“U.S. Troops, Get Out—but Please Protect Japan”: The Bill Behind the Fine-Sounding Idea of Self-Reliant Defense

It appears that another U.S. servicemember has committed a crime in Okinawa—this time, reportedly, robbery and murder.

Whenever a crime involving U.S. military personnel occurs in Okinawa, almost exactly the same scene plays out.

The Okinawa prefectural government protests.

The Japanese government announces that it has “strongly raised the matter with the U.S. side.”

The U.S. military expresses “regret” and promises to “prevent a recurrence.”

Then, after a while, the story disappears from the news.

It is a traditional Japanese routine that has continued for decades.

Why does nothing fundamentally change?

The reason is simple.

Japan does not want the U.S. military to leave.

Given the presence of countries such as China and North Korea, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the foundation of Japan’s security.

That leaves Japan in the difficult position of saying, “Crimes by U.S. servicemembers are unacceptable, but we still want the U.S. military to stay.”

Japan would be in trouble if it seriously said “Get out” and the response was actually “Understood.”

Was the Timing Fortunate This Time?

I found myself wondering what would have happened if this incident had occurred during the Okinawa gubernatorial election a month earlier.

This time, the conservative candidate who supported maintaining the Japan-U.S. alliance and accepting the bases defeated the anti-base candidate by a wide margin. But the result might have been different.

The U.S. military presence is the biggest election issue in Okinawa. That is hardly surprising when 70 percent of U.S. military bases in Japan are concentrated there.

So despite being a conservative, the governor appears to have strongly pressed the Japanese government to correct the situation. Unless he takes a tough stance, even if only for show, the next election could be at risk.

Not that anything will change.

“Defending Our Own Country Ourselves” Sounds Impressive

This brings us to an interesting security argument being advanced by a new generation of conservatives, including Sanseito.

Sanseito does not reject the Japan-U.S. alliance itself. It presents “Japan’s defense capabilities,” “the Japan-U.S. alliance,” and “international cooperation” as three pillars, while seeking to reduce dependence on the United States, build a more autonomous defense capability, and establish a more equal Japan-U.S. relationship. It also calls for revising the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement.

That sounds appealing.

We should defend our own country ourselves.

It sounds far more impressive than “a Japan protected by America.”

The problem is that a bill comes attached to those impressive words.

How Much Does Self-Reliant Defense Cost?

Reduce dependence on the U.S. military.

Then what fills the gap?

Missiles, air defense, naval and air power, space, cybersecurity, intelligence gathering, ammunition, bases, and the defense industry. Eventually, the question of nuclear deterrence also arises.

“I support self-reliant defense.”

That much is easy.

But what happens when it requires enormous government spending?

What happens if there are not enough Self-Defense Forces personnel?

Where will the bases go?

Will you still support the policy if a Self-Defense Forces base is built near your town?

Once the discussion gets this far, it suddenly becomes much less pleasant.

The phrase “self-reliant defense” is free. Self-reliant defense itself is not.

Opposing U.S. Military Bases Is Not the End of the Discussion

It is easy enough simply to demand fewer U.S. military bases.

If someone asked whether I wanted a U.S. military base next to my home, I would not want one either.

But if the bases are reduced, there is no escaping the question of who will provide the security they had supported.

Conversely, if we say that U.S. military bases are necessary because we fear China, we cannot treat the burden borne by the communities that host them as something they should simply accept.

In the end, Japan has long occupied a finely balanced position:

“We want security, but we do not want to commit the money or resolve required to defend ourselves entirely on our own.”

It is rational.

But that rationality comes with a price tag: the burden of hosting military bases.

The Real Test of an Impressive Idea Begins When the Bill Arrives

Discussing self-reliant defense is important in itself.

But the real discussion does not begin the moment someone says:

“Japan should defend its own country.”

It begins with the next question:

“Understood. So how much are you willing to pay for it?”

We do not want the bases.

We do not want crimes committed by U.S. servicemembers.

We do not want dependence on America.

We do not want higher taxes.

We do not want increased military spending.

We do not want a base built in our own town.

But we do want Japan to be protected.

If there is a way to satisfy all of those demands, I would very much like someone to tell me what it is.

Self-reliant defense sounds impressive only because the bill has not arrived yet.