Survey: 77% doubt U.S. will protect Japan in military crisis
Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba meets U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Feb. 7. (Asahi Shimbun file photo)
Despite the long existence of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, only 15 percent of Japanese believe the United States 'will protect' Japan in the event of a military emergency, a survey showed.
Around 77 percent of survey respondents said they do not think Washington will protect its alliance partner.
Although simple comparisons cannot be made because of differences in survey methods, the ratios of those skeptical of U.S. protection in past surveys had been less than 60 percent.
When asked about Japan's diplomacy with the United States, 24 percent said that Tokyo 'should follow (the wishes of Washington) as much as possible,' while 68 percent said Japan 'should be independent as much as possible.'
The nationwide survey was conducted by mail from late February, after Donald Trump was inaugurated as U.S. president for a second time, to early April on 3,000 randomly selected voters.
Valid responses were received from 1,899, or 63 percent.
This year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.
The United States has played a central role in maintaining international order since the end of the war. But the Trump administration's policies and 'America First' stance threaten to upend the global order.
When asked if they think the international community can rely on the United States to maintain peace around the world, only 3 percent of survey respondents agreed 'to a great extent,' while 40 percent agreed 'to some extent.'
Forty-eight percent said the international community 'cannot rely much on the United States,' and 6 percent said it 'cannot rely at all on the United States.'
Although a majority of respondents believe Japan should gain more independence from the United States, 66 percent 'disagreed' with the idea of Japan shifting its diplomatic priority to other Asian countries, including China.
Only 16 percent 'agreed' with such a change.
The survey also asked whether Japan has done enough to apologize and make amends to the countries and peoples it has harmed through war and colonial rule.
Fifty-eight percent said Japan 'has done enough,' while 29 percent said that it 'has not done enough.'
In a mail survey conducted 10 years ago, 57 percent said Japan had done 'enough' to apologize and make amends, while 24 percent said the country had not done enough.
When asked whether Japanese politicians should continue to convey messages of apology to countries damaged by Japan, 47 percent of respondents said 'there is no need,' while 44 percent said such messages should continue.
The results were slightly reversed from 10 years ago, when 46 percent of survey respondents said politicians 'should continue to convey messages of apology,' and 42 percent said 'there is no need.'
Among respondents in the latest survey who support the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, 41 percent said messages of apology 'should continue,' and 50 percent said there is 'no need.'
When asked whether Japan should ratify the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 73 percent of respondents said the country 'should join,' far exceeding the 22 percent who said Japan 'should not join.'
As for Japan's reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for security, 38 percent said it is 'necessary,' while 55 percent said it is 'unnecessary.'
Among those who said the reliance is not necessary, 82 percent feel that Japan should join the anti-nuclear weapons treaty. The ratio was 65 percent among those who said Japan's reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella is necessary.
The survey also asked respondents if they felt that the Japanese government was 'earnestly working' to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world.
Only 19 percent said the Japanese government is 'earnestly working' toward that end, while 77 percent said they 'don't think so.'
In an interview survey conducted in June 1985, 40 years after the end of World War II, 21 percent of respondents said the Japanese government was 'earnestly working' toward abolishing nuclear weapons, while 61 percent said they didn't think so.
Japan's basic stance is to act as a 'bridge' between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.
However, the survey results show dissatisfaction with the government's efforts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
17 minutes ago
- Japan Times
French Open champion Coco Gauff proud to represent 'Americans that look like me'
Newly crowned French Open champion Coco Gauff, the first Black American to win the title in a decade, said on Saturday her victory in Paris was for people back home who looked like her and struggled amid ongoing political turmoil. Gauff battled from a set down to beat Aryna Sabalenka 6-7 (5-7), 6-2, 6-4 for her first French Open crown and her second Grand Slam title after the 2023 U.S. Open. She is the first Black American to win the French Open since Serena Williams in 2015. "It means a lot (to win the title), and obviously there's a lot going on in our country right now with things — like, everything, yeah. I'm sure you guys know," she said, smiling but without elaborating further. "But just to be able to be a representation of that and a representation of, I guess, people that look like me in America who maybe don't feel as supported during this time period, and so just being that reflection of hope and light for those people." There has been ongoing political turmoil in the United States following the election of President Donald Trump last year. Trump's first few months in office have featured an unapologetic assault on diversity and inclusion efforts, unraveling decades-old policies to remedy historical injustices for marginalized groups in a matter of weeks. In his second term, Trump revoked a landmark 1965 executive order mandating equal employment opportunities for all, slashed environmental actions to protect communities of color and ordered the gutting of an agency that helped fund minority and female-owned businesses. The actions have alarmed advocates, who say they effectively erase decades of hard-fought progress on leveling the playing field for marginalized communities. "I remember after the election and everything, it kind of felt (like) a down period a little bit, and my mom told me during Riyadh (in November 2024) 'just try to win the tournament, just to give something for people to smile for.' "So that's what I was thinking about today when holding that (trophy). "Then seeing the flags in the crowd means a lot. You know, some people may feel some type of way about being patriotic and things like that, but I'm definitely patriotic and proud to be American, and I'm proud to represent the Americans that look like me and people who kind of support the things that I support." Trump has previously denied claims he has employed racist attacks and an agenda throughout his political career.
Yomiuri Shimbun
37 minutes ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump's New Travel Ban Takes Effect As Tensions Escalate over Immigration Enforcement
AP Travelers cart their luggage through the international arrivals area at the Los Angeles International Airport, Saturday. WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president's escalating campaign of immigration enforcement. The new proclamation, which Trump signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. The new ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all U.S. diplomatic missions. However, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting Monday. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the U.S. even after the ban takes effect. During Trump's first term, a hastily written executive order ordering the denial of entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries created chaos at numerous airports and other ports of entry, prompting successful legal challenges and major revisions to the policy. No such disruption was immediately discernible at Los Angeles International Airport in the hours after the new ban took effect. Haitian-American Elvanise Louis-Juste, who was at the airport earlier Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the U.S. are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest. 'I have family in Haiti, so it's pretty upsetting to see and hear,' Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. 'I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's very upsetting.' Many immigration experts say the new ban is more carefully crafted and appears designed to beat court challenges that hampered the first by focusing on the visa application process. Trump said this time that some countries had 'deficient' screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. He relied extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of people who remain in the U.S. after their visas expired. Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. U.S. officials say the man charged in the attack overstayed a tourist visa. He is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organization. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban does make exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there. Afghanistan had been one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office.
Asahi Shimbun
41 minutes ago
- Asahi Shimbun
EDITORIAL: Ignoring TEPCO leaders' decisions on Fukushima plant an outrage
Plaintiffs and their lawyers outside the Tokyo High Court on June 6 (Masaaki Kobayashi) We cannot but doubt that the judicial branch is squarely facing up to the irreparable damage caused by the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant of Tokyo Electric Power Co. The Tokyo High Court rejected a request by TEPCO shareholders that former company executives compensate the company for the damages it incurred. The district court ruling ordered compensation of about 13 trillion yen ($90 billion) be paid, but plaintiffs lost on the appeal. Electric power companies that operate nuclear plants have an obligation to prevent a serious accident. Company executives in making management decisions are called upon to be vigilant so their company does not have to shoulder responsibility for massive compensation. However, the high court can be said to have taken the position that the responsibility of the executives will not be questioned even if no measures were taken unless there was an imminent possibility that called for halting nuclear plant operations because a huge earthquake might occur. We fear that the logic widening the range in which slack management decisions are no longer questioned will lead to a loosening of discipline regarding safety and could trigger another serious accident. While the ruling denied legal responsibility of the former executives, it also called on companies operating nuclear plants to fulfill their social and public interest duty to prevent accidents based on the latest knowledge. If such an accident were to occur, it would cause massive damage over a wide area and could lead to the collapse of the nation. The ruling pointed out that the former executives should shoulder major social responsibility because they were in a position to order measures to prevent an accident. There is dissonance in a logic that contains both aspects. The high court also included additional wording calling for consideration of moving in a direction of placing even greater responsibility on company directors in light of now having experienced an accident. But regardless of whether it was before or after an accident, there should be no change in calling for a high level of safety to prevent a serious accident from occurring at all. The accident 14 years ago caused irreversible damage to Japanese society. Many people had their quiet lives taken away and work continues to decommission nuclear reactors. The total cost of dealing with the accident has exceeded 10 trillion yen and the virtual burden on the people continues to accumulate. The committee set up by the Diet to look into the accident concluded it was a manmade disaster. But if the latest ruling is upheld, the legal responsibility of individuals well as TEPCO's negligence will not be called into question in other related lawsuits as well. It will be difficult to be convinced that the accident should be considered as only an act of God. As memory of the accident fades, the government has changed course on nuclear power and called for its maximum usage. Not only TEPCO, but all other electric power companies with nuclear plants as well as the relevant government agencies must once again embrace a sense of tension. Looking back, the major accident was the result of multiple layers of conceit and irresponsibility on the part of the electric power industry, relevant government agencies, politicians and local governments. There is a need for society as a whole to continue thinking about why the accident was not prevented, where the responsibility lies and how to take advantage of the lessons learned. --The Asahi Shimbun, June 7
