Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

　　　　　In response to concerted terrorist attacks in Paris, the Japanese government launched the International Counterterrorism Intelligence Collection Unit to collect overseas terrorist-related intelligence, some six months ahead of schedule. But I doubt whether the government could make appropriate response even if the unit gets such intelligence.

Legislative defects
　　　　　After the Paris terrorist attacks in November, French President Francois Hollande declared a state of emergency. In the absence of any emergency clause in the Japanese Constitution, Japan has no rule for the government’s appropriate response to an emergency.
　　　　　In 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the U.N. Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, requiring signatories to make a conspiracy -- i.e., a specific agreement of implementation -- for a grave crime punishable. But Japan’s attempt to revise the Act on Punishment of Organized Crimes to this effect has failed three times. Therefore, a conspiracy for a coordinated grave crime like the Paris terrorist attacks, even if found in advance, cannot be punished unless it constitutes insurrection plots or other crimes.
　　　　　The Wiretapping Act enacted in 1999 only allows law enforcers to do wiretapping based on a warrant to be issued by a court in principle after a specific crime is committed. No wiretapping is allowed for the purpose of forestalling terrorist attacks. The French government, though having failed to prevent the first terrorist attacks, successfully forestalled the second attacks. If such terrorist attacks occur in Japan, however, the government may only take a reactive response and have difficulties in forestalling successive attacks.
　　　　　Any bill to revise laws for counterterrorism purposes may face opposition from human rights and other groups. But the government, even if willing to refrain from taking any unpopular measures before next year’s House of Councilors election, should not hesitate to implement counterterrorism measures.

What could be effective counterterrorism measures?
　　　　　On Japanese television programs after the Paris terrorist attacks, commentators more or less said enhanced bombing on Islamic State would result in a chain of revenge killings and end up spreading terrorism. But aerial bombing to destroy militants’ training facilities and oil facilities as their financial resources would be very effective as a surgical operation for reducing their combat power. Efforts to improve a terror-inducing society as a measure of internal medicine must also be made. But they will take considerable time before producing any effects.
　　　　　On a TV program broadcast by semi-official Japan Broadcasting Corp., better known as NHK, a commentator said terror emerges primarily from disparities. Another commentator agreed, saying a self-burning terror on a Shinkansen bullet train in June originated from the suicide’s economic grievance. But Osama bin Laden who masterminded the 9.11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. was a millionaire who should have no economic grievance.
　　　　　Furthermore, I doubt if counterterrorism measures have been considered sufficiently for the selection of 2020 Tokyo Olympic game sites. For example, Odaiba bayside area, where no big hospital exists with the number of residents limited, has been selected for triathlon, beach volley and other games. If a large-scale terrorist attack comes, massive injured people may have to be brought to medical facilities for treatment. I am afraid if appropriate response could be made in Odaiba in such event.

Fumio Ota is a JINF Planning Committee Member and retired Vice Admiral of Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force.