Voices
in
Japan

poll

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump wants Japan to pay more of the costs for hosting U.S. military bases. Should Japan pay more?

34 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

This really isn't a matter of should Japan pay more.

Japan won't have much of a choice in the matter beyond the decision of either paying more or asking the U.S. forces to leave. It pains me to say, but given the notion of a Trump presidency, I think it is now time that Japan take the latter option.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The US is not in Japan to defend Japan, the US is in Japan to assure Asia that Japan will not invade Asia again. Japan and Asia are friends again, so this purpose is not longer meaningful and the money Japan pays is wasted. Trump should follow through with his first promise to withdraw the US military from Japan. Also, the US has not won a war since WWII, so it is doubtful they could really defend Japan anyway.

4 ( +14 / -10 )

pay more? no. the us just needs to get out

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Why aren't they paying all the costs?

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

It seems that too many US military bases and facilities are not to defend only Japan but most are for US gvernment's interest to stabilize neighboring countries. Japan seems to have paid fairly enough in comparison with Germany, Italy, others.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Wouldn't phrase it like this: it's not only about hosting us troops per se but rather the end result I.e 'protection', that's what they are paying for. One side offers protection the other a strategic base in Asia.

If Japan feel they are strong enough to go solo vs potential threats such as NK, China or Russia then ask the us to leave your islands (would imo be suicidal and regional tensions would rise instantaneously).

Surely both sides can find a fair compromise I.e less us troops on Japan soil yet a bit more $ for us protection or something like that.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I voted no, not because Japan should pay a share of U.S military forces there, but because it should fund its own defense. As someone whom is enlisted in the NAVY, I think we should not have ANY U.S military bases there.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

One will note that the "issue" is expressed in terms that a six year old would use. Japan pays x and the US pays x and we all have this idea that this is some kind of shopping transaction for some bargain sale.

It is dumb. It is not even the core issue. Either Trump does not understand the motives, treaties and norms of security, or he just does not care. And he has surrounded himself with sycophants, so we can't expect anything beyond a six year old mentality there.

Let's review. Japan lost WWII. It did exactly what the US wanted and limited its own defensive capability for itself and the region. It has continued to do that. The US has since that time used Japanese lands for various conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and as a deterrent against conflict in Taiwan. The US has gotten by far the most use out of those bases for all kinds of purposes. And when it has asked Japan for help with costs, Japan has always said yes.

Hillary Clinton had a reasonable view of foreign policy in Asia and she reported that in a respected journal, Foreign Policy. It included an increased presence in Asia by the US, which would have required cooperation with Japan, but increased outlays by the US. What Trump is looking at is retreat and devolution and default from US positions in Asia, and let's be honest. Trump wants to either have Japan foot the bill or leave it holding the bag.

The security arrangement between Japan and the US is an institution that has protected peace and development in Asia for 70 years. Trump is ready to throw it all out and send us all back to 1936. And he will do it just to save a few million dollars more or less for the US budget.

If we really are going back to 1936, then Japan should not be wasting time paying the US to stay. It needs to start rearming. So I guess my answer is that Japan is paying enough. The US has got a bargain, and frankly, the whole region is getting a huge benefit from having US forces here. Maybe instead of everyone paying more, someone should ask China to spend a little less.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Japan will not invade Asia again.

It is the west powers that invaded and colonized the entire Asia for a long time. It is very hypocritical and lopsided view of the westerners.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Why aren't they paying all the costs?

Because US wants to be in Japan for strategic reasons, they're not in Japan just to protect Japan. Japan did not ask the US to come over to protect, it was the US that made the decision to stay in Japan.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The USA already has the Pacific Ocean as an effective barrier to Chinese adventurism.

If the PRC wants to rage through East Asia like a bull in a china shop, let them.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan surely doesn't need to pay the US anything!

The US, if it absolutely insists on occupying Japanese land, should pay rent at the same prices that anyone else in Japan has to.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Pay more? Than what?

Japan pays about 75% of the costs to have US forces here. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me already. http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160530/p2a/00m/0na/017000c

It would seriously cost the US to up-stakes and move out too; for years the US has been pressuring Japan to bear such projected costs too.

Does the big T even know what he is asking? Or is he just mouthing off?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

umm.. you're asking for voters, aka taxpayers, opinion without any providing any details.. ._.

It would be 'helpful' to know how much Japan pays, in total amount and therefore overall percentage, and how does that compare with contributions made by other countries.. South Korea and Germany for example?

Hint, as comment above shared, see: http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160530/p2a/00m/0na/017000c

Meanwhile, note JSDF ranking, search via Wikipedia: List-of-Countries-by-Military-Strength-Index

Sadly, FUD as usual.. with laser focus on costs and zero consideration regarding benefits.. #_#

0 ( +1 / -1 )

At first, Trump said that Japan paid nothing, and got a "free ride". You elected this guy as president? It is best for Japan to turn to China, like Hatoyama wanted.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It is best for Japan to turn to China, like Hatoyama wanted.

I agree. Japan should be prepared for becoming a China's vassel state, which seems more and more an attractive option.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Japan should ask US to leave..Japanese are totally capable of defending themselves...Japan should welcome a partnership with China...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Keep the status quo

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gokai_wo_manekuNOV. 28, 2016 - 07:56AM JST The US is not in Japan to defend Japan, the US is in Japan to assure Asia that Japan will not invade Asia again.

The Jietai wouldn't last half-an-hour against the S. Koreans. Where did you get this nonsense?

BertieWoosterNOV. 28, 2016 - 11:36AM JST Japan surely doesn't need to pay the US anything! The US, if it absolutely insists on occupying Japanese land, should pay rent at the same prices that anyone else in Japan has to.

Logical except that the U.S. with one carrier group projects more force than the entire Japanese military, not even considering the Marine presence in Okinawa. Japan couldn't militarize enough to protect itself against, first, N. Korea and, then, China.

Jo DavidNOV. 29, 2016 - 10:53PM JST Japan should ask US to leave..Japanese are totally capable of defending themselves...Japan should welcome a partnership with China...

You made a funny.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Pay more? NO! Make Korea and other asian countries pay their share. Japan already pays quite a bit to keep US bases here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The US is not in Japan to defend Japan, the US is in Japan to assure Asia that Japan will not invade Asia again.

Then, Other Asian Nations including China should share the burden Japan bears

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The US is in Japan for its own purposes, not to protect Japan (any more than it is in Germany to protect Germany, or in the UK to protect Her Majesty's sceptr'd isle. The very idea.). They have their own reasons for being here, and as such they should be willing to pay for the privilege. I wouldn't say 100%, since Japan does get something out of the arrangement. The US should pay at the very least for the land it uses, as Bertie suggests, and also compensation for the noise pollution from jets flying low overhead at all hours, the marine pollution from pushing runways out over the reefs, the chemical pollution from the (unsafe) storage of toxic agents and for the nuisance factor of drunken GIs invading private property, raping local women, etc and traffic being forced to make huge detours because of the sprawling bases taking up so much space. Not to mention the ruckus when a Top Secret US Military Aircraft drops on top of a local school and the US military cordons off the whole area for days.

An unbiased calculation of who gets what out of the US being in Japan and who should be paying who, would I think make Donald wish he had kept his uninformed trap shut. But then, he admits that all he knows is what he reads on the Internet, so he's unlikely to let anything like facts change his opinion.

Japan should not be paying as much as it is now. The US should be paying Japan compensation.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The US is not in Japan to defend Japan, the US is in Japan to assure Asia that Japan will not invade Asia again.

If Japan is to pay any more than now, it would mean Japan covers salaries of US troops in Japan. That makes them Japan's mercenary trrops who exist only for Japan. Japan would demand complete authoriy of command then over mercenaries.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I've heard that Japan already covers 75% salaries of US troops in Japan. Also Japan is paying their families welfare too. None of which is in the treaty as Japan's obligations. Japan was supposed to provide only bases and US protects Japan in return.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The US occupation of the Japanese archipelago is a mutually beneficial agreement. Japan pays and the US stays! The US has a major base in the northern Pacific and Japan has.....um, occupation. However, the history of why these bases were first set up is much different to the reason for keeping them. Some may think Japan is still paying its penance for WW2, but the reality is, it's secure base for US troops giving them access to all of Asia at the drop of a hat (or a bomb). It's totally inconceivable to think the US will pull out of Japan. Saipan is the supply point and Okinawa is the launch point. Yeah, Japan pays a lot of money to support the occupation, but without it, we'd all be speaking Chinese or Russian by now.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

NO

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan should absolutely NOT pay any more, since it already pays the U.S. more money than any other country in the world, where the U.S. has troops stationed at. Trump should realize that the U.S. would be at a disadvantage if it decides to pull out of Japan completely. The U.S. uses Japan as a strategic point in which it can station a large number of its troops. People seem to think that it is only in Japan to defend the Japanese, but in reality it is also in Japan to defend Americans as the first line of defense from forces coming at it from the Pacific side.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Japanese should build a wall around all the US military bases and send the bill to Trump of Trump Tower.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Pay the U.S.A. or the Yaks the 'protection' money. Keep the money in Japan!

Pay the Yaks.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

NO!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I cant say I know one way or the other what percentage of the budget Japan pays for-and I'd be willing to bet Trump didnt know either when he first made the proposal. He just likes to make a lot of noise without really knowing the particulars of any of the hundreds of agreements he wants to tear up.

But from a US vantage point it seems that paying part of the expense to have their military stationed in Japan would be preferrable to paying 100 percent of having the same forces leave Japan to be stationed in a US territory. It also seems it would make a lot of sense strategically for the defense of US interests in the region-and even the US mainland itself by having troops stationed here. But I'm sure that Trump, being the circumspect and thorough person he is, has carefully considered as nuanced approach to this question as he has to all the other bathtubs full of babies he wants to throw out...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NO!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually they should pay 100 percent, including cost of forces, to make up for the short percentage they've been paying. Certainly abstract calculations such as rental cost of advanced weaponry are not too difficult for our intrepid finance and negotiation experts, from both governments.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

they should pay 100 percent

That's ridiculous. Better to just tell the Americans to leave.

Which, the post-truthers don't realize, goes against American interests. But nothing like a good cup of rhetoric on a Sunday morning!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

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