To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
A member of the Diet is free to say what they like. But a prime minister’s words and actions must be chosen with consideration for the best interests of the nation and its people.
The content of an article that Shigeru Ishiba, the new president of the Liberal Democratic Party, contributed to a U.S. policy research organization under the title “The Future of Japan’s Foreign Policy” was nothing short of thoughtless.
“It is my mission to raise the Japan-U.S. alliance to the level of the U.S.-U.K. alliance,” Ishiba said in the article. He expressed his desire to revise the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and define mutual defense obligations.
The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates that the United States is obligated to defend Japan, and that Japan is required to provide bases for the United States.
The Japan-U.S. alliance is based on this treaty and has helped maintain peace and stability in Japan and other parts of Asia. The United States has also been able to operate in the wider Indo-Pacific region from its bases in Japan. The alliance is vitally important for both Japan and the United States.
Ishiba’s argument could significantly undermine the alliance, which has been operating stably up until now.
As a politician, it is fine to believe that the alliance should be on an equal footing, but it is difficult to understand why the person who will represent the people of Japan put forward a policy that is inconsistent with the position that both countries have respected up to now.
After becoming prime minister on Oct. 1, Ishiba should promptly correct his statements. He should not hesitate to dial back his assertions in order to stabilize the alliance.
The government currently holds the position that it can exercise the right of collective self-defense only when the existence of Japan is threatened.
If Japan were to take on the defense obligations of the United States, as stated in Ishiba’s article, the Constitution would have to be revised to enable the full exercise of the right of collective self-defense.
Ishiba also expressed his intention to revise the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement, which defines the legal treatment of U.S. forces in Japan.
The agreement stipulates that the U.S. side will judge U.S. servicemen who commit crimes in the course of their official duties. Even in the case of crimes committed outside of official duties, there are restrictions on investigations by the Japanese side.
These issues have been pointed out in the past. It is important that the two countries discuss the matter in good faith and seek ways to improve the situation. The Japanese side’s wishes should not be expressed unilaterally, and the alliance should not be disrupted.
In his article, Ishiba called for the creation of an Asian version of NATO and for the joint operation of U.S. nuclear weapons among member countries.
Such an operation is incompatible with Japan maintaining the three nonnuclear principles of “not possessing, not producing, and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons” as a national credo. Careful consideration is required.
