A bloody military battlefield in 1945, Okinawa is the subject of an equally bitter political fight today. A majority of the prefecture's residents want the American military to go elsewhere.
The U.S.-Japan alliance is almost 50 years old. Like most of Washington's military relationships, the security treaty really isn't an alliance. The treaty's terms are simple. The U.S. agrees to defend Japan. In return, Tokyo agrees to be defended. Japan long has enjoyed the benefits of the world's second largest economy while devoting a far smaller proportion of its resources than America to defense.
Tokyo's international role has been circumscribed by Article 9 of the post-war Japanese constitution which formally bans creation of a military and use of force; domestic pacifism growing out of World War II; and regional fears of revived Japanese imperialism. Public concern over China's rising military expenditures and North Korea's ongoing nuclear program is growing, but the pace of policy change remains glacial.
In elections last August the Democratic Party of Japan ousted the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Five years ago the DPJ promised to "do away with the dependent relationship in which Japan ultimately has no alternative but to act in accordance with U.S. wishes." But Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama quickly moderated his party's position; the most recent platform called for a "close and equal Japan-U.S. alliance."
Nevertheless, the new government is proving less receptive to Washington's desires. For instance, the DPJ let expire authority to refuel U.S. and other allied ships in the Indian Ocean. Tokyo also has talked of renegotiating the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), cutting host nation support, and reconsidering the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as applied to U.S. nuclear weapons passing through Japanese territory.
Finally, there is the prefecture of Okinawa (the largest island of which also is named Okinawa).
Okinawa's saga is long and sad. Once independent, the territory was absorbed by Imperial Japan and treated like an untrustworthy stepchild. In April and May 1945 the island suffered through one of the most brutal battles of World War II, during which roughly 100,000 Japanese soldiers and perhaps even more civilians died (estimates vary wildly). After the war the occupying U.S. military loaded the main island with bases. Okinawa was not turned back to Japan until 1972, but with only a modest U.S. military drawdown.
Today the prefecture, Japan's smallest with just 0.6 percent of the country's land area, hosts roughly three-quarters of American military facilities and two-thirds of American military personnel -- some 27,000 personnel stationed on 14 major bases -- located in Japan. U.S. operations take up about 18 percent of the main island's territory. Although some Okinawans benefit from land rent, construction contracts, and consumer spending, for most residents the inconvenience is monumental, the limits on development costly, and the environmental consequences substantial. No surprise, the vast majority of residents want to reduce or eliminate the American presence.
The rape of a 12-year-old girl by three U.S. personnel in 1995 led to mass protests against both the SOFA (which left the accused in American custody) and the bases. A decade later the U.S. and Japanese governments agreed to move the Marines Corps Air Station at Futenma out of Ginowan to a less heavily populated area on Okinawa, and relocate 8,000 Marines (plus dependents) to Guam. Tokyo pledged to cover about $6 billion of the relocation cost.
However, Okinawa residents want to remove, not relocate the base, and Japanese taxpayers aren't thrilled about picking up part of the moving tab. The DPJ government announced plans to revisit the 2006 agreement. The Obama administration responded by demanding that Tokyo live up to its responsibilities. More recently, U.S. officials suggested that Washington would not agree to any change that lacked local approval -- which would conveniently leave Futenma unmoved. Now the Hatoyama government is holding consultations, with a decision promised for May.
Okinawa activists have brought their case to Washington and joined with interested Americans to set up a website and undertake educational activities. It's a worthwhile effort. But the primary problem remains in Tokyo.
Today both U.S. and Japanese government officials cheerfully conspire against Okinawans. When the latter complain, Washington points to Tokyo. Tokyo points back at Washington.
But, in fact, the ultimate decision lies in Tokyo. The American military is not organized to follow the will of Okinawa residents. That is the responsibility of their own national government. If Washington is going to both defend Japan and use Japanese territory as a launch pad for intervention elsewhere, troops must be stationed somewhere, and Okinawa is centrally located.
In fact, there's no reason for the U.S. to do either. Allies are a means to an end; the defense of America, not allies, is America's vital interest. Sometimes protecting other nations is necessary for U.S. security, as during the Cold War. But that world disappeared long ago. Enemy threats are far fewer and allied capabilities are far greater.
True, politicians and analysts alike routinely term America's alliances "cornerstones" and "linchpins" of U.S. security, regional stability, and world peace. In reality, today's alliance are unnecessary at best and dangerous transmission belts of conflict and war at worst.
Consider Japan. President Barack Obama says that "America's commitment to Japan's security is unshakable," but does that mean the U.S. forever must defend that nation? The 1951 military treaty committed Japan to "increasingly assume responsibility for its own defense against direct and indirect aggression."
In fact, Tokyo is capable of defending itself. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada recently expressed doubt that "Japan on its own can face up to such risks" as China, but Tokyo needs a deterrent capability, not superiority. That is well within Japan's means. Certainly the U.S. would be far more secure if its allies and friends created forces to discourage aggression and worked together to encourage regional stability, rather than depended on Washington.
If the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force located on Okinawa is not needed to defend Japan, then what is it for? South Korea vastly outranges the North on virtually every measure of power and can do whatever is necessary to deter North Korean adventurism. There also is much talk, offered unceasingly and uncritically, about maintaining regional stability. But what invasions, border fights, naval clashes, missile threats, and full-scale wars are the Marines preventing?
And if conflict broke out, what would the Marines do? Launch a surprise landing in Beijing's Tiananmen Square during a war over Taiwan? Aid Indonesia, really the Javan Empire, in suppressing one or another group of secessionists? Help Thailand in a scrape with Burma triggered by the latter's guerrilla conflict spilling over the border? America has no reason to enter conflicts which threaten neither the U.S. nor a critical ally.
Still, if the U.S. government desires to defend Japan and Japan wants to be defended, Washington inevitably must deal with the national government in Tokyo and ask for the best possible lodgings for its forces. Okinawa's travails will always be irrelevant from the U.S. government's standpoint. It's up to Japan to decide on where to place foreign bases and then to work with its prefectures and towns accordingly. Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, stated the brutal truth: "local conditions come to play, but these big decisions are at the level of our central governments."
The Japanese government prefers to blame the U.S., since most Japanese don't want to change the status quo. Okinawans -- from the smallest, poorest, and most distant prefecture -- pay to host U.S. forces, leaving the rest of Japan free to enjoy the benefits while suffering little of the inconvenience. Okinawan opposition is undercut through subsidies from the central government and overridden by raw political power, since the prefecture has just a handful of seats in the national Diet. Explained Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano: "It's not necessary to have the understanding and agreement from the local people."
Thus, the issue of fairness to Okinawa is tied to the more basic question of Japan's foreign policy and military posture. If Tokyo demands alliance equality, it must behave in a way that justifies being treated as an equal. Which means Japan must take over responsibility for its own defense, as well as contribute to regional and global security.
The Japanese people may decide that the threats they face are small -- as, indeed, they are today. However, the future might not be so safe. Brad Glosserman of the Pacific Forum CSIS argues that "Northeast Asia, from a Japanese perspective, is a scary place." A threatening North Korea and aggressive China are much bigger potential threats to Tokyo than to Washington.
The Japanese government needs to assess future dangers and decide on appropriate responses -- without assuming that the U.S. Marines will show up to the rescue. It is Japan's decision, but it should not be based on the presumption of American intervention. Having made its decision, then Tokyo should reconfigure its forces. Fairness suggests a major drawdown from Okinawa irrespective of whose military is protecting Japan. If the U.S. disengaged militarily, these decisions could be made without pressure from Washington.
The two countries would still have much to cooperate about, including security. Leaving responsibility for Japan's defense with Tokyo would simply eliminate the unrealistic expectations engendered by the alliance on both sides. The governments could focus on issues of mutual interest, sharing intelligence, preparing emergency base access, and otherwise cooperating to meet international challenges.
The best way for Americans to help residents of Okinawa is to press Washington to reshape U.S. foreign policy, making it more appropriate for a republic than a pseudo-empire. With the rise of numerous prosperous allied and friendly states -- most notably Japan, but also South Korea, Australia, India, and others -- the U.S. should step back, prepared to deal with an aggressive hegemon should one arise but determined to avoid being dragged into routine geopolitical squabbles.
Then Tokyo could chart its own destiny, including deciding what forces to raise and where to base them. The Japanese government could no longer use American pressure as an excuse for inaction in Okinawa. Then Okinawans finally might gain justice -- after 65 long years.
There are many bases in many countries that we could close
How did they get into such a helpless situation? Well, we (the US) wrote thier constitution and forced it on them. That is why we protect them, and for the most part the Japanese like it that way.
The harsh reality is that America is 12.3 Trillion dollars in debt, by design of the International Bankers, and has to spend 700 Billon on the military. This is excluding the Black Bag projects which never get reported. The Japanese dont want American military bases there
America has sold it's economic engine to India, Indonesia and China also by design. The only thing America produces is still food and some manufacturing but not much else. How is a country supposed to recover when the Global Elites, CFR, Trailateralist and the UN gutting the US from the inside. .
An independent Nation should be able to tell a foreign military precence to go home since it is THEIR country. Japan like China could pull the economic plug on the military machine tomorrow and those bases would be closed instantly.
Note America has never appologized for nuking Japan twice. The Japanese committed war crimes too against the Chinese but two wrongs dont make a right.
Also, if the bombs hadn't been dropped, the war would have continued for another year or more, requiring an American invasion of the Japanese home islands which would have killed many more Japanese civilians. In addition, the Soviet Union would have invaded northern Japan and Japan would have been divided during the Cold War, like Germany and Korea. In that event, it is likely that the Korean war would have been fought in Japan as well as in Korea.
On March 6, 1945, an American incendiary bombing raid burned 16 square miles of Tokyo, killing over 80,000 Japanese civilians. That is more people than were killed in either nuclear strike. Burned to death is burned to death, whether the raid was carried out by one bomber or 800 is really irrelevant.
My father enlisted in the US Army in 1945, if the nuclear strikes hadn't ended the war, he would have been involved in the invasion of Japan in November 1945. Dr. Robert Oppenheimer and Gen. Curtis LeMay probably saved his life.
War is a nasty, vile business and I've been in one (Iraq). The way to save lives is to end it as quickly as possible.
Your simplistic apology for the use of nuclear weapons is based on dubious assumptions and suppositions, and is unfettered by the consideration of anything but violence. Your dehumanizing use of 'they' says it all. 'They' are the individual victims of the nuclear attack. Did 'they' have it coming?
And BTW, the article is about US bases in Japan, not about WWII.
Our carrier battle group stationed in Japan should be moved to Guam along with the Marines on Okinawa. The same is true of our troops in Korea; Japan and South Korea can defend themselves and only call on our help if needed.
The Japanese are certainly capable of defending themselves, and they should do so. It is time for them to step up to the plate and increase their military capability. A defensive partnership with America can still be maintained, but perhaps it is time for the American military presence on Okinawa to be ended. I really don't blame the Okinawans for being unhappy about bearing most of the burden of American troops. Whatever problems they have with the rest of Japan is another matter.
Let's wind down there and let the Japanese themselves pick up most of the burden.
And on a seperate point, the only deterrence Japan could hold against China would be a nuclear one, and that truly opens up a whole other can of worms.
Is it any wonder Canadians and Danes are among the happiest people in the world. Why not? The United States is busying protecting them while they're busy spending their budgets on their own people.
While our infrastructure and people are in crisis at home, we're gallivanting all over the world.
No one is suggesting we turn in our "only real superpower" card, but we've got to get serious about controlling military spending. Any real fiscal conservative can see that.
But the burden is too high. Other countries have had a "free ride" on Uncle Sam, while they often criticize everything we do.
I say let other countries do more. They won't like it, but we can't continue any longer to bear most of these burdens alone.
I disagree, many (on the left) are arguing precisely that. If the US decides to no longer be or cannot be the sole superpower, China is ready, willing, and working hard to take that role. Canada and the Danes would rue the day they decided not to fully support the legitimate (as versus the Bushian) goals of US military superiority.
The ones that aren't happening. That's the thing about international security arrangements: you don't miss them until they are gone.