Peacebuilding Without Japanese Deployments

Dispatch Technologists to Core Departments

Japan’s economic and technological prowess may have waned, but frankly, international peacebuilding activities do not require countries to be among the heaviest investors in bleeding-edge technology, putting their most sophisticated, classified tech to work in the field. It is unlikely that a superpower could put the full might of its cutting-edge military technology to use in order to become a leader in international peacebuilding. If that is the case, Japan still maintains a comparative technological advantage in these areas.

With logistics as the key component, Japan is now trying to remain involved in UN peacekeeping operations based on experience gained through deploying its civil engineering corps. That is all well and good, but the nation’s brief could expand to include unmanned aerial vehicles such as drones. Although it was quite a while ago, the SDF contingent in Iraq used drones. Technologies should be developed to, for example, use sophisticated unmanned aircraft to gather information via satellite transmission. This would entail dispatching analyst personnel to a critical function like the UN’s Joint Mission Analysis Center, which collects and analyzes data.

In addition, given that peacekeeping personnel are increasingly subject to attack by outside forces, Japan could provide valuable help in the form of emergency medical teams, intelligence-gathering using drones and other methods, transportation, and communications. At any rate, dispatching skilled personnel to departments handling intelligence is important for actively boosting Japan’s presence in international peacebuilding at a time when no SDF units are being dispatched for PKO activities. Japan’s technology can provide an opening for placing personnel in core departments.

Capacity Building through PKO Training Centers

Supporting capacity building is a prime strategic concept in contemporary international peacebuilding, but prospects for success diminish unless that support is respectful of ownership and appropriately positioned. Fortunately, Japan has been providing support for PKO training centers in several African countries for the past decade. This presents a valuable opportunity for re-engagement.

Japan has worked with Egypt’s Cairo Regional Center for Training on Conflict Resolution and Peacekeeping in Africa, the International Peace Support Training Center in Kenya, the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Center in Ghana, and Nigeria’s Center for Strategic Research and Studies. These organizations are important gateways for Japanese contributions to capacity building in Africa, and they should be used as intermediaries for actively promoting interpersonal relations and exchanging information, and to provide equipment and discuss policy.

Closer Relations with African Regional Organizations

“Partnership” is a keyword that characterizes today’s international peacebuilding activities. All PKO activities in Africa, meaning all such activities launched in the twenty-first century—and all major PKO undertakings in progress today, with the sole exception of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon—are being conducted together with the African Union or sub-regional organizations like the Economic Community of West African States, the Southern African Development Community, and the Inter Governmental Authority on Development.

As the 2015 Secretary General’s Report makes clear, this kind of partnership peacekeeping is no longer the exception but has become commonplace(*1). If Japan elects to stop participating in peacekeeping operations, its only remaining choice is to work with African regional organizations partnering with the UN and to establish a presence by supporting those organizations from the sidelines.

Unusually in today’s world, Japan’s geographical location in northeastern Asia excludes it from regional organizations actually involved in partnership peacekeeping. This is a major handicap when it comes to Japan broadening its involvement in international peacebuilding activities. The only alternative is to strengthen connections with African regional organizations involved in the activities that Japan wishes to participate in.

For example, to gain a foothold enabling Japanese personnel to gain experience in international peacebuilding, Japan should start by actively supporting the activities of Africa’s regional and sub-regional organizations. It should also strengthen its framework for cooperating with other governments by offering active, multilateral support for the diplomatic efforts of these entities. Since the SDF has a base in Djibouti, it could conceivably support the African Union’s activities in Somalia.

Japan could also work to systematically position the creation of crossregional partnerships as part of an Indo-Pacific strategy. It should also boost its Indo-Pacific strategy by placing its relations with Africa within the context of that strategy and strengthening ties with Africa through international peacebuilding activities. This highlights the importance of reinforcing ties with regional and sub-regional organizations in Africa for this purpose.

Incorporating New Approaches in the Guidelines

Now that Japan is no longer dispatching peacekeeping personnel, I am suggesting that the National Defense Program Guidelines should focus on technology, capacity building, and partnerships to contribute to international peacebuilding. A new approach is needed. Rather than sweeping the current situation under the rug, the revised Guidelines should adopt a policy view that allows for the development of practical, achievable participation in international peacebuilding activities by the SDF.