# Re Trump's comments about Japan what ARE our military reciprocity agreements with other nations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 6, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997 "2016-08-06T23:27:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/1 "2016-08-06T23:27:14Z")
[Trump is now going on about Japan](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-japan-sony_us_57a638d8e4b03ba680128d39?kjnyuus0pf95uq5mi)having no responsibilities toward us re military protection and the benefits are all one way. 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? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2016, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/2 "2016-08-06T23:37:16Z")
Well, you can read the text of the NATO treaty [here](http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm). 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. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/3 "2016-08-07T00:21:46Z")
[List of all US collective defense agreements from US Department of State.](http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/) It’s got a short paragraph describing the agreement and parties for each. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/4 "2016-08-07T00:41:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/5 "2016-08-07T01:25:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/6 "2016-08-07T02:48:34Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > [List of all US collective defense agreements from US Department of State.](http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/) > > It’s got a short paragraph describing the agreement and parties for each. Does the RIO Treaty really obligate us to defend Cuba if they are attacked? ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/7 "2016-08-07T03:45:03Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > > [@DinoR](#): > > > > [List of all US collective defense agreements from US Department of State.](http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/) > > > > It’s got a short paragraph describing the agreement and parties for each. > > Does the RIO Treaty really obligate us to defend Cuba if they are attacked? And which treaty does that NOTE at the bottom refer to? > [@](#): > > _NOTE: During 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak Republic, and Slovenia were added to the list and Mexico was removed._ Huh? What am I missing? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/8 "2016-08-07T06:52:15Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Does the RIO Treaty really obligate us to defend Cuba if they are attacked? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mops/32/16494_2.png) [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/9 "2016-08-07T18:28:45Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > And which treaty does that NOTE at the bottom refer to? > > Huh? What am I missing? 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) ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/10 "2016-08-07T21:05:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > … (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. … 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. ---
**Author:** ![Annoying\_Buzz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Annoying\_Buzz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annoying_Buzz)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/11 "2016-08-08T10:36:30Z")
Japan currently pays for 75% of the cost of hosting US bases. In comparison, Germany, Italy and South Korea pay 30-40%. > **[News Navigator: How much does Japan pay to host U.S. military forces? - The...](https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160530/p2a/00m/0na/017000c)** > > The Mainichi answers some common questions readers may have about how much Japan is paying for the United States military bases it hosts, and how thos > [@](#): > > Q: How has Japan responded to Trump’s comments? > > A: The reaction has mostly been one of bewilderment, including former Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba (now minister in charge of regional economic revitalization), who said, “I would like Mr. Trump to have another good read of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.” Japanese government figures believe that Japan paying most of the expenses for hosting U.S. bases as well as providing the land they stand on is very much in the U.S. national interest. One source close to the SDF said, “It’s the U.S. that would be in trouble if it pulled out of Japan,” as it would lose influence in Asia. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/12 "2016-08-08T11:47:53Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Does the RIO Treaty really obligate us to defend Cuba if they are attacked? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/13 "2016-08-08T14:42:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. This is a good summation of the matter, but just to add [Article 9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution) of the Japanese Constitution, which the US helped author, forbids Japan from possessing a military: > [@](#): > > The full text of the article in Japanese:[5] > > “ 第九条 　日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、永久にこれを放棄する。 > 二 　前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。国の交戦権は、これを認めない。 > ” > > The official English translation[6] of the article is: > > “ ARTICLE 9. (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. > (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. 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: > [@](#): > > In July 2014, instead of using Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution to amend the Constitution, the Japanese government approved a reinterpretation which gave more powers to the Japan Self-Defense Forces, allowing them to defend other allies in case of war being declared upon them, despite concerns and disapproval from mainland China and South Korea, whereas the United States of America supported the move. This change is considered illegitimate by some Japanese political parties and citizens, since the Prime Minister circumvented Japan’s constitutional amendment procedure.[1][2][3] In September 2015, the Japanese National Diet made the reinterpretation official by enacting a series of laws allowing the Japan Self-Defense Forces to provide material support to allies engaged in combat internationally. The justification is that by not defending/supporting an ally, it would weaken alliances and endanger Japan.[4] What’s truly scary is Trumps interpretation of the US’s military commitments, from the article in the OP: > [@](#): > > Trump told The New York Times in July that he would judge NATO members’ spending on security before helping them face down a potential invasion. The businessman had previously stated he wants Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and NATO countries to “pay up.” 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](http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm), _which was invoke after the attacks on 9/11 and led to NATO deploying troops to Afghanistan_ is rather terrifying: > [@](#): > > Article 5 > > The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. > > Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/14 "2016-08-08T15:09:09Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > 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. 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. > [@Dissonance](#): > > This is a good summation of the matter, but just to add [Article 9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution) 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: I would substitute “essentially” for the bolded word. The linked article is out of date: > [@](#): > > A constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds majority and pass referendum to effect it (as per Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution). Despite numerous attempts by the LDP to change Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, they have never been able to achieve the large majority required, as revision is opposed by a number of Japanese parties including the DPJ and the Japanese Communist Party. This changed as of [July this year](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/11/japan-could-change-pacifist-constitution-after-shinzo-abe-victory): > [@](#): > > Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has called for a debate on rewriting the country’s pacifist constitution after his Liberal Democratic party [LDP] and its allies secured a supermajority in upper house elections on Sunday. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/15 "2016-08-08T15:16:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-trumps-comments-about-japan-what-are-our-military-reciprocity-agreements-with-other-nations/761997/16 "2016-08-08T15:23:00Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > I would substitute “essentially” for the bolded word. I would have too, but there is some debate over the authorship of Article 9 [specifically](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#Historical_background): > [@](#): > > The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara,[8] who “wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever.”[9] Shidehara’s perspective was that retention of arms would be “meaningless” for the Japanese in the post-war era, because any substandard post-war military would no longer gain the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan.[10] Shidehara admitted to his authorship in his memoirs Gaikō Gojū-Nen (Fifty Years Diplomacy), published in 1951, where he described how the idea came to him on a train ride to Tokyo; MacArthur himself confirmed Shidehara’s authorship on several occasions. However, according to some interpretations, he denied having done so,[11] and the inclusion of Article 9 was mainly brought about by the members of the Government Section of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ) (連合国軍最高司令官 Rengō-Koku-Gun-Saikō-Shirei-Kan?), especially Charles Kades, one of Douglas MacArthur’s closest associates. The article was endorsed by the Diet of Japan on November 3, 1946. Kades rejected the proposed language that prohibited Japan’s use of force “for its own security,” believing that self-preservation was the right of every nation.[12]