On October 1st, Shigeru Ishiba was officially named Japan’s 102nd Prime Minister by the National Diet, following his election as the president of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). His recent proposals regarding amendments to the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement have sparked concerns about their impact on the Japan-U.S. alliance. However, during a press conference last night, Ishiba insisted that these changes would actually enhance the bilateral relationship.
As Ishiba takes office, he confronts a range of challenges, particularly in the realms of foreign policy, security, economic issues, and social welfare—all of which are notoriously complex to address.
In the press conference, Ishiba sought to reassure the public that altering the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement wouldn’t introduce uncertainty into the alliance. He argued that establishing Japanese Self-Defense Force bases in the U.S. could provide significant military advantages and expressed his intention to delve deeper into the diplomatic implications of this plan.
When pressed for details on the proposed amendments, Ishiba highlighted the urgent need for training bases for the Japanese Self-Defense Forces within the U.S. He explained that, given Japan’s restricted land area, the army and air self-defense units face challenges in finding adequate training environments. Setting up training facilities in the U.S. would, in his view, be more efficient from a military standpoint.
According to a report from Asahi Shimbun, a notable feature of Ishiba’s cabinet is its emphasis on security policy. Key positions, including Foreign Minister and Defense Minister, are filled by individuals with strong connections to the defense sector and prior experience in these roles. Ishiba has also appointed former Deputy Defense Minister Akihisa Nagashima as a special advisor, alongside former Defense Policy Committee member Michihiro Tsuchida as a policy secretary.
This consolidation of seasoned politicians and former defense bureaucrats underscores Ishiba’s commitment to pursue long-standing proposals for modifying the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement and potentially establishing an “Asian NATO.”
However, Ishiba’s ideas have encountered skepticism among security experts. Kenji Jobo, a professor at Keio University, noted that unlike Europe, the geographical separation between Asian nations diminishes the interlinkage of security matters. He remarked, “Countries must prioritize their own national defense policies, and I doubt any country will be quick to support the idea of an ‘Asian NATO.'”
As a historical context, Asahi Shimbun highlighted that NATO was established during the Cold War against the backdrop of a perceived threat from the Soviet Union and is currently focused on countering Russia. Within an Asian framework, China would be seen as the potential adversary. Officials from Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs suggest that Southeast Asian nations are apprehensive about participating in an “Asian NATO” for fear of repercussions from China.
Ishiba proposed that the “Asian NATO” could operate as a collective security mechanism that encompasses potential adversaries. In his writings, he has suggested that China could be involved in this concept.
He elaborated that should any member of this hypothetical alliance come under attack, a collective military response would be necessary. This raises significant concerns regarding Japan’s constitutional Article 9, which restricts its military capabilities. Given the uncertainties surrounding ASEAN nations’ participation and the lack of broad domestic support, the notion of an “Asian NATO” appears to face substantial obstacles.
Ishiba envisions that this initiative would build on existing diplomatic and security arrangements, including the Quad—comprising Japan, the U.S., India, and Australia—and the AUKUS trilateral security pact involving Australia, the U.K., and the U.S., as well as Japan’s evolving security partnership with South Korea.
An editorial in the Yomiuri Shimbun underscored that, while Diet members are free to voice their opinions, the Prime Minister’s actions and statements must prioritize the interests of the nation and its citizens. The paper criticized a recent document Ishiba submitted to the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., titled “The Future of Japan’s Foreign Policy,” advocating for more comprehensive considerations in his proposals.
Ishiba articulated his vision of elevating the Japan-U.S. alliance to the same status as the U.S.-U.K. partnership, pushing for amendments to the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty to clarify mutual defense obligations.
He further stated, “Asia lacks a NATO-like collective self-defense system, and the absence of mutual defense obligations could result in war.” He shared concerns, common among Japanese politicians, regarding China’s expanding military presence near Japanese territories.
Nevertheless, the concept of an “Asian NATO” has been dismissed by Washington. Daniel Kritenbrink, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, described the proposal as hasty.
During a press conference on September 27th, Ishiba reiterated his view that the relative decline of U.S. power makes the formation of an “Asian NATO” increasingly urgent.
