Japan-U.S. Security Treaty Useful?

66 percent of Japanese respondents in an annual Yomiuri Shimbun-Gallup poll think the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty contributes to the stability of the Asia-Pacific region.

There has been a controversy on whether Japan should keep the security treaty with the U.S. As a high school student, I was taught that Japan-U.S. Treaty was a kind of military alliance and very dangerous to our social life.

As teachers said, Japan should throw away the Treaty because it is against the Constitution of Japan which prohibits Japan from being involved to any military actions. That's an extreme response, I think. However, it may be also an extreme that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty saves our nation.

Is it useful? It certainly prevents the enhancement of nuclear power and contributes to the stability of the Asia-Pacific region, I guess. The following survey says:

The Yomiuri Shimbun
Dec. 2, 2006

The response was the strongest support for the treaty since the survey was switched to a telephone survey in 2000, and was up four percentage points from last year.

Specifically, people were asked "To what extent do you think the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty contributes to the security of the Asia-Pacific region?" Positive answers were divided into two responses: "Contributes greatly" and "Contributes somewhat."

Eighteen percent of respondents, down three percentage points from 2005, said the treaty was not instrumental, answering that it either "does not contribute very much" or "does not contribute at all." It was the first time that unfavorable views to the treaty were less than a combined 20 percent.

The Japanese side of the survey was conducted Nov. 17-20 with 5,000 households selected randomly to answer questions by telephone. Of the 5,000 households, 1,823 had eligible voters and 1,002 of them, or about 55 percent, gave valid answers.

On the troop strength of U.S. forces stationed in Japan, 46 percent of the respondents, up eight percentage points from 2005, said the current level should be maintained. The figure was also a record high for the survey. Thirty-five percent said the number "should be reduced," down 8 percentage points from last year.

It was the first time since the 2001 survey that "maintain the status quo" answer on regarding U.S. troop levels surpassed "should be reduced."

The record high figures are probably due to feelings that North Korea's test launch of missiles and its nuclear test pose a serious threat to Japan's security, analysts said.

To the question "If Japan were attacked by another nation, do you think the United States would or would not help Japan militarily?," 71 percent answered, "Yes, [the United States] will help," down five percentage points from the 2001 survey. Eighteen percent chose "No, [the United States] will not help."

"If Japan were to be attacked by another nation, do you think the United States would or would not help Japan militarily?"

To such the question, 71 percent answered, "Yes". Very interesting point.
Would the U.S. really save Japan? My reply is somewhat negative: The U.S. would tell us Japan to save itself by itself. Would the U.S. would retaliate against the aggressor for Japan? Does it benefit the U.S.? I don't think so. The U.S. would do just only what benefits itself, as well as any nations.