WAR ON TERRORISM RESEARCH: Tokyo 25th – 27th April 2006
Q INTERVIEWS Y (Cassette 2)
1. I wanted to thank you very much for seeing me—I really appreciate it. I
am doing research about how we talk about the war on terrorism. I am
doing interviews in Japan, US, and also Russia, because people have
very different views about the subject matter, and it is very interesting to
do the comparison between the three countries…and I may add more
countries, too. I wanted to ask you about the concept of terror and
terrorism. In your work, do you distinguish between “terror” and
“terrorism”?
A: In general, the two are not distinguished in Japan. In my work at the
crisis management center, I do not distinguish the two, either.
2. How do you define “terrorism”?
A: Terror can be defined as actions. Terrorism can be defined as ideology
or claim. Terrorism utilizes fear in order to deliver or to enforce ideology or
claim.
3. Is terrorism a social movement, with an ideology and purpose, or what?
A: There might be ideologies behind terrorism. They might derive from
political reasons such as the defeat of political rivalries or pursuit of
terrorists' desire.
4. What are the causes of terrorism?
A: The causes vary. They include religious fanaticism, pursuit of political
goals, ethnic hatred, and poverty.
5. Are terrorists achieving their goals?
A: It depends on how one defines the goals. With the sophisticated mass
media, it is difficult to achieve their goals without letting the public know.
Nevertheless, historically, it might have been possible to achieve their
goals without the public notice.
ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What about the people who fight terrorism?
What have they done to make it more difficult for the terrorists to achieve
their goals?
[The Respondent misunderstood as: What is the most difficult thing in
dealing with terrorists?]
A: It is that the terrorists harbor in the general public, and they are well
organized (the translator used the word 'integrated' to explain 'organized').
YOUR CLARIFYING COMMENT: The ideas of terrorism are in people's
mind so you cannot spot them. And, they are fully integrated into society
from which they come. The terrorists are part of the society they come
from so it is difficult to find them. Is that correct?
A: There are always particular groups in the society that use violence as a
means to achieve their goals. That is the tough part.
6. Who or what is behind the terrorists?
A: Those groups that think the use of violence as a means to achieve their
goals can be tolerated are the basis of terrorism. In democratic societies,
there need to be processes in which one should collect the majority
support. In majority decision based societies, certain groups tend to
utilize direct means such as violence to pursue their goals. They can be
the hotbed of terrorism.
ADDITIONAL QUESTION: How about other countries--undemocratic
societies?
A: In undemocratic states, terrorism is utilized as counter attack against
poverty or political oppression.
7. Who is providing terrorists with money and training?
A: Those who share the same goals, and have abundant financial
sources.
ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What about the case of Muslim
fundamentalists? Who is providing the money for them?
A: Countries with abundant financial sources such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
and Iran might be providing financial assistance to terrorist acts of the
fanatics.
8. Why are they doing this?
A: I am not in the position to comment on behalf of the Japanese
government, but in my personal view, states or individuals who are
dissatisfied with American unilateralism such as in Saudi Arabia, Iraq or
those who are against Israel might be behind terrorism.
9. Who are the targets of the terrorists?
A: It is difficult to specify, but the targets can be public places, where a
large number of people gather, and politically important facilities such as
the US-related buildings or the Diet in Japan.
10. In the United States people talk about the war on terrorism, and I have
been reading Japanese documents where it is always the “fight” against
terrorism. Would you make that distinction? Which would you prefer,
“war” or “fight” against terrorism?
A: "War" is associated with military actions. Therefore, the cases of Iraq
and Afghanistan are wars. However, prevention or suppression of
terrorist attacks for example in Madrid and London is "fight."
ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING QUESTION: President Bush is talking about
the “global” war on terrorism. Does that mean anything to you? “Global”
vs. “war” on terrorism?
A: From "global war on terrorism", I see the tendency that the world is
united against terrorism. However, as I mentioned, "war" is associated
with military actions. Therefore, while "global war on terrorism" can be
used for delivering political message, whether certain measure against
terrorism is "war" or "fight" depends on the involvement of military actions.
11. What is the difference?
ANSWERED IN QUESTION 10.
12. Where do you think the “war on terrorism” will lead over the next five
years?
A: It is difficult to fight against terrorism in democratic countries. The use
of violence as a means to achieve short term objectives cannot sustain for
long term goals. The well developed mass media and communication
technologies would be obstacles to terrorism. Although terrorism in Japan
is rare, the situation might be severer in five to ten years from now. It is
because there will be more exchanges of people, goods, and money, and
there will be more resources available to terrorists. However, under
parliamentary democracy with the sophisticated mass media and
advanced communication technologies, it is difficult for the terrorists to
achieve their long term goals.
ADDITIONAL QUESTION: Can you tell me little bit about the
development of crisis management in Japan in your office?
A: Because Japan has the cabinet system, administrative authorities rest
on each ministry, and exertion of administrative authority is based on
consensus made at cabinet meetings. Thus, when rapid and unified
actions are required in the crisis management, the Japanese system is
less effective than the American presidential system.
Japan was behind in developing crisis management, but as we
experienced the Tokyo Subway Attack by Aumu Shinrikyo and Kobe
Earthquake in 1995, we have been developing the crisis management
system, and in 1998 the Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary of Crisis
Management was established. Under the Deputy Chief Cabinet
Secretary, the crisis management will be unified.
YOUR CLARIFYING COMMENT: Is the idea to coordinate all the
activities of different departments?
A: Not exactly so. Directors of respective ministries are called upon
according to different crises such as natural disasters or terrorism, and the
team of the directors will have the authority to initiate the management.
We have formed varieties of teams according to different crises, and they
are gathered on frequent bases for training and planning.
ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What is your background before joining the
department of crisis management?
A: I had worked for the national police agency for the past thirty years. I
have been in the current position for about a year. I will have held this
position for the next two to three years. The crisis management center is
comprised of officials with backgrounds in police, Self Defense Forces, or
civilian engineers. It has been said that inter ministerial communication is
absent in the Japanese system, but because there was no single
department dealing with crisis management, this center has been well
functioning for the purpose of pursuing the shared objective with
cooperation among officials with different backgrounds.
At last, in democratic societies where individual freedom is guaranteed
and human rights are protected, while it is difficult to prevent terrorism with
short term objective, long term goals cannot be achieved. In Japan,
although there are possibilities for short term oriented terrorism, such act
will not impact the majority of population as to transform society.