PEACEKEEPING SEMINAR CONCLUDES IN TOKYO WITH PLEDGE BY JAPAN’S GOVERNMENT

TO CONSIDER ENGAGEMENT ON THE GROUND, INCLUDING IN SUDAN, AFGHANISTAN

 

Acknowledges Japan Has ‘Room to Improve Head Count’; UN Peacekeeping Chief

Hopeful, Stresses Japan’s Global Engagement More Visible through Blue Helmets

(Received from a UN Information Officer.)

TOKYO, 5 June -- The Seminar on “60 Years of United Nations Peacekeeping:  Evolution and Challenges” concluded today in Tokyo with a pledge by Japan’s Foreign Minister that his country would take responsibility as a “peace fostering” nation in the realm of overseas peacekeeping and consider how it could engage in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the Sudan and Afghanistan.

Bookending a day-long meeting which began with a forthright examination of both the dynamic and transformational nature of United Nations peacekeeping, and considered the possibility of Japan’s increased personnel engagement in that process, the country’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Masahiko Koumura, noted that peacekeeping operations were being carried out in a manner increasingly integrating the military, police and civilian sectors.  Japan intended to more actively consider contributions to the civilian sector.

He acknowledged that Japan still had room to improve “looking at the head count”.  (The meeting had been informed earlier in the day that Japan had about 40 uniformed personnel in the field.)  In his country, more discussion was needed, and as he had said in January, under the current legislation, Japan wanted to be more proactive in peacekeeping and it wanted to extend support to peacebuilding, “in the big stream”.

Wrapping up the Seminar, organized by the United Nations Department of Public Information, in cooperation with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, and the United Nations Information Centre in Tokyo, Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, Kiyo Akasaka, welcomed Japan’s intention to increase its contribution to United Nations peacekeeping.

With the immense challenges United Nations peacekeeping faced today, its growing complexity and increasing scope, he said the Organization relied on its members to provide military and police personnel, help with logistical and technical support, and help keep peacekeeping on solid financial grounds.

He felt that the Seminar’s objective had been achieved, namely to raise awareness among the Japanese decision-makers, media and civil society about United Nations peacekeeping and discuss ways in which Japan could increase its participation, including on the ground, to that core United Nations activity.  Those discussions between the Japanese Government and the United Nations would undoubtedly continue, but the Seminar had been an opportunity to discuss those issues in a public forum.  He hoped the public debate would also continue in Japan.

The third panel had taken up the issue of Japan’s participation in United Nations peacekeeping, in which United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Jean-Marie Guéhenno said that, despite Japan’s constitutional constraints on participation in overseas peacekeeping activities, he had been reassured today, including by Japan’s Defence Minister, that the legal issue of the Constitution was manageable.  At the same time, panellists had also described the very difficult political and public interest issues Japan faced in that regard.

He said that if Japan’s participation could be secured for peacekeeping it would greatly leverage the other aspects of Japanese involvement in international affairs.  To get it right, there were some elements for the Japanese to decide, and some places where the United Nations had to better make the case, and “we have to make the case together”.  The strategic case for peacekeeping should also be made.  Japan was an inventor and promoter of the human security concept, and there was a close relationship between security and human development.  The great international engagement of Japan would be more visible with the contribution of Blue Helmets.

Panel II

Moderating the second panel, entitled “Peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, TAYE-BROOKE ZERIHOUN, Special Representative and Head of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), said that those undertakings were often viewed as separate, but in reality, they were closely connected activities, indeed core functions of the United Nations, often overlapping and evolving from one to the other in the course of solving conflicts and post-conflict situations.  The panel’s task was to review that interconnection and discuss ways the United Nations work in each of those areas could be made more effective.

IAN MARTIN, Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Nepal and Head of the Mission there (UNMIN), said that peace operations were the largest category of United Nations peace missions, but they were not the only category.  Alongside peacekeeping operations, were special political missions, such as the two he headed, in East Timor and Nepal.  Both were in Asia and both had benefited greatly from Japanese participation.  In 1999, Japan had sent police officers to participate in the Mission in East Timor, the first time it sent police officers to the field since the tragedy it suffered in Cambodia.  That had marked the beginning of Japan’s long commitment to peace in Timor-Leste.  Early in 2007, Japan sent military officers to UNMIN, which was the first time it had sent military officers as military observers, not accompanying a Japanese contingent, to a peacekeeping operation.

Mr. Martin described as an historic achievement the holding on 10 April of the Constituent Assembly election in Nepal -- the belated fulfilment of a promise to the people of Nepal as long ago as 1950 that they would be able to determine their constitution through a fully democratic process.  Nevertheless, the Assembly and the Government faced great challenges.  The first was to arrive at an agreement among the political forces on their cooperation in the new Government.  Those difficult negotiations were going on right now, and it was as yet unclear the degree of power-sharing that would result.  The much bigger challenge beyond that was the drafting of a new constitution and how the 601-member Constituent Assembly would achieve a sufficient degree of consensus at a time of considerable political and social differences over the nature of the constitution.

Of particular importance to the United Nations, the peace process itself was far from complete, he said.  The Constituent Assembly election had been a milestone in that process, but it was by no means the whole process.  Everyone was awaiting the view of the new Government, once formed, as to how the United Nations could continue to support the new peace process.  Among other things, he hoped the United Nations would continue to benefit from Japan’s support of United Nations efforts, but Japan’s contribution to Nepal went far beyond that, as it was a leading donor to Nepal.  Now was the time for economic development in that country, and he knew Japan would support economic progress in what he hoped would be more favourable conditions.

He highlighted several key issues of importance when considering the links between peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, including the diversity of United Nations peace missions across and within countries.  Neither UNMIT in East Timor nor UNMIN in Nepal were large multidimensional peacekeeping operations.  They were small, special political missions with particular functions.  Each was composed of little more than 1,000 international and national personnel, including military and police, but neither had a mandate to provide security as such.

The United Nations toolbox needed to include the ability to deploy “light-footed” missions, as well as large military operations, he said, adding that peace missions should be part of a continuum of international engagement.  In both cases, the two missions were preceded by years of peacemaking.  There was also a need for the United Nations to be able to act with speed, and he cautioned against mandates not fully adequate to the situation.  Of central importance was the security sector in peace processes.

RAMESH THAKUR, Fellow, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Professor, Waterloo University, Canada, said that the Middle East provided the setting for the origins of United Nations peacekeeping, as well as a mirror of a record of its accomplishments and shortcomings.  There was a need to embed peacekeeping in the larger efforts of peacemaking and peacebuilding.  As Dag Hammarskjöld had said, peacekeeping was not a job for proper soldiers, but only soldiers could do it.  That had become less and less true because, in addition to soldiers, there were civilian police, election monitors, criminal justice specialists, humanitarian staff, and so forth.  And in practice, peacekeeping had moved from inter-State operations to operations that had at their core civilian protection.  Integrated operations had added nation- and State-building to traditional tasks.

Noting the remark that peacekeeping was not at “6.9”, given how close it had moved to Chapter VII of the Charter, he said it had also simultaneously moved to “6.1” in terms of other tasks.  According to the 2005 Human Security Report, the number and deadliness of conflicts in sub-Saharan African in recent years had gone down.  Poverty had not declined by the same level, so the most likely explanation was the surge in peacemaking activities, humanitarian missions, peacebuilding efforts and their expression in institutions -- all of that seemed to have produced very positive trends.

He touched on a few other points, including: the “unacknowledged” capacity of the United Nations system; Kofi Annan’s notion of the three central pillars of that system -- security, development and human rights, which all required good governance; and the rule of law, which was a prerequisite to progress in security, development and human rights, indeed, the entire United Nations agenda of peacemaking, peace management and post-conflict reconstruction.  Finally, if the United Nations was going to be more effective, the Security Council had to be reformed -- “that elephant in the room had to be tackled”, he concluded.

KATSUNOBU ISHIBASHI, former Chief of the International Peace Cooperation Corps, Nepal, Ministry of Defence, talked about the engagement of Japanese officers on the ground, primarily with UNMIN.  He was an arms monitor for the Mission, which meant he monitored the weapons and troops of Maoists and the Government Army.  He described in detail how that was done, including how information was collected, but he asserted that the mandate “might not be good enough”.  Monitoring or observing did not force the parties to correct the errors; if there was any breach, they were responsible, and not the monitors, for rectifying the situation.  Moreover, the size of the monitoring group was not large enough, so it was not possible to fully regulate evaluation of the peace agreement.

He also talked about the victims of war and the hatred conflict stirred for the opponent, adding that the parties needed peace.  It was helpful for the United Nations to be engaged in trying to prevent a relapse into conflict.  Most were satisfied with the United Nations activities and were even comforted by them.  However, he felt that the mandate might not be effective enough and might be suffering from personnel shortages.

KEN INOUE, Director of the Governance Support Unit, United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT), agreed with the panellists that peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding were interconnected.  Peacemaking required an exchange between both parties and an agreement to build a bridge, a thin rope, perhaps.  Afterwards, they had to strive to erect a suspension bridge made of rope and reinforce it -- that was peacekeeping.  Gradually, both sides would start an exchange, but either side had the freedom to drop the bridge.  Peacebuilding meant transforming the fragile suspension bridge into a steel-frame bridge.  At the end of the day, more exchanges should be encouraged so that both parties were convinced of the benefits of a joint bridge and of no longer needing to protect it.

He reviewed the history of United Nations involvement in Timor-Leste, and Japan’s contribution to that process.  UNMIT, after nearly two years, had started to see results, with a halt in violent confrontation and the election.  With the attempted assassination on the President and Prime Minister, however, the current peace was still fragile, so UNMIT was scheduled to stay the course until February 2009.  Among the key goals was support for the rule of law and democratic governance, as well as support for cultural, social and economic growth.  The difficulties encountered in peacebuilding needed no explanation, for who should be responsible for keeping the peace, protecting and building it?  He talked about internal and external actors, the need for local ownership, as well as the need for the United Nations to remain neutral throughout the process.  He also raised the question of how long a United Nations mission needed to stay in a country.  A further question was why engage at all in peacebuilding, for which he suggested that the Japanese people should consider reasons for supporting peacekeeping in other countries and decide what contributions it could make from the Japanese perspective.

During the exchange of views that followed, the nascent Peacebuilding Commission was discussed.  Mr. THAKUR thought there was a logical division between political affairs and peacekeeping operations, but at the end of the cold war, a gap had become apparent, and it was that gap that the Peacebuilding Commission sought to fill.  The United Nations might be experiencing “teething problems” with the Commission of Peacebuilding Support Office, but those were inevitable and would be resolved.  The Commission’s establishment, more importantly, reflected a real need; whether it was done the right way and with the right level of support remained to be seen.

Mr. INOUE said that Timor-Leste was also being considered for the Peacebuilding Commission and Fund.  Clearly, peacekeeping and peacebuilding were overlapping.  So it was not possible to say definitively when a post-conflict situation was the purview of the Peacekeeping Operations Department and when it was ready for the Peacebuilding Commission.  Timing was very important when asking the Commission to intervene, and that timetable depended on various factors.  Right now, in Timor-Leste, an integrated mission meant the Mission and United Nations country team were working together and there were already lots of peacebuilding activities under way.

When the discussion turned to the responsibility to protect, Mr. THAKUR said that if the United Nations was to be faithful to its mission, it had to address inter-State conflicts, which often deliberately targeted civilians.  In that sense, the responsibility to protect became a central element of United Nations activities, including of peace operations.  Indeed, the responsibility to protect should be part of the mainstream mandate of typical peacekeeping operations, but that also had implications for non-military actors in the field.  In today’s interdependent world, where atrocities were committed on television screens as they happen, the pressures were enormous and continued to grow to protect the populations.  Sovereignty, even in 1945 in the United Nations Charter, was never intended “as a license to kill”.

Panel III

Moderating the third panel, entitled “Japanese participation in United Nations peacekeeping”, was Yoshitaka Akimoto, Ambassador in charge of United Nations Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.

Mr. AKIMOTO provided context for Japan’s contribution to United Nations peacekeeping operations, beginning with the Prime Minister’s statement in his annual policy speech in January 2006 that Japan would play a responsible role in the international community as a “peace-fostering nation”.  In terms of engagement on the ground, that concerned promoting international peace cooperation activities by contributing more vigorously to United Nations peacekeeping operations and bolstering official development assistance for peacebuilding, including through ensuring more rapid and efficient assistance.  Japan sought to strengthen the approaches of human security and ownership.  It would chair the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission and host and participate in peacebuilding-related meetings.  It was also developing a programme for human resource development in Asia for peacebuilding.

He said that Japan’s contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations had included personnel, financial, and assistance in kind to the following operations:  UNTAC (Cambodia, 1992 - 1993); ONUMOZ (Mozambique, 1993 - 1994); UNDOF (Golan Heights, 1996 – present); UNAMET, UNTAET, UMISET, UNMIT (Timor-Leste, 1999 – 2008); UNMIN (Nepal, 2007 – present).  Japan’s number of personnel contributed to those missions had totalled 4,958.  In terms of assessed contribution to United Nations peacekeeping operations, Japan was second only to the United States, at $1.156 million in 2007.  Another graph detailed Japan’s assistance in kind.

Outlining the five principles governing Japan’s participation in the peace operations, he cited:  a ceasefire agreement; the consent of the host countries and the peacekeeping operations by the United Nations and also to Japan’s participation in such operations; impartiality of peace operations; provision for Japan’s withdrawal of its contingents in the event of breach of any of the above conditions; and limitation of the use of weapons to the “necessary minimum” to protect the lives of personnel.

HIDESHI TOKUCHI, Director-General for Operational Policy Bureau, Ministry of Defence of Japan, said that discussions had been ongoing for the Japanese Government to be fully engaged in United Nations peacekeeping operations, in order for his country to fully exercise its expertise in that regard.  The Self-Defence Forces of Japan, first and foremost, had to protect the Japanese nation and neighbouring countries in a crisis, but it had also been engaged in various other activities, such as disaster relief, from the geological and geographical perspective, in response to typhoons and earthquakes.  It had experience in the medical field, as well as in transport, which could be “leveraged” overseas, although Japan was careful not to “push” anything on the people of other regions, as it encouraged the self-autonomy of other States.  While the Self-Defence Forces, or “SDF”, would be used to protect Japan, it had been determined in December 2004 that the time was ripe for it to become more active in international peace, including in United Nations peacekeeping operations.

SHINICHI KITAOKA of Tokyo University and former Deputy Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations, said it was “almost sad”, “a shame” that Japan had only 30 or 40 plus “heads” participating in overseas peacekeeping missions.  He was very critical about Japan’s role in those operations.  Certainly, Japan had made great contributions financially, which was important, as that had made missions possible, and it had made personnel contributions, such as in Cambodia and elsewhere.  It had also spearheaded the concept of human security, but it was time to help consolidate peace, and Japan had a great capacity to contribute more.  Its self-defence forces were very well-trained and could do a marvellous job, providing logistical support, transportation and educational support.  Its troops were not experienced in “real fighting”, but they should not be underestimated.  Besides, nowadays, non-combat activities were becoming ever more important.  Perhaps analysing why Japan’s personnel contribution was so low would help it to find a way out.

Acknowledging that many thought the Constitution’s article 9 was the problem, he said that interpretation was less difficult than changing the Constitution, itself.  Japan was expected to play its role, but “going outside”, that was left to others, such as the United States; Japan never thought of going outside of its borders.  When the cold war ended and Japan’s activity was requested beyond the border, Japan’s people and Government did not know what to do.  In 1990, it had begun a step-by-step expansion of its participation in military activities beyond its border.  After 1945, the Japanese people were accustomed to thinking that the use of force was bad in any situation and should be prohibited; they hated fighting.  But some criticized that view, calling it passivism.

Japan had an excellent police force, but after the tragedy in Cambodia, it was also reluctant to offer police to any peacekeeping activity, he said.  The bureaucrats, including the police, tended to pay attention only to their own responsibilities, saying they were fully occupied with increasing crime in Japan.  The bureaucratic inertia had to be changed.

On a positive note, a council had been appointed to discuss the legal basis of self-defence in Japan, and a remarkable consensus had emerged among its members, he noted.  While there had been criticism about expanding Japan’s legal basis for participating in overseas peacekeeping, consensus was near.  The political obstacle remained, however, in that the Government was divided, and that could be the focus of a political debate.  He proposed the creation of a special unit of troops dedicated to peacekeeping operations, but the biggest problem was the mentality -- changing the people’s perception about that.  Wider media attention could help to change that.  A permanent or semi-permanent seat for Japan on the Security Council would also do its part.

HIROYUKI AKITA, Senior Staff Writer, Political Department, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, said that Japan was motivated about the peacekeeping issue, but in terms of “heads being sent out”, it was “nearly nothing”, and that situation was “disastrous”.  The challenge was how to grow Japan’s support for peacekeeping.  The Japanese people interested in international affairs tended to agree with the need for Japan’s participation, and the Prime Minister had recently indicated his willingness to study the potential dispatch of a defence force, but that would mean burdening the taxpayers and potentially expose the Japanese citizens to “human life risk”.  Japanese casualties would not appeal to the general public, nor be sustainable in Japan.

He said there had been some growth in national opinion over the years in favour of Japan’s personnel participation in peacekeeping, especially in the aftermath of “9-11”.  Today, however, according to a 2006 poll, more than 65 per cent of the Japanese public preferred the current level of engagement or lower.  Dispatch to the Sudan was being studied, but ordinary Japanese had no idea where the Sudan was located.  The question was how to enhance national interest, which was a role for journalists.  When it came to Afghanistan that could more easily be accepted because it was located on the border with Pakistan, which was a breeding ground for terrorists.

The potential benefit of participating in peacekeeping operations was indispensable from the standpoint of Japanese survival in terms of natural resources and food, he said, adding that money alone was not a vehicle to access to those things and other indispensable supplies.  Also, the time had come for Japan to show its commitment to international peace and cooperation.  In the Indian Ocean, particularly, it was important to secure Japanese peace.

Participating in the ensuing discussion were Nancy Soderberg, former Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations; Eric Tan, former Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Timor-Leste in the United Nations Integrated Mission there (UNMIT); and Jean-Marie Guéhenno, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations.

Mr. GUÉHENNO said he thought that 90 per cent of all peacekeeping activities fell within the five areas mentioned by Mr. Akimoto, and thus, Japanese units did not have to be involved in military activities.  He was reassured that the legal issue of the Constitution was manageable.  The Defence Minister had described the key ways in which the defence forces could be extremely helpful for peacekeeping, such as their principles of self-sustenance and their capacity to deliver relief -- all of which United Nations peacekeeping operations needed.  There was also the high level of professionalism of the Japanese Self-Defence Force.

He said that all of that had filled him with hope, but participants had also explained the very difficult political issues.  The whole world knew the importance of Japan as a major Power -- as a driver with global influence.  On the other hand, only the “specialist” knew that Japan was an enormous financial contributor to the United Nations, second only to the United States.  That was known on the ground, but that was not very visible to the “lay public” worldwide.  So there was a contrast between great respect for Japan’s extraordinary success in the post-World War Two period and a great ignorance for the country’s involvement in helping the world move forward through the United Nations, through development.  It was in that context that he looked at peacekeeping.

“There is something we are not doing right,” he said, adding that, if Japan’s participation could be secured for peacekeeping, it would greatly leverage the other aspects of Japanese involvement in international affairs.  So to get it right, there were some elements for the Japanese to decide, and some places where the United Nations had to better make the case, and “we have to make the case together”.  The strategic case for peacekeeping should also be made.  Japan was an inventor and promoter of the human security concept, and there was a close relationship between security and human development.  The great international engagement of Japan would be more visible with the contribution of Blue Helmets.

Mr. TAN focused his remarks on the important contribution Japan’s engineering group in the Timor-Leste mission had made to building roads and reconstructing bridges, enabling better medical care in remote and rugged areas and greater freedom of movement, leading to an improved ability to carry out economic activities.  The work of the Japanese police officers in the Integrated Mission was of extremely high quality.

Ms. SODERBERG pointed out that the United Nations was looking for people at Headquarters and in field missions, and Japan’s involvement in that regard was missing was Mr. Akimoto’s list.  Japan was doing its part financially, while the rest of the world was not.  She offered the country a template from one she had prepared for the United States Government in September 2007, when they “woke up to the idea that United States involvement in peacekeeping is a good thing”.

Replying to questions about reforming the Defence Department, Mr. TOKUCHI said that was an ongoing debate, so he would refrain from addressing those questions directly.  He did not perceive that he was “surrounded by enemies” in this room, as one questioner suggested.  In terms of the “SDF”, it was supposed to protect the country, and, no, it did not have any policy of discriminating against particular destinations.  When it came to the capability of the “SDF” to relate to local populations, it could do so with ease; the destination was not at all an issue.

Responding to a further question, Professor AKITA said it was not necessary for Japan to send large numbers of troops, but to provide know-how in a smaller number of places.  Involvement in overseas peacekeeping would reflect its commitment internationally to global concerns, such as climate change and poverty eradication.  Moreover, peacekeeping was being operated out of taxpayers pockets, so having a very small head count was akin to planting a seed, watering it, but never attempting to cultivate the fruit.

Closing Remarks

MASAHIKO KOUMURA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that right now Japan was trying to take responsibility as a “peace fostering” nation in the international community.  If one thought of peacebuilding as a river, it should obtain security upstream where it was still at stake, and then contribute to helping a nation build and develop after the mid-stream.  That would enable the stream to flow into a big ocean of peace.

He said his country’s involvement in United Nations peacekeeping had started with Cambodia, and was followed by East Timor, then Bosnia and Kosovo.  Other examples also included support to Iraqis and an aggressive contribution to Afghanistan in its fight against terrorism.  Once a State came mid-stream and was ready for recovery and development, Japan was ready to demonstrate its role in the international community.  But in order to increase Japan’s exposure to peacebuilding, it needed to contribute in the ocean.  It had to discuss how it could contribute, including the possibilities of engaging in the Sudan and Afghanistan.

When Japan had participated in Cambodia 16 years ago, with the engagement of about 1,300 members, it had endured some sacrifices, he recalled.  Today, Japan was involved in the Peacebuilding Commission and was contributed to peacebuilding, such as in Sierra Leone and Burundi, early and upstream.  It should not be forgotten that current peacekeeping operations performed multidimensional functions, including:  assistance to refugees; disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants; and coordination of development and recovery assistance.  Japan was in a position to make active contributions in the “mid-river” down.  Peacekeeping operations were being carried out in a manner increasingly integrating the military, police and civilian sectors.  In that context, Japan intended to more actively consider contributions to the civilian sector of peacekeeping operations and assistance that could facilitate those missions.

He acknowledged that Japan still had room to improve “looking at the head count”.  In his country, more discussion was needed, and as he had said in January, under the current legislation, Japan wanted to be more aggressive in peacekeeping and it wanted to extend support to peacebuilding, “in the big stream”.

In closing, Mr. AKASAKA welcomed Japan’s intention to increase its contribution to United Nations peacekeeping.  With the immense challenges it faced today, its growing complexity and increasing scope, the United Nations relied on Member States to provide military and police personnel, help with logistical and technical support in various forms, and help keep peacekeeping on solid financial grounds.

He felt that the Seminar’s objective had been achieved, namely to raise awareness among the Japanese decision-makers, media and civil society about United Nations peacekeeping and discuss ways in which Japan could increase its participation and contribution, including on the ground, to that core United Nations activity.

The calibre of panellists, the fruitful discussion and exchange of views had been of the highest quality, very frank and faithful to the political realities of the day, he said, adding that the discussions between the Government of Japan and the United Nations would undoubtedly continue on the specific contribution that that key Member State could provide in support of United Nations peacekeeping.  The Seminar had been an opportunity to discuss those issues in a public forum, and he hoped the public debate would continue in Japan, in order to enhance that country’s contribution to international peace and security.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record