Chapter II.  Tasks for Construction of a New International Order and Japan's Role

Section 1. Major Changes in International Politics and Cooperation for Peace

Item 1. Search for New East-West Relations

1. Changes in U.S.-Soviet Relations

In recent years, the world witnessed that dialogue has become the norm in U.S.-Soviet relations and has expanded into a wide range of areas, including arms control and disarmament, regional conflicts, human rights, bilateral relations, and global issues. The U.S.-Soviet summit meeting held at Malta in December 1989, in particular, marked a major milestone in development of East-West relations.

At the Malta meeting, the U.S. and the Soviet Union publicly recognized that they stand at the threshold of an entirely new era of their relations and appealed to the world that they would work together to build a new relationship based on dialogue and cooperation, putting an end to the Cold War framework. The United States showed further commitment to supporting perestroika; for instance, President Bush clearly expressed his support for conclusion of a U.S.-Soviet trade agreement and the Soviet Union's joining the GATT as an observer (Note); and he proposed to step up U.S. technical assistance related to statistics, government finance, budget, taxation, stock exchange, anti-monopoly policy, etc.

Then after several preliminary meetings by the Foreign Ministers, the first full-scale U.S.-Soviet summit meeting under the Bush administration was held in Washington D.C. from the end of May to early June in 1990. At the meeting, the two leaders reached agreement in a number of areas, including arms control and disarmament, regional conflicts, economic, scientific and cultural exchanges, and transnational issues, as signified by the signing of a joint statement on the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START), a joint communique on Ethiopia, a U.S.-Soviet trade agreement, a long-term grains agreement, a civil aviation agreement, a joint communique on environmental preservation, and so on. Also, in light of changes in the international situation after the Malta summit, they exchanged views on the European situation, particularly on the reunification of Germany, the Soviet's economic situation, Lithuanian issue, and other regional issues. Overall, the United States and the Soviet Union have been making significant progress in developing their relations which are to be built upon the foundation of dialogue and cooperation established at the Malta summit.

2. Negotiations on Arms Control and Disarmament Between the United States and the Soviet Union, Western and Eastern Europe (See Item 4 of this section for details)

As discussed earlier, the U.S. and the Soviet Union reached basic agreement on the START at the Washington summit and are currently negotiating to sign a formal treaty by the end of 1990. Similarly, negotiations on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE), have continued in Vienna since March 1989, and are being finalized to reflect dramatic changes in Eastern Europe as well as the unification of Germany, toward the signing of a formal treaty prior to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe that is scheduled to be held by the end of 1990.

3. German Unification Issue (See Chapter III, Section 3, Item 1 for details)

Drastic changes in Eastern Europe that started in 1989 have renewed the possibility of reunification of East and West Germany which constituted a central issue in the postwar European division. East Germany and the Soviet Union showed a negative response to the issue at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. Having faced a subsequent massive exodus of East Germans to West Germany which persisted in 1990, however, Premier Hans Modrow of East Germany announced in early February his support for reunification if a unified Germany was neutral. Then, the Soviet Union made its stand clear that the issue should be determined by the Germans, spurring moves toward unification.

Following the first free election in East Germany held on March 18, 1990, and the establishment of a great coalition cabinet led by a conservative alliance, the two Germanys effectuated economic, currency, and social unions between them on July 1. In the meantime, a series of proposals were made from the Western allies to the Soviet Union which was opposed to keeping a unified Germany in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); the first by Genscher not to deploy the NATO forces in what is now East Germany, followed by President Bush's in his Oklahoma speech (May), and the "London Declaration" adopted at the NATO summit meeting. These proposals contained offers to reduce forces of a united Germany and to commence, at an early stage, talks on reduction of the Short-range Nuclear Forces (SNF), to reappraise NATO's roles and strategies, and to develop institutions of the CSCE. Also an offer was made on economic assistance to the Soviet Union. Clearly, these proposals were intended to send a message to the Soviet Union that the keeping of a unified Germany in NATO will contribute to peace and stability in Europe and will not in any way harm the Soviet Union's national security interests.

In response, President Gorbachev expressed a de facto approval on the issue to West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl during his visit to Moscow following the NATO summit meeting and the Houston Economic Summit.

Regarding the borders between a unified Germany and Poland, parliaments of East and West Germany passed a resolution that the existing borders would remain unaltered. The issue was also brought up to the "2+4" Foreign Ministers' Meeting, representing the U.S., U.K., France, and the Soviet Union, together with the Germanys, and the third meeting held in July, where the Polish Foreign Minister was invited to attend, confirmed agreement that a unified Germany and Poland would sign a treaty to perpetuate the present borders.

Then, rapid deterioration of the East German economy and other situations prompted the moving up of the unification schedule. On August 23, the People's Chamber of East Germany decided to achieve unification on October 3 by having East Germany accede to West Germany in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law of West Germany.

4. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO)

The changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have brought about changes in the significance of the military confrontation between NATO and WTO, which had formed a major framework of the postwar East-West confrontation.

As Eastern European nations abandoned, one after another, the single-party system dominated by the communists giving birth to non-communist governments in many of the countries through free elections, the communality of the ideology shared by the WTO nations disappeared. Then in the spring of 1990, the Soviet Union agreed with Hungary and Czechoslovakia to withdraw its forces stationed in these countries by the end of June 1991. Poland announced its intention to start negotiations on the withdrawal of Soviet troops, and East Germany made its stand clear that a unified Germany would join NATO.

Under these circumstances, WTO, at its political advisory committee held in Moscow in June attended by the leaders of the member countries, adopted a declaration to "reappraise the nature and function of WTO and reorganize it as a treaty between equal sovereign states under democratic principles." The Defense Ministers' meeting, held immediately after the committee, set forth a policy to reform the military organization within WTO. As a result, -the military significance of WTO is already declining considerably.

In response to the new political and security environments in Europe, NATO started to review its role and function in 1990. In May, President Bush proposed to launch an extensive review of NATO's strategies, including the strengthening of NATO's political role? the assessment of conventional forces to be required in the future, and the outlook for the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) talks; the assessment of nuclear forces to be required in the future, and the outlook for the Short-range Nuclear Forces (SNF) reduction talks; and preparation for the CSCE summit meeting. On the basis of the Bush proposal, NATO held a series of Foreign Ministers Council and Defense Ministers' meetings, and at the summit meeting held in London in July, adopted "London Declaration on Transformed North Atlantic Alliance." The London Declaration expressly stipulated strengthening of NATO's political role, the development of new relations with the countries of Eastern Europe, including a proposal for issuing a joint statement on non-use of forces between NATO and WTO countries, reappraisal of NATO's strategies, and the development of CSCE institutions.

The London Declaration was well received by the Houston Economic Summit held immediately after the NATO summit meeting; the political declaration Securing Democracy" acknowledged that "the London Declaration . . . provides a new basis for cooperation among former adversaries in building a stable, secure, and peaceful Europe." At the same time, positive reactions came from the Soviet Union. For instance, at a meeting with Secretary-General Woerner of NATO who visited Moscow in July to explain the results of the NATO summit meeting, President Gorbachev acknowledged that the London Declaration laid a foundation for the process of NATO reforms and recognized the importance of the declaration that NATO did not consider the Soviet Union as its enemy.

While the military significance of WTO has declined considerably and NATO is redefining its relations with Eastern Europe through these processes, the London Declaration reaffirmed NATO's raisond'etre as an alliance to defend nations which share basic values such as freedom and democracy. At the same time, NATO has confirmed the continuation of its defense strategy founded upon both nuclear and conventional forces, while defining nuclear arms as "the last resort." (See Chapter III, Section 3, Item 1 for London Declaration)

5. Search for a New Order in Europe

Under this setting, moves are under way in various forms to search for a new European order and new relations between European nations.

In particular, the CSCE is assuming a greater importance as avenue for discussing issues related to the future of Europe.

The CSCE has been serving as a vital framework of dialogues between Eastern and Western Europe, against the background of East-West relations centered on Europe in the early 1970s. It adopted in 1975 the Helsinki Declaration including a statement approving, in principle, non-violation of postwar borders between European countries. Under this framework, progress was made in a wide range of areas, in particular; (1) European security including Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) talks and Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBM) (the first basket); (2) cooperation in economy, science and technology, and environment protection (the second basket);and (3) human rights and other areas (the third basket). As 1990 began, the participating nations, encouraged by the progress made thus far confirmed their agreement to conclude the CFE talks first and hold the CSCE summit meeting by the end of 1990.

Also, in response to the Soviet Union's proposal to affirm in-creased roles of the CSCE in security aspects, proposals were made by various countries including West Germany and the U.S. to institutionalize the CSCE by convening the summit meeting and the Foreign Ministers' meeting on a regular basis and establishing a permanent secretariat. At the same time the London Declaration of NATO summit proposed that the development of the CSCE organization would be determined by the CSCE summit meeting. (See Chapter II, Section 1, Item 2, and Chapter III, Section 3, Item 1 about CSCE)

Regarding the European Community (EC), while preparation for market integration by the end of 1992 is going on, there have been moves for a political union beyond market unification. While moves for the unification of the two Germanys have gathered momentum, the summit meeting between West Germany and France held in April 1990 issued a joint communique to promote the EC's political integration. Then, the European Council in June agreed to hold an intergovernmental conference on economic and currency integration and that on political integration in December 1990. (See Chapter III, Section3, Item 1 for EC)

In the meantime, the U.S. made it known that it would step up its relations with the EC, while maintaining NATO as the core of its relations with Europe at the Berlin speech made by Secretary of State, James Baker, in December 1989, referring to "New Atlanticism." Similarly, the Soviet Union proposed to strengthen the role of the CSCE in security aspects under the concept "Common European House."

In addition, various moves emerged to look for regional cooperation within Europe, including cooperation of 5 countries in Middle Europe (Italy, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia), cooperation of 3 countries in Middle Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary), and Balkan cooperation (Turkey, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Albania).

6. East-West Economic Relations

The changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have culminated in economic unification of East and West Germany, while leading to the weakening of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) which coordinates economic, trade and financial relations between the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. At the same time, rapprochement with the EC by the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as well as European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was notable, seemingly in line with the progress of the economic integration of the EC.

Under these circumstances, the CSCE East-West Economic Conference (participated in by government officials and businessmen from 35 member nations), held in Bonn from March to April 1990, received much attention by adopting a final document which accepted market economy and private property system, as well as political pluralism, as common concepts for all participating nations including the Soviet Union and East European nations. Also, the conference agreed to proceed with follow-ups through the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), and "the Center for Cooperation with European Economies in Transition" was established within OECD in March 1990.

While the economic restructuring of Eastern Europe by introducing a market economy primarily depends upon their self-help efforts, Western countries are expected to provide adequate support according to conditions peculiar to each country. In this connection, the Conference on Nations Related to Support for Eastern Europe (G-24), established on the basis of agreement at the Arch Summit in 1989, coordinated assistance to Poland and Hungary and agreed in July 1990 to expand assistance to East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. Japan has been actively involved in the assistance to Eastern Europe. (See Chapter III, Section 3 for details)

Preparation for the establishment of the European Bank for Re-construction and Development (EBRD), proposed by French President Mitterrand in October 1989, had been under way since January 1990. In May 1990, an agreement to establish the EBRD was signed by 40nations including Japan, the United States, EC members, the Soviet Union, and East European countries, and two international organizations, namely European Economic Community (ECC) and European Investment Bank (EIB). The EBRD is designed to support' East European nations which have pledged to adopt and have applied principles of democracy based on multi-party system, pluralism, and market economy and to promote their efforts to privatize state enterprises. The EBRD will be capitalized at 10 billion ECUs (Note), and Japan will participate in the organization with an approximately 8.5% stake, which is second to the U.S., and the same as the U.K., France, West Germany, and Italy.

In addition, having entered the 1990s, there has been an increasing recognition that perestroika promoted by President Gorbachev - a policy to promote liberalization, democratization, and a shift to a market-oriented economy - would contribute greatly to further improvement of East-West relations as well as peace And stability of the whole world. In the "Economic Declaration" of the Houston Summit, participating nations clearly stated methods of assisting the Soviet Union's reform, "We have all begun, individually and collectively, to assist these reform efforts. We believe that technical assistance should be provided now to help the Soviet Union move to a market-oriented economy and to mobilize its own resources," thereby setting forth a common understanding on the provision of technical assistance. In this connection, Japan provided technical assistance to perestroika by receiving the Soviet Union's economic reform study mission in November 1989 and again in April 1990.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union, suffering from a deteriorating economy, began to sound out the possibility of receiving financial assistance from the West. In response, some Western countries have begun studying the feasibility of such assistance. In particular, West Germany showed a positive reaction and decided to provide a government guarantee on loans worth 5 billion marks to be made by private banks to the Soviet Union in June. Also, the EC decided, at the European Council held in June 1990, to consider assistance, including short-term credit service and long-term support for structural reform, at the EC committee and to submit a proposal to the next meeting of the European Council.

Financial assistance to the Soviet Union was a subject of vigorous discussion at the Houston Summit. Participating nations agreed in the" Economic Declaration," that "further Soviet decisions to introduce more radical steps toward a market-oriented economy, to shift resources substantially away from the military sector and to cut support to nations promoting regional conflict will all improve the prospect for meaningful and sustained economic assistance." In this context, the declaration "took note of the importance to the Government of Japan of the peaceful resolution of its dispute with the Soviet Union over the Northern Territories." Furthermore, the summiteers discussed what reform should be carried out by the Soviet Union to induce foreign assistance and agreed to ask "the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, and the designated president of the EBRD to undertake, in close consultation with the Commission of the European Community, a detailed study of the Soviet economy, to make recommendations for its reform, and to establish the criteria under which Western economic assistance could effectively support these reforms."

Regarding the roles of the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) in promoting the development of East-West economic relations at the 6th senior-level meeting held in Paris in June 1990, the participating nations, while reconfirming an understanding that COCOM continued to play an important role in the security of the West, agreed to take the following measures to reflect recent changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; (1) to prepare a "core list" by mid-December 1990, in which items subject to COCOM rules are limited to highly strategic goods and technologies; (2) meanwhile, to delete one-third of the present industrial list and relax COCOM control over computers, machine tools, and communications to a significant degree; and (3) to apply favored status to some of the countries subject to COCOM rules (referring presumably to Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia) on condition that COCOM countries establish an effective export control system.

This decision marks an epoch in the history of COCOM and was recognized in the Economic Declaration of the Houston Summit as a positive measure.

Item 2. Support for Democratization

1. Progress of Democratization

"Political Declaration" at the Houston Summit - entitled "Securing Democracy" - recognized the realization of democratization ,that was brought about in various parts of the world between the Arch Summit and the Houston Summit, as "historic advances," and defined the upcoming ten years as "a Decade of Democracy"; and reaffirmed that the participating nations would support the strengthening of democracy, human rights, and economic reconstruction and development through market-oriented economies. Based on this spirit, the declaration reviewed movements toward democratization that took place in various parts of the world during the preceding year and listed possible support measures, which the participating nations would be ready to provide for nations which would choose the road to freedom and democracy, conducive to further progress of democratization in the future.

Clearly, such declaration reflected major changes occurred in the Soviet Union and East European nations in the past one year, toward democratization of their political and economic systems.

As discussed earlier, East European nations ended, one after another as if by chain reaction, the system of single-party dominance and introduced the multi-party system in 1989. Then in 1990, these nations held free elections, except for Poland which held a general election in the previous year. Along with such drastic reform of the political system, the nations introduced various measures to guarantee previously repressed political freedom and human rights. At the same time, economic reform measures were taken, according to conditions in each country, to make a shift from centrally planned economy to a market economy.

The Political Declaration at the Houston Summit welcomed "the profound and historic changes" the European continent as "the dawn of a new era."

While the changes in the Soviet Union's posture are believed to be a major factor behind the changes in Eastern Europe, it is possible to think that the repercussions of changes in Eastern Europe were felt and even enhanced the democratization process in the Soviet Union itself.

It was evidenced in the moves in the Soviet Union, after drastic changes in East European nations starting in the simmer of 1989, it was at the CPSU Central Committee Plenum in February 1990, where a proposal was made to delete the provision on the leadership of the Communist Party from the Constitution, opening the way to the multi-party system. Then, the Congress of People's Deputies held in March decided to remove the provision from the Constitution and to introduce a presidential system, thereby accelerating the shift of power from the Communist Party to the state organ. Similarly, a certain improvement was made in human rights including the freedom of departure from the country; the Soviet Union took a positive stand at the Human Rights Conference of CSCE demonstrating that the country was making changes in this area. In the economic area, the Soviet Union took the first step to introduce the market economy principle including the expansion of private property rights, and a comprehensive program is being developed by the government and the Supreme Soviet.

At the same time, the Soviet Union differs from Eastern Europe in that it accomplished the revolution in 1917 by themselves and established a 70-year history of socialism since then. Because of such backgrounds, the Soviet Union did not undergo the same dramatic changes that rocked East European nations where the governments were toppled by citizens; rather the Soviet reform has so far been made in the form of top-down approach. It is not clear in what form the multi-party system would be realized. All in all, the Soviet Union has just "embarked on the long journey" toward democratization, as mentioned in the London Declaration of the NATO summit meeting .Nonetheless, none would dispute the significance of the Soviet Union, one of the superpowers which dominated the postwar East-West confrontation, moving toward an open society, pluralistic democracy, and market-oriented economy. To assist the Soviet's efforts, the Political Declaration of the Houston Economic Summit made a clear commitment to work with the Soviet Union.

Naturally, the growth of democracy was not limited to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In the latter half of the 1980s, it was widespread in Asia, Central and South America, and Africa, some of which appeared to be affected by the moves in the Soviet Union and East European nations. Several African nations abandoned the single-party system and Nepal accomplished democratization following rising demands from among the people; the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had some impact in these cases.

However, it is clear that, the move toward democracy did not start in Eastern Europe, if one notes how President Corazon Aquino of the Philippines came into power. Such a global movement for democracy was another important development in the backdrop of the Political Declaration at the Houston Economic Summit. Moves for democracy seen in various parts of the world in the past year are outlined as follows.

Of Asian countries, the movement for democracy started in Mongolia toward the end of 1989, leading to a change of leadership in March 1990, and a free election under the multi-party system in July. In the meantime, Nepal, which had been a monarchy without political parties, came to allow activities by political parties, and a caretaker cabinet was organized by party leaders. At present, preparation is underway for the establishment of a new constitution and the holding of a general election. In Myanmar, general elections under the multi-party system, as had been promised by the present regime, were held in May 1990. However, it is still uncertain when the present administration will turn over the reins of the government.

In Central and South America, democracy has been established inmost of the countries as military regimes which prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s have disappeared through free elections and have been taken over by civil administrations. In Chile, Mr. Patricio Aylwin won a presidential election held in December 1989 putting an end to the military regime under General Pinochet who was in power for over 16years. Then at a presidential election in Nicaragua held in February 1990, Ms. Violeta Chamorro who led the National Opposition Union won over incumbent President Ortega of the Sandinista Party. In El Salvador, a dialogue for peace was resumed between the government and anti-government guerrillas known as Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN). In Guatemala, the peace talks between the Domestic Reconciliation Committee and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Union (URNG) made headway. In Haiti too, the military regime collapsed and a presidential election is scheduled for this fall. In Panama, the Endara administration, which was established after the exercise of military power by the U.S. , has reinstated democracy and the rule of law and is making efforts to reconstruct its economy.

In Africa, most notable was the long-awaited independence of Namibia, where an election for a constituent assembly was held and the assembly adopted a constitution under parliamentary democracy. In South Africa, some measures have been taken to revise apartheid policy under the de Klerk Government established in September 1989. In February 1990, Mr. Nelson Mandela was released after 28 years in jail, and in June, the state of emergency was lifted throughout the country except for the Province of Natal. Thus, the South African Government is seeking a way to abolish apartheid and construct a democratic society without racial discrimination through a peaceful process. A shift from a single party system to a multi-party system has also been made in Ivory Coast, Zaire, Gabon, etc.

2. Support for Democratization

The worldwide democratization trend, as summarized in the foregoing section, is considered basically as part of mankind's long history of respecting individual human rights in a greater degree as time goes by. The movements for democratization are not new of course: the international community has come a long way in the respect of human rights in various forms. Thus, the transformation in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1990, as well as the moves for democracy in other parts of the world, should be understood in this context, as phenomena linked to structural changes of the international community as a whole.

When we talk about "democratization," it should be noted that the word lacks a definition agreed upon in the international community as correctly conveying its meaning. Nevertheless, the Political Declaration at the Houston Summit and the agreement on the establishment of the EBRD offer some idea. Namely, "democratization" referred to in industrialized democracies, or more recently in some Eastern countries, normally covers a wider spectrum of aspects ranging from political freedom and the respecting of human rights, to economic freedom and market-oriented economy, not to mention political and administrative institutions such as a free election under multi-party system.

In this sense, it is interesting to see that the CSCE process has emphasized the importance and made progress in cooperation in economy, science and technology, and environment (the second basket) and human rights issues (the third basket), in addition to security of Europe (the first basket). In particular, CSCE Human Rights Conference was held in Copenhagen in June 1990, following the Paris conference in May to June 1989. In 1991, it will be held in Moscow.

In this tide of democratization, the international community's concern about the issue including human rights is expected to further heighten in the future. In the future, there may be more cases in which the international community or industrialized democracies are called upon to act together against "nations suppressing human rights," etc. In fact, human rights have been increasingly taken up as a matter of international concern at the United Nations and multilateral meetings. (See Chapter II, Section 4 for human rights issues in the U.N.)

Undoubtedly, each country or region has its own historical, economic and social backgrounds, as well as natural features, and no country shall be forced to adopt democracy in whatever form; the choice for democracy or freedom in a country primarily rests with the people.

In particular, adequate consideration should be given to the fact, that as history shows rapid democratization often brings about instability in a country or area which has a relatively short period of tradition or experience in civil society and democracy as a foundation of its order. Also, some countries would want to fight poverty before democracy.

On the other hand, if the people of a country want democracy and the country requests support to overcome instability during the transition period, it is important that major democracies provide the necessary support. The "Political Declaration" of the Houston Summit stated that each participating country of the summit "stands ready to help in practical ways those countries that choose freedom, through the provision of constitutional, legal and economic know-how and through economic assistance, as appropriate." They further acknowledged that in drawing from their constitutional and historical experiences, they stand ready "individually and jointly in relevant fora" to (1) assist in the drafting of laws including bills of rights and civil, criminal, and economic framework laws, (2) advice in the fostering of independent media, (3) establish training programs in government management, and technical fields, and (4) develop and expand people-to-people contacts and exchange programs to help diffuse understanding and knowledge.

In this connection, Japan, which celebrates the 100th anniversary of its constitutional government in 1990, has a history of having to overcome a number of difficulties and challenges in establishing democracy. Such experiences of Japan could provide valuable guidance for democratization efforts by countries with relatively a short history of democracy. Thus, it is important for Japan to play a part due its experience and position to support the global movement for democracy

Item 3. Prevention and Settlement of Regional Conflicts

1. Overview

Regional conflicts are rooted in backgrounds and causes peculiar to each region. Conflicts escalate often because interests and intentions of large countries and the power relationship between the East and West are entangled in a complicated manner. Some regional conflicts were sparked by the advance of the Soviet Union into the Third World in the late 1970s. Thus, as East-West ideological confrontation sub-sides, ideology inspired regional conflicts are expected to decrease. It is expected that the improvement of U.S.-Soviet relations will spur their collaboration in resolving regional conflicts, favorably influencing them for a settlement. Cases in point are the agreement made on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, the independence of Namibia, and peace in Nicaragua.

The role of the United Nations in the settlement of regional conflicts has also been reinforced partly due to cooperative relations developing between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. A typical example is the U.N. Security Council's adoption of sanctions against Iraq for invading Kuwait, which vas made on the basis of Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter for the first time in 22 years. Also worthy of attention, is the role the United Nations played regarding independence in Namibia and the achievement of peace in Nicaragua.

Despite the favorable changes, it is undeniable that any regional conflict is deeply rooted in historical, ethnic, religious, and or social factors peculiar to the region. A complete solution, therefore, cannot be expected unless these factors are effectively dealt with. And the danger of new regional conflicts arising due to such factors shows no sign of lessening.

The past year saw various regional conflicts erupt, including the escalation of the Kashmir issue and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Coupled with proliferation of nuclear and chemical/biological weapons, and their vehicles such as missiles, regional conflicts require closer attention in the future.

Major Regional Conflicts

Japan has been making active contributions regarding regional problems in the world, as part of "cooperation for peace" initiatives. Japanese contributions include support for the U.N. Secretary-General in his peace-making efforts in the Iran-Iraq conflict, and the sponsoring of "Tokyo Conference" on the Cambodian problem, as well as cooperation for the U.N. peace-keeping operations (PKO) and implementation of refugee relief projects all over the world.

In particular, Japan's PKO cooperation extended beyond fund contribution to the provision of personnel. Following the dispatching of political officers to the U.N. Afghanistan, Pakistan Arbitration Mission, and to the U.N. Iran-Iraq Military Surveillance Group, Japan sent a team of 27 election surveillance personnel and 4 supporting staffers to the U.N. Namibia Independence Support Group to oversee the election of the constituent assembly in Namibia (November 1989), and 6 election surveillance personnel and 4 supporting staffers to the U.N. Nicaragua Election Surveillance Group responsible for overseeing a general election in Nicaragua (February 1990)

2. Major Regional Conflicts

(1) Situation on Korean Peninsula

(a) Overview

Tension continues on the Korean Peninsula due to confrontation of large-scale military forces of North and South along the demilitarized zone.

North Korea is party to a treaty on friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance with the Soviet Union and China, and has modernized its armed forces under the Soviet's military assistance since 1984when President Kim II Sung visited the Soviet Union for the first time in 23 years. After 1989, however, rapprochement between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Soviet Union has left North Korea more isolated. It remains to be seen how the country develops its relations with the Soviet Union and China in the future. In the meantime North Korea has been in contact with the United States in Beijing since December 1988, and returned in May 1990, the remains of U.S. soldiers who died during the Korean War. On the other. hand, the Republic of Korea (ROK) has deterred hostilities with North Korea by maintaining a mutual defense system firmly with the United States and strengthening its own defense capability. In 1990, however, the annual U.S.-ROK joint exercise "Team Spirit 90" was slightly scaled down under their agreement. Also, the United States continued readjustment of its military force in South Korea partly due to its financial problems at home. At the end of January 1990, the U.S. Government announced some reduction of its military force in South Korea and stated further readjustment would be made in its report to the Congress in April.

Dialogue between North and South Korea has been held intermittently. Since 1989, the dialogues have been carried out through four channels: Red Cross meetings, North-South sports meetings, a preliminary meeting for a North-South National Assembly conference, and a preliminary meeting for a high-level (prime minister) North-South conference. Although some progress was made at the Red Cross meeting on reciprocal visits by separated family members and artist groups, and at the North-South sports meetings on participation of a North-South unified team in the Asian Games in Beijing, they failed to produce concrete results and were suspended by North Korea in February 1990 in protest against the exercise of "Team Spirit 90." Then in July, the preliminary meeting for a high level (prime minister) conference was reopened and agreed to hold such high level conferences (Seoul in September and Pyongyang in October). In September 1989, President Roh Tae Woo announced a proposal for establishing a National Community as an intermediate stage to restore ethnic homogeneity for the ultimate goal of North-South reunification. Although this amounted to the ROK's counterproposal to President Kim II Sung's idea of "Democratic Federal Republic of Koryo," there was a significant difference in basic position between the ROK which advocates reunification after building North-South confidence and North Korea which aims for reconciliation after unification.

The ROK, having successfully in established diplomatic relations with East European countries, had the first summit meeting with the Soviet Union on June 4, 1990. The improvement of ROK-Soviet relations, symbolized by the summit meeting, indicates that the basic framework of East-West confrontation constituting the background of the division on the Korean Peninsula is changing dramatically, and it is considered to have an important implication on international politics in the area. Encouraged by the achievement, the ROK is expected to make further efforts to improve relations with China on the occasion of the 11th Asian Games to be held in Beijing in September.

(b) Japan's Position

Peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula has a great significance in relation with not only peace and stability in East Asia including Japan but also the entire world. Japan takes a basic position that the problems on the Korean Peninsula should be settled in a peaceful manner primarily through talks between responsible persons of the North and South. Japan hopes that the tension on the peninsula will be relaxed through constructive dialogues and intends to make maximum contributions to the development of a necessary environment. (See Chapter III, Section 1, Item 2 for Japan's relations with the ROK and North Korea).

(2) Cambodian Problem

(a) Overview

In Cambodia, after Vietnam's military intervention in December 1978, confrontation continues between three anti-Vietnamese factions on the one hand - the Sihanouk faction, Song Sunn faction, and Khmer Rouge (KR) faction - and the Vietnam-backed "Heng Samrin regime" on the other. Following the interruption of Paris International Conference in August 1989, the armed conflict in Cambodia has intensified and the situation is volatile to this date.

As the peace-making process for a political solution, the five permanent members (P-5) of the U.N. Security Council met unofficially almost every month to discuss mainly what actions could betaken by the United Nations. As a result, certain agreement was reached on important items including direct management of elections by the United Nations, and the establishment of the Supreme People's Council and United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNCTAC). However, the countries concerned remained wide apart on key issues such as the relationship between the United Nations and the two "governments" and problems relating to a ceasefire. Thus no decisive breakthrough has been made within the framework of the P-5 .

In the meantime, the Cambodian factions and the countries in the region continued their efforts to find a solution. In February 1990, a meeting between Prince Sihanouk and Prime Minister Hun Sen of the "Heng Samrin regime" was held in Bangkok, when they agreed on the establishment of the Supreme People's Council as an interim national organization symbolizing Cambodia's sovereignty until the establishment of a legitimate government, and the need of a United Nations role at an appropriate level during the transition period. However, the subsequent unofficial meeting in Jakarta (February 1990), failed to produce an agreement due directly to confrontation between Vietnam and "Heng Samrin regime" and the KR faction.

Under these circumstances, Prince Sihanouk, as the president of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, made a nine-point peace proposal in April. Of the proposal, an offer to establish the Supreme People's Council with the same number of representatives from each of the two "regimes " drew much attention as the three anti-Vietnamese factions had previously demanded the establishment of an interim political system which would treat the four factions equally.

China and Vietnam, which are seen as being able to exercise a direct influence on the future of the Cambodian problem, have been engaged in down-to-earth talks since resuming vice minister-level dialogue in January 1989 after 9 years of interruption. These talks have thus far reportedly confirmed that major differences still exist between them. Nevertheless, in light of a significant role the two countries could play in settling the Cambodian problem, the continuation of their talks, it is hoped, will develop a favorable environment toward a settlement. In July 1990, the United States changed its previous policy and announced the start of talks with "Heng Samrin regime" and opposed the U.N. representation of the People's government which included the KR faction.

(b) Japan's Position

Having been seriously concerned about the calamity in Cambodia from the outset, Japan has been making efforts to expedite a comprehensive settlement; of such efforts, Japan co-chaired the 3rd Special Committee on Cambodian Reconstruction and Refugees at the Paris International Conference in 1989.

In 1990, recoginizing that the correct understanding of the Cambodian domestic situation was essential for Japan to contribute to the settlement of the problem, Japan sent a government official, a director of the division responsible for the Cambodian Problem in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to Phnom Penh for the first time after the establishment of the "Heng Samrin regime." It was the first visit to the city by a Japanese government official in 12 years. Among other efforts, Japan held political talks with China and Vietnam and informal consultation with the Western permanent member nations of the U.N. Security Council on the occasion of the P-5 meeting.

Then, recognizing the fact that the development of dialogue between the Cambodian factions would be essential to achieve peace at an early date, Japan sponsored "The Tokyo Meeting on Cambodia" on June 4 and 5, in close coordination with Thailand, to provide a place of dialogue between Prince .Sihanouk and Mr. Hun Sen.

The Tokyo Meeting marked an unprecedented undertaking in Japan's postwar diplomatic history in that Japan sponsored a peace meeting to settle a regional conflict involving a third country. The meeting had great significance in that major agreements were reached and a joint communique was signed between Prince Sihanouk and Mr .Hun Sen, concerning the ceasefire issue and the establishment of a Supreme National Council as a step leading to a comprehensive political solution. However, Mr. Khieu Samphan of the KR faction, who participated as a member of the Sihanouk mission, persistently refused to sign the communique. Japan intends to persuade the KR faction to accept the communique of the Tokyo Meeting as early as possible ,with the cooperation of China and other countries involved in the Cambodian problem.

(3) Kashmir Problem

(a) Overview

When India and Pakistan became independent states in 1947, questions over the status of the Kashmir region - to be part of India or Pakistan, or independent - were left undecided. At that time, Kashmir was locked in a delicate situation where three-fourths of the population Moslems, while the feudal lord was the Hindu. Due to the situation, India and Pakistan fought three wars. In 1949 after the end of the First India-Pakistan War, a cease-fire line was drawn bringing about a de facto division of Kashmir. Since then, neither of the two countries have made concessions in their respective positions.

In the India-ruled part of Kashmir (Jammu and Kashmir State) ,an anti-India movement by Moslems developed since the summer of 1988 in the form of a general strike led by a radical faction. The Singh Government inaugurated in December 1989 appointed Mr. Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, a Moslem from Kashmir, as the Home Minister in an effort for a peaceful settlement of the problem. However, the government's conciliatory posture toward the militant Moslems over the kidnapping of the minister's daughter in December 1989 heartened rather than pacified the militants. Also, against the background of the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the anti-India movement in the state of Jammu and Kashmir further escalated in 1990, and further civil disturbances of a militant nature have spread throughout the state involving the general public.

Asserting that this was an internal affair, India accused Pakistan of providing material support, including arms, and training for terrorists, and of inciting riots. On the other hand, Pakistan takes a position of respecting a U.N. Security Council resolution that the status of Kashmir be decided by a plebiscite and of recognizing the right of self-determination of the Kashmiris. So far neither side has shown signs of compromise. Tension rose in 1990 when the disturbance in Kashmir spread and India and Pakistan redeployed their military forces. However, the leaders of the both countries indicated they wanted to avoid a war. In July and August 1990, India-Pakistan Vice Foreign ministerial meetings were held and agreement was reached on specific measures for confidence building. Also, judging from the fact that Indian and Pakistan military forces are linked through a hot line, and various countries including the United States and the Soviet Union are desiring avoidance of a war, chances of war seem to have declined from what were sometime before. Nevertheless, since the possibility of untoward incidents erupting is not ruled out, future moves of India and Pakistan deserve close observation.

(b) Japan's Position

Japan maintains a position that India and Pakistan should restore peace in Kashmir through dialogue and political accommodation, and hopes that the problem be settled peacefully through negotiations on the basis of the language and in the spirit of the Simla Agreement (Note). When Prime Minister Kaifu visited India and Pakistan in May, he explained Japan's position to the leaders of both countries and requested efforts to improve their relations. Accordingly, talks have begun between the two countries.

(4) Conflicts in Central America

(a) Civil War in Nicaragua

In Nicaragua, a civil war continued between the Sandinista regime, which ousted the dictatorial Somoza regime in 1979, and anti-government guerrillas "Contras." In February 1990, the Sandinista Government held a presidential election in line with an August 1987 peace plan of Central American leaders. In the free and fair election conducted under the supervision of international election observer groups led by the United Nations, candidate Chamorro supported by the United National Opposition won over incumbent President Ortega who led the Sandinista National Liberation Front. As a result, the socialist regime which lasted 11 years was taken over by a pro-American government in April. Restraints by the United States and the Soviet Union on military aid to Nicaragua are believed to be a major factor behind the Sandinista Government moving to hold the presidential election.

The power transfer was carried out peacefully. Regarding disarmament and dissolution of the Contras-one of the major tasks for the Chamorro Government, the disarmament progressed smoothly under the supervision of international organizations though there was some delay in the beginning, and the dissolution was completed in June. Regarding the disposition of Sandinista People's Army, a major domestic issue, a plan to cut the force by half was announced in June .Nevertheless, the Sandinista faction still retains strong political clout: it is the de-facto ruler of the armed forces, represents 39 out of 92 seats in the parliament, and wields a strong influence on labor unions. At the same time, although the Chamorro regime was vigorously working on the most important problem - the restructuring of the Nicaraguan economy - under support from the U.S. and other countries, there are a number of problems to be solved and progress needs to be watched carefully.

(b) Civil War in El Salvador

In El Salvador, the Government and the ultraleftist guerrillas" Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) fought a full-scale civil war since 1980.

The dialogue between the guerrillas and the Government had been disrupted since the FMLN's major offensive in November 1989. However, with the political defeat of the Sandinista regime which has strong ties with the FMLN and the change of power to the Chamorro regime, a favorable environment for peace making emerged. In April 1990, through mediation of the United Nations, the Government and the FMLN agreed to resume peace talks, and after a series of talks, they agreed to resolve political issues for a ceasefire by the middle of September. The negotiations focused on the reform and clean-up of the army. Although the negotiations are not expected to be easy due to resistance from the army, it is hoped that some progress will be made in the talks as both sides are firmly determined to end the war.

(c) Japan's Position

Japan has consistently supported peace-making efforts being made under initiatives of Central American countries. While providing financial assistance to the U.N. Observation Mission to Central America (ONUCA), Japan bas been contributing manpower as well as funds to Observation Mission of the U.N. for the Verification of the Elections in Nicaragua (ONUVEN). From this standpoint, Japan highly valued the change of power in Nicaragua under a democratic election and the peaceful dissolution of the Contras.

Japan maintains a policy to watch closely the situation in El Salvador and to extend further collaboration in efforts of Central American nations toward the establishment of peace and democracy in the region. In particular, from the viewpoint that poverty and other social problems in Central American countries lie at the root of the troubles in Central America and their solution hold the key to peaceful settlement, Japan attempts to expand economic assistance to the region for economic rehabilitation, relief of refugees, etc., and work together with industrialized nations for international support, thereby contributing to the promotion of democratization and political stability of the region.

(5) Middle East Peace

(a) Overview

Four wars were fought between Arab nations and Israel since the foundation of Israel in 1948. Starting in 1988, diplomatic activities aiming for revitalization of the Middle East peace process, with Intifada (Note) started in 1987 as a momentum.

In April 1989, during the visit to the U.S. , Israeli Prime Minister Shamir announced a 4-point "Shamir Proposal" including the holding of elections in the Israeli occupied area. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which has been following a realistic and moderate line since the Palestine National Congress in late 1988, did not clarify its stand whether it would accept or refuse the proposal, while Egyptian President Mubarak set forth a peace initiative which would elaborate on and seek classification of the Shamir proposal, but it was rejected by Israel. Later, the U.S. Secretary of State Baker, in the process of talking with Israel and Egypt, announced a "Baker Proposal" on the holding of Israel-Palestine dialogue in Cairo. Israel accepted the proposal under certain conditions, Egypt made an affirmative response, and the PLO did not show an outright rejection.

A tripartite Foreign Ministers' meeting between the U.S. , Israel ,and Egypt on the implementation of the Baker Proposal had been scheduled for February, but it was postponed because the parties concerned failed to reach agreement on the method of selecting Palestinian representatives and other issues. Since then, the peace process has been stalled due to adverse factors including political confusion in Israel.

In Israel, a dispute broke out between Labor Alignment and Likud - two major parties forming a coalition government - over inclusion of East Jerusalem residents as Palestinian representatives at the Cairo talks, which led to the resignation of all Cabinet members from the Labor Alignment Party and non-confidence of the Cabinet. Labor Alignment leader Peres nominated to organize a Cabinet bogged down due to his unsuccessful attempt to ally with religious parties. In June, a right-wing coalition Cabinet was formed under Likud leader Shamir.

Intifada, which showed a sign of subsiding in the third year, intensified again in May when Palestinian workers were killed in a Tel Aviv suburb.

In the meantime, as the Soviet Union relaxed restrictions on the exit of its people, Soviet Jews' immigration to Israel started and some of them settled in the Israeli occupied territories. The PLO and other Arab countries reacted strongly against it, severely denouncing Israel in the final statement of the Arab summit meeting held in Baghdad in May.

In June, the United States discontinued the talks with the PLO in Tunisia on the grounds of terrorism allegedly attempted by a PLO faction. Since then, there has been no sign of progress in the peace process.

(b) Japan's Position

Japan takes a position that peace in the Middle East should be achieved on the basis of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and338, through the following principles; (1) Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, (2) recognition of the right of self-determination of the Palestinians, including the right to establish an independent state, and (3) recognition of Israel's right to exist, and that such peace should be realized with due consideration to legitimate security requirements of the countries in the region. Under this position, Japan has been stepping up political dialogues with Israel and the PLO including the visit of PLO Chairman Arafat to Japan in October 1989, the visit of Israeli Foreign Minister Arens to Japan in November, the Japan-Israel working level meeting in February 1990, and the Japan-PLO meeting in April, and providing support in the form of economic cooperation on various occasions.

(6) Lebanon Problem

(a) Overview

Since 1975, the country has been torn by a civil war originating from confrontation between Christians and Moslems. Since September 1989, in the absence of the President, the Christian-led government and the Moslemled government led repeated armed clashes. In August 1989, a major battle spread to a wide area creating the worst crisis in the history of the civil war, when 90% of citizens evacuated Beirut. Under these circumstances, the Arab League's tripartite committee resumed mediation activities, and ceasefire between the Christian and Moslem sectors was effected in September. In October, a meeting by members of Lebanon's National Assembly was held at Taif, Saudi Arabia, and drew up a National Reconciliation Charter (Note) draft. In November, the Charter was formally approved by the National Assembly, and Rene Mouawad was elected President. Then, in the same month, Elias Hrawi was elected to succeed Mouawad who was killed in a bomb attack by terrorists. In January 1990, fighting broke out in the military forces of the Christian bloc. Although it was scaled down as a result of mediation by the Vatican, confrontation still continues. Also, with Christian and Moslem forces having failed to reach complete accord on ways of realizing peace on the basis of the National Reconciliation Charter, the peace process has stalled.

On the other hand, in South Lebanon, sporadic battles have broken out since December 1989 between the pro-Syrian Shiite Amal group and pro-Iranian Shiite Hezbollah group, and in July 1990, the PLO moved in to support Amal.

(b) Hostage Problem

In July 1989, Israeli commandos abducted Hezbollah leader Sheik Abdul Karim Obeid (Lebanese). In retaliation, an organization believed to be radical in Lebanon announced that it had executed a commander of the U.S. Marine corps, and then warned that it would execute American hostages. As a result, international tension mounted.

In and after February of 1990, expectation for release of hostages rose as Shiite leaders in Lebanon and others stated that they were ready to free the hostages. In April, 5 hostages including Americans gained freedom.

(c) Japan's Position

Japan has made it known that it expects the early restoration of peace, reunification and sovereignty, and preservation of territory for Lebanon on the basis of the National Reconciliation Charter. Japan provided humanitarian assistance to Lebanon in 1989 through the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Japan has all along denounced hostage taking as an act not to be condoned under any circumstances, and hoped for the early release of all hostages.

(7) Iran-Iraq Conflict

(a) Overview

A ceasefire came into effect between Iran and Iraq after eight years of armed conflict as Iran accepted the U.N. Security Council Resolution 598.

Through their countries' four rounds of peace negotiations held between August 1988 and April 1989, the two countries remained wide apart over treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), withdrawal of troops, and setting of the borders, which ruled out any significant progress in the talks. To break the deadlock, the U.N. Secretary-General's Special Envoy Aristen carried out shuttle diplomacy between Iran and Iraq between October and November 1989. This effort did not bring about tangible progress in the peace negotiations. But the U.N. Envoy heard high-level opinions of Iran and Iraq separately and conveyed the opinions to each side through a shuttle mission, and succeeded in obtaining an agreement in principle from both sides for continuing the ceasefire, peace negotiations and cooperation with the U.N. Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group, as well as for freeing wound-ed or ill POWs.

At the same time, the U.N. Secretary-General requested cooperation of the U.N. Security Council in breaking an impasse in the peace talks. In February 1990, the Security Council held both informal and formal meetings on the conflict and announced the Chairman's statement expressing support to mediation efforts of the Secretary-General.

In March, on the basis of the Chairman's statement, the Secretary-General made an 8-point proposal regarding the agenda of the subsequent peace negotiation, and Secretary-General's Special Aide Picco visited Iran and Iraq in April for presentation of the proposal.

In May, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein sent a letter to his Iranian counterpart proposing a face-to-face talk. Iran sent an answer to the letter, and later letters were exchanged on direct talks between the two countries. In July, the Foreign Ministers meeting was held under the auspices of the U.N. Secretary-General for the first time in 1year and 3 months.

Following its invasion of Kuwait in August, Iraq conceded to Iran's proposals on the conflict and commenced troop withdrawal from the borders and the exchange of POWs with Iran. Iran welcomed the move by Iraq.

(b) Japan's Position

Japan worked positively for the adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 598 and provided full support including financial assistance for mediation efforts of the U.N. Secretary-General, while calling for early peaceful settlement of the conflict to the countries concerned. At the same time, the Government of Japan dispatched a Foreign Ministry official as a political officer and provided financial assistance to the U.N. Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group.

Japan commits itself to make utmost efforts toward early peaceful settlement of the dispute. Accordingly, Japan will continue to give active support to the peace-keeping efforts of the U.N. Secretary-General and will provide the best possible cooperation for postwar reconstruction of both countries.

(8) Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait

(a) Overview

In July 1990, tensions rose as Iraq condemned Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates for overproducing oil, accusing them chiefly for a fall in the international oil price. Iraq then demanded that Kuwait cancel Iraqi debts. Saudi Arabia and Egypt mounted active mediation efforts which led to direct Iraq-Kuwait talks on July 31 in Saudi Arabia. The talks, however, broke down and Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait on August 2. Within the following day, Iraq brought all of Kuwait under its control. On August 8, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein announced the "integration" of Iraq and Kuwait, a measure amounting to de facto annexation of Kuwait by Iraq.

Under these circumstances, Iraq was internationally censured: a joint statement condemning the country was issued by the United States and the Soviet Union and Arab nations adopted a resolution denouncing Iraq at an emergency Arab summit meeting on August10. It should be noted, however, that Arab nations are not united on this issue, some of them being reluctant to criticize Iraq.

In the meantime, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting on August 2 and adopted a resolution demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait (Resolution 660). Then, as Iraq refused to comply, the Security Council adopted a resolution calling for economic sanctions including the total ban on imports from Iraq, and an embargo on exports to Iraq except for medicines, and; bans on investment and other economic assistance (Resolution 661) a resolution invalidating Iraqi declaration of the annexation of Kuwait (Resolution 662); a resolution to request Iraq to permit the departure of foreigners from Iraq and Kuwait (Resolution 664); and a resolution calling on the member nations deploying maritime forces to take necessary measures to stop inward and outward bound ships in order to ensure strict enforcement of the economic sanctions (Resolution 665). At the same time, the United Nations Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Aziz as part of his efforts to settle the problem on the basis of the Security Council's resolutions.

The United Nations' adoption of the resolutions was epochal in the history of the world organization in that the resolutions called on member nations to take "measures as may be required," because such resolutions based on Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations concerned with maintenance of international peace and security are believed to include the invoking of general economic sanctions and armed force. This is noteworthy because this is proof that the United Nations' peace-keeping role which was imposed on the world body in the beginning has finally started to function with the improvement of East-West relations.

Amid mounting military tensions in the Kuwait-Saudi Arabia border area, the United States started to move troops to Saudi Arabia in response to Saudi Arabia's request, and the United Kingdom commenced military aid. In addition, France, Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium dispatched naval ships. The United States strengthened the off-shore inspection system to strictly enforce embargoes against Iraq. As the international community mounted economic sanctions and military pressure, Iraq banned the exit of foreign people from Kuwait and Iraq. It held people from a number of industrialized democratic countries and moved them to military and oil facilities by force.

(b) Japan's Position

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is a critical problem for Japan in light of the following three points. First, Iraq made the invasion in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. The act must be stopped with a firm determination as it defies international order and destroys international peace and security. Second, as a new order of international politics is being explored as a result of the significant changes in East-West relations, it is important for Japan, which is in a position to assume international responsibility, to play an active part in international efforts to correct such injustice. Third, as the Gulf area accounts for 65% of the world oil reserves, the area's long-term and real stability is essential in securing stable energy supply. In particular, this is a matter of vital importance for Japan's national interests as the country depends upon the area for 70% of its oil-based energy supply.

With this recognition, Japan has strongly denounced Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait and demanded an immediate fulfillment of U.N. Security Council Resolution 660 calling for Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Also, Japan voluntarily decided to impose general economic sanctions even before the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 661 for sanctions against Iraq. After the resolution was adopted, Japan took domestic measures required for complying with the resolution. Moreover, in order to make an effective contribution to international efforts being made by the United States, and many countries in Europe, Arabia and Asia, to implement a series of U.N. resolutions Japan decided to provide a wide range of assistance amounting to $1 billion in transportation, material supply, medical service and funds. Japan is ready to make another monetary contribution up to $1 billion depending on the further development of the Middle East situation. In addition, Japan has announced economic aid amounting to $2 billion for neighboring countries in the Gulf area which face serious economic difficulties, along with more than $22 million in aid for refugees. (See the attached table for details)

(9) Afghan Problem

(a) Overview

After the withdrawal of Soviet troops was completed in February 1989, the Soviet-backed Kabul Government continued armed clashes with Mujahedeen guerrillas backed by countries including the United States and Pakistan. The Kabul regime was rocked by two attempted coups d'etat, while internal strife surfaced in the Mujahedeen faction bringing about a deadlocked Afghan situation. In the meantime, the United States and the Soviet Union continued talks for a political settlement of the problem, after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops, through a series of Foreign Ministers Meetings and specialists' meetings. The U.S.-Soviet summit meeting in June 1990 agreed to establish the future government through general elections, while it appears that the two countries are yet to narrow differences over the treatment of the Kabul Government during the transition period (until the establishment of a legitimate government).

(b) Japan's Position

Japan, welcoming the completion of the Soviet troop withdrawal, takes the stand that the establishment of a government based on broad popular support is essential and that the path to that end should be determined by the Afghan people. Japan has been extending financial and personnel aid for observer activities by the United Nations and in helping voluntary repatriation of Afghan refugees.

(10) Conflicts in Southern Africa

(a) South African Problem

The de Klerk Government, which came to power in September 1989, decided to begin talks with black leaders on the abolishment of apartheid, with recognition that white domination can no longer be maintained. In February, the Government took bold measures legalizing anti-apartheid organizations including the African National Conress (ANC) and the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), and releasing Mr. Nelson Mandela of the ANC and other political prisoners, thereby meeting a good part of conditions set forth by the black organizations for coming to the table.

In response to such moves by the Government, the ANC - the most influential black organization - indicated it was ready to talk with the Government. In May, preliminary negotiations got under way to discuss a number of obstacles in the way of full scale negotiations to seek an end to the policy of apartheid. Included in the agenda for the preliminary talks were the lifting of the state of emergency, the release of political prisoners, and the Government's demand that the ANC stop the armed struggle. During this negotiation, an agreement between the Government and the ANC pledged to help end the violent environment while accord was reached on, the establishment of a joint working committee to discuss the definition of political prisoners, and the reviewing of public security laws by the Government. But the two sides had large gaps to fill concerning their positions on future political and economic systems.

Even after the end of the preliminary talks, President de Klerk expressed his determination to promote reforms talking about the repeal of laws forming the basis of apartheid, including the Separate Amenities Act, the Group Areas Act, and the Population Registration Act. In June, the South African Government lifted the state of emergency, except in the Province of Natal, and decided to repeal the Separate Amenities Act.

(b) Namibia Problem

In Namibia which has been under illegal South African rule, the process toward independence was commenced in April 1989 in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 435. In November, a constituent assembly election was held under supervision of the U.N. Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG). This progress, owes very much to the cooperative exercise of influence by the U.S. and Soviet Union after the spring of 1988.

In the constituent assembly election, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), a leading pro-independence group of Namibia, which had fought guerrilla warfare demanding single-party system and socialistic policies, won a majority of seats to become the government party. It, however, failed to get a two-thirds majority needed to write the Constitution single-handedly. As a result, in the process of drafting the Constitution, SWAPO made concessions to the opposition including the largest opposition party - Democratic Turnhalle Alliance which stood for free economy and a multi-party democracy. Then in February, the assembly adopted a democratic Constitution providing for a multi-party system and the principle of equality for all races. SWAPO President Nujoma was elected as the first Namibian President and Namibia became independent on March 21.

(c) Others

Regarding the civil war in Angola, negotiations resumed after a period of disruption between the Angolan Government and the rebel UNITA (National Union for the Total Liberation of Angola) in April 1990 in Lisbon, Portugal. Similarly, regarding the civil war in Mozambique, there are growing expectations for a settlement through negotiations between the Government and the anti-government MNR (Mozambique National Resistance).

(d) Japan's Position

Regarding the South African problem, Japan's policy seeks enhanced dialogues with the South African Government in response to reforms being adopted by the de Klerk Government. Japan will continue sanctions against the country for the time being because obstacles to full-scale negotiations for ending apartheid have not yet been cleared.

As for the Namibia problem, Japan has volunteered financial aid to UNTAG and sent observers to the constituent assembly election.

Item 4. Promotion of Arms Control and Disarmament

l. Current Situation

As the United States and the Soviet Union entered a new relationship and East-West relations as a whole were being remarkably improved during the past 1 year, earnest efforts were continued in the area of arms control and disarmament.

(1) Arms Control and Disarmament Between the U.S. and the Soviet Union

Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) between the United States and the Soviet Union have registered marked progress during a series of Foreign Ministers meetings which began in the latter half of 1989. It is mainly because the Soviet Union gradually changed its previous positions (linkage to Defense and Space Talks (D&S), restrictions on sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs, etc.). The U.S.-Soviet summit meeting held in June 1990 issued a document of agreement in principle as a summary of the progress made thus far. (See the attached table.) Based on the agreement, delegates of the both countries in Geneva continued negotiations with the aim to sign the START treaty by the end of 1990.

At the June summit meeting, the U.S.-Soviet agreement on destruction and non-production of chemical weapons was signed, as well as the protocols to define verification methods related to the U.S.-Soviet Underground Nuclear Testing Limitation Treaty and the Treaty on Nuclear Explosion for Peaceful Purposes (Note)

(2) Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)

Since March 1989, the CFE talks at Vienna have registered significant progress between NATO and Warsaw Treaty nations, led by an initiative of NATO from the outset, aiming at reducing conventional forces, including tanks, guns, warplanes, and U.S. and Soviet troops. Since late 1989, as the influence of the Soviet Union declined considerably with democratization of Eastern European nations, the WTO as a military alliance has almost ceased to function. As a result, the CFE talks, originally started as if the negotiations between the two military alliances, have emerged suddenly as talks between the Soviet Union and 22 nations. The Soviet Union, under pressure to deal with domestic problems such as intensifying ethnic conflicts and sluggish economic conditions, and also with the reunification of the Germanys, has lost much flexibility in the CFE talks. Nevertheless, since the United States and the Soviet Union have kept to the position that the CFE treaty should be signed at the CSCE summit meeting scheduled to be held by the end of 1990, and now that the problem of unified Germany remaining in NATO has all but been settled, regulations on aircraft and other issues held the key to a successful conclusion of the treaty.

(3) Chemical Weapons

The use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war prompted the international community to demand a comprehensive ban on them, and the Paris Conference on Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was held in January 1989, hosted by the Government of France. It adopted a declaration which called for greater efforts to facilitate the negotiations on a Chemical Weapon convention being held at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. In September of the same year, the Government of Australia hosted the conference on the prohibition of chemical weapons attended by government officials and representatives of chemical industries, which reaffirmed a need for early conclusion of the treaty. Then, as mentioned earlier, the agreement on destruction and non-production of chemical weapons was signed between the United States and the Soviet Union at the summit meeting in June 1990 after long years of negotiations. These achievements have fueled expectations for the progress of negotiations on a comprehensive chemical weapons ban convention at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament (commenced in 1969).

(4) Non-Proliferation of Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Weapons and Missiles

With drastic changes in East-West relations, there is an increasing recognition that proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and missiles is a threat to world peace. The Houston Summit issued a "Statement on Transnational Issues" to call for the prevention of proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction.

In preventing nuclear proliferation, an international framework centered on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has played effective roles. The implementation of the NPT is regularly evaluated by the Review Conference of the signatories every five years in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. The 4th Review Conference scheduled between August and September 1990 will be an important occasion, a last review conference prior to a 1995 conference which will decide the extension period of the NPT in accordance with the provisions of the treaty, thus having important implications for the maintenance and strengthening of the NPT. (See Chapter II , Section 2, Item 6 for peaceful uses of atomic energy)

As for non-proliferation of chemical weapons, 20 Western nations including Japan have been regularly holding what came to be known as "Australia Group" since 1985. On restriction on exports of chemicals which can be used as raw materials for chemical weapons. At these meetings," the participating nations have also been coordinating their efforts to give advice to the industries concerned on the export of facilities and equipment used for production of chemical weapons thereby to keep various countries in the Middle East and other areas from developing chemical weapons capability. Regarding non-proliferation of missiles, major Western nations including Japan have since 1987 been enforcing restrictions, under a common guideline, on exports of missile-related equipment, materials, and technologies which can be used for the building of missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons. To further improve the effectiveness of the guideline, it is desired that more and more countries adhere to this regime.

(5) Disarmament Discussions at the United Nations

Discussions on disarmament at the 44th U.N. General Assembly was held in October 1989, against the background of the favorable international situation, including the progress of the U.S.-Soviet arms control negotiations, and the CFE talks, and moves toward democratization in East European nations. While more realistic and pragmatic opinions were heard from many countries, there were criticisms of the lack of progress in multilateral disarmament compared to that in the bilateral dimension.

(6) Discussion at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva

The 1989 Conference on Disarmament was held between February and April (spring session) and between June and August (summer session) to discuss 8 items including a nuclear test ban, chemical weapons, and arms race in space.

Among them, an ad-hoc committee on prohibition of nuclear tests was established partly as a result of initiatives by Japan and other members (Japan chaired the conference in 1990) to resume discussion which discontinued after 1984 due to a widening split in opinions among the countries concerned.

Negotiations on a Chemical Weapons Convention which began in 1969 has continued during the whole session. In 1989, intensive negotiations on verification and other issues continued through informal meetings in addition to the deliberations at the regular sessions.

2. Japan's Policy Efforts

Japan maintains its basic stance that it actively participates in international efforts in arms control and disarmament. Arms control and disarmament should proceed in such a manner that the arsenals of countries concerned are reduced in a balanced way and with no loss of their deterrent effects, thereby improving the security of countries concerned and contributing to world peace and safety. Any agreement on arms control and disarmament should be verifiable. Based on these positions, Japan has been supporting efforts of the United States and other Western nations regarding START and CFE. At the same time, Japan has been involved in international efforts in a wide range of areas, including the deliberations on the convention totally banning chemical weapons and the restriction on nuclear testing, on the Geneve Conference on Disarmament, the United Nations, etc.

Item 5. National Security of Japan

1. National Security Environment Surrounding Japan

Today, East-West relations pivoted the U.S.-Soviet relations are changing their basic tone from one of confrontation to cooperation, particularly in Europe. However, East-West relations are not yet free from instabilities and uncertainties. There has been no change in the basic framework for improvement of East-West relations, which consists of deterrence based on balance of power and dialogue premised on deterrence

In addition, as exemplified in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, no small number of uncertain factors have newly surfaced as a result of changing East-West relations. Consequently, security policy in the future should be made giving full consideration to such new factors.

(1) Soviet Moves

Following the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan completed on February 15, 1989, the Soviet Union announced that the withdrawal of MiG-23 fighters and Tu-16 bombers from Cam Ranh Bay had been completed by the end of 1989. It then started pulling out ground troops from Mongolia in May 1989. Also, the Soviet Union's military forces deployed in the Far East appear to have been reduced in accordance with the plan unveiled by General Secretary Gorbachev during his Beijing speech in May 1989; namely, reduction of 12 army divisions, 11 airborne regiments, and 16 naval ships by the end of 1990.

It should be noted, however, that the reduction has been limited to obsolete armaments. On the other hand, the Soviet Union has been modernizing arms. Ground troops have improved their capability with their modernized missiles, guns, and multiple rocket launchers, the air force has had fourth-generation aircraft deployed, and the navy equipped itself with high-performance attack submarines, missile-launching destroyers, etc. Furthermore, the Soviet Union still maintains huge nuclear forces in the Far East.

In the Soviet-seized Northern Territories of Japan, the Soviet Union redeployed ground troops in 1978 and has been keeping about 40 MiG-23 fighters since 1983. To this date, little change has been observed about the deployments.

Foreign policies of President Gorbachev and the Soviet Union's domestic situation, suggest that there is only a remote possibility of the Soviet Union launching aggression. In this sense, a prevailing judgment in the international community is that threats of the Soviet Union, in terms of intention, have greatly diminished. Such being the case, the modernization and improvement of the Soviet military posture in the Far East presents a sharp contrast to Soviet moves toward arms reduction in Europe.

(2) U.S. Moves

In 1990, the United States initiated the reorganization of its overseas forces in order to reduce the defense budget and announced it was ready to make adjustments to its military strength not only in Europe but also in Asia-Pacific regions. At the same time, acknowledging that " the strategic changes in Europe are not mirrored" in East Asia (the report made by Secretary of Defense Cheney in April), the U.S. Government has made it clear that the rationalization of military deployment will be carried out stage by stage, under a policy to maintain the forward deployment strategy and the bilateral security arrangements and with due consideration not to weaken the U.S. military capabilities in the region.

In this connection, the negotiations, which began in May 1990, on whether or not U.S. military bases are kept in the Philippines and moves for the U.S. armed forces in the Republic of Korea (ROK) to transfer operation control to the ROK forces should be followed closely.

(3) Moves of Other Countries in the Asia-Pacific Region

Recently, the ROK-Soviet relations have been improved to the extent that a summit meeting was held between President Roh Tae Woo and President Gorbachev. The ROK-China economic relations have deepened. But no definite prospects have emerged for improvement of North-South relations which is essential in reducing the tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

In the meantime, the possibility of nuclear development by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) aroused international attention. An immediate major task in the context of nuclear non-proliferation is to persuade North Korea to accept inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

As for the civil war in Cambodia which constitutes an unstable element in Southeast Asia, there are no clear prospects for a settlement in spite of the various international efforts made.

In Southwest Asia, the tension of the longstanding confrontation between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue has heightened in 1990.

In addition, the buildup of India's naval forces attracted international attention in recent years. As the Indian Ocean constitutes an important maritime transport route connecting Japan and the oil-producing Middle East countries, India's naval buildup is a matter of concern for Japan.

Stability in the Persian Gulf area is critically important for Japan as the area accounts for 70% of Japan's oil imports. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which occurred no sooner than the 8-year-old Iran-Iraq conflict was brought to an end and the Soviet troops completed their withdrawal from Afghanistan, came as fresh evidence of instability in the Gulf area. (See Item 3 of this section for regional conflicts.)

2. National Security Policy of Japan

The national security policy of Japan consists of three pillars -the deterrence provided by the United States through the Japan-U.S. security arrangements, Japan's self-defense efforts, and diplomatic efforts to secure stability in international politics.

(1) The Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements

The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which entered its 30th year on June 23, 1990, has become one of the important frameworks needed for stability of international politics in the Asia-Pacific region. In this sense, the Japan-U.S. security arrangements play an important role in maintaining regional stability. Recently, two important issues have been raised in the Japan-U.S. security arrangements, namely, further increases in the Japanese sharing of expenses related to the U.S. forces staying in Japan, and transfer of technology to the U.S. Also, Japan-U.S. defense cooperation continues to be an important area in the future. (See Chapter III, Section 2, Item 3 for significance of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty)

(2) Improvement of Defense Capability

Along with the maintenance of the Japan-U.S. security arrangements, the improvement of Japan's own defense capabilities is essential in preserving the country's peace and security. Such efforts to develop an adequate defense capability are also important from the standpoint of maintaining the Japan-U.S. security arrangements.

Under its Constitution, Japan has been developing moderate yet effective capabilities exclusively for defense, and determined never to become a military power which would threaten its neighbors. Such efforts need to be continued by Japan in the future.

It is true that some Asian countries fear that Japan may become a military power. Thus it is important for Japan to make clear its exclusively defensive defense policy on every appropriate occasion.

(3) Diplomatic Efforts

In order to secure long-standing peace in the Asia-Pacific region, multi-facet diplomatic efforts should be made to solve pending issues so as to bring stability to the Korean Peninsula and peace to Cambodia, and promote economic development in the countries of the region. Such efforts are important also from Japan's national security standpoint.

From a global standpoint, Japan needs to cooperate in international efforts to maintain world peace, in such a case as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, within the purview of the Constitution, and to promote international efforts for arms control and disarmament. Such international cooperation will directly and indirectly contribute to improvement of the national security environment surrounding Japan, and fulfillment of Japan's responsibility in the international community.

to table of contents

Note: The Soviet Union's bid to join the GATT as an observer was approved by the GATT board meeting held in May 1990.

Note: A European currency set on the basis of EC member nations' weighted average.

Note: Signed by the two countries in 1972 after the Third India-Pakistan War. They agreed to settle the conflict "by peaceful means through bilateral negotiation or other peaceful means agreed between them," and mentioned the need for complying with the agreement.

Note: Palestinian uprising in the Israeli occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip

Note: The agreement regarding the distibution of National Assembly seats between Christians and Moslems.

Note: The treaty to set an upper limit on explosions in nuclear testing at 150 kilotons. Signed by the U.S. and Soviet governments in 1974 and 1976 respectively, but not ratified by either of the countries.