| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| Japan opposition vows to pull troops from Iraq by December |
| 2005-08-16 |
| TOKYO - Japan’s main opposition party plans to pull the country’s troops from the U.S.-led reconstruction effort in Iraq by December if voted into government in next month’s nationwide elections, a party official said on Tuesday. The campaign pledge is part of a detailed platform the Democratic Party will unveil later in the day as it tries to tap public opposition to the military dispatch and unseat the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in lower house parliamentary polls on Sept. 11. The plan calls for withdrawing Japan’s 500 troops from the southern Iraqi city of Samawah by December, party official Toshiaki Oikawa said, declining to give other details. The troops are part of a total deployment of 1,000 Self-Defense soldiers dispatched to the region to purify water and repair public works as part of the U.S.-led coalition rebuilding Iraq. The Democratic Party is trying to shift the focus of the upcoming elections away from Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s plans to privatize the country’s postal savings system and focus on issues it thinks resonate better with voters, such as Iraq and government spending. Japan should step up economic aid to Iraq in lieu of sending troops, Oikawa said. Koizumi sent the first installment of troops on a noncombat, humanitarian mission in January 2004, the country’s largest and most dangerous military mission since World War II. Koizumi argued that Japan - as an oil-dependent nation - had to bear its share of the burden of rebuilding Iraq and combating terrorism, while supporting its top ally, the United States. But there is strong public opposition to the dispatch from fears that it could draw Tokyo into the turmoil in Iraq. An Associated Press-Kyodo poll in July found that 55 percent of Japanese dislike their government’s handling of Iraq. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #6 As a practical matter, Zhang is correct. Our non-Anglosphere allies are free riders. What we see in Japan is a special case. Their passivity was imposed by us. Changing it will be delicate for both of us. But Dear Leader has made it necessary and so it is starting. So now the Japanese need to start thinking about some things they have been able to ignore heretofor. I also question whether it was and is not a good idea to have them hanging on as free riders. Would we really prefer to have a rearmed Europe? Think of what Chiraq would be doing now if he had effective and effective military with state of the art weapons systems. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-16 17:51 |
| #5 Ima recall there were several NATO AWACS running 24hrs a day over North America couple of years back. A minor point tho. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-16 17:46 |
| #4 LH: we are commited to helping Japan if Japan is attacked. They are committed to helping us if we are attacked. We are NOT committed to helping them if they attempt to preempt an attack on Japan, or if they respond to an attack on Japan with an attempt to reshape the region from which the attack came from, no matter how wise it is to do so. And ditto for Japans obligations to us. and ditto for NATO. This is nonsense on stilts. No one is going to try to invade Uncle Sam. North America is too remote and difficult to resupply for potential invaders to even try. Not to mention we have thousands of nukes. Japan is right next to four potential belligerents. The fact is that the mutuality of both NATO and our treaty with Japan exists only in name. We're on the hook - they're not. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-16 17:36 |
| #3 quibble: we are commited to helping Japan if Japan is attacked. They are committed to helping us if we are attacked. We are NOT committed to helping them if they attempt to preempt an attack on Japan, or if they respond to an attack on Japan with an attempt to reshape the region from which the attack came from, no matter how wise it is to do so. And ditto for Japans obligations to us. and ditto for NATO. None of these alliance apply to a situation like Iraq. The notion that non-support in Iraq means the alliance is worthless is silly. Now any of these alliances may well be worthless, but that must be shown on its own. And its even sillier wrt to Japan than it is WRT france and germany, since Japan HAS sent troops to Iraq, and still has them there. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-08-16 16:00 |
| #2 Article: But there is strong public opposition to the dispatch from fears that it could draw Tokyo into the turmoil in Iraq. This is why I'm growing more and more opposed to the network of entangliing alliances that we have in place. We are committed to defending these people from external threats. How does this make any sense, if they won't offer us even a token bit of assistance over a minor conflict like Iraq? We are spending a lot of money and putting up our young men as potential human sacrifices, not to mention setting up ourselves as targets for their enemies. It makes absolutely no sense. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-16 15:36 |
| #1 The reasonable course of action (it being inscrutable Japan), would be to start airing interviews with Japanese soldiers: touting the great togetherness and unity of Japan, expressing pride at being permitted the honor to serve, and apologizing for not doing more. (I'm sure that the subtleties would be a lot greater, but it would leave Japanese young men on the street itching to sign up.) |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-08-16 00:20 |