US Defense Secretary Considers Japan's Cost-Sharing for US Forces a Model for Other Countries

GrumpyGuy_MOD_

The Japanese government is relieved for the time being by U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’ remark on Saturday that Japan’s cost-sharing for U.S. forces stationed in Japan is a “model” for other countries.

Mattis called for the strengthening of Japan’s defense capability in a series of meetings. The government plans to increase defense budgets and expand the Self-Defense Forces’ roles based on the security-related laws.

The government shares the related costs for the realignment of U.S. forces, in addition to those for stationing U.S. forces in Japan. They total about ¥760 billion per year, the largest among U.S. allies.

According to a Defense Ministry estimate, the government shoulders 53.7 percent of the expenditure related to U.S. forces in Japan.

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003504008

Matt_ADMIN_

I wonder though, do all these costs take into consideration the value the US derives from being able to have bases within easy striking distances of all its opponents?

Rosie_MOD_

Shouldn't the US be paying rent and other costs. They're the ones wanting bases in other countries especially encircling China.

Matt_ADMIN_

The present line of thinking is that the US is "doing a favour" by placing troops in these countries "for their defense", but I suppose that remains a matter of debate

GrumpyGuy_MOD_

Rosie_MOD_ said:

Shouldn't the US be paying rent and other costs. They're the ones wanting bases in other countries especially encircling China.

The American presence was forced on Japan as part of the post-war occupation.  Once sovereignty was restored to Japan, they signed an agreement with the US in which they asked the Americans to remain for protection (since they were no longer legally allowed to have a proper military).  In 1960, that treaty expired and was replaced by a new one that had more or less the same outcome. 

Japan is essentially renting the US military, and the Americans are happy to continue the relationship because it gives them a strategic headquarters in the Pacific region.  Most Japanese people are also content with the current relationship (something like 75% of people asked), although this is less-so in Okinawa where the bulk of American bases are located.  Of course, Okinawans are "Japanese" in the way that the Iroquois living in the Six Nations Reserve in Ontario are "Canadian" - they never really had a choice in the matter.

Prime Minister Abe would prefer to change the constitution to allow Japan to have a proper military again, and some of his voters agree with him (although not all).  Kicking the Americans out is probably part of that, even if he won't say it outright.  Of course, Abe wants Japan to return to Pre-WWII Imperial glory as well, so his goals don't really line up with those of general Japanese people.

I *believe* that American bases in Japan are also considered US soil, for all but citizenship purposes (which means a child born on base is not made a citizen in the same way that any child born on American soil is automatically American).  Although the Americans agree to cooperate with Japanese police, for example, the police are not always able to get access to American soldiers who are involved in criminal matters.  I think they can be turned away at the gates if the situation warrants it.

Rosie_MOD_

Very interesting, Farmer_Sean. Explains a lot.