Much of the US and Japanese news coverage of the new security agreement between Washington and Tokyo focused on its political aspects but overlooked the far-reaching strategic changes it has projected for the revitalized alliance.
This pact is intended to draw together a sweeping realignment of US forces in Asia and the forthcoming revision of Japan's Constitution. That revision is calculated to raise the Japanese military and diplomatic posture after six decades of pacifism that was the consequence of Japan's defeat in World War II.
Robert Scalapino, the prominent US academic on Asia, noted the changes.
"Japan wants to be a major power," he said in an interview. "It wants to be in a partnership with the United States but not in a patron-client relationship."
The agreement on Oct. 29 was the most significant milestone in a process that began nearly three years ago when the Bush administration started negotiating with Japan to reposition forces, revise command lines and make US forces more flexible and responsive to contingencies.
Before the negotiations had gone far, the Japanese and the Americans agreed that they needed a basic reassessment of the alliance that began in 1952 after the postwar US occupation of Japan.
"We had reached a place in our alliance where we needed to look beyond force structures and to make fundamental changes in our roles and missions," said a US official aware of the negotiations, who asked not to be named.
The outcome is the document entitled US-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future, signed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura and Minister of State for Defense Yoshinori Ohno.
In a press conference after the agreement was issued, Rumsfeld said: "Like all alliances, this relationship must and is in fact evolving to remain strong and relevant."
Ohno agreed, saying that the purpose of the earlier alliance was to defend Japan. Now, Japanese and US forces could undertake joint operations elsewhere.
The agreement states, "These measures are designed to enhance the alliance's capability to meet new threats and diverse contingencies."
Those "diverse contingencies," a term appearing repeatedly, were not specified but referred to potential threats from China, North Korea, terrorists and pirates in the shipping lanes of the South China Sea.
Key to Japan's deployment of forces alongside US forces is the revision of Japan's Constitution, especially Article IX, the "no war" clause that has been interpreted as permitting Japan to defend itself but little more. A final draft is working its way through the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the legislature.
The provision pertaining to national security says that in addition to operations to defend Japan, "defense forces can take part in efforts to maintain international peace and security under international cooperation, as well as to keep fundamental public order in our country."
The new agreement says the US will continue to hold its "nuclear umbrella" over Japan.
"US strike capabilities and the nuclear deterrence provided by the US remain an essential complement to Japan's defense," it says.
That renewed guarantee should also blunt a Japanese move to acquire nuclear weapons, if it appears.
The agreement further says that "a common operational picture shared between US forces and the SDF [Japan's Self-Defense Forces] will strengthen operational coordination."
That common assessment of potential adversaries will be reflected in joint training and jointly devised contingency plans.
The nuts and bolts of the US force realignment, some of which were adopted to accommodate political demands in Japan, include establishing a joint operations center at Yokota Air Base, now a US base, west of Tokyo. Japan's Air Defense Command will move from Fuchu, also west of Tokyo, to Yokota.
The US Army will deploy a corps headquarters at Camp Zama, southwest of Tokyo, where Japan will set up a Central Readiness Force Command for its ground forces.
Bowing to political pressure in Okinawa, the US Marines will move a headquarters and 7,000 marines to Guam, which is US territory in the central Pacific. Some aircraft will be removed from a controversial base at Futenma, and the airfield itself will be redesigned to move runways away from residential areas.
These changes in Japan's military posture have raised cries in China and the two Koreas that Japan is undertaking full-scale rearmament. Cold-eyed scrutiny, however, shows that Japan's military spending is not scheduled to rise, its military forces are not slated to expand and its defense industry remains small.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS