A Town Losing Grants and a Town with Bases: The True Nature of the ‘Cost of Cooperation’ Reflected in Wakiki Town and Iwakuni

Accepting a base. Accepting noise. Accepting life under training flights—this understanding, that grants would be provided as compensation, has supported this region for decades. However, now, only one side of this understanding is quietly being removed. The base remains. The grants disappear. What remains is the phrase “even though we cooperated,” along with the fact that there is no system to accommodate it.

Wakiki Town and Iwakuni City in Yamaguchi Prefecture. These two municipalities, lined along the calm sea of the Seto Inland Sea, are now faced with the same question: Who will bear the ‘cost of cooperation,’ and through what mechanisms?

—

The Weight of Words from the Council Chamber

Wakiki Town’s council passed a request for the continuation of grants related to the Iwakuni base in early 2025. The request includes a phrase stating that it would “fundamentally overturn the trust relationship with the national government.” The inclusion of this expression in an official council document speaks volumes about the seriousness of the situation.

Wakiki Town is a small town with a population of about 6,000. It is adjacent to the northern side of the Iwakuni base and has received grants for base-related reorganization and specific defense facility maintenance. According to reports, the amount is said to be around 100 million yen annually. Considering that the town’s general budget is approximately 4 billion yen, 100 million yen is by no means a trivial sum. This funding has been incorporated into expenditures for maintaining public facilities, some welfare services, and regional promotion projects.

It is worth pausing to consider that these grants have become a ‘premise’ rather than a ‘bonus.’ Since they are included in the annual budget and part of resident services depends on them, cutting them off is not merely a reduction in income. The town will face a critical juncture: whether to stop ongoing projects or seek alternative funding—either way, the town’s resilience will be tested.

—

“There Was an Informal Explanation”—The Mistrust Created by Asymmetry of Information

Wakiki Town Mayor Masaaki Yonehara stated that the national government had provided an “informal explanation” regarding the review of grants. This indicates that the policy was communicated without formal notification or consultation.

For municipalities, the existence or absence of grants is fundamental to budget formation. Yet, there is a stark reality that municipalities have little room to participate in the decision-making process. The national government decides, and the municipalities receive—this one-way structure functions as ‘support’ in peacetime but transforms into a ‘notification’ the moment the policy changes.

The mayor further remarked, “The system supporting local areas is beginning to break down.” This statement should not be dismissed as mere dissatisfaction; it raises a question about the system itself. Is the grant system a ‘thank you’ to municipalities accepting bases, a ‘compensation,’ or a ‘price for tacit approval’? The ambiguity in its nature has led to voices of “this is not what we agreed upon” when cuts occur.

Reorganization grants were originally designed to be temporary, with the grant period set according to the progress of U.S. military realignment. Thus, it was inherently understood in the system design that it would “end someday.” However, for the municipalities that accept the bases, noise, risks, and impacts on daily life continue as long as the base exists. While the burdens are not temporary, the compensation is—this discrepancy lies at the root of the current mistrust.

—

The Chorus at Kintai Bridge—Another Landscape of ‘Relations’

Around the same time, a choral event was held at Kintai Bridge in Iwakuni, featuring about 300 elementary and middle school students from Japan and the U.S. Against the backdrop of the wooden arch bridge, the children’s voices echoed over the river. This event, symbolizing the ‘coexistence’ of the community and the base, is annually covered by the media.

It is meaningful to juxtapose this scene with the grant issue.

The children participating in the chorus are unaware of the grant system. They simply sing alongside their friends. That relationship is born from everyday interactions, not from a system. On the other hand, the ‘relationship’ at the municipal level has been supported by the grant system. When the system wavers, can the relationship be maintained solely through everyday interactions? This remains a question to which no one has yet found an answer.

What is more concerning is the precariousness of such exchange events being consumed in the context of “coexistence with the base is going well.” Cultural exchange and financial trust are separate issues. The beauty of the chorus must not become a mechanism that obscures structural imbalances.

—

Who Designs the ‘Cost of Cooperation’?

The decision to accept a base involves both visible and invisible costs. Noise, accident risks, and land use restrictions—these are difficult to quantify but undoubtedly cast shadows over residents’ daily lives. Grants were a mechanism to convert these costs into ‘monetary’ terms and balance the books.

However, the designers of this mechanism are the national government, while the municipalities, as beneficiaries, have little authority to participate in the design. The amount of grants, the duration of grants, and the criteria for review are all left to the discretion of the national government. This asymmetry is too great to be called a ‘cooperative relationship.’

The case of Wakiki Town poses the question of who defines the ‘cost of cooperation,’ who bears it, and who decides its end. As long as there is a discrepancy between what municipalities recognize as ‘cooperation’ and what the national government evaluates as ‘cooperation,’ such friction will continue to recur.

Across the country, many municipalities receive grants by accepting bases, nuclear power plants, and large facilities. The issues faced by Wakiki Town could serve as a precedent for all these municipalities. When it becomes clear that the tacit understanding of “if we accept, we will be supported” is not institutionally guaranteed, will other municipalities raise their hands next?

—

What We Should Witness Going Forward

The focus moving forward will be divided into several layers.

First, how Wakiki Town and Iwakuni City can negotiate with the national government. Submitting the request is the first step, but how much influence it will have on policy decisions is another matter. Will there be movements involving the prefecture or national legislators, or will collaboration arise with other municipalities hosting bases? The very form of negotiation deserves attention.

Next, securing alternative funding sources to replace grants. Alternatives such as hometown tax and corporate attraction are sometimes discussed, but for a town with a population of 6,000, filling a gap of 100 million yen annually is not easy. From the perspective of fiscal sustainability, it is necessary to continue pursuing concrete numbers.

And the most fundamental question is whether the redesign of the grant system itself will be brought to the table for discussion. Can we shift from temporary grants to a design where compensation continues as long as the burden continues? Or will the national government demand a transition to municipal management that does not rely on grants? Whichever path is chosen, that decision should be examined from the perspective of “who benefits from this?”

—

The base remains. The noise continues. The flight paths for training do not change. What has changed is the system that was supposed to reach the towns that have borne these burdens. The phrase “fundamentally overturn the trust relationship” written in Wakiki Town’s council request should be read not with anger but as a quiet inquiry—who was this system designed for? The answer cannot lie solely with those providing the grants.