> Right off the bat Japan has shouldered its Pacific Ocean
> responsibilities by constructing a navy that is over twice
> the size, weight and range of the Germnas.

Well, if Germany were an island in the Pacific and would need to get all its oil via dangerous SE Asian sea lanes...


> While Germany
> continues to plan and sometimes construct ships that are only
> capable of coastal defense

The German military is supposed to defend Germany. Whenever the Russians get greedy...

> and is still utterly reliant on
> the US, France and Great Britain for blue water operations.

Of course, I see benefits of policing the sea lines, since a lot of trade and energy is transported on the oceans, but we are not yet again in an age of pirates. I understand that the evil Hollywood empire is filming one Johnny Depp pirate movie after the other to convince us poor Germans to spend more money on the navy and police the sea lanes. And I do seriously understand the problems of piracy in South East Asia. But hey, did not you say that Japan is shouldering its responsibility in the Pacific Ocean? Why don't they stop the pirates then?

Question: Why would Germany need to be able to conduct blue water operations without US, France, Britain?

What kind of operations do you consider necessary for European security? What kind of these operations Germany cannot contribute sufficiently to in cooperation with EU allies?

I don't know much about blue water stuff, but I have heard from several sources that German submarines are pretty good and that they were undetected by the US in various training exercises. Well, that might not have been so difficult since the Chinese submarines managed to surprise the US as well recently, when a sub popped up in a middle of a US battlegroup, if I remember correctly an article from a few weeks ago.

The trade between Europe and the Americas does not need protection. The Mediterranean is pretty safe as well... And no Stoertebeker is stealing anything in the North Sea and Baltic Sea.


I agree with your last paragraphs on permanent seats for Japan and Germany. I would not vote for a German permanent seat either. But I also wouldn't vote for a Japanese one.

Ideally, the EU gets one permanent seat with veto power. This, of course, won't happen in the next ten years, because France and UK don't want to give up that power.

Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa should not get a permanent seat, but get some more weight in the Security Council: Perhaps membership every other year, but no veto power.
First, however, these countries have to achieve something good internationally in order to prove that they can pull their weight. Hoping that Japan will be more constructive is not enough.

South Africa should first pull Zimbabwe and Sudan in the right direction for instance.

India should make peace with Pakistan, then it gets more weight at the SC.

Japan should first seek real reconciliation with all the countries it attacked in WWII rather than visiting that damn shrine and rewriting history and portraying itself as a victim because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Germany has pretty good relations with all the nations it has invaded, murdered etc. Japan has not done that. Plenty of resentment left in South Korea, China, Indonesia, Burma etc.

I agree with your counter-balance argument.

I think the US supports Japan's ambitions for a permanent seat because of US geostrategic interests in NE Asia (China, North Korea, Russia) rather than because of Japan's military contributions to international security.

Germany's lack of military contributions to international security are held against Germany. And that makes sense, because the Security Council deals with world security rather than with security in just Western Europe or just NE Asia.

But Japan's lack of contributions are not held against Japan, although Japan is only interested in its own security and in energy resources.

Japan is not going to send significant numbers of peacekeepers or combat troops to Darfur, Zimbabwe, Congo, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, when it gets a permanent seat at the SC.

I agree with you that Japan's "interests are largely seen to be compatible with those of the US."

I think you have put an emphasis on "seen to be" with good reason. I think this caution is necessary.

Many Americans, including policy makers, tend to be very optimistic and also believe that US interests are compatible with those of allies, because the US is in favor of promoting the free world etc. The US only wants the best for the good guys, thus it is assumed that the good guys agree with the US.

I am not an expert on Japan and the Pacific region. Perhaps Japanese and US interests are the largely same. But then the question still remains: Do the US and Japan agree on a common policy to pursue those interests or do they disagree about the right strategy? Perhaps Japan wants to pursue these interests differently than the US? Perhaps Japan is more in favor of soft power, bribing and negotiations with China, North Korea and Russia...

What is actually Japan's policy on Taiwan?
The US seems to have some strategic ambiguity towards Taiwan in order to make the Chinese believe that the US would defend Taiwan...
Question: Would Japan support the US in such a war???

Another question: The US is putting a lot of pressure on Germany re trade with Iran. I approve of this pressure.
But what about Japan? Isn't Japan getting a lot of oil from Iran and is also investing there heavily?

How is Japan reacting to US pressures?

And in general: What has been Japan's biggest military contribution to US security?