TOKYO -- In diplomacy as in personal relationships, it pays to put yourself in your counterpart's shoes. Yet the debate over national security bills in Japan suggests some have difficulty seeing things from the perspective of the country's allies.

The legislation would expand Japan's options. The Self-Defense Forces, for example, would be able to engage in collective self-defense -- coming to the aid of an ally under threat.

But for argument's sake, suppose U.S. naval vessels were attacked by Chinese forces in Japanese waters. Now imagine Japan launched a counterattack. At a recent news conference concerning the bills, a reporter asked about the risk that Japan's own territory and citizens would then be targeted.

Would it not be better, the reporter implied, for Japan to stay out of the confrontation altogether?

Many Japanese may be unaware of one of the U.S. military's key principles: leave no man behind. Troops are willing to brave heavy fire to rescue fellow soldiers who find themselves isolated at the front. This refusal to abandon friends is surely part of American forces' fundamental strength.

When it comes to partnerships between nations, allies do not always have to share the same values and principles. But given Japan's reliance on the U.S. for security, it would be helpful to try to understand American thinking.

Another concern is that Japan is out of step with much of the world. Collective self-defense is a right granted under the charter of the United Nations.

Consider Luxembourg, a European country focused on the financial sector and rarely associated with military operations. Nevertheless, it is free to engage in mutual defense with its partners in NATO.

In many respects, Japan seeks to adhere to global standards. It recently lowered its voting age to 18, for example. Yet, perhaps unconsciously, the nation ignores international norms related to security. Instead, many in the country seek to preserve the status quo.

Old arguments

From 1958 through 1970, amid the Cold War, Japan saw two outbreaks of protests against its 1960 security treaty with the U.S. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Japan was able to stand on the winner's side as a U.S. partner. It seems no one who opposed the treaty has admitted their claims proved irrelevant.

In 1992, a fierce debate focused on Japan's peacekeeping cooperation act, which allows the SDF to participate in U.N. operations.

Now, the security bills are the topic du jour. One could say such controversies erupt every couple of decades -- or as each new generation comes of age, with little awareness of past misjudgments.

Indeed, some young Japanese demonstrate against the bills. They say they are against war and want to live in a safe, peaceful country. But their protests might be better directed at those upending the international order by force -- say, Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, or Chinese land reclamation in the South China Sea.

Japan needs more options in case of emergency, including the right to collective self-defense. It is up to Japanese citizens, meanwhile, to elect politicians who are wise enough to handle the tools at their disposal. Proper checks and balances need to be in place.

Acknowledging the changes in the global security climate, some Japanese opposition politicians are proposing compromises, such as defining new limits on SDF activity. On the other hand, the protesters' arguments sound like holdovers from the past.