This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/world/asia/japanese-warship-us-navy-ship.html
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Japanese Warship Escorts U.S. Supply Ship on Its Way to Join Strike Force | Japanese Warship Escorts U.S. Supply Ship on Its Way to Join Strike Force |
(35 minutes later) | |
TOKYO — A Japanese warship accompanied a United States Navy supply ship on Monday on its way to join an American aircraft carrier and three other warships in a strike force that entered the Sea of Japan over the weekend. | TOKYO — A Japanese warship accompanied a United States Navy supply ship on Monday on its way to join an American aircraft carrier and three other warships in a strike force that entered the Sea of Japan over the weekend. |
The group is meant to send a powerful deterrent signal to North Korea at a time of mounting tensions on the Korean Peninsula over the North’s advancing nuclear program. | The group is meant to send a powerful deterrent signal to North Korea at a time of mounting tensions on the Korean Peninsula over the North’s advancing nuclear program. |
Japan’s action is a sign of its expanding military presence in the region. It is particularly significant because it represents the first time a warship is being used to aid an allied force since the country’s Parliament passed legislation authorizing overseas combat missions. | Japan’s action is a sign of its expanding military presence in the region. It is particularly significant because it represents the first time a warship is being used to aid an allied force since the country’s Parliament passed legislation authorizing overseas combat missions. |
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe fought a hard political battle to push through those security laws two years ago, and they remain contentious in a country that has considered its postwar pacifism a deeply embedded part of its identity. | Prime Minister Shinzo Abe fought a hard political battle to push through those security laws two years ago, and they remain contentious in a country that has considered its postwar pacifism a deeply embedded part of its identity. |
The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force sent the Izumo, a helicopter carrier, on Monday morning from a base in Yokosuka, southwest of Tokyo. The base is also home to the American aircraft carrier Reagan. | |
“It is extremely significant to show that the deterrent force and readiness of the Japan-U.S. security alliance are powerful,” said Fumio Kishida, Japan’s foreign minister, in remarks to reporters in Turkmenistan, where he was attending talks with his counterparts from several Central Asian countries. | “It is extremely significant to show that the deterrent force and readiness of the Japan-U.S. security alliance are powerful,” said Fumio Kishida, Japan’s foreign minister, in remarks to reporters in Turkmenistan, where he was attending talks with his counterparts from several Central Asian countries. |
Under Japan’s new security laws, the country may engage in “collective self-defense,” meaning its military forces may guard the ships or weapons of United States forces when Americans are involved in the defense of Japan. | |
The laws were largely seen as a first step by Mr. Abe to expand the country’s military power and, eventually, overturn the clause in the country’s postwar Constitution that calls for the complete renunciation of war. | The laws were largely seen as a first step by Mr. Abe to expand the country’s military power and, eventually, overturn the clause in the country’s postwar Constitution that calls for the complete renunciation of war. |
The Japanese public is deeply divided over whether to modernize the Constitution to allow for more military activity. A poll published on Monday by Kyodo News showed that respondents were nearly equally split on the question of whether that pacifist clause should be revised. |
Previous version
1
Next version