The presence of U.S. military bases worldwide is one manifestation of the U.S.-host country security alliance commitment. This arrangement represents a strategic compromise. Typically, the host country provides land, finance, and logistical support for U.S. forces, while the U.S. ensures security through deterrence and military capabilities. For example, Japan incurs approximately 200 billion yen (around $1.33 billion) annually in stationing costs to host U.S. military bases and installations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan 2022). This significant financial burden highlights the intra-alliance dynamic in which Japan forgoes some aspects of sovereignty in exchange for protection, while the U.S. forces do not enjoy full sovereignty in their operation. This dynamic is mainly due to Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution, which restricts the development and use of Japan’s defense forces and capabilities. Over time, U.S. overseas bases worldwide assumed security, economic, and political functions. In wartime, the bases serve as the primary security infrastructure; in peacetime, they can play crucial roles as political and economic actors.
Since the end of World War II, U.S. military bases in East Asia have been involved in political life, economic development, and social identity in both Japan and South Korea. Scholars have long examined U.S. power projection, its national security strategy, and the geopolitical foundations of these bases. Less attention has been paid to how these installations are experienced and contested within the local communities that host them, though residents are the most immediately affected by the base’s presence. These effects range from land-use constraints to environmental degradation, and from employment opportunities to tax collection (Kumlungpat Reference Kumlungpat2025; Paloyo et al. Reference Paloyo, Vance and Vorell2010) and social tensions.
Base Towns: Local Contestation of the U.S. Military in Korea and Japan shifts the analytical lens toward the diverse municipalities that coexist with U.S. military installations to offer a substantial and timely contribution to this underexplored field. Through this subnational focus, Claudia Junghyun Kim provides a rich, comparative account of how local actors interpret, negotiate, and sometimes resist the military presence in their midst, including discussions of ongoing issues.
The book begins by providing a background and a central puzzle: why do some communities mobilize vigorously against U.S. bases while others appear relatively compliant, even when exposed to similar burdens? To explain this variation, Kim adopts a social movement perspective, arguing that local mobilization must be understood not only through structural conditions but also through actors’ strategic behavior and shifts in political opportunity structures. Her analytical framework rests on three mechanisms: status quo disruption, movement framing, and local elite allies, which together shape how residents perceive their interests and whether collective action emerges.
Kim sees the first mechanism, status quo disruption, as the main factor in the emergence of mobilization. When there is a significant change to an existing military installation, a status quo disruption occurs because base opponents perceive base expansion as a loss and base reduction as a gain, which shapes patterns of mobilization and demobilization. Consequently, patterns of mobilization and demobilization do not always align neatly with objective changes on the ground, highlighting the central role of perception and interpretation in local responses.
The second mechanism is movement framing, or the framing strategies employed by activists. Kim distinguishes between ideological frames and pragmatic frames. Ideological frames invoke nationalism, anti-militarism, or critiques of the U.S.-Korea and the U.S.-Japan alliances. On the other hand, pragmatic frames emphasize concrete impacts in daily life, such as noise pollution and quality of life. Kim suggests that pragmatic frames are the main driving force in the discourse surrounding the activists as they appeal to broader stakeholders.
Additionally, this framing distinction also explains the interaction between core activists and “latent adherents,” residents who hold grievances but tend to be more tolerant and do not consistently participate in mobilization. Successful movements are those that bridge these groups by framing protest beyond ideological boundaries and articulating shared community interests to attract more allies.
The third mechanism explains local elite allies, particularly mayors, governors, and municipal assemblies, who occasionally emerge as veto players in interstate base politics. Local political elites can facilitate mobilization by endorsing the demands of base opponents or challenging central government decisions. Thus, elites also have their own agency, preferences, and interests. Therefore, they may align with national security priorities and inhibit mobilization by emphasizing economic benefits and discouraging the protests. Furthermore, Kim’s comparative approach shows that although there are differences in the level of decentralization structure between Japan and South Korea, the role of the local elite remains decisive in shaping mobilization trajectories.
The analytical framework and Kim’s findings enrich existing scholarship in base politics, security studies, and social movements in at least three ways. First, Kim shifts the focus to activists’ incentives and theorizes these patterns. The explanatory power of status quo disruption lies in emphasizing that mobilization is not only driven by accumulated grievances but also by shifts that alter the community’s perceived futures. Variation in contestation in base towns reveals the dynamics of base opponents in South Korea and Japan. It demonstrates that economic gain or base compensation schemes are not the only reasons for demobilization. Second, the findings draw attention not only to who mobilizes but also to how mobilization becomes possible through narrative strategies. Third, the book sheds light on how the actions of local elites interact with the broader institutional context, offering valuable insights into how local politics at the subnational level intersect with alliance structures.
Furthermore, one of the strengths of Base Towns is its empirical and comparative coverage. Drawing on 20 base towns across Japan and Korea, Kim avoids the case-selection bias common in base politics and contestation studies, which focus on well-known cases, most notably Okinawa (Aiba and Yamagishi Reference Aiba and Yamagishi2025; Chanlett-Avery and Rinehart Reference Chanlett-Avery, Rinehart and Ian2012; Eldridge Reference Eldridge2013; Hikotani et al. Reference Hikotani, Horiuchi and Tago2023; Hook and Siddle Reference Hook and Siddle2003; Inoue Reference Inoue2007; Inoue et al. Reference Inoue, Purves and Selden1998; Iwama Reference Iwama2023; Moriteru Reference Moriteru2001; Muto Reference Muto2007; Norimatsu and McCornmack Reference Norimatsu and McCormack2012; O’Shea Reference O’Shea2019; Pajon Reference Pajon2010; Yara Reference Yara2012; Toriyama and Buist Reference Toriyama and Buist2003; Zulueta Reference Zulueta2019). Her inclusion of various base contestation communities, including the quiet and minimally active ones, provides insights into why mobilization does or does not occur. This comparative approach enhances the broader applicability of her theoretical claims and it adds meaningful value to debates about variation in contentious politics.
While each chapter considers a broad range of cases, this approach limits the depth to which individual communities can be examined. Readers familiar with base politics and contestation may wish for more sustained engagement with the community identities and historical aspects of life in base towns, especially as factors shaping the different historical paths of the base movement in South Korea and Japan. Kim acknowledges this, noting that U.S. forces arrived in both countries at various times. Therefore, these historical legacies serve a more contextual than analytical purpose in the framework. Incorporating historical factors, especially in areas such as the Ryukyu Kingdom (now Okinawa) and Korea during the Japanese imperial occupation, marked by colonial or post-colonial marginalization, could further deepen the analysis.
Kim’s work highlights the roles of local actors in grassroots politics. However, the significance of local elites, and particularly their positioning within national politics and alliance negotiations, receives less systematic analysis, leaving unresolved the question of how subnational contestation affects national policymaking. This includes the dynamic relationship between the central and local governments, which could be worth exploring further in future research.
Similarly, the economic gains, spillover effects, and the benefits of alliances and hosting a base have arisen in previous literature (Fortuna et al. Reference Fortuna, Teixeira and Silva2022; Hooker and Knetter Reference Hooker and Knetter2001; Hultquist and Petras Reference Hultquist and Petras2012; Lee Reference Lee2018; Schmid et al., Reference Schmid, Brummer and Taylor2017; Moore and Spitz-Oener Reference Moore and Spitz-Oener2012; Paloyo et al. Reference Paloyo, Vance and Vorell2010). Nonetheless, there has been less analysis of the positive effects, which may influence the perceptions and behavior of activists, late adherents, and local elites. In this work, Kim carefully selects the quiescent base towns, explains their subsidy mechanisms, and describes the central government’s budgetary support as a monetary tool to reward or punish local elites and, sometimes, the anti-base movement. This economic perspective could have been discussed more.
Additionally, the roles of national-level alliance management, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiations, and U.S. military organizational practices, operations, and collaborative projects remain underexplored, even though these factors often shape local opportunity structures. These areas provide valuable opportunities to expand and complement Kim’s contribution.
Base Towns makes a significant contribution to base politics and to the broader study of security studies and East Asian Studies. By bringing local agency to the center of analysis, Kim advances the “local turn” (Kuznetsov Reference Kuznetsov2015; Takahashi Reference Takahashi2019; Jarvis Reference Jarvis2019) in security studies and demonstrates that alliance durability depends not only on national elites but also on municipal governance and community consent, emphasizing that Alliances are not solely negotiated in diplomatic channels or military headquarters but are continuously enacted and contested in everyday spaces. Base towns are sites where global geopolitics and local livelihoods intersect, and Kim’s work captures this intersection with clarity and nuance. Her framework provides a transferable toolkit for examining base politics in other regions, from Guam and the Philippines to Europe, making Base Towns relevant well beyond East Asia.
In an era of renewed geopolitical tension and ongoing debates over military realignment in the Indo-Pacific, Base Towns offers timely insights into the conditions under which local contestation emerges and the forms it takes. Empirically rigorous and theoretically innovative, it will be of interest to scholars of East Asian politics, social movements, and security studies, as well as to policymakers and practitioners concerned with the local foundations of alliance politics. Kim’s study ultimately reminds us that global military arrangements are sustained or contested through the everyday politics of the communities that host them.
