MOSCOW (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 14th July, 2020) The Japanese government's decision to scrap the planned deployment of costly US-made Aegis Ashore missile defense systems may be explained not only by cost and timing, as officially voiced by the government, but also by a wide range of factors, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's fears of protests over the systems' deployment and Tokyo's reading of the current unstable domestic situation in the United States, characterized by the Black Lives Matter protests, the country's world-leading COVID-19 case total and the vague chances of President Donald Trump emerging victorious in November's presidential election.
In late June, Japan officially abandoned its plans to deploy Aegis Ashore land-based missile defense systems, which were expected to counter the threat from North Korea. Defense Minister Taro Kono explained that the decision was made because of the risk of rocket boosters falling on residential areas due to the inability to control their fall. The total cost of the systems, including their operation and maintenance, was estimated to be $4 billion over a 30-year period.
"Considering the cost and time it would require, I had no choice but to judge that pursuing the plan is not logical," Kono said.
Meanwhile, on Friday, Reuters reported that Tokyo may still build Aegis systems despite reports of their deployment being canceled, as it has not yet terminated a contract for radar technology.
Initially, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approved plans to install two such missile defense units in late 2017. The two systems were expected to cover the entire country and enter into service before 2023. The decision had been prompted by the growing threat from North Korea, which continues to speed up the pace of its missile testing.
Designed by Lockheed Martin, the US aerospace, defense and security company, Aegis Ashore systems are intended to intercept ballistic missiles above the atmosphere. Japan currently operates a lineup of seven Aegis-equipped destroyers. The systems, which were to be used by the Ground Self-Defense Force, had been viewed as another layer to defend against threats and reduce the workload on the Aegis destroyers operated by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. They were also intended to supplement already-deployed Patriot PAC-3 batteries, which target a missile as soon it re-enters the atmosphere.
Apart from cost and timing, politics could be one of the reasons behind Japan's decision to scrap the missile defense systems, Stephen Nagy, a senior associate professor at the Department of Politics and International Studies at Tokyo's International Christian University told Sputnik.
"The decision to scrap [the deployment of the systems] is related to cost, politics and timing. In terms of costs, they are expensive and there is still not complete confidence in their capabilities. In terms of politics, the systems were rejected to be deployed in PM Abe's home prefecture. If he couldn't get support in his home prefecture, it is unlikely to get support anywhere," Nagy, who is also a distinguished fellow at the Asia Pacific Foundation, said.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the treaty of mutual cooperation and security between the US and Japan entering into force. However, relations between the longtime allies seem strained, as the administration of Donald Trump continues to call on its ally over the Pacific to contribute more to the financial burden of its security and threatened to withdraw troops from Japan.
"President Trump's accusations are more related to his own lack of understanding of the alliance than realities on the ground," Nagy said, adding that Tokyo is not necessarily opposed to boosting burden-sharing but still is eager "to do it in a smart way."
According to Nagy, present relations between Washington and Tokyo are "robust and deep" at both the institutional and societal level.
"The US presidential election and Mr. Trump being down in the polls suggests that Japan sees space to wait until Mr. Trump is either re-elected or out of office," he said.
Shuhei Kurizaki, associate professor at the school of Political Science and Economics at Waseda University, believes that initially, Abe decided to purchase the Aegis Ashore systems merely "to please Trump."
"One of the top priorities in foreign policy for the conservative governments and Japan's MOFA [Foreign Ministry] is to keep Washington happy with Japan. It's just so turned out, Trump, acting as America's top salesman, wanted a big deal," he told Sputnik.
However, with Trump's chances of re-election potentially fading given the recent Black Lives Matter protests and COVID-19 crisis, "Abe's expected utility calculation would be such that it [was] not too risky to walk away" from the agreement, according to the expert.
With so many recent issues between the two solid allies, questions remain over the asymmetry of their relations.
"As for the asymmetry issue, preemption is not going to be the answer to appease the criticism on the asymmetric contribution to the US-Japan alliance. The problem at a more fundamental level is that the US-Japan security treaty obliges only the US to defend Japan, so Japan is not legally bound to deploy its forces to defend the US; being capable of attacking a third-party country preemptively does not address this problem," Kurizaki said.
He recalled that the official stance of the Japanese government is that the US-Japan security alliance is not asymmetric, given that Article 6 of the treaty allows the US to utilize military bases in Japan, in exchange for Washington's active role in defending the Asian country.
"This is a legal base for the policy of Japan's financial contribution to the US troops' expenses. Thus, JPN [Japanese] government argues that burden-sharing between the two governments are symmetric (not necessarily equal, however)," Kurizaki said.
The expert noted that both Japan and the US were not happy about the unequal nature of the defense duty, yet the fact that nothing has changed shows that Washington also finds it rational to maintain the deal.
"Stationing its troops in Japan extensively is perfect for America's off-shore balance strategy, checking the Soviet Union until the 1990s and China since about 2000. More than the financial contribution from Japan (per Article 6 of the alliance treaty), Japan's archipelago is a very valuable asset in the geostrategic politics of the Cold War and US-China rivalry," he concluded.
According to data provided by the Japanese Defense Ministry, as of 2015, Japan was shouldering over 86 percent of the cost of US forces stationed in the Asian country.
After the island nation decided to scrap the US-made Aegis Ashore defense systems, speculation in the media appeared about the possibility of alternatives. Yet, Nagy recalled that Japan was still constitutionally limited from acquiring preemptive strike capabilities.
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution bans Japan from setting up a military force. The country has no medium-range or intercontinental missiles or strategic bombers.
"Alternatives to the Aegis Ashore system will be discussed in the months to come but there is no guarantee that they will not come back to the original missile defense system," he said.
Meanwhile, Kurizaki believes that Japan has "no valuable alternatives" as of today.
"In all likelihood, losing Aegis Ashore would not clear the way for acquiring a preemptive strike capability both in terms of military capabilities (including force employment) and military strategy. As for military capabilities, cruise missiles and the air-to-ground abilities such as F-35 fighters would be needed," the expert concluded.
