head of the Self Defence Force.

[Stark]

Interesting - so the specifics of the restrictions are more based on Japanese law around what the Self Defence Force?

[FSTargetDrone]

Last month, Japan for the first time used the maritime police-action provision of the Self-Defense Forces Law to send two MSDF destroyers to Somalia. However, the MSDF is only allowed to escort vessels linked to Japan, including Japanese-registered ships or foreign ships with Japanese nationals or cargo on board.

Does anyone think the policy of only escorting "Japanese-registered ships or foreign ships with Japanese nationals or cargo on board" will change? If not, it would seem to complicate things for the MSDF to coordinate with other countries' naval vessels. For example, what if a MSDF vessel is the closest ship in the area when a civilian vessel unaffiliated with Japan is attacked? Perhaps some "emergency" provision allows for that until the MSDF vessel can temporarily escort the stricken ship until it's relieved by another navy's ship(s)?

[Sea Skimmer]

Interesting - so the specifics of the restrictions are more based on Japanese law around what the Self Defence Force?

Yup, its all non constitutional law... and some of it is even less then that. In all reality Japan could start building CVNs (to reduce dependence on oil imports!) and the constitution would not openly block that. It’s all down to interpretation. Clearly these helicopter carriers are justifiable defensive weapons… but the fact that they have been built and yet Japan will not call them what they clearly are is reason to be suspicious of them. Article 9 will probably never be revised or removed, but we may well see a radical shift in Japanese military policy in the next one or two decades. As long as Japan continues to make it public policy to allow and indeed encourage denial of its actions in WW2 and the teaching of accurate history no one should fucking trust them again. As we speak they are continuing to stonewall on funding a program they promised years ago to clean up thousands of tons of chemical weapons they abandon in China in 1945. Every year Chinese farmers and children uncover more of these weapons, most of which are still quite lethally dangerous.

[Posner]

Eh? Having a helicopter carrier isn't prohibited so long as they use it solely for self-defence (and frankly it sounds pretty useful to them as islands)

Out of ignorance, how would a helicoptor carrier be good for self defense? It seems like more of a power projection thing, but I know absolutely nothing about helicoptor carriers.

[open_sketchbook]

Interesting - so the specifics of the restrictions are more based on Japanese law around what the Self Defence Force?

Yup, its all non constitutional law... and some of it is even less then that. In all reality Japan could start building CVNs (to reduce dependence on oil imports!) and the constitution would not openly block that. It’s all down to interpretation. Clearly these helicopter carriers are justifiable defensive weapons… but the fact that they have been built and yet Japan will not call them what they clearly are is reason to be suspicious of them. Article 9 will probably never be revised or removed, but we may well see a radical shift in Japanese military policy in the next one or two decades. As long as Japan continues to make it public policy to allow and indeed encourage denial of its actions in WW2 and the teaching of accurate history no one should fucking trust them again. As we speak they are continuing to stonewall on funding a program they promised years ago to clean up thousands of tons of chemical weapons they abandon in China in 1945. Every year Chinese farmers and children uncover more of these weapons, most of which are still quite lethally dangerous.

To be honest, there is a reason that the Japanese don't like to talk about WW2 and it has very little to do with any sinister or even truely nationalistic agenda. They're fucking ashamed of it to their very core and what they really want to do is move on. Every culture deals with it's past differently; it's not surprising that Japan deals with theirs this way considering the attitude they have on failing, honour and so forth. Where Germany has and likely forever will shove the shame of WW2 down the throats of their youth, the Japanese pretend it never happened because they really, really wish it hadn't. To them, talking about it is just painful; it's on of those things you just can't live down.

I have several friends in exchange students from Japan (long story) and contrary to the popular perception of ignorance towards their past, they all seem to look back on the second world war as "the time we fucked up" and I don't mean fucked up by losing the war. The Japanese have this sort of paradoxial way of remembering the war; they're very proud of their veterans (something Germany is only just starting to remember how to do) but extremely ashamed of their countries actions as a collective and the government at the time. The fact that a great many Japanese people think that the use of the atomic bomb was justified (I read somewhere it was a higher percentile than in America as of the mid-90s, as I recall) pretty much summed it up; the Japanese know they did wrong, they just don't want to be judged by it forever.

The closest thing I can think of is the way the British remember the old British Empire. "We used to be awesome but man were we dicks or what, thank god that's over."

[weemadando]

Eh? Having a helicopter carrier isn't prohibited so long as they use it solely for self-defence (and frankly it sounds pretty useful to them as islands)

Out of ignorance, how would a helicoptor carrier be good for self defense? It seems like more of a power projection thing, but I know absolutely nothing about helicoptor carriers.

Enables greater mobility of troops. Also, for a country in a fairly disaster prone area, having a helicarrier is a massive asset for disaster recovery and aid mission.

[Beowulf]

Eh? Having a helicopter carrier isn't prohibited so long as they use it solely for self-defence (and frankly it sounds pretty useful to them as islands)

Out of ignorance, how would a helicoptor carrier be good for self defense? It seems like more of a power projection thing, but I know absolutely nothing about helicoptor carriers.

It's for anti-submarine warfare. Protection of sea lanes is very important for a island nation like Japan.

[Sea Skimmer]

Out of ignorance, how would a helicoptor carrier be good for self defense? It seems like more of a power projection thing, but I know absolutely nothing about helicoptor carriers.

It’s a platform for ASW helicopters, replacing old Haruna helicopter destroyers which where actual proper destroyers that just happened to have a bigger then normal helicopter pad and a hanger for three aircraft. Note the radical difference between the two
http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/uploa ... ed-inc.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... na01_h.jpg

Essentially by having the full length deck, Hyuga can do the job of two Haruna’s, though it also has more then twice the displacement. The goal being to carry sufficient aircraft to maintain two in the air at all times. Most Japanese destroyers and frigates have no helicopter facilities, or at least no helicopter hanger so dedicated helicopter platforms are required. Most navies simply put one or two choppers on every single escort.

The Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force is structured around operating four escort groups, each of which is supposed to have sufficient strength to escort a convoy up to 1000nm from the Japanese coast, while also defending the approaches to a major port that convoy will arrive at. Each group includes one 'helicopter destroyer', be it one of the old ones or the new carriers in all but name. Piracy and a desired to support the GWOT has also meant the escort groups no longer operate as fixed units nearly so much and longer range operations are emphasized.

Enables greater mobility of troops. Also, for a country in a fairly disaster prone area, having a helicarrier is a massive asset for disaster recovery and aid mission.

Moving troops is not the mission of the ships in question. Japan is building the separate Ōsumi class LPDs (which it calls LSTs) also with full length flight decks for troop transport. Ōsumi is also much larger then the ships she replaces, but has no actual hanger and only two landing spots for aircraft so its also pretty reasonable. The ships have a major peacetime role too, resupplying several Self Defence Force bases on offshore islands. But once more the dishonest designation is another reason to be suspicious.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... sdf-01.jpg

[Furlong]

Frankly, I don't have a major problem with Japan building these ships. Japan has as much a right as any nation to defend it's interests in the world, and that includes having the capability to defend Japanese merchant ships and crews in areas outside Japanese territorial waters.

[[R_H]]

Essentially by having the full length deck, Hyuga can do the job of two Haruna’s, though it also has more then twice the displacement. The goal being to carry sufficient aircraft to maintain two in the air at all times. Most Japanese destroyers and frigates have no helicopter facilities, or at least no helicopter hanger so dedicated helicopter platforms are required. Most navies simply put one or two choppers on every single escort.

Were there any particular reasons for most Japanese frigates and destroyers not having helicopter hangers?