IP: US alliance with Japan is unjust so claims the Cato

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

From: cato () cato org (Cato Institute)


STUDY RELEASE -- Cato Institute


November 1, 1995


U.S. alliance with Japan unjust and unstable, study concludes


     The U.S. military alliance with Japan not only provides a
lucrative defense subsidy to the Japanese at the expense of
American taxpayers; it also enables Tokyo to evade important
security responsibilities in East Asia, according to new study
from the Cato Institute.


     In "Paternalism and Dependence: The U.S.-Japanese Security
Relationship" (Policy Analysis no. 244), Cato's director of
foreign policy studies, Ted Galen Carpenter, contends that the
alliance is designed for a bygone era in which Japan was
economically weak and the two countries faced a powerful global
military threat--the Soviet Union.  Today Japan is an economic
great power and should play the lead role in promoting security
and stability in East Asia instead of relying on the United
States to do so.


Financial consequences of the alliance:


*    The defense subsidy to Japan has amounted to more than $900
billion (1995 dollars) since the early 1950s.
     
*    Being East Asia's policeman costs America approximately $40
billion a year.


*    The United States spends nearly six times as much on the
military as does Japan.


Other drawbacks:


*    Japanese officials admit that, in the event of war in East
Asia, Japanese military units would not join U.S. forces in
combat operations unless Japan itself were attacked.  


*    The United States is the "point man" in any East Asian
crisis and thereby incurs risks that should normally be borne
by Japan and other regional powers.


*    Japan and its East Asian neighbors view the U.S. military
presence as a psychological security blanket, and they use it
as an excuse to engage in domestic political posturing rather than 
forge their own defense relationships to deal with threats to their 
mutual  interests. 


Carpenter warns that an alliance in which one party must assume
most of the risks and costs while the other party merely reaps
the benefits is unstable as well as unjust.  U.S. policymakers
who foolishly try to preserve an inequitable status quo risk an
abrupt, acrimonious rupture in the U.S.-Japanese relationship. 
There are already some warning signs:


*    Americans angry at Japan's trade policies are beginning to
suggest that Washington  threaten to terminate the alliance as
bargaining leverage in trade disputes.


*    A growing number of Japanese suspect that the U.S. military
presence in East Asia is motivated by lingering American
distrust of Japan.


Recommended action


America's East Asian policy should favor a regional balance of
power with Japan as the front-line state for promoting stability. 
Instead of being Japan's military patron, Washington's goal
should be a mature relationship between two great powers. 
Actions that the United States ought to take include


*    the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Japanese territory
within five years and the termination of the alliance two
years later;


*    the creation of a limited, informal security relationship
with Japan emphasizing an ongoing military dialogue and
periodic joint military exercises;


*    efforts to encourage greater security cooperation between
Japan and other democratic states in East Asia; and


*    the establishment of a more modest U.S. military presence
based in Guam and other central Pacific locations.