politics

Japan, U.S. broadly agree on Tokyo's costs to host U.S. troops

44 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

44 Comments
Login to comment

The total number of people, including dependents and civilians is approximately 100,000. That's a lot of people.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Protection money.

If a war is started, it's more likely to be the U.S.A. that causes it than anywhere else.

-2 ( +11 / -13 )

Japan should stop using the word "omoi yari yosan" for the cost sharing budget. The word is insulting to U.S. Forces in Japan.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

If hegemony must persist, at least shouldn't US and Japanese corporations be providing the funds as the US bases here, as around the globe, are mainly to protect global trading routes and supply chains? It would seem logical that those who exploit people and appropriate resources pay the "externalities" of their business practices.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

That's what happens when you lose a war, you end up paying $2B per year in taxes for ever.

9 ( +18 / -9 )

Interesting post by warispeace. The private companies who benefit from both countries should shoulder the costs vs just profits from the services provided by both countries and not let the entire burden by on taxpayers from both countries.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Broadly agree means not to agree on focused points? Give me a clue what the points are that are not in agreement!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Wakarimasen. Can you translate/explain this phrase:? @vanityofvanities 7:26a JST “Japan stop using the word "omoi yari yosan"... The word is insulting to U.S. Forces in Japan.”

1 ( +2 / -1 )

vanityofvanitiesToday  07:26 am JST

Japan should stop using the word "omoi yari yosan" for the cost sharing budget. The word is insulting to U.S. Forces in Japan.

They could always leave if they are insulted

2 ( +8 / -6 )

"That's what happens when you lose a war, you end up paying $2B per year in taxes for ever."

Then why is Germany not paying likewise?

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

snowymountainhell

"omoi yari" means compassion. Japan used the word when they increased the shareholding budget at the request of U.S. government. U.S. had a financial difficulty after the Vietnam War and the value of U.S. dollar slipped.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Bertiewooster, it will be China who starts the next war not the USA, do you not watch current events at all !

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

That's what happens when you lose a war, you end up paying $2B per year in taxes for ever.

Exactly, you play you pay. Japan lost so they have to pay forever

13 ( +17 / -4 )

Kick them all out. In return, we spend the cost on USA weapons for self defense. Both sides can get closure. Okinawa parents can allow 15 year old daughters to go out after sunset.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Japan had its teeth kicked in in 1945 and has been handing over its lunch money ever since.

6 ( +15 / -9 )

Why does Japan pay this large amount of tax payer money every year? What is the benefit? No country will attack Japan. Japan should concentrate to improve relation with neighbor countries rather than paying tax payer money to the US forces. Existence of US forces in Japan is for their (US) own interest, not for protection Japan.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

After Trump did we learn anything about America?

-Unpredictable, even for allies.

-Asking too much from Japan Not Enough from South Korea.

-Devastated our economy in the 80s. 30 yrs of stagnation.

-Forced Article 9 on Japan, then complain later we should be stronger militarily.

A weak Japan only benefits our enemies.

A weak Japan is easy to push around, easy to lose land, water, take away resources. Build comfort women statues.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Send them home.

In case anyone is upset, "them" refers to the military, not the majority of decent Americans who live here.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

Article 24 of the Status of Forces Agreement between Japan and the U.S. clearly states that "the United States will bear ... all expenditures incident to the maintenance of the United States armed forces in Japan."

So on what legal basis must Japanese taxpayers shoulder the maintenance costs of U.S. bases in Japan? Absurdity never fails to dictate Japan-U.S. relations, as always.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

cost should be zero.

0

us troops are not needed in Japan,war ended in 1945 folks...

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Japan has been a client state of the USA for over 75 years. The stationing of troops in Japan is a convenience for the USA and its imperial empire. It has naught to do with protecting Japan. That Japan is required to pay for the stationing of troop is essentially an extortion racket.

Contrary to postings above, antagonism towards China is an absurdity fomented by U.S. foreign policy. China is the assembly and manufacture site for a long list of U.S. corporations and as of late has been re-investing in manufacturing sites in the US. Large corporate interests are responsible for providing China with the capital for its manufacturing & assembly & production to reach a take-off stage. The Asia pivot is a monstrous policy to contain China and indeed could lead to open warfare - that is a U.S. policy, not Chinese. The USA is the most dangerous country on earth or ever. The continued stationing of troop and warships in Japan is a folly. An alliance with China is more to Japan's advantage than with a dying U.S. Empire. Then again, Japan is governed by an array of senior citizens who act as if Daimyo from the 19th century.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

The US Military here serves to keep the bully neighbour china in check and at bay, or are some of you simply not aware enough to understand the threat posed by the large country off the west coast that continues to try to exert its belligerent presence over the whole Asian region.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

vanityofvanities (Feb. 11 07:26 am JST):

Japan should stop using the word "omoi yari yosan" (sympathy budget) for the cost sharing budget. The word is insulting to U.S. Forces in Japan.

Pressed to answer a question during a Dietary session on what legal basis Japan must shoulder the maintenance costs of U.S. bases (cf. my post above), then Chief Cabinet Secretary Shin Kanemaru answered, "We must pay it out of sympathy.” Hence, the whole budget for supporting U.S. bases in Japan has come to be known as a "sympathy budget" in Japan. 

Washington doesn't like it, either, of course, so they created a more euphemistic expression: "host-nation support". Tokyo has been trying to propagate the new un-Japanese translation of it but their effort seems to have failed.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The US Military here serves to keep the bully neighbour china in check and at bay, or are some of you simply not aware enough to understand the threat posed by the large country off the west coast that continues to try to exert its belligerent presence over the whole Asian region.

The US is as much as a threat as China is.

They should both duke it out in space, or anywhere far from us mortals who wish to see an end to the superbullies hegemony and abuses against smaller countries.

Enough of the Stockholm syndrome.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I wouldn't trust SDF to protect Japan!!! Didn't you hear the latest news about a Japanese submarine hitting a great big bulk carrier Ocean Artemis. I mean how is it possible for a submarine with all the radar and sonic equipment to be mishandled as to hit something that big!!! This is incompetence at the highest level!!! 2 billion a year is cheap, stop wasting money on SDF and get any other PROFESSIONAL army to protect Japan, one that can actually do the job right.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

PaulToday  06:26 pm JST

I wouldn't trust SDF to protect Japan!!! Didn't you hear the latest news about a Japanese submarine hitting a great big bulk carrier Ocean Artemis.

Silly comment. Accidents happen all the time and the US military possibly leads the world in that area simply because of the sheer scale of their assets and operations. I say "possibly" because Russia and China don't make their military accidents public.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan should create an Asian union with China and abandon the United States. This age belongs to China.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Japan can ask the US forces to leave at any time it wishes, and leave they will. Other countries have done so (France, the Philippines, et al).

To suggest it doesn't have that right is to truck in conspiracy theories.

All the posters here claiming China and North Korea are no threat obviously understand Japan's security situation better than the Japanese government. Gosh, how did y'all get to be so super smart?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why ???.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how is a short one year extension a broad agreement

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No country will attack Japan.

What laughable naivety. Were the US to abandon Japan Chinese forces would be two steps behind departing US forces. Maybe you do not know but the Chinese are conditioned to hate Japan and they burn for revenge for Japan's WWII barbarities. My own wife tells me over and over to never trust Japan, they will stab the US in the back and start a war with them. The Chinese look at the same thing a Japanese or American looks at but what they see is nothing at all like what the American or Japanese sees. Their worldview is molded by a life of CCP propaganda to hate Japan and burn for revenge.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan should create an Asian union with China and abandon the United States. This age belongs to China

Japan would be treated as a tributary state after the nuclear fallout dissipated enough to allow economic activity to resume. China does not consider any other nation to be their equal or partner.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I wouldn't trust SDF to protect Japan!!! Didn't you hear the latest news about a Japanese submarine hitting a great big bulk carrier Ocean Artemis. I mean how is it possible for a submarine with all the radar and sonic equipment to be mishandled as to hit something that big!!! 

You have never apparently worked with the JMSDF. The are probably the best ASW navy in the world, comparable to the US Navy in that skill. Their ships and equipment are uniformly among the best of any navy in the world and their crews are very well trained. JMSDF subs are considered to be the next best thing to a US Navy nuclear sub.

Now I will paint a picture for you of what happened I think with Soryu. Before surfacing a sub is supposed to come to periscope depth, put the periscope up and make sure the area is clear before surfacing. Sonar doesn't tell you if a ship is directly over you. It can give you very good directionality if the target is some distance off but not directly overhead. Most subs will not use active sonar as it immediately gives away their identity and position. Here is the rub. AIS data for the bulk carrier MV Ocean Artemis that is publicly available showed her draft at 14.9 meters. That is about 48.8 feet. Draft is how far below the surface the deepest part of the hull is. I would bet money a submarines periscope is not long enough for the upper surface of the conning tower to be fifty feet or more beneath the surface and still have the optics above the water. So this sub came slowly to the surface and banged into the bottom of this bulk carrier before it rose to periscope depth. We will in the fullness of time find out if the Soryu's crew adhered to all the required procedures for surfacing and if perhaps the procedures themselves are inadequate. This mishap is hardly the first. In the latter part of the 1980s I vividly recall when a Soviet Victor class boat tried to surface under USS Kitty Hawk. She banged into the bottom of Kitty Hawk's hull and lost most of her conning tower. She popped to the surface close alongside the Kitty, and forever afterwards there was a little red submarine painted on her bridge among all the other commendations and awards the ship received. There have been really close calls with other US subs where salinity and other sea conditions rendered their sonar ineffective in detecting a nearby ship as they surfaced. No collision but it was sheer luck. Poke the periscope up with nothing on sonar only to find a freighter 500 meters away. The same layer cake of temperature and salinity differences in sea water at different depths that can hide a sub from detection by surface ships or aircraft can also hide a surface ship from a sub. Sound is often reflected by the layers instead of passing through them. Subs use this feature of the ocean to hide.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Capt USA,

Japan can ask the US forces to leave at any time it wishes, and leave they will. Other countries have done so (France, the Philippines, et al).

Will they really leave? They left the Philippines because of a severe damage to base facilities from the eruption of a volcano and also because Manila asked to increase base usage fees -- a very natural demand. In Japan, it's absurdly the other way around. Japan pays for the U.S. forces’ use of bases and facilities.

France wasn’t a defeated country in WW II, so that there must have been no occupation forces and hence no permanent U.S. bases planted there

Will the U.S. forces let go such perquisites so easily as you think? I doubt it. Demanding for a replacement in exchange for the return of USMC Air Station Futenma proves this strongly.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Will the U.S. forces let go of their war-won perquisite and prerogative in Japan so easily as you think? I doubt it. Demanding obstinately for a replacement be built in exchange for the return of USMC Air Station Futenma proves this point more than enough.

The base could be closed and returned immediately, unconditionally, because there‘s been a strong local demand for its early return and a strong opposition to the construction of its replacement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The base could be closed and returned immediately, unconditionally, because there's been a strong local demand for its early return and a strong opposition to the construction of its replacement -- and also because the strategic meaning of constructing Futenma's replacement has been lost now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The base could be closed and returned immediately, unconditionally, because there‘s been a strong local demand for its early return and a strong opposition to the construction of its replacement.

It is exactly positions like yours that make me almost wish the US did leave and the Chinese took you over. You would richly deserve it. Luckily there are people far wiser than you in Tokyo who understand the nature of China under Xi Jinping.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Desert Tortoise,

Let me reiterate. USMC Air Station Futenma could be closed and returned immediately, unconditionally, because there's been a strong local demand for its early return and a strong opposition to the construction of its replacement -- and also because its strategic weight has been lost.

Note that the most active elements of the Okinawa-deployed Marines, 8,000 to 9,000 of them, will relocate to Guam when the construction of infrastructure is completed there. It's also been bilaterally agreed that primary responsibility to defend Japan rests with JSDF and not with USFJ. The Marines will come to help JSDF only when needs be.

Under such circumstances, tell me why a new training base for the Marines is needed. It's recently turned out that the new base in Henoko has been agreed between the tops of JSDF and USMC, blatantly ignoring the civilian control of the military, to jointly use it for training. I urge you to explain a strategic reason why Futenma's replacement must be built in Henoko by all means.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Voiceofokinawa

Japan and the US renew a mutual defense agreement every so many years. Japan, as a sovereign nation, can choose not to renew it whenever its term expires. Then the US would have no legal right to stay in Japan. End of story.

(And by the way, "civilian control of the military" does not mean that local populations directly make decisions on things like base location. It means they elect the politicians who make those decisions)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Capt USA,

You want to say that since Japan is a sovereign nation, it can do whatever it wants, right? Article 10 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty states that "after the Treaty has been in force for ten years, either Party may give notice to the other Party of its intention to terminate the Treaty, in which case the Treaty shall terminate one year after such notice has been given. " The current security treaty was signed in 1960, but did Japan give notice to the U.S. its intention to terminate the treaty after 10 years, i.e. in 1970?  Not at all.

The treaty is like an instrument of surrender, dictating Japan must provide bases and areas with U.S. forces for free, in return of which the U.S. will protect the security of Japan and its vicinity, the Far East. In other words, these bases and areas are for Japan's security, but in reality, for the U.S., they are instruments to implement its global war strategy.    

Japan didn't give notice to the U.S. its intention to terminate the security treaty in 1970. Why? Because the powers-that-be erroneously believed, and still does, that the U.S. was following the terms of the treaty faithfully, but note that they never fail to act not to offend the U.S., a boss since the end of the Second World War. They turn a blind eye from any treaty violation of the U.S.

In other words, Japan is not a sovereign nation as you say.  Japan is a small vassal of the great United States of America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Article 24 of the Status of Forces Agreement between Japan and the U.S., an accompanying document to the Security Treaty, clearly states that "the United States will bear ... all expenditures incident to the maintenance of the United States armed forces in Japan."

Despite this provision, the U.S. is demanding Japan to shoulder huge base maintenance costs as if no such provision didn't exist. Also, despite Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, the U.S. has large contingents of Marines deployed to Okinawa, occupying so much prime land. Mind you, the U.S. Marine Corps is an independent service, never subsidiary to the Navy, another independent service.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Despite this provision, the U.S. is demanding Japan to shoulder huge base maintenance costs as if no such provision did exist. Also, despite Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, the U.S. has large contingents of Marines deployed to Okinawa, occupying so much prime land. Mind you, the U.S. Marine Corps is an independent service, never subsidiary to the Navy, another independent service.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Despite this provision, the U.S. is demanding Japan to shoulder a huge amount of base maintenance costs as if no such provision did exist. Also, despite Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, the U.S. has large contingents of Marines deployed to Okinawa, occupying so much prime land. Mind you, the U.S. Marine Corps is an independent service, never subsidiary to the Navy, another independent service, and Article 6 says only the Army, Air Force and Navy can be stationed in Japan. There's no mention of the Marines.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Furthermore, despite that the U.S. has no innate right to demand for a replacement of Futenma be built in Henoko, Nago City, Okinawa, they do so and even urge Tokyo to forge ahead with the construction of it. USMC Air Station Futenma sits mostly on private land which was confiscated while area residents were herded in camps like POWs. That was a blatant violation of international law and humanity. In other words, the air station is an illegal property and the Marines are occupying the land like squatters, whereby the U.S. has no right at all to demand for a replacement be built in exchange for its return. Futenma must be closed and the land returned immediately, unconditionally.

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