Japan Aff Michigan



Download 1.23 Mb.
Page77/78
Date20.10.2016
Size1.23 Mb.
#5382
1   ...   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78

AT: Can’t Defend



Japan is capable of defending itself absent U.S. troops

Preble,5 (Novermber 7, 2005, Christopher “America's New Strategic Relationship With Japan”, The Wall Street Journal)

Japan is economically capable, and now seems politically prepared, to assume full responsibility for defending itself from threats. While it is conceivable that a few Japanese might wish to remain dependent on America for their security, either out of a desire to avoid paying more for defense, or for fear of the risks associated with a change from the status quo, many more are now willing to consider a range of options -- such as modifying the "pacifist" clause in Japan's constitution -- which would have been unthinkable a generation ago. A reevaluation of the strategic logic of the alliance was a necessary precondition for the latest diplomatic breakthroughs. Equally important was a recognition on the part of U.S. policymakers that Japan must be granted more autonomy over its defense and foreign policies. It is no longer wise to assume that Japan will subordinate its own security to the wishes of a distant patron. With the U.S. facing numerous other military commitments abroad, and with Japan increasingly asserting military autonomy, the Bush administration is to be commended for shaping a new policy that will more equitably distribute security burdens between the two countries. A new strategic relationship should provide a more durable and credible foundation for addressing the most pressing security challenges facing both countries in East Asia and beyond.
The U.S. has no reason to become involved in conflicts East Asian nations can resolve on their own. Airforce and Navy could fill in for troops on Okinawa.

Bandow 99 - senior fellow at Cato Instituion and special assistant to Reagan (18/5/99, Doug, “Freeing Okinawa”, the Korea Herald)

Moreover, the region no longer needs America's protection. Japan is the second-ranking economic power on earth, South Korea far outstrips its northern antagonist, and most of the ASEAN states have made dramatic economic progress. Indeed, so complacent are Tokyo and Seoul that both are cutting their defense budgets. What reasons do U.S. officials give for a policy that could be summarized as what has ever been must always be? China looms large on the horizon, but if Washington and Beijing eventually come to blows, the air force and navy would do the heavy lifting. Another favorite is the maintenance of regional stability, given widespread economic problems, political uncertainty in Indonesia, and so on. Yet it is time for East Asia to look after its own stability. If one wanted to catalog conflicts in which the United States should not intervene, it would be these. What if the Habibie regime in Indonesia totters? Let it fall. What if Filipino and Chinese ships exchange shots over the Spratly Islands? Stay out of the fight. What if Japan and South Korea rattle sabers over the Tokto/Takeshima Islands? Tell both countries to work together. These are East Asia's, not America's, problems.



Kernacs, 4(5/2004, Rita, “The Future of U.S. Relations with Japan and China: Will Bilateral Relations Survive the New American Unilateralism?”

Asia Pacific: Perspectives, Volume IV · Number 1 )



Rita Kernacs

As Asians become apprehensive about American unilateralism, many are realizing that multilateral disputes involving nations of East Asia are best resolved by East Asian nations. There exists “no need for the U.S. to be policeman for the region, self-appointed or elected by default” (E. Olsen in Arase). Current bilateral and multilateral tensions include the conflict between North and South Korea and China and Taiwan; disputes over territorial claims by Taiwan, China and Japan over the Senkaku islands; between South Korea and Japan over the Takeshima Islands; between Japan and Russia over the Northern Territories; and between China and Vietnam over the Paracel Islands. All of these disputes have been or can be dealt with through multi-lateral dialogues in regional meetings such as the Asean Regional Forum, the Four Part Talks on Korea, the Tri-lateral Forum on the North Pacific, the North-east Asia Cooperation Dialogue, or the South Pacific Forum.

AT: No Japanese Military



If we withdraw, Japan’s military will be ready

Hughes, ’09 – Professor of International Politics and Japanese Studies @ the University of Warwick (March/April 2009, Christopher W., Asian Survey, Vol. 49, Issue 2, pp. 291–311, “Super-Sizing the DPRK Threat”, http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=06-26-2015&FMT=7&DID=1817913671&RQT=309&clientId=17822&cfc=1)
In turn, Japan’s limited national military capabilities have meant that it has in large part entrusted its defense to the mechanism of the U.S.-Japan security treaty. Japan and the U.S. have traditionally predicated their security treaty upon a grand strategic bargain: Japan gets U.S. military protection in return for providing bases to facilitate the projection of U.S. military power in East Asia. However, Japan has attempted to temper its reliance on the U.S. security guarantee by building up its own national defense capabilities and indigenous defense production, and by careful hedging against the dual alliance dilemmas of “entrapment” and “abandonment” in U.S. regional and global military strategy. Regarding entrapment, Japan has long feared that it could become a proxy target in a nuclear exchange between first the Soviet Union/Russia or China and the U.S., and also that Washington might try to “press-gang” Japan into assisting its military to once again fi ght wars on the Korean Peninsula or in mainland East Asia.10 Regarding abandonment, Japan knows that the U.S. as a superpower has global interests superseding those of Japan. Hence, Japan understands that the U.S., in the service of its wider strategic interests, might look to reach an accommodation with states posing a threat to Japan, or downgrade alliance ties if Japan were no longer seen as an indispensable ally in Washington’s overall regional and global strategy.
Japan is capable of defending itself absent U.S. troops

Preble,5 (Novermber 7, 2005, Christopher “America's New Strategic Relationship With Japan”, The Wall Street Journal)

Japan is economically capable, and now seems politically prepared, to assume full responsibility for defending itself from threats. While it is conceivable that a few Japanese might wish to remain dependent on America for their security, either out of a desire to avoid paying more for defense, or for fear of the risks associated with a change from the status quo, many more are now willing to consider a range of options -- such as modifying the "pacifist" clause in Japan's constitution -- which would have been unthinkable a generation ago. A reevaluation of the strategic logic of the alliance was a necessary precondition for the latest diplomatic breakthroughs. Equally important was a recognition on the part of U.S. policymakers that Japan must be granted more autonomy over its defense and foreign policies. It is no longer wise to assume that Japan will subordinate its own security to the wishes of a distant patron. With the U.S. facing numerous other military commitments abroad, and with Japan increasingly asserting military autonomy, the Bush administration is to be commended for shaping a new policy that will more equitably distribute security burdens between the two countries. A new strategic relationship should provide a more durable and credible foundation for addressing the most pressing security challenges facing both countries in East Asia and beyond.


Download 1.23 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review