Madam, - In response to your recent Editorial "Change in Japan" (September 4th), I would like to clarify certain points.
First, you assert that prime minister Junichiro Koizumi "made little effort to improve relations with his near neighbours in his years in office". The Koizumi cabinet fully recognises Japan's neighbouring countries, including China and South Korea, as important partners in co-operating to bring about prosperity and stability in the Asian region. In fact, her relations with both China and South Korea have experienced increased expansion and deepening throughout Mr Koizumi's premiership.
Dialogue at the highest level has unfortunately been refused. However, on the Japanese side, Mr Koizumi himself has repeated his willingness to have talks with the leaders of these two countries so that they may gain a clearer understanding that the intention of his visits to Yasukuni Shrine is simply to express his bereavement for the millions of the war dead - not to pay a tribute to the so-called Class-A war criminals - and to renew his determination never to go to war again.
In the same Editorial, you talk of "Mr Abe, who defends the war criminals and has talked of pre-emptive strikes against North Korea, [ being allowed] further liberty to drive Japan to even greater indifference towards its neighbours" - implying that Mr Abe, chief cabinet secretary, does not accept the decision of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.
Mr Abe has stated clearly on several occasions, including a diet session, that the government is not in a position to lodge an objection against the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, as Japan formally and legally accepted such judgments in accordance with Article 11 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
And as for Mr Abe's alleged remarks about "pre-emptive strikes against North Korea" on July 12th, Mr Abe himself stressed that Japanese defence policy is exclusively defence-oriented, and repeated the government's position that, in theory, targeting hostile missile bases could possibly be considered as an exercise of the right of self-defence in an extreme case where the territory of Japan was being imminently and illegally invaded by guided missiles, and where there were no other available means to prevent such attack without targeting these hostile missile bases rather than waiting for the missiles to have actually caused disastrous damage.
This remark was intended only to outline the right to exercise self-defence as legitimate under international law in the case of armed attack against Japan. Further, Mr Abe dismissed as totally off the mark criticism that he attempted to justify invoking this right even prior to an adversary's armed attack, or in other words, to follow the pre-emptive doctrine.
His view is simply based on the assumption that Japan was at the time already under armed attack; he never talked about a pre-emptive strike.
Furthermore, I would like to clarify Japan's attitude toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) referred in another Editorial (September 1st). This stated that, "as the US, China, Russia and Japan have refused to join the ICC, the only body capable of exerting that pressure is the EU". We share your concern that justice should prevail in international affairs, but your assertion regarding Japan's position towards the ICC fails to reflect the reality.
Although Japan has yet to accede to the Rome Statute, it has never refused to join the ICC. On the contrary, Japan has been supporting the activities of the ICC. Even before the establishment of the ICC, Japan actively participated in the work to create the world's criminal court, and it has also worked hard as an observer in all the ICC-related meetings. Japan took part in the discussion on the drafting of the regulations for the Victims Trust Fund and the task force for the draft Code of Professional Conduct for counsel.
These are important activities which contribute to the further development of the ICC.
Although it has taken time for Japan to consider the full legal and financial implications of the accession to the Rome Statute, the founding document of the ICC, Japan has always seriously considered acceding to the Statute.
The government is currently engaged in the final preparation of the necessary domestic legislation to accept the Statute, as well as an evaluation of the financial implications of accession, despite the government's current fiscal difficulties. We hope that the court will become a truly universal organisation that commands the trust of the international community as a whole. - Yours, etc,
KEIICHI HAYASHI, Ambassador of Japan, Dublin 4.
