Trump opining aside *what are *our military responsibilities toward other nations in 2016 and theirs toward us? Is there a site anywhere where all this is laid out?
Well, you can read the text of the NATO treaty here. That’s a pretty big one.
There are a lot of other treaties, agreements, and informal doctrines relating to other countries. For example, we have a very strong defense posture regarding Taiwan, but no treaty, because that would imply that Taiwan is a sovereign country, which pisses off China.
With Japan specifically, there is the bilateral Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security which has been in force since January 1960. Article V of this obligates the United States and Japan to “act to meet the common danger” represented by any attack on either country’s forces, within the territories administered by Japan. A clause of this treaty is also the basis (elaborated in other agreements) for the US right to operate permanent military bases in Japanese territory, which we do for our own purposes as well as to support the Article V commitment.
To get to the heart of the matter, after World War II the United States essentially dictated the postwar relationship between Japan and the US. The three key principles of this relationship have been that: (1) Japan would have very limited military capabilities, originally intended to prevent Japan from beginning an aggressive war, but more recently has been seen as stabilizing the security of Northeast Asia (because China and North Korea don’t have to worry too much about Japan); (2) the US would take on the obligation of protecting Japan if it was threatened, especially since Japan’s military would be limited; (3) and to aid #2 and American interests generally, the US gets substantial claims to military bases, and Japan defrays a healthy chunk of the cost of operating the bases.
The idea of Japan rushing to the aid of the US is just somewhat backwards. To be crude about it, let’s say a gang is running a protection racket in a neighborhood, and then the gang leader complains that it’s a one-way relationship because the shopkeepers aren’t obligated to join a rumble if his gang is attacked by rivals in another part of the city. Most people would think the gang running the protection racket is getting exactly what they want out of the relationship, and couldn’t fathom how the deal would be unfair to the gang.
The Rio Treaty obligates all the signatories, including the U.S. to come to the assistance of any state in North or South Americca that’s attacked, upon the request of the country that was attacked.
In 2004 Bulgaria etc. joined NATO and Mexico left the Rio Treaty. Curiously enough Albania and Croatia joining NATO in 2009 has no footnote (but they are listed above as NATO members)
This is the big thing that protects US interests. Since the US has major military bases in Japan and in South Korea, any war with China or North Korea (the two potential problem countries in the region) will be fought on Japanese and Korean soil, not on American soil. Japan is putting itself in the firing line to defend the US, and of course the US has to promise to defend Japan as a result.
Not really. It’s a pretty weak treaty. It says that if any member state is attacked, it will be considered an attack on all the member states.
But the treaty doesn’t obligate other member states to do very much about it. They meet together and only take action if two thirds of the member states agree to do so. And even then, any country which doesn’t want to commit its armed forces has the right to stay out of the war.
This is a good summation of the matter, but just to add Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which the US helped author, forbids Japan from possessing a military:
It has never actually been the case that Japan lacked a military, in the initial post war years a National Police Reserve filled that role, and to get around Article 9 the Japanese military is styled as “Self Defense Forces” and are technically a branch of the Police. Trump is still behind the times though, there was a reinterpretation in 2014:
What’s truly scary is Trumps interpretation of the US’s military commitments, from the article in the OP:
That someone who is the actual candidate for President of the United States of a major party is so entirely unaware of US commitments to NATO under Article 5, which was invoke after the attacks on 9/11 and led to NATO deploying troops to Afghanistan is rather terrifying:
No. This is an overly generous interpretation of the situation. Japan is only obligated to assist the US if there is an attack on the US within Japan controlled territory. Any attack on US forces in Korea would not obligate Japan to assist the US. Under the current status, Japan could not send fighting forces to Korea under such a circumstance unless there was also an attack in Japanese controlled territory.
The intent was never that Japan was putting itself on the firing line simply to help the US. Ravenman’s interpretation is correct.
I would substitute “essentially” for the bolded word.
The treaties all address “any attack” on their territory. Which would have been defined very differently in the mid 20th century, than it would be since 9-11.
Given that all the people who wrote and signed these treaties are now dead, and the definition of “attack” (and other germane language) no longer even faintly resembles what they thought it meant then, I’d personally be inclined to consider them all null and void.