Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The ongoing military base debate

The question of whether or not Okinawa (or more broadly, Japan) should play host to a U.S. military presence is not a new one. In recent months, however, it has once again come to the forefront as Japan and the United States attempt to hammer out a solution to the Futemna base relocation issue. U.S. military bases are unpopular where they are currently situated in Okinawa, so Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama is having a great deal of difficulty resolving the matter. President Obama has said that in order for a plan to be accepted, Hatoyama must choose a new location with an acceptable degree of local support. But as no one seems to want a military base next door, Hatoyama has no such support for any of his prospective relocation sites.

I don't know how statistically representative the Japan Times surveys are, but Japanese citizens (on the mainland, anyway) seem split on the issue. Understandable, as it's not really an easy topic. I'm not sure how I'd feel about a foreign army occupying the U.S., even if it were for purely cooperative, defensive purposes.

That said, I do think the Japanese are better served by accepting a U.S. military presence. There are pro's and con's, of course, but it seems to me that the Japanese are getting the better deal here. The Japanese government must provide land and pay for some of the bases' expenses, but in exchange does not have to raise, train, or arm its own military. Japan does have a standing national guard of sorts - the Self Defense Force, but its functionality is limited by Japan's constitution. Although military bases do cause noise pollution and some soldiers have committed crimes (such cases should not be taken lightly), the bases also bolster the economies of their host communities. Not too long after Futenma is moved, the local community will become much more peaceful...and then the economy will sag and I'm sure some jobs will be lost when U.S. serviceman and woman are no longer patronizing local shops and restaurants.

Sure, the U.S. benefits from these bases by holding a strategic position in the Pacific. If we were to lose this one, though, we do have others. South Korea isn't too far.

If I were Japanese, I would probably want the world's most powerful military nearby, considering the proximity of the crazy Korea, which now has nukes and long-range rockets. Ultimately, though, the decision is Japan's.

What do you think? How do you feel about the U.S. military presence in Japan?

9 comments:

  1. From a strategic point of view, I don't think is about whether the US is a powerful and important ally or value for money - the question on a lot of Japanese policy makers' minds is that will the US stay committed in the long-term and will US and Japanese interests continue to match in the future. There are good reasons to question both (and are good questions a cautious person would ask anyway). And I am not saying that questioning will mean that US and Japan won't continue to be allies - this is very likely - but if there is going to be some disconnect there then I guess a sensible Japanese policy maker would say "well, China is rising, North Korea is still a problem and getting worse - let's not muck around if we have to protect ourselves more". If Japan is going to develop its own capability to protect itself (which is inevitable IMHO - it is just a matter of when and how) I guess they would like to start when they are ahead as they still are now even with their small SDF rather than wait for China's military to modernise and how to catch up in both quantity and quality.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As is so often the case, the public sees the little picture and the politicians only see the big picture when they get into power and see everything. The savings of having the U.S. protect Japan are SIGNIFICANT financially compared to Japan providing its own protection. If the Japanese people were told the truth of the finances and how much more they'd have to pay for their own military, some of the carping would tamp down. Yes, it's inconvenient to have the bases. Yes, sometimes crimes are committed in the areas by soldiers (and sometimes crimes are committed by Japanese people in those areas - it's just not made into a huge media deal when that happens). But if Japan had to build its own real military force, the same problems would happen. Bases for the Japanese military would still create noise and problems for those living around them.

    Japan has a higher per capita debt than the U.S. and the people don't hear about the way in which building their own military would balloon that debt even further because the Japanese government panders to the extreme right by keeping mum about the benefits of having the bases in Japan. Beyond the economic aspects, however, is the fact that Japan's diplomacy is based on cash and being a peaceful country. If they build their own military, a lot of their approach to dealing with other countries on a diplomatic level goes out the window. Having the U.S. camped in their backyard allows them to promote themselves as something they can't possibly be with their own military. Japan gains power by not being viewed as a threat, and a lot of that power can be used in dealing with Korea and China because those countries would certainly be threatened by a larger Japanese military force (given Japan's history of occupation, slavery, and brutality toward those countries).

    Japan benefits both directly and indirectly from the U.S. bases, but you don't hear anything except the whining and complaining about the problems because it's not politically advantageous to talk about those points. Japanese people don't want to hear about how their government's past actions make it hard to have a military and not create tension with other parts of Asia and the rightists don't want to hear about the big economic advantages of hiring America as it muscle.

    And finally, and not the least bit insubstantially, America has given and will continue to give Japan economic advantages in terms of trade markets in exchange for allowing the bases to remain. America's supposed "occupation" of Japan has allowed trade surpluses to continue. If Japan gave America the boot, you can bet a lot of the doors that allow Japan to export to the U.S. far more than it allows America to import to Japan would start to close. This isn't a one-sided deal in America's favor. It's actually much more in Japan's favor in the big picture.

    Frankly, I'm totally sick of this issue and the simple-minded manner in which it is dealt with in the media in Japan. If there weren't serious benefits to allowing the U.S. bases to remain, they'd be gone, but Japan would be so much worse off without them on many, many fronts. As an American, frankly, I'd just as soon America didn't have those bases here because it's costing the U.S. more than it's benefiting them in every way except in terms of military strategic interests. Let the Japanese fend for themselves and put up with all of the cost, diplomatic, economic, and otherwise. Maybe once they have to assume that burden themselves, they can grow up and quit complaining about the relatively trivial aspects of hosting the bases and being "occupied" (eye roll).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sigma, you're right that if Japan is going to work on its military, sooner would probably be better than later. Unfortunately, I don't think it's vry plausible. I agree heartily with Orchid's points - Japan really does stand to lose a lot if the U.S. were to withdraw its forces and leave the Japanese to fend for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are plenty of nuanced things Japan could do in the mean-time (and has been doing) that would allow them to compete without having to revise article 9 - it is a matter of understanding the strategic situation and having the will to go ahead with it. However the US variable is very important - and US policy in East Asia has been unpredictable and inconsistent since 1992 so it is only natural that Japan be concerned about the value from the alliance and the US having forward bases in Japan (the degree to which US presence is their to protect Japan vs secure the US own interests is a reasonable question that can't be brushed under the carpet so easily as it was a couple of comments up). The world has changed and "grand" alliances are likely to recede into the past soon enough. US policy analysts and the Pentagon themselves have said this so its a bit unfair to hit the Japanese over the head with the "but we are giving you so much" BS.

    @Orchid - how does the government pander to the extreme right? They are the ones that want the US gone the most!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. > I'm not sure how I'd feel about a foreign army
    > occupying the U.S., even if it were for
    > purely cooperative, defensive purposes.

    That wouldn't really be the same, for a couple of reasons.

    In the first place, the US wouldn't really feel threatened by a foreign military base on our soil (especially on minor outlying islands), because quite frankly we would trust the ability of our own military (widely regarded as one of the most powerful in the world) to keep them in line.

    On the other hand, trying to argue in favor of a foreign military base on US soil on the grounds that it helps protect us, you wouldn't be taken seriously enough for anyone to feel insulted. It would just be amusing.

    If someone wanted to propose a foreign military base on US soil, and be taken seriously, he'd have to argue either from an economic standpoint (bring in money, the soldiers will support local businesses, our companies can bid for construction contracts, blah, blah. blah) or else play the political superiority card (it makes us the good guys when we help out lesser countries with stuff like this, and it will build international relations, etc).

    The economic argument, of course, would probably cut almost as much ice in Japan as here, although it might have more obstacles to overcome (since, as noted, a foreign military base would be more alarming for Japan than for the US, since the capabilities of their own military are not as firmly established).

    > I do think the Japanese are better
    > served by accepting a U.S. military presence.

    In purely practical terms, yes. (It's virtually a no-brainer, especially the economic aspect of the thing.) But it's not a purely practical issue. It's a political issue.

    I personally don't understand Eastern thinking well enough to really say what impact the US military bases have (or what impact sending us away would have) on perceptions of Japan within East-Asian diplomatic circles. How would China, for example, perceive it? Could Japan achieve "street cred" with her neighbors by giving the American military the proverbial boot? How much? Enough to offset the negative impact on the local economy of Okinawa? These are questions I don't think most Westerners can easily answer.

    > some soldiers have committed crimes (such
    > cases should not be taken lightly

    I think it is worth pointing out that some of those criminals got off a lot easier being tried in Japan, than if they'd been sentenced in the US. (Can you imagine a US court giving Marcus Gill only seven years? Surreal.)

    > the U.S. benefits from these bases by
    > holding a strategic position in the Pacific.

    Sure. Although it's arguably Taiwan that benefits the most, and from a Japanese standpoint it could be argued that if Taiwan wants us in their neighborhood so bad, Taiwan should host a base. (Not sure that would be politically possible for Taiwan to do, given the situation with the PROC, but we're looking at the Japanese angle here.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Orchid64:
    >Japan has a higher per
    > capita debt than the U.S.

    Really? Wow, that's going some.

    > If they build their own military, a lot
    > of their approach to dealing with other
    > countries on a diplomatic level goes

    Certainly there would be changes to their diplomatic situation, yeah.

    > It's actually much more in Japan's
    > favor in the big picture.

    It benefits both sides.

    > I'd just as soon America didn't have
    > those bases here [...] Let the Japanese
    > fend for themselves

    Our presence in the Pacific doesn't just protect Japan. It also keeps China in check, which is strategically useful to the US. Granted, it is strategically useful to Japan as well, and to Taiwan, and various other countries. But it's not just about protecting Japan. There's a bigger picture.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jonadab -

    I meant if the U.S. had a foreign military defending it place of our own, like Japan. But yeah, there are a lot of issues, and you're certainly right that it is a political issue and thus not so simple.
    We do benefit from a military presence in Japan, but we also have bases in South Korea, Guam, the Marianas Islands, Thailand, and the Philippines.

    ReplyDelete
  8. > I meant if the U.S. had a foreign military
    > defending it place of our own, like Japan.

    Oh, you mean like if we didn't have a strong military of our own?

    Hmmm... I'm not sure I can say how we'd feel about it (or about anything) under those circumstances. Our whole political landscape would be different if we weren't a global power. Our whole culture probably wouldn't be quite the same. It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure it can be answered.

    ReplyDelete