politics

Carter says U.S. satisfied with Japan's contribution to alliance

22 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

*The Obama administration made Asia and U.S. alliances there a priority. While details of Trump's approach to the region remain scant, his calls for allies to pay more to sustain U.S. forces or face their possible withdrawal have alarmed Japan and South Korea.Japan is host to nearly 50,000 U.S. troops and pays about $1.6 billion annually towards the cost of them being stationed, said Commander Gary Ross, a Pentagon spokesman. it also one of the most like on line service, best resume writing service(www.osamresume.com). if we select that one means we can get the lot information’s to our use and known about that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hmmmmmmm...... I think I know at least one American who isn't satisfied........

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes, but as soon as Trump becomes president, then the US will not be satisfied.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about to ask the citizens of Okinawa?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ash carter, Regardless of your opinion, and whether you are right or wrong you are speaking out of turn. He is simply trying to undermine Trump.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It doesn't matter what Carter thinks. He should shut up and start looking for another job.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Your fired!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Doesn't anyone care what this guy says any more. This administration is 46 days away from being history (which is about 47 too many).

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

They ought to be satisfied. Japan pays the most protection money, sorry, contribution of any country.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Article 24 of SOFA, a rider to the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, stipulates the U.S. will bear all expenditures necessary for the maintenance of the U.S. Forces Japan without cost to Japan (Clause 1) while Japan will furnish bases and areas without cost to the U.S. (Clause 2).

Thus, the Japanese taxpayers, believing the U.S. military presence is solely for the defense of Japan and security in the region, have squandered money in the name of "host-nation support" for the maintenance of U.S. bases and facilities, 87 in all. For the next 5 years starting fiscal year 2016 that will amount to 946.5 billion yen (or about $9 billion) .

The U.S. Navy (the 7th Fleet) based at Yokosuka and the Marine units stationed in Okinawa are not for the defense of Japan, as people naively believe, but are deployed there as part of the U.S. military's global strategy, as many pundits point out. We know bases in Okinawa were used with impunity as staging posts for overseas troop deployment in the Gulf and Iraq Wars and, before the reversion, in the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

According to yesterday's Ryukyu Shimpo, members of the Higashi Village Council were allowed to make a tour of the Jungle Warfare Training Center recently and told by an officer in charge there that the purpose of the center was not simply training to hone marines' jungle warfare skills but also their narcotics warfare skills to check narcotics smuggling in the U.S.

So, I suggest Tokyo tell visiting Carter Japan have to pay no money at all for the upkeep of the U.S. military stationed in Japan. Japanese taxpayers shoulder costs for furnishing 87 U.S. bases and areas and are obliged to pay indemnity for damages derived from those bases (noise and toxic pollution, crimes committed by military service members, etc.).

Trump's suggestion during his campaign that Japan pay more or U.S. troops withdraw from Japan may have been the ambitious candidate's tall talk to win votes for his presidency. Paradoxically as it may sound, though, Trump has pried open the hitherto tightly closed doors to the Japan-U.S. alliance, bringing about a rare chance to revisit the bilateral security treaty under which Okinawa has suffered so much and for so long.

The lame-duck U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter's visit to Japan should be watched with this in mind.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

voiceinokinawa,

Good post.

Since the U.S.A. is occupying this land for its own purposes, it should pay rent. The U.S.A. should be given a bill for ground rent on a par with what we who live here have to pay.

Then perhaps they would stop wasting space or pack up and leave.

Japan is in fact paying much more for the U.S. forces here than the United States itself.

According to U.S. documents from 2004, Japan pays more than 70 percent of the cost of hosting U.S. forces, as compared to between 30 and 40 percent in South Korea, Germany, and other nations. However, as the role of Japan's Self-Defense Forces (SDF) expands under new security-related legislation, the Finance Ministry's Fiscal System Council has declared that U.S. military hosting costs "must be re-evaluated and reduced."

More here:

<http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160530/p2a/00m/0na/017000c >

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Bertiewooster,

Thank you very much for the reference.

Here's my recapitulation of the data presented in the report:

International Comparison of U.S. Base Cost Sharing

Base facility costs:

Japan: Japan pays 100%; S. Korea: S. Korea pays 100%; Germany: U.S. pays all; Italy: U.S. pays all

Labor costs:

Japan: Japan pays 100%; S. Korea: S. Korea pays 100%; Germany: U.S. pays all; Italy: U.S. pays all

Utilities:

Japan: Japan pays 100%; S. Korea: U.S. pays all; Germany: U.S. pays all ; Italy: U.S. pays all

Over-all cost sharing ratio:

Japan: about 75%; S. Korea; about 40%; Germany: about 30%; Italy: about 40%;

In addition to the so-called sympathy budged, Japan must shoulder SACO-related costs and U.S. forces realignment costs, which amounted to 440 billion yen (about $470 million) in 2015.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Japan spends only 1 percent of GDP in defense. Compare with many of the NATO countries like England, France, Germany or Italy. They all spend much more than Japan in percentage of their GDP. Japan should be more aligned with these NATO countries.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty or more formally the "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America" stipulates that "[f]or the purpose of the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East," U.S. forces are granted to use bases and areas in Japan. In other words, the bases and areas which the U.S. forces have used as Occupation Forces will continue to be used the same as before with a new justification added to the effect that they are for the defense of Japan and its vicinity.

Now, Article 24 of SACO, a bilateral agreement concomitant to the Security Treaty, stipulates the U.S. will bear all expenditures necessary for the maintenance of the U.S. Forces Japan without cost to Japan (Clause 1) while Japan will furnish bases and areas without cost to the U.S. (Clause 2).

The question I want to raise here is: Have the provisions specified in these agreements been strictly abided by the U.S. side? Hasn't the U.S. violated the provisions specified there from time to time, oftentimes blatantly?

First, on what legal bases can the U.S. military use these bases and facilities for no purpose other than of defending Japan. The area the Yokosuka-based 7th Fleet is responsible extends far beyond Japanese waters. The marines stationed in Okinawa are training jungle warfare skills probably for use in Southeast Asia and, as revealed recently, to fight against drug wars in Central and South Americas.

The U.S. mainland-based national guards fighter jets often come to Kadena Air Base and remain there for several months to train.

During the Afghanistan and Iraq wars the U.S. military freely used bases in Okinawa as staging posts matter-of-factly.

Aren't these U.S. actions in blatant violation of Article 6 of the Security Treaty, which stipulates that the U.S. military is granted to use bases and areas in Japan to defend Japan and its vicinity only?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan is host to nearly 50,000 U.S. troops and pays about $1.6 billion annually towards the cost of them being stationed, said Commander Gary Ross, a Pentagon spokesman.

“Japan reimburses the United States for a large fraction of those costs and that is good,” Carter said. “It shows that it is a two-way street and as I said, the alliance relationship has never been stronger.”

Wait a sec... the US military have been stationed in Japan since WW2, still an occupying force, so why on Earth should Japan pay to have them there? Shouldn't America be paying Japan for the land and utilities being used? Did the UK government pay the US military to station bombers here?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan is host to nearly 50,000 U.S. troops and pays about $1.6 billion annually

Japan host 100,000 US troops and their families. Japan pays more than $7.6 billion annually. US tries to significantly downplay Japan's contribution.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan lost the war, and this is the price they pay for losing the war

Just like the price they pay when they lost the Northern Territories forever

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

lostrune2,

You are telling the truth when you say, "Japan lost the war, and this is the price they pay for losing the war."

True, Japan lost the war. As a result, victorious U.S. forces occupied and controlled it until 1951 when it was granted "full" sovereignty once again by the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Okinawa trailed a different path from the mainland. It occupation formally ended in 1972 when its administrative rights were returned to Japan.

Did the U.S. occupation forces pack up and go home because Japan's occupation was over and because Okinawa was returned to Japan? No, they remained in full force, keeping their bases and areas almost intact. Thus, Japan's independence is only superficial, occupation still going on even today.

It is the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty that does the whole trick.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan lost the war, and this is the price they pay for losing the war

No. it has nothing to do with it because it is not only Japan that lost the war. It is something to do with Japan's patient and kindness that US is taking advantage of. It's also something to do with Americans' racism.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

tinawatanabe: "No. it has nothing to do with it because it is not only Japan that lost the war."

Yes, it does. They lost the war, they paid the price. They should not have started it with the US if they didn't want the US presence later. Plain and simple. It was not self-defense; they attacked the US in Pearl Harbor unprovoked and in an unprecedented sneak attack.

"It is something to do with Japan's patient and kindness that US is taking advantage of."

Utter BS, especially given your hateful comments towards them, Koreans, and Chinese. If we all generalized about how Japanese feel like you do, based on your comments Japanese continue to be (as they were when they murdered millions across Asia) among the most unkind people in the region towards neighbours and others. In fact, Japan is taking advantage of the US presence by enjoying the peace it has brought, while constantly decrying their presence in many cases.

"It's also something to do with Americans' racism."

Hahaha! Look in the mirror, tina. Look in the mirror. Only one side being racist here, and it's not the US. I'm only surprised you didn't take this thread as another chance to complain about South Korea and China as well as the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty that does all this trick. Through this device, the U.S. has kept controlling the Japanese people and their mind-set years after the occupation was long over.

So when the leaders of both countries say on every occasion that they have confirmed both nations' solid alliance, what does it mean to Japan and especially to Okinawa?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yyes, Japan lost war. I think some writers are instigating Japan create WWIIl and stop payment

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites