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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US