politics

Japan won't contribute ships to U.S. Middle East maritime force: report

46 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

Good. Stay out of it.

12 ( +21 / -9 )

Yeah, bury your head below the surf...oh, we still want the oil.

-8 ( +9 / -17 )

I'll be glad when my country stops 'protecting' others. Europeans won't pay tjier NATO fee's, Japan won't protect it's oil... yada yada yada...

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

My takeaway from the article:

Japan will not send warships to join a U.S.-led maritime force to guard oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz

may send warships independently to protect Japanese ships

We are closely monitoring the situation and continue to collect information while working closely with the United States and other countries

Japan's government would likely face opposition at home to any military venture that could put its Self Defense Forces in harms way or threaten the well being of Japanese living in Iran.

Ok lets see if I understood this, if not please anyone feel free to provide me information to the contrary.

Japan will not send troops to join a coalition of maritime forces, but may do so independently to project Japanese ships, but are afraid of opposition at home to any military venture, which takes me to number 1 which maritime is SDF? Yet though, Japan continues to monitor and collect information while working with the coalition but under what authority agency SDF? That only means it is involved and not the latter...confused:

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The US isn't "protecting" others, it's running a protection racket.

It's also provoking most of the problems.

There are no NATO "fees", all contributions remain voluntary.

EU nations already spend significant percentages of the GDPs on defense, they just refuse to go down the idiot route of the US and spend double or quadruple, as they are not in a constant state of war against non-aggressors and making enemies, like the US is.

It's not that other nations aren't spending enough, it's that the US is spending far too much.

The US only invests in security for its own strategic reasons (and to feed the right wing supporting military-industrial complex). It's not charity.

Trump's twittering on these matters is as fallacious and detached from reality as the other 10,000 lies he has told so far.

Keep Japan out of US-Israel's wars. In fact, keep the US out of Israel's wars too.

9 ( +18 / -9 )

Understandable move. There is "immediate" threat right in their front and back yard; SK, Nk, China and Russia.

EU and NATO must step up to the line for now, even with their migrant problems that may explode at any moment. Politics, Race and Religion are the 3 most dangerous fuses that can be lit by economic, safety and security conditions and emotional and irrational actions by either group.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This is America's mess to clean up. Typical Trump move to create a hostile situation that otherwise would not exist, then cry for help to clean it up.

I hope my country follows Japan's example and says no to sending ships. Sadly our leadership has never learned the value of standing up for ourselves and being more self reliant. Morrison will colapse in a heap and send up to 2 warships and a supply ship if pressed.

We should send the operational costs bill to the US for payment for fixing their mess.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

EU nations already spend significant percentages of the GDPs on defense

1-2% compared with America 4-5%.

The British Royal Navy no longer have a big enough fleet to protect its merchant ships or even protect the coast line of the country. The conservatives reduced the fleet from 150 to 75 with too many destroyers and frigates in dock for repairs or design faults. Not even a single fully armed and ready to go carrier until 2020.

We can't send a fleet to the Gulf of Oman because we don't have one.

America imports a very small amount of oil from the Middle East, unlike Japan and the EU countries.

Most of Japan's oil imports are from the Middle East.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Japan won't contribute ships to U.S. Middle East maritime force: report

Yet Japan expects the USA to protect Japan if attacked.

The disturbing thing is that these days one only has to disagree with Japan, (or not give Japan it's own way) and Japan feels that it is being bullied and attacked.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

But Japan may send warships independently to protect Japanese ships in the world's most important oil artery, the newspaper said on Friday

Japan's government would likely face opposition at home to any military venture that could put its Self Defense Forces in harms way or threaten the well being of Japanese living in Iran.

So the Japanese want their oil but don't want to do anything to safe guard it's supply.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Zichi, sadly the Royal Navy has been cut and cut to the bone and beyond by Labour and Conservative governments. Both parties have been blindly short sighted in this regard.

Japan wants and is reliant on oil from the Middle East but will do nothing to protect the seaways that supply is dependant on. Trumps ham fisted approach may not be the best way to deal with the mad mullahs of Tehran but their underlying desire for hegemony and control of the waterway (like China in the South China Sea) has not changed since they took power. The more you pay Danegeld to these bullies the more they will demand. Japan has a stark choice, stand up to them in concert with other liberal democratic countries or get ready to be held to ransom and have the lights go out at the whim of the clerics.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Japan will not send troops to join a coalition of maritime forces, but may do so independently to project Japanese ships, but are afraid of opposition at home to any military venture, which takes me to number 1 which maritime is SDF? Yet though, Japan continues to monitor and collect information while working with the coalition but under what authority agency SDF? That only means it is involved and not the latter...confused:

I guess the concept is that sending warships independently may be called minimal individual self-defence of Japan's own tankers, and sending patrol aircraft (presumably unarmed) can still be analogized to a support role, while a warship is necessarily armed and thus becomes collective self-defence or even just a collective attack effort (depending on what the United States does).

There is also the concern that once assigned to US command they will be given tasks that exceed the mandate intended by the legislature, something which ostensibly happened with for example tankers fueling US ships which went on to do other missions.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan needs to send a strong fleet to the Gulf of Oman to protect its merchant navy not under the control of the U.S. Only protecting its own.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@Andrew Crisp

So the Japanese want their oil but don't want to do anything to safe guard it's supply

Before the latest flare-up in the Gulf Japan had no problems in securing its oil supply without sending its warships to the region. The U.S. started the present crisis along with UK, Saudis and Israel, let this quartet enjoy the results of their efforts, no need for others to get involved.

@englisc aspyrgend

mad mullahs of Tehran but their underlying desire for hegemony

With all its faults Iran is no way worse then Saudi Arabia with its desire for hegemony. It's fun to see how US/UK paint Iran as "Mad mullahs' den" while ignoring the horrendous situation in Saudi Arabia. It's purely amazing how quickly the West did damage control for Saudis in the Hashoggi affair. Western politicians provide exellent service for Saudi money.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Good for Japan. Japan has excellent relations with with Iran, and is not anti-Islam like the USA and the West. Iran will never attack Japanese ships.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Good for Japan. Japan has excellent relations with with Iran, and is not anti-Islam like the USA and the West. Iran will never attack Japanese ships.

Are you sure about that? American bans Japan from importing/buying Iranian oil and Japan obeys the order. Japan sided with America and not Iran so why should Iran do any favours for Japan.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Ganbare Japan!

This is a bad time to not send. Korea is sending its warship, reminding the US of who is America’s true ally and who is not.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Japan needs to amend the constitution. There are no friends around Japan. If the SDF becomes an army, there are more things that can contribute to world peace. You can also protect the strait. However, Korea will oppose it. Because Koreans think that Japan will attack Korea. Actually, Japan is not interested in Korea. More and more people want to leave Korea. Korea is self-conscious. It will be happy for each other to leave.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@zichi

Japan needs to

The last thing Japan needs to do is play submissive doggie to the US in the Middle East.

What Japan needs to do is be neutral and maintain good business relationships.

Ditto, who is going to attack the UK except for those harmed by its submissive doggie relationship with the US? Is Napolean coming back, or the Spanish going to send an Armada. Its military is merely a loss leader showcase for its arms and munitions companies.

The best course of action and self-defence for the UK is the same, to become neutral and maintain good business relationships.

However, it would also improve its standing in the world if it did not supply some of the most repressive regimes in the region with arms. Where the US profits too.

Although the US does not buy much oil from the Middle East any more, it has an interest in controlling oil prices but, fair question, apart from its expensive and deadly obsessions - the containment of Iran and the support of Israel - what is it doing in the Middle East at all (never mind doing it badly)?

What has it been doing in the Middle East, just like what has it been doing in the Far East (and you could add Africa and Meso-America/Caribbean to that list too), except for stomping around like a drunken gangster, encouraging, electing and taking sides with repressive dictators, and causing death and misery for millions since WWII? (actually before, for the whole of the late C19th and C20th).

It is the US that the rest of the world needs to contain. Especially one run by a deluded comic book character obsessed with "wins" (and no superhero either).

Ex_Res

Japan won't contribute ships to U.S. Middle East maritime force: report

Yet Japan expects the USA to protect Japan if attacked.

It's not a question of "expects". It's a question of an international treaty imposed upon it by the USA, with the terms the US set too.

A treaty means a deal, and a role the US imposed it upon it (it pays money instead, billions and billions of dollars that the US military needs to run and provides non-violent logistical support).

Of course, the "Japan does not pull its weight in the US bar fights" meme there is just about making Japan look bad but, seriously, it's not a playground fights or gang loyalties we are talking about here. Grow up a bit.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The last thing Japan needs to do is play submissive doggie to the US in the Middle East.

What Japan needs to do is be neutral and maintain good business relationships.

Japan already agreed not to buy Iranian oil so showing Iran that it takes the side of America and not Iran. Too late to chance course now.

Japan need to send a fleet to protect its merchant ships but not part of am American lead maritime force. Japan can still try to maintain relationship with Iran.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan already agreed not to buy Iranian oil so showing Iran that it takes the side of America and not Iran. Too late to chance course now.

Japan agreed not to buy Iranian oil to save it from US sanctions, not to side with the US. If not for US threats, Japan would still be buying oil from Iran as would Iran's other normal customers.

There is a huge difference between supporting the US position on Iran and being beaten into submission by threats from the US. With friends like that, your better off with no friends at all.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Sorry Donnie, keep braying..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Peter14 

Japan agreed not to buy Iranian oil to save it from US sanctions, not to side with the US. If not for US threats, Japan would still be buying oil from Iran as would Iran's other normal customers.

Japan and the EU should not have caved to Trump's bully threats.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

This is a bad time to not send. Korea is sending its warship, reminding the US of who is America’s true ally and who is not.

Usually agree on most but not this. There's absolutely no need to follow america into another debacle that's going to have far wider repurcussions on the planet. Trumpo made this mess, he and he alone should fix it without dragging anybody else into it.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@JustMyThoughts

I'll be glad when my country stops 'protecting' others.

The rest of the world will be glad when your country stops meddling in other countries affair and stomping around killing civillians.

And starts honoring its treaties.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Cool, then protect your own ships Japan.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Japan sent a fleet to protect the merchant fleet against the Somali pirates. The same fleet could escort the ships in and out of the Gulf of Oman.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Peter14 There is a huge difference between supporting the US position on Iran and being beaten into submission by threats from the US. With friends like that, your better off with no friends at all.

Japan's Constitution clearly states that 'war is abolished forever'. That means that they don't have to follow anybody's ideas - or bullying. il Douche needs to grow up and realize and respect this. The universe doesn't revolve around US policy and Japan has its own agenda, it needs to be respected. This is not an 'Us and Them' scenario. It never was.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Japan is much closer to Iran than to Israel. There are many Iranians living in Japan. sorry 'Murica

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Japan will not join the gang, but she will continue to protect her own ships, both by aircraft surveillance and presumably through diplomacy with Iran. What’s wrong with that?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Besides, any time Japan joins a joint naval exercise or force, Korea inevitably reacts and ostentatiously pulls out.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It's also kinda interesting to see the US that occupied Japan after WWII and deterred them from re-militarizing themselves now pushes Japan to militarize to protect their own country.

I thought people in the US wouldn't be happy about the idea of letting Japan have strong military again. But it seems its not the case.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Japan will not send warships to join a U.S.-led maritime force

but it may send patrol aircraft

But Japan may send warships independently

Here we go again the LDP still bending backwards to comply to the orders coming from Washington trying to deceive the general public in to thinking they are still upholding the Japanese pacifist constitution while in reality they are slowly but surely hollowing it out piece by piece.

anti-Islam like the USA and the West.

The USA and the West are not anti-Islam they are against Muslim extremism which killed thousands of innocent people, please get your facts straight before spouting your usual nonsense.

Japan agreed not to buy Iranian oil to save it from US sanctions, not to side with the US. If not for US threats, Japan would still be buying oil from Iran as would Iran's other normal customers.

Yes at least China had the guts to stand up to them and Japan should have done the same, Iran had done absolutely nothing wrong and they didn't deserve to get those sanctions.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It's also kinda interesting to see the US that occupied Japan after WWII and deterred them from re-militarizing themselves now pushes Japan to militarize to protect their own country.

Ironic isn't it ?

But if the US government really wants Japan to be able to protect itself it is time to get rid of the US military bases in Japan and end this hypocrisy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's also kinda interesting to see the US that occupied Japan after WWII and deterred them from re-militarizing themselves now pushes Japan to militarize to protect their own country.

The people in charge of these decisions now don't read history, or agreements, or even romance novels, so this is not so surprising.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The article should really read, "Japan cannot [legally] contribute ships to U.S. Middle East maritime force: report".

@Mister

The USA and the West are not anti-Islam they are against Muslim extremism which killed thousands of innocent

What about American extremism which has killed millions of innocent since WWII?

Japan has no bad karma with the Islamic block. No reason to start earning some now.

Thankfully, it's not controlled by Israel.

Sadly, engendering a totally dehumanizing and racist Islamophobia is the current state of play in the USA, in EXACTLY the same manner as the dehumanizing and racist campaign against the Japanese prior to the Pacific Asian War.

A psychological operations campaign necessary to get the American people behind the war. This time around, it's the same foundation of White supremacism/American exceptionalism not just in league with but apparently having its strings pulled by the Zionist right wing in both the US and Israel (both Christian and Jewish).

Do you think Japan does not see the similarities? It is an almost template copy step by step ...

US breaks internationally treaty, US seizes and withholds assets, US places stranglehold and encircles, US funds enemies (yesterday it was China, today it is Israel), US drums up public support, US places troops, US engineers conflicts ... US blames target.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

What about American extremism which has killed millions of innocent since WWII?

Those "killings" you refer too we carried out by soldiers, not by ordinary people who were brainwashed in to religious terrorists

Japan has no bad karma with the Islamic block.

Tell me how many innocent lives were taken by Muslim terrorists in Japan compared to the thousands in the US and Europe ?

Sadly, engendering a totally dehumanizing and racist Islamophobia is the current state of play in the USA,

If this were even remotely true the why is the USA the biggest ally of Saudi Arabia?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Those "killings" you refer too we carried out by soldiers, not by ordinary people who were brainwashed in to religious terrorists

Not sure why you've put killings in quotes. Apart from that, the statement entirely depends on which side of the fence you are on.

Tell me how many innocent lives were taken by Muslim terrorists in Japan compared to the thousands in the US and Europe ?

So why start earning bad karma now? Look what happens.

If this were even remotely true the why is the USA the biggest ally of Saudi Arabia?

Odd huh? Siding with the people responsible for the biggest terrorist attack on your home soil?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Japan should have nothing to do with the Great Satan and it's push for conflict with Iran.

Stand with the people of Iran.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Not sure why you've put killings in quotes.

Because American soldiers for the large majority don't willingly kill innocent people, terrorists do.

So why start earning bad karma now? Look what happens.

Unfortunately there are other factors that create bad karma besides entering the Middle East battle zone.

Odd huh? Siding with the people responsible for the biggest terrorist attack on your home soil?

Yes I think so too but I repeat how does this fact make the USA anti-Islam as the poster I replied to claimed ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because American soldiers for the large majority don't willingly kill innocent people, terrorists do.

Putting killings in quotes doesn't change that they are still killings though.

Unfortunately there are other factors that create bad karma besides entering the Middle East battle zone.

Yes but the being involved in the ME in such a way only increases the bad karma. It's fair to say we don't know how much.

Yes I think so too but I repeat how does this fact make the USA anti-Islam as the poster I replied to claimed ?

There's a lot of money involved, I think most people know that, and knowing that means the point you tried to make doesn't fairly negate the point you were responding to.

These things said, I think you and I agree overall but one thing at least is absolute. Iran didn't deserve the sanctions. This is America's doing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

starpunkToday  01:11 am JST

Japan's Constitution clearly states that 'war is abolished forever'. That means that they don't have to follow anybody's ideas - or bullying.

Sure, you can say that. Do you want the Americans to come save you when the Chinese attack? If you want a chance of that happening, you have to pitch in with these parties. If you want to really not have to follow these ideas, we'll have to jack the defense budget to 5% of GDP.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 11:13 am JST

starpunkToday  01:11 am JST

Japan's Constitution clearly states that 'war is abolished forever'. That means that they don't have to follow anybody's ideas - or bullying.

Sure, you can say that. Do you want the Americans to come save you when the Chinese attack? If you want a chance of that happening, you have to pitch in with these parties. If you want to really not have to follow these ideas, we'll have to jack the defense budget to 5% of GDP.

America is the one that put the current restraints on Japan. It can hardly complain about the restraints now that it would rather they didn't exist. Japan can not "pitch in with these parties" until it manages to change article 9. That change does not look certain to happen any time soon. Once again, America made its bed and now must lay in it....alone. And thanks to the American written constitution for Japan, it does and should expect

America to assist it if it is attacked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Peter14Today  05:29 pm JST

That's true, yes, but the Americans never said (well, after the Korean War anyway) the Japanese can't change their constitution. In fact they've been encouraging it. If you want to blame something a better target is their War Guilt Information Program which pushed the attitudes and version of history that led to today. So they do bear significant responsibility but still it has been over 70 years. You'll think the Japanese can let realism pull them out of the rut.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since 1792 there have been 17 changes to the US constitution via amendments. Six have happened since the end of WWII.

The American written Japanese constitution on the other hand has had no amendments since it was adopted after the war. I know in my own country that amendments proposed can be difficult to push through. Japan needs a two thirds majority in the Diet and attaining that would be no mean feat. It could take a hundred years for any amendment and it may not be article 9 that is the first amendment. Only time will tell but while it is easy for others to comment, the sole responsibility remains in the hands of the Japanese themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well done Japan good to see you have some independent thinking on foreign policy not like Australia that continues to follow US into the Middle East.

You can still be allies, but this should not remove your ability to do want you think is best.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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