Defense Agency Director Gen. Shigeru Ishiba said the ship would provide "logistical support" for Washington’s military operations in the region. Striking nationalist themes, Tokyo government officials have also said that the ship will "protect Japanese shipping," according to the New York Times.

"To utilize such a high-tech vessel effectively contributes to national interests," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda.

The 7,250-ton Aegis, the largest warship in the Japanese navy, is capable of attacking more than 10 targets simultaneously and detecting about 200 aircraft and missiles several hundred kilometers away at the same time. The vessel can collect and transmit military data to the U.S. war fleet. It will join five other Japanese vessels that have been operating in the area since November 2001--one month after Washington began bombing Afghanistan. Two of the five function as refueling ships for the U.S. fleet. The other three earlier-generation destroyers stand guard over them.

"We greatly appreciate this effort by Japan in the support of Operation Enduring Freedom," said U.S. deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage in Tokyo on December 11, using Washington’s name for its assault on Afghanistan. During his tour of Asia to garner support for a U.S.-led military assault on Iraq, Armitage described Japan as "our most important ally in Asia."

"The Aegis decision sends a clear message to Washington, which has been asking Tokyo unofficially to send the destroyer," commented the December 7 Japan Times. "As such, it was timed with an eye to [Armitage’s visit] and subsequent Japan-U.S. ministerial security talks."

According to the Japanese English-language weekly, the destroyer’s "timely dispatch...can pick up some of the slack" of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and "thereby provide indirect support for an anti-Iraq operation."

Washington has also "unofficially" asked the Japanese government to send a P-3C Orion antisubmarine patrol aircraft to the area, reported Japan Today. The on-line news magazine noted that "U.S. government officials have made it repeatedly clear over the past months that they are expecting at least the same level of support...when the United States moves on to Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein by force."

The stance of the Japanese government toward today’s imperialist war drive in the Middle East stands in contrast to the Gulf War of just over a decade ago, in which Tokyo played no military role. Restricted to "checkbook diplomacy," the Japanese rulers coughed up more than $13 billion toward the cost of Operation Desert Storm--the code name for the brutal assault on Iraq led by Washington.

In 1991 following the Gulf War, Tokyo took a somewhat different approach, sending 500 Self-Defense Force troops to the region to serve in a United Nations "peacekeeping mission." The Japanese ruling class has substantial stakes in any war or instability in the Middle East, being heavily reliant on the region’s oil despite efforts to break down that dependence.

A few weeks after Washington began bombing Afghanistan last year, Tokyo began its military deployment in the Indian Ocean dispatching on November 25 a destroyer, a minesweeper, and a supply ship. The warships were given authorization to fire if attacked.  
 
Japan’s military potential
Japan has a large and modern standing army with roughly a quarter of a million troops in uniform and an annual military budget of $45 billion--the highest among the imperialist countries after the United States. According to Japanese government 2001 figures, Japan’s naval power includes 54 destroyers, 16 submarines, 32 mine warfare vessels, 3 patrol combat aircraft, 8 landing ships, and 29 auxiliary ships.

The decision to deploy several ships beyond Japan’s territorial waters is the latest in a series of moves by the country’s imperialist rulers to step up their military reach.

In the last decade capitalist politicians in Japan have begun to chip away at post-World War II restraints on the deployment abroad of the armed forces. These restrictions were part of the constitution dictated by Washington in the period of U.S. military occupation that followed Japan’s surrender in 1945.

The "war on terror" has provided a cover for Tokyo’s recent military moves. Last year, urged on by the U.S. government, the parliament approved legislation allowing the Japanese military to contribute to "efforts of the international community for the prevention and eradication of terrorism." This law requires a parliamentary review every six months of Japan’s participation in the "fight against international terrorism."

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who spoke out against Japan’s "checkbook diplomacy" during the Gulf War as opposed to military intervention, pushed for rapid passage of the new legislation.

On November 19 the parliament voted to extend Japan’s military support for the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan for another six months.

These moves have sparked debates within the ruling coalition government, which includes Koizumi’s Liberal Democratic Party, the New Komeito party, and the New Conservative Party. Liberal Democratic Party legislator Hiromu Nonaka said on December 4 that he "vehemently" opposed dispatching the Aegis destroyer to the Indian Ocean because it "could trigger a move to drive our nation in a dangerous direction, including deployment of forces against Iraq."

Criticism from Japan’s opposition parties has generally been mild. Kansei Nakano, the leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, described the warship’s dispatch as "a bit heavy-handed."

Although these steps are taken at Washington’s urging, the Japanese rulers are constantly reminded of who is the boss in this "alliance." Adding to potential friction is the particular resonance in Japan of U.S. officials’ comparisons of September 11 to the Pearl Harbor attack. That military move was made under the pressure of the Roosevelt administration’s 1940 embargo on oil sales to its Asian competitor.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home