Being a milcol guy in a pacifist country like Japan can get you into some interesting conversations. the other week one of my new coworkers asked me what I thought of Japan’s North Korea policy, and why the US wasn’t doing more about Pyongyang. In the end he was looking for an explanation why the US didn’t just invade North Korea like it did Iraq. This is a question a lot of people were asking in 2003. Kevin Cooney has an interesting angle in his book Japan’s Foreign Policy Maturation: A Quest for Normalcy (pp. 110):

Japan needs the U.S. involved in Northeast Asian [sp.] not just for its own security but also for regional stability. ”¦ by keeping potential regional hegemons in check. ”¦ Without North Korea as a the principal threat facing Japan, the need for the continuing existence of the U.S./Japan alliance could be questioned by the people in both countries. The obvious response that China still remains a threat may be politically impossible to verbalize.

If the threat of North Korea dissolved (somehow) there would no longer be a need for US troops in South Korea. Justification for US troops in Japan would dry up (according to Cooney) and the US would be basically left with Guam. With the US-Japan Security alliance severely weakened — if not nullified outright — Japan would have to start redirecting more cash away from its export-based economy and towards its defense, which would not make some of its regional “partners”? very happy. So, why not keep Kim Jong Il around (alive, kicking and contained) to justify the forward positioning of 80,000 US troops and the opportunity to get a peaceful dialogue going between all the regional players? Remember the real estate agent’s motto: location, location, location!

Addendum

However, if the cause of North Korean dissolution was a US invasion, the Americans would be gaining a new territory and could either give up its real estate in Korea and Japan or justify basing there as part of the supply line. This is somewhat similar to what happened in Iraq: after 2001 the US had to move its troops out of Saudi Arabia but needed real estate in the Middle East to project power in the Arab world (i.e. not Israel or Turkey). Iraq was the home of a bad actor and a twelve year low level conflict. The location was good, the house was a bit of a fixer-upper, but all that was needed was to have the tenant kicked out and we could move on in. The strategic movement of troops to a neighbouring country and giving up of territory for an ally will be familiar to all the Risk players out there.

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « Failed States, Part 2: How Instability Spreads
• » How do you say, “Speak Victorian” in Japanese?