American Forces in Japan: Deterrence Is Indispensible for Peace
The military deterrent effect of American forces is the basis of the Japan-America alliance, and we should never make light of it.
The military deterrence that comes from the alliance with the U.S. is important now more than ever. Japan’s international security environment grows worse as China advances to the oceans and North Korea develops missiles and nuclear technology. Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama cited the importance of the deterrent effect of the U.S. Marines for his determination to relocate U.S. air base Futenma (currently in the Okinawa city of Ginowan) within the prefecture. Anger over Hatoyama’s justification that his actions were “politically expedient” passed through the Diet and spread through Okinawa; there are fears that this will have only a negative influence on Japanese-American relations.
It is thus natural that Prime Minister Naoto Kan rejected Hatoyama’s phraseology in the National Diet, but this alone will be far from sufficient. He must once again give an explanation to the people of Japan about the role and significance of the military deterrence that the U.S. forces in Japan and the Marines in Okinawa (that are there by agreement under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty) carry and concentrate all of his energy on the early implementation of a Futenma relocation.
In May of last year, when Hatoyama was prime minister, he withdrew his personal insistence that “Futenma should be relocated outside the prefecture, and if possible outside of the country,” and tied himself to a Japan-America agreement for a relocation within the prefecture to Henoko in the city of Nago. Hatoyama explained that, “The more I learned, the more I realized the importance of the military deterrent effect of the U.S. Marines.”
Because Hatoyama justified himself by claiming his actions “were politically expedient,” he should have instead said “I have learned absolutely nothing” about the role and significance of military deterrence achieved by the permanent presence of U.S. Marines in Okinawa.
Hatoyama’s statements that “The U.S. military is fixated on Henoko because Okinawa is a comfortable paradise” are also a problem. At the Budget Committee of the Lower House of the Diet, Director General of the Ministry of Defense Gen Nakatani scolded, “Don’t you understand that the American military forces have left their homeland and are risking their lives for the safety of Japan? Do you have any idea how great a sense of duty they carry as they fulfill their jobs?” Hatoyama’s words undoubtedly strike a nerve with the average American citizen, and we must say that these rash remarks bring to naught the mutual trust that supports the roots of the alliance between Japan and America.
But the Kan administration, too, has been postponing decisions on methods and ideas of construction for alternative facilities since last summer. U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates has been carefully watching and considering Japan. At a public hearing in America’s lower house of congress on the 16th, Gates pinned down another date, saying, “My hope is that we will get resolution…perhaps later this spring.” There is no way that Hatoyama’s remarks did not have an influence on Gates.
The opposition LDP has gone so far as to request the testimony of Mr. Hatoyama. Prime Minister Kan has not only sought answers in the Diet, but has called on Mr. Hatoyama and sternly reprimanded him, telling him that his actions ought to show an unwavering policy toward for this “cornerstone alliance.”
It is also the case that figures such as Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara and Minster of Defense Toshimi Kitazawa have not been consistently giving good explanations. I would like to see them incessantly press the importance of military deterrence to the people of Okinawa prefecture to make progress in the Futenma problem.
The military deterrence that comes from the alliance with the U.S. is important now more than ever. Japan’s international security environment grows worse as China advances to the oceans and North Korea develops missiles and nuclear technology. Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama cited the importance of the deterrent effect of the U.S. Marines for his determination to relocate U.S. air base Futenma (currently in the Okinawa city of Ginowan) within the prefecture. Anger over Hatoyama’s justification that his actions were “politically expedient” passed through the Diet and spread through Okinawa; there are fears that this will have only a negative influence on Japanese-American relations.
It is thus natural that Prime Minister Naoto Kan rejected Hatoyama’s phraseology in the National Diet, but this alone will be far from sufficient. He must once again give an explanation to the people of Japan about the role and significance of the military deterrence that the U.S. forces in Japan and the Marines in Okinawa (that are there by agreement under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty) carry and concentrate all of his energy on the early implementation of a Futenma relocation.
In May of last year, when Hatoyama was prime minister, he withdrew his personal insistence that “Futenma should be relocated outside the prefecture, and if possible outside of the country,” and tied himself to a Japan-America agreement for a relocation within the prefecture to Henoko in the city of Nago. Hatoyama explained that, “The more I learned, the more I realized the importance of the military deterrent effect of the U.S. Marines.”
Because Hatoyama justified himself by claiming his actions “were politically expedient,” he should have instead said “I have learned absolutely nothing” about the role and significance of military deterrence achieved by the permanent presence of U.S. Marines in Okinawa.
Hatoyama’s statements that “The U.S. military is fixated on Henoko because Okinawa is a comfortable paradise” are also a problem. At the Budget Committee of the Lower House of the Diet, Director General of the Ministry of Defense Gen Nakatani scolded, “Don’t you understand that the American military forces have left their homeland and are risking their lives for the safety of Japan? Do you have any idea how great a sense of duty they carry as they fulfill their jobs?” Hatoyama’s words undoubtedly strike a nerve with the average American citizen, and we must say that these rash remarks bring to naught the mutual trust that supports the roots of the alliance between Japan and America.
But the Kan administration, too, has been postponing decisions on methods and ideas of construction for alternative facilities since last summer. U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates has been carefully watching and considering Japan. At a public hearing in America’s lower house of congress on the 16th, Gates pinned down another date, saying, “My hope is that we will get resolution…perhaps later this spring.” There is no way that Hatoyama’s remarks did not have an influence on Gates.
The opposition LDP has gone so far as to request the testimony of Mr. Hatoyama. Prime Minister Kan has not only sought answers in the Diet, but has called on Mr. Hatoyama and sternly reprimanded him, telling him that his actions ought to show an unwavering policy toward for this “cornerstone alliance.”
It is also the case that figures such as Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara and Minster of Defense Toshimi Kitazawa have not been consistently giving good explanations. I would like to see them incessantly press the importance of military deterrence to the people of Okinawa prefecture to make progress in the Futenma problem.