The Futenma US Marine Airbase is inconveniently situated in the center of Ginowan City in southern Okinawa. The location is awful, a relic of Japan’s imperial military infrastructure that has military aircraft constantly landing and taking off in a dense urban environment, and the locals want it gone. In the mid-1990s the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the US started to hammer out a relocation plan, and fifteen years later, they finally agreed to move the base to an offshore facility in northern Okinawa.
Japan’s new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) wants to uphold an election pledge to “move away from U.S. dependency to a more equal alliance” — which means reconsidering the Futenma relocation. Hatayama wants to act boldly on this matter, and has decided that instead the base should be moved to… um… somewhere else. Well, maybe — he hasn’t decided yet. Hatoyama’s inability to envision an alternative plan, or even how to approach an alternative plan, combined with the DPJ’s replacement of bureaucrats with elected politicians in the public policy debate, has given the more ambitious members of the cabinet the opportunity to engage in public policy freestyling. Transportation Minister Maehara wants to scrap the plan and go back to square one, Defense Minister Kitazawa wants to keep the plan as it is, and Foreign Minister Okada wants to relocate the base -elsewhere in Japan- -to Guam- elsewhere inside Okinawa. The DPJ vision changes almost daily, and US officials, long numb to Japan’s tedious foot-dragging, are now getting pissed — most noticeably US Defense Secretary Gates, who visited Japan last month and called the reconsideration of the plan “immensely complicated and counterproductive.” But what else should we have expected from these guys? As I warned earlier this year, the DPJ are amateurs suffering cognitive dissonance when it comes to foreign policy, and the longer this abstract debate drags out, US officials will only become more frustrated. And this threatens the stability of the US-Japan relationship.
Most of the “Japan hands” in the blogosphere sympathize with the DPJ. Tobias Harris of Observing Japan says the US needs to wake up to the reality of this new alliance. Michael Cucek at Shisaku has a comprehensive and pessimistic analysis of Obama’s upcoming visit to Tokyo in the broader context of US-Japan relations, which concisely dissects the unique challenge that now face this critical bilateral relationship. To abridge Michael’s key section:
In international law there is the concept of “odious debt” — of national debts incurred by an oppressive regime that a successor regime has the right to refuse to pay. Given the decades the LDP clung to power, many in the present coalition government consider a whole host of Japan’s obligations to be “odious” that they should review and possibly repudiate.
The agreement to transfer Marine Corps elements from the Futenma Airbase to Henoko is the ultimate expression of an odious obligation. It was an LDP solution to an LDP problem: keep American bases off the main islands (even though the amphibious ready unit, the ships the Marines are supposed to ride on, are homeported in Sasebo [in Nagasaki] and the Marine fighter jets in housed at Iwakuni [in Yamaguchi]); keep the Okinawans down and quiet; and keep visiting Americans alternately enchanted and frustrated by disingenuous reports of progress toward the goal, which somehow had to along the way destroy vital dugong habitat. As the Prime Minister and others in the DPJ point out, not even 12 years of LDP governments could bring the Futenma transfer to fruition. That he and his party should be condemned for not imposing an arrangement they oppose on a population that does not want it baffles them. That the United States government continues to insist that they do so exasperates them.
Readers won’t be surprised that I find myself defending the LDP decisions and take issue with the description above, a position that matches that of most of Okinawa’s elected leaders. Let’s look at some key arguments for the Futenma relocation plan:
* The residents of Nago, where the base is to be relocated, support the plan. Mayor Shimabukuro recently came out to agree with Gates, saying the US Defense Secretary is right for being frustrated with the central government’s indecision. Shimabukuro was elected on a platform built on the status quo set by his predecessor, which emphasizes economic growth over everything else, and he won more votes than both of his anti-base opponents combined.
* It’s not just Nago — all twelve mayors of northern Okinawa have publicly accepted the new relocation plan. The DPJ’s waffling has been so unsettling to the locals that the mayor of Kadena is teaming up with the US forces to oppose relocating the relocation to Kadena, promoted by some members of the Hatoyama cabinet as the best alternative, and where one US facility complex already exists.
* Okinawa Governor Nakaima accepts that US bases must stay in Okinawa. Nakaima has a particular knack for balancing the concerns about US bases with the need for the economic benefits that come with it, and has become relatively popular in Okinawa by refusing to side with either faction and instead saves his ire for the national government — all while saying that, in an ideal world, he would prefer bases be relocated outside Okinawa. He criticized the Defense Minsitry under the LDP for “lacking delicacy,” and most recently, didn’t mince words regarding the DPJ’s scattershot public debate on the topic, saying “Okinawa is not the central government’s rock garden.”
* The biggest opponent of the relocation is Mayor Iha of Ginowan, and Ginowan is the center of all the protests — yet this is the municipality that would benefit from the relocation. It really doesn’t make sense — if the mayor and the residents don’t want the base in the city, why are they opposed to moving (most of it) out of the city? As it happens, Mayor Iha is the only elected mayor in Okinawa who vocally wants US forces not just out of Okinawa, but all of Japan. Of course he’s welcome to that opinion, but this is a view far removed from the mainstream public debate in Japan, making him unusual person to be quoted and referenced, unless the Hatoyama administration wants US forces out of Japan altogether (which it doesn’t).
* Construction on the project has already commenced. To a certain extent this follows a similar point I made when reviewing the Yamba Dam in a recent post at Mutant Frog Travelogue. Some dismiss it as the “sunk cost fallacy.” But I disagree, and the DPJ Defense Minsiter Kitazawa has spoken on this point in expressing doubts on changing the relocation plan.
Those are the practical and domestic political reasons for wanting the relocation. But beyond this, let’s review the relocation from the perspective of Japan’s national interest.
For more than half a century, the LDP management of the Japan-US relationship was, frankly, brilliant. Japan recieved dirt cheap defense services by letting the US base on Japan’s soil, yet managed to keep most American servicemen out of major urban areas (unlike Korea, where US bases are inside Seoul’s urban boundaries). Having defense outsourced to America and situated within the American economic sphere, Japan was able to concentrate on economic development and quickly grew to be the world’s second largest economy.
What has Japan done for the United States and the world in exchange for this discounted security? It makes minimum, token contributions to global security, bankrolls a few international development projects, and keeps proactive and material contributions at the bare minimum — or as Shisaku described Futenma, Japan kept “visiting Americans alternately enchanted and frustrated by disingenuous reports of progress.” That sentiment could be applied to much of Washington’s attitudes towards Japan when it comes to becoming more involved in world affairs.
Yet Washington has long tolerated Japan’s indifference to the world because under the LDP, it regularly granted the US unconditional support. Whether it be at the UN, or in supporting the US on tough foreign policy decisions, or in keeping bases available, Japan has long been a solid ally. That means a lot more than you might think. US bases have been kicked out of France, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, and elsewhere, and suffered various woes with regard to fierce public opposition in places such as South Korea and much of Europe. Save for the student protests of the 1960s, Japan has been remarkably reliable — if just in spirit. Or to quote a recent article in the Washington Post, “A senior State Department official said the United States had ‘grown comfortable’ thinking about Japan as a constant in U.S. relations in Asia.”
The DPJ is doing more than trying to break the Futenma deal — it’s breaking the unspoken understanding behind the entire alliance. By pushing for a more “equal” Japan-US relationship (whatever that means), and frustrating the Pentagon on its key issues (such as Futenma), the DPJ risks alienating it’s allies in Washington. And therein lies the danger for Japan’s national interest. America has been calling on Japan to “pull its weight” in contributing to global security for years, and we may be approaching the last straw. The Futenma controversy is compounded by the DPJ pushing to cancel it’s only proactive involvement in the war on terror by ending the refueling mission for US ships in the Indian Ocean.
But Hatoyama has got to accept the fact that neither he nor the Japanese people want an equal relationship with the United States — at least not if they actually saw what it would look like. Japan does not want to have to pay for US bases by sending Japanese SDF forces to Iraq and Afghanistan. They do not want to be diplomatically fending for themselves while repeating complaints about the North Korean abductions and Russia arresting its fisherman. They do not want to push themselves out of the US defensive perimeter, or even in the away direction from the US defensive perimeter. Of course, this may ultimately be good for US national interest, because this is a better time than any to demand Japan to step up to the plate and take a lead in the world. But Japan doesn’t really want that, yet that is where we are going if Hatoyama pursues the “equal alliance” mantra and continues to piss off the US just because it feels good.
By the way “Bryce” a war is when you have two sides fighting against each other.
Afghanistan and Iraq are invasions / occupations
We use the new weapons on them, they have the old weapons.
So don’t get all uppity about “children dying in a war”
there is a big difference.
These are children dying in an invasion and occupation.
Not big on the War on Terror, but that whole Taliban murdering women for reading books thing wast really doing it for me either.
M-bone, of course it’s not particulalry good.
neither is raping children in Brazaville
or cutting of people’s arms in Saudi Arabia.
But we don’t invade those countries for some reason
under the pretext of fighting terrorism do we?
Let me apologize for my rudeness. But I can’t stand
bloggers being blase about so much unnecessay suffering.
Referring to the “war on terror” as though it is a beach clean-up
that everyone has to lend a hand in.
It’s not. It’s an invasion and a war on superflous brown people.
If you want to promote democracy start by fair elections at home.
“neither is raping children in Brazaville”
But some of the countries that are involved in Afghanistan have sent UN led forces to central Africa.
“cutting of people’s arms in Saudi Arabia.”
Not big on that either, but I see a difference between that and the Taliban violence – it is judicial and at the very least people are forewarned about consequences. So much of the Taliban violence was/is extrajudicial and focused on what you could call crimes of thought and feeling.
“But I can’t stand bloggers being blase about so much unnecessay suffering.”
I think that we need to get away from this tendency of people on the left to see interventionists/conservatives as simply bloodthirsty. People who hold those positions, apart from the most extreme examples, still feel something about civilian deaths. Acknowledging that is the way to have dialogue rather than a series of pronouncements.
If you had more Japan grounding, I think that you would perhaps read Curzon’s post differently. He’s mainly concerned, I believe, with a the future security of a country that very well could be hung out to dry by the pacifist ideals of its constitution. I don’t much like the prospect of increased Japanese involvement in the Middle East, but what alternatives do we have to the alliance? Uncritical Japanese support of China – which could very well go next to Saudi Arabia on your list? A nuclear armed Japan? A defenseless one? I’m way bigger on the DPJ than Curzon, but I also want to see a real plan.
how about promoting peace constitutions and making article 9
an ideal for other nations to aspire to ?
Costa Rica and Japan are leading the pack at the moment in this respect.
the peaceful constitution is a safety mechanism as you never know when another
imperial army type zeal will materialize.
as the remaining Hibakushas die off in the next few years,
there has never been a more important time to re-affirm article 9
and the promotion of a peaceful constititution. There is no
other way
“How about promoting peace constitutions and making article 9
an ideal for other nations to aspire to ? Costa Rica and Japan are leading the pack at the moment in this respect.”
True, but what to do about Japan’s heavily armed neighbors who are popularizing the idea that Japan is leading the pack of militarist revival?
“there has never been a more important time to re-affirm article 9
and the promotion of a peaceful constititution.”
Something tells me that this is where Japan’s public will rests. There should still be a serious discussion, however.
A serious discussion in Japan ? Now that is ambitious.
Presumably there is a powerful corporate zaibatsu lobby for
re-writing the constitution so that the likes of Mitsubishi can
make the most sophisticated weapons in the world.
As long as Japan still educates people from a young age to myopically follow
instructions whatever they are, a peace constitution is needed.
Asia knows it. They have witnessed it first hand, and then suffered the
discourtesy of Japan denying or trivializing it (esp. Comfort Women).
Okinawa is the jewel in the crown and could be the center piece of Japan’s
fledgling tourism industry. potentially worth millions of dollars.
It needs to be conserved as the only pristine stretch of coastline left in Japan.
Not relying on U.S. military protection would bring about the necessity for a new era of diplomats who can really make inroads into building peace in Asia.
And besides, with the Americans still armed to the teeth in nearby Korea, and all over the rest of Honshu.
With fortified bases and embassies already springing up accross the middle east, there is no serious argument for keeping bases in Okinawa.
I guess without a peace constitution those robotic Japanese will just march right back to war. Maybe they need Marines to keep an eye on them.
You said it, not me
You kinda did. I was joking.
You’re leftist cred isn’t really shining – you just broke out every argument for dominating those shifty, democracy-challenged, atrocity denying, Japanese.
The below was explicitly used as an argument for dropping the bomb. We don’t need to see it in 2009.
“As long as Japan still educates people from a young age to myopically follow
instructions whatever they are, a peace constitution is needed. Asia knows it.”
OK point taken.
I say leave them to their own devices,
but limit their military capability through
a constitution and hope that others follow suit
the whole point of being nuked is that you have a good excuse
to stay a long way from serious military hardware forever
“I say leave them to their own devices, but limit their military capability through
a constitution and hope that others follow suit”
So does this mean you are pro intervention now?
no. I say leave things as they are.
keep the peace constitution,
and as part of the U.S. scaling back bases worldwide
now that they are out of money, scale back Okinawa’s bases
too.
not pro-intervention
The peace constitution is a product of U.S. intervention.
Geez, this still going?
Ernest, your arguments kind of remind me of the notion that without the Bible there would be no morality in the Western world. That is, the view that if you take away the constitution, rewrite it along the rather sensible lines of “Japan can’t go to war with anybody, but it can help out in U.N. peacekeeping missions” or even redefine it, a-la Ozawa to mean that for the purposes of international cooperation, overseas deployment is not just okay, but kind of an obligation, then the Japanese will go crazy and as well as joining whatever invasion their ally tells them to, massacre half of East Asia again.
You live in Tokyo, right? Do you really have so little faith in your friends and neighbours?
You know that the view that the constitution circumscribes the right of Japan to defend itself was given a boost by certain people in Japan who needed a weapon to use against the SDF, which they saw as a tool of state oppression against domestic dissenters, right? You know that when the Diet voted to place an unofficial restriction on overseas deployments of the SDF, the government was extremely careful to point out that such an action had absolutely nothing to do with the constitution, right? So if the constitution allows for participations in missions like ISAF (again U.N. sanctioned, and it does not necessarily imply the need for Japanese combat troops) why are you going on about the constitution, if this is the type of thing you oppose?
“The peace constitution is a product of U.S. intervention.”
Well, yes in that the Americans ordered the revision and wrote the draft, but Article 9′s genesis is a little more murky than that. Some say it had Japanese origins. And some say the cabinet revised the original wording specifically to allow for self-defence. I’d agree with the former, but probably not the latter, argument. But as far as I can tell the intention of the drafters doesn’t carry much legal weight in Japanese jurisprudence. Or does it? Lawyers?
What about Zbigniew Brzezinski’s geopolitical flip: “Unlike China, which can seek global power by first becoming a regional power, Japan can gain global influence by eschewing the quest for regional power.”
President Obama enjoys solid personal popularity, but without deft handling, Japanese popular support for the US is soft. It’s based more on the possibility of American culture, a sort of non-fungible soft power that’s unrealistic for those dreaming it, and unrealistic for the object of love to cash in. Identifying with pols in Okinawa or Tokyo is bad for Washington. Washington should support political reform, with all its teething plans, as long as the Hatoyama administration is willing to compromise on money for Afghanistan. As a matter of policy, Washington should allow Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo to be the glue in the international economic system, and give them public accolades. The US needs to rebuild infrastructure, rebuild savings, and generally take a break. Tokyo can take up the slack. A few INGO reforms and the judicious use of foreign investments in the US economy is a small price to pay for three decades of finance capitalism.
Pingback: ‘Bara-Yuki” « Left Flank
Notice Brzezinski used “influence” for Japan and “power” for China.
No power.no influence.And you can only project power beyond your borders only after you pacify your borders.Unlike the U.S,China is being surrounded by regional powers like Japan,Russia and India.It needs to be a regional hegemon first and since Brzezinski has VERY distinctive political bias,an avid Rossophobe that is,he does welcome China becoming power in Eurasia that contains Russia.
Also Brzezinski had written a book published in Japan only back in the early 90′s with a strange term called “Amerippon”,that predates the current “Chiamerica” created by Niall Ferguson,and proclaimed Japan to remain as defacto American protectorate to serve it’s own national interest.
Are you accusing Brzezinski of inconstancy? Boilerplate?
Aren’t Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo right to call for more security when they are supporting more of the international economic system now?
Both.
supporting international economic system is one thing,geopolitics is another.You can get along with China on former,but not the latter.
I think this is where two axes of perspective diverge. This article concentrates on security, but slights the economic dimension. I can accept the view, that security is a requisite for economics, but it the first can;t trump the latter. At some point, bad economics comes back around to bite security in the butt. The DPJ might just re-examine how economics is done in Japan. Now, the US needs to take notice, as it’s working its way through recession.