Pressing Japan on Military Bases Would Be Self- Defeating for America
According to Japanese news Wednesday (June 2), Hatoyama decided to step down because he broke his promise to drive American troops out of Okinawa, made during the annual campaign last year. However, information released by the Pentagon expressed that no matter what the Japanese political leadership looks like, Japan must abide by the agreement made last Friday. Obviously, the White House and the Pentagon have not realized that pressing Japan over the military base would be self-defeating in its Northeast Asian strategy.
Since World War II American military bases in Japan and the closely related Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan have always been a big problem, and constantly dictates the trajectory of Japanese politics. As far back as 1960 when the treaty was passed, it led to the resignation of Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke of the Liberal Democratic Party. Many points of view believe that the problems facing the “weak cabinet” of the Democratic Party under Hatoyama have already weakened the possibility of genuine two-party politics in Japan. The outcome of the Hatoyama government could have been predicted by the U.S., considering American intelligence and analytical resources, but the Obama administration nevertheless pressured Hatoyama, who still only possessed an unstable political position, to carry out the 2006 agreement. It is clear that the U.S. wants an obedient Japan. This occurred despite the fact that America’s position is precisely that of Hatoyama’s, which sought American-Japanese relations on “equal footing” to satisfy Japanese voters.
Okinawa has been the most poverty-stricken place in Japan since WWII. The Pentagon has engaged in a policy of “privatization” on Okinawa before. Northeast Asian security experts from both the U.S. and Japan have concluded that the best solution would be to merge the U.S. Marines' Futenma Air Station with a U.S. Army base also located on Okinawa. However, the U.S. Marines wanted to have an independent military base on Okinawa.
From a larger perspective, the treaty was made for the benefit of both America and Japan. The Okinawa base allows the U.S. to have a presence in East Asia and the West Pacific while helping Japan minimize its military spending and avoid conflicts with other Asian countries, which maximizes its security benefits. But there is a long-term problem in this treaty. The international political climate of the post-Cold War world has led Japan to continually reassess the pros and cons of the treaty and the problem of achieving a balance with the existing agreement. Most importantly, Japan finds itself needing to convince the post-war generations of the rationale of this historical arrangement.
As for the Relocation Accord made last Friday between the Hatoyama and Obama administrations, Prime Minister Hatoyama expressed that accepting the American military presence is the responsibility Okinawa has to bear for Japanese security. The government also acknowledged that peace for Japan would not come naturally by itself. This does not mean that the U.S. would be allowed to continue viewing its relationship with Japan as one of “sovereign state” and “protectorate,” and not compromise with Japan over the Okinawa bases. This U.S. is in full knowledge of the sensitivity of the issue on the fragile Japanese political balance, and cannot persist in such a hardline stance.
If the Obama administration hopes for a more democratic Japan and expects Northeast Asian conflicts to end, it should not push to carry out the agreement signed in 2006 by the Bush administration and Japan. The fate of the American military bases will have to be decided by Japanese voters; the resignation of Hatoyama does not put an end to this issue. Japanese defense spending is already the seventh largest in the world. Japan has not been able to resolve legacies of WWII with its neighboring countries like Germany has done, and caught in between its historical role in WWII and “significant” American pressure, the future of Japan might not converge with the expectations of the U.S. Japanese democracy and political leadership are on the verge of falling apart, and if America forces its hand at this point in time, it will not bode well for the expectations of the U.S. and Asia for a democratic Japan.
Since World War II American military bases in Japan and the closely related Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan have always been a big problem, and constantly dictates the trajectory of Japanese politics. As far back as 1960 when the treaty was passed, it led to the resignation of Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke of the Liberal Democratic Party. Many points of view believe that the problems facing the “weak cabinet” of the Democratic Party under Hatoyama have already weakened the possibility of genuine two-party politics in Japan. The outcome of the Hatoyama government could have been predicted by the U.S., considering American intelligence and analytical resources, but the Obama administration nevertheless pressured Hatoyama, who still only possessed an unstable political position, to carry out the 2006 agreement. It is clear that the U.S. wants an obedient Japan. This occurred despite the fact that America’s position is precisely that of Hatoyama’s, which sought American-Japanese relations on “equal footing” to satisfy Japanese voters.
Okinawa has been the most poverty-stricken place in Japan since WWII. The Pentagon has engaged in a policy of “privatization” on Okinawa before. Northeast Asian security experts from both the U.S. and Japan have concluded that the best solution would be to merge the U.S. Marines' Futenma Air Station with a U.S. Army base also located on Okinawa. However, the U.S. Marines wanted to have an independent military base on Okinawa.
From a larger perspective, the treaty was made for the benefit of both America and Japan. The Okinawa base allows the U.S. to have a presence in East Asia and the West Pacific while helping Japan minimize its military spending and avoid conflicts with other Asian countries, which maximizes its security benefits. But there is a long-term problem in this treaty. The international political climate of the post-Cold War world has led Japan to continually reassess the pros and cons of the treaty and the problem of achieving a balance with the existing agreement. Most importantly, Japan finds itself needing to convince the post-war generations of the rationale of this historical arrangement.
As for the Relocation Accord made last Friday between the Hatoyama and Obama administrations, Prime Minister Hatoyama expressed that accepting the American military presence is the responsibility Okinawa has to bear for Japanese security. The government also acknowledged that peace for Japan would not come naturally by itself. This does not mean that the U.S. would be allowed to continue viewing its relationship with Japan as one of “sovereign state” and “protectorate,” and not compromise with Japan over the Okinawa bases. This U.S. is in full knowledge of the sensitivity of the issue on the fragile Japanese political balance, and cannot persist in such a hardline stance.
If the Obama administration hopes for a more democratic Japan and expects Northeast Asian conflicts to end, it should not push to carry out the agreement signed in 2006 by the Bush administration and Japan. The fate of the American military bases will have to be decided by Japanese voters; the resignation of Hatoyama does not put an end to this issue. Japanese defense spending is already the seventh largest in the world. Japan has not been able to resolve legacies of WWII with its neighboring countries like Germany has done, and caught in between its historical role in WWII and “significant” American pressure, the future of Japan might not converge with the expectations of the U.S. Japanese democracy and political leadership are on the verge of falling apart, and if America forces its hand at this point in time, it will not bode well for the expectations of the U.S. and Asia for a democratic Japan.
Previous article![]( "Obama Buries 9/11 Ideology")
