Army General: Intruders ‘well-trained’

http://www.malaysiakini.com

by Nigel Aw | 1:08PM March 3, 2013

Army General Zulkifli Zainal Abidin opinied that armed intruders in Sabah have shown combat experience and adeptness in insurgency tactics.

“From our intelligence and observation, they have combat experience and their insurgency guerilla tactics are quite good, I would say,” he said.He said that the group has positioned snipers in one area with a large public space. He did not name the area.

“They know we are not able to go in without casualties because of the open area,” he told a press conference in Felda Sahabat Residence, Lahad Datu.

Today was the first ever joint press conference by the Police and Army, more than three weeks after the first standoff in Kampung Tandou, some 15km away from here.

The press conference was held following another landing by intruders in Kunak and an ambush on a police team in Sempoerna. It is still unconfirmed if the two incidents are related to armed intruders loyal to the Sulu Sultanate.

Lahad Datu Stand Off: Two Malaysian Police Commandos Dead

March 1, 2013

http://www.malaysiakini.com

The Malaysian security forces ended the 17-day stand-off in Kampung Tanduo, Lahad Datu this afternoon after an exchange of fire with the Sulu sultanate intruders that resulted in 14 deaths, including two Malaysian Police commandos.

7.05pm: The two Malaysian Police commandos killed are Inspector Zulkifli Mamat and Corporal Sabarudin Daud.Three others were injured, one of who is in a critical condition, and they have been hospitalised.They are from VAT69, an elite police commando unit with its roots in counter-insurgency against the communists, and which has since been re-tasked for counter-terrorism and special operations.

6.55pm: In an immediate reaction, Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Abdul Razak expressed regret that the standoff resulted in deaths.

“I am very sad over the incident because what we had wanted to prevent, which is bloodshed, had actually happened.

“Now, there is no grace period for the group to leave,” The Star Online quoted Najib as saying.

Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim extended condolences to the families of Malaysian security forces killed in the operation.

“The government of Malaysia under Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, who is responsible for managing national security and defence, should come forward and explain to the people over this bloody incident,” Anwar said in a statement this evening.

He queried how the country’s borders could easily be infiltrated by armed foreigners and the government’s leniency in dealing with the matter.

“The issue of national security should not be viewed lightly by the government. The people need to know what has happened,” Anwar said.

6.45pm: Sabah Police Chief Hamza Taib confirms at a press conference that 12 Sulu gunmen were killed in the operation, besides two Malaysian commandos.

Hamza is quoted by The Star Online as saying the shootout began after the five elite General Operations Force (GOF) members tightened their perimeter around Kampung Tanduo and were met with gunfire when they stumbled upon the intruders.

In the 9.59am incident, Hamza said, the GOF members were forced to return fire and the skirmish lasted some 30 minutes. Security forces recovered some weapons form the Sulu militants and are now holding their ground around within an area of 10sq-km around the village, he added.

4.44pm: Bernama reports that the Police will call a press conference at Lahad Datu at about 5pm on the operation.

Two cops were killed by mortar shell while another two were injured. Reporters have been directed to leave the incident area due to security concern. Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar is already in Sabah.

4.35pm: Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein tweets that he is heading to Sabah for a first-hand briefing on the situation in Lahad Datu. “Heading to Sabah for first hand briefing of situation on the ground. CPO Sabah expected to update media in Lahad Datu ASAP,” he posted on Twitter.

Malaysian Ambassador briefs Manila

4.11pm: Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) spokesperson Raul Hernandez says the standoff in Sabah is over.

“Malaysian authorities, particularly the Malaysian Police, are now pursuing the group. Two were killed and one wounded from the Malaysian Police after their vehicle(s) were fired upon by the Kiram group. The Ambassador said the standoff is now over,” Hernandez said in a statement, according to a report by ABS-CBNnews.

Hernandez said the DFA is still validating a report from  Sultan Jamalul Kiram’s men that 10 followers of Azzimudie were killed and four others wounded in the shooting.

“What we have from the Malaysian Ambassador is that 10 of Kiram’s (Azzimudie’s) men surrendered and one owner of the house where Kiram stayed was killed. From the Malaysian authorities, two were killed and one was wounded after the Malaysian Police vehicle was fired upon by the Kiram group,” read the statement by Hernandez.

The report said two of Azzimudie’s men escaped and ran towards the sea, according to the Malaysian Ambassador. Manila also requested clearance for a Philippine Navy vessel, AT-296 BRP Tagbanua, to proceed to Lahad Datu to enable Philippine medical personnel abroad to attend to the wounded and ferry them and the remaining members of the group back to their respective homes and families.

3.42pm: The Star reports Police in Lahad Datu saying that they have not received any emergency order. Semporna District Police Chief Deputy Superintendent Firdaus Francis Abdullah said they were all on standby, together with the other security forces.

“We have yet to receive any emergency order from the higher authorities,” Firdaus said, adding that the precautions were necessary, and that the people should remain calm.

“Many are worried that the problem would spread to Semporna, but actually there is no need to worry here as the Sulu gunmen have been cornered in Lahad Datu,” he said.

People told to stay indoors

The Police also advised people to stay indoors and not to believe in rumours.

3.25pm: Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs says three are dead and 10 have been arrested in the standoff, according to AFP.

3.20pm: The Philippine Inquirer quotes Jamalul Kiram as denying reports that his brother Azzimudie has been arrested by Malaysian authorities.

His spokesperson Idjirani said the Royal family was able to talk to Azzimudie, who is referred to as Rajah Muda and is leading a group of armed men who have been in Sabah since February 9 to stake their ancestral territorial claim to Sabah.

“We talked to him. He is well. He is not wounded and he is still leading the struggle,” Idjirani said.

2.57pm: According to ANC Dateline Philippine, Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram’s spokesperson Abraham Idjirani said the Sultanate is not bent on taking revenge for the death of his men, saying the group wants to settle the matter peacefully.

Idjirani  said their group would bring the matter to the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and might ask the Organisation of Islamic Conference to intervene as the two adversaries are Muslims.

1.55pm: Azzimudie Kiram, the younger brother of Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram (left) and who heads the armed group in Kampung Tanduo, tells Philippine Radio dzMM that his men will not return to the Philippines as it would be an “embarrassment” for them and the Sulu Sultanate.

“We cannot go back to the Philippines because that will be a great embarrassment on our part. We have already stated our intention in coming here,” Azzimudie is quoted as saying.

He said he and his 275 followers were bent on staying in Tanduo village in Lahad Datu while the Philippine government is in talks with the Malaysian government on how to settle the issue.”They can proceed with the negotiations peacefully…,” he adds.

12.19pm: Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram tells Radio dzMM that he will not order his followers to surrender despite the exchange of fire, but the door for negotiations is still open.

VIDEO | 1.41 mins [Mobilisation of Malaysian forces yesterday]

EARLIER REPORTS

ABS-CBNnews reported that Sulu Sultanate spokesperson Abraham Idjirani said he had just talked to the self-proclaimed Sulu sultan Jamalul Kiram’s brother Azzimudie Kiram, who heads the armed group in Lahad Datu.

Azzimudie confirmed that 10 of his men were killed and four others wounded in the shooting incident. “He saw the bodies himself,” Idjirani told a press conference in Manila.

“The fatalities included one woman.” Idjirani appealed to the Malaysian government to stop the attack, saying Azzimudie’s men were armed only with ‘bolos‘ (machetes) and knives and only a few had guns.

He claimed that Malaysian Police commandos were using snipers to get at Azzimudie’s men. Malaysian Chinese daily China Press has quoted unverified sources at the scene claiming that two intruders were shot dead, while three members of the Malaysian forces suffered wounds.

However, ABS-CBNnews reported that the Malaysian Ambassador to the Philippines has confirmed there had been a shooting incident between the two sides but there were no casualties.

Philippine Department of Foreign Affair (DFA) spokesperson Raul Hernandez told the news agency that Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario had just talked to the Malaysian ambassador, who confirmed there had been shooting in Lahad Datu but that it had already stopped.

He said Manila is monitoring the situation. Ricky Carandang, the Philippines’ presidential spokesman, told Reuters that some of the group had tried to breach a cordon setup by the Malaysian security forces this morning.

“There was a warning shot but there’s no report of casualty, that was what we got and confirmed by the DFA,” he told Reuters.

Earlier today, Idjirani told The Philippine Star that Azzimudie’s group had been fired upon by Malaysian security forces.

Idjirani claimed that the sultanate members had called and informed them about the rising tension at about 6am today.

“This morning is a moment in history, that the Malaysian security forces fired the first shot,”  he was quoted as saying. On the other hand, he noted that Azzimudie could not ascertain if the first shot had been aimed at his people.

However, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein has claimed that Malaysian security forces were attacked at 10am today, but that had yet to return fire.

“Lahad Datu – I confirm that our security forces have not taken a single shot but were shot at 10am this morning! Lahad Datu: The situation is still under full control. They (the intruders) are still being surrounded. The authority has not returned any shots. Let us pray!” he posted in his Twitter account.

Sulu group appealed to Malaysia

According to Idjirani, Azzimudie also informed them earlier that the Malaysian authorities were already approaching the area.

“However, there was bit of a respite and it was good that the Malaysian police had withdrawn later, according to Crown Prince (Azzimudie),” Idjirani said.

He claimed that the Malaysian forces came as close as 300 metres from the area where more than 200 followers of the sultanate had been holed up.

The Sultanate official also appealed to the Malaysian government to reconsider its actions, stressing that their people in Lahad Datu have no intentions of creating trouble.

“However, if the Malaysian authorities push for action, then the sultanate followers there have no recourse but to defend themselves to their last breath,” Idjirani said.

Another Philippine media, Philippine Daily Inquirer, reported that a Sabah-based radio station had broadcast that its reporter who was stationed near Felda 17 – an area near Kampung Tanduo where the armed group was holed up – heard heavy firing shortly after 10am.

The Sabah radio said their efforts to get comments from the Malaysian authorities has failed as the latter were mum on the incident, but some villagers have since claimed seeing bodies being moved out.

In Pekan, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (left) was quoted by The Star as saying that the intruders should leave before action is taken to force them out.

Najib said the longer they stay in Sabah, the more dangerous the situation would be for them, and Malaysian authorities had taken a careful approach in handling the situation to prevent bloodshed.

“The group must realise that what they are doing is a serious offence and I hope they will accept the offer to leave peacefully as soon as possible,” he said.

The Lahad Datu Standoff: Another Point of View

February 27, 2013

http://www.nst.com.my

by Lt Gen (Rtd) Datuk Seri Zaini Mohd Said  | panglima_sauk70@hotmail.com

LIKE many happenings in the realm of national security, the ones often thought unlikely and even impossible to happen will. Old military hands had already learned this and will constantly remind themselves to expect the unexpected to occur, somehow.

Long ago, the United States experienced Pearl Harbour and then the 9/11 attack. We had among others, things like the Al Maunah arms heist at our military camps, the two-person samurai sword attack in Putrajaya and now the incursion and entrenchment in Sabah of armed soldiers of the Sultanate of Sulu on Feb 12. All of these were mostly unexpected.

Those in the business of defence and security are conscious of threats that can emanate from outside or from within the country. However, they can never predict and picture fully the actual and detailed form these threats can manifest themselves. These, therefore, can still surprise.

We were surprised by the incursion of the soldiers and their demand for Sabah to be handed back to the Sultanate of Sulu or else they would fight — to the death if necessary. It was also some surprise to many as to the manner they made their demand, with more than 100 armed men, in Sabah, and, headed by a royal member from the sultanate.

Not unexpectedly, many are questioning why they were able to land in the first place and why it is taking so long to evict or apprehend them, forcibly if need be.

Understandable, questions from reasonable minds but since the operation and delicate process of urging them to leave is ongoing, it is best to let the authorities go about doing their job and wait for the complete answers to come once there is full closure of the matter.

In the meantime, there is little need for worry or cause for alarm. Indications are that the authorities and Police are on top of the situation and are prepared for any eventuality.

The Sulu soldiers are also reported to begin to lose their nerve and tiring fast. Even our military is close by and ready to come in if needed. It should not be too difficult for the security forces to end the standoff by use of force at all.

We should, however, pray that this will not be necessary. It would certainly affect and jeopardise the effort and our role as the facilitator towards getting the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Manila peace accord finalised and the establishment of the Bangsamoro state in southern Philippines.

If force were to result in many casualties on the Sulu side, then Malaysia’s plans and prospects of helping and participating in the development in the land of the Moros will diminish. It cannot be easy when there are to be vengeful and angry people from within the population there.

In any case, it is believed that they had not come intending to fight us or our security forces. That they came led and dressed in recognisable military uniforms with clear insignias is not to appear intimidating but to be identified as a bona fide and organised military body and not terrorists or common criminals.

A recognition that would entitle them to be regarded and treated under all the provisions of the international law on land warfare and the Geneva Convention as military combatants. A status they could nevertheless lose if they were to make monetary or other material demands over what has already been stated.

This must have been clear to our authorities and that probably explains the present strategy of urging them to leave peacefully and not giving in to any inappropriate demand, being the most appropriate option to pursue.

Avoid the shooting part at all costs for it will never ever end in that part of the world and not with the Moros.

 

Lahad Datu Standoff–A Dangerous Precedent

February 20, 2013

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

by Pushparani Thilaganathan and Queville To

The current drama in Lahad Datu following the incursion of armed men from the Philippines and the government’s “gentle” approach to the situation could backfire on the Barisan Nasional leadership if it is indeed a tactical strategy to scare Sabahans into voting for the ruling coalition.

“If this is the BN game, then it is a dangerous strategy,” said State Reform Party (STAR) chief Jeffrey Kitingan.

“It [the strategy] is a double-edged sword because it can backfire and cause the people to vote against the BN for its obvious failure in flexing the [government’s] military muscle for the sake of national dignity and sovereignty.

“If the government cannot protect our country and deal with this problem in a way that will enhance our standing as a sovereign nation, maybe it’s time for Malaysia to ask for international intervention,” Jeffrey said, alluding to the stand-off between the Police and the militants.

He was commenting on widespread rumours that the government’s “no-bloodshed strategy” could be a tactic to counter the growing political uncertainties in the state.

The protracted “negotiations” between the Police and the armed militants – holed up in Felda Sahabat in Lahad Datu – is testing the patience of locals and stoking the ire of villagers barred from entering the cordoned-off areas to carry out their daily routine and economic activities.

It has also not helped that details of the “negotiations” have been withheld from the public, with the mainstream media “advised” to downplay the issue.

Left in the cold, Sabahans have been accessing online portals, blogs, tweets and social media for updates on the incursions, leaving many to spin their own theories over the government’s handling of the issue.

Said Jeffrey: “Why is there little media coverage in the government-controlled mainstream media although the intrusion is bordering on an act of war?Isn’t Sabah important enough for all Malaysians to be kept posted on the developments of the standoff? This is not a localised issue.”

“Also, why are the police not taking action on rumours of disturbances in other areas in Sabah? Is it because these rumours are being fired up by [BN] cybertroopers?“Is this whole thing a scripted charade to frighten the voters?” he asked.

Sabah not a ‘fixed deposit’

It has been more than 10 days since the armed militants – rumoured to be 400 men – first landed in Lahad Datu on February 9.

Villagers at Felda Sahabat, where these bandits are holed up, fearing that they were members of the fearsome Abu Sayyaf terrorist group, immediately fled with their families.

They were expecting the army to clamp down on the seige quickly and to be able to return to the homes and routine.But the stand-off remains with Home Affairs Minister Hishammuddin Hussein reportedly stating yesterday that the “situation is under control” and that they were “dealing” with it.

But curious questions over whether the Police are equipped to handle such “negotiations with militants” and why the military has been sidelined in these negotiations have only stoked rumours of top-level political “intervention” and an opportunistic tactic by BN in view of its sinking popularity in Sabah.

The routinely positive hype whipped out by the local media over Sabah BN’s “growing popularity” mocks the ground reality prevailing in Sabah.

The fact is everyone from Chief Minister Musa Aman right down to the BN assemblymen is uncertain of their future, going into the 13th general election, and are desperately trying to engage individuals, NGOs and political nondescript persons.

To put it bluntly, Sabah UMNO and BN partners – Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), MCA, Gerakan, MIC, Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), Upko and Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS) – are collectively in deep trouble facing the upcoming election.

The famed BN “fixed deposit” is no longer applicable here. There are no longer any guarantees for BN.

Besides, the revelations made at the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) have shamed these party leaders for their spineless support of Umno’s agenda which systematically marginalised the native KDMs and Christians and turned hundreds of shocked fence-sitters into resolute opposition supporters.

The hearings have also stirred deep-set anger within the communities against the legalised illegal immigrants.Such deep anger, if “strategically” fanned could force the hand of the government to clamp down on any civil unrest.

Bad prognosis for BN

Recent BN intelligence reports, although optimistic of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s individual appeal, noted that the ruling coalition “could lose more than half” of its 25 parliamentary seats in Sabah.

Ground reports from the Opposition have put their wins at between 15 and 18 seats.These reports have also indicated that BN could lose just over half of the 60 state seats up for grabs in the 13th general election.

The prognosis for BN and Sabah UMNO as such is not good. And Putrajaya or UMNO cannot do without Sabah’s wealth. Sabah is currently a politically volatile state for Najib and federal UMNO.

Describing Sabah as a state “in chaos”, a university lecturer here, who declined to be named, said “people are just angry… watch the [ballot] box”.He viewed the government’s approach to the latest “siege” as “stupid”.

“This is a security breach… If armed Singaporeans slipped into Johor Baru, would the authorities be this caring? Would they want to give it more time to resolve the matter?” he asked, alluding to Hishammuddin’s reported comment that the situation was “under control” and that the government “was giving it a little bit more time for this matter to be resolved”.

Book Review: ‘Engineers of Victory,’ by Paul Kennedy

February 9, 2013

War Machines

‘Engineers of Victory,’ by Paul Kennedy

By Michael Beschloss
Published: February 8, 2013

The historian Daniel Boorstin once complained to me about the Smithsonian Institution’s decision in 1980 to delete the final two words from the name of its Museum of History and Technology. Boorstin had a point.

Scholars of other fields do often tend to underestimate the influence of technology. Although most of us know that World War II brought us radar, the literature of that titanic conflict is by no means exempt from this phenomenon. For instance, the biographer Joseph P. Lash subtitled his 1976 wartime account of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill “The Partnership That Saved the West,” in response to which I once heard a British scholar carp, “If Lash is right, then why did all those scientists and intelligence officers and factory workers bother working so hard?”

With this fresh and discursive new work, the Yale historian Paul Kennedy, best known for his widely debated “Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” published in 1987, calls attention to the way “small groups of individuals and institutions” surmounted seemingly insuperable operational obstacles to enable Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill and Stalin ultimately to grasp the laurels for an Allied triumph.

“Engineers of Victory” achieves the difficult task of being a consistently original book about one of the most relentlessly examined episodes in human history. Unlike most studies of the war, this one is not primarily about politics, generalship or battlefield glories. References to the Big Three are few. Instead, like an engineer who pries open a pocket watch to reveal its inner mechanics, Kennedy tells how ­little-known men and women at lower ­levels helped win the war.

Kennedy concentrates mainly on the European theater and on Allied progress during the period from early 1943, when Hitler’s Admiral Doenitz sank 108 Allied vessels in a single month, provoking fears that England would be starved of essential bunker fuel, to the almost fantastic summer of 1944, when British and American troops scrambled onto Festung Europa. By Kennedy’s telling, a number of concurrent accomplishments spelled the difference between victory and, if not defeat, then, at least, a struggle that might have dragged on past 1945, with countless additional casualties.

The first was ensuring that Allied convoys could cross the Atlantic without being sunk by Germans. As Kennedy acknowledges, this was the first war in which sea power’s success was decided by air power, so part of the solution was cranking out airplanes (especially long-range bombers). But vital too were innovations like the Hedgehog, a forward-firing ship-­mounted mortar (devised by an idiosyncratic British unit called “Wheezers and Dodgers”), and the Leigh Light, which exposed German U-boats that were surfacing at night to recharge batteries so that British bombers could do their deadly work. In contrast with the cadre of popular and scholarly authors who since the 1970s have written, often breathlessly, about glamorous code breakers, Kennedy is skeptical of Bletchley Park’s importance, because the intelligence operation known as Ultra “could do only so much.”

Command of the air over Germany was seized only when American squadrons arrived to augment the Royal Air Force, upend the existing British doctrine of restricting attacks to nighttime and demand pinpoint bombing of specifically identified German military and industrial targets. The zenith of Allied accomplishment in the air, of course, was D-Day 1944, when a previously unimaginable 11,590 planes were sent aloft. “There had been nothing like it in world history,”

Kennedy writes, “nor has there been since. . . . There was no chance for the completely diminished Luftwaffe to do anything except lose more and more of its planes and pilots whenever they rose into the air.” Kennedy goes on to describe how the Allies stopped the ferocious blitzkrieg assaults of 1939 to 1942 by deploying “stronger, tougher and better-equipped forces (with panzers, bazookas, mines, better tactical aircraft)” in concert with the western thrust of the Soviet Army, aided by their T-34-85, which Kennedy calls the “most all-round battle tank” of the war.

Victory in Europe before the summer of 1945 also required the Allies to make hasty progress in perfecting the art of amphibious warfare. After World War I, Kennedy notes, with “a badly defeated and much-­reduced Germany, in a badly damaged and scarcely victorious France and Italy, and in an infant Soviet Union, there were many thoughts of war, but none of them involved the projection of force across the oceans.” The disheartening debacle of the one-day Allied trial effort in August 1942 to breach the Atlantic Wall with a raid against the modest German garrison at Dieppe, France, provided crucial lessons that led directly to the world-­important success on D-Day two years later.

Kennedy shows how wise the Allies were to restrain themselves from invading France until their commanders and troops had gained more experience in amphibious landings and until control of the Atlantic had been secured. He insists that D-Day could have been a rout but for the fact that by mid-1944, British, American and Canadian warriors — from the top down — had transformed their organization into a smoothly functioning apparatus, refined their means of gathering intelligence and designed the now-­famous “bodyguard of lies” that misled the Nazis about when and how the Allies would invade Europe.

Succinctly covering the Pacific theater, Kennedy illuminates some of the main tools that enabled United States forces to make their slow progress across the ocean in order to bomb Japan — new fast carrier groups, new fighters like the F6F and bombers like the B-29, as well as the American submarine service and the 325,000 enlisted members of the Navy’s construction battalions, the “Seabees,” which by the end of the war had erected $10 billion worth of military infrastructure around the world.

While Kennedy rightly elevates the importance of technology and those much-too-­unheralded bands of Allied innovators, on a grander scale he fully appreciates that “the winning of great wars always requires superior organization,” which “will allow outsiders to feed fresh ideas into the pursuit of victory.”

An ingredient badly missing from the centralized systems of imperial Japan and Nazi Germany was the willingness, demonstrated again and again by top Anglo-American military and political leaders, to share power with those of more modest rank who had greater expertise in tackling a particular problem and who were closer to the action. Kennedy notes that even the dictatorial Stalin “began to relax his iron grasp once he understood that he had a team of first-class generals working for him.”

Although occasionally prolix and repetitive, Kennedy’s volume is an important contribution to our understanding of World War II, and it sets a high standard for historians writing about other conflicts by reminding us to keep a close eye on technology. The curious reader may well finish this book and wish that scholars would pay more attention to how much American setbacks in lesser wars like Korea and Vietnam might have been influenced by gaps in our technological mastery.

Michael Beschloss, the author, most recently, of “Presidential Courage,” is writing a history of American presidential leadership in wartime.

A version of this review appeared in print on February 10, 2013, on page BR15 of the Sunday Book Review with the headline: War Machines.

Japan is a screw driver’s away turn from developing nuclear weapons.

December 25, 2012

by BA Hamzah1]

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (left) will be sending strong signals of defiance to the international community if he were to scrap Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution. He is not the first Prime Minister who wishes to revise the Constitution, which prohibits Japan from becoming a military power. Others before him have entertained the same idea that was considered taboo in the past; no longer now.

However, it is a myth to think that Japan has not rearmed after WW 11. Many are under the impression that Japan has been constrained by Article 9 of the Constitution. Despite promising to renounce war as a sovereign right and not to maintain any form of land, sea and air forces, Japan has, since 1954, quietly built a potent military force- known innocuously as the Japanese Self Defense Forces(JSDF).

Japanese politicians and bureaucrats have circumvented the constitutional restriction to bear arms. This makes Abe-san’s policy statement passé in many respects. However, the timing of Abe-san’s statement is important. It comes at a time when Tokyo is broiling in territorial disputes with China, South Korea and Russia. It also comes on the heel of Pyongyang’s successful launching a long- range rocket missile in December 2012, ostensibly for satellite purposes.

Tokyo is evidently alarmed by many regional events including its own economic malaise as well as the financial cliff and the stubborn recession in the US. Many pundits view the Pentagon’s decision to cut military spending by a few billion dollars over the next decade, amidst changes in the geo-political landscape in East Asia, as undermining its power projection capability.

Against the backdrop of the changing complex strategic relationship between Washington-Moscow-Beijing-Seoul-Pyongyang and Tokyo, the perception of a US in a state of strategic decline can change the security outlook in the region. Besides this, Japan is visibly worried by recent developments in the Korean peninsula.

The President- elect of South Korea,  Park Geun-hye (right), has indicated that she would engage the Pyongyang regime; she even promised to give them food aid without any pre-condition. Moreover, in recent years, Seoul and Beijing, which have separately challenged Tokyo’s territorial claims in East China Sea, have deepened their economic ties. Among others, this has caused Tokyo to reassess its military posture.

Russia and China have been aligning ever more closely on a number of international issues affecting the region. For example, both powers are suspicious of Obama’s military policy to deploy more troops to Asia Pacific region. Under the rubric of the Air Sea Battle Strategy, America plans to deploy the anti-ballistic missiles systems to blunt China’s military capabilities that “can slow, limit or deny US forces from conducting threatening military operations”. Washington terms these capabilities as Anti-Access/Area-Denial (A2/AD).

It is perfectly understandable for Tokyo to feel insecure; it has a sieged mentality, especially in the East China Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk. While Japan administers Diayou, South Korea and Russia have respectively occupied the Dokdo and the Kuriles.

The surprise visit by the outgoing South Korea’s President Lee Myung-bak to Dokdo/ Takeshima in August 2012 and China’s decision to fly over the Diaoyu/Senkaku in December 2012 have exposed Tokyo’s vulnerability.

When faced with a similar strategic dilemma in the 1930s, Japan re-armed itself. Japan abandoned the Washington Treaty (1921-1922) and the London Naval Treaties of 1930 and 1936 which imposed a limit on the number of new hulls and tonnage for its growing Imperial Navy in favour of rearmament. Subsequently, it waged a long war, which it lost. Humiliated, upon its surrender in 1945, Japan accepted the terms of the San Francisco Treaty in 1951, which officially ended WW11. Despite its formal surrender, Japan has refused to apologise officially for its brutal past.

Like the 1930s, Japan may come under heavy domestic pressures to revamp the 1947 Constitution and renegotiate the 1951 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with the US. Japan should be mindful of history if it chooses to do that.

Let me return to the JSDF, which is a full- pledged modern conventional military outfit. Despite its low- sounding name, the JSDF is leader in robotics- warfare technology and laser- beam technology. Its cyber space offensive capabilities are quite impressive too.

Many scholars believe Japanese scientists can develop nuclear weapons within months. Before it surrendered in 1945, Japan had a nascent research programme in nuclear weapons. Although America bombed the research reactor facility, Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945, according to some writers, it did not obliterate the institutional memory and knowledge of the nuclear programme. On the contrary, the scientific knowledge has been instrumental in the early development of its efficient nuclear energy programme.

The current nuclear energy infrastructure provides a strong scientific base for Japan to develop nuclear weapons, if it chooses to. Despite its espousal of a “three-principle nuclear policy” since 1964, some say Japan is a “screw drivers’ turn” away from developing nuclear weapons.Currently, missing from the equation is, of course, the political will, which changes with time.

As a footnote, before the Fukushima nuclear plant reactor meltdown in March 2011, Japan has fifty nuclear power reactors, producing more than 30 per cent of its electricity (40% in 2017).

The JSDF has 250,000 soldiers in active service plus 60,000 reservists. With more than 50,000 American troops in Japan, the number of armed military personnel in Japan is relatively large.

The military budget for the JSDF (and the US forces) in Japan was close to US$60 billion in 2011; approximately one per cent of its GDP. Japan spends more than India or Germany on defense; but $3 billion less than the military budget in the UK or France in 2011.By comparison, the military budget for ten ASEAN countries in 2011 was only US$23 billion.

The JSDF is well-equipped and well-led too.The Maritime Self-defense Forces (“Navies” in other countries) of Japan boast more frigates, submarines and mine warfare craft than the Royal British Navy or the French Navy. Japan has more ships in its merchant marine fleet and a more advanced ship building industry than the UK or France.

Japan has a slight edge over the UK or France in terms of sea-power capability. Sea power is defined as the capacity of a state to optimise the use of maritime assets in support of its national interests. Japan may currently lack the naval capability to project power as its counterparts in the UK or France, but its sea power assets are quite impressive. These assets include its merchant marine, the ship building industry, marine science education, oceanography, maritime technology, and the maritime enforcement agencies like the Japan Coast Guard. Like all other states, Japan needs these assets to develop a coherent national ocean- cum- sea power policy.

Although the JSDF land forces are small by comparison, they are well armed and reportedly, well- trained. Its land forces have more towed artillery pieces than the land forces in the UK or France. Similarly, its air force is quite potent; it boasts more aircraft than those in the inventory of the French Air Force or the UK Royal Air Force.

A proper assessment of the quality of defense planning and capability of the JSDF must account for the dynamic factors, which is outside the scope of this article. Flawed though this bean-counting method is, it does provide a base-line data for comparison. This article merely points out the number, not the quality, of the assets, in the JSDF.

Finally, the shape and size of the Japanese military is very much contingent on domestic politics and its assessment of the fast changing regional geo-political dynamics and their impact on its security. Within this overall context, the JSDF is slated to play a more prominent role in Japan’s foreign policy.

_______________

[1] Student of politics and maritime security. Contact: bahamzah@pd.jaring.my