Japan abandoning pacifism

[Cowperson]

Japan is abandoning its pacifist past for a hard-headed, proactive security policy which will see it more willing to deploy troops, but complicate northeast Asian security, according to a new study titled "Unsheathing the Samurai Sword".

"This shift is evolutionary, not revolutionary, but it is gaining momentum and represents a defining watershed in Japan's post war security policy," analyst Alan Dupont said in his report for the Sydney-based Lowy Institute for International Policy.

How does a newly assertive Japan fit into the world?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/...reut/index.html

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

A lot of Asian countries still remember Co-Prosperity Sphere, and probably aren't too anxious to see Japan becoming a player again. Seems like it may even spark an arms race in the region, as no one wants to fall too far behind Japan. I think they spend something like the 2nd most gross amount of cash on their military in the world. Pretty crazy for a primarily defence-related force.

[FlamesAddiction]

Great, just what we need.

[Claeren]

Especially crazy when you figure that huge amount only represents 1% of GDP, their self emposed limit on spending.

I am thinking this has a lot to do with China's increasing emergence and expectation of hedgemony over the region. There is no way America is going to be interested in protecting Japan long term, they barely can do it now against the FAR inferior N.Korea. Seems like the only option for Japan is to submit to China over the next 100 years or to build a MUCH more significant world presence ASAP....

Claeren.

[Ozy_Flame]

I think it's more than honorable for the Japanese to step back from checkbook diplomacy, a card they've played for the last 30 years. I think this proves a strong commitment to global issues, even if in a non-combat role.

[300spartans]

Good, I've always wanted to see Toyota build a tank..

[RedHot25]

Originally posted by 300spartans@Nov 11 2004, 11:04 PM
Good, I've always wanted to see Toyota build a tank..

that would get heck of gas mileage!

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Yeah, as the article states the consititution has to be dealt with first as it's basically written that Japan will have no military of any sort. However, if they can shift away from this policy and get a decent military underway going it would take some of the burden of the USA as they are somewhat bound by treaty to protect Japan...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Nov 12 2004, 10:35 PM
Yeah, as the article states the consititution has to be dealt with first as it's basically written that Japan will have no military of any sort. However, if they can shift away from this policy and get a decent military underway going it would take some of the burden of the USA as they are somewhat bound by treaty to protect Japan...

Japan has a great military and spends one of the larger sums in the world on weaponry.

Its called a "Self Defence Force" though and the stickler in the constitution is prohibitions on ranging beyond the home islands.

Cowperson

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Nov 12 2004, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Nov 12 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Nov 12 2004, 10:35 PM
Yeah, as the article states the consititution has to be dealt with first as it's basically written that Japan will have no military of any sort. However, if they can shift away from this policy and get a decent military underway going it would take some of the burden of the USA as they are somewhat bound by treaty to protect Japan...

Japan has a great military and spends one of the larger sums in the world on weaponry.

Its called a "Self Defence Force" though and the stickler in the constitution is prohibitions on ranging beyond the home islands.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Oh yeah, there is the Self Defense Force. And it was designed to protect Japan and feed info to the USA during the cold war. But still, the USA has about 47 000 troops and 200 aircraft in Japan right now. That is kind of what I was getting at when I said removing the strain from the American military.

Should Japan decide to get bigger larger military force and venture into the world of foreign affairs, there'd probably be room for America to take some of their troops out of Japan. I know one place where they might be needed...

[Claeren]

Japan has over 160,000 active defence force members, a sizable air force, active and accomplished space, communications, and intelligence complex's, and one of the worlds largest navy's. All in all it is easily among the top 5 military's in the world and there are many who feel that if it were allowed to be more active, not to mention if it spent an amount of its GDP more consistent with the other world powers, it would be easily show itself to be number 2 behind the USA.

The US military is not in Japan to help the Japanese. It is one (along with Korea) the most valuable geopolitical positions in the world. America is there for America, along with virtually ever other military policy veiled in charitible motives taken by the US.

Also, the US has already moved a considerable amount of troops from their Asian positons to fight in Iraq, their continued presense is currently, and in forcasting the future, more an indication of tensions among/within Taiwan, China, and Korea (and to an extent Russia, but those days have mostly since passed) then it is about protecting Japan. Any build up of Japanese power and activity is more likely to actually increase the 'strain' on American forces then decrease it over the long term.

It was only ~14 years ago that America was actually terrified of the growing Japanese threat, post-cold war. Their aggressive trade based counter measures managed to curtail Japan's momentum of the '80's, and still has lingering effects today. America has definitely shown it prefers no nation be TOO strong for its own good (ie: being able to curtail US hegemoney), and only be 'powerful' as long as it is quiet and in step.

Again, i think this is yet another intriguing development in the whole 'China story'. Not only how Japan will react but in looking at America's history, how it is going to react. Is America really willing to share power with ANY nation? Even a liberal-democratic one?


Claeren.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Claeren@Nov 13 2004, 12:32 AM
Japan has over 160,000 active defence force members, a sizable air force, active and accomplished space, communications, and intelligence complex's, and one of the worlds largest navy's. All in all it is easily among the top 5 military's in the world and there are many who feel that if it were allowed to be more active, not to mention if it spent an amount of its GDP more consistent with the other world powers, it would be easily show itself to be number 2 behind the USA.

Not to mention technologically advanced. They are innovators of rocketry, robotics, and AI. Plus, if they wanted to, they could build a nuclear arsenal in about 5 minutes.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Claeren@Nov 12 2004, 06:32 PM
Japan has over 160,000 active defence force members, a sizable air force, active and accomplished space, communications, and intelligence complex's, and one of the worlds largest navy's. All in all it is easily among the top 5 military's in the world and there are many who feel that if it were allowed to be more active, not to mention if it spent an amount of its GDP more consistent with the other world powers, it would be easily show itself to be number 2 behind the USA.

Whoa whoa whoa, it would seem then that the only thing holding it back is really just the constitution. I had no idea their 'Self Defense Force' was so large, I just knew it was there but it was restricted to Japan only. Military is big enough it would seem.

I realize America is mostly in Japan for it's own interests, but 47 000 troops? That's a rather large amount of people, part of which could be better used in Iraq IMO...

[300spartans]

It's simple, they're all there for the Japanese women.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay+Nov 13 2004, 01:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAllTheWay @ Nov 13 2004, 01:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Nov 12 2004, 06:32 PM
Japan has over 160,000 active defence force members, a sizable air force, active and accomplished space, communications, and intelligence complex's, and one of the worlds largest navy's. All in all it is easily among the top 5 military's in the world and there are many who feel that if it were allowed to be more active, not to mention if it spent an amount of its GDP more consistent with the other world powers, it would be easily show itself to be number 2 behind the USA.

Whoa whoa whoa, it would seem then that the only thing holding it back is really just the constitution. I had no idea their 'Self Defense Force' was so large, I just knew it was there but it was restricted to Japan only. Military is big enough it would seem.

I realize America is mostly in Japan for it's own interests, but 47 000 troops? That's a rather large amount of people, part of which could be better used in Iraq IMO... [/b][/quote]
I hear ya, they really snuck up on us!

As Claeren remarks above, the 47,000 troops in Japan are there more for strategic, geopolitical reasons rather than tactical ones. No one doubts Japan could waste North Korea, and probably give China a run for its money.

The US has made commitments to certain countries, most notably in the far east and western/central Europe. These commitments rest on post-WWII realities. Troop deployment in these nations is a fundamental part of the agreement America made to underwrite the security of the world outside communism.

Basically, its a symbolic deployment. Germany is an especially touchy case, because US troops are there for NATO purposes. If the US pulled all of them out of Germany, and re-deployed them to Iraq, Germany might be tempted to forgoe the Atlantic relationship in favour of the EU. Not that EU members are eager to quit NATO, but if the US begins to pull back on its commitments, I could see Europe feeling like it didn't have any choice but to redefine European security separate from American.

[Claeren]

it would seem then that the only thing holding it back is really just the constitution.

lol.... comments like that really make me realize how out of touch i am with the every-man perspective on such things...

I realize America is mostly in Japan for it's own interests, but 47 000 troops? That's a rather large amount of people, part of which could be better used in Iraq IMO...

While backwater compared to American capabilities, primary threats in the area make 47,00 seem like a VERY small number:

2,600,000 China
1,100,000 N.Korea
47,000 USA in Japan

Or, a combined ~79 times as many soldiers....

Or using another comparison, 'only' 10,000-20,000 insurgents (US estimates have consistantly been considerably LOWER, but whatever), with no structured backing, have kept 150,000+ highly motivated US soldiers VERY busy for the past 2 years.


America has to balance supporting operations in Iraq (which they have been supporting) with projecting influence in the region, which is what they need those 47,000 plus what they have in S.Korea, for....

Claeren.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Claeren+Nov 12 2004, 07:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Claeren @ Nov 12 2004, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

lol.... comments like that really make me realize how out of touch i am with the every-man perspective on such things...


[/b]

Er, explain 'every-man perspective' to me for I am ignorant. If it's just a fancy way of saying my comment was stupid, that's okay too, heheh. I know China probably wouldn't take to kindly to having Japan delve deeper into the world of foreign affairs, but really, the constitution seems a little dated as it was made right after WW2 with WW2 and the Cold War in mind.

<!--QuoteBegin-Claeren

While backwater compared to American capabilities, primary threats in the area make 47,000 seem like a VERY small number:

2,600,000 China
1,100,000 N.Korea
# ## 47,000 USA in Japan

Or using another comparison, 'only' 10,000-20,000 insurgents (US estimates have consistantly been considerably LOWER, but whatever), with no structured backing, have kept 150,000+ highly motivated US soldiers VERY busy for the past 2 years.

[/quote]
Exactly. So really, what's taking a few soldiers away going to do? 47 000 is small, 40 000 is small, 35 000 is small. Not to mention the 3 billion a year cost of stationing a force of that size in Japan each year.

And the 150 000 troops in Iraq aren't just there combating the insurgents, they are basically policing a country of 25 million people. Granted, will 2000, 5000 or 12 000 extra troops really make that much of a difference? Who knows, but it can't hurt. They are going to take 12 000 troops out of South Korea ( http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/Nati...es_04/8114.html ), why not Japan? And if Japan decides to play a larger role in world affairs they can add to their 500 odd troops they have in Iraq too.

But hey, perhaps it's more complex than this. After all, I am just a lowly poster on a message board throwing my 2 cents into the hat. Easier said than done I guess...

[TheCommodoreAfro]

I wrote a novel, and then deleted the whole thing. Here's the take from what I see.

Japanese like the pacifist thing - they don't want to be in Iraq. Koizumi made the decision to send the SDF there without Diet consultation, and changing the constitution can't be done without public consultation (a long process).
No SDF in Iraq

Where Japan wants to exert itself is in protecting it's territories, especially the rocks in the ocean in the south that are claimed by every country in the region. A recent submarine fray has people really p*ssed. The biggest concern here is North Korea and the sheer size of China.
Chinese sub in Okinawa

The relationship with the US forces is fractuous among the people who live in Japan - the government needs it and has a great relationship with the US (they need it). But locals don't like living near a military base. This was highlighted recently when a helicopter crashed on a university campus in Naha, and the US military refused to let the Japanese at it.

What to make of it? They won't be a power soon, and because Koizumi's government got almost throttled out of power in the last election, (they are no longer a majority ruling government ) it won't happen soon. I could see them offering up a patchwork solution to the American military presence in the short-term, but it will be hard for them to assemble anything resembling a true superpower force.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by 300spartans@Nov 13 2004, 01:17 AM
It's simple, they're all there for the Japanese women.

So are we all...have you seen Japanese women's legs?


The Americans spend the most on defense and the Japanese are second. A few years ago analysts asked if America's allies could keep up technologically with the US in military. There was only one nation that could and that was the Japanese.

They do lack the the big offensice stuff though.

No cruisers, Battleships, or bombers and heavy lifters....But just about everything else.

They are in Iraq and they plan to be in many other places! Japan is growing up and looking like a real world 'democracy' partner.

Yes, they have some major hang-ups on WWII still!!!

[HOZ]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Nov 13 2004, 01:33 PM
I wrote a novel, and then deleted the whole thing. Here's the take from what I see.

Japanese like the pacifist thing - they don't want to be in Iraq. Koizumi made the decision to send the SDF there without Diet consultation, and changing the constitution can't be done without public consultation (a long process).
No SDF in Iraq

Where Japan wants to exert itself is in protecting it's territories, especially the rocks in the ocean in the south that are claimed by every country in the region. A recent submarine fray has people really p*ssed. The biggest concern here is North Korea and the sheer size of China.
Chinese sub in Okinawa

The relationship with the US forces is fractuous among the people who live in Japan - the government needs it and has a great relationship with the US (they need it). But locals don't like living near a military base. This was highlighted recently when a helicopter crashed on a university campus in Naha, and the US military refused to let the Japanese at it.

What to make of it? They won't be a power soon, and because Koizumi's government got almost throttled out of power in the last election, (they are no longer a majority ruling government ) it won't happen soon. I could see them offering up a patchwork solution to the American military presence in the short-term, but it will be hard for them to assemble anything resembling a true superpower force.

For crimminies sakes...ummm

Most Japanese support the presence of the SDF in Iraq. They just didn't agree to join the fighting which wasn't in the cards anyways. Koizumi had the complete backing of the ruling group.

As well his grasp on the government is stronger than ever after the last election. Yes the LDP lost ground but then Koizumi is an outsider in the LDP. In Japanese terms that means he is a wildcard and a threat.

The Rebel with a cause if you like. Very UN-Japanese...hence his popularity. His coalition governement is solid