Rise Of ‘Militarism’ In Japan – OpEd

 March 19, 2023  Eurasia Review 

By Fumiko Yamada

Japan’s traditional constitution calls for the armed forces to forever abandon the principle of war and formulate foreign policy. The country can no longer maintain that tradition. On 12 December 2022, Japan’s ruling party coalition, composed of 90 percent of Liberal Democratic Party MPs and 10 percent of Komeito Party MPs, agreed on a change in national security strategy. Along with common security issues, defense issues are also identified and guidelines for military development are determined in the next 10 years.

The current decisions are inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution enacted in 1947. It says – ‘Japan has forever abandoned the use of armed forces to solve foreign policy problems.’ Without resolving or changing this conflict, Japan has already emerged as a major military power and a large contingent of superpower military personnel is stationed in Japan. Shinzo Abe attempted to amend the clause by proposing to add a third clause to the ninth article, known as the ‘Abe Amendment’. Abe’s introduction of the amendment only makes a mockery of the founding document of modern Japan. Many want to drop the entire clause. But to change such a fundamental document, the Japanese consider themselves treacherous.

Anti-missile units have been promised in the present Defense Force SDF. According to Department of Defense data, there are about 56,000 US military personnel in Japan, which is more than any other country. Article 5 of the Constitution states that the United States must defend Japan if a third party attacks it. Article 6 expressly gives the United States the right to establish military bases on Japanese soil. As a result, the Americans are occupying the large island of Okinawa. The island is now claimed by China. There are 32 small and large bases and 48 training centers operating in Japan. Despite a strong alliance based on common values, many Japanese feel that the Japanese and Americans are as mixed as oil and water. As in Yugoslavia, the Serbs and Bosnians were tried by Marshal Titu to mix them together. According to the published security strategy report – 500 missiles will be purchased by 2027. During this time they will be made with own technology.

The key question is how to determine how the Japanese government will pay for the defense costs of its planned military upgrades. This is not possible unless the current army spending and defense budget are doubled. This will cost Japan an additional $300 billion.

Kisida’s predecessor, Suga Kovit, effectively ended the Olympic Games amid the recession that followed. If Japan is to spend a lot of money on this urgent military need, it must gradually bring it down to 2 percent of the country’s annual GDP. In the post-war period, Japan’s defense spending was below 1 percent. Japan’s economy is the third largest in the world. When Prime Minister Kishida explained the issue to the people, the opposition pointed out to him, ‘You can explain until you are blue in the face.’

How will the process of radical change in Japan’s defense policy actually unfold, although military change is a commonplace in today’s world? China believes that by strengthening Japan militarily, the United States will use it against its country and use Taiwan. The late Abe was known for his pro-Taiwan stance. After resigning, Abe said in late 2021, “Taiwan’s emergency is an emergency for Japan and an emergency for the Japan-US alliance.”

Post-assassination sympathies for Abe are key to whether the rise of right-wing forces will strengthen Japan and whether Article 9 of the post-war constitution is being amended. Many in Japan worry that the Kishida administration will seize the opportunity to fulfill Abe’s legacy and revive Japanese militarism. Most parliamentarians want the rise of militarism.

The question now is how much political success Fumio Kishida will be able to achieve in the next three years after his recent election victory. Kisida has a strong interest in denuclearization and establishing order in the Indo-Pacific region. Kishida has enough motivation to pick up the baton of Abe’s dream. Surprisingly, the biggest hurdle will be building consensus within the ruling party, not with the opposition.

Changing the constitution meant revising the Peace Constitution that the United States drafted for Japan after World War II, specifically Article 9, which stated that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.” ‘Land, sea and air forces, as well as other war capabilities, will never be maintained’ and ‘the right of war of states will not be recognized.’

Japan will not be prevented from enacting new martial law without changing the constitution; It won’t be long between amending the constitution and Japan returning to its old militarized ways. Indeed, amending the Constitution has a greater symbolic meaning. Japan’s right-wingers believe the change will signal Japan’s recovery from war defeat.

Taiwanese commentator Julian Cuore said the real key is whether the US wants to “free the tiger from its cage.” The US is still the deciding factor. Sino-US relations as well as Sino-Japanese relations have changed during Abe’s time in power. After US President Joe Biden took office, Japan’s position against China became more clear and Japan’s status as a US ally increased.

China no longer sees Japan as an equal opponent. After Abe’s death, there are no more ‘backseat drivers’ to keep the Kishida administration in check. It seems that the plan to amend the constitution will be implemented without any haste. Japan’s pro-US and pro-Taiwan positions are not changing in any way. Chinese netizens rather said, if Japan goes back to militarization, China will have the opportunity to erase a century of shame.

Kisida completed his visit to Washington on January 13 this year. He met with Biden. Now Japan-US relations are at an all-time high. Kishida’s visit to the United States was followed by visits to five G-7 countries, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada. Japan is the current president of the G-7 group. Biden praised Kishida as “a true leader and a true friend.”

In March 1990, Major General Henry C. Stackpole, commander of US Marine Corps bases in Japan, stated that American troops must remain in Japan; Because no one wants a resurgence of World War II Japan.’ He thinks it’s better to keep the wolves locked up!

Johnston, Japan Chair of the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, “The tide of reluctance has shifted and the United States is welcoming Japan’s new capabilities. Japan will now play an important strategic role and proxy for the United States in maintaining stability in East Asia due to China’s growing military activity.” thinks

In the post-World War II period, the Japanese Self-Defense Force, the JSDF, served only as a ‘shield’ engaged in defense, while US forces envisioned it as a ‘spear’ for retaliatory attacks. Reflecting on this issue, Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, the late Shinzo Abe, was able to lay the groundwork for a plan to acquire a hostile strike capability for a full week at the end of his second term as prime minister, which has come to be known as ‘Abe’s counter-strike capability’, a doctrine the Kishida administration is honoring. . The US is happy about it, but China is against it.

Militarism and Japan’s role as G-7 president have emerged as three major problems. Can Kishida solve them? One of them is the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. As a friend, Ukraine should show support and Russia should show strictness. Nevertheless, Japan is still getting a lot of help in Russia’s oil and gas development projects Sakhalin-1 and Sakhalin-2. Billions of yen are pouring into Russia’s economic pipeline every day. Japan depends on the Middle East for about 90 percent of its crude oil imports. Sakhalin-1, on the other hand, is a valuable alternative source. Sakhalin-2 supplies about 9 percent of Japan’s liquefied natural gas, LNG imports, and about 3 percent of its total electricity generation, which is essential for Japan’s energy security. Apart from this, the harsh reality is that Hiroshima Gas Co. Ltd., located in Kishidar’s own constituency, is getting almost half of its LNG from Sakhalin-2. But as things stand now, Kishida may not keep Zelensky’s invitation to visit Ukraine if Biden doesn’t push. Anytime Putin plays Europe-like ‘gas line diplomacy’ with Japan, it will become difficult for the US to supply gas from such a distance.

Japan only supplies Ukraine with bullet-proof vests, helmets and other protective equipment. Japanese aid to Ukraine in 2022 is the lowest among the G-7, with a total value of 600 million euros, just 1.2 percent of total US aid to Ukraine, according to German calculations. As the West moves toward severing ties with Russia, it’s a tough test for Kishida.

The second problem centers on nuclear weapons. Kishida is an activist for nuclear disarmament to build a ‘world without nuclear weapons’. Nagasaki Hiroshima Japanese will never forget. But with Russia and North Korea threatening direct use of strategic nuclear weapons and China expanding its nuclear arsenal, the reality is that Japan has become more dependent than ever on the US nuclear umbrella.

In May 1991, Japan sent minesweepers to the Persian Gulf against Iran. Iran said they would not be returned. The then Japanese Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu said ‘To allow Japan to send its forces abroad again is like giving chocolate liquor to a drunkard.’ It is easy to understand that Japan did this under the pressure of a superpower, i.e. Japan does not have the key to use military force.

Finally, how to deal with a rising China is also a major headache for the Kishida administration. Kishida has repeatedly said his government will not tolerate any attempt to forcibly change the status quo, in violation of international law, with China in mind. But with Japan’s public debt already standing at 264 percent of GDP—the highest in the world, Kishida can’t balance anything unless there is a limit to how much Tokyo can add to its growing national deficit in an effort to match China’s growing military power.

Instead of relying solely on conflict and attack preparations against Beijing, Japan would play its own role as China’s neighbor in de-escalating regional tensions, creating a different atmosphere in the region. Is it possible for Tokyo to conduct tough diplomacy that is both strong and subtle? Many have now questioned the diplomatic capabilities of the Kishida administration. Opposition alliances are strengthening within Japan itself over whether Japan should pursue its own traditional strengths and policies or act as a Western mouthpiece. The US demilitarized Japan so that Japan would not turn and attack, now it is militarizing to make it easier for China to attack.

Japanese national Fumiko Yamada has a passion for “international affairs.” She works as a research associate at the Australian “University of Melbourne.” She received her degree in South Asian Studies from the University of Toronto in Canada.

 

Japan Sells Lethal Weapons Responding to US Demand, Using Ukraine as Excuse

by Reiho Takeuchi Posted onMay 09, 2024

Some media reported Japan’s recent policy change to sell weapons to the US as a break from its pacifist principle. However, Washington and Tokyo have been watering it down for a long time.

Co-development of Next-Generation Aircraft

On December 9, 2022, the leaders of the UK, Italy, and Japan issued a Joint Leader’s Statement regarding cooperation in the joint development of next-generation fighter aircraft, and the three countries signed on December 14, 2023.

Accordingly, on March 26, 2024, the Japanese government amended the Implementation Guidelines for the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology, avoiding discussion in the Diet. The amendment enables Japan to export the finished aircraft to other countries.

The arms exports are limited to the countries that concluded a promise with Japan to use the weapons Japan exports in a manner that meets the Charter of the United Nations’ purpose and principle. According to the Japanese Defense Ministry, as of March 26,  the countries that fulfill this term are the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Australia, India, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and UAE.

Tokyo stated that Japan needs the amendment because if Japan can not export the co-developed jets to other countries directly, it can not contribute to reducing the cost of development and production. To achieve a fighter jet that meets Japan’s necessary performance, Japan has to obtain the ability to negotiate in joint development.

Article 3 of Japan’s Three Principles requires that the countries to which Japan exports weapons and technology obtain prior consent from Japan before transferring weapons and technology to third parties. In December 2022, the Japanese government specified the procedure in the Guidelines to conduct co-developed weapons transfers to third parties smoothly.

On April 25, 2024, the Japanese Diet started discussing the idea of a treaty to establish an international organization responsible for aircraft co-development.

Three Principles on Arms Exports and Their Related Policy Guidelines

Before the Japanese government adopted the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology in 2014, Japan had long adopted the Three Principles on Arms Exports and Their Related Policy Guidelines. The old Three Principles, not legislation, embodied Japan’s pacifist policy.

On April 21, 1967, at Diet, Prime Minister Eisaku Sato explained the Ministry of International Trade and Industry’s (present Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) criterion that Japan didn’t permit the export of weapons to the three areas: communist countries, countries where the United Nations resolution banned weapon exports, and countries being at war or possibly being at war. This statement was the so-called Three Principles on Arms Export, not a new policy.

The word weapon was defined as military uses and for combat directly.

On February 27, 1976, Prime Minister Takeo Miki submitted the Governmental Unified Opinion on Arms Export, which Miki read at the Diet. This paper was not a new statement either, but it showed a policy formed by the Japanese government.

Since Sato explained at Diet, Tokyo had stated that weapons export to areas the Three Principles didn’t ban were permitted but showed a deliberate attitude. The Governmental Unified Opinion read the exports were refrained.

After that, the government explained that refraining meant Japan couldn’t export weapons as a rule. The Three Principles still showed Japan’s pacifist policy.

Exceptions

There are roughly two exceptions to the Three Principles: weapons exports to the US and particular cases. These exceptions watered down the Principles. The US has been clearly a party to conflicts, but the Japanese government regards the US as an exception.

In 1983, the Yasuhiro Nakasone administration enabled the provision of weapons technology to the US. In 2004, the Junichiro Koizumi administration decided to launch the joint development and production of a Ballistic Missile Defense System and permitted related exports to the US. In these cases, logically, even if Japan judges the US as a country at war, Japan can offer weapons and technologies.

On the other hand, since 1991, Tokyo has permitted the export of weapons in particular cases. Almost every time, the Japanese government stated that it maintained the basic idea of the Three Principles. These specific cases are taking out necessary weapons for the Japanese Self-Defense Forces’ overseas operations, mutual offers with allies or friendly countries, support to removing landmines, implementation of disposal of abolished chemical weapons, support for measures against terror and pirates, and supplying ammunition to the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, etc.

In 2011, the Yoshihiko Noda administration further deregulated the Three Principals. Therefore, Japan can make a comprehensive exception concerning peace contribution, international cooperation, and joint development and production of weapons for Japan’s security.

In 2014, the Shinzo Abe administration abolished the Three Principles on Arms Exports and established the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology, which are still in force.

In the new Three Principles, The government “reexamined its past policy on the overseas transfer of defense equipment and technology, and, while giving due consideration to the roles played by the past policy,  comprehensively consolidated it to adapt to the new security environment, reflecting the past exemption measures made to date, and set out clear principles as Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology,” and declared to carry forward with the transfer of defense equipment and technology in the joint public and private efforts.

Japan Helps Destroying Ukraine

On March 8, 2022, the Japanese government decided to provide Ukraine with non-lethal supplies to support the invaded country, such as bulletproof jackets, helmets, clothes for cold weather, cameras, tents, sanitary goods, emergency foods, and generators. However, the Three Principles didn’t specify whether Japan could transfer bulletproof jackets to Ukraine, so Tokyo revised the Implementation Guidelines the same day. Also, Japan provided Ukraine with 101 Self-Defense Force vehicles from May 2023 to March 2024.

The old Three Principles didn’t strictly specify the countries at war or possibly at war. The new Three Principles defines parties to the dispute as countries where the UN Security Council takes measures to sustain or recover international peace and security after a military attack occurs. So, the rule doesn’t apply to Ukraine. Under this criterion, Japan can transfer weapons even to Israel.

On December 22, 2023, the Japanese government amended the new Three Principles and its Guidelines. The amendment enables Tokyo to export finished lethal weapons manufactured by Japan to the patent country. On the same day, Japan decided to export the Patriot missile to the US because the US demanded Japan make up the US stock shortage caused by the Russia-Ukraine war. This export was the first finished lethal weapon transfer since Tokyo established the new Three Principles, and Japan helped the US prolong the devastating war.

Japan’s Public Opinion

Japan can’t refuse the US’s request. For instance, in 2014, there was a symbolic happening.

On July 17, 2014, the Japanese government officially decided to export the seeker gyro part of the Patriot PAC-2. The Japanese defense company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries manufactured the parts for the Japanese Self-Defense Force, receiving a license from Raytheon. Though the US planned PAC-2 exports to other countries, Raytheon had already ended the gyros production. So, the US demanded Japan supply the part. However, before Tokyo decided, the US signed an agreement with Qatar on July 14 to sell weapons, including the Patriots. The Japanese government’s discussion and decision were only a formality.

The US seems to have influenced the next-generation jet project. Washington and Tokyo agreed to co-develop autonomous systems capabilities to support the aircraft’s combat. Thus, the US backs to profit from the joint development of the UK, Italy, and Japan.

Japan’s public has long opposed weapons exports. Though the Japan Business Federation has requested that the government strengthen the defense industry and weapons transfer, and even if the US demands it, Tokyo cannot change its principles or guidelines rapidly. Japanese defense companies, which also make civilian goods, are reluctant to be merchants of death. Since Tokyo adopted the new Three Principles in 2014, Japan has exported only air defense radars to the Philippines as finished weapons.

Some Japanese media and experts are using the Russian invasion of Ukraine and China’s threats to promote weapons exports and appeal to public opinion.

According to a poll that the Kyodo News conducted in May 2023, 20% of Japanese people said that Japan should lift the ban on exporting lethal weapons, 54% said that Japan should limit its weapons exports to non-lethal weapons, and 23% said that Japan should ban weapons exports completely. 77% of Japanese opposed lethal weapons exports.

Also, according to a poll on exporting joint-developed defense equipment to other countries that the Japan Broadcasting Corporation conducted in March 2024, only 4% of Japanese people said Japan should permit it, 54% said Japan should limit the countries, and 32% said Japan should not permit it.

However, considering what has happened until now, Japan will probably move forward with weapons transfers slowly, repeating government changes.

Reiho Takeuchi is a Japanese journalist whose work focuses on international politics. He has written a series of articles titled US Military and Modern Colonialism on substack.

The US Will Not Defend Japan, But Tokyo Doesn’t Tell the Truth to the Public

by Reiho Takeuchi Posted onMay 16, 2024

Washington and Tokyo strongly opposed China’s attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by force or coercion in the East China Sea. Still, the U.S. doesn’t promise anything special about defending Japan.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida held a Summit Meeting with U.S. President Joseph Biden during his official visit to Washington D.C., On April 10, they issued a joint statement as the outcome of the meeting.

In the statement, Biden mentioned the U.S.’s unwavering commitment to Japan’s defense under Article V of the US-Japan Security Treaty, using its full range of capabilities, including nuclear. He also affirmed that Article V applies to the Senkaku Islands.

Article V of the Security Treaty reads, “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.”

Senkaku, also known as the Diaoyu in China and the Diaoyutai in Taiwan, is a small group of Japanese-administered, uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. China and Taiwan claim sovereignty over the islands, but Japan rejects the existence of a territorial dispute.

The U.S. government acknowledges the administration of Japan over Senkakus but has taken no position on who has sovereignty over the islands. At least, that has been U.S. policy since 1972, when the Nixon Administration stated that, according to a document titled The Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Dispute: U.S. Treaty Obligations, published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and updated in 2021.

The tensions between China and Japan over the Senkakus flared up in 2012 because Japan’s central government purchased three of the islands from their private owner to preempt the then-governor of Tokyo prefecture, Shintaro Ishihara, to buy the islands and carry out various activities on them. China and Taiwan protested the move, and China began to increase maritime patrols around the Senkakus. Now, it has been a near-daily presence.

After that, to expand rhetorical support for Japan, the U.S. Congress inserted a resolution in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act stating that “the unilateral action of a third party will not affect the United States’ acknowledgment of the administration of Japan over the Senkaku Islands.” In April 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama publicly stated that Article V of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty covered the islands. U.S. President Donald Trump, in 2017,  and Joe Biden, in 2021,  reiterated the Obama-era language. But, the CRS document reads, “The statements by the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations have not changed the U.S. government’s position of neutrality.”

On February 23, 2021, then-Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said the U.S. supported Japanese sovereignty over Senkakus. However, three days later, he corrected his remark, stating that the U.S. position hadn’t changed.

To begin with, in 2005, the U.S. and Japan announced a document titled U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future, which declares that “Japan will defend itself and respond to situations in areas surrounding Japan, including addressing new threats and diverse contingencies such as ballistic missile attacks, attacks by guerilla and special forces, and invasion of remote islands.”

Therefore, the “U.S.’s unwavering commitment to Japan’s defense under Article V of the Security Treaty” means that if an armed attack occurs in Japanese territory, including the Senkakus, Article V will apply, and the U.S. Congress will discuss it. Then, because the U.S. has taken a neutral attitude toward the sovereignty of the Senkakus and Japan declared to defend itself from an invasion of remote islands, the U.S. Congress (or President) would judge that Japan should fight. If the U.S. military action is in the national interest, the U.S. will take it.

Though the U.S. doesn’t promise anything special, Tokyo hasn’t told the truth to the public.

The Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry misleadingly explains that the US-Japan Security Treaty requires the U.S. to defend Japan under an armed attack. The Defense Ministry uses ambiguous expressions.

Also, in June 2022, Japanese Representative Nobuhiko Isaka asked the Prime Minister four questions about Tokyo’s understanding: 1. If Japanese territory is attacked, will the U.S. military automatically defend Japan? 2. Will the U.S. military defend Japan after Congress approves it? 3. If the U.S. doesn’t dispatch its military and only provides the Japanese Self-Defense Force with weapons and ammunition, does the U.S. observe Article V of the Security Treaty? 4. What is the U.S.’s obligation?

However, Kishida, the Japanese Prime Minister, avoided answering. He only said that he believed the U.S. would fulfill its obligation Article V prescribes.

Tokyo doesn’t mention the possibility that the U.S. will not defend Japan. Otherwise, there’s no sufficient reason why Japan has to accept a significant number of U.S. military bases and personnel.

Article VI of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty describes the purpose of the U.S. military presence in Japan for “contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air, and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan.”

The U.S. military in Japan perhaps works as a deterrent. Still, it wants to use its influence in the Far East, which Tokyo interprets as being in and north of the Philippines, Japan, and its surrounding area.

As the Japanese government knows the truth, its National Defense Strategy, which the Cabinet decided on December 16, 2022, set an objective that “should deterrence fail and an invasion of Japan occur, to rapidly respond to the invasion in a tailored and seamless manner; to take primary responsibility to deal with the aggression; and, while receiving support from the ally and others, to disrupt and defeat the invasion.”

Japan has been consistently subordinate to the U.S., so Tokyo doesn’t show an attitude toward detente with China, even if it risks heading toward war.

Reiho Takeuchi is a Japanese journalist whose work focuses on international politics. He has written a series of articles titled U.S. Military and Modern Colonialism on substack.

Japan-Russia tensions flare over Ukraine war amid decades-long land disputes

May 08, 2024 
By Chermaine Lee

In this undated photo, a turret from an old tank set in the ground as a part of war fortifications in front of a lighthouse near Yuzhno-Kurilsk on Kunashiri Island, one of the Kuril Chain, known as the Northern Territories in Japan.

SAPPORO, JAPAN —

Friction between Japan and Russia will likely escalate amidst the burgeoning Ukraine war, with the decades-long land conflicts showing no sign of thawing.

The Kremlin recently banned non-Russian vessels from waters near the Kuril Islands – known in Japan as the Northern Territories – currently occupied by Russia but claimed by Japan.

Tokyo saw the move as part of a series of Moscow threats after the recent security alliance between the United States and Japan.

There will be further retaliation from Moscow against Japan, according to James DJ Brown, professor of political science at Japan’s Temple University.

“The Putin regime feels an obligation to retaliate against what it regards as unfriendly actions by Japan,” Brown told VOA News. “Every time Tokyo does something more to assist Ukraine or to strengthen military ties with the United States, Moscow takes some measures to punish Japan.”

He said that as Japan is likely to introduce further sanctions to support Kyiv, Moscow’s retaliation is “all but guaranteed.”

The retaliatory measures aren’t just targeting Tokyo. A Russian man residing in the Kuril Islands was warned in March by a Russian court over his remarks to Japanese media that the territory had belonged to Japan in the past.

Earlier this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he would visit the Kuril Islands, putting a damper on hopes for negotiations over sovereignty that both countries have attempted for decades.

Kuril Islands

Land disputes run deep

Russia and Japan’s competing claims over the four islands off the northeast coast of Hokkaido – Japan's second-largest island – date back to at least the 19th century. Near the end of WWII, the then Soviet Union started fully occupying the Kuril Islands.

Japan claimed that the Soviet Union incorporated them “without any legal grounds” and refused to sign a peace treaty. Tokyo said about 17,000 Japanese residents were deported from the islands. The Russian public, Brown said, view the Kuril Islands as reward for the sacrifices of the Soviet people during the war.

The two countries have held talks off and on for decades to reach an agreement but to no avail.

The conflict eased in 2016, when the two countries agreed on joint economic activities including tourism projects on the islands, as well as visa-free visits for Japanese citizens.

Two years later, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe proposed a split of the four islands, returning two islands to Japan, but Putin rejected it. Akihiro Iwashita, professor of the Slavic-Eurasian Research Center at Japan’s Hokkaido University, called this Putin’s “failed diplomacy” toward Japan that eventually led to Tokyo taking a more hardline approach against Moscow.

“If Putin had shown goodwill to Japan, negotiating with Shinzo Abe for the peace treaty, Japan would not have taken a critical position over the Ukraine war,” Iwashita told VOA News. “Remember Japan’s hesitation to sanction Russia after its 2014 aggression against Ukraine? Japan now does not need to restrain its policy towards Russia.”

Tensions over the Ukraine war

Soon after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow put all peace treaty talks with Japan on hold and suspended the previously agreed economic activities and visa-free visits to the islands for Japanese citizens. This followed Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s siding with Ukraine in the war, with Kishida calling the suspension “extremely unjust.”

Japan has been providing assistance to Ukraine against Russia’s invasion, including supplying Patriot air defense systems last year. Kishida was the first Japanese leader to visit an active war zone, to show solidarity with Ukraine and the U.S.

Moscow warned of “grave consequences” for its ties with Tokyo. That did not stop Japan from pledging $4.5 billion in aid to war-torn Ukraine last December, including $1 billion for humanitarian purposes.

Japan’s aid to Ukraine has affected residents of Hokkaido. A survey conducted by Hokkaido authorities and the Hokkaido Shimbun last year showed that over half of the respondents near the Russia-Japan border in the north felt a negative effect of the Ukraine war on local life, including reduction in fishing activities and trade, and human contacts.

In October last year, Russia banned all seafood imports from Japan, citing Tokyo’s release of wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

“Moscow used the pretense of the threat of radiation from treatment water from the Fukushima plant. In reality, it was an attempt by Moscow to punish Japan for its support for Ukraine,” Brown said.

In the survey, many also said they cannot foresee a solution for the northern territories, but a majority said they support Tokyo’s policy against Russia.

Both experts said Russia does not currently pose a military threat to Japan. Brown said, “the Russian military is present on the disputed islands, but their role is to defend the Sea of Okhotsk, which is important as a bastion for Russian nuclear submarines. It does not have the capabilities on the islands to launch an amphibious assault on Hokkaido.”

Peace treaty negotiations are expected to continue to be frozen for the foreseeable future, despite Kishida’s calls for their resumption in February this year.

“Kishida is displaying diplomatic goodwill towards Russia, but with no expectations of it being reciprocated…There is little room to fill the interest gap between the two,” said Iwashita.

He added that Russia’s pressure on Japan “will not lead to any results.”

 

The US and Japanese Forces Are Integrated and Prepare a War

by Reiho Takeuchi Posted onAugust 16, 2024

The Japanese government denies some fears that its forces will be subordinate to U.S. forces. However, the U.S. and Japanese forces are being integrated, and there is a secret agreement that a single commander is indispensable in an emergency and that the U.S. should appoint the person.

Japan will create the Joint Operations Command (JJOC) of Self-Defense Forces by the end of March 2025. Currently, the Joint Staff Office is responsible for military advising and assisting the Prime Minister and Defense Minister and for commanding the military operations of the Ground, Maritime, and Air Self-Defense Forces. However, the new joint headquarters will accept commanding the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, and this change will relieve the Joint Staff Office’s burden and enable it to concentrate on advising.

In April 2024, the U.S. and Japan issued a Joint Leaders’ Statement: Global Partners for the Future. In the statement, the U.S. welcomed “plans to stand up the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) Joint Operations Command to enhance command and control of the JSDF.” They announced their intention to bilaterally upgrade their respective command and control frameworks to enable seamless integration of operations and capabilities and allow for greater interoperability and planning between U.S. and Japanese forces in peacetime and during contingencies.”

In June 2024, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said appointing a four-star general to head of U.S. Forces Japan was still considered. Currently, the U.S. Forces Japan’s head is a three-star general, and the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, based in Hawaii, has command authority over U.S. Forces in Japan, which head is a four-star general. However, there is a distance and a time difference between Hawaii and Japan. In order to cooperate smoothly with Japan in operational planning and training to respond to contingencies, the authority of the U.S. Forces Japan headquarters should be strengthened.

On July 28, 2024, the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee (U.S.-Japan “2+2”), which both countries’ Foreign Affairs Ministers and Defense Ministers attended, released a joint statement. In the statement, the U.S. announces that it “intends to reconstitute U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) as a joint force headquarters (JFHQ) reporting to the Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM). This reconstituted USFJ is intended to serve as an important JJOC counterpart” to facilitate deeper interoperability and cooperation on joint bilateral operations in peacetime and during contingencies.

The Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) Joint Operations Command will be included in the Alliance Coordination Mechanism (ACM).

The Alliance Coordination Mechanism (ACM) was established in November 2015 by the U.S. and Japanese governments for bilateral Defense Cooperation. The ACM coordinates policy and operational aspects of activities conducted by the U.S. Forces and JSDF in all phases, from peacetime to contingencies. This Mechanism also contributes to timely information sharing and the development and maintenance of common situational awareness.

Click for larger image

On the same day, Washington and Tokyo also established the Bilateral Planning Mechanism (BPM), which ensures Ministerial-level directions and supervision and the involvement of relevant government ministries and agencies. It also coordinates various forms of U.S.-Japan cooperation conducive to the development of bilateral plans. The two governments conduct bilateral planning through the BPM.

Click for larger image

Both Mechanisms are based on the Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation, published in 1978 and revised twice in 1997 and 2015. The Guidelines are documents agreed upon on what defense cooperation should be concretely based on the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, and the alliance was advanced beyond offering bases. Though the guidelines read that it does not obligate either government to take legislative, budgetary, or administrative measures, Tokyo has enacted laws and spent money to fulfill them.

The 1978 Guidelines were laid down on the assumption that the Soviet Union’s invasion of Hokkaido, Japan. They stated that the U.S. and Japanese forces endeavor to achieve a posture for cooperation, conduct studies on joint defense planning, and undertake necessary joint exercises and training in order to perform coordinated operations jointly.

The 1997 Guidelines aimed at creating “a solid basis for more effective and credible U.S.-Japan cooperation under normal circumstances, in case of an armed attack against Japan, and in situations in areas surrounding Japan.” The Guidelines declared to establish the bilateral coordination mechanism, which was operated only during contingencies, and both countries should cooperate in situations surrounding Japan that would have an essential influence on Japan’s peace and security. “Areas surrounding Japan” was not geographic but situational. This change enabled Japan to conduct logistics support activities for U.S. Forces that are conducting operations to achieve the objectives of the Security Treaty even if there is no attack on Japan.

The U.S. and Japan revised the Guidelines in 2015, which are still effective. The 2015 Guidelines extended both countries’ cooperation sphere to the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

The Guidelines state the establishment of the abovementioned Alliance Coordination Mechanism (ACM) and reflect the 2014 Japanese Cabinet approval for exercising the right of collective defense. Japanese “Self-Defense Forces will conduct appropriate operations involving the use of force to respond to situations where an armed attack against a foreign country that is in a close relationship with Japan occurs and as a result, threatens Japan’s survival and poses a clear danger to overturn fundamentally its people’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, to ensure Japan’s survival, and to protect its people.” The Guidelines also declare that “Japan and the United States will cooperate as appropriate with other countries taking action in response to the armed attack.”

Article 9 of the Japanese constitution prohibits maintaining military force and states renunciation of war. So, the use of force even for self-defense and the existence of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. Forces in Japan are unconstitutional. However, the Japanese government has interpreted the text broadly and admitted the minimum use of force for self-defense. Now, Tokyo includes exercising the right of collective defense in the minimum use of force for self-defense and makes noncommittal explanations to leave room for further broad interpretation.

On July 29, 2024, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Toshimasa Hayashi denied fear that Japanese forces would be subordinate to the U.S. forces. He stated, “All Japanese Self-Defense Forces operations are conducted based on this country’s judgment. There is no change in policy that each force operates in accordance with its own chain of command.”

However, there was a secret agreement. On July 23, 1952, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Robert Murphy, U.S. Far East Commander in Chief Mark Clark, and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida agreed that a single commander was indispensable in an emergency and that the U.S. should appoint the person. Yoshida asked that this agreement be kept secret because it would significantly impact the Japanese public.

Japan intends to play a significant role in a war as the world’s biggest host nation of the U.S. military. The U.S. has been completing its long ambition to fully use Japan in order to wage war and dominate the world.

Reiho Takeuchi is a Japanese journalist whose work focuses on the geopolitical issues in the Asia-Pacific. He writes at https://reihotakeuchi.substack.com/.   E-mail: reihotakeuchi@gmail.com.

Japan border policy keeps thousands of foreigners in limbo

By MARI YAMAGUCHI

1 of 6

FILE - Passengers walk through the ticketing counter floor for international flights at the Narita International Airport in Narita, east of Tokyo, on Dec. 2, 2021. Hundreds of thousands of foreigners have been denied entry to study, work or visit families in Japan, which has kept its doors closed to most overseas visitors during the pandemic. 

(AP Photo/Hiro Komae, File)


TOKYO (AP) — More than a year ago Sebastian Bressa finished his paperwork to become a language teacher in Tokyo and made plans to quit his job in Sydney. His life has been in limbo ever since.

Japan has kept its door closed to most foreigners during the pandemic, and the 26-year-old Australian is one of hundreds of thousands denied entry to study, work or see their families.

Japan has become one of the world’s most difficult countries to enter and some are comparing it to the locked country, or “sakoku,” policy of xenophobic warlords who ruled Japan in the 17th to 19th centuries. The current border rules allow in only Japanese nationals and permanent foreign residents, and have raised the ire of foreign students and scholars who say the measures are unfair, unscientific and force talented visitors to go to other countries. Critics say the rules are also hurting Japan’s international profile and national interest.




About half a million foreigners — including academics, researchers and others with highly skilled jobs and 150,000 foreign students — have been affected, various statistics show.

CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC


Strained US hospitals seek foreign nurses amid visa windfall

Japan border policy keeps thousands of foreigners in limbo



Officials urge mask-wearing for fans attending Super Bowl

S. Korea expands rapid testing amid record COVID infections

“I think the most difficult thing for me has been this state of living in standby,” Bressa said. He has been unable to commit himself to any long-term plans with his family, friends or even at work. “I can’t plan that far ahead in the future, just not knowing where I end up the next month or two.”

Frustrated students have gathered near Japanese diplomatic compounds around the world to protest.

In Spain’s second-largest city of Barcelona, Laura Vieta stood outside of the Japanese Consulate last week, holding up a sign saying “Stop Japan’s Travel Ban.”

“I gave up my job because I thought I was going to Japan in September,” said Vieta, 25, who wants to study Japanese at a private school for six months or longer. “As you can see, I’m still here.”

Japan plans to keep the border measures in place through the end of February as it copes with a record surge of cases in Tokyo and other major cities. Makoto Shimoaraiso, a Cabinet official working on Japan’s COVID-19 response, said the situation is painful but he asked for patience, noting much higher infection levels overseas.

Japan recently decided to let nearly 400 students enter, but many others including those on foreign government-sponsored scholarships still cannot get in.

A letter to Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, signed by hundreds of academics and Japan experts and submitted last month in a petition drive, called for a relaxation of the border controls to enable educators, students and scholars to pursue their studies and work in Japan. It said many already have given up Japan studies, opting to focus elsewhere, such as South Korea.



“They become the bridges between Japan and other societies. They are future policymakers, business leaders, and teachers. They are the foundation of the U.S.-Japan alliance and other international relationships that support Japan’s core national interests,” the letter said. “The closure is harming Japan’s national interests and international relationships.”

Japan is not the only country imposing strict border controls, but the policy is drawing criticism from within Kishida’s governing party and from the business community.

Taro Kono, an outspoken lawmaker who has studied at Georgetown University and served as foreign and defense minister, urged that the government “reopen the country so that students and others waiting for an entry can have a future outlook and make plans.”

Masakazu Tokura, head of Japan’s powerful business organization Keidanren, recently said the border measures were “unrealistic” and are disrupting business. He called for a quick end to “the locked country situation.”

On Thursday, The American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, the European Business Council in Japan and the International Bankers Association of Japan, in a joint statement, said the entry ban “has imposed real and increasing economic and human costs.” They urged the government to “quickly adopt a science-based entry policy” to accept vaccinated business travelers, students, teachers and separated family members.

However, the border controls have wide public support. Many Japanese tend to think troubles such as the pandemic come from outside their island nation.

Tightening border controls quickly after omicron outbreaks began overseas may have been unavoidable, Nippon University crisis management professor Mitsuru Fukuda said, but the decision to exclude only foreigners appears aimed at rallying public support. With careful preventive measures, Japan could allow foreign visitors just as many other countries are doing, he said.

“Crisis management is for the protection of people’s daily lives and happiness, and people should not have to compromise their freedom and human rights in exchange for their lives,” Fukuda said.

Japan’s coronavirus cases plunged as delta variant infections subsided in the fall, and Kishida has said closing the border to most foreign travelers in late November helped delay the latest surge in infections. He contends that overreacting is better than doing too little, too late.

He was likely taking a lesson from his predecessor, Yoshihide Suga, who stepped aside after only a year in office partly due to his administration’s perceived weak handling of the pandemic.

Japan has just begun giving booster shots, but only 3.5% of the population have received them, and the medical system has been inadequately prepared for the latest huge wave of cases, leaving many sick with COVID-19 to isolate at home.

The border closures did not keep omicron out of U.S. military bases, where Japan has no jurisdiction, including troops that fly directly into the country without observing Japanese quarantine requirements. They were not tested for weeks, until Tokyo asked them to.

Clusters of cases among U.S. troops rapidly spread into neighboring communities including those in Okinawa, home to the majority of the 50,000 American troops in Japan, beginning in late December. Infections at U.S. bases exceeded 6,000 last month.

On Wednesday, Japan reported nearly 95,000 new confirmed cases, a record, and Tokyo’s cases exceeded 20,000 for the first time. Some pandemic restrictions are now in effect in much of Japan, including Tokyo and other big cities like Osaka and Kyoto, for the first time since September.

Phillip Lipscy, a political science professor at Toronto University in Canada who is part of the petition drive, said he was denied entry despite his Japanese roots and his dedication to the study of Japan.

“I grew up in Japan. I am a native speaker of the language, my mother is Japanese and she lives in Tokyo. But under the current policy I cannot enter Japan because of the color of my passport,” Lipscy told an online meeting.

With the outlook uncertain, many people are changing their studies or careers, he said.

“These are fateful decisions with long term consequences,” he said. “The border closure is depriving Japan of a generation of admirer, friends and allies.”

___

Associated Press journalists Chisato Tanaka in Tokyo, Hernán Muñoz in Barcelona, Spain, and Aritz Parra in Madrid contributed to this report.