Japan and US to keep a huge US military base on the island of Okinawa.

[Happy_S]

Japan and US to keep a huge US military base on the island of Okinawa.





http://img1/th/00029/kovv6r4ef0t4.jpg


Japan and the United States announced Friday an agreement to keep a huge US military base on the island of Okinawa in defiance of local opposition, capping several months of tension between the allies.

Tokyo and Washington said in a joint statement that the Futenma airbase would be moved, as first agreed in 2006, from a city area to the coastal Henoko region of the southern island.

The row, which has badly strained ties between the security allies for more than eight months, was finally resolved after a telephone talk between Japan's centre-left Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and President Barack Obama.

"We were able to reach an agreement on the Futenma issue by the end of May," Hatoyama told reporters, referring to a self-imposed deadline on the issue that has also been his top domestic political headache.

The White House said both leaders "expressed satisfaction with the progress made by the two sides in reaching an operationally viable and politically sustainable plan to relocate the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma."

The base has long angered locals because of aircraft noise, pollution, the risk of crashes and friction with American service personnel, especially after the 1995 r*** of a 12-year-old girl by three US servicemen.

Hatoyama -- who took power in September, ending a half-century of conservative rule -- initially said he may scrap the 2006 relocation pact and instead move the base off the island, but then failed to find an alternative location.

He caved in early this month when he said the base would stay on Okinawa, citing the need for a strong US military presence for regional security.

In their statement, both sides said that "the US-Japan alliance remains indispensable not only to the defence of Japan, but also to the peace, security and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region."

"Recent developments in the security environment of Northeast Asia reaffirmed the significance of the alliance," they said, a reference to a multinational report that last week blamed North Korea for sinking a South Korean naval vessel in March, killing 46 sailors.

In the statement, both nations' foreign and defence ministers confirmed that they will return to the existing pact over the base relocation, reached in 2006 between past conservative administrations of Japan and the United States.

"Both sides confirmed the intention to locate the replacement facility at the Camp Schwab Henoko-saki area and adjacent waters," the statement said.

The premier's pacifist coalition partner the Social Democrats strongly oppose the move, citing anti-base sentiment on Okinawa, although they have backed away from threats to leave the government over the issue.

The festering base dispute has hammered Hatoyama's approval ratings and provoked mass anti-base rallies, both on Okinawa and other islands that his government has been eyeing as potential alternative base locations.

With upper house elections slated for July, poll ratings for the premier's cabinet have plunged from over 70 percent last year to around 20 percent.

The statement acknowledged that the heavy US military presence on Okinawa has long angered many residents.

Both sides "recognised the importance of responding to the concerns of the people of Okinawa that they bear a disproportionate burden related to the presence of US forces," their statement said.

They also said that some military training may in future be shifted outside of Okinawa, possibly to the remote island of Tokunoshima, to Japan Self-Defense Force bases elsewhere in Japan, or to the US territory of Guam.

Hatoyama was slated to hold a formal news conference in the afternoon to discuss the agreement.

 

[Ceewan]

Probably the wisest of decisions, temporarily at least.

Let us face it. Japan does not seem to have a lot of reliable military allies in an area of the world that is ripe with military tension. For a variety of reasons, some of which I see as the fault of US policy, the Japanese are not where they could be as far as offering their people the military security that they could be capable of.

The unmentioned military giant of this region would be China, who have already shown unpredictabilty and disregard for worldwide outrage when it comes to military matters. Tibet is an excellent case in point, IMO. There was and is no true benefit to this conquest except perhaps military positioning. Chinas' constant agressive position towards Taiwan is no laughing matter either. With Chinas' current moves to build up a larger and better navy this can only be seen as a threatening move towards its' neighbors who have not the military might to pose any threat to China itself.

As far as North Korea is concerned they are the only true ally China has, (and vice a versa), very likely Chinas' influence over their actions is not understated within the least. There has been much evidence to suggest that without Chinas' constant financial support North Korea would completely collapse fiscally.

I hold nothing against the Chinese people, from what I know they seem to be a very decent sort overall. But they hold little, if any, sway with the Chinese government. A Chinese government that has proven to hold old grudges, and to act on them. This is something the Japanese government ignores at their own peril.

This is just my opinion of course but again, I really think this is not the worst decision that could have been made.

 

[Yobuita]

I respectfully disagree with you. If you have a look at the size of the base it takes up most of Okinawa.

I believe that the fact that they wanted to make their bases even larger was a double bluff. The local people were starting to grow stronger in speaking out and saying that they didn't want to base and the American forces cleverly decided that they wanted to add an extra base to the island. The fight changed from whether or not they should be there to whether or not the new base was needed.

The Americans knew they wouldn't get another base there, but wanted to trick the Japanese people again. So now the Japanese people have won their batter against the extra base, but the Americans can still keep their precious base.

The Okinawan people want their land back but are too scared to speak up and politicians in Tokyo are only too please to bend over backwards for their beloved Americans.

Most northern base in Okinawa.

In answer to `They need to keep the base if North Korea and South Korea start a war` there are many other American bases in Japan and there shouldn't be any problem landing their aircraft there.

America has 1,011,359,000 square miles of land for their military in Japan and have many bases in different cities including Hokkaido(17), Aomori(5), Iwata(1), Miyagi(3), Ibaraki(1), Chiba(1), Gunma(1), Saitama(3), Tokyo(7), Kanagawa(14), Shizuoka(4), Moyazaki(2), Kumamoto(3), Nagasaki(12), Saga(1), Fukuoka(2), Oita(2), Yamaguchi(2), Hiroshima(7), Hyogo(1), Shiga(1), Gifu(1), Ishikawa(1), Yamanashi(1), Niigata(1), Yamagata (1) and Okinawa(37)

 

[Ceewan]

A very informative and well thought out post. Thank you, I find myself enlightened in areas I was not aware of.

Still, until an equatable deterent to possible Chinese aggression, (I do not think North Korea will take any action without the full support and backing of the Chinese government, whether or not that backing is publically stated), I retain that this is the lesser of two evils. I should also state that I do not think any US base in that region to be sufficient to refute any serious aggressive act by the Chinese. They are a very effective deterrent though, IMO, both politically and militarily.

Please keep in mind that these bases are very expensive to upkeep in a time when closing them would save the Americans a lot of money and free up needed military resources. So why is America intent on retaining these bases? What possible self interest could there be? They are a constant drain, a money pit, with no true financial rewards or incentives. Could it not just be possible that these bases are seen as important from a military standpoint alone?

All that said, again your input Yobuita was very on target overall, I think. The people of Okinawa should be able to make their own decisions and have their voice heard on this. But it should be an informed choice.

 

[guy]

Just my two cents:

I agree that North Korea will not take any action against any of its neighbors. Despite its oppresive regime, it simply doesn't have the proper infrastructure to sustain any amount of warfare.

The question isn't what North Korea might do, but when the regime will collapse. Once it does, the entire region will become a giant power vacuum.
1) From the cultural perspective, South Korea will seek reunification. But given how far into the ground North Korea has been run, I think it would be very difficult economically for South Korea to carry such an ambitious plan.
2) North Korea's allegiences are more with Communist China than "Westernized" South Korea anyway. China will be eyeing the area as a way to expand its power and influence over the East-Asia region.
3) More likely is that the post-North Korea area could be designated as a special zone (perhaps by the UN) for a period of time while negotiations are held on the transfer of power. In this case, the US clearly has a huge interest in having military nearby, to help facilitate control of the region (ie: to help swing control of the region towards the western powers, away from China).

Of course, whether you agree that the US should continue sticking their noses in other countries' business is a different matter altogether.

For the Okinawans and the politicians in Tokyo, it's a tough sell. No one wants another country's military in their back yard. But if your next door neighbor is up to no good, then suddenly having a strong ally nearby can be very useful. I don't know if its necessarily the lesser of two evils (we can't predict the future, so who's to say it is in fact "lesser"); but we certainly can say it's a two-way street.

 

[Sakunyuusha]

I had no idea that the American military had bases in Japan outside of Okinawa. As many as 17 in Hokkaido!? Wow, that's news to me.

There probably wouldn't be as much of a problem if the military base were located on an as-yet uninhabited island. Paradoxically, uninhabited islands remain uninhabited in modern times typically because they are not well-suited to sustaining human life in the long term: and therefore they're going to be unpopular choices for base relocations.

IMO, the Americans need to go home. A continued presence into the early 1950s, I could understand. Any longer than that, though, and you may as well throw out the peace treaty. An American presence in 2010 translates quite clearly to two things:
(1) this base offers us (the USA) a strategic advantage over our adversaries, and we're not willing to give it up even if you ask us to nicely
(2) we fear what would happen if Japan were to be left to its own devices

Why? The Japanese people have proven themselves time and again over the last century to be intelligent, resourceful, and above all else professionally competitive. These are the makings of a fine military power: and I think it's obvious America (as a government) fears this and therefore refuses to leave.

But their fears be damned, it's unethical to stay this long. Like I said, you may as well tell the Japanese people "the war's back on, bitches." =\ "If you want us to leave your homeland, you're going to have to fight us for it."

 

[coedriko]

I usually don't have much to comment on matters as this, but i feel i must say something this time. First of all, the aerial photo posted above IS of Futenma airstation but in no way does it take up most of the island. It is actually a very small airstation with minimal other resources on the base. Kadena airstation is around three times as big and is not seen visible in the picture. As for how all this fell through, i can not say. What i do know is that america was willing to relocate to ease the tension. You could only imagine the logistical and economical burden this kind of move would be. Being stationed there for many years, I have a great respect for the people and can honestly say most of the people want the military presents. Most that oppose it are the older generation; and rightfully so. In closing, know that the US presents there is not part of a peace treaty but of an unconditional surrender. After WWII it was deemed necessary to be there to prevent another great war. Now it is a relationship of peace with one of our best allies. We share these resources and train together.

 

[Sakunyuusha]

Unconditional surrender, then. The people are still asking the US nicely to leave. The US is saying, "No." Logically, there are only two options: either back down or put up a fight. The threat to Japan in 1945 of total annihilation was very real (albeit not total nuclear annihilation). There was a very real incentive to saying, "Okay, we give up, no conditions." But in 2010, Japan is free to challenge the status quo with minimal fear of total annihilation by American forces. A, America gains little from it. B, the Cold War has taught us the problem of the stalemate between nuclear powers (i.e. America can't nuke an enemy state without being nuked in kind [by Russia, China, et al]). C, America is not well-prepared to mobilize a by-land, by-sea, or by-air invasion force for the island-nation of Japan (whereas it was in Summer of '45). So on and so forth. You could say, "Well that would be pretty dishonorable of the Japanese to renege on their unconditional surrender! >(" But then I could say "Well, an unconditional surrender is pretty base in and of itself."

 

[Aqua2213]

Prime minister resigns in Japan

Cites battle over Okinawa base, funding scandal

By Mari Yamaguchi Associated Press / June 2, 2010

TOKYO — Embattled Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of Japan said today that he is resigning over his broken campaign promise to move a US Marine base off the southern island of Okinawa.


The prime minister faced growing pressure from within his own party to resign ahead of next month’s upper house elections. His approval ratings had plummeted over his bungled handling of the relocation of the Marine Air Station Futenma, which reinforced his public image as an indecisive leader.

Hatoyama is the fourth Japanese prime minister to resign in four years.

Until last night, Hatoyama insisted he would stay on while intermittently holding talks with key members of his Democratic Party of Japan. But this morning, after eight months in office, Hatoyama faced the nation to say he is stepping down.

“Since last year’s elections, I tried to change politics in which the people of Japan would be the main characters,’’ he told a news conference broadcast nationwide. But he conceded his efforts fell short.

“That’s mainly because of my failings,’’ he said.

Hatoyama, 63, cited two main reasons for his resignation: the Futenma issue, which led to the dismissal of one of his Cabinet members who could not accept his decision, and a political funding scandal. In that incident, two of his aides were convicted of falsifying political contribution reports and sentenced to suspended prison terms. Hatoyama did not face charges.

His government came to power amid high hopes in September after his party soundly defeated the long-ruling conservatives in lower house elections.

Hatoyama had promised to forge a “more equal’’ relationship with the United States and to move Futenma off Okinawa, which hosts more than half the 47,000 US troops in Japan under a security pact.

But last week, he said he would go along with the 2006 agreement to move the base to a northern part of the island, infuriating residents who want it off Okinawa entirely.

Hatoyama said today that recent tensions in the Korean peninsula surrounding the sinking of a South Korean warship reminded him of the potential instability in Northeast Asia and drove home the importance of the US-Japan security pact.

“There was no choice but to keep the base on Okinawa,’’ he said.

His three-way coalition was cut to two members over the weekend when a junior partner, the Social Democrats, withdrew after the prime minister expelled its leader Mizuho Fukushima, who rejected the Futenma decision, from the Cabinet.

“I need to take responsibility for forcing the Social Democrats to withdraw from the coalition,’’ Hatoyama said.

Fukushima’s dismissal enhanced her public standing as a politician who stood up for her convictions.

-----------------------------------------------------------

All right hands off the Big RED Buzzer. Put the Nukes away.

It's just another Politician who can't walk the straight and narrow.

Oh .... and will somebody tell the JI Army to stand down...

http://www.akiba-online.com/forum/showpost.php?p=737749&postcount=4

 

[guy]

B, the Cold War has taught us the problem of the stalemate between nuclear powers (i.e. America can't nuke an enemy state without being nuked in kind [by Russia, China, et al]).

The term you're looking for is "mutually assured destruction". But most people consider it as a byproduct of nuclear proliferation, not a method of leveraging power.

 

[muda]

lol dude japan's prime minister has been changing like shitloads of times lol i cant believe this..

i dunt know how kan naoto will eventually solve this shit with okinawa

 

[Arashi]

Why are the japanese angry with the US bases? Because those are not there to protect Japan, but to attack it. The US is not likely to keep their end of the bargain if real trouble arises at the Pacific.:evil:

 

[Syobon]

Okinawa is the smallest problem:

Never lose a war...