How should Japan deal with the Iraq crisis? The question is gaining urgency as the United States gears up for a military campaign. Yet the government has so far given only vague answers, though the ambiguity is not difficult to understand. During a Diet debate on Wednesday, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said he will wait and see how the U.N. Security Council responds to an additional report from arms inspectors.

Of course, Iraq must disarm itself in full compliance with Security Council resolutions. However, military action is not the only way to enforce disarmament. War, even if justified as a last resort, could make things worse, not better. The prime minister has expressed tacit support for a U.S. strike, but "acting as a U.S. ally" does not obviate the need for Japan to make maximum diplomatic efforts toward a peaceful solution.

International support for a war against Iraq will increase significantly if the Security Council passes a new resolution authorizing the use of force. But with or without such a vote, the potential cost of a military solution remains high. War would not only cause heavy casualties and collateral damage; it would also split the international community, possibly derailing the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism as well.

Public opinion in Japan is strongly opposed to a military solution. In the latest Kyodo News poll, 79 percent of Japanese said they oppose a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. When asked whether the government should support a military strike, 46 percent said no, an increase of nearly 10 percent from a similar poll last month.

Earlier this week, France, Germany and Russia issued a joint statement calling for more arms inspectors as a way of staving off war. The three countries, the statement said, "are determined to ensure that everything possible is done to disarm Iraq peacefully." Even in the U.S. and Britain, two leading hawks on the use of force, there is stiff public opposition to the military approach.

Japan and the U.S. are bound together under a bilateral security treaty. The importance of maintaining this alliance -- which affects virtually every field of activity -- goes without saying. But the security environment surrounding Japan is not the same as that confronting the U.S. Moreover, Japan is committed to peace principles under its Constitution. Obviously, it must deal with crises in ways that best serve its interests. An alliance does not have to be synonymous with automatic cooperation.

There is no question that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a dictator with sinister intentions. The intelligence information provided by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Security Council the other day has reinforced suspicions that Iraq may be hiding weapons of mass destruction. But military force is not the only means of stripping it of unconventional weapons. Peace is not always born of the barrel of a gun.

To be sure, Iraq has a long record of misbehavior. The current crisis dates back to its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the Persian Gulf War that followed. Since then, Baghdad has repeatedly and systemically violated Security Council resolutions, stretching the international community's patience to the limit. The U.S. -- which links Iraq to terrorism following the Sept. 11, 2001, attack -- is understandably determined to remove the "Saddam threat" before it becomes a reality.

However, none of the above is sufficient justification for a preemptive military strike. The U.N. Charter, which embodies the lessons of the last two world wars, says nations can go to war only for self-defense pending action by the Security Council. Japan's post-World War II Constitution, which renounces war forever as means of settling international disputes, represents a step forward.

The case for stopping Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction is beyond dispute. But preemptive use of force against a country not engaged in an open act of aggression -- such as the invasion of Kuwait -- could destroy an order built on a history of global tragedies. International law must apply in dealing with any nation, including even those countries the U.S. denounces as an "axis of evil" and "rogue states."

Prime Minister Koizumi keeps saying that Japan will "act responsibly as a member of the international community and an ally of the United States." In the absence of a clear-cut message, however, he is creating the impression, wittingly or not, that Japan will support military action anyway. He needs to tell the nation unequivocally that the government will continue patient diplomatic efforts until the last moment, rather than support a hasty resort to force. That is the right choice for the leader of a nation with a no-war Constitution.