U.S.-Japan Coordinate Pacific Defense

In contrast to the Trump Administration’s concerns about some NATO members, notably Germany, not doing their fair share for mutual defense, the White House has been pleased with Japan’s efforts to counter the growing threats from China.

The U.S. – Japan Security Consultative Committee, with the participation of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, Minister for Foreign Affairs Taro Kono, and Minister of Defense Iwaya met in Washington on April 19. The two nations agreed to continue to play an “ indispensable role in upholding a rules-based international order and promoting their shared values, noting that their strategic defense policies aligned with each other.” The United States reiterated its commitment to the defense of Japan through the full range of U.S. military capabilities, including conventional and nuclear.

The participants “affirmed their strong commitment to realize a ‘free and open Indo-Pacific,’ a shared vision for a region in which all nations are sovereign, strong and prosperous. The U.S.-Japan Alliance serves as the cornerstone of peace, security, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and remains iron-clad amid an increasingly complex security environment…[they] reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining readiness to face threats in the Indo-Pacific region, and discussed tangible ways to implement the National Defense Strategy and Japan’s National Defense Program Guidelines. Both parties agreed to enhance alliance capabilities and interoperability across the conventional, cyber, and space domains. Secretary Shanahan expressed appreciation for Minister Iwaya’s leadership, which has further strengthened the alliance and helped to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific region.”

In a thinly veiled reference to China, both Washington and Tokyo expressed concern about “geopolitical competition and coercive attempts to undermine international rules, norms, and institutions present challenges to the Alliance and to the shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific.” In return, they stressed the need to deepen regional cooperation, led by the U.S. and Japan. They also noted the rapidly evolving challenges in space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum. In response, they pledged to deepen their joint endeavors to counter the threats.

In a highly important specific area, the two nations “affirmed that international law applies in cyberspace and that a cyber attack could, in certain circumstances, constitute an armed attack for the purposes of Article V of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.”

Support was expressed for Washington’s attempts to negotiate an end to the North Korean nuclear and missile threat, a topic of key concern to Tokyo. North Korean missiles have been launched in test flights near Japanese territory. Both nations noted the importance of their joint efforts, including those of South Korea, to maintain peace in the area. Cooperation with Australia, India, and the ASEAN nations was emphasized.

The discussion included a number of specific recommendations, including:

Deepening cooperation on space capabilities
Bolstering capability and enhancing their respective integrated defense for both air and missile threats, including through the timely and smooth deployment of Japan’s Aegis Ashore.
The importance of modernizing and adapting the Alliance’s capabilities to meet both current and future needs, including through the introduction of advanced weapon systems to Japan such as F-35, E-2D, V-22, stand-off missiles, and Aegis Ashore.
The two nations will promote the standardization of defense equipment, sharing of defense networks, and cooperation on emerging technologies.
Both Washington and Tokyo will strengthen and enhance information security practices across the whole of government to protect classified information, maintain technological superiority, and preserve our shared economic and defense advantages in the face of evolving threats to the Japan-U.S. Alliance.
The U.S. and Japan will deepen operational cooperation as a means to improve Alliance readiness, interoperability, and deterrence, including the steady implementation of mutual asset protection; bilateral presence and joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance operations; increased scope of logistical support under the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement; and ongoing exchange of liaison officers.
The two Governments will promote joint/shared use of the facilities of the Self-Defense Forces of Japan and U.S. Forces, in addition to operational training areas, to enhance interoperability, deterrence, and response capability, and to build a stronger relationship with local communities.

Sildenafil, free cialis http://www.slovak-republic.org/folk/crafts/ its main component, inhibits cGMP specific phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) which is responsible for degradation of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) in the corpus cavernosum. Hormonal destabilizes buy cheap levitra slovak-republic.org may also lead to cause erectile dysfunction. This lessens the mental pain of the property holders and they have diminished of the torment after they buy another machine. levitra 10 mg These drugs keep a compound called phosphodiesterase sort 5 (Pde5) breaks down cgmp forestalling blood stream into the penis, which causes misfortune of an erection. viagra from uk 20mg hinder the activity of Pde5 enzyme and the consumption can help the affected to be escaped and to manage the even degree of sugar level in blood.

Photo: AH-64D helicopter boarding a MSDF destroyer in support of island landing operations (Japan Self Defense Forces)

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]