Collective Self-Defense b 7
its own submarines domestically. Another revision widens the interpretation of the three conditions Japan places on its response to an attack; specifically the first condition, that there exists an imminent and illegitimate act of aggression against Japan, was amended to include any such aggression toward its allies and defense partners. This opens the question as to whether Japan would become involved in a cross-strait conflict. In the past, Japan would only use force if it was under direct attack, or to prevent an imminent attack. Additionally, Japanese forces were to use the minimum amount of military force necessary to provide for the country’s defense. Under the new rules, Japan can use force under a wider variety of circumstances, and the concept of “minimal defensive force” has been expanded. Japan’s expansion of its right to collective self-defense begs the question of whether Tokyo will push for a multilateral security alliance in Asia. Some observers have suggested that a defense organiza-
tion akin to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) could emerge in East Asia as a response to China’s worrying military buildup. If this were to occur, it would have profound implications for Taiwan’s defense.
“While Japan’s defense reforms do create opportunities for Taiwan, they also contribute to more complex regional dynamics.” Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that Japan would push for, or support, a NATO-style alliance system in Asia. While it is true that Japan is upgrading its defense relations with key Asian allies, this does not mean that Japan is willing to fight for another nation. Additionally, unresolved security issues, as well as historical animosity between Japan and Korea, also stand in the way of any such security alliance. With these realities in mind, the ROC must con-
photo: US DoD US Marines and Japanese Self-Defense Force soldiers go over tactics while conducting amphibious assault operations as part of exercise Dawn Blitz 2013.