New York Times rejected my Op-Ed piece,
so here I publish it myself:

Ultimate Japanese Irony

I am an American living in Japan, and maybe I say that too often, so here
is something I haven’t said already: I am definitely not a professional diplomat nor
any expert on international relations. Without such expertise, I am claiming to know more about political moods in Japan than most people who have officially represented the United States of America to the country of Japan. If you’ve been making a list of negative things left over from the Bush administration, please add renegotiating a status of forces agreement with Japan.

In case I was hinting around too much or was somehow vague, let me state out right
that I most probably understand the stance of the government and people of Japan more
than Howard Baker, the first Bush era ambassador and J. Thomas Schieffer, the second
ambassador.   No brag, just fact. But, don’t let that shake anyone up because
it is common to appoint ambassadors for no reason
other than hey, lemme do ya a favor

Yukio Hatoyama is the new Prime Minister of Japan.   Of course, he is a nice guy.
Junichiro Koizumi was a nice guy.   Koizumi was popular and therefore in office for
some years. We had a couple of short-timers between Koizumi and Hatoyama.
Those two were from the same party as Koizumi. Koizumi and his party, which had been in power for the majority of the time since WWII, became UNpopular even more suddenly than Bush and his party.

Here is the ultimate irony. Many Americans sincerely believe that
the Japanese constitution was written by or at least dictated by officials from
the United States after the war. The only parts that were dictated by, most probably,
MacArthur himself were the part that reduced the power of the emperor and the part that
said war can no longer be used to solve our problems. The irony is that the most conservative people of this country, the ones whose fathers or grandfathers would have wanted the emperor to be involved in policy, totally embrace the war-renouncing
passages of the Japanese constitution.

Did you reach out and touch what I’m saying? American conservatives seem
to like war, but Japanese conservatives absolutely do not. The people in power are
not as extreme as my tone here, but they do want to RENEGOTIATE. As if relations between countries were like an American professional athlete’s with his team.

I am going to assume that the United States has a status of forces agreement
with any and all countries wherein there are any American military installations.
Here is the chain of events. In early summer of 2008, the Iraqi parliament rejected
a status of forces agreement proposed by the U.S. that would have kept troops
there indefinitely. It required all of the months to the end of the Bush administration
to get the kind of agreement that the Iraqi parliament could agree to, one whose
timetable is being followed by the Obama administration, and all troops
are expected to be out in another year or 16 months? Is that accurate, hope so.

Imagine the Japanese reaction: All American troops will be out of that country?
When will most American troops be out of this country.

I honestly don’t know if the newest status of forces agreement
for Japan is already in effect, but I am pretty sure that no funds have
been spent. What funds do you think I mean? I mean that the U.S. military
expects the Japanese government to pay for relocation of bases to less
populated areas. This was negotiated when Junichiro Koizumi was
still Prime Minister, and Don Rumsfeld was still running the Pentagon.

Japanese people like America. Take that to mean American pop culture or just culture.
They will still tell you this is Japan. Take that to mean “We are our own country” which is
nothing more than what Americans like to say of themselves and their country.

May 15, 1972 was when Okinawa was returned to Japanese rule,
and that is now where the local people are most disturbed by what
is not supposed to be but seems like the continued occupation.
Other installations can much more easily be tolerated.
The heart of the matter for the renegotiation would be the Marines
on Okinawa. Of course, an American base helps the local economy just
like back in the States, but the people would give that up to get relief
from the intrusion. this is Japan

In Japan symbolism is powerful. Do Americans know that there were Japanese troops in Iraq?   They were in the City of Samawah for almost two years, and there was flying troops of other countries in from Kuwait, and now there is a refueling mission in the Indian Ocean in support of American efforts in Afghanistan. These symbolize violations of the constitution according to everyone counted as politically conservative in Japan. The Katoyama government in Japan has notified the Obama administration that that Indian Ocean operation will be discontinued as the new year gets under way because yearly legislation is required to keep it in place, and such legislation will not be submitted for the new year and beyond.
President Obama is comfortable with that.

The new ambassador to Japan from the U.S. is California lawyer John Roos,
and he recently visited the Peace Park and Memorial in Hiroshima, and he expressed
that he would like President Obama to do the same. If Barack Obama were to visit
that place, he would be the first sitting U.S. President to do so certainly since
the bombings. I know that Jimmy Carter signed the guest book there
after having left office.

It would be difficult for Barack Obama to speak, as he would be expected
to do, at the peace park if Japanese people might be thinking about a continued
occupation negotiated by Rumsfeld. It would be very appropriate for Barack Obama to speak at the peace park since the Nobel people listened so well when he said that
he wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons in the world.