This essay argues that protecting citizens is a state’s fundamental duty, not America’s. As U.S. public opinion and global conditions change, Japan cannot assume permanent protection while avoiding reciprocal defense responsibilities, exposing the risks of neglecting self-defense.

To which other country does Japan intend to demand a “military alliance that will protect Japan but not protect the other country”?
2016-10-31
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Protecting the citizens is the most important and fundamental duty of a state.
It is absolutely not the duty of the United States.
We, the people, have the right to say to the state, “Do not neglect your most important job!”.
This is not something to say to the United States.
It is something that must be said to the country called Japan.
Public opinion in the United States changes, and global circumstances and leaders also change, so there may come a day when the United States no longer recognizes China or Russia as threats.
If, at that time, the United States were to judge security cooperation with Japan to be “past its expiration date,” as it is currently trying to shift South Korea toward autonomous defense, then to which other country would Japan intend to demand a “military alliance that will protect Japan but not protect the other country”?
Like a pleasure-seeking student whose allowance is suddenly cut off due to a parent’s misfortune or change of heart, will Japan only then be forced to realize one day the pitiful reality that it had not been living by its own strength, and only after understanding that “no one else will help,” finally begin to “work for itself”?
A student can simply start a part-time job the very next day, but national defense is not something that can be prepared overnight, as it requires informing the public, securing budgets, drafting and deliberating legislation, and conducting training and other substantive preparations.
To be continued.