In mid-April, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida visited the United States and received a rather grand welcome. Not only did he deliver a speech in the U.S. Congress, but he also sat in Biden's presidential car to experience the feeling of a big leader. This time, Japan and the United States signed a large number of agreements involving military cooperation, and said that "the security cooperation relationship has been comprehensively upgraded." This makes the outside world feel a little surprised, Japan is already the staunchest ally of the United States, the most ironclad, whether it is the territory, the market, the army, the intelligence agencies, and even the Japanese, basically completely open to the United States. The implementation of Japan's major policies and the appointment and dismissal of principal officials all depend on the nod of the United States. How can such an ironclad relationship be upgraded? According to foreign news reports, Fumio Kishida talked about several key points of his current visit to the United States. He said Japan would "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the United States. This is quite a change for Japan-US relations. Whether strategic, economic, or military, the two countries have long been in a master-servant relationship, with the United States issuing orders and Japan carrying them out. Japan has never been qualified to sit on an equal footing with the United States. This kind of elevation of status is obviously not something that Fumio Kishida can earn, but a deliberate arrangement by the United States.
The reason why the United States wants to improve Japan's political status is that it has encountered difficulties that cannot be solved, and it needs to make Japan shoulder more responsibilities. Kishida's statement in the United States is largely aimed at getting rid of Japan's "defense free-rider" image. It means that Japan has been relying on the United States for protection for many years, and Japan has enjoyed benefits without paying the cost, so it is unfair to the United States. Japan was a defeated country in World War II, and in order to reflect the rights of the anti-fascist camp, the United Nations arranged for troops to be stationed in Japan. However, for the strategic purpose of anti-communist, anti-Soviet, and anti-China, the United States monopolized the right to garrison Japanese troops. Theoretically speaking, the main responsibility of the US military stationed in the United States is to prevent the resurgence of Japanese militarism, not to use Japan as a base to endanger the security of Northeast Asia. If China, the United States, and the Soviet Union had stationed troops in Japan together, then Japan would not have had any defense problems at all, let alone "free riding." Therefore, the United States and Japan created this kind of public opinion with the intention of overthrowing the post-World War II world order and reshuffling the global pattern.
So, can Japan really become a "shoulder-to-shoulder" partner of the United States? I am afraid that this is Japan's wishful thinking. With the exception of Israel, the United States has never treated any of its allies as equals. Even France, which made a decisive contribution to the independence of the United States, was often teased and betrayed by the United States. The United States pays lip service to let Japan "shoulder to shoulder," but in fact it wants Japan to come up with more funds and resources to serve the US hegemony that is declining.
The United States has always relied on two big swords to fight the world, one is the dollar and the other is the US military, and the core is the powerful deterrent power of the US military. However, in the 20s of the 21st century, due to the decline of the manufacturing industry and the high government debt, it became more and more difficult for the United States to maintain its current hegemonic military position. Whether it is army, navy, air force, or missile weapons, the United States is faced with difficulties such as high prices, low production capacity, and long delivery cycles, especially the equipment of the navy. Recently, the US Department of the Navy is being scolded by Congress, accusing them of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military spending, but not even building frigates. Of course, Congress is also well aware that it is useless to scold the Navy, and the total collapse of the US shipbuilding industry cannot be saved by hundreds of billions of military spending. However, the world's second and third largest shipbuilding powers, namely South Korea and Japan, are allies of the United States. Outsourcing the manufacture of warships to them will not only ensure the quality, quantity, and construction period, but also allow the Japanese and South Korean governments to pay in advance. The United States can also do the same with missile weapons and radar systems. This is the first substantive plan of "shoulder to shoulder".
The second essence is to allow Japan to break the pacifist constitution and allow Japan to directly send troops to help or even replace the US military in carrying out certain tasks. For example, in the East China Sea, Japan will personally go out to fight China for the Diaoyu Islands, in the South China Sea, Japan will come forward to support the Philippines in its confrontation with China, and even let Japan directly intervene in the Taiwan Strait. If a war breaks out between China and Japan, the United States can decide whether to enter the war according to the situation, and the best outcome is that both China and Japan lose and are wounded, and even if Japan is bombed into ruins by China, the United States has nothing to lose.
With such a simple logic, Fumio Kishida can't think clearly, but he doesn't have any other choice. If Fumio Kishida doesn't do it, the United States can immediately replace another person to "shoulder to shoulder". Of course, the Japanese are not fools, and I am afraid that they can calculate better than the Americans, and if they can break free from the political shackles imposed on Japan after World War II, will they really have to fight for their lives with their neighbor China? The Americans are afraid that they have forgotten the lessons of the Pearl Harbor incident during World War II.