There was a time when the United States was considered the world's police officer who often became aggressively involved in maintaining peace and stability in the world. However, observing the preside

Like when the time it became "aggressively involved in maintaining peace and stability" by invading Iraq because Saddam had WMDs and Iraqis had caused 9/11? Or the big stabilisation that came about as a result of invading tiny Grenada because...well, why? Or the ridiculous invasion of Cuba? Or the training and backing of death squads and "freedom fighters" throughout Central America. Or the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Guatemala, Chile and Iran and the backing of numerous tin pot dictators, from Pinochet to Suharto and Marcos? To name but a few. Kishida seems to have no more idea about America's "peaceful" role than he does about Japan's pre-WWII one.

Well said, Moonraker.

The US has a lot to answer for.

Its actions both overt and covert have created a mess.

And the Guantanamo torture centre is still in use.

America has to clean up its own police before it can police the world.

Inward? What examples does Fumio Kishida give? Absolutely nothing! There is not a single ocean that the U.S. doesnt have military presents. As for military agression, moonracker mentioned a few but the list goes on, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now leading the way with expansion of NATO forces surrounding Russia. Not to mention resently expanding their weapons sales to parts of Asia.

How is any of that equate to becoming more inward? The only examples I've seen, are the militarization of American police, expanding surveillance programs of its own citizens, while FEMA camps are popping up faster than Starbucks. Maybe that the inward focus Fumio was speaking of?

it appears the United States is moving further and further to a more inward-looking approach

Don't kid yourself. The military-industrial complex soon gets cold turkey.

This is not rocket science.

In the past US governments were very very sensitive to the job creation domestically. Employment statistics were reviewed every quarter and corrective actions were taken immediately to maintain the required percentage of domestic employment. In this scenario US could afford to be the global police officer as it attracts best brain immigrants from around the world.

Under Obama's administration US has lost control of creating jobs locally. US has lost this leverage to other third world nations who are cheap. So US could not afford to be the global police officer anymore.

Being a capitalist society I think this was a huge turning point in US history.

Not all of America's actions were bad, the opening up of Japan was a result of these policies. And as bad as incidents like Cuba and Vietnam were mere skirmishes in the much larger Cold War, which America did indeed win. Few people nowadays realize the extent of the danger the world lived under until the fall of the Soviet Union. It would take only 18 minutes for an ICBM to reach it's target after launch. In the long run, Vietnam has returned to capitalism, and so will Cuba once the bearded-one dies. China is slowly evolving away from socialism, leaving only North Korea to carry the torch.

But the Middle East is in a period of collapse, and rather than advancing and evolving, the opposite seems to be occurring. Bush bears much of the blame for this, Obama bears the rest, as squandered his chance to influence things for the better in the so-called "Arab Spring."

The world does need a policeman, though it looks as though America is not up to the task. But Russia and China look more than happy to fill the void. As bad a job America may have done, I doubt Russia or China could do better.

However, observing the presidential election, it appears the United States is moving further and further to a more inward-looking approach.

And IF that were true, why is that a bad thing?? Clean up your own house before going around the world and telling people how to live.

America should tell people to take care of their own.

And as bad as incidents like Cuba and Vietnam were mere skirmishes in the much larger Cold War

Good God man! You think Vietnam was a "mere skirmish"? I suggest you talk to some veterans from that skirmish before making such profoundly ludicrous statements.

Good God man! You think Vietnam was a "mere skirmish"?

Yes, I do, because in the large scale of things, that is all it was. Do you know anything about the scale of the cold war? The two superpowers spending huge amounts of money influencing countries around the world, always trying to tip the scale in their favor? The hundreds of missile silos, manned 24 hours a day, 365 days per year? Nuclear bombers orbiting in rotation at all times? Itchy fingers on triggers that could wipe out the world in less than half an hour? Billions of lives were at stake, under a nuclear sword of Damocles.

I am a veteran myself, and am the son and grandson of other veterans. I have been to the weapons labs at Los Alamos, I have visited their bomb shelters, which are as deep below ground as the taller buildings in Tokyo are high. I remember the attack drills in school, where we were instructed to hide under our desks (as if that would do any good) when the alarm sirens rang. These sirens sounded just like the sirens in London during the second war. But I suppose you have the luxury of not having to have heard them.

No one appreciates the scale of the victory in the cold war, or the consequences of losing it. No one knows the energy, effort, and money spent, and how the war was won with remarkably little loss of life. And people did die, not just in Vietnam and Afghanistan. There were running skirmishes around the world, in many countries. Far more people died in the cold war than most people know, yet compared to the potential of the cold war going "hot", the numbers, including Vietnam, were miniscule.

Do you know anything about the scale of the cold war?

Wall Street does.

sangetsu03,

The two superpowers spending huge amounts of money influencing countries around the world, always trying to tip the scale in their favor?

Who do you think started this arms race?

In the long run, Vietnam has returned to capitalism, and so will Cuba once the bearded-one dies. China is slowly evolving away from socialism, leaving only North Korea to carry the torch.

This only proves how pointless those "skirmishes" were... The US didn't win anything. The Communist countries either realized they needed to adapt to the rest of the world (i.e., capitalism) or they collapsed under their corrupt dictatorships or bankruptcy. I don't really see the point of you trying to separate and marginalize Vietnam, Cuba, etc. from the rest of the Cold War. They're all parts of the same $#@%storm.

But the Middle East is in a period of collapse, and rather than advancing and evolving, the opposite seems to be occurring. Bush bears much of the blame for this, Obama bears the rest, as squandered his chance to influence things for the better in the so-called "Arab Spring."

What a poor understanding of the Middle East... I'm no fan of Bush, but the mess in that region started way before him. In it's effort to prevent the spread of communism and secure oil resources for themselves after the war, the US backed corrupt dictators in favor of democratically elected (and secular to boot) leaders who wanted to nationalize oil in places like Iran. The dictators were brutal and eventually overthrown by the people. Who filled in the power vacuum? Religious fundamentalists...

The US did this kind of thing all over the world as Moonraker mentions.

In the short run, it was good for the US and it's businesses. In the long run, it was terrible for the rest of the world.

The world does need a policeman, though it looks as though America is not up to the task. But Russia and China look more than happy to fill the void.

Well, all that good work the US has been doing has left it no moral high ground in dealing with Russia/China. They're just doing now, what the US has been doing for decades.

With all due respect to those that have commented, which have focused on the statement regarding the U.S. and making assessments regarding what the U.S. has / has not done, the more appropriate focus should be on why he is making this statement and its implications for Japan.

This was not intended to be some judgment on what the U.S. has or has not done, in my opinion

Rather, this is intended to create the rationale/premise/reason as to why Japan has to step in / step up and "fill the void".

Which dovetails nicely with Abe's militaristic ambitions, don't you think??

Rather, this is intended to create the rationale/premise/reason as to why Japan has to step in / step up and "fill the void". Which dovetails nicely with Abe's militaristic ambitions, don't you think??

From an economics standpoint a politician's job should be to keep your country out of war and out of debt. If anything Japan should reduce its' military as a show of force. = Japan is so strong it does not need a military. Please visit Japan and see how strong our economy and people are.

That should be changed to "world's self-appointed police officer."

Then again, a police officer doesn't instigate wars, conduct false flag operations, exploit poor, weak countries for their resources or install puppet regimes, does he?

The US acting as the world's police force just creates seething resentment. That is just plain human nature.

That should be changed to "world's self-appointed police officer."

You're a joker. It was inevitable . . . after the Soviet Union collapse.

Then again, a police officer doesn't instigate wars

You'd expect Cold War victors to just twiddle their thumbs and watch while Saddam H. raped and pillaged oil-rich Kuwait? A police officer would NEVER let that happen on his watch.

That should be changed to "world's self-appointed police officer."

Spot on - no one ever asked the US to do it. They just took up the mantle on their own, and then tell us we should be grateful for it. In the meantime, their 'police work' has destabilized the political climate across the entire planet.

An inward-looking approach would be a good move.

Although keep in mind, wars would still happen whether the US is there or not. That's just human nature and human history. You're not gonna eliminate wars just by taking the US out of the equation. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

The US does more to suppress democracy than to actually promote it.