By Kathryn Dura, Blogger for Defense Affairs
Some key U.S. bases abroad are coming under harsh criticism from their host nations such as Japan, the Philippines, and Turkey. Despite the key role that bases play in U.S. defense and foreign policy, the topic of U.S. bases abroad is generally ignored in the popular media. Overseas military bases are facilities located in one country, but owned and operated by a foreign country to provide a military presence and equipment. This piece seeks to delve into the current controversies surrounding Washington’s bases abroad, to discuss their benefits and drawbacks, and to evaluate how these institutions will likely evolve during the Trump presidency.
In Japan, the United States has 85 military facilities. That figure includes most of the American-occupied land on Okinawa, a string of islands. [1] The U.S. developed these facilities at the end of World War II when the Allies sought to demilitarize Japan. Eventually, Japan regained formal sovereignty, but Washington and Tokyo signed a security alliance stating the United States was responsible for Japan’s defense. An updated treaty along the same lines is still in force today. In recent years, the Japanese bases have taken on a new importance; they aid the Obama administration’s so-called ‘pivot to Asia’ and provide a source of deterrence and power projection against China and North Korea. However, in June 2016, tens of thousands of Japanese citizens protested the United States’ continued presence. Their rallies were, in part, a reaction to the murder of a 20-year-old Okinawan woman allegedly at the hands of a U.S. Marine veteran. [2] Nonetheless, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to strengthen ties with Washington, fearing that a weaker Japanese-American relationship could embolden China. [3] Therefore, though uncertain, the facilities are likely to remain for the near future.
Similarly, the American bases in the Philippines are crucial to countering Chinese aggression in the South China Sea – territory which the Philippines also partially claim. [4] In March 2016, the Philippines and the United States signed a military agreement opening five Philippine bases to U.S. troops and supplies on a rotational basis. [5] However, in September 2016, the Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte ordered U.S. special forces to leave despite no official shift in Philippine foreign policy. [6] Still, because Mr. Duterte continues to espouse anti-American rhetoric, long-term access to the bases is far from certain.
Additionally, as of late, U.S.-Turkish relations have declined. Turkey has leveled various (and for the purposes of this blog, simplified) accusations at the United States, including failing to support Ankara’s operation against ISIL, encouraging affiliates of a Kurdish terrorist organization, and harboring the cult leader who allegedly planned the July 2016 Turkish coup. [7] Thus far, neither country has budged on any of those issues and the tension continues. As such, many in Turkey, including the Turkish Foreign Minister, are calling to end U.S. use of Incirlik, which, due to its proximity to the Islamic State’s territory, is a key air base in the fight against ISIL.
As such, the futures of several foreign bases crucial to the current U.S. strategy are no longer as assured as they were a year ago. However, the debate about the existence of U.S. bases abroad is not limited to foreign countries; many in the United States question whether the roughly 800 bases in over 70 countries are necessary. [8] Those in favor of closing the overseas bases state that they fail to protect the homeland from direct attack, exaggerate the value of deterrence, encourage resentment, and have been rendered obsolete due to advances in transportation technology. [9] However, there are still many in the United States who view overseas bases as crucial. They counter by claiming that foreign countries subsidize the bases, and U.S. personnel. In the absence of these bases, the U.S. would still have to provide deterrence against aggressive actors, provide assurance of U.S. commitment to its allies, and allow for immediate responses. [10]
However, as a key RAND report states, “depending on how decision makers assess deterrence needs in the region and the role of forward posture in meeting them versus how they assess the risks of creating political tensions or a backlash…[the outcome of the assessments] would lead to choices on different points along the spectrum.” [11] In other words, the future of U.S. overseas basing depends on what policymakers deem to be the best strategy: forward posture or retreat. Based on statements made by President-elect Trump, especially regarding alliances, it seems likely that the future of U.S. foreign policy will lie closer to the latter. However, given Trump’s calling for greater pressure on ISIS, it also seems unlikely that all overseas U.S. bases will be closed. The incoming administration’s policy on these overseas facilities will offer the American people and the international community insight into the future of American foreign policy.
Kathryn Dura is a junior studying International Relations and Math at the University of Pennsylvania.
Sources
[1] http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21704817-presence-american-troops-foreign-soil-growing-more-controversial-go-home
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/world/asia/japan-okinawa-protest-united-states-military.html?_r=0
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-philippines-carter-idUSKCN0XB0QY
[5] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/duterte-forces-southern-philippines-160913003704576.html
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/originals/2017/01/syria-kurds-us-bab.html
[8] http://time.com/4511744/american-military-bases-overseas/
[9] Ibid.
[10] http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/07/donald-trump-doesnt-understand-the-value-of-u-s-bases-overseas/
[11] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR201.html
