U.S.-Japanese talks on the future of American military bases are taking place in Tokyo against the backdrop of public protests. Any mistake in these talks could cost Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama his job. Hatoyama, who was initially supported by 72% of the electorate, is currently only backed by 20.7%.
But Hatoyama is bound to err because he lacks any alternative. Anything he does will be wrong, while inaction would be even worse. On Thursday or Friday, the mayors of three small Japanese towns on Tokunoshima Island are expected to visit Tokyo and tell the Prime Minister that they actively oppose the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station in Okinawa Prefecture to the island.
Hatoyama, who returned from Okinawa on Monday, said during his trip that he would be unable to relocate the base from Futenma (Okinava) to Tokunoshima because nobody wants to accommodate it.
This may seem a mere trifle involving 2,000 U.S. Marines, since the Futenma base is dwarfed by the sprawling Kadena Air Base. However, although small, the Futenma base is located in a densely populated town; the roar of aircraft engines disrupts school studies, and there are many other problems. The people are protesting. In 2006, the administration of President George W. Bush and the then Japanese Government signed an agreement that Tokyo would choose another location for the Marine base.
But no location has been found to date. Tokunoshima with its population of 25,000 does not want U.S. Marines to walk their roads, speaking in their foreign language. They don't want the fish to be scared off and leave their coastal areas. Nor do they want the birds to fly away. Whatever the reasons for the local population's reluctance, it is unclear what should be done about this small U.S. military base in Japan. Right now, it's impossible to retain the base or to dismantle it.
Problems always emerge around military bases, whether they are domestic or foreign. A base means heavy-duty equipment, the roar of engines and pleasure seeking young soldiers. Any foreign base raises the issue of its necessity and purpose. However, military bases often become part of local economies, and do yield profits. In the Philippines, the residents of Angeles City near the former Clark Air Base and Olongapo, a city spawned by the adjacent U.S. Naval Base at Subic Bay, emphatically opposed the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
These details will remain just that, details, unless questions about the bases' necessity are asked. But some questions have been raised this time.
It may be a coincidence, but a similar situation is now emerging around the Transit Center at Manas, a United States military installation at Manas International Airport, near Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. Michael McFaul, Special Assistant to the U.S. President for National Security Affairs, has arrived in Kyrgyzstan for talks with the new government. The fate of the local base, as well as scandals involving U.S. military personnel and local residents will form part of their negotiations.
The situation regarding Manas remains clear. This facility is needed to airlift additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan where a war, whose objectives are set out by the United States and are understood by Russia, Kyrgyzstan and their neighbors, is taking place. Technically speaking, this is the case.
Next summer, the base will have to be used for the reverse process, namely, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. The issue will then be tackled separately. We can recall how the Bush administration tried to use its military presence in Central Asia to assert political influence there and to attempt to oust Russia and China from the region, but it has all but failed to win the war in Afghanistan. Or we can overlook that aspect.
But the problem with Japan is different and on a far greater scale. It appears that this problem evolved over several decades. Following certain developments, it became clear that the situation is far worse than it had seemed.
The United States established its bases in Japan because the latter was defeated in World War II. In effect, this is the same heritage of occupation reminiscent of similar U.S. bases in Germany. Washington needed Kadena and other Japanese bases in order to conduct the war in Indochina in the 1960s and the 1970s and as a deterrent against the Soviet Union and China. Tokyo needed the bases in order to facilitate economic development, without swelling defense-spending levels, and to entrust Japan's defense to the United States. Japan found this arrangement economically profitable.
But the times have changed. Yukio Hatoyama was elected on a promise to create an entirely new, albeit unspecified, relationship between Tokyo and Washington. This probably implies more equitable relations. There was a vague feeling that the situation had changed, but that specific aspects of the change remained to be considered. As for Germany's current role in Europe, it is obvious that Japan has lingered long enough in the "postwar" era. Moreover, it is possible to assess how it is likely to move next. It would also be appropriate to ask why the bases are needed, and whether there is any need for a deterrent against Russia or China.
The current crisis around military bases flared up while analysts speculated laconically on how to formulate Japan's new global role and the essence of its new partnership with the United States.
Hatoyama promised to say something about the relocation of the Futenma base by late May. The Japanese Prime Minister and President Barack Obama discussed this issue at a recent Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. Then, Hatoyama said he would first assess the mood of his electorate. That he has done. It turns out that the moods of those resident in Japanese towns and islands, and those long overdue reflections on whether or not World War II has ended completely, have become interlaced.
Although Hatoyama is hard pressed for time, this matters little because the U.S. administration's foreign policy is racing against time. The world is changing too fast, it is hard to delay such changes and it is even more difficult to formulate new goals.
The 2006 U.S.-Japanese agreement was the brainchild of the then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rather than President Bush, and currently symbolizes America's global setback. In effect, this is the product of the outgoing era. Summing up, they just wanted to relocate a small military base to a quiet Japanese island. But that led to some unexpected results...
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev)
