Can Japan be an equal partner to the U.S.
Dan Twining reflects on the fall of Japan's Prime Minister:
And that is ultimately the point: Washington needs a vibrant Japan as an alliance partner in a region of tectonic power shifts -- and in a world where global governance requires all the responsible, capable, like-minded partners we can find. The DPJ's historic ascension to power last year brought with it the promise of a more equal alliance with the United States. The U.S. should welcome the greater equality in alliance relations that would follow from the restoration of Japanese growth and vitality. Prime Minister Hatoyama did not succeed in inducing it. The U.S. should endeavor to help his successor do so. A stronger and healthier alliance relationship would surely follow.
This is a fine sentiment, but how does it work in practice? There's no question that Hatoyama - like all politicians - over-promised and under-delivered. But the premise of his campaign promise (which, after all, got him elected) was to remove a U.S. military base from Okinawa. And the U.S. said "no." That is not an equal relationship.
Indeed, it seems impossible to forge an equal relationship when one party is dependent on another for its most vital security needs. It seems to me, looking over the course of sixty years of American strategy, that an equal relationship (let alone an independent foreign policy) is literally the last thing the U.S. desires in a partner. Now, the U.S. is not alone in this respect and there are clear realpolitik arguments in favor of trying to maintain some measure of veto power over Japan's security policy and America's military footprint in the country.
But for the sake of an honest discussion about U.S. foreign policy, those are the arguments that need to articulated and defended. The U.S. cannot have an equal alliance relationship with a party that is not - militarily speaking - its equal. And Washington does not want Japan to develop the capacity to defend itself independent of the United States.
(AP Photo)
