• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Japan: America’s Reluctant Ally

    The most surprising aspect of the dust-up between the U.S. and Japan is that anyone is surprised. It was obvious that the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) security policies ran counter not only to long-standing U.S. priorities but also to American strategic interests. Yet, the common post-election view among analysts and in the press was complacency. Most held that there was little likelihood for strains in the military relationship and that any potential for tension would be further reduced if Washington only accommodated its policies to those of the new Japanese government.

    It was also very apparent that DPJ policy pronouncements were causing the U.S. anxiety. While public statements may have downplayed concerns, private comments by Obama officials reflected angst over potential “very serious problems” with the new Japanese government. These concerns only increased after meeting with their DPJ counterparts. The DPJ, however, misinterpreted the U.S. public reticence as endorsement for redefining the alliance and Japan’s commitments.

    It is now obvious that beyond differences on military operational issues, the DPJ has a significantly different strategic vision that presages a greater potential for divergent priorities between Japan and the United States. The DPJ has demanded a more equal role in the alliance yet is unable to define what it wants. The bilateral alliance can never truly be equal as long as Japan remains heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defense. The DPJ should understand that overcoming inequalities requires Japan to assume additional security responsibilities – with a commensurate increase in defense spending – both of which Tokyo has long been loath to do.

    The U.S. should continue to make clear, in private more often than in public, that Japan cannot withdraw from global security responsibilities challenges nor rely on others to defend Tokyo’s overseas interests. As Barack Obama stated during the presidential campaign, he would be looking for greater contributions in Afghanistan with fewer restrictions from our allies, including those in Asia.

    Washington should also counsel the DPJ about the danger of unintended consequences and that there are ramifications to its statements and policies. For example, DPJ insistence on moving Marine air units or even all U.S. forces from Okinawa would degrade U.S. deterrent and warfighting capabilities to defend Japan and maintain peace and stability in Asia.

    Similarly, Foreign Minister Okada’s advocacy of a northeast Asian nuclear-free zone, probing historic secret U.S.-Japan nuclear arrangements, and pressing Washington to adopt a “no first use” policy all risk undermining the U.S. extended deterrence (“nuclear umbrella”) protection of Japan and South Korea.

    While careful alliance management by both countries can mitigate further problems, it is clear that Japan under DPJ leadership will be even more risk averse than its predecessor and resistant to adopting international security responsibilities commensurate with its status as a major nation. Washington now faces greater uncertainty in its military relations with Japan. As a result, the U.S. will be forced to be more reliant on other allies or its own forces as it faces growing regional and international security threats.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Japan: America’s Reluctant Ally

    1. Spiritof76 says:

      I think that the US must withdraw from all the bases around the world. Why should the US taxpayer continue to pay for the defense of Japan, Korea, Europe and the rest of the world? All those countries are at a great advantage with not having to spend for their own defense.

      Our foreign policy can be simplified a great deal. It should follow the doctrin of George Washington. We are willing to trade with and be friendly to all. Once our national security is threatened with an overt act, we will simply wipe them out-no questions asked; no UN; no world opinion. Besides, the US is bankrupt.

    2. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Never happen Spirit76.

      If we will not even "waterboard" a terrorist in order to save lives, do you really believe America will act as you propose?

      Moreover, if we pull all forces back we would have to begin every action from the Homeland.

      This is neither strategically,logistically, or politically feasible.

    3. dexter60 says:

      Clearly all decisions must be based upon case by case instances; the policy of the United States must underscore the dominating concerns of this, our own country, to thing otherwise is to be guided by a fantasy vision of the world. Japan no longer needs our solitary support for its own safety as that was provided to keep them building to independence after the war and minimize a resurgence of a suicidal-imperialism.

      With other countries also it has been for the preservation of their fragile autonomy in a hostile neighborhood and would have been expected to strength mutual sovereignty and some power over those working for global conquest — those days are obviously gone as alliances have been formed between many of them to do many of the things that point in the opposite direction for their version of benefit (the good of the people not being necessarily one of them, as the good of the collective outshines all else).

      Tough break all ‘round.

      For over 50 years N. Korea has been an indicator of the prime difficulties of near-sighted policy from our schizoid State Department, with its internal burden of paid globalists and fellow travelers. Just one other portion of our own house-divided.

      For this we leave our own borders undefended, to give the German, French, English, Korean and Japanese people some sense of security and at the same time give cause for resentments. Quite a bargain at today’s prices, whilst dumping dollars on such animals as Hamas and thumbing our supposedly collective nose at struggling democracies and their people who will then not fare much better than we are now.

      Hope and Change for those w/o a memory.

      And it is very true, bankruptcy makes many fantasies go away.

      We now have a Constitution that is just a piece of dated literature.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×