Japanese city 'rejects US base'

[rubicond]

Why do you think this is?

Residents of the Japanese city of Iwakuni have voted overwhelmingly against the expansion of a local US military base, according to exit polls.

According to an exit poll by Kyodo News Agency, about 90% of those who voted in the referendum rejected the plan for Iwakuni.

The issue of US troops in Japan is also sensitive because of a case in 1995 in which three American servicemen raped a Japanese schoolgirl in Okinawa.

Nearly 2,000 residents of another city, Zama, protested on Saturday at plans to boost US troop numbers there.

[T2K]

The Japanese just ended their insistence on only non-nuclear US Navy ships being based there.  They will soon be getting a shiny new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier based in Yokosuka as the flagship of the 7th Fleet.  Why is this?

[Calamity Man]

because taiwan is playing with fire again.

[rubicond]

Because the Japanese government does everything the us wants (because the us its main trading parner, because it wants to enter the UN, etc.). Why do you think Japan has sent troops to Iraq, against its own constitution and against the will of the overwhelming majority of the Japanese population?

[T2K]

Japan is already a member of the UN.  Hint: Do you mean a new security council seat?  If so, say so.

The US has taken on the burden of Japan's defence since 1945.  Their deployment to Iraq was legally authorized according to their constitution as it's a non-combat role.  The US knows this well, since we wrote their constitution!

They are way too smart to give up the free shield right when their big neighbor next door is arming up.

This is common sense.

[Potemkin Cruise]

I actually agree that the US shouldn't station troops in locations where they are not wanted.  If the Japanese don't want them, they should go home.  Same for Iraq.

But Im curious about the implicit slant here.  Lets assume that Japan becomes a good global pacifist with no real defensive capability (either on its own or through its allies) and the PRC begins test firing missles over Japanese territory (or worse) because, oh, say, some textbook is insufficiently "sensitive", are these critics going to object?  Is it going to be "all Taiwan's fault"?

Is the US now expected to step in after being told to go home?  Or is it ok for China to act aggressively while its not ok for the US.  Or do you guys think that none of this is likely to happen?  That the war with India, the invasion of Tibet, the attacking of U.N. forces in Korea, the rising nationalism, etc., etc.,  were (are) just flukes?

Not sure I have the answers either, but I think its important to point out that there are three, not two, state actors in this equation.

[rubicond]

T2K, yes, security council. Thank you and my apologies.

No. The Japanese constitution does not allow sending troops outside the Japanese border, whether combat or not combat. Period.

"free shield"? What's that?

Potemkin Cruise, listen up:
The US has the right to station its troops anywhere it wants because the us people have the right to protest. You see the logic? Chinese people and North Korean people and Iraqi have no right to protest, and therefore their army has no right to start wars. Not that they have started many, but that's not the point. The point is that the us people have the right to protest (and the us media has the freedom to say any bullsh!t it wants, as proof just look at fox news, cnn, abc, and all the other us propaganda channels), and therefore the us has the right to station its troops in any country it wants, and to start any war it wants. If you don't understand this incredibly superior logic I can honestly say -- and I swear to god this is true -- that I have never argued with someone as stupid as you before.

[This message has been edited by rubicond (edited 13-03-2006).]

[T2K]

The Japanese Diet authorized Japanese troops to go to Iraq for humanitarian work.  They sure aren't there for combat - they have to be escorted and protected by other foreign and local armed units!

The "free shield" analogy refers to the fact that the American taxpayer has paid for the bulk of Japan's national defence for 50 years.  This allowed them to focus on their economy, which they did very well for most of that time.  While the JSDF is not weak (it is one of the most capable militaries in Asia) it is limited in its role.

It is time for Japan's constitution to change and for Japan to take a more active role in its own defence and in regional security matters.  But, if they want us out, then their gov't should ask us to leave, like The Philippines did.  They won't though, because the Japanese know a good thing when they see it.  This neighborhood is getting tough, and it's good to have big friends.

[charlieb]

Free shield??? Didn't know there was such thing as a free lunch.

[Bored Manager]

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Following WW2, as victors it is the responsibility of the U.S. to defend Japan. I assume it may choose in what depth they have to defend and may, if they decide, reduce the deployment of troops if they so wish.

This is known by the regional governments - most notably the Chinese who quite obviously choose a more hawkish relationship with their former (and maybe present) enemies. We also have the uncertainty of the mad and despotic rule in North Korea who have launched missiles over Japan.

These two countries lend tension to the region and - as mentioned before - the U.S. is required to defend Japan.

Then we have the fact that Japan is a huge holder of U.S. government debt - withdrawal of which would have dire consequences on the U.S. economy.

It is not at all beyond the realms of possibility (and probably more in the realms of probability) that the U.S. government are leaning very heavily on the Japanese government to ensure "moral" and financial support for the U.S. military and international coercion in the drive for global dominance.

Failure for Japan to provide this would mean that the U.S. withdraw sufficient protection for the Japanese people who are basically in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the regional tensions deliberately being provoked by their north Asian neighbors...

[Azania]

Reality check for RUST and his like. The Japanese government will,in the end, ignore the wishes of the majority of their people and allow a steady increase in the deployment of US troops within its borders and any other territories it still lays claim too.

Why? Because the giant that is China has been awakened, and they dont like the Japanese .The US are becoming increasingly wary of China (15% increase in military spending last budget) and so Japan and the US are going to align themselves more and more.

And the no combat rule , not worth the paper its written on. Japan remains the 2nd biggest spender on its military, not including the billions it pays towards the cost of maintaining the current US presence.

A showdown is inevitable, it may take a long time, probably not in my lifetime, but I think sadly my child will live to see major conflict in this region between the various players.

Unless of course Taiwan makes its move, then it could all kick off next week.

[Bitko]

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Phillipines, four western wannabes. Suffereing from post-colonial inferiority complex.

[T2K]

There really is no free lunch, and Japan does reciprocate to the US with some funding for the US defense of their country.  Of course, in the event of conflict, the US lives lost couldn't be paid back.

I do think Japan should have a UN security council seat and revise its constitution.

Bitko - Interesting.  Can you elborate a little more?  Is any country with ties to the West a wannabe?  Singapore should be on your list, right?

[expat1]

I disagree that Japan should revise it's constitution so that it can become an obnoxious aggressor at the beck and call of the US.  The last thing Asia needs right now is another gov't sending troops around the region to further the CIA's meddling interests.

One of the best things about Japan is its pacifist nature (I know that sounds like an oxymoron given their past and Yasikuni shrine, but there is a quite a bit of pacifism amongst many of the citizens of Japan).  I always found it such a shame that the Japanese gov't could be bullied by the US into providing troops and/or aid where ever the US ordered.

The majority of the Japanese people were deadset against sending the JSDF to Iraq; and allowing the JSDF to deploy there is playing loose with the Japanese constitution.

The US will protect Japan not because it has a responsibility to do so, but because it is in her strategic interests to do so.  It would also be the right thing to do, as Japan has generally been a good ally since WWII.

Japan should set an example in Asia - that of never sending troops outside its own borders; and never being the one to attack.  My vote would be for Japan to stay Self Defense Only.    

[Bitko]

T2K
I have to do business in Singapore, not get kicked out for having loud mouth.
I am sure we all know what I mean.