TOKYO, Dec. 18 (Xinhua) -- Current tensions between the United States and Japan based on Tokyo's decision to reconsider a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) have been exacerbated by diplomatic failings on both sides, but are not likely to cause lasting damage to the alliance, analysts told Xinhua on Friday.

    Sarah McDowall, an analyst with IHS Global Insight, said she does not believe the tensions surrounding the SOFA agreement will lead to lasting damage. "I don's think that it will threaten the underlying strength of the alliance which remains the cornerstone of American foreign policy in the region and which provides the backbone of Japan's security," she said, adding opinion polls in Japan indicate that public support for the relationship continues to be high.

    The issue has, however, proved a learning curve for both sides. "It has been a real test of alliance management skills, and I don't think either side has covered itself in glory," said Jeff Kingston, a professor at Temple University in Tokyo.

    Since coming to power in September, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has pushed to see negotiations restarted on a SOFA agreement signed by the former governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and U.S. administration of President George W. Bush in 2006.Under that agreement, 8,000 U.S. troops will be relocated from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam, and a base in the urban center of Futenma will be moved to a more rural area.

    Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has said he would like to see the U.S. and Japan have a more equal relationship, and views reassessing the SOFA agreement as one means of achieving this.

    "The low point was Defense Secretary Robert Gates arriving in Japan and bellowing at the Japanese 'my way or the highway,' and demonstrating the exact point that Hatoyama has made, that the relationship is unequal," Kingston said.

    In October, Gates visited Japan and said that if the current agreement was not maintained, then the United States may withdraw funding allocated for transferring U.S. troops to Guam.

    Koichi Nakano, a professor of politics at Sophia University in Tokyo agrees with Kingston. "I don't think the issue has been handled well, the DPJ sent signals that were a little exaggerated and Washington reacted in an overexcited manner," he said. "The U.S. strategy ... has not helped the alliance."

    Analysts said, however, that despite the diplomatic misgivings on both sides of the Pacific, the U.S.-Japan alliance was likely to be able to overcome its problems and be maintained.

    "The diplomats and politicians are repairing the damage and the situation is not as bad as the media portrays it. The U.S. reaction to the non decision of the Hatoyama government was good, in terms of dialling down the rhetoric. The American response was very measured and calm," Kingston said. On Tuesday, Japan's government announced that no decision would be reached on where it would like to see U.S. troops relocated to until next year.

    He also pointed out that, "the battle over Futenma has been conducted in a rather civil way."

    A major factor in Japan's actions on the SOFA agreement issue has been the stance of the DPJ's coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party (SDP). SDP leader Mizuho Fukushima has indicated that if the government allows a large number of U.S. troops to stay in Okinawa, her party may leave government. The DPJ needs the SDP to keep a majority in both houses of parliament, at least until next year, when upper house elections are set to take place.

    "The DPJ is looking to the elections, that means they have had to keep the coalition partners sweet. The alliance with the U.S. has enduring strength, but the coalition is living on borrowed time," Kingston said. "The DPJ's strategy is to win a majority in the upper house so it no longer needs its coalition partners."

    Between now and then, however, the Futenma issue is set to dominate U.S.-Japan relations.

    Nakano said he does not believe that the DPJ is likely to stick to the current SOFA agreement. "The DPJ is taking a long time to make a decision on the base relocation, and now May is cited as the month when it will be made, but I don't think that the current plan will be accepted."