It goes witout saying that the US-Japan relationship is a vital one. The security treaty has certainly been helpful to Japan. America, however, has chosen to become involved for American interests; it did not want to see the restoration of Japanese military power. However, the so-called American nuclear umbrella as a deterent power for Japan is not as valuable as the Americans have said. I verified this myself twenty years ago and put it into the official record. The American nuclear umbrella is just an illusion as far as the Japanese people are concerned. Also, the so-called "free ride" on the US-Japan Security treaty is no such thing and has no earthly basis. I have stated this repeatedly. The Japanese people have been forced to thank the US for an illusion. Both the US and the USSR had to enter the INF agreement due to the nature of a changing power shift in the world, which on the bottome line, is inevitable in light of the high technology dominance by Japan. This has been clearly seen by individuals such as Dr. Kissinger, who even foresaw the situation today long ago, a position he has stated on a number of occasions. Poor Japanese politicians have never studied these issues systematically and therefore can never provide a rebuttal to American allegations. Americans, for their part, seem to have emotional and intellectual difficulties in admitting to changes and new developments.
A Pentagon task force sent a warning on electronics, with particular emphasis on semiconductors, those who have nothing to worry about but Japan [sic]. America is very seriously concerned about losing power of any kind to Japan. Some Americans have been raising their voices in advocation of an increased Japanese defense capacity. This may be a worthwile suggestion. We should overhaul our current defense system, although I am not advocating an abrupt cutting of ties with the US. We have accepted this absurd defense formal [formula?] consisting of three defense forces. This system must be completely overhauled to suit present realities, including a much greater deterrent capacity, exploiting our high technology to the maximum. We should develop the most persuasive and demonstratable deterrent formula which would, without any doubt, show our adversaries that any attack on Japn will end with unbearable damage to the aggressor from both a stategic and a tactical viewpoint.
Production and maintenance of escort ships which can only exhaust their missiles and ammunition in a few minutes, and then sit and wait for death is absurd. Participation in RIMPAC with such equipment makes no sense. RIMPAC has nothing to do with the concept of active defense.
In a lecture that the Defense College of Japan, the commander of the US 7th Fleet declared it 100% unlikely that Soviet forces could land on Japanese territory. This is [an] honest -- but stupid -- comment. Some time ago we invited a famous Israeli tank division commander named Tam (phonetic rendering) to Japan. He kept annoying the Defense Agency by asking why Japan was building tanks. He was considered to be one of the top tank strategists in the world, and he told us that even on Hokkaido there is no need [for] tanks for defense. He said that Soviet attacks would have to be destroyed at sea. He also expressed doubt in the value of escort ships.
His points are absolutely valid. Tanks and escort ships were built and maintained at the direction of the Americans. America has imposed its defense formula for Japan on Japan, reproducing its own defense formula within Japan. Thus, Japan has ended up with the defense system it has simply because of one-sided, pro-American diplomacy: one in which Japan says only "yes."
I conducted my own cost analysis of Japanese defense systems and discovered that the whole thing would be far less expensive if Japan developed its own system in accordance with its own initiative and planning, in comparison to the expenditures forced on us today by the US. Despite the bowing under to American will by Japan, it is still the target of American politicians such as McClosky who charge that "Japan is protected by American blood shed in the Persian Gulf."
The time has come for Japan to tell the US that we do not need American protection. Japan will protect itself with its own power and wisdom. This will require a strong commitment and will on our part. We can do it as long as there is a national consensus to do so. There may be some political difficulties at this point in forming this consensus. From both a financial and technological point of view, there are no barriers to accomplishing this goal in the near future. We can develop a more effective and efficient defense capability at less than we are paying today.
In reality, the abrupt cancellation of the security treaty is not feasible. But it is a diplomatic option and a powerful card. Outright refusal to consider such an option means giving up a valuable diplomatic card. The fact remains that we do not necessarily need the security treaty and a security system which will meet Japanese [needs] can be built by Japan alone.
Both the right and left on this issue tend to become fanatical on the security treaty debate. It is most regrettable that we do not have a cool and rational forum where the objective profit and loss aspects of the issue can be analyzed. But the time will come when we will have to face this issue and this time is in the near future.
The current state of the Liberal Democratic Party means that it cannot afford a serious deliberation on this issue. Once the opposition parties disassociate themselves from a one-sided pro Russian and Chinese policy and demonstrate their capacity to be able to replace the LDP as alternative political parties fully recognized by the voters, we will be in the position to examine our options with greater flexibility.