Japan proposes tentative 1-year deal on cost-sharing for U.S. troops

Japan is already part of the Quad Alliance.

Already paying 3x more then South Korea.

The burden in East Asia shouldn't be only on Japan shoulders....... South Korea is right there. Next door.

South Korea has Mandatory Military Service. Millions already trained compare to pacifist Japan under article 9.

South Korea has a large military budget, serious capabilities and weapons. No restrictions on what they can produce.

South Korea never signed Plaza Accord, crippling it's economy for the past 3 decades.

My question is: Where do we get some South Korean negotiators on Japan's side? Apparently South Korea gets better deals, pays less then Japan, doesn't have to balance China or lift a finger if they don't want too. While having the full support of America and Japan if they ever need it.

South Korea has a large military budget, serious capabilities and weapons. No restrictions on what they can produce.

Never underestimate the JSDF, not to mention, they have a larger military budget than SK as well.

Just because Japan has a pacifistic constitution does not mean they are neutered!

Japan must stop using the word "omoiyari yosan." The word is derogatory meaning "sympathy budget." The term was first used in 1978 by then powerful LDP politician Shin Kanemaru. Background of the situation was U.S. faced serious financial difficulty after the Vietnam War and concurrently sharp dropping of dollar values happened. From that time, Japan began to shoulder salaries of Japanese employees, land fees of bases, building cost of military facilities and housings which included golf courses etc. Thus, Japan has become the No. 1 cost sharing nation of U.S. Forces in the world today. However, it is very rude to U.S. and if they realize the meaning of the word, they will get really angry.

Nope.

Japan should politely ask the UK forces to leave. They are not here to “protect” Japan but to threaten China and North Korea.

Japan spends enough on its military to be able to look after itself from the imaginary enemies it faces.

A. There no UK forces here.

B. Japan pays the salaries etc. of Japanese nationals on the bases.

C. Japan pays for all base infrastructure and maintenance.

D. US pays for all its own military equipment and salaries.

E. Us pays for all US citizen’s salaries etc.

Both Russia and China would be happy to provide troops to stay for free with no cost to the Japanese taxpayer. @Mr Kipling that won't be a problem in your world as any enemies Japan faces are purely "imaginary."

I love it when distant provinces in an empire start trying to nickle n dime their way out of fealty and servitude.

GREAT Job! concise & intelligent rebuttal from @Sandy to @Mr. I think he's referring to "...Britain announced last year it will dispatch the carrier group to the Pacific...to conduct joint exercises with U.S. & JSD Forces in areas off Nansei Islands in SW Japan ...amid concerns over assertiveness in the East & South seas,... the Brit navy also plans to maintenance on carrier-based F-35B stealth fighter jets at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.'s aerospace in Aichi Pref. - KYODO

Perhaps some Japanese military should serve in some US military units as South Korean soldiers do.

@knight_of_Honour

that is not possible for JSDF with the current Consitution. They can be just "observers" but not really take any part of the training.

Japan is already part of the Quad Alliance.

No there is no "Quad Alliance" only a "group" of four countries called the Quad and there is no formal or informal alliance.

Japan should politely ask the UK forces to leave. They are not here to “protect” Japan

The UK will be there to participate in Naval exercises and to get F-35 maintenance done in a Japanese factory (business for Japan). They may ask the UK not to come if they dont want the business in their factory. But that would be silly.

Britain announced last year it will dispatch the carrier group to the Pacific...to conduct joint exercises with U.S. & JSD Forces in areas off Nansei Islands in SW Japan

Britain announced last year it will dispatch the carrier group to the Pacific...to conduct joint exercises with U.S. & JSD Forces in areas off Ryukyu Islands in SW Japan. Fixed it for you.

I can’t imagine Japan defending itself while they have self defense forces they don’t have a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. They would get their butt kicked against any major conflict without help. Not to mention when was the last time anyone had any real wartime experience was 80 years ago

For a measly $2 billion Japan gets access to the largest military in the world obligated to come to its rescue if the need arises. No reciprocal obligation required. The US is a declining power that can no longer politically support a large military engagement in a foreign land. It’s a deal destined to end in acrimony.

Thanks for that ‘Fixed it for you.’ @*Peter14 11:31 am JST “ ‘off Ryukyu Islands in SW Japan..”. *(That explains the - votes!) We were just quoting as it was written in KYODO News, both Dec 5, 2020 and Jan 14, 2021.

Perhaps the writer was just giving geographic directions to foreign readers, relative to Honshu & Kyushu

( n. Minami south + 西 n. Nishi west = 南西 (Nansei) n. southwest ) ?? and not really getting into how the islands are referred to by the disputing different countries.

Regardless, we always hope disputes can be resolved diplomatically.

No mention of any price reduction. GREAT!!

So much for Abe's epic negotiation skills! He ceded away Japanese agriculture to the American farmers and agri-corporations through a poorly thought trade deal with Trump in 2019. Now, Trump's price proposal continues into the Biden administration. Expect the American military-industrial complex to squeeze Japan even more money in the future!

South Korea has a large military budget, serious capabilities and weapons. No restrictions on what they can produce.

They can unilaterally ally with North Korea to spite against Japan. Now, President Moon and his socialists secured assistance from China on the matter. The US can't do much in the long term to force a regime change in the SK if Moon ever decides to renege against Americans.

North Korea has mastery in Soviet/Russian weapons as well as nuclear arsenals. South Korea has mastery in Western technologies. The combination of both Koreas will easily dwarf Japan from economics to military.

Just because Japan has a pacifistic constitution does not mean they are neutered!

Their economics have been neutered severely. You can't fight on an empty stomach and an empty pocket. The CCP recently deployed the encroaching invasion of Coast Guards around the Ryukyu Islands, and Japan complained that they couldn't handle this type of invasion in the long term due to the declining budgets and manpower.

Japan is militarily irrelevant without the United States.

@ sandy beach B. Japan pays the salaries etc. of Japanese nationals on the bases.

C. Japan pays for all base infrastructure and maintenance.

Quite wrong and right, B. US taxpayer funding now pays a much larger share for both US and Japanese salaries it is sheltered funding that is funneled differently. C. Japan pays for all base infrastructure and maintenance, nope that stopped happening years ago. The US pays a much larger share of the costs for infrastructure and maintenance for both US employed contract workers and Japan Contract companies who hire both US (residents here in Japan legally and Japanese local employees. Ask and DPW or CES plans, programs they know where the money comes from and which budgets support projects.

Why???

@vanityofvanitiesToday 07:39 am JST

However, it is very rude to U.S. and if they realize the meaning of the word, they will get really angry.

I'm sure any insult is much mollified by the fact it is the Japanese fronting the hard cash.

@Mr KiplingToday 07:53 am JST

Imaginary enemy is putting out a third conventional carrier this year, I here.

Pay your fair share, seems reasonable most definitely.

I re-read my post on the thread of a JT article dated Dec. 22 last year and found things seemed to be going as I had expected.

Here's my piece:

Japan has paid an annual 201.7 billion yen, or about $2 billion, to support U.S. bases in Japan for the past 5 years. Not only that, but Japan has shouldered and will keep shouldering payments (rents) to the private landholders of bases, thus allowing U.S. forces in Japan for the free use of these bases Should there occur damages from the bases, it's Japan that must take full responsibility and pay indemnity.

Trump thinks this is not enough and demanded Japan pay four times more. Japan hopes to keep its annual payment at the same level as the last five years. This itself is absurd and exorbitant, but Trump's negotiating tactics seem to have worked well. Incoming Biden must thank to Trump for the windfall if Japan agreed to maintain the current level of shouldering expenses.

Japan hopes to keep its annual payment at the same level as the last five years.

Incoming Biden must thank Trump for the windfall if Japan agreed to maintain the current level of shouldering expenses.

Perhaps he should thank Obama for negotiating the current "windfall" negotiated five years ago before Trump was in office.

Japan should rethink its defense policy amid growing insecurity in the region. China's increased aggression over the Senkaku issue poses a serious threat to the region's peace. In such a situation, Japan should focus on strengthening its security rather than getting into any kind of differences with its allies. Therefore, Japan should strengthen its security relations with the US, and also intensify efforts to strengthen its military, so that China's threat can be replied to strongly when the time comes.

Make the US pay their way. If they absolutely HAVE to be here (in Okinawa), they should be paying ground rent at the same rate that we who live here would have to pay. They would soon downsize Kadena then!

Total waste of space.

@Wolfpack you have a large bark keep dreaming if you think the US military is declining. Take a chance and its end game!

Pay your fair share, seems reasonable most definitely.

The people saying nonsense like this sit comfortably in the US blithely ignoring the little detail that Japan would be the front line of any war with China and its citizens and cities will suffer greatly where this clod will be safe and unmolested in the US. It is exactly attitudes like yours that make people dislike the US.

The US is a declining power that can no longer politically support a large military engagement in a foreign land.

There are things you are apparently not aware of that keep the Chinese awake at night. Just a few months ago the USAF announced they have tested a prototype 6th generation combat jet and a production date is near. A new bomber is being built in Palmdale right now. There is a big unmanned UAS in the Air Force, the RQ-180 they admit having but nothing more. It is supposedly as large as a B-2 and armed. Nobody really knows what the X-37 is doing in space on those year long missions it flies. That is just the stuff in the open press you can read about if you care too. The US economy is still much larger than that of China and not resource constrained as China's is. In a war, China would be starved for oil, iron ore, wheat and soybeans. All of those resources have to travel through straits and seas the US and allied navies can deny to China. A couple of subs could make passing through the Straits of Malacca very dangerous to ships headed to China. Some Marines landed on those small islands in the first island chain armed with anti-ship missiles could make it a very dangerous place for the PLAN. The Chinese are unable to feed their population and their industry relies on imported materials. Take those away and they cannot survive long. China is not ten feet tall and invincible and the US has lots of capabilities China cannot yet match.

A defense based and relied on only 55,000 in fact external although here stationed US servicemen, with a supply and logistics chain that would have to bridge several thousands of miles over the Pacific? Come on, how can you ever consider that working in any severe scenario? 55,000 , btw that would China take a grin only, such a number they easily activate while sending some younger inhabitants of a smaller ‘village’. That’s the relation in numbers alone, still not talking about military force , experience, expertise or equipment, that is available here and in addition, as we all probably know , is mostly self-constrained in numbers and force , for certain historical reasons.

Japan is still 'technically' at war with the Russian Federation where there is no signed treaty ending the second world war. If the united states of america ever pulls out of Japan, the russian federation could simply invade full force.

A defense based and relied on only 55,000 in fact external although here stationed US servicemen, with a supply and logistics chain that would have to bridge several thousands of miles over the Pacific? Come on, how can you ever consider that working in any severe scenario?

That is why the US and its allies have annual exercises like Gallant Eagle, etc, to practice rapid reinforcement. I have some news for you. In the event of a big enough war, every airliner in US commercial service would be used to move troops. You might also like to look at the webpage for what is called the Military Sealift Command and see what kind of sealift the US has available, including what are called "Pre-positioned Groups". These are groups of a dozen to 14 ships that are moored in places that would be close to a conflict and loaded with enough equipment (vehicles, tanks, artillery, ammo, missiles, etc.) to keep certain US Army divisions in combat for a month. Last, China isn't going to mount any kind of invasion without the kind of troop build up that will be painfully obvious to routine surveillance of China. The US will have some warning that something is afoot and have time to react.

America and the Soviet Union were not at war during WW2. They were on the same side. Now the Russian Federation.

But Japan and the USSR were and there has never been a peace treaty signed so technically they remain at war in a legal sense. As for the US and USSR, your comment ignores the Cold War after WWII and some of the very hot proxy wars from that era. Russia under Vladimir Putin is no more of a friend and almost as much of a threat to the US and west as the old USSR was, though maybe less so due to a smaller population and a lackluster economy.

Robert CikkiFeb. 2  11:30 am JST

@knight_of_Honour

that is not possible for JSDF with the current Consitution. They can be just "observers" but not really take any part of the training.

Incorrect. The JGSDF have been training with the US Army at the NTC for several years. As well as with USMC. JASDF trains with USAF and JMSDF trains with USN even in the South China Sea.

The United States should be condemned worldwide for causing wars around the world and systemic racism. Japan is the country that choose peace.

that is not possible for JSDF with the current Consitution. They can be just "observers" but not really take any part of the training.

Well when I was deployed on USS Sacramento during a big RIMPAC exercise our USN ship was attached to a JMSDF task force of eight or nine ships including one of the older DDHs as their replenishment ship. We crossed decked with them daily, our helos landing on their ships and theirs on ours. We refueled and resupplied them underway. We exchanged sailors and officers too. The JGSDF has hit the beach at Camp Pendleton during big amphibious exercises to learn how to do it, and how to operate with the Marines if it ever comes to that.

The United States should be condemned worldwide for causing wars around the world and systemic racism.

Don't attack the US or her allies then. Simple. Or I guess you forgot what some miserable Arab terrorists did to the US on September 11th? Cannot let groups like that organize again. Just cannot.

The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union was a good chance for the world to part the Cold War and realize true peace. But what did U.S. policymakers do? They never failed to expand the U.S.'s sphere of influence and the buildup of its arms, taking this unexpected opportunity.

This is the main reason why the Cold War has continued to this day, I think.

Whether the U.S. Space Force should be a new branch, completely independent of the Air Force, or should be part of it is no matter concerned with us. But when it comes to U.S. bases in Japan, it matters quite a lot because the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty states only the Army, Air Force and Navy can use bases and areas in Japan. 

Will the personnel of the new branch be stationed in Japan illegally, that is, in violation of the bilateral agreement, just as the members of the Marine Corps? And yet Japan is obliged to shoulder the cost of their stationing, too?

because the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty states only the Army, Air Force and Navy can use bases and areas in Japan. 

For the umpteenth time, no it does not. Please stop making this baseless claim that has no basis in fact.

Space Force... just another funnel for Amerikas Military Industrial Complex.

I assume when you write this you are unaware that Russia has anti-satellite weapons in space now and has had them since the 1980s. The can basically shoot down the very satellite that carries our telephone and internet traffic in addition to blinding the military by shooting down their satellites. Expecting the US to play nice guy and not worry about its enemies using space as a means to blind the nation is naive at best.

The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union was a good chance for the world to part the Cold War and realize true peace. But what did U.S. policymakers do? They never failed to expand the U.S.'s sphere of influence and the buildup of its arms, taking this unexpected opportunity

No, the US greatly reduced the size of its military at the end of the Cold War. Whole squadrons were being decommissioned in 1989 and the Navy conducted a very large RIF, Reduction in Force involuntarily separating sailors and officers. I left during the early days of that RIF. Even during the middle east wars it continued to reduce the size of the Navy and Air Force as shipbuilding and new aircraft construction failed to keep up with the retirement of old units. The US continued to reduce force size until pretty recently. Only since 2013 or so with the ascension of Xi Jinping and China's increasingly large military did the US start building new weapons needed to deal with the surprising advances in China's military technology, often tech stolen from the west. The US in fact was kind of caught off guard by the Chinese. No one here really wanted another cold war but what do you expect the US to do when the Chinese own internal videos show them attacking Guam, or attacking US aircraft carriers while claiming rights to international waters and threatening the territory of US allies? Just sit back and let the Chinese conquer Americas allies? You have some funny notions.

Desert Tortoise (Today  03:50 am JST

The bilateral security treaty is written in English and Japanese, both equally authentic. Now, Article 6 of the English version states "the U.S.A. is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan." The expression "land, air and naval forces" in the English version is very ambiguous and ephemeral -- used to describe a military formation in war planning. 

The Japanese version is more precise and direct. It says these forces are none other than "the Army, Air Force and Navy."

Am I making a baseless claim?

Desert Tortoise (Feb. 6 04:01 am JST),

 No, the US greatly reduced the size of its military at the end of the Cold War.

It may have reduced the size of its military and the number of bases planted all the world, but never its strength and capability. On the contrary the strength of the U.S. military has increased many times more. The U.S. still maintains bases in more than 170 countries all over the world.

Has the U.S. reduced its military in Okinawa? Never. How do you explain why the U.S. demands a replacement be built within Okinawa in exchange for the return of USMC Air Station Futenma?

Or how do you explain the fortification of Diego Garcia by U.S. forces and planting of a missile base in Poland, an erstwhile Soviet bloc?

Or how do you explain the fortification of Diego Garcia by U.S. forces and planting of a missile base in Poland, an erstwhile Soviet bloc?

Diego Garcia was developed as a base in the late 1970s. I was out there when the current runway was being built. In fact I logged the very first landing on that runway. We did it in a helicopter so the contractor could get their progress payment. Much of the new runway was still incomplete. My division did the electronic installation on the control tower. I know Dodge pretty well. Nonetheless probably half the bases I knew during the Cold War don't exist any more. Long Beach Naval Station and the shipyard are gone. NAS Terminal Island is gone too. They are container port now. Philadelphia Navy Yard and the adjacent base, Charleston Navy Yard and Naval Station, Quonset Point Naval Station, NAS Jacksonville, NAS Dallas, NAS Moffett Field, NAS Alameda and Alameda Naval Station, Hunters Point Navy Yard, Mare Island Navy Yard where my old ship USS Sacramento was built, Treasure Island Naval Station, all closed. The Army shed several divisions of combat forces. The Marines shrank in size too. We went from 15 aircraft carriers when I was in to ten today, trying to get back up to 11 operational carriers, the bare minimum to be able to keep three on deployment continuously and one in the yards for the big mid life refueling and overhaul. We used to have oilers and ammo ships, dry stores ships, replenishment oilers in the Navy but now they are all civilian manned and have no combat capability. Each carrier had a replenishment oiler accompany it and other ships shuttled supplies to the fleet from shore stations. That is mostly gone and what's left is civilian manned. The other forces shed bases and combat units in similar fashion. We had close to 500 ships when I was in. Today its something like 265 smaller than the Chinese fleet now.

You were one of the first visitors to Diego Garcia when the U.S. base was under construction? What's that to do with our discussion on this thread? Good for you. But, probably, you didn't know what miserable fate the Diego Garcia islanders had to meet at the time.

Anyway. All the bases that you say were closed in the 1990's were on the U.S. mainland. They were closed because they were like stomach flab. They were closed to get rid of the stomach flab of the U.S. military at the time.

U.S. Marines Air Station Futenma will be closed and returned, thank God, but only if its more fortified replacement with new functions is built in Henoko, Nago City, Okinawa. That's not return in the true sense of the word nor the reduction of forces.