A churning dispute between Tokyo and Washington over the realignment of US military forces in Japan has revealed not only political and diplomatic differences between the governments of US President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama but a cultural chasm in the way Americans and Japanese view agreements.
The realignment, agreed to in May 2007, calls on the US to move a Marine air station from a congested city on Okinawa to a less crowded place, to transfer 17,000 Marines and family members from Okinawa to the US territory on Guam and to consolidate other US bases on the island and thus return land to Okinawans. The intent was to reduce friction between US forces and Okinawans.
The agreement was signed by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and their Japanese counterparts, then-minister of defense Fumio Kyuma and then minister of foreign affairs Taro Aso. In diplomatic practice, international pacts agreed to by one administration are generally considered to be binding on the succeeding administration.
In this case, the Hatoyama government, which came to office in September, has said in effect that it wants to reopen the negotiations. After meeting Obama in Tokyo earlier this month, Hatoyama said he would consider relocating the air station outside of Okinawa and perhaps outside of Japan.
“We’ll make every effort,” he said, “to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.”
In contrast, Obama said a working group “will focus on implementation of the agreement that our two governments reached.”
“We hope to complete this work expeditiously,” he added.
Earlier this fall, Gates was blunt during a visit to Tokyo, saying that if one element of the realignment was to be renegotiated, the rest of the agreement would be nullified.
The composition of the working group underscores the disparity in approach by Hatoyama and Obama. Representing Japan are two Cabinet officers, Minister of Defense Toshimi Kitazawa and Minister of Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada. On the US side are two senior but sub-Cabinet officials, Ambassador to Japan John Roos and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia Wallace “Chip” Gregson.
Compounding the task of the working group is the Hatoyama government’s inexperience and disarray, with the prime minister, the defense minister and the foreign minister each taking a different public position on what a renegotiated agreement should look like. Hatoyama wants the air station out of Japan, Okada wants it consolidated with another US base on Okinawa and Kitazawa wants the agreement left alone.
Diplomatic differences bear indirectly on this issue. Hatoyama has said Japan should depend less on the US and seek stronger ties to its East Asian neighbors. Obama said he visited Japan on his recent Asian trip to seek “an enduring and revitalized alliance between the United States and Japan.”
The cultural chasm is a consequence of conflicting views on what constitutes an agreement. In the US, negotiators tend to seek firm concurrence on as many possibilities and contingencies they can think of. Americans negotiate toward detailed pacts that leave little room for interpretation. As the saying goes, Americans want all the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted.
In contrast, Japanese believe that negotiators cannot anticipate every eventuality and therefore seek flexibility in contracts. In most cases, it is permissible in Japan for one party to an agreement to ask subsequently that it be modified because the conditions under which it was made no longer obtain.
In this case, the Hatoyama government has essentially argued that the conditions under which the base agreement was made no longer obtain and therefore the agreement should be reconsidered. The Obama government clearly disagrees.
It looks like the Japanese and Americans need a bridge to get across this chasm.
Richard Halloran is a freelance writer in Hawaii.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS