DOCSLIB.ORG

Part III Measures for the Defense of Japan Fig. III-2-3-1 Major Fora for Japan–U.S. Security Consultations Consultative Foru

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Part III Measures for the Defense of Japan Fig. III-2-3-1 Major Fora for Japan–U.S. Security Consultations Consultative Foru Part III Measures for the Defense of Japan Fig. III-2-3-1 Major Fora for Japan–U.S. Security Consultations Consultative Participants Purpose Legal Basis Forum Japanese Side U.S. Side Security Consultative Minister for Foreign U.S. Secretary of State, Study of matters which would Established on the basis of Committee (SCC) Affairs, Minister of U.S. Secretary of promote understanding letters exchanged between (“2+2” Meeting) Defense Defense1 between the Japanese and the Prime Minister of Japan U.S. Governments and and the U.S. Secretary of contribute to the State on January 19, 1960 in strengthening of cooperative accordance with Article IV of relations in the areas of the Japan–U.S. Security security, which form the Treaty basis of security and are related to security Security Participants are not Participants are not Exchange of view on security Article IV of the Japan–U.S. Subcommittee specified 2 specified 2 issues of mutual concern to Security Treaty and others (SSC) Japan and the United States Subcommittee for Director-General of North Assistant Secretary of Study and consideration of Established on July 8, 1976 Defense Cooperation American Affairs Bureau, State, Assistant consultative measures to as a sub-entry under the (SDC)3 Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Secretary of Defense, Japan and the United States Japan–U.S. Security Director General of Bureau Representative from: including guidelines to ensure Consultative Committee in its of Defense Policy, Director U.S. Embassy in Japan, consistent joint responses 16th meeting General of Bureau of USFJ, Joint Staff, covering the activities of the Reorganized at the on June Operational Policy, PACOM SDF and USFJ in emergencies 28, 1996 Japan–U.S. Ministry of Defense; vice-ministerial consultation Representative from Joint Staff 4 Japan-U.S. Director-General of North Deputy Commander of Consultation concerning Article XXV of the Status of Joint Committee American Affairs Bureau, USFJ, Minister and implementation of the Status Forces Agreement (once every two weeks Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Counselor at the U.S. of Forces Agreement in principle) Director General of Bureau Embassy, and others of Local Cooperation, Ministry of Defense; and others Notes: 1. The U.S. side was headed by the U.S. Ambassador to Japan and the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command before December 26, 1990. 2. Meeting are held from time to time between working-level officials of the two Governments, such as officials corresponding in rank to vice-minister or assistant secretary. 3. A Council of Deputies consisting of Deputy-Director General and Deputy Assistant Secretaries was established when the SDC was recognized on June 28, 1996. 4. Then Director-General of the Bureau of Defense Operations was added on September 23, 1997. — 275 — Fig. III-2-3-2 Japan–U.S. (Minister-Level) Consultations (Since 2006) Type of Consultation/ Date Participants Outline and Results Place January 17, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for • Agreed on the significance and importance of the U.S.–Japan Security 2006 Ministers Meeting/ Defense Nukaga Arrangements and on the acceleration of activities for successful realignment of Washington, D.C. Secretary of Defense U.S. Forces Rumsfeld • Minister of State for Defense Nukaga announced expectations of deliberation on the new U.S.–Japan Alliance • Exchanged opinions on humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq and crimes committed by U.S. military personnel in Japan April 23, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Discussed the cost of relocating the U.S. Marine Corps in Okinawa to Guam 2006 Ministers Meeting/ Nukaga Washington, D.C. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld May 1, Japan–U.S. Security Minister of State for Defense • Confirmed the importance of the U.S.–Japan Alliance and the importance of 2006 Consultative Nukaga international cooperation regarding the fight against terrorism, and reconstruction Committee Foreign Minister Aso and democratization of Iraq (“2+2” Meeting)/ Secretary of Defense • Appreciation expressed by the U.S. for Japan’s support including the dispatch of Washington, D.C. Rumsfeld SDF personnel Secretary of State Rice • Exchanged opinions on Iran’s nuclear issue and the situations in North Korea and China • Final agreement to the realignment of forces, and an announcement of the document titled “United States–Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation” May 3, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Exchanged opinions on the specific measures to implement the finalized 2006 Ministers Meeting/ Nukaga realignment plan Washington, D.C. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld June 4, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Confirmed the significance of the final agreement on the U.S. Forces realignment 2006 Ministers Meeting/ Nukaga Singapore Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld April 30, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Agreed on steadily implementing the respective realignment initiatives, securing 2007 Ministers Meeting/ Kyuma information, enhancing operational cooperation in areas such as information Washington, D.C. Secretary of Defense Gates sharing in BMD, and continuing to deliberate on the roles, missions, and capabilities May 1, Japan–U.S. Security Minister of State for Defense • Confirmed the steady implementation of the U.S. Forces realignment according to 2007 Consultative Kyuma the Roadmap of May 2006 Committee Foreign Minister Aso • Confirmed the enhancement of BMD cooperation and operational cooperation, (“2+2” Meeting)/ Secretary of Defense Gates especially regarding intelligence cooperation Washington, D.C. Secretary of State Rice • Reconfirmed that the commitment of the United States to Japan’s defense through various U.S. military capacities remains unchanged • Disclosed the document titled “Alliance Transformation: Advancing United States– Japan Security and Defense Cooperation” August 8, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Agreed on the early realization of the U.S. Forces Realignment following the 2007 Ministers Meeting/ Koike Roadmap of May 2006 which was created through U.S.–Japan consent Washington, D.C. Secretary of Defense Gates • Exchanged opinions on the enhancement of information security and the fight against terrorism November 8, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Discussed the transformation of the Japan–U.S. Alliance adapting to the future 2007 Ministers Meeting/ Ishiba along with specific topics such as replenishment-related activities in the Indian Ministry of Defense Secretary of Defense Gates Ocean and the U.S. Forces realignment • Concerning the BMD, both countries confirmed their continuous cooperation; the deliberation of their roles, missions, and capabilities; and the importance of enhancing the effectiveness of their bilateral cooperation May 31, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Agreed on continuous closely knit cooperation for the peace and stability of the 2008 Ministers Meeting/ Ishiba international community such as resuming replenishment support in the Indian Singapore Secretary of Defense Gates Ocean • Reconfirmed the steady implementation following the Roadmap of May 2006 and exchanged opinions on future plans May 1, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Confirmed the necessity of continuing consultations at a high level with regard to a 2009 Ministers Meeting/ Hamada number of issues involving the U.S. and Japan, including response to North Korea; Washington, D.C. Secretary of Defense Gates the commitment of the U.S. to the defense of Japan; continuous progress in the realignment of the U.S. Forces; continuing U.S.–Japan dialogue regarding the QDR and the National Defense Program Guidelines • Exchange views on assistance to Afghanistan/Pakistan, counter-piracy measures, F-X, etc. — 276 — Part III Measures for the Defense of Japan Fig. III-2-3-2 Japan–U.S. (Minister-Level) Consultations (Since 2006) Type of Consultation/ Date Participants Outline and Results Place May 30, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Continued discussions between Japan and the U.S. confirmed regarding response 2009 Ministers Meeting/ Hamada to North Korea including diplomatic efforts, strengthened expansion deterrence, Singapore Secretary of Defense Gates and MD • Views exchanged regarding U.S. restructuring and F-X October 21, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Defense Minister Kitazawa stated the desire to move forward with specific items of 2009 Ministers Meeting/ Kitazawa cooperation for the 50th anniversary of the revision of the Japan–U.S. Security Ministry of Defense Secretary of Defense Gates Treaty while confirming the importance of the Japan U.S. Alliance • Views exchanged regarding regional posture, U.S. military restructuring, and HNS • Agreement reached to strengthen cooperation in MD and information security May 25, Japan–U.S. Defense Minister of State for Defense • Regarding the issue of the relocation of Futenma Air Station, agreement reached for 2010 Ministers Meeting/ Kitazawa both countries to continue to work closely together to find a solution Washington, D.C. Secretary of Defense Gates • Regarding the sinking incident of the ROK vessel, Minister of Defense Kitazawa announced that Japan also denounces North Korea and intends to work closely with international society including the U.S. and ROK. • Regarding the recent activities of Chinese vessels, Minister of Defense Kitazawa explained his desire for wide ranging Japan–U.S. cooperation under the given conditions,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Crisis Management
    e Fukushima Nuclearand Crisis Accident Management e Fukushima The Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Crisis Management — Lessons for Japan-U.S. Alliance Cooperation — — Lessons for Japan-U.S. Alliance Cooperation — — Lessons for Japan-U.S. September, 2012 e Sasakawa Peace Foundation Foreword This report is the culmination of a research project titled ”Assessment: Japan-US Response to the Fukushima Crisis,” which the Sasakawa Peace Foundation launched in July 2011. The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant that resulted from the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011, involved the dispersion and spread of radioactive materials, and thus from both the political and economic perspectives, the accident became not only an issue for Japan itself but also an issue requiring international crisis management. Because nuclear plants can become the target of nuclear terrorism, problems related to such facilities are directly connected to security issues. However, the policymaking of the Japanese government and Japan-US coordination in response to the Fukushima crisis was not implemented smoothly. This research project was premised upon the belief that it is extremely important for the future of the Japan-US relationship to draw lessons from the recent crisis and use that to deepen bilateral cooperation. The objective of this project was thus to review and analyze the lessons that can be drawn from US and Japanese responses to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, and on the basis of these assessments, to contribute to enhancing the Japan-US alliance’s nuclear crisis management capabilities, including its ability to respond to nuclear terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan's New Defense Establishment
    JAPAN’S NEW DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENT: INSTITUTIONS, CAPABILITIES, AND IMPLICATIONS Yuki Tatsumi and Andrew L. Oros Editors March 2007 ii | JAPAN’S NEW DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENT Copyright ©2007 The Henry L. Stimson Center ISBN: 0-9770023-5-7 Photos by US Government and Ministry of Defense in Japan. Cover design by Rock Creek Creative. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Henry L. Stimson Center. The Henry L. Stimson Center 1111 19th Street, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202-223-5956 fax: 202-238-9604 www.stimson.org YUKI TATSUMI AND ANDREW L. OROS | iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................... v Preface ............................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements...........................................................................................viii INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: JAPAN’S EVOLVING DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENT .......................... 9 CHAPTER 2: SELF DEFENSE FORCES TODAY— BEYOND AN EXCLUSIVELY DEFENSE –ORIENTED POSTURE? ........................... 23 CHAPTER 3: THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE SELF-DEFENSE FORCES’ OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS ......................................... 47 CHAPTER 4: THE UNITED STATES AND “ALLIANCE” ROLE IN JAPAN’S
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Yet Strained
    INTRODUCTION | i STRATEGIC YET STRAINED US FORCE REALIGNMENT IN JAPAN AND ITS EFFECTS ON OKINAWA Yuki Tatsumi, Editor September 2008 ii | STRATEGIC YET STRAINED Copyright ©2008 The Henry L. Stimson Center ISBN: 0-9770023-8-1 Photos from the US Government Cover design by Rock Creek Creative All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Henry L. Stimson Center. The Henry L. Stimson Center 1111 19th Street, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202-223-5956 fax: 202-238-9604 www.stimson.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms............................................................................................................. v Preface ..............................................................................................................viii Acknowledgements............................................................................................. ix INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 Yuki Tatsumi and Arthur Lord SECTION I: THE CONTEXT CHAPTER 1: THE GLOBAL POSTURE REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES: “REDUCE, MAINTAIN, AND ENHANCE”............................................................... 13 Derek J. Mitchell CHAPTER 2: THE US STRATEGY BEYOND THE GLOBAL POSTURE REVIEW ...... 25 Tsuneo “Nabe” Watanabe CHAPTER 3: THE LEGACY OF PRIME MINISTER KOIZUMI’S JAPANESE FOREIGN POLICY: AN ASSESSMENT ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 460 Reference
    Reference 1 Number of Nuclear Warheads Arsenals and Their Major Means of Delivery by Country United States Russia United Kingdom France China 400 334 60 Minuteman III 400 SS-18 46 DF-5 CSS-4 20 ICBM （ ） SS-19 30 DF-31（CSS-10） 40 (Intercontinental ― ― SS-25 63 Ballistic Missiles) SS-27 78 RS-24 117 Missiles 148 IRBM DF-4（CSS-3） 10 ― ― ― ― MRBM DF-21（CSS-5） 122 DF-26 30 Reference 336 192 48 64 48 SLBM (Submarine Trident D-5 336 SS-N-18 48 Trident D-5 48 M-45 16 JL-2 CSS-NX-14 48 Launched （ ） SS-N-23 96 M-51 48 Ballistic Missiles) SS-N-32 48 Submarines equipped with nuclear ballistic 14 13 4 4 4 missiles 66 76 40 100 Aircraft B-2 20 Tu-95 (Bear) 60 ― Rafale 40 H-6K 100 B-52 46 Tu-160 (Blackjack) 16 Approx. 3,800 Approx. 4,350 (including 215 300 Approx. 280 Number of warheads Approx. 1,830 tactical nuclear warheads) Notes: 1. Data is based on “The Military Balance 2019,” the SIPRI Yearbook 2018, etc. 2. In March 2019, the United States released the following figures based on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia as of March 1, 2019: the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads for the United States was 1,365 and the delivery vehicles involved 656 missiles/aircraft; the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads for Russia was 1,461 and the delivery vehicles involved 524 missiles/aircraft. However, according to the SIPRI database, as of January 2018, the number of deployed U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan's Preventive Strategy: Secure the World—The National Defense Program Guidelines in and After FY 2010
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 1-1-2009 Japan's Preventive Strategy: Secure the World—the National Defense Program Guidelines in and After FY 2010 Tadashi Watanabe University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the International and Intercultural Communication Commons, and the Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons Recommended Citation Watanabe, Tadashi, "Japan's Preventive Strategy: Secure the World—the National Defense Program Guidelines in and After FY 2010" (2009). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 690. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/690 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Japan’s Preventive Strategy: Secure the World – The National Defense Program Guidelines in and after FY 2010 – A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Arts and Humanities University of Denver In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in International Security by Tadashi Watanabe June 2009 Advisors: Paul R. Viotti, Ph.D. Anthony Hayter, Ph.D. Col. Thomas A. Drohan, Ph.D. i ©Copyright by Tadashi Watanabe 2009 All Right Reserved ii Author: Tadashi Watanabe Title: Japan’s Preventive Strategy: Secure the World – The National Defense Program Guidelines in and after FY 2010 – Advisors: Paul R. Viotti, Ph.D. Anthony Hayter, Ph.D. Col. Thomas A.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.-Japan Alliance Conference: Meeting the Challenge Of
    NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE U.S.-Japan Alliance Conference Meeting the Challenge of Amphibious Operations Scott W. Harold, Koichiro Bansho, Jeffrey W. Hornung, Koichi Isobe, Richard L. Simcock II Sponsored by the Government of Japan For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/CF387 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface In order to explore the origins, development, and implications of Japan’s decision to establish an Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade (ARDB) within the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF), the RAND Corporation convened a public conference on March 6, 2018, at its offices in Santa Monica, California, that brought together leading U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Reference 1. Major Nuclear Forces
    Reference Reference 1. Major Nuclear Forces U.S. Russia U.K. France China 550 508 46 Intercontinental Minuteman III: 500 SS-18: 80 DF-5 (CSS-4): 20 ballistic missiles Peacekeeper: 50 SS-19: 126 — — DF-31 (CSS-9): 6 (ICBMs) SS-25: 254 DF-4 (CSS-3): 20 SS-27: 48 35 IRBMs — — — — DF-3 (CSS-2): 2 MRBMs DF-21 (CSS-5): 33 SRBMs — — — — 725 Missiles 432 252 48 64 12 Trident C-4: 120 SS-N-18: 96 Trident D-5: 48 M-45: 64 JL-1 (CSS-N-3): 12 Submarine Trident D-5: 312 SS-N-19: 60 (SSBN [Nuclear- (SSBN [Nuclear- (SSBN [Nuclear- launched (SSBN [Nuclear- SS-N-23: 96 powered submarines powered submarines powered submarines ballistic missiles powered submarines (SSBN [Nuclear- with ballistic missile with ballistic missile with ballistic missile (SLBMs) with ballistic missile powered submarines payloads]: 4) payloads]: 4) payloads]: 1) payloads]: 14) with ballistic missile payloads]: 15) 114 79 Long-distance B-2: 19 Tu-95 (Bear): 64 — — — (strategic) bombers B-52: 94 Tu-160 (Blackjack): 15 Note: Sources: Military Balance 2008, etc. — 391 — Reference 2. Performance of Major Ballistic and Cruise Missiles Maximum Item Country Name Warhead (yield) Guidance System Remarks range MIRV (170 KT, 335-350 KT or Minuteman III 13,000 Inertial Three-stage solid U.S. 300-475 KT × 3) Peacekeeper 9,600 MIRV (300–475 KT × 10) Inertial Three-stage solid MIRV (1.3 MT × 8, 500 -550 KT × 10 or SS-18 10,500-16,000 Inertial Two-stage liquid 500-750KT × 10) or Single (24MT) Russia MIRV (550 KT × 6 or 500-750 ICBM SS-19 9,000-10,000 Inertial Two-stage liquid KT × 6) SS-25 10,500 Single (550 KT) Inertial + Computer control Three-stage solid SS-27 10,500 Single (550 KT) Inertial + GLONASS Three-stage solid Single (4 MT) or DF-5 (CSS-4) 12,000-13,000 Inertial Two-stage liquid MIRV (150-350 KT × 4-6) China Single (1 MT) or DF-31 (CSS-9) 8,000-14,000 Inertial + Stellar reference Three-stage solid MIRV (20–150 KT × 3–5) Trident C-4 7,400 MIRV (100 KT × 8) Inertial + Stellar reference Three-stage solid U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 CBRN Defense: Responding to Growing Threats
    Chapter 8 CBRN Defense: Responding to Growing Threats n the wake of the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in Japan in 1994 and 1995, Iand the 9/11 and anthrax mail attacks in the United States in 2001, threats involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials/ agents have come to be collectively referred to as CBRN threats. This term broadly encompasses not only the traditional concept of NBC attacks—those by nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—but also terrorist attacks, accidents, or natural disasters. Given these intricacies, this chapter proposes using the term “CBRN defense” to collectively refer to the governance of all domestic agencies involved in CBRN incident response, and to the spectrum of activities tied to that response. In some countries and regional organizations, CBRN response is positioned as defense that spans traditional and nontraditional security challenges, and the capacity to deal with CBRN threats is being raised based on coordination among related agencies, nationally and regionally. In more concrete terms, with regard to chemical threats, there has been growing concern in recent years regarding the use of chemical weapons in civil wars and acts of terrorism, or by state authorities against their own citizens in order to preserve public order or political stability. The key issues pertaining to biological threats are suspected development of biological weapons by certain states, global pandemics, and the risk of misuse or abuse of evolving knowledge and technologies in the life sciences. The main areas of concern surrounding radiological and nuclear threats are risks such as theft and detonation of nuclear weapons, use of improvised nuclear devices (INDs), sabotage and destruction of nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities, and terrorist use of radiological dispersion devices (RDDs).
    [Show full text]
  • Japan's National Security Policy Infrastructure
    INTRODUCTION | i JAPAN’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE CAN TOKYO MEET WASHINGTON’S EXPECTATION? Yuki Tatsumi November 2008 ii | JAPAN’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE Copyright ©2008 The Henry L. Stimson Center ISBN: 0-9770023-9-X Photos by the Ministry of Defense in Japan and the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force Cover design by Rock Creek Creative. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Henry L. Stimson Center. The Henry L. Stimson Center 1111 19th Street, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202-223-5956 fax: 202-238-9604 www.stimson.org YUKI TATSUMI | iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms............................................................................................................ iv Preface ................................................................................................................ vi Acknowledgements............................................................................................ vii INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: EVOLUTION OF JAPANESE NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY .............. 11 CHAPTER 2: CIVILIAN INSTITUTIONS ................................................................ 33 CHAPTER 3: UNIFORM INSTITUTIONS................................................................ 65 CHAPTER 4: THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.................................................. 97 CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Self-Defense Forces' Overseas Dispatch Operations in The
    Japan Self-Defense Forces’ Overseas Dispatch Operations in the 1990s: Effective International Actors? Garren Mulloy A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Newcastle University School of Geography, Politics and Sociology 2011 Abstract Garren Mulloy This thesis investigates Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) overseas deployment operations (ODO) of the 1990s to evaluate whether the JSDF were effective international actors. This study fills a significant gap in extant literature concerning operational effectiveness, most studies having concentrated upon constitutionality and legality. This study places operational evaluations within the context of international actors during the vital decade of the 1990s, and within the broader context of Japanese security policies. JSDF performance is studied in four mission variants: UN peacekeeping, allied support, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief operations. A four-stage analytical framework is utilised, evaluating JSDF effectiveness, efficiency, and quality, comparing between missions, mission variants, and with other international actors, thereby cross-referencing evaluations and analyses. The historical development of the JSDF profoundly affected their configuration and ability to conduct operations, not least the mechanisms of civilian control, the constitution, and mediated passage of ODO-related laws. However, these factors have not prevented the development of significant JSDF ODO-capabilities, and their development is traced through the target decade, and linked to the successful completion of post-2001 operations in Iraq and East Timor. It is found that although JSDF ODO in the 1990s provided effective, quality services, operational efficiency was frequently compromised by lack of investment in key capabilities and limited scales of dispatch, despite the relative cost-effectiveness of ODO.
    [Show full text]
  • An Amphibious Capability in Japan's Self-Defense Force
    Naval War College Review Volume 66 Article 8 Number 4 Autumn 2013 An Amphibious Capability in Japan’s Self-Defense Force: Operationalizing Dynamic Defense Justin Goldman Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Goldman, Justin (2013) "An Amphibious Capability in Japan’s Self-Defense Force: Operationalizing Dynamic Defense," Naval War College Review: Vol. 66 : No. 4 , Article 8. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol66/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Goldman: An Amphibious Capability in Japan’s Self-Defense Force: Operation AP N AM HIBIOUS CAPABILITY in JAPAN’S SELF- DEFENSE Force Operationalizing Dynamic Defense Justin Goldman oday the Japanese face an increasingly complex regional-security environ- ment, particularly along the southwestern islands, where incursions by TChinese government vessels are increasingly occurring in what Japan claims as its territorial waters. The security of offshore islands has developed as an area of focus within Japanese defense planning, and Japan has begun building up modest island-defense capabilities.1 Although the nature and range of threats faced have evolved, a core focus of the Japan Self-Defense Force (JSDF) remains the same— the requirement to protect the nation from an amphibious invasion.2 While the JSDF has developed some robust platforms, its current state also reflects the con- straints placed on its development under the 1947 constitution, enacted during the occupation following World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Military Bases and Force Realignments in Japan and Germany
    Article U.S. Military Bases and Force Realignments in Japan and Germany Takafumi Ohtomo University of Tsukuba, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Assistant Professor Japan and Germany, as close allies of the United States, are more likely than non-allies to provide stable U.S. military bases. In Germany, domestic pressure against U.S. bases is rare today. In Japan, however, local protest is strong. Why do these allies react differently to U.S. military presence? How does the international security environment constrain domestic reactions to U.S. presence? The answers to those questions have meaning for the prospects of continued U.S. military presence. Recent literature on U.S. bases has focused on domestic politics of host nations in explaining U.S. military presence. Generally, one would expect that powerful domestic opposition could lead to U.S. troop withdrawal. Nonetheless, the international environment continues to force Japan to rely on the United States. In the end, Japan’s security dependence and America’s desire to remain in Japan play significant roles for continued U.S. presence and alliance. On the other hand, although local Germans and U.S. soldiers maintain good relations and some towns work hard to retain U.S. bases, the United States continues to reduce its military presence there. Taken together, international factors seem to exert more influence on state decisions. In this article, I show the importance of linking base politics, alliance politics, and the concept of alliance dilemma for better understanding base issues. Keywords: U.S, Japan, Germany, overseas military bases 1. Introduction If U.S.
    [Show full text]