The escort controversy: Japan's diplomatic compromise and hypocrisy

Editor's note: Xiang Haoyu, a special commentator for CGTN, is a specially appointed research fellow at the Department for Asia-Pacific Studies, China Institute of International Studies. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In US President Donald Trump's high-profile meeting with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi at the White House Thursday, the issue of escort operations in the strategic Strait of Hormuz was a focal point. Trump has been repeatedly calling on allies like Japan to participate in the escort mission, presenting Japan with a difficult dilemma. 

Takaichi did not directly reject Trump's demand. Instead, she adopted a low profile, offering "patient explanations" of Japan's position to earn Trump's "leniency." Simultaneously, she presented a "gift bag" including large-scale investment in the US, cooperation on energy and critical minerals, and joint missile research and development and production. This was an attempt to use compromises in economic and security cooperation to gain US understanding regarding Japan's inability to send troops for the escort. 

However, an unforeseen embarrassing moment occurred. During the joint press conference, when asked why the US did not inform its allies before the strike on Iran, Trump compared the US action to Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, saying, "Who knows better about surprise than Japan?" 

This not only underscored the inequality of the Japan-US alliance but also reflected Japan's diplomatic passivity and awkwardness. Behind the escort controversy lie Japan's legal constraints, the dilemma of diplomatic balancing, as well as Japan's double standard. 

The constitutional red line

Japan's hesitation over the escort issue stems primarily from rigid domestic legal constraints, the core reason Takaichi said currently Japan has no plans to send vessels to the Middle East. Article 9 of Japan's pacifist Constitution explicitly mandates that Japan will forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. 

It also stipulates that land, sea, air forces, as well as other war potential will never be maintained, and the right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. 

Although the Japanese government lifted the ban on collective self-defense through the 2015 New Security Legislation, expanding the Self-Defense Force (SDF)'s scope of overseas operations to provide rear-end support for other militaries globally, this does not mean the SDF can participate in overseas military actions at will. Beyond constitutional constraints, current laws require that overseas SDF military operations be based on the identification of a "survival-threatening situation" or an "important influence situation." 

The current situation in Hormuz does not meet these standards or fulfill the core requirements for US escort missions. 

Additionally, the "Maritime Security Operations" under the Self-Defense Forces Act are limited to protecting Japanese-flagged ships, and the Anti-Piracy Act does not apply to state actors like Iran. These legal frameworks collectively prevent the SDF from joining US-led escort operations in Hormuz. 

Participating in the escort mission would essentially bind Japan deeply to US military actions against Iran. The US strike on Iran violated international law and faces unanimous international condemnation. If Japan were to dispatch the SDF to the region, even under the guise of an "escort," it could be deemed direct participation in an armed conflict, clearly violating the core principle of "renouncing war" in the Constitution. 

While Article 9 has been gradually hollowed out by the Japanese government over time, as long as it exists, the government cannot ignore legal constraints and forcibly deploy the SDF without triggering a domestic constitutional crisis. These legal shackles prevent the Japanese government from dispatching warships, even under pressure from the United States. 

Diplomatic balancing dilemma

Beyond legal hurdles, Japan faces a diplomatic balancing act where it dares not offend the United States but is also unwilling to lose Iran, leading to a strategy of indirect compromise. 

The Japan-US alliance has long been the "cornerstone" of Japan's foreign and security policy. The Takaichi administration aims to leverage US support to loosen military restrictions, revise the pacifist Constitution and promote Japan's "normalization" as a state; thus, it dares not publicly defy Trump's demands. 

The "gift bag" Takaichi offered during the meeting, including commercial cooperation projects worth $73 billion, energy and critical mineral cooperationand joint missile project, was essentially a "transfer of benefits" to the US in exchange for its tacit approval of Japan's "no escort" stance. 

On the other hand, Japan maintains a long-standing traditional friendship with Iran and is highly dependent on Middle Eastern energy. Japan relies on the Middle East for over 90% of its oil imports, and the Strait of Hormuz is a vital route for its energy transport. If Tokyo were to participate in the US escort, it would inevitably be viewed as a hostile state by Iran, damaging Tokyo's balanced diplomacy in the Middle East and threatening its energy security. 

Trump's inappropriate remarks at the press conference, comparing the US strike on Iran to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, revealed the inequality within the Japan-US alliance. Even as Takaichi maintained a forced smile, she could not hide Japan's passive position: relying on the US for strategic interests while enduring its casual ridicule and pressure.

The hypocrisy of double standard

The Takaichi government's conciliatory posture toward the US diverges sharply from the will of the Japanese public, and its avoidance of addressing the US violation of international law highlights its hypocritical double standard. 

A recent national telephone poll conducted by Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun showed that 82% of the Japanese respondents do not support US military action against Iran. Furthermore, 90% expressed anxiety over the impact of US actions in Iran on the Japanese economy, as Middle East instability directly threatens Japan's energy supply and economic stability. 

Nevertheless, the Takaichi government has ignored public opinion to cater to the United States. Ironically, while the Japanese government frequently touts a "free and open international order based on the rule of law," it deliberately avoids legally characterizing the US military action against Iran, which clearly violates international law. 

Takaichi explicitly stated she would not comment on legal issues. This evasive attitude has been rejected by the majority of Japanese respondents. This "deliberate indulgence" of US violations of international law while simultaneously championing the "rule of law" internationally vividly demonstrates the Japanese government's hypocrisy. 

The controversy over the Strait of Hormuz escort mission has exposed the utilitarian and hypocritical nature of the Takaichi government's foreign policy. While the meeting between Takaichi and Trump appeared to temporarily bypass the escort disagreement through interest-based compromises, it failed to resolve the fundamental dilemma of Japan's diplomatic dependence on the United States. Ultimately, this double standard will damage Japan's reputation within the international community. 

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)