Foreign Relations Paper - Japan

...

The United States on the other hand has only seen two political leaders from 2006-2016. President W. Bush who finished his last term in 2008, focused a great deal of his energy into foreign affairs. In 2006, after the attacks from North Korea onto Japan, Bush’s administration made it a point to include Japan in the debates with North Korea regarding foreign issues. Bush also pushed Japan leaders towards expanding their foreign roles. Furthermore, in 2008, Barack Obama won office with policies promising to revive the economy, provide affordable healthcare to all, strengthen public education and social security systems and pursue foreign relations. Under Obama’s foreign affairs plan, he stated that during his presidency he is going to work towards renewing U.S. alliances, which includes the alliance the U.S. holds with Japan. In 2011, the United States joined forces with Japan and India to form a “new type of power relations” that is referred to as Asia’s new triple alliance (Twining). Through trilateral strategic grouping, the three countries sought to manage China’s rise of power. Furthermore, in 2012, Japan faced conflict as China claimed islands in the East China Sea that Japan administered. Obama then acknowledged that the disputed islands were covered by the security treaty they had established and that the U.S. will defend Japan if they face attacks (Beech). It is evident that the ties between these two countries are only progressing as they continue to evolve this mutualistic relationship.

The media in the United States, as well as in Japan, portray allying countries fairly poorly. Media in the United States declares the alliance as unfair and anything but mutualistic. Reporters state that the alliance is mainly beneficial to Japan and doesn’t equally distribute responsibilities. An alliance with the United States means sea and air links globally that brings in raw materials and goods for Japan. Additionally, Japan receives security from the United States in exchange for land in which U.S. military bases reside. For Japan, this means that the country can move towards economic prosperity and rebuild from devastation post WW2. Many media stations undermine Japanese credibility and form negative perceptions that display the Japanese government as freeloaders. Furthermore, the media in Japan portrays the exact opposite, portraying the United States as the country that is receiving all the benefits from this alliance. Political scientist and Japanese reporter, Stephen Stapczynski states, “For one thing, the treaty allows the U.S. military to station its troops and dock its ships in Japan, making up the cornerstone of U.S. defense strategy in East Asia. Japan provides space and facilities for more than 50,000 U.S. military and civilian personnel, and pays the U.S. about $2 billion per year to offset the costs. These bases enable U.S. forces to be active in the Asia-Pacific, and can act as a launching point for places as far away as the Persian Gulf.” Stapczynski also argues that the U.S. military presence in Japan is far larger than necessary; therefore, the U.S. is using their grounds there to protect and defend other U.S. allies in the Asia- Pacific. Additionally, Japanese reporters declare that the U.S. troops stationed in Japan act as a stabilizing factor in Asia, which is beneficial for America’s economy. A stable alliance in Asia produces global trade opportunities and revives the U.S. economy. Contrary to popular beliefs spread through media, both countries benefit equally. For example, because the U.S. and Japanese troops are stationed in close proximity, communication and integration of the militaries has developed immensely (Stapczynski). In addition, the countries have been working together towards developing joint missile defense systems and building response strategies to target enemies. The U.S.- Japan security arrangement has been proven beneficiary for governmental leaders, as they both share ties with extremely powerful countries.

Public opinion regarding the Japanese and American relationship explains the national attitude both countries exert. Pew Research Center conducted a survey in order to depict public opinion regarding their countries ally. Researchers based their analysis on word association, they asked the public from both countries if they associated particular words with people from the other country. Researchers found that the U.S. generates a more positive view of the Japanese than the Japanese have of Americans. The studies found that 94% of Americans view the Japanese as hardworking, whereas only 25% of Japanese view Americans as that. Moreover, 75% of Americans describe the Japanese as inventive, 71% say honest, 36% describe them as intolerant, 31% aggressive and 19% selfish. The polls taken on Japanese views of Americans differ substantially. 67% declare Americans as inventive, 37% say honest, 29% described as intolerant, 50% aggressive and 47% selfish (Stokes). In another survey conducted by Pew, studies show that 26% of Americans trust Japan a great deal whereas 42% trust them a fair amount. The Japanese showed similar results, as only 10% trusts Americans a great deal and 65% a fair amount.

The United States and Japan are developed countries whose infrastructures and financial markets are imperative to the success of multinational corporations. Multinational corporations rely upon infrastructure in order to develop a business environment that will strive. The U.S. and Japan both possess advanced soft infrastructures and financial markets that will allow corporations located there to produce a large amount of revenue for a low cost. Soft infrastructures include specialized institutions such as universities, training and human capital in order to develop a corporation with educated employees. In addition, both countries obtain advanced technology and management techniques. Furthermore, another contributing factor as to why most multinational corporations are set in the Japan and/or the U.S. is because of hard infrastructure. Hard infrastructure consists of roads, bridges, buildings and all other public works structures. Hard infrastructure contributes to transportation which is vital not only for consumers to be able to reach, but also for goods and materials to be transferred to (Investopedia.com). On a national level, the countries mutually benefit due to their trade of goods. National corporations have the opportunity to obtain goods from their ally and resell those goods for a higher price, generating a profit. Both countries are known for having the world’s two largest economies, as well as leading sources of foreign direct investment (FDI). For example, private corporations often buy investment goods, new capital and equipment in order to pursue a national corporation which not only receives goods from overseas, but also

...