By Where have we heard this before?:
Japan’s parliament named Yukio Hatoyama prime minister Wednesday, as his party took power for the first time ever with promises to revive the slumping economy and make Tokyo a more equal partner in its alliance with the United States.
The Stanford-educated Hatoyama said he plans to review the American military presence in Japan, where 50,000 U.S. troops are stationed. But he said he will not stress that potentially contentious issue in a first meeting with President Barack Obama that could come later this month.
The outgoing Liberal Democrats, who had ruled the country for most of the postwar era, are staunchly pro-American. Some have worried that the incoming Democratic Party of Japan would make changes to the U.S. relationship, but both Hatoyama and Washington have been careful to dispel the notion that any big shift is afoot.
While in the opposition, some in the Democratic party said they wanted to overhaul the security alliance, and others balked at Tokyo’s share of the cost of moving 8,000 Marines from the southern island of Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam.
The Democrats have also said that by January they plan to end a Japanese mission in the Indian Ocean that refuels American ships supporting troops fighting in Afghanistan. [Associated Press]
Did this guy take leadership notes from Roh Moo-hyun?
If you haven’t already make sure to read my prior posting on how the Japanese left is looking at trying to change the US-Japan SOFA agreement as well.
8:30 pm on September 16th, 2009 1
LOL…
This is funny.
Reply
10:40 pm on September 16th, 2009 2
Well, regardless of motivation for his comments, it becomes harder to justify keeping 50,000 American soldiers in Japan.
Reply
September 17th, 2009 at 6:37 am
That’s the thing this new Prime Minister is making statements that he wants to tinker with the realignment agreement that relocates 8,000 Marines off of Okinawa to Guam plus relocates the remaining naval air station on Okinawa to rural part of the island and away from population centers. The US is downsizing and Japan agreed to help with that.
It appears that in response now the US is threatening to downsize even further if these agreements are not kept by withdrawing a huge chunk of the US Air Force in Japan:
http://rokdrop.com/2009/09/17/us-threatens-to-remove-fighter-jets-from-japan/
Reply
10:43 pm on September 16th, 2009 3
They’re not our colony, after all, and a country of Japan’s status doesn’t need to be occupied by a foreign military any longer. Nor should the US continue to act like occupying East Asia is its responsibility.
Reply
12:44 am on September 17th, 2009 4
Looks like Japan is ready for change!
Yes we can!
Reply
12:51 am on September 17th, 2009 5
First the USA should leave Korea. Then, maybe Japan.
Reply
7:54 pm on September 17th, 2009 6
No problem with leaving from me.
Reply
9:44 pm on September 17th, 2009 7
woow, this is really unexpected for me.
Could someone explain something: If the USA has political power over Japan since the USA granted to the Japanese their constitution and has the legitimacy to change it and Japan has also a war debt with the USA, how can Japan act independently from the USA? It`s because of this issues that I believe that any Japanese “autonomy” claim is impracticable.
I`m not saying Japan is a colony of USA (because it is not in fact), but it`s obvious that they are bound to the USA control in political matters.
Reply
September 18th, 2009 at 1:48 am
I think if you look at your opinion as a type of prism and twist it around a little so the light hits it at different angles, I can agree with you to a significant extent. The primary reason isn’t really connected to your supporting points, at least as directly stated, but does have to deal with Japan’s military strategic situation and how that is influenced by the strong hatred of it the colonial period created in its neighbors that remains to today:
Japan has to live within the reality of that bad blood created and in the fact that two of its neighbors are communist – at least in political orientation for China. They also have to face the fact China is a huge nation in terms of population and a rapidly growing economy that gives it more and more ability to project power not just in East Asia but globally.
So, given the enviornment Japan lives in, it needs a strong military and/or strong military strategy, but the bigger of an ability it has by itself, the more it stokes the pent-up anger in Korea and China and elsewhere in Asia. So — like England facing the Soviet Union in Europe after WWII, Japan decided to tie its military strategic position to that of the US, and it will continue to do so regardless of whatever this new administration and voters have in mind.
I think that is far from saying Japan has no “autonomy.” It certainly does. If it wanted, it could sever its relationship with the United States. It doesn’t not because the US “controls” it or has “undue influence” on it —- It does it because it sees it as the best means to achieve its security needs.
In short, you can just as easily say that Japan has been “using” the United States the last few decades when it – just like South Korea – could have fielded an adequate military of their own without need of help from the US military.
The reality is, the US-SK and US-Japan relationship has been based on some sense of reciprical advantage (bilaterialism) for a few decades now. For myself, I disagree with the US policy of keeping troops in South Korea but support keeping them in Japan as the natual Pacific line of defense to draw.
Reply
6:04 am on September 18th, 2009 8
“but it`s obvious that they are bound to the USA control in political matters.”
Such as what? refeuling ships? Big deal.
U is just looking to troll some Japanese person. Sorry, U but Japanese don’t care.
Reply
9:16 am on September 18th, 2009 9
Thank you USinKorea
I agree with everything that you said.
It is true that Japan and Korea benefited from USA presence in the region and I believe that we need the USA soldiers in our country for obvious reason (strategic and politic).
Under the strategic point of view I have nothing to add to what you said but I was more focused on the legal aspect of said “Japanese autonomy” toward USA, since they are bound to American interference by their constitution.
My main concern is “will Japan ignore or revoke their constitution if it is necessary to assure their dreamed autonomy from the USA?” or even more will the USA exercise the power it granted himself to intervene in Japanese constitution if needed?
Obviously I’m talking about a very extreme situation, that could lead both countries on the verge of a war if something like that happens, but I’m just trying to understand how far would Japan go to achieve the its autonomy claim.
Reply