The 50th Anniversary: Time for a "Renewal of Vows"

[ 28 ] asia policy The 50th Anniversary: Time for a “Renewal of Vows” Andrew L. Oros What would the future look like without a U.S.-Japan security alliance? An alliance is not a marriage—it is thus reasonable to ask such things at a 50th anniversary. In many ways, though, the alliance between the United States and Japan has come to be viewed like a marriage, “for better or for worse.” Also, like many marriages, long-simmering resentments and decades of accumulated slights, perceived or real, can develop into a poisoned environment that calls into question the larger good. Such a development must be stopped. In my view, the alliance exists “for better,” though it is not without problems and a need to adapt to new realities. As such, problems should be addressed to the extent possible, and both parties should be pleased to be mutually shaping the international environment in ways they could not do individually. In short, it is time for a “renewal of vows” on this long-standing relationship: one that considers carefully how each party has developed over the past 50 years as well as how the needs of each have changed, and that values the contributions both states make to the health of the relationship. By contrast, continuing with ossified patterns for the sake of continuity or symbolism threatens to undermine the health and stability of both parties individually and the relationship as a whole. The world has changed dramatically since 1960, with a massive proliferation of wealth over weapons and large “islands of peace” emerging within the international system. The primary security concern in 1960 from the perspective of the United States and Japan—the Soviet Union—has literally ceased to exist. Since 1960, change has been even more dramatic in East Asia, the area for which the U.S.-Japan alliance was originally conceived. There has not been a major combative war in the region in decades, nearly all states are engaged in respectful and peaceful dialogue on outstanding security problems, and defense spending as a percentage of GDP is declining in virtually all states in the region. That is the good news. The bad news, of course, is that new threats and broader security challenges have emerged. Among them is a marked increase in threats that are best countered collectively rather than individually or bilaterally, including terrorism, piracy, proliferation of WMDs, and climate change. In andrew l. oros is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Washington College. He can be reached at . [ 29 ] roundtable • a new stage for the u.s.-japan alliance? this context, it is natural and welcome that the U.S.-Japan alliance should be re-examined in light of such substantial changes in the broader security environment. Careful examination will lead to a redoubling of efforts both to preserve the healthy parts of the long-standing alliance and to improve or adapt the parts that are remnants of the past. Although undoubtedly politics is what has sparked this reconsideration, the spark may lead to a positive outcome in the medium term. The short term, however, is likely to continue to be rather rocky, particularly when compared to the recent heyday of the relationship at the turn of the century. It is important to distinguish the symbolism of the alliance from its function, though to some extent the two are not entirely separable in practice. The last time there was serious discussion of ending the alliance, in the mid 1990s, one important reason for its maintenance was the negative signals that might have been sent regionally and globally: fears that the United States was no longer seriously committed to the defense of East Asia, that the United States was drawing back its global role in the wake of the end of the Cold War, that Japan was either seeking to play a larger and independent military role or, conversely, that it too was withdrawing from regional and global commitments. The same questions will be asked in 2010 should serious discussions about renegotiating or even ending the alliance continue. Such signaling is important in international politics—especially in a multipolar and uncertain security environment—but concerns over...