There's something quite familiar about Japan's latest political row. The country tends to agonise over its defence and security policies - and its constitutional ban on sending troops on combat missions abroad - in much the same way as the Irish do over neutrality.
So when the beleaguered Prime Minister, Mr Ryutaro Hashimoto, announced that accord had been reached with the US on guidelines for a security agreement, predictably, all hell broke loose. The guidelines, fleshing out the revised post-war Japan-US security treaty, provide for Japanese logistical support for US military operations in the "surrounding" region.
This could range from transport, maintenance of aircraft, access to ports, use of hospitals, the evacuation of non-combatant refugees, and even minesweeping - anything short of actual combat. In return the US stations troops on Japanese soil and guarantees its security.
Mr Hashimoto is already in deep water over the hiring and then firing 11 days later of a cabinet member, Mr Koko Sato, previously found guilty of taking bribes from Lockheed. He now faces further flak from the opposition and from the Socialists (SDP) on whom he depends for his majority. An extraordinary session of the Diet has been convened this week to debate the Sato affair and the guidelines.
Officials insist that the guidelines merely express what was always implicit in the treaty, but many here argue that in providing such back-up in time of war Japan may implicate itself in US actions. Pacifism runs deep in the left, which is particularly angered by the absence of clarity over whether such support for the US would include action in the Taiwan Straits. Yes, says one minister. No, says another, and the text is unclear.
It is unclear for the very simple reason, the chief commentator of Nippon Television, Ikuo Hishiyama argues, that Japan wants to "avoid a situation where it has to make a choice between China and the US". It's not that, should conflict arise, there is any doubt about Japan siding with the US. It's just that it is not necessary to pick a fight with the Chinese right now.
Any such implication of a policy of deliberate ambiguity, of course, only confirms the worst fears of the opposition.
Mr Hishiyama interviewed the Chinese Prime Minister, Mr Li Peng, the other day and the latter made clear in no uncertain terms that China is deeply upset at the idea of any suggestion of Japanese support for US action in the Taiwan Straits, albeit in international waters. China has repeatedly threatened to use force against Taiwan if it goes for full independence.
Supporters of the Tokyo government argue that Japan must show that it is not getting a "free ride" on the security front. The alternative is neither politically wise nor morally justified - an argument that finds its echo in the case made by Irish politicians that Ireland cannot forever avail of the benefits of EU membership without being willing to commit itself to the Union's defence.
On a more practical note, they warn of the danger that isolationist forces in the US may seize on Japanese reluctance to contribute to their own defence to argue for US withdrawal from the region. "The US presence must remain," Sotaro Ishikawa, of the Sankei Shinbum argues, "and the guidelines are a key policy to preserve that presence."
That case is strengthened, they say, by the new post-Cold War reality of increasing regional instability fostered by the ending of the superpower stalemate. Now Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and both Koreas are increasing their arms build-up by up to 10 per cent a year.
Japan, so the argument goes, cannot avoid taking responsibility for regional security - indeed it would not be living up to its role as a potential permanent Security Council member if it did not do so. (Once again there are echoes here of the argument that Ireland has a responsibility arising from its UN membership to participate in regional security structures.)
But even non-pacifist commentators in Japan are concerned at the timing of the signal being sent out, particularly to China, by the agreement with the US. Writing in Asahi Shimbun, Akio Nomura says that Tokyo and Washington "are moving against the global postCold War current.
"As for home security, it takes more than just fitting the front door with a sturdy lock. Putting up forbidding-looking fences may even prove counter-productive."
Although Japan's relationship with the US will continue to be the cornerstone of its security policy, he says, "it won't do for Japan to just follow America all the time. . . Once the Japanese government proves itself to have backbone, Japan's neighbours will begin viewing this nation in a different light, and the Japanese people themselves will be able to feel less apprehensive about the future."
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the former LDP minister, Mr Kishiro Nakamura, received a jail sentence of 18 months for accepting bribes from the construction industry. He is the third of Japan's deeply tainted LDP leaders of the 1970s and 1980s to receive a jail sentence, although many others have also been convicted. Nakamura had pleaded not guilty.
Patrick Smyth was at an EU-Japan journalists' conference organised by the European Commission in Kobe.
