Japan Needs to Keep Funding Defence; The Price is Right

Japan's defence minister Toshimi Kitazawa is operating with tightened purse strings. The government has recently announced that it will be suspending new funds for a joint missile defence system with the United States.

This move will push back the deployment of the new Patriot Advanced Capability -3 (PAC-3) surface to air interceptors until after April 2011, according to recent news reports. The move was made during the negotiations leading up to the 2010/11 defence spending guidelines. Prime Minister Hatoyama's government has also delayed an extensive scheduled review of defence policy guidelines.

"Hatoyama's Democratic Party of Japan and its left-leaning and pacifist coalition partners have signalled a shift from supporting military missions to humanitarian aid in a break with their more hawkish conservative predecessors," boasts a recent AFP article.

This break is problematic for the defence of Japan and their bi-lateral relations with the United States. After the recent change of government in Japan and Washington, the conditions were ripe to scale back spending. The sheepish economy also provides an adequate excuse for the government here to be weak on funding defence. However, the defence of Japan is not something the government should be scaling back finances for.

The United States continues to be, by far the largest spender of defence dollars in the world. Spending roughly 50 cents for every one dollar spent on defence globally. Allies of the United States are falling short on their share of the tab. Japan, compared to other allies is not doing horribly, spending USD 50 Billion a year, including outpouring a substantial amount of cash taking care of US base needs in the country. However, the protection offered by a exceedingly thin American Military is of huge benefit to the decision makers in Tokyo, and the public at large, and has been for the past six decades. The main benefit being that, the allies share a common goal in land and sea based interceptors against possible attacks stemming from proximity to North Korea. The other benefit being that the agreements allow Japan the international goodwill of not being a nuclear state, while maintaining a very close relationship to the ultimate weapon. These benefits come at a price, so when Japan scales back military spending and support for the American war efforts it strains the relationship. "The new government (of Japan) has scrapped a naval refuelling mission in the Indian Ocean that has supported the US-led campaign in Afghanistan and announced a review of a 2006 pact on relocating US bases in Japan," from the same AFP article quoted earlier.

Therefore, Japan's new government could tighten the purse strings on the defence forces and eventually be forced to carry more of the real costs associated with being a global heavyweight, as power increasingly shifts to Asia. On the other hand, Japan could maintain the status quo, keep up their end of the military agreements with the United States, subtly boost defence funding and thrive as they have in the past with a strong partner in the future.