That analysis is pathetically bad. I'm no fan of the TPP, but one shouldn't view every single thing that happens through that lens.
There's a number of things going on here:
1) The South China sea dispute is getting more and more dangerous. Japan wants flexibility in making alliances to counterbalance China in that area.
2) This give Japan the ability to deploy troops (or more likely aircraft) to the Middle East in support of US operations there. That likely to happen in return for more active US support in the South China Sea.
3) There is always the North Korean factor. That really defies any sensible analysis, but one can imagine circumstances where Japan would like to use military forces against NK.
It's true that the TPP is seen in the Asia-Pacific as an anti-China move, but it seems a comparatively minor part in this particular change in Japan's military stance.
>one shouldn't view every single thing that happens through that lens.
It doesn't.
Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in public) almost overnight an the only thing that changed in that period in US-Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal.
Ironically the deal might still fail (which Abe probably wouldn't mind since the TPP is not good for Japan), meaning that this negotiating chip was given away by Obama for free.
>it seems a comparatively minor part in this particular change in Japan's military stance.
You are confusing the reasons why Abe wanted to remilitarize (another topic entirely) with the reasons why Obama had the US state department give him the green light.
>Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in public) almost overnight an the only thing that changed in that period in US-Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal.
Abe has been pushing for constitutional changes since he returned to the PM's office, and the US has been supportive all along since it means we'll be putting fewer resources into guaranteeing Japan's defense.
This has been in the cards since before TPP even existed.
Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in public) almost overnight an the only thing that changed in that period in US-Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal.
Abe has been on the path to rearming Japan since 2012[1][2].
The US has wanted Japan to rearm for years. See the articles in the NYT and the WSJ in 2013[3][4]. It's seen as a way to use Japanese money as a counter to China in the region. The fact they are likely to buy US weapons systems helps, too.
The way your comment is phrased makes me wonder if you think the US State department had some legal oversight of the clause or something? It doesn't - the legal basis for this change is completely in Japanese hands.
It's hard to know what's real and what's not real with TPP, since we don't know what's in it.
Having said that, I agree with your analysis. This move is necessary for Japan to enter into regional security agreements - other countries aren't going to enter into a mutual defense pact with Japan if it can't assist in their defense when they're attacked.
If Japan takes action against North Korea the South will bomb Tokyo to the oblivion.
South Korea will not permit anyone and especially Japan to touch anything that belongs to Koreans. Koreans living in the NK are still citizens of SK and the land is claimed by SK.
Yes if there is conflict on the seas or in the air with the NK forces then SK will do nothing to stop the Japan.
What Japan did today/yesterday just pushed SK to be more assertive towards Japan. It hopefully speeds up the reunification.
Not an expert in the region but I'm pretty convinced SK has no real want to bomb Japan. And inversely, Japan wouldn't take action against the DPRK without it being a coordinated SK/US/JP effort.
The United States of America, the Republic of Korea, and Japan held a productive and substantive security meeting from April 16-17 in Washington, District of Columbia, to enhance trilateral defense cooperation in light of the evolving security environment in the region.... The officials reaffirmed that their governments will not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, and agreed to closely coordinate to deter North Korean provocations.... In addition, the three countries held a productive discussion on cooperative measures for non-traditional security issues including humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, counter-piracy operations, and counter-ISIL efforts.[1]
Three years ago it was impossible to imagine the US and Iran co-operating about anything. Now the US has provided de facto aircover for Iranian operations against ISIS.
There's a number of things going on here:
1) The South China sea dispute is getting more and more dangerous. Japan wants flexibility in making alliances to counterbalance China in that area.
2) This give Japan the ability to deploy troops (or more likely aircraft) to the Middle East in support of US operations there. That likely to happen in return for more active US support in the South China Sea.
3) There is always the North Korean factor. That really defies any sensible analysis, but one can imagine circumstances where Japan would like to use military forces against NK.
It's true that the TPP is seen in the Asia-Pacific as an anti-China move, but it seems a comparatively minor part in this particular change in Japan's military stance.