Trump privately talks about ending Japan defense treaty: Bloomberg

[snoop1130]

Trump privately talks about ending Japan defense treaty: Bloomberg

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks before signing an executive order aimed at requiring hospitals to be more transparent about prices before charging patients for healthcare services, at the White House in Washington, U.S. June 24, 2019. REUTERS/Erin Scott

 

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has recently spoken privately about withdrawing from the defense treaty with Japan as he is of the view that the postwar pact treated the United States unfairly, Bloomberg reported late on Monday.

 

However, Trump has not taken any steps in this regard and such a move is highly unlikely, it said, citing people familiar with the matter.

 

The U.S. president believes the more than six-decades-old treaty is one-sided to the disadvantage of the United States as the Japanese military has no obligation to come to U.S. defense, according to the report.

 

Trump also talked about seeking compensation for relocating the U.S. base in Okinawa, Bloomberg said.

 

The report comes as Trump is engaged in his “America First” agenda that demands two-way agreements in foreign policy and international trade.

 

Separately, on the trade front, the U.S. president has previously said he is unhappy with Japan’s trade surplus with the United States and wants a two-way agreement to address it.

 

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the report outside regular working hours.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-25

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

Atta boy Donald it’s party time in n Korea and another alliance thrown under the bus China will be delighted but it’s probably a ploy to pressure japan in some way

[heybruce]

The reason for the defense treaty ties into the end of WWII and America's demand that Japan never again become a military power, even after the USSR and China developed nuclear weapons.

 

Trump's ignorance of history and the United States' nuclear policy is astounding.

[Justgrazing]

8 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The U.S. president believes the more than six-decades-old treaty is one-sided to the disadvantage of the United States as the Japanese military has no obligation to come to U.S. defense, according to the report

Not as disadvantaged as the Japanese were after the U S flattened Hiroshima and had a good go at doing the same to Nagasaki .. and then had to live under U S military rule .. How one sided was that .. 

[AlexRich]

I'm hoping this "populist" phase we are going through ends soon ... too many idiots being elected into high office. 

[tomacht8]

Another ally lost.

Soon Trump is fighting alone against the rest of the world. 

[nkg]

11 hours ago, Tug said:

Atta boy Donald it’s party time in n Korea and another alliance thrown under the bus China will be delighted but it’s probably a ploy to pressure japan in some way

 

Do you suppose Japan and China are going to join forces now?

[nkg]

3 hours ago, Justgrazing said:

Not as disadvantaged as the Japanese were after the U S flattened Hiroshima and had a good go at doing the same to Nagasaki .. and then had to live under U S military rule .. How one sided was that .. 

 

I believe the 2 countries were at war at the time, following an unprovoked attack on the US by Japan.

[JAG]

15 minutes ago, nkg said:

 

I believe the 2 countries were at war at the time, following an unprovoked attack on the US by Japan.

They were, and the Japanese lost, and surrendered. As a result governing Japan, and turning it into the society which it became (is now) was taken on by the victors (USA). The treaty which Trump thinks unfair was drawn up by, and consisted entirely of terms dictated by the USA.

 

Have they refused him planning permission for a golf course?

[AlexRich]

29 minutes ago, nkg said:

 

Do you suppose Japan and China are going to join forces now?

That’s not what he said. But China will be pleased to see alliances weaken, just as Putin would be pleased to see NATO weaken. 

[jerojero]

Too many celebrities and too many old school career politicians. And way too many ultra rich sob's.

I'm hoping this "populist" phase we are going through ends soon ... too many idiots being elected into high office. 

[gk10002000]

12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

recently spoken privately

And how do they know he spoke privately about it?  Not a very secure talking room?

[nkg]

34 minutes ago, JAG said:

They were, and the Japanese lost, and surrendered. As a result governing Japan, and turning it into the society which it became (is now) was taken on by the victors (USA). The treaty which Trump thinks unfair was drawn up by, and consisted entirely of terms dictated by the USA.

 

Have they refused him planning permission for a golf course?

 

Well, it has now been over 70 years since the treaty was drawn up. How many years have to pass before its terms can be renegotiated? 100? 1000?

 

Japan has the 3rd largest economy in the world. Few would consider that they pose a military threat to the West. Perhaps it is now safe to allow them to defend themselves. Failing that, a mutual defence treaty doesn't seem unreasonable, even though there is little likelihood of Japan ever needing to come to aid the US.

[nkg]

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

That’s not what he said. But China will be pleased to see alliances weaken, just as Putin would be pleased to see NATO weaken. 

 

If Japan were allowed to have a larger military force, it would be a major setback for Chinese regional power.

 

In reality, I think there is little risk of the treaty being broken. Trump was responding to the possibility of the USAs Okinawa base being relocated with his usual "tactful diplomacy", and in a follow up Reuters article Trump clarifies that he is "committed to the military treaty".

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-japan-defense-reaction/trump-reassures-tokyo-he-will-stick-with-security-pact-japan-government-idUSKCN1TQ0PP

 

 

[JAG]

14 minutes ago, nkg said:

 

Well, it has now been over 70 years since the treaty was drawn up. How many years have to pass before its terms can be renegotiated? 100? 1000?

 

Japan has the 3rd largest economy in the world. Few would consider that they pose a military threat to the West. Perhaps it is now safe to allow them to defend themselves. Failing that, a mutual defence treaty doesn't seem unreasonable, even though there is little likelihood of Japan ever needing to come to aid the US.

The treaty was designed to put strict limits, no to prevent, Japan from having the capability to engage in expeditionary warfare. This was, is and will long continue to be a significant source of reassurance to many nations in this part of the world.

 

Requiring Japan to reconfigure it's defence capability to come to the aid of the USA would require them to develop a global capacity - geography dictated that.

 

Leaving aside some of Tom Clancy's more elaborate (hysterical) plotlines, such a capacity would alarm many countries and lead to a destabilising ramping up in defence activities in the region.

 

Japan has extremely capable and effective defence forces. I would council leaving them as such. By all means renegotiate elements of the treaty, add codicils, but do not walk away from it, particularly on some incoherent Presidential whim that it is "unfair".

 

The USA emerged from the debris of 1945 as, if not the world policeman, then certainly the guarantor of peace in a number of regions. That can cost - heaven knows we British know, we did it for donkeys years - and it has not always worked, especially when it comes to overenthusiastic support for some unsavoury clients; but to abandon it would cost far more 

[Emdog]

Japan is ranked 9th in the world for military spending.

"America First!" Easy to do when lt is a line of 1... Trump has no concept of friendship, cooperation, mutual benefit. There's always Panama.... maybe

[Cryingdick]

Japan can assemble a nuclear bomb with in 15 minutes if they don't have one already.

[Chazar]

5 hours ago, Justgrazing said:

U S flattened Hiroshima

They could have stopped there but nope they still didnt  give up, needed number 2 to encourage them some more.

[Somtamnication]

This guy seriously wants no help when the US is attacked, one day. And it will happen.

[Cryingdick]

Just now, Somtamnication said:

This guy seriously wants no help when the US is attacked, one day. And it will happen.

 

You must be off your meds. No country with the naval superiority of the USA can deliver and sustain an attack. 

[Srikcir]

21 minutes ago, nkg said:

In reality, I think there is little risk of the treaty being broken.

More analysis from Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-25/all-about-the-u-s-japan-defense-treaty-irking-trump-quicktake

• It’s unclear whether a U.S. president has the authority to withdraw from such a treaty without congressional approval, although President George W. Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 on his own.
• The loss of U.S. protection, combined with the proximity of nuclear-armed North Korea and a rapidly burgeoning Chinese military, might be enough to push Japan down the nuclear route. (how can Trump justify denuclearizing the Korean peninsula while forcing Japan to nuclearize?)
• The U.S. treaty cost - Japan subsidizes the costs of maintaining the troops; experts say it’s probably cheaper for the U.S. to keep its troops in Japan than to bring them home.
• The U.S. Seventh Fleet -- based in the central Japan port of Yokosuka -- has helped maintain the security and stability that’s been essential to the economic and trade growth of the region, benefiting U.S. exporters.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

More analysis from Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-25/all-about-the-u-s-japan-defense-treaty-irking-trump-quicktake

• It’s unclear whether a U.S. president has the authority to withdraw from such a treaty without congressional approval, although President George W. Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 on his own.
• The loss of U.S. protection, combined with the proximity of nuclear-armed North Korea and a rapidly burgeoning Chinese military, might be enough to push Japan down the nuclear route. (how can Trump justify denuclearizing the Korean peninsula while forcing Japan to nuclearize?)
• The U.S. treaty cost - Japan subsidizes the costs of maintaining the troops; experts say it’s probably cheaper for the U.S. to keep its troops in Japan than to bring them home.
• The U.S. Seventh Fleet -- based in the central Japan port of Yokosuka -- has helped maintain the security and stability that’s been essential to the economic and trade growth of the region, benefiting U.S. exporters.

 

Japan has traditionally been the closest ally of the USA in recent times. They can defend themselves now. Japan should be allowed to openly acknowledge they have nuclear weapons.

[nkg]

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

The treaty was designed to put strict limits, no to prevent, Japan from having the capability to engage in expeditionary warfare. This was, is and will long continue to be a significant source of reassurance to many nations in this part of the world.

 

Requiring Japan to reconfigure it's defence capability to come to the aid of the USA would require them to develop a global capacity - geography dictated that.

 

Leaving aside some of Tom Clancy's more elaborate (hysterical) plotlines, such a capacity would alarm many countries and lead to a destabilising ramping up in defence activities in the region.

 

Japan has extremely capable and effective defence forces. I would council leaving them as such. By all means renegotiate elements of the treaty, add codicils, but do not walk away from it, particularly on some incoherent Presidential whim that it is "unfair".

 

The USA emerged from the debris of 1945 as, if not the world policeman, then certainly the guarantor of peace in a number of regions. That can cost - heaven knows we British know, we did it for donkeys years - and it has not always worked, especially when it comes to overenthusiastic support for some unsavoury clients; but to abandon it would cost far more 

 

Japan has a world-leading space program, and large stocks of uranium and plutonium from its 42 operational nuclear reactors. They could probably build fully functional ICBMs with warheads in a matter of months. That is really all they require to possess a "global capacity".

 

I absolutely agree that it would make no sense whatsoever for the US to walk away from its treaty obligations. And I feel certain that they will not, despite Donald's recent sabre-rattling.

 

However, taking into account the growth of China as a military power, giving Japan a little more latitude with regards to its armed forces might be no bad thing.

 

 

 

 

[nkg]

11 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

This guy seriously wants no help when the US is attacked, one day. And it will happen.

 

Don't be silly. What country could attack the US without being obliterated themselves?

[Sir Swagman]

He mouths off when he shouldn’t and doesn’t say a word when he should. His shaping his occupation of the White House into a (sadly) comedic suspense drama is an embarrassment to almost everyone except him, as he seem incapable of viewing anything from but his perspective. Sad, sad old man.

But this caught my eye and made me smile.....

 

[wombat]

5 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

Another ally lost.

Soon Trump is fighting alone against the rest of the world. 

er...captive audience by defeat would be a better term than ally.

[soalbundy]

Kick another ally in the balls, why don't yer.

[Tug]

You know Donald this could be just another feckless distraction to draw attention away from his latest missteps 

[Rimmer]

Some inflammatory posts have been removed also replies

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Japan can assemble a nuclear bomb with in 15 minutes if they don't have one already.

You are confused.

 

That’s a Toyota Camry, not an atomic bomb.