U.S. military and Asia-Pacific snafus

japan today > japan > commentary
Henry Hilton
January 15, 2007

Judging by a recent multinational report, the U.S. military has more than got its hands full in our region. Incidents involving American personnel figure prominently in how local communities and their leaders are currently viewing the continuing presence of foreign troops on Asian soil.

After examining the situation in Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, prominent academics, under the direction of Sheila Smith of the East-West Center in Honolulu, are discovering a wide range of similarities among three very different Asian nations. In a presentation last week at the International House of Japan, the research team's attention inevitably centered on the fraught scene in Okinawa. Recalling the November gubernatorial election results that gave a close victory to the Liberal Democratic Party's Hirokazu Nakaima, a packed Japanese audience was eager to hear what might be the next moves in the seemingly endless Okinawan saga.

The panel responsible for the publication "Shifting Terrain: The Domestic Politics of the U.S. Military Presence in Asia" hoped that the traditional "top down" approach of the central government in Tokyo's dealings with the United States authorities might be reversed.

The suggestion that a more community-driven "bottom up" scheme might be on the cards was clearly welcomed. Yet others with a bureaucratic background cautioned that listening excessively to the view from Naha might risk impairing the wider geopolitical realities that to date have continued to link Japan and the United States in a close pan-Pacific strategic alliance structure for the past half century. There was some consolation, though, in learning that citizens' groups in both South Korea and the Philippines were following events in Okinawa and, in turn, Japanese activists were said to be learning from others in the region on how best to deal with the controversial issues of U.S. bases.

Despite the contrasts between the three societies and their post-1945 histories, the panel reckoned that a common "protest dynamic" was leading to a general awareness in Tokyo, Seoul and Manila that communities near American military bases have to be listened to with far greater sensitivity than in the recent past. It won't do any longer just to assume that each country in the last resort always needs Uncle Sam and to calculate that security considerations invariably have to take priority. Negotiators at the national level, according to the East-West specialists, now have little choice but to be aware constantly of how a wide range of doubtless conflicting local actors, such as landowners, environmentalists, women's groups and business interests, feel about the presence of U.S. military personnel and their installations.

One obvious and highly inflamatory issue remains, of course, the question of crimes committed by American personnel off base. The recent incident involving a U.S. serviceman in the Philippines, where there has been anger at the manner in which the two national governments have been handling the still unresolved issue, and the series of crimes committed both in Okinawa and Kanagawa Prefecture since the 1990s can only risk weakening long-established American ties with its Pacific allies.

Two changes are surely called for. The first is greater control by the host governments over the legal technicalities in all allegations of serious cases, such as murder, rape and robbery, in order that citizens in Asia can see that their systems of justice are determining the outcome. This will no doubt require further renegotiation of existing government-to-government status of forces agreements. The second reform centres on the U.S. military's behavior.

Earlier this month, it was announced that U.S. Navy personnel in Japan are to be subject to fresh restrictions on alcohol consumption but more needs to be done. Since any crime by a U.S. service member against a Japanese citizen is a potential threat to the long-term future of the security alliance, there will have to be tougher restrictions and punishments. The robbing of a taxi driver or a street brawl near base could easily have major political implications.

Henry Kissinger was certainly correct when he noted in an earlier era that U.S. bases in east Asia ultimately cannot function effectively without the support and goodwill of national governments and local communities. In the post-Cold War world this is even more so. A couple of nasty incidents in Okinawa or around camps north of Seoul easily might well trigger a wave of anti-Americanism. Local issues may increasingly become the tail that wags the dog.