have your say

Japan is a partner nation of NATO, along with South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Do you think this is a good idea?


©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

NATO is an organization of vassal states of the USA and its military adventures.

No, it is not a good idea to join. NATO members get US bases on their land. The US doesn't get Japanese or other nations bases on its territory.

-9 ( +12 / -21 )

‘North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ OR

’North Pacific Treaty Organization’ OR

‘West Pacific Treaty Organization’??

Well, only the first has a mutual defence clause and trigger. And the US has bi-partite treaties with all the other listed nations anyway - for what they are worth.

Post-1945 Japan traditionally prefers softer solutions than regional sabre-rattling. However underlying that, they prefer to be linked to all options, including military links, and keeping good relations with partner nations is even more important than facing off would-be adversaries.

So, in the end, the question just reflects strategic business-as-usual for Japan.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

"Mr KiplingToday 06:41 am JST

NATO is an organization of vassal states of the USA and its military adventures.

No, it is not a good idea to join. NATO members get US bases on their land. The US doesn't get Japanese or other nations bases on its territory."

Succinct and EXACTLY on point.

Just to add that the U.S. appears to be trying to consolidate its Empire by tying its 'assets' closer and closer together in its control so that all can be controlled with as few puppet strings as necessary...

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

Yes, for the shared intelligence alone.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

A multinational framework may be better than a bilateral one namely the current US-Japan pact especially with regard to military procurement. Japan can hardly negotiate the price of US-supplied military equipment.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) we haven't yet seen whether and how NATO really works as a collective security arrangement when one of its members comes under attack. And that's the most important question for Japan.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

US, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand: yes, makes sense.

NATO: Err, not so much...

NATO, as a collective defense, has essentially been established to counter an increasingly threatening Russia, then its Warsaw pact in the European region. The farthest away from Europe NATO ventured is the Middle East following 9/11 while Japan and Asia are around the globe.

The US (as a member of NATO) is the only "planetary power" who can stomach the logistics of going there (or everywhere, for that matters), while the other members of NATO, some arguably regional powers, would just simply go bankrupt if trying to do this on their own. The only solution would be to use US bases or even US logistics.

If an Asian country wants to go "NATO", the closest they will get is:

.sharing intel with NATO, but Japan should already be able to access relevant NATO-intel through the US, so...

.get even closer to the US (the US being a NATO-member) to be able to use their bases, which is what (European) NATO-country would need to do anyway, making this a more a "USTO" than anything...

In Asia, is the NATO-thingy is more show-off than anything else. The meaning of the "partnership" Japan has with NATO is currently being heavily pretty tweaked by Abe (incl. the mad-as-a-hatter far-right press) and co, hinting that Japan could go for NATO's nuclear sharing agreements and other nonsense about going nuclear in one way or another.

For the rest, there's the QUAD, and, I guess, other slightly tweaked small-groups or bilateral agreements including US, SK, OZ, NZ, JP and other Asian nations in one way or another. Organize them in one single coherent organization would make much more sense from a logistics and strategical point of view and make it a Pacific Treaty Organization (PTO) of sorts, who could then, depending on what the Asian-beef is and should it be (for some reason) closer to Europe, work with NATO.

Long story short: it's just about getting the right-wing nutters excited about something with these simpletons happy to oblige.

From a realpolitik point of view, wouldn't expect anything to change any time soon, as occasionally we already have European navy ships sailing through China-contested waters (heavy emphasis on "occasionally"), which is as far as (European) NATO can afford to go...Reversely, one should ask oneself, would it make sense for a NATO-(active) member Japan to patrol the Baltic Sea or some European region? Not likely to happen either, me thinks...

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Yes, what are the minuses, Japan already have USA military bases and allow NATO ship are allowed to refuel and re supply. Plus: Weapons, more weapons like nuclear. Technically Japan are still at war with Russia and if a nuclear weapon is employed on to Russia, it will be a classes as a defending move and that what NATO is about defending from agrasors. Also get back the Northern Territories at the same time.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Yes, for the shared intelligence alone.

Well, if the WMD in Iraq is anything to go by, then I don't want that "intelligence."

Anything America touches dies.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

NATO is an organization of vassal states of the USA and its military adventures.

King: I require 3% of your manor’s receipts for defense of the realm.

Vassel: I’ll send 1%. If you want more just bugger off.

(end of fief)

”… vassal states …”. Come up with something better.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

If you ever played Risk, you know it is impossible to unite let alone hold Asia for very long.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I don't see any recommendation of full membership to NATO for Japan or anyone in the Asian area. We I see it democracies battling non-democracies.

If you think authoritarian governance is a good thing for the citizens of a country, don't do anything. You'll get to discover what that is like quickly enough.

Europe can easily afford more defense spending. They chose not to and to appease Russia. Look at what happened to Ukraine. To be fair, Europe is paying for the Russian war machine buying Russian fuel. I don't know that they have any other real option for the next 20 yrs.

When the USSR fell, didn't the world try to engage with all the former USSR states, opening commerce, spending money, building infrastructure? Hint: yes.

But full democracy has slipped away from Russia. Why is beyond me. A weak military that refused to oust a bad leader, but not take over political control? IDK.

Former Russian spies who wanted to return to the USSR days when they could be thugs without any legal repercussions?

Russian people who didn't see that allowing any single person in top power positions for too long is a terrible idea. They should have blocked Putin's change, but didn't.

Orderly change in power every 4-10 yrs really is a requirement for a working democracy. History has shown that over and over and over again. So much of the world is under the grasp of longer running leadership. That needs to change.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yes, it is a good idea. The world is getting really strange these days, and having partners in defense is important.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Its not.

Japan is neutral country.

Japan have wn JSDF we pay dearly costs from our taxes.

Beside that we still have foreign occupation forces here we pay for their lavish life here as well.

There is no need more for Japan to feel safe.

Japan is not going attack any country in region,no one neigbour in reagion is going attack Japan unless will be provoked.

Japan needs to start to mind own business now,solve ongoing and unfinished territorial disputes with Chimna and ROK,establish normal diplomatic relationship with DPRK and stop meaningless antirussian sanctions which are great threaths for japanese economy and for japan-russian relationship.Than Japan can consider to restart talk with Russia about Kurils islands status and so on.

For all of this Japan needs to act as sovereign country and not as american poodle.Its about time to be adult.And act as dult.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

No. NATO has not been a force for good since the collapse of the USSR. Its a solution looking for a problem

4 ( +6 / -2 )


-4 ( +1 / -5 )


1 ( +3 / -2 )


definitely yes!

Japan is a pacifist country!

it needs all the help it can get!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yes. Any time we can bring a country into the fold, to participate with humanity, the better. Japan wants to work with the world, so the more the world works with Japan, the better for everyone.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Being a "partner" is not the same as a member. And since Japan is not in the North Atlantic better to stay out and take of Japan's own issues like child poverty, womens rights, the murder of immigrants in immigration centers, and ...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites