Okinawa city rips efforts to alter textbooks

Tuesday, May 15, 2007
NAHA, Okinawa Pref. (Kyodo) The city assembly of Tomigusuku, Okinawa Prefecture, called Monday on the education ministry to retract its instructions to textbook publishers to modify statements that Okinawa residents were forced by the military into committing mass suicide during the Battle of Okinawa.

It is the first time that a municipality in Okinawa has passed a motion opposing the instructions since the results of the textbook screening process were released in late March.

The Tomigusuku Municipal Assembly unanimously approved the statement, addressed to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, education minister Bunmei Ibuki and chiefs of the Upper and Lower houses.

It also demands that the original descriptions be restored in the textbooks.

The statement says the textbook screeners' instructions "deny the historical facts, accumulated through studies into the Battle of Okinawa that are based on the numerous testimonies of those who experienced it."

It also says, "It has been recognized as a publicly known fact that (civilians) at that time were placed under the forcible control of the Japanese military, and the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry acknowledged it."

The instructions "can never be accepted by the people of Okinawa Prefecture who went through a cruel ground battle and were forced to make indescribable sacrifices," the statement said.

The Battle of Okinawa claimed the lives of one-fourth of Okinawa's civilian population. More than 200,000 Japanese and Americans died in the bloody battle in the closing days of World War II.

According to the results of the screening process, one textbook initially stated that "the Japanese army gave hand grenades to residents, making them commit mass suicide and kill each other."

After the screeners took issue with the statement, saying it could result in misunderstanding, the textbook was revised to state, "Mass suicides and killings took place among the residents using hand grenades given to them by the Japanese army."

Other textbooks deleted the words "by the Japanese army."

It was the first time that ministry screeners had asked for such changes.

Okinawa a hazardous occupation

By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com
May 13. 2007

Unease lingers over the continued use and operations of a U.S. base in Okinawa

NAHA, Okinawa » Although Okinawa accounts for only 0.6 percent of Japan's total land area, it nevertheless is the home for nearly 75 percent of U.S. forces stationed in Japan.

For the past half-century, it has been a staging area for wars the United States has fought on the Korean Peninsula, in Vietnam and in Iraq. Marines from Kaneohe Bay routinely train here and Lt. Gen. John Goodman, stationed at Camp Smith in Hawaii, commands the nearly 14,000 Marines stationed in Okinawa.

But the face of Okinawa, which until 1972 was under U.S. control, is changing, triggered in part by the 1995 rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan girl by three U.S. servicemen. That international incident led to the April 1996 promise by then-President Bill Clinton to close Futenma Marine Corps Air Station and replace it with a facility built by the Japanese government. Under a mutual security pact, the U.S. maintains about 50,000 troops in Japan.

The clash between U.S. military and the local Okinawan community is now best illustrated by the ongoing controversy over the continued use and operations of Futenma, home of Marine Aircraft Group 36 under the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force. It hosts nearly six dozen aircraft, mainly helicopters and KC-130 cargo planes.

Photo: Marine Corps heavy-lift helicopters and KC-130 cargo planes line up on the runway at Futenma Marine Corps Air Station on Okinawa.

In the central part of Okinawa's main island, Futenma sits in the heart of Ginowan City, hemmed in by homes, schools, universities and businesses. Since 1972, when the United States returned control of Okinawa to Japan, the city of Ginowan reports that there have been 39 crashes by helicopters stationed there. The latest occurred three years ago when a CH53-D Sea Stallion from Kaneohe Bay went down on Aug. 13, 2004, near Okinawa International University. Helicopter crew members were injured.

Many local residents say they like Americans, but not as occupiers.

"They did many good things," said Kiyoshi Sawada, principal of the Sawada English Academy. "But Okinawan people are peace-seeking and peace-loving people. We did not invite the American people here. They came here during the war against Japan. Okinawa had been an independent country which the Japanese government confiscated before the war. The United States took advantage of that situation after World War II and occupied Okinawa without our consent."

Sawada, who spent several years studying political science at the University of Hawaii, advocates for U.S. bases here to be converted into a U.N. Asian headquarters. "We did not invite military bases. We did not vote for their deployment and stationing here."

Sawada's sentiments are reflected in newspaper polls conducted during last year's gubernatorial elections in which nearly 90 percent of the respondents said they want the United States to reduce the number of bases it occupies on Okinawa.

Reiji Fumoto, who for 10 years has been dealing with the base issue for the governor's office, estimates that about a third of Okinawa's assembly favors the ouster of the U.S. military.

Last September, on the second anniversary of the crash, Ginowan City Mayor Yoichi Iha wrote to Goodman, commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces in the Pacific, expressing "dismay that U.S. forces continue to consider it acceptable to conduct training flights as though nothing had happened."

Iha told the Star-Bulletin that there was "a temporary respite" when the 3rd Expeditionary Forces and its helicopters deployed to Iraq in late 2004. "However, when the Marines and the helicopters returned in April 2005, flights resumed over surrounding communities in Ginowan."

Sitting in his Ginowan office, Iha pointed to the ceiling and added that at times he can see the helicopters flying overhead. Marine helicopter flights continue late at night, after the agreed-upon 10 p.m. curfew, he said.

Goodman, in his Dec. 6 response, said: "Like many airports and military installations in the United States and around the world that were originally built in less populated areas, development and population growth near Futenma Air Station has increased to the point where normal flight operations are challenging."

Saying that the Marine Corps is "extremely sensitive to the concerns of our neighbors in our local community," Goodman added that "our entry and exit routes from the helicopter pattern at Futenma are specifically designed to avoid over-flying the local schools and some cultural areas when possible."

Iha said he finds Goodman's response unacceptable: "If the Marine Corps withdraws, that would drastically reduce the burden on Okinawa."

At Camp Smith, Joe Sampson, head of the policy and international affairs branch for the Marine Corps in the Pacific, said this month that "these flight paths are continually reviewed for noise and safety concerns. However, we must still operate in the field until a replacement facility has been constructed."

Hirokazu Nakaima, a business executive who was elected governor in November, also supports any move to close Futenma. Because Futenma is built in a residential area with so many homes so close to the flights, "once any accident happens it can be rather dangerous," Nakaima said in a Star-Bulletin interview.

Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima, who was elected in November, supports any move to close Futenma. "There are 300 to 250 flights in a day," Iha said through a translator, "once every two minutes." He also alleged that the Marine Corps is violating its own safety standards, which in the United States call for the establishment of a 2-mile buffer zone around its flight line.

Having just taken office, Nakaima said he cannot say whether the realignment of U.S. forces on Okinawa has been taking too long. But many others on Okinawa, including Sawada, note that for eight years after Clinton's 1996 pledge, nothing has been done.

Sawada and others, including University of Ryukyus professor Tsuneo Oshiro, said that dependence of the Okinawan economy on U.S. bases has been dwindling. "At the time of Okinawa's revision in 1972," Oshiro said, "15 percent of Okinawa's gross national product came from U.S. base-related businesses. That has been reduced to 5.4 percent in 2004."

STAR-BULLETIN :: AT A GLANCE

Ryukyu Kingdom: Independent kingdom until 1879, when it was taken over by Japan. One of 47 prefectures (states) of Japan.

Where: 160 islands, located 940 miles southwest of Tokyo

Total land area: 2,271 square miles

Population: 1.3 million

World War II: Turned into a fortress by the Japanese. Scene of the bloodiest battle on Japanese soil in 1945. More than 200,000 people died here -- 12,520 Americans, 94,136 Japanese soldiers, and 94,000 Okinawan civilians, about one-quarter of the prewar population.

U.S. influence: Control reverted back to Japan in 1972 after 27 years of American control. Today, Okinawa still hosts 75 percent of all U.S. military personnel in Japan. Nearly 50,000 U.S. military personnel, civilian employees and dependents live on Okinawa.

Returning to Japanese control: Futenma Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Kuwae, Makiminato Service Area, Naha Port and parts of Camp Zukeran

Sources: Okinawan government & Japanese Foreign Ministry

Prime Minister Abe's Visit to the United States

Yukio Okamoto 11 May 2007
Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has returned from his first Japan-U.S. summit in good spirits and good shape. During his two-day visit to Washington and at Camp David he tackled a broad agenda covering many aspects of the Japan-U.S. relationship.

A first goal for Prime Minister Abe while in the U.S. was the cultivation of a strong personal friendship with George W. Bush. Prime Minister Abe's predecessor, Prime Minister Koizumi, had made a special effort during his term to cultivate a relationship of personal trust with President Bush, an effort that paid dividends in terms of smoothing communications between the two governments on vital issues. Continuity in close personal relations between the leaders of Japan and the United States has become all the more crucial as the departures of noted "Japan hands" from the Administration have somewhat diminished the direct, horizontal linkages between the ministerial and sub-ministerial levels of both governments.

The second goal was to highlight the importance of the Japan-U.S. security alliance. Prime Minister Abe called the alliance "irreplaceable", emphasizing both its importance and its solidity. In talks with both the president and congressional leaders, Mr. Abe emphasized the contributions Japan has been making to the war on terror.

Immediately prior to the summit the announcement was made of the establishment of a blue-ribbon panel on collective defense. With a membership drawn mostly from the hawkish and internationalist part of the Prime Minister's circle, the panel is likely to recommend significant expansions of the rules of engagement for Japan Self Defense Forces (JSDF) under the present constitution, beyond the limits indicated by the Cabinet Legislative Bureau (CLB). Since the CLB's interpretation of the Constitution has been the major stumbling block preventing the fuller participation of Japan in collective defense—either in the context of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty or JSDF deployments in UN peace keeping operations—the removal of these impediments will likely precede a constitutional revision.

One of the gratifying changes over the past few years has been the fading away of the charges that Japan is a free rider in the global security system. Part of this change is due to the activism demonstrated by former Prime Minister Koizumi, sending support vessels to the Indian Ocean as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom and Ground Self Defense Forces to Iraq in cooperation with the Coalition Authority's reconstruction efforts. The repurposing and ongoing reconfiguration of the Japan-U.S. alliance as a "global alliance" has helped to erase the misunderstandings that used to undermine Japan's image in America.

The possibility that Japan and the United States no longer saw eye to eye on the North Korean nuclear program had been a source of worry in the run-up to the summit. The recent reversal of U.S. sanctions against the Banco Delta Asia left many in Japan feeling betrayed. Sanctions against the bank had been perceived as part of a firm U.S.-Japan line against North Korea's contemptuous behavior as regards its obligations under the Six Party Talks.

Weakening of the tough U.S.-Japan line of "no economic cooperation without a complete, verifiable shutdown and international monitoring" threatened Japan with strategic abandonment. The current state of development of the North Korean missile program leaves the United States facing little threat of a direct North Korean nuclear attack upon its territories. Japan, however, lies within range of the tested Nodong series of missiles or, more brutally, the delivery of a weapon by small ship. A possible consequence is a split in the perceived U.S. and Japanese goals—with the public seeing Japan as seeking a total dismantlement of a North Korean strike capability while the U.S. may be seeking only the capping of the proliferation of North Korean nuclear technology.

Prime Minister Abe also received from President Bush a vow of support for the Japanese government's stance on the abductee issue. The continued lack of believable information from the North Korean government about the fates of the Japanese citizens it abducted in the past has been a touchstone issue for Mr. Abe. His rapid rise through the political hierarchy in defiance of the seniority system was bolstered by his consistent advocacy of the rights of the families of the abductees to know the fates of their loved ones. Fears that the U.S. government had grown tired of the abductee issue --and of the Abe Cabinet's ratcheting up of pressure upon the DPRK to provide more information—were assuaged by President Bush's clear and heartfelt statement.

The Prime Minister also received a message of presidential support for his position on an issue some in America see as related to the abductees—the so-called comfort women issue. A non-binding resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives is suggesting to the Japanese government that the government apologize to the women who served in brothels established to provide sexual services for the Japanese imperial military.

Prime Minister Abe has stated:

"As both an individual and as prime minister, I sympathize with those women who were forced to taste life's bitterness. I also am full of a feeling of a need to apologize over the fact that they were placed in such a painful situation."

In response, President Bush said that in his opinion, the matter is settled.

Another achievement at the summit was a strong message supporting a joint program against the forces driving climate change. The Bush Administration's rejection of the terms of the Kyoto Protocol during the Administration's first term had been a political embarrassment for the Japanese government. The recent belated reversal of Bush Administration's stance on climate change presented an opportunity for the U.S. to make amends with its ally.

Economic policy and trade disputes, the focal point of so many Japan-U.S. summits of the past, did not register this time. Japan's politicians and diplomats can take great pride for keeping temperatures cool at the summit.

Sources say the two leaders spoke about China during their meetings even though at the press availability China was barely mentioned. On so many global issues—rising energy and commodities prices, the arms race in Asia, environmental degradation, the spread of rogue regimes—China plays a vital role. No countries have greater economic stakes in China than the U.S. and Japan. China also represents the Japan-U.S. alliance's main regional competitor. It is simply the elephant in the room—too big to ignore.

The public statements from the summit did not present a clear vision for the proposed "Alliance of Democracies" security architecture for the Asia-Pacific region. In particular, the two leaders did not say how they intended to reassure the Chinese government that the alliance of democracies was not just a fig leaf for a containment strategy aimed at China.

The summit should be seen as a solid first step. In the coming year, Prime Minister Abe will be probably be asking the Bush Administration to join his government in the crafting of a detailed and inspiring vision of America's and Japan's common future.

It should also be noted that the visit to Washington was the first leg of a greater journey that included an unprecedented tour of the capitals of the Gulf States. A successful first visit to the United States as prime minister focused the attention of the leaders of the Gulf States on Mr. Abe's diplomatic initiatives and highlighted Japan's international position. Using one visit to frame another represents a new diplomatic strategy. Such sophistication will serve Mr. Abe well in the coming years.


Yukio Okamoto is the president of Okamoto Associates, Inc., a management and political risk consultancy. He is a former Special Advisor to two prime ministers. He also was chairman of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizmi's Task Force on Foreign Relations.

LDP wants to cut freedoms: DPJ

Friday, May 4, 2007
By REIJI YOSHIDA
Staff writer

CHARTER TURNS 60
OPPOSITION PANEL HEAD SPEAKS

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe doesn't understand the basics of the Constitution and wants to use it to reduce human rights, not protect them, according to the head of a constitutional study panel for the Democratic Party of Japan.

Lawyer Yukio Edano, a House of Councilors member, says the Constitution makes up the fundamental laws and principles for the government and society — and defines to what extent the executive, legislative and judicial branches are separated in Japan.

But Abe's Liberal Democratic Party is trying to push more rules on the people, to up their responsibility to the state and society, instead of regulating those who hold power, Edano said in a recent interview.

"Laws are to be applied to the people, while the Constitution is to be applied to those exercising the power," figured Edano, who has worked as DPJ's key negotiator with the LDP on constitutional revision issues.

The DPJ, the main opposition party, wants three main changes to the Constitution. It wants the charter to promote the decentralization of power, to increase control over state bureaucrats and to clarify in war-renouncing Article 9 what Japan is allowed to do to defend itself, Edano said.

"The current Constitution doesn't clearly set the division of power between the central and local governments," Edano said. "It doesn't mention any control over the power of Kasumigaseki (central Tokyo bureaucracy hub) bureaucrats, either."

He said the LDP appears to be trying to bolster state control over the people by revising parts of the Constitution.

Some LDP lawmakers say the 60-year-old Constitution gives too many rights and freedoms to the people, and often results in individuals exerting their rights at the cost of society as a whole, thus abusing the system.

Lawmakers often cite the difficulty the government has had since the end of the war in expropriating private land for key public projects, like major expressways and Narita airport. They say that resistance from the public to projects has delayed construction and greatly pushed up government costs.

LDP wants to amend Article 12 to state that the people "shall have freedom and be obliged to exercise their rights in ways that would not go against the public interest and public order."

Edano criticized Abe's attempt to make the Constitution a major issue in the Upper House election in July, saying this confrontational approach is making any revisions to the charter in the near future unlikely.

Since any amendment requires the support of two-thirds of the vote in the two Diet chambers — as stipulated in the Constitution — Edano said revisions should only go to the Diet once there is a consensus across party lines.

The DPJ lawmaker said his party has not yet come up with any detailed article-by-article proposal to revise the Constitution, including Article 9, the most contentious.

Now is not the time to start hammering out detailed changes to articles, Edano said, as they should only be done in the last stage once there is agreement in general on changes. He said in this way amendments will get the necessary two-thirds majority in both Diet chambers.

The DPJ already has a basic security policy consensus.

In a policy paper compiled in 2005 on the party's basic ideas for constitutional revision, the DPJ says it wants the country to continue its pacifist policy but allow Japan to participate in collective security deployments endorsed by the U.N.

Washington has been pushing for closer military cooperation between the Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. military and many conservative, pro-U.S. politicians, particularly in the LDP, want the government to change its interpretation of the Constitution to allow the SDF to come to the aid of the U.S. military should it need help.

Edano did not directly discuss military cooperation with the U.S., but said the DPJ does not agree with the government's long-standing interpretation of Article 9 regarding collective defense, which is worded as "collective self-defense."

The government's position on the issue is that while Article 51 of the U.N. Charter allows member states to participate in "collective self-defense," Article 9 prohibits Japan from exercising that option.

It does, however, interpret the article as allowing Japan to defend itself, which led to the founding of the Ground, Air and Maritime Self-Defense Forces. This right is also enshrined in Article 51 as "individual self-defense."

Edano argued that U.N. Article 51's separation of the right to individual vs. collective defense is meaningless.

"In international law, a (clear) line has not been drawn between the collective self-defense and individual self-defense," Edano argued. "It's nonsense to separate the two."

Under the current government interpretation, Japan can only use force when a threat is imminent and there is no other alternative, and only the minimum necessary force is permissible.

Japan must be allowed defend itself, whether on its own or with the aid of an ally, or "collective," as long as it is under these conditions, according to the DPJ.

Guam Military Build-up Program

Guam Military Build-up Program - Get more Business Documents

Scene Setter: Guam Facts
• Guam’s prime asset is location
• Geography & political status cannot be replicated

WHY GUAM?

•PACOM Vision: Guam, as the furthest west US territory for basing in the Pacific, provides strategic flexibility, freedom of action, and prompt global action for the Global War on terrorism, peace and wartime engagement, and crisis response.

...Guam may be further back, but it leaves us space from which to maneuver. The possibility of having these forces readily employable is uppermost in my mind. ... Admiral Fallon, HAC testimony 8 Mar 06

Japan-U.S. Summit Reaffirms Bilateral Security Ties

Richard Weitz
World Politics Review Exclusive
03 May 2007

Last week's two-day summit between President George Bush and Shinzo Abe, who was making his first visit to the United States as Japanese prime minister, provided an opportunity to take stock of the profound changes occurring in the bilateral security relationship. Despite Japanese-American differences over several regional security issues, the two countries have continued to strengthen their bilateral defense ties in several dimensions.

Under the auspices of their bilateral Security Consultative Committee (SCC), the two governments have engaged in a major effort to restructure their defense alliance. For several years, the SCC has been issuing joint statements articulating the two countries' common strategic objectives, establishing new roles and missions for their defense forces, and announcing revisions in U.S. military deployments in Japan. In particular, the two governments have devoted much attention to developing and implementing plans to transfer U.S. military forces from Okinawa to Guam, integrating U.S. and Japanese military headquarters and training facilities in Japan (including at Camp Zama and Yokota Air Base), and improving bilateral cooperation in 16 specific mission areas (such as air defense, critical infrastructure protection, and human relief operations).

Photo: Abe and Bush at Camp David April 27, 2007.

The Japanese government has shown an acute interest in developing ballistic missile defenses (BMD) in cooperation with the United States. After North Korea's experimental long-range Taepo-dong 1 missile flew over Japan's mainland in August1998, the United States and Japan started a joint BMD program. Their initiative also aims to counter the hundreds of shorter-range North Korean Nodong 1 missiles capable of reaching most of Japan, including Tokyo. In 2003, the Japanese government decided to develop a multilayered defense system initially based on the Aegis BMD system and the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3). The United States subsequently deployed PAC-3 at key U.S. military facilities throughout Japan. The two militaries successfully tested an advanced Standard Missile-3, a missile interceptor intended for use by ships equipped with AEGIS radars, near Hawaii in March 2006. The two governments anticipate deploying an operational joint system by 2015.

At home, the Abe administration has launched a major initiative to assess whether to revise the Japanese constitution. A newly appointed government panel will explicitly address the issue of whether to abandon the long-standing interpretation that the constitution excludes Japan's participation in "collective self-defense" arrangements. Past Japanese governments have cited this interpretation as a factor limiting their ability to provide direct military assistance to U.S. forces engaged in armed combat outside Japan. Many Japanese security experts would like to remove this barrier to increased Japanese-American defense cooperation. The current interpretation creates particular problems for plans to operate a joint BMD system, which for technical reasons would probably entail deep Japanese involvement if the system were used to defend American forces under missile attack in East Asia.

At present, the main differences between the two countries concern several regional security issues. For example, despite their shared antipathy toward the North Korean regime and common opposition to its nuclear weapons program, recent months have seen a modest divergence in the positions of the United States and Japan toward North Korea. The Bush administration now seems more willing to yield on ancillary issues in order to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development program. In contrast, despite criticism at home and abroad, the Japanese government adamantly refuses to normalize relations with the DPRK or provide substantial financial assistance in support of the February 2007 denuclearization accord absent meaningful progress in resolving the questions surrounding North Korea's abduction of Japanese nationals in the 1970s and 1980s as well as the current nuclear weapons issue.

At their joint press conference at Camp David, Abe and Bush reaffirmed their solidarity on this question. Nevertheless, the U.S. decision last month to consent to the release of $25 million in suspected illicit funds to Pyongyang after the financial dispute threatened to derail the denuclearization process suggests U.S. officials will grant priority to reversing the DPRK's nuclear program over other considerations.

The Japanese and U.S. governments have been more successful at managing their differences over the Iraq War. Japan's new defense minister, Fumio Kyuma, revealed the probable private opinion of many Japanese when he termed the war a mistake, leading Vice President Cheney to shun him during Cheney's February 2007 trip to Tokyo. In addition, many in Japan believe that the administration has been overly preoccupied with the Iraq question at the expense of other issues.

Given Japan's need for Washington's support regarding North Korea and China, however, the Abe government will likely continue to endorse the Bush administration's war policies. In July 2005, the Japanese government removed its ground forces from Iraq, but Air Self-Defense Forces continue to provide logistical support for coalition forces. A Japanese official accompanying Abe at the recent summit acknowledged: "The United States won't give consideration to Japan over the North Korean issues unless Japan maintains its Iraq policy."

Richard Weitz is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

U.S. Relationship With More Assertive Japan Undergoing Evolution

Jason Miks | 01 May 2007
World Politics Review Exclusive

TOKYO -- In February 1946 the U.S. forces occupying Japan drew up a new constitution for a country that had been left shattered by the Pacific War. Many Japanese cities were left in ruins, with vast swathes of them reduced to ash by intensive American firebombing.

Fast-forward six decades to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit last week to Washington, and Japan presents a very different picture. Despite a more than decade-long slump, Japan's economy remains the second largest in the world. It is a respected member of the international community and was found in a BBC poll in March to be the most positively viewed country in the world.

Photo: President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Camp David, April 27, 2007.

It is also one of the United States' key trading partners, and is the largest foreign market for U.S. agricultural products. The two countries also have close defensive and strategic ties, with about 50,000 U.S. troops still stationed in Okinawa, and a Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security that means Japan plays host to a carrier battle group, the 5th Air Force, the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force, and sections of the Army's 1st Corps.

The importance the U.S. places on its partnership with Japan was reflected in a recently released report, "The US-Japan Alliance: Getting Asia Right through 2020," penned by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Harvard University's Joseph S. Nye. In it, the authors argue that Japan should play a greater political and security role in Asia, and they envision Japan becoming something like a "Britain of the Far East."

"It's been clear since the first Bush administration, and especially with Armitage, that Japan would be viewed as a main U.S. ally, and would be expected to play a greater role in world affairs," says Dr.Yoichiro Sato, Associate Professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. "And Japan has responded rather positively to this."

Professor Arthur Alexander of Georgetown University, agrees that there has been a shift in the way Japan is viewed in the United States, and also how Japan sees itself. "American anxiety about Japan has largely disappeared," he says. "And while in the past there was a sense that Japan had to kowtow to the United States, this is no longer the case."

Alexander also points to a new generation of Japanese diplomats who since the 1990s have begun to assert Japan's independence of action more readily, and he argues that coordination and diplomatic support from Japan has become more important to the United States.

Though the Armitage report talks about Japan as an ally, however, one area where changes in the relationship have lagged dramatically is security. Under the late Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida in the decade following World War II, Japan adopted the so-called Yoshida doctrine, under which it decided to concentrate its resources on its economic development while relying on the U.S. militarily for protection. This approach has informed Japanese foreign policy for decades since.

But in a forthright speech in early April, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer called on Japan to spend more on its military capabilities, noting it spends less than 1 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, while in 2005 the U.S. spent over four percent.

The main bar to Japan doing so is Article 9 of its U.S.-drafted constitution, which prohibits an offensive military capability. Abe has therefore made revision of the constitution a center piece of his domestic agenda. Under former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, the country had already reinterpreted the constitution and passed a special law to allow the self defense forces to play a support role in Iraq.

Abe is also eyeing greater flexibility for Japanese forces to respond to contingencies and for the country to exercise the right to self defense, including coming to the assistance of an ally who is fired upon. Japanese military ambitions were illuminated in a report that the country's air force had pressed Abe to persuade Bush to sell Japan F-22 raptor stealth fighters, though the head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency reportedly ruled such a move out.

But while Japan has been quick to reassure its neighbors that its growing assertiveness, including greater strategic flexibility in terms of its military, is benign, some even in the United States harbor concerns over the real motivations of a prime minister who, despite his efforts to repair relations with China and South Korea, is still viewed by many observers as a hawkish nationalist. Abe stoked these fears further by dismissing the idea that the Imperial Japanese Army forcibly recruited "comfort women" in World War II.

"The nationalism associated with Abe's call for a renewal on the restraints on deployment has both a positive and negative aspect," said Dr. Tsuneo Akaha, Director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "It's positive in that Japan can become a more equal partner. But it could also mean Japan could start walking down a nationalist path."

But before Japan can even begin to tread this path, it must revise its constitution, something that has not been done once in its 60-year history, though it was written by occupying forces in less than a week.

This reluctance to make changes in part reflects the Japanese attachment to the peace constitution. But Sato believes there are other reasons. "Public opinion, especially on the liberal side, is skeptical about U.S. intentions, but also about the intentions of Japan's elites," he said, pointing to a recent poll in the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper showing a sharp drop in support for revision, to below 50 percent of those polled. The same poll also showed little enthusiasm for renouncing the country's pacifist stance in international affairs.

A law covering the mechanics of a referendum is expected to be passed by the Diet this month, but Akaha believes even then political calculations could hold up changes. "I don't think there is much difference substantively between the two main parties. But I think the [main opposition] Democratic Party of Japan is trying to make sure the [ruling] Liberal Democratic Party doesn't get to succeed in its policy issues."

Akaha also believes that other unforeseeable complications could stall revision. "If the U.S. starts to be seen as pushing Abe toward revision, or if there is some unforeseen accident involving deaths among Self Defense Forces troops on duty, opponents would gather momentum."

Alexander believes that even though the United States might be content with revisions allowing Japan to shoulder more of its security burden, that doesn't mean the United States wants a militarily independent Japan.

"The United States does not want to see a fully, independently armed Japan," he says. "It wants Japan to do more, but there are concerns that if it were to have more forceful projection it would have consequences that the U.S. wouldn't like, and could upset regional balances."

Jason Miks is a Tokyo-based writer and senior editor with the Center for International Relations.