The Defense of America That Japan Could Handle

Published in The Sankei News
(Japan) on 15 July 2019
by Kazuya Sakamoto (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Eric Stimson. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
While in Osaka recently for the Group of 20 summit of leading and emerging-market nations, President Donald Trump spoke at a press conference afterward to denounce the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty as “unfair,” since Japan has no obligation to defend America. He further told the audience that he had told Prime Minister Shinzo Abe this needed to change.

It may be a shocking statement, but how should we respond? I believe that, to further develop the Japanese-American relationship, we should take this chance to begin preparations to revise the Security Treaty.

The current Security Treaty, which is a revision of the original 1960 agreement, is meant to ensure peace and security in the Far East. Both Japan and America cooperate to a great degree in two ways to meet this objective. First, Japan leases its military bases to American troops. Second, both countries protect each other within Japanese territory.

Japan’s capacity for defensive cooperation is limited, and while America contributes to Japan’s defense, Japan only needs to defend the U.S. Army within Japan. The Security Treaty could also be seen as unfair to America in that Japan does not cooperate in defending American territory.

The great meaning that Japan’s cooperation holds for America’s international strategy and security compensates for the imbalance in cooperation, as is, of course, well known. Therefore, the treaty as a whole is well balanced in terms of cooperation, but on the face of it, the balance of cooperation is asymmetrical; so in fact, there are points in the treaty related to reciprocity and fairness that displease both Japan and America.

In response, both countries strengthened the treaty after its revision by adding various assistance agreements, like a “considerate budget” for American military bases and guidelines for Japanese-American defense cooperation. These efforts have had substantial success, and if we consider the Japanese-American alliance in light of these additional assistance agreements, then it is not difficult to refute the charge of unfairness if the alliance applies only to the Far East that the treaty mentions.

However, as both countries entered the new millennium, they aimed to develop the alliance into one for the world. In recent years, the scope of cooperation under the alliance has been greatly expanded under the concept of a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” It is no longer just about the Far East, where America has no territory; cooperation has expanded to a place where America does. Now that this has occurred, it is no longer so easy for Japan to explain the fairness of a security treaty that doesn’t pledge Japanese cooperation in the defense of any American territory.

But think about it carefully. Suppose America were attacked right now. Either constitutionally or practically, Japan would likely do whatever it could to cooperate in America’s defense. In reality, this is what happened when America was attacked by terrorists at the beginning of the millennium.

In this case, would there be a problem if the Security Treaty made such a pledge? In the 18 years since the coordinated 9/11 attack on America’s core, the actions Japan could take in America’s defense have certainly increased.


先日、大阪で開かれた20カ国・地域(G20)首脳会議(サミット)に出席するため来日したトランプ米大統領は、会議後の記者会見で、日本に米国の防衛義務がない日米安全保障条約は「不公平」だと発言した。大統領はさらに、自分は安倍晋三首相にこれを変える必要があると伝えたとも述べている。

 衝撃的な発言だが、どう対応すべきだろうか。私はこの際、日米同盟のさらなる発展のために、安保条約を再改定する準備を始めるべきだと思う。

 昭和35(1960)年に、旧安保条約を改定してできたいまの安保条約は、「極東」の平和と安全のための条約である。日米両国はその目的のために、大きく2つの協力を行う。1つは日本が米国に基地を貸し、米国がそこに米軍をおいて使用する協力。もう1つは日米が、日本の領域のなかで互いに守り合う協力である。

 後者の防衛協力は範囲が狭く、米国は日本の防衛に協力するが、日本は在日米軍の防衛に協力するだけでよい。日本が米国領土の防衛に協力しない分、安保条約は米国にとって不公平な条約のようにも見える。

 もちろん、よく知られているように、後者の協力のバランスの悪さは、前者の協力が米国の世界戦略と安全保障にきわめて大きな意味を持つことで埋め合わされている。それで条約全体の協力のバランスはとれているのだが、かたちが非対称な協力でのバランスなので、条約の相互性、公平性に関し、日米双方に不満を生じさせるところがあるのも事実である。

 日米両国は、安保改定後、その不満に対応すべく、米軍基地への「思いやり予算」や「日米防衛協力のための指針(ガイドライン)」など、さまざまな補助的取り決めで条約を補強し、双方に相互性、また公平性の感覚が発展するよう努めてきた。その努力はかなり成果をあげていて、もし安保条約にそれらの補助的取り決めを加えて成り立ついまの日米同盟が、安保条約でいう「極東」のためだけにあるのなら、不公平という批判への反論は難しくない。

 ただ日米両国は今世紀に入ってから、日米同盟を「世界の中の」日米同盟に発展させることを目指してきた。近年は「自由で開かれたインド太平洋」構想を掲げ、同盟協力の範囲を大きく広げようとしている。米国の領土が存在しない「極東」ではなく、それが存在する場所での協力拡大である。そうなると、日本が米国領土の防衛への協力を一切約束しない安保条約の公平性を説明することは、そう簡単ではなくなる。

 だがよく考えてみれば、仮にいま米国の領土が攻撃されたら、日本は憲法上また実力上、できることは何でもやって米国の防衛に協力するだろう。実際今世紀の初年に米国がテロ攻撃を受けたときはそうだった。

 もしそうなら、安保条約でそう約束して何か問題があるだろうか。9・11米中枢同時テロから18年の歳月が流れたが、米国防衛のために日本ができることは、確実に増えている。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: The Art of Strategic Flattery

Russia: Trump Names Man Fomenting Revolution in the U.S.*

Pakistan: Trump’s Gaza Blueprint Unfolds

Topics

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backwards with Americans on Trade

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Ireland: Irish Examiner View: Would We Miss Donald Trump and Would a Successor Be Worse?

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Related Articles

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backwards with Americans on Trade

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?