The vast majority of Asian countries understand that the U.S. - Japan relationship is crucial for stability in the region.

In a world without a Soviet enemy, some say, there is no basis for the Japan-U.S. security treaty. In this new world, so the argument goes, military alliances are anachronisms best left to the pages of Cold War history. But the critics fail to realize that alliances can be rebuilt for a post-Cold War era.

Japan is now in the process of formulating its own post-Cold War strategy. In theory, Japan has a variety of options. One option is simply to follow the old policy of "economism," but Japan has come too far to ignore the role it must now play in the international political system. Most Japanese leaders are aware that the strategy that served them so well for the past four decades is no longer viable. Another strand of Japanese opinion seeks a U.N.-based strategy. A number of Japanese critics, however, have pointed out that while the United Nations may be an essential part of any strategy, the institution is beset with problems and therefore should not be entrusted with too much control. A third prospect would be for Japan to relinquish the U.S. security umbrella and develop its own independent military capability. A minority of voices are heard backing this idea. Some even advocate a nuclear-armed Japan. But as Japanese analysts have looked more closely at this strategy, they have found that it would prove enormously expensive and otherwise undesirable if Japan found itself needing to respond should its neighbors react by building up their armaments. Instead, Japan has reaffirmed the option of maintaining the U.S. alliance, while working to adopt it to post-Cold War period.

The signing of the Japan-U.S. Security Declaration by Prime Minister Hashimoto and President Clinton in April [1996] was an important step forward. Many people in both countries had become focused solely on trade conflicts in the relationship, but trade and investment depend upon stability. Without a solid political security structure, the economies of East Asia cannot flourish and prosper. The Declaration reaffirms that the Security Treaty is not just a Cold War relic, but provides that basis for stability in the years to come.

Some voices in Japan have complained that, whatever its merits, the Declaration in dangerous because it could lead to the revision of Japan's constitution, specifically Article 9, which limits Japan to self defense. The question has been raised of whether Japan can engage in collective self defense. Japan certainly has such a right under the United Nations Charter, but Japan has renounced the use of troops in combat situations outside the country. This was clearly recognized in the year-and-a-half long U.S.-Japan security dialogue that led up to the joint declaration. At no time did the question arise of changing the Japanese constitution. Nor need the issue arise now. Whether or not to alter Japan's constitution is a question solely for Japanese to answer according to their democratic process. It is not an appropriate subject for outside pressure. Developing better defense cooperation between the United States and Japan is quite compatible with the existing constitution.

This does not mean that Japanese Self-Defense Forces cannot play any role outside the country. That bridge was crossed when the Diet passed the Peace Cooperation Law in June 1992. Since then Japanese personnel have played important roles in United Nations humanitarian and peacekeeping operations in Cambodia, Mozambique, Rwanda, the Golan Heights, Zaire, and Kenya. In the course of the security dialogue the United States agreed to provide logistical and information support for such operations to the extent that the Japanese government requested. The United States has also long expressed its support for Japan becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Some Japanese commentators have worried that this might require the Self-Defense Forces to be used in combat roles outside the country if the Security Council votes for Article 7 enforcement measures against an aggressor nation, but this is not the case. For example, China is a permanent member of the Council, but did not send force to participate in the Gulf War.

The vast majority of Asian countries understand that the U.S.-Japan security relationship is crucial for stability in the region. Unlike Europe, Asia lacks a strong multilateral system of security guarantee and institutions. They may develop someday, but effective institutions develop slowly. In the meantime, if the United States were to withdraw from the region, anxieties and arms races would increase. Japan helps to anchor the U.S. in the region through the alliance, providing land for bases and host nation support for over 50,000 American troops. While that number of troops may not need to be as high after the North Korean situation is resolved, the ultimate number will depend upon consultations between the U.S. and Japan.

Japan's global role is evolving. It is the world's largest provider of overseas development assistance and is playing an increasingly active role in the United Nations and in the group of seven industrialized nations. Its security partnership with the United States makes a further contribution to global and regional stability. Japan and the U.S. have made major progress over the past two years in reaffirming the security treaty and restoring the broad basis of their relationship. These steps help to assure a stable and prosperous East Asia within a global system.