Masashi Nishihara is President of the Research Institute for Peace and Security and former President of the National Defense Academy (Source: Gaiagear)
That is what Masashi Nishihara (President of the Research Institute for Peace and Security and former President of the National Defense Academy) suggested in an AJISS Commentary last week:
The operations by the two forces were coordinated at a high level by the chief of staff of the SDF and the commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet. They were then commanded by the commander of the Northeastern Army of the Ground SDF and the commander of US Forces Japan, respectively, via their bilateral coordination action teams. The American forces positioned themselves as a “joint support force” rather than a “joint task force,” with the understanding that they would “support” the SDF’s efforts. This joint operation proved to the two forces that they could work well together as allies.
Five minutes after the earthquake, the Japanese Ministry of Defense and the SDF went to work, with the American troops joining them in carrying out search and rescue operations; transporting victims; supplying water, food, and fuel; and administering medical aid. They cleared and opened roads, sea ports, and airports. Japanese and American helicopters used the decks of each other’s ships to transport needed supplies. The US troops, who named their mission “Operation Tomodachi (Friends),” also helped displaced persons in towns and villages clear the devastated areas. In sum, the American troops were willing to help their Japanese ally carry out even the most difficult tasks.
This is certainly the view taken by myself – although I am inclined to believe that the US provided its aid with the added boost in its reputation in mind. The US support following the earthquake was critical, as it should have been given their presence in the country. The time and energy exerted by the US has been well-received and the interoperability of the two forces successfully demonstrated. As Nishihara says in his introduction, “In the past, the two forces had conducted many joint exercises but never joint operations. Now, however, for the first time in the alliance’s history, the SDF and US Forces Japan worked together.” This bodes well for the alliance’s future.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments.
loading...
Related posts:
A former contributor to World Intelligence (Japan Military Review), James Simpson joined Japan Security Watch in 2011, migrating with his blog Defending Japan. He has a Masters in Security Studies from Aberystwyth University and is currently living in Kawasaki, Japan.
His primary interests include the so-called 'normalization' of Japanese security (i.e. militarization), and the political impact of the abduction issue with North Korea.
James Simpson has 254 post(s) on Japan Security Watch
17 comments
Corey Wallace says:
Jun 12, 2011
These things can be pretty hard to interpret, at least in terms of long-term impacts. The conduct of joint operations is significant but probably more for policy wonks and the militaries themselves. As long as people are not firing at people the Japanese public doesn't seem to get that worked up (anymore) about alliance relations and/or entanglement.
From a historical POV, the US was also pretty supportive of Japan in 1923 also, but we all know that that did not count for much, although obviously the broader security background was radically different than now. I guess the public and governments are more fickle when it comes to other countries than we might imagine. I would like to be wrong in a way – not so much for the US-Japan alliance, but for what it would say also about Japan's closening relations with China and Korea. It looks good right now but we all know how quickly the best of intentions can be thrown off…
loading...
James Simpson says:
Jun 12, 2011
Well, there is no doubt that political relations can sour, but the same facets of the joint operations in Tohoku can be used in contingencies of a more military nature should they ever occur. That is the significance, I think: it is more than a dressed rehearsal, there are real lives at stake and the alliance has pulled through.
It’s hard to compare 1923 to now, after all, the relationship between Japan and the US has undergone significant changes since that time (when Britain was perhaps Japan’s strongest ally). But yes, insofar as it doesn’t involve SDF members getting shot at, any strengthening has its limits.
As a PR exercise, it has served the US well, and as a result there will be those that feel they should stick up for them: “Hey, remember what they did for us in our time of need.” How many people feel that way, and for how long is definitely up for debate though
loading...
arkhangelsk says:
Feb 9, 2012
To be fair, the sky didn't completely blacken in one day, and that was right after 1922, when they forced Japan into that 5:5:3 deal, which by the operational-tactical calculations used at the time means that Japan has almost no theoretical chance of defeating a US attack.
It is not hard to understand the furor of the Fleet Faction at both their civvies and the US, really. How would you like it for your forces to be restricted by treaty to a level an INCH below what they'll need to have a realistic chance of defending the motherland? Agreeing to 10:10:7 is really a horribly "team player" move from the IJN perspective, the absolute minimum margin for success, and the Foreign Ministry buckled…
(It isn't even like it is really critical for the Americans anyway. For one thing they have strategic superiority due to industrial power anyway. Second, their ships are better armored and gunned and so they have a good chance of winning an even tactical fight, but at least 10:10:7 would be decided by quality rather than quantity).
It is also the era when the US forced the Brits to break up their alliance with Japan, and really, a little humanitarian assistance does not compensate for these two slights.
loading...
Corey Wallace says:
Jun 12, 2011
Indeed – I guess I'm pointing to the relationship Japan has with China and Korea right now is probably more like US and Japan had in 1923 – not outright antagonistic – they could give each other assists when needed, but too superficial to bet the bank on.
I agree with your first paragraph – I guess it being my point about policy wonks and the militaries themselves. I guess my poorly stated overall point is that while it is certainly a huge win for the US in terms of perception, no doubt about that, I think it is not likely to translate into the Japanese public necessarily buying into the US world view or US judgement when it comes to security affairs and military shooting wars, which I believe is a critical part of why the alliance runs into trouble from time to time. Which is certainly not what you are saying, to be sure. But sometimes I get the feeling that some US policymakers believe that because Japan is becoming more "realist" (an interesting assumption in of itself!) then anything that strengthens the alliance will automatically lead Japan to following the US foreign policy line more closely. It is seldom stated like this but it is hard to escape this sense reading some Washington commentaries.
loading...
Robert says:
Jun 13, 2011
I am going to sound callous but I think the U.S. is very cognizant of what good p.r. does for them in every situation.The U.S. is the absolute best at p.r. the world has ever seen.The SDF needs to look at how the U.S. never,ever misses an opportunity to help their image and maybe use those lesson to help themselves.I do not know but is the SDF instituitionally inclined to being passive rather than proactive? I wonder if the SDF has a p.r.dept or something like that?
loading...
James Simpson says:
Jun 13, 2011
I think it's not callous at all – I believe it too. The US has been at the forefront of military PR, something the SDF has simply no real means of copying due to its more conservative nature vis a vis secrets.
That said, the SDF has been very good at playing the poster and mascot PR game, and the Ministry of Defense seems cognizant of the need to work on the SDF's PR, but it's society that is less happy to have it do so. Compare for instance the number of dramas and movies about the police, fire services and coast guard with the amount about the SDF – it struck me the other day that besides Bokoku no Aegis and Samurai Commando (and to some extent Toho's kaiju movies), I can't think of movies where the SDF play a prominent role.
But lack of openness and acceptance are the real killers for the SDF.
loading...
Robert says:
Jun 13, 2011
Well maybe we will see some movies about the tsunami operations.
loading...
The Chrysanthemum Sn says:
Jun 15, 2011
"I can’t think of movies where the SDF play a prominent role."
Try 戦国自衛隊, or "GI Samurai." The original version was anti-SDF, but in the newer versions the forces are painted in a positive light.
If you are looking for movies that aren't science fiction, might I suggest that it is difficult to make drama out of a military organization that has only gone to war once, and then in a very limited capacity. Given the fact that the new couples that are apparently forming all over Tohoku provide a romantic angle, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an SDF disaster relief themed film or two in about 10 years.
loading...
James Simpson says:
Jun 15, 2011
I believe the remake of GI Commando is more commonly known as Samurai Commando in English, which I mentioned in my comment above. Made with SDF backing, as was Aegis, hence the supportive tone.
In comparison to the Coast Guard (Japan Sinks, Sora E, Umizaru), the SDF has had a much poorer showing. While you can say that it has a lot to do with them having no stories to tell, I'm not sure that's doesn't seem sufficient as an explanation.
In Britain and the US, many military-based stories have emerged about things like hazing (e.g. A Few Good Men) and training (e.g. GI Jane) and other such non-wartime stories. And the SDF doesn't even feature much in science fiction. The complete lack of TV shows looking at the services, besides Samurai Commando's adaptation with Takashi Sorimachi, also suggests a deeper cause.
That cause is definitely the lack of social acceptance of the SDF, and particularly the fear of showing them in a combat role – despite showing off such skills in base open days all year round. It is firstly against the message of the SDF as a force of peace, but secondly counter to the social taboo of addressing them outside military otaku circles.
Certainly, the recent earthquake has garnered much goodwill, but I still don't imagine we'll see a disaster rescue movie focusing on the SDF anytime soon – we didn't see any major shows post-Hanshin or Niigata quake either. Any story will probably human interest only – but that's just a prediction, and you know what they say about them
loading...
The Chrysanthemum Sn says:
Jun 16, 2011
I started on a reply, but it was too long, so I turned it into a blog post.
http://www.jappenings.com/2011/06/17/the-sdf-and-…
loading...
James Simpson says:
Jun 16, 2011
I had a look, and I have to comment when I have time mostly because I feel you are misrepresenting part of my argument. I recognise the SDF in a Sci Fi role, for example in the very kaiju movies Kyle started looking at in Godzilla, but what I am concerned about is the lack of movies addressing the broader societal context – disaster relief in particular – in comparison to other services, but also generally.
For instance, we see many human interest movies with a Yakuza or salaryman protagonist, but few with an SDF serviceman/woman. We see shows about female cops getting by in a sexist workplace, but no SDF equivalent. And how many dramas have you seen that have any link to the SDF?
I'm British – in my country we have many series and movies that look at the Army or other services, fictional and documentary. The US case is definitely exceptional though, no argument there. I just wonder why the SDF as an organisation, not a warfighting force, isn't seen more.
War movies are anathema to the SDF's image, so I don't expect many, but ones that portray base life, justice and peace would seem like something the SDF would want to portray – Bokoku no Aegis being the primary example in my mind.
Anyway, I don't have time to argue it in full here, but I just wanted to give you a heads up – plus you should check Kyle's name once more.
loading...
James Simpson says:
Jun 16, 2011
Just to clarify, though, I don't mean to suggest you are intentionally misrepresenting me, nor that I have anything to blame but my trying to reply to these messages while walking and tapping away on an iPhone.
loading...
The Chrysanthemum Sn says:
Jun 16, 2011
Regrets if you feel you are misrepresented, and I wll update the blog to reflect your concerns later. I too am on an iPhone.
But I'm intrigued about those British dramas. What are their names?
loading...
James Simpson says:
Jun 16, 2011
The misrepresentation is mostly in the context of the original comment – i.e. I'm interested in the SDF vis a vis other organisations, rather than on their own. Nothing major, but I think you give that context short shrift.
In terms of the TV shows: Soldier Soldier definitely comes to mind (early 90s show, definitely learnt from the Top Gun effect), as well as other shows such as Red Cap (about MPs – kind of NCIS but without the extravagance) and other shows from before I was born (although Red Cap was remade recently).
There are of course the action series as well, such as Ultimate Force, as well as documentaries like Warship and others. All great shows and worth a look if you're interested. If anything, I think British shows focus a lot more on military life than action, mostly as a result of budgets. I think that informs my critique of the low SDF presence on TV and silver screen.
loading...
Sniffing the Chrysanthemums » Blog Archive » The SDF and Japanese Cinema says:
Jun 16, 2011
[...] at Japan Security Watch, James Simpson has observed that the Self Defense Forces are not particularly prominent in popular [...]
kujirakira says:
Oct 22, 2011
The issue with movies like "A Few Good Men" and "An Officer and a Gentleman", along with the Tom Clancy variety, is that they are fundamentally based in reality.
The Tom Clancy films are largely based on the backdrop of Drug Wars. You couldn't make a SDF movie about drug wars without it being completely contrived.
"A Few Good Men" is based on the very real backdrop of Guantanamo Bay and US-Cuba animosity. Jack Nicholson's most dramatic lines and interpretation of events is completely unbelievable without that very real basis existing in reality.
"An Officer and a Gentleman" is also based on the likelihood that the officer will lead men into combat. That's what the entire relationship between the two is ultimately about. Without that realization, of why the Gunny is such a jackwagon, the movie is completely meaningless. It would be completely unbelievable with SDF, as there is so little chance they will ever see combat.
In pretty much all these cases, you would have to practically contrive a war for the movie… that creates an interesting catch-22 since suggesting that SDF go to war would incur backlash from Japan's natives and make it inherently controversial, fulfilling your issue with "negativity".
The police stories mentioned are fictional, but share the same basis in reality. We know police are out there fighting crime and catching drug dealers and murderers and such. This reality gives the viewer permission to imagine the rest, and the director permission to embellish the fantastic details.
In fact I would use the recent inclusion of JCG drama as proof that a degree of reality is required. The incident of the North Korean spy ship offers a real backdrop from which to manufacture fictional storylines that are credible.
On the other hand, GSDF's missions amount to being glorified sheltered construction workers protected by Australians. That doesn't make for compelling drama.
There is some chance for MSDF doing anti-piracy missions, but I haven't noticed anything big in the news? Is it in the national consciousness enough to be exploitable?
loading...
Tri-ring says:
Oct 23, 2011
There is this movie.
“Bokoku no Aegis”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457643/
loading...