Five Candidates for the Corporate Death Penalty

Published on Thursday, October 20, 2011 by Single Payer Action

by Russell Mokhiber

One of the most famous signs to come out of Occupy Wall Street stated simply: “I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.”

That was sort of a joke.

But in fact, for the benefit of real live human beings, some corporations ought to be executed.

When it comes to the serious crimes that big corporations engage in – pollution, corruption, fraud, threatening the lives of real Americans – the death penalty is off the table. (photo: David Shankbone)

My guess is that most of the occupiers at Wall Street would be in favor of the corporate death penalty.

Some – like Richard Grossman – would criminalize the corporate form.

But if you want to take the incremental approach, here’s my list of five candidates for the corporate death penalty.

Health insurance corporations. Most western industrialized countries – with the exception of the USA – already have this death penalty in place. In those countries, corporations are not allowed to sell primary private health insurance. Instead, there is a public single payer – everybody in, nobody out. Under this death penalty proposal corporations like Aetna, CIGNA, UnitedHealth, and Wellpoint would be put out of business. And with a public single payer to replace them, we’d save billions of dollars and the lives of more than 45,000 Americans who die every year from lack of health insurance.

Nuclear power corporations. Do we really need a Fukushima here in the United States? We do not. Without government loan guarantees and federal limits on nuclear liability, the industry would be put out of business. So, we could simply cut the federal subsidy and that would be the end of it. And we should. A wide range of safer, cleaner energy options is available to replace the energy currently being generated by unsafe nuclear power.

Giant Banks. Wells Fargo. Citibank. Bank of America. JP Morgan Chase. Morgan Stanley. Goldman Sachs. They should be executed – broken up and replaced by smaller banks. Break up the big banks. And impose a hard cap on their size. No bank should have assets of more than four percent of GDP. There is support across the political spectrum for this proposal. During the debate over financial reform, the measure garnered 33 votes in the Senate – it was called the Brown-Kaufman amendment.

Fracking corporations. Hydraulic fracturing – fracking – is wrecking havoc in the northeastern part of the United States. Any corporation engaged in fracking behavior that threatens drinking water supplies ought to be put out of business. Anti-fracking activists in New York have already drafted legislation that would criminalize fracking corporations.

Corporate criminal recidivists. Legislatures should adopt provisions to strip corporations of their charters for serious corporate violations or for recidivist behavior. Some states already have such provisions, although they are rarely invoked.

Some corporations have been put to death for wrongful behavior, but they have been mostly smaller companies.

In 1983, the Attorney General of Virginia asked the state’s corporation commission to dissolve a book company convicted of possessing obscene films.

But when it comes to the serious crimes that big corporations engage in – pollution, corruption, fraud, threatening the lives of real Americans – the death penalty is off the table.

If we are serious about corporate crime, the death penalty is a deterrent that will work.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is also founder of singlepayeraction.org, and editor of the website Morgan County USA.

10,000 May Die in Ecuador Due to Chevron's Pollution

by Nick Magel from Commondreams.org

Shockwaves rippled through the world's largest environmental lawsuit on Friday, as a new damages assessment was submitted in the lawsuit between 30,000 Indigenous peoples and local farmers against the global oil giant Chevron. The damages assessment finds that because of factors still persisting in the Ecuadorean rainforest from Chevron's pollution, nearly 10,000 Ecuadoreans are at significant risk of dying from cancer by the year 2080. The technical and medical experts who authored the assessment claim that the conditions that remain from Chevron's systemic pollution in the Amazon will continue to cause cancer, birth defects, and other ailments for decades.

"The information in this submission is highly significant because it reflects clearly that there is a terrible oil-related disaster in Ecuador in the area where Chevron operated," said Pablo Fajardo, lead lawyer for the Ecuadorian communities suing Chevron.

The new assessment also placed damages to Ecuadorian communities at $40-90 billion rather than the court's original $27.3 billion. The increase in damages is due to Chevron's "unjust enrichment." Unjust enrichment is essentially money saved by using sub-standard drilling practices. Simply, Chevron cut corners and communities paid the price, a very high price.

Fajardo was clear about Chevron's human impact in the region. "What these analyses make chillingly clear is that thousands of Ecuadorian citizens may well contract and die of cancer in the coming decades because of Chevron's contamination."

Marta Isabel Arrobo, 49, recalls numerous health problems she and her family have suffered living in close proximity to several toxic oil pits abandoned by Texaco (now Chevron) in the Ecuadorean Amazon rainforest. Photo by Caroline Bennett / Rainforest Action Network

This new damages assessment submitted by the plaintiffs comes after the presiding judge opened a 45-day window for both parties to submit their own damage assessments to the court. The plantiffs accepted the offer while Chevron rejected the opportunity. A peculiar move considering Chevron has spent the last two years attacking original independent damages assessment that contained over 105 expert reports and more than 64,000 samples. Fajardo points that many of the reports and samples Chevron argues are in fact Chevron's own filings.

"The Ecuador court has more than enough evidence and expert analyses to determine the cost of remediating the extensive oil pollution that has devastated thousands in the region for decades," Fajardo added. "There are more than 100 different expert reports in evidence, dozens of them produced by Chevron, which overwhelmingly demonstrate extensive contamination at all of Chevron's former oil production facilities."

Furthermore, court documents filed in US federal court two weeks ago detailed environmental audits commissioned by Texaco in 1993 (Chevron bought Texaco in 2001) before they pulled out of Ecuador showed that:

· "Hydrocarbon contamination requiring remediation at all production facilities and a majority of the drill sites."· "Produced water (which contains carcinogens and toxic heavy metals) is being discharged to the environment in all cases."· "Contamination of soil and water was observed at well sites, production stations and along roadways, flowlines and secondary pipelines.

Rainforest Action Network Executive Director Rebecca Tarbotton follows up, "These documents say two things. One, if Chevron is genuinely digging for truth, they are only going to find more evidence that shows one thing: they are guilty. Two, these documents not only illustrate Chevron's liability; they demonstrate the company's knowledge of this liability when they acquired Texaco." Although somewhat technical, you can read the audits here and here.

These audits and the new damages assessment were completed decades apart, but both illustrate the insurmountable evidence against Chevron. Perhaps it is that reality that has left Chevron refusing to complete its own assessment. The breadth of Chevron's pollution and the toxic conditions that still exist in the Amazon are clear not matter whose assessment it is.

The official court assessment placed the human cost and ecological damages at $27.3 billion in 2008. Since that amount was established Chevron divested energy from arguing the case and relied on a delay and deflect strategy. Having already conceded that it expects to be found liable for the pollution, Chevron has turned its efforts towards spy tapes, manufactured media, and a PR blitz even BP is envious of.

One of Chevron's most infamous ploys is that of a spy videotape scandal (not to be confused with Chevron's attempts to turn journalists into spies). Chevron associates, one a former drug runner and the other a former employee, secretly videotaped conversations in which they actively attempted to entrap the judge presiding over the court case, the case as come to emblemize Chevron's "dirty tricks". Coincidently this "dirty trick" and its legality being called into question the same week as the new damage assessments announcement.

Diego Borja, a former Chevron employee, has been ordered by a US federal judge to appear for a deposition to explain his relationship with Chevron and his motive for the potentially illegal video sting operation.

The US federal judge who ordered the subpoena said: "There is evidence ... suggesting that Mr. Borja was not an innocent third party who just happened to learn of the alleged bribery scheme but rather was a long-time associate of Chevron whom Chevron would pay for any favorable testimony."

It's easy to understand why the judge would draw such conclusions. Soon after Borja recorded himself in conversations Chevron uprooted him from Ecuador gave him a $10,000 monthly stipend and placed him in a secluded townhouse on the outskirts of San Ramon CA, where Chevron's world headquarters are located. There he as been hidden from the public while Chevron pays for his legal fees and counsel. Depending on the outcome of the deposition Chevron could find itself in not only a very embarrassing situation but also a very illegal one.

As the truth in Ecaudor continues to back Chevron into a corner we unfortunately can expect more baseless fireworks and delay tactics. However, a recent article on Dow Jones is hopeful in describing the case as "entering a decisive stage." Then we can turn our focus from Chevron's shenanigans to Chevron's clean up in the Amazon communities that have waited to long for Chevron to do what's right.

Nick Magel is a Human Rights and Environmental campaigner working on corporate accountability projects for the last 4 years. He lives in San Francisco. You can follow him on twitter @nickmagel or email him at njmagel@yahoo.com

US envoy to discuss Japan bases

US envoy to discuss Japan bases

UPDATED ON:
Monday, February 01, 2010
08:47 Mecca time, 05:47 GMT

The US assistant secretary of state for East Asia is due to arrive in Tokyo on Monday for talks on the future of American military bases in Japan.

Kurt Campbell's visit comes after thousands of people from across Japan joined protests at the weekend against plans to relocate a US base on the southern island of Okinawa.

Some 47,000 US troops are stationed in Japan, with more than half on the island.

Local residents have long complained about noise, pollution and crime around the bases.

In 2006, the two countries signed a pact that called for the realignment of American troops in the country and for a marine base on the island to be moved to a less populated area.

But the newly elected Japanese government is re-examining the deal, caught between increasing public opposition to US troops and its crucial military alliance with Washington.

'Cornerstone' alliance

Last month Campbell called on Japan to stick to the 2006 deal and relocate the US Futenma air base in Okinawa.

In written testimony before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on January 21, Campbell said the alliance with Japan was a "cornerstone" of the US engagement in Asia.

Campbell also reiterated Washington's desire to see that the US Marine Corps Air Station at Futenma be transferred to another area on the island by 2014.

He said the US is assisting the Japanese government, led by prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, with its review of the Futenma relocation plan.

Decision postponed

However, Hatoyama has repeatedly postponed his decision on the pact, with members of his own government divided on how to proceed.

Last week, he pledged to resolve the issue by May, just before national elections.

But the issue is a difficult one for the prime minister to juggle, with members of his coalition government calling for all US troops to leave Japan.

At a rally against the base, Mizuho Fukushima, a minister in Hatoyama's cabinet, told a crowd protesters that she wants to see the Okinawa base closed and US troops moved out of Japan entirely.

Meanwhile, opposition to the US-Japan pact is growing louder, as thousands marched through central Tokyo on Saturday.

Labor unionists, pacifists, environmentalists and students called for an end to the US troop presence.

They gathered for a rally at a park, under a banner that read "Change! Japan-U.S. Relations".

Mayor's election in Okinawa is setback for U.S. air base move

Mayor's election in Okinawa is setback for U.S. air base move

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 25, 2010

TOKYO -- In a small-town election that may have a big impact on U.S. ties with Japan, voters in Nago on Okinawa chose a new mayor Sunday who opposes the relocation of a noisy U.S. military air base to his town.

Susumu Inamine, who said during his campaign that he did not want the air station constructed in Nago, defeated the incumbent, Yoshikazu Shimabukuro, who has long supported hosting the base as a way of increasing jobs and investment.

"I was campaigning in the election with a pledge not to have a new base built," Inamine told supporters Sunday night.

The United States and Japan agreed four years ago to move the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, now located in a dense urban area in the center of Okinawa, to Nago, a town of 60,000 in the thinly populated northern part of the tropical island. It was to have been built on landfill along a pristine coast on the edge of the town.

But to the exasperation of the Obama administration, that deal was put on hold last fall after the election of a new government led by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who says Japan has been too passive in its dealings with the United States. Hatoyama has suggested that the base be moved off Okinawa or out of Japan altogether -- and has also said that the outcome of the mayoral vote in Nago would be a factor in his government's final decision, which he has promised to make by May.

Inamine's anti-base campaign attracted support from environmentalists and from local members of Hatoyama's Democratic Party of Japan and its coalition partners, as well as from the Japanese Communist Party.

Nago's mayor avoided mention of the airbase in his campaign, saying its relocation was not a matter that could or should be decided by him or residents of his city.

That view is shared by U.S. Marine Corps commanders, who view the Futenma air station as a linchpin in the continuous training and on-call mobility of the Third Marine Expeditionary Force, which is based on Okinawa and is the only such U.S. force in the Far East.

"National security policy cannot be made in towns and villages," Lt. Gen. Keith J. Stalder, commander of Marine forces in the Pacific, said in an interview last week.

Relocating the Marine air station to Nago is a key part of a $26 billion deal between Japan and the United States to transfer 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam and turn over valuable tracts of land to people on the island. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said last fall that the deal would probably collapse if the air station does not move to Nago.

Several U.S. officials said last week they believe that senior leaders in the Hatoyama government have begun to realize that there is no workable alternative to relocating the air station as previously agreed. They also said that such an important decision should be made in Tokyo and not in a local election.

Construction of the air station in Nago would require a massive landfill in a picturesque stretch of waters now used by fishermen and snorkelers. It is opposed by environmentalists who have filed a lawsuit saying it would destroy habitat of the rare dugong, a manatee-like sea mammal. A Japanese government environmental assessment has said that dugongs have not been seen in the proposed construction area for many years.

For many Okinawans, the Futenma air station has become a symbol of the noise, pollution and risk of accidents that they associate with the large U.S. military presence on the island.

Surrounded by 92,000 people in the city of Ginowan, Futenma torments its neighbors with the comings and going of combat helicopters and transport aircraft.

In 2004, a helicopter based at the airfield crashed into the administration building of a nearby college. There were no deaths, but the incident angered local residents and led to the 2006 agreement to move the air base to Nago.

The vote in Nago does not necessarily kill the relocation of the air station. The final decision is up to the governor of Okinawa, who has shown qualified support for the base relocation plan, and the central government in Tokyo.

Q+A: U.S. base feud plagues alliance with Japan

Q+A: U.S. base feud plagues alliance with Japan

Linda Sieg
TOKYO
Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:05am EST

TOKYO (Reuters) - A feud over plans to relocate a U.S. military base on Japan's Okinawa island as part of a broad reorganization of U.S. troops is fraying ties between Japan's four-month-old government and close ally Washington.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said ahead of the August election that swept his Democratic Party to power he favored moving the U.S. Marines' Futenma airbase off Okinawa island, and two tiny coalition partners insist he should make good on those remarks. He has pledged to decide on the matter by May.

Following are some questions and answers about the issue.

WHY CLOSE THE FUTENMA BASE AND REPLACE IT?

Residents of Okinawa, 1,600 km (1,000 miles) south of Tokyo and reluctant host to about half the 47,000 U.S. military personnel in Japan, have long resented what they see as an unfair burden in maintaining the U.S.-Japan security alliance.

The concentration of U.S. bases on Okinawa, a major U.S. military forward logistics base in the western Pacific, is a legacy of America's occupation of the island from 1945 to 1972.

Many locals associate the bases with crime, noise, pollution and accidents, and outrage flares periodically -- most strikingly after the 1995 rape of a schoolgirl by three U.S. servicemen.

As part of a 1996 pact to reduce the U.S. military presence, the United States and Japan agreed to close Futenma Air Station, home to about 4,000 Marines and located in crowded Ginowan City, within seven years if a replacement could be found in Okinawa.

An initial plan for an offshore facility in northern Okinawa was opposed by locals and environmentalists. The current plan is for relocation to a northern site in the city of Nago to be partly built within another U.S. base and on reclaimed land.

IS THIS JUST ABOUT FUTENMA?

No. The issue is much broader. Washington and Tokyo agreed in 2006 on a "road map" to transform the decades-old alliance, the pillar of Japan's post-World War Two security policies.

Part of a U.S. effort to make its military more flexible globally, the realignment fit efforts by Japan's then-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to shed the constraints of its postwar pacifist constitution and assume a higher global security profile.

Central to the pact was a plan to reorganize U.S. troops in Japan, including a shift of about 8,000 Marines by 2014 to the U.S. territory of Guam from Okinawa. The Marines' move, however, depends on finding a replacement site for Futenma.

WHY HAS THIS DISPUTE FLARED UP NOW?

Hatoyama's Democratic Party, which took power in September, promised in the campaign leading up to its election victory that it would review the realignment pact as well as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) governing the U.S. military in Japan. Hatoyama said moving Futenma's functions off Okinawa was best.

More broadly, the Democrats have promised to adopt a diplomatic stance less subservient to Washington, a shift from the ousted long-dominant LDP.

Anxiety is exacerbated by questions about the overall future of the five-decade-old U.S.-Japan alliance as both face the challenge of China's rising economic and military might.

CAN A CRISIS BE AVOIDED?

Maybe, but the outlines of any resolution remain murky.

Washington is unlikely to agree to substantial changes to the 2006 plan. Japan might eventually agree to the current plan as is, or with slight modifications, but that could cause a rift with two tiny parties whose backing is needed to pass laws smoothly and upset Okinawa residents. It would also cause voters to wonder why Hatoyama raised the issue in the first place.

Delaying a decision until May complicates things because an anti-base candidate could win a January 24 election for the mayor of Nago, although the risk of upsetting coalition partners could decline somewhat once key bills are enacted in parliament.

Appearing to dither or endanger the alliance could undermine Hatoyama's public support ahead of the election, which the Democrats need to win to reduce dependence on the two tiny parties and avoid creating a deadlock that would stymie policies.

Few analysts expect the dispute to spill over into trade and investment ties between the world's two biggest economies but damage to U.S.-Japan alliance could spell geopolitical uncertainty in a region home to a rising China and an unpredictable North Korea, eventually affecting investment flows.

Guam residents voice concerns about military's expansion plans

Guam residents voice concerns about military's expansion plans

Story and photos by Teri Weaver, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Monday, January 11, 2010

MANGILAO, Guam — Hundreds of people on Guam showed up at public hearings last week to question, protest or try to understand a proposed U.S. military expansion that would add more than 9,000 troops to the island.

Some shouted against the move, which could increase the island’s population of 178,000 by an estimated 19 percent in seven years. A few cried in anger and sadness, saying they feared losing more of the island’s Chamorro culture. One high school student rapped his message. A college student sang his. A handful of older residents spoke only in Chamorro.

Still others cited the military’s environmental impact statement chapter and verse. And they challenged the military on a range of concerns — crime, sexually transmitted diseases, pollution, noise, traffic, health, trash, public schools, jobs.

"This is not normal population growth," Kenneth Leon-Guerrero, of Santa Rita, said at Saturday’s hearing in the University of Guam’s field house. "This is whether-you-want-it-or-not growth."

Until mid-February, the military is collecting written and verbal comments on its impact statement, a federally required study that explains how the military plans to avoid adverse effects, or mitigate them, as it expands. Six public hearings this month — four in Guam and two on nearby Tinian — are letting people sound off.

The Guam buildup plan was announced in 2006 as part of an agreement struck between the United States and Japan to move 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam — then priced at $10.29 billion. Other parts of the buildup include an Army air defense unit and a new pier for extended berths for aircraft carriers.

More recently, a newly elected Japanese government has balked at the plan because it relocates, rather than removes, a Marine air station on Okinawa. U.S. military officials, however, say they believe the move will go forward as planned.

Between the 2006 announcement and now, local Guam officials and residents heard few details about the plan. Just before Thanksgiving, the military issued the environmental impact statement, giving residents an in-depth look at what the military has in mind — nearly 80,000 extra people, for a time, on the 212-square-mile island.

“It has spurred considerable concern in the community,” said Guam Senator B. J. Cruz, who is considering reviving an effort to call for a public referendum on the buildup.

David Bice, a retired Marine general charged with shepherding the project, said the military wants the public unified behind the project.

“We want a one-Guam approach,” he said.

Deciding whether to embrace the project or reject it can be hard for some Guamanians.

Since 1993, Elizabeth and Richard Reed have lived next to the Navy’s 8,800-acre munitions storage base in the southern part of the island. More recently, they’ve seen the military surveying the area, and they feared the Navy was going to build a fence that would block the Reeds’ view.

Before Thursday’s hearing at Southern High School in Santa Rita, a Navy representative said no fence was planned. Elizabeth Reed, a local teacher, was relieved.

Reed said she has conflicting views about the buildup. Her husband is an architect, and the project could be a boon. But she also worries about the natural resources and added traffic on the island.

“I don’t dislike the military,” Reed said Thursday evening. “It’s just that it’s a small island.”

Some at the week’s hearings encouraged the crowds to welcome the buildup, as long as the military respects the island and its people.

Vicente Gumataotao, mayor of Piti, which includes Apra Harbor, was a boy during World War II when first the Japanese and then the Americans took over the island.

“If you lived through my life, you would be glad to see the Marines here,” he said.

But many didn’t buy the message.

“Guam is not a strategic location,” said Melvin WonPat-Borja, another local teacher and son of one of the Guam legislators critical of the plan. “Guam is the people.”

WonPat-Borja, his sisters, their friends and others organized We Are Guahan (Guam), a group protesting the buildup. At the hearings Thursday and Saturday, the group submitted many comments and posted protest signs outside and inside the hearing venues, including one that said: “8,000? How will it change our lives?”

Col. Robert Loynd is one of two Marines on Guam who currently make up Marine Forces Pacific (Forward) Guam, the unit proposed to grow to 8,600 Marines.

Many of the Marines would work in headquarters units and leadership roles, but all the Marines would need constant training in air movements, shore landings, small-arms firing and battalion-level maneuvering. An air station and more small-arms ranges are planned for Guam, while landing and mechanized maneuvering practice would be on nearby Tinian.

“This will not be a garrison force,” Loynd said later. “It will be a ready-to-go force.”

Carl Peterson has lived on Guam for 44 years and used to be a Russian linguist for the Navy. He spoke Saturday, saying the island needs the military for its industry and jobs.

“We need the money,” Peterson said of the island that relies mainly on tourism and has no major exports. “We can mitigate the challenges. We just need to find solutions to the problems.”

Christopher Salas, 16, is a junior at Southern, and he was interested to hear about some of those jobs.

The project is expected to create 43,000 jobs at its peak, with 7,000 long-term positions. About a quarter of all the jobs created would go to local residents, with the balance going to immigrant workers and other U.S. residents. As of September, 9.3 percent of people in Guam were out of work, just below the 9.8 percent average for unemployment nationally during the same month.

Salas said he’s worried about the Marines and about too many people coming to Guam to work and then staying. He fears locals would lose even more of their Chamorro heritage. And he said he’s troubled about rumors that Okinawans were kicking out the Marines because they committed too many crimes.

“I don’t want them coming here and disrespecting us,” said Salas, whose T-shirt read Guahan Soldier for Life. “I want to know the real reason the people in Okinawa want the Marines out.”

Bice said Friday he was pleased with the hearings so far.

He said public concerns already have affected plans. A firing range planned for the eastern side of the island would have hurt tourism and fishing, so the military now proposes putting the ranges elsewhere.

Dan Jackson lives near that proposed area on the eastern shores. He opened Saturday’s hearing by blowing a conch to announce the gathering. Then, in Chamorro, he encouraged the group to ban together against the buildup.

“This kind of strategy can be stronger than a typhoon,” Jackson said later in English.

Comments can be submitted at www.guambuildupeis.us until Feb. 18, 3:30 p.m. Guam time.

FOCUS: Japan to see tough time with U.S. in 2010, close ties with Asia

FOCUS: Japan to see tough time with U.S. in 2010, close ties with Asia

Dec. 25, 2009
KYODO NEWS

Japan's ties with the United States are expected to be put to the test in 2010 as the country struggles to settle a row over a U.S. military airfield in Okinawa possibly as a step toward reshaping the decades-old bilateral alliance following Tokyo's historic change of power.

In contrast, the new Japanese government's pro-Asia stance, as seen in its ''East Asian community'' concept, could bring the region closer together, but experts say that a quick breakthrough is unlikely in long-standing territorial and other disputes with China and South Korea.

To raise its presence in the international arena, Japan may also explore ways to further contribute to global security, such as through active participation in U.N. peacekeeping missions.

After taking office in September, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama made a smooth diplomatic debut, winning international acclaim for his pledge to set an ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and sharing with Asian countries his long-term view of building an East Asian community, an idea inspired by the European Union.

But it did not take much time for the relationship between Japan and its closest security ally, the United States, to appear strained due to discord over where to relocate the U.S. Marine Corps' Futemma Air Station.

The relocation site was agreed on in 2006 as part of a broader accord on the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, but the Democratic Party of Japan-led government has pledged to move toward reviewing the deal as part of its policy to seek what it calls more ''equal'' Japan-U.S. ties.

The United States has repeatedly pressed Japan to implement the bilateral agreement to move Futemma to a less densely populated area in Okinawa, but Hatoyama has delayed making a decision on the issue until 2010 and also said he will seek an alternative relocation site.

Indicating the deep concerns Japan has on the issue, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said in early December, ''My experience as a politician is telling me that, unless we steadily deal with this issue, we may see a situation in which both Japan and the United States seriously lose trust in each other.''

The row about the Futemma facility has also cast a shadow over planned consultations between the two countries to review the bilateral alliance, with the year 2010 marking the 50th anniversary of the revised Japan-U.S. security treaty.

Okada told a press conference in late December that he hopes to ''move on'' with the consultations while discussing the relocation issue at the same time, but admitted that it is not something he can realize ''right now.''

While Hatoyama's indecisiveness and the differences in opinion seen among Cabinet members on the Futemma issue have given the impression that the government is drifting without a clear direction, speculation is growing that Hatoyama's eyes are actually focused on the creation of new bilateral ties.

''I have had the idea of whether it is appropriate to maintain the presence of another country's military forces (in Japan),'' Hatoyama said in December in explaining a security concept calling for having U.S. forces deployed in Japan only in emergencies. But he noted that he ''must seal'' the idea now that he is prime minister.

Toshikazu Inoue, a Gakushuin University professor, said that Hatoyama's key diplomatic approaches in the last three months have a commonality in that they seek ''a departure'' from Japan's dependence on the United States seen under previous governments led by the Liberal Democratic Party.

While the Futemma issue may become a litmus test of Japan's future diplomatic course, experts and others are divided on whether Tokyo will be able to settle the issue in a way that would mark a historic step toward building a less subservient relationship with the United States.

Government officials are wary about being stuck in a dead-end situation -- either failing to find an alternative relocation site or facing the difficulty of returning to the option of implementing the existing agreement because of possible strong local opposition.

''(By dealing with Futemma and other issues,) I think the DPJ-led government will start to learn that it is impossible to fundamentally change basic national policies related to diplomacy or security,'' Inoue said.

But Yuji Suzuki, a Hosei University professor, speculates that Hatoyama will seek a conclusion to close the Futemma facility and not allow it to be relocated within Okinawa, which is already unhappy about hosting the bulk of U.S. forces in the country because of noise pollution and crimes involving U.S. military personnel.

Such an outcome would not lead to a ''break'' in bilateral ties because Japan and the United States are already ''strongly linked to each other'' in such terms as economic and people-to-people exchanges and because this is a time when the United States appears to be losing its dominant power, Suzuki added.

While ties between Japan and the United States are likely to draw attention in the first half of 2010, Suzuki said that relations with China may be highlighted later in the year such as through the November summit of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum which Japan will host.

''Japan and the United States may see their ties strain over security issues, but in the latter half they will have to make sure that they cooperate to bring in China to the regional economic framework,'' the professor specializing in Pacific politics said.

Japan is also likely to face the task of accelerating its moves toward the realization of an East Asian community by finding specific areas of cooperation such as anti-piracy and copyrights.

''If cooperation were to be thoroughly focused on single issues, it may be difficult for China to say 'No', because it may also serve its interests,'' Suzuki said.

While Japan's ties with China and South Korea are likely to be relatively stable, it is unlikely to create momentum strong enough to settle its dispute with Beijing over gas field development or its territorial dispute with Seoul over the Dokdo islets, known as Takeshima in Japan.

A source close to Japan-South Korea relations warned that there is a possibility that bilateral ties could quickly sour if tension rises over the Takeshima issue, given that 2010 is a rather sensitive year for the two countries -- the 100th anniversary of Japan's annexation of the Korean Peninsula.

As for the decades-old territorial row with Russia, Hatoyama, who is known for his close ties with the country, has been eager to resolve the row. But a senior Foreign Ministry official indicated that an immediate breakthrough is not expected.

While Japan is likely to face difficulty in resolving pending bilateral issues, the government may be able to produce results in areas that involve ''multilateral cooperation'' such as climate change, peacekeeping missions, and nuclear disarmament, Inoue said.

''I think Hatoyama's pledge to cut the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent (from 1990 levels by 2020) succeeded in sending a strong message,'' he said.

''Because there is newness in Japan which has undergone a change of power, Japan could raise its presence by working on what may be called nonconventional diplomatic areas,'' he added.

The senior Foreign Ministry official indicated that more active participation by Japan in U.N. peacekeeping missions may be realized, given Okada's eagerness to do so.

But the official also indicated that the DPJ-led government has much work to do to assure people where Japan is heading, saying, ''It is a time of change. But we don't know yet where the change is heading.''

U.S. EPA: 8 Facilities On Guam Report 8% Increase In Toxic Releases

U.S. EPA: 8 Facilities On Guam Report 8% Increase In Toxic Releases

Guam - Eight facilities in Guam reported an eight percent increase in toxic chemicals released into the air, land and water in 2008 when compared to 2007, according to new data released today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Overall at 53, Guam ranks among one of the lowest of 56 states and territories in total releases.

While the island's water and land releases have increased since 2007, underground injection, off-site transfers, and air releases have decreased. The largest increase was of on-site land releases of 1,048 pounds, largely due to increased releases reported by Andersen Air Force Base in Yigo.

“We encourage people to use data from the Toxics Release Inventory in order to gain a better understanding of what is being released into their neighborhoods,” said Laura Yoshii, acting EPA administrator for the Pacific Southwest region. “Industry and communities informed with accurate information can use the inventory as a starting point to find opportunities to reduce the amount of pollutants released into the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we enjoy.”

Guam Facilities
Guam Power Authority
Hawaiian Rock Products Guam
Mobil Oil Guam Inc. (Cabras Island Terminal)
Shell Guam
South Pacific Petroleum Corp.
Tanguisson Power Plant
US Air Force Andersen Air Force Base
US Navy COMNAVMARIANAS Guam Main Base – Apra Harbor WWTP

The data comes from the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory, commonly referred to as TRI. It’s one of EPA’s largest publicly available databases, arming communities with valuable information on more than 650 toxic chemicals released by various industries. The chemical information in the inventory is calculated by industrial facilities and reported to the EPA, as required by law.

Total releases include toxic chemicals discharged by facilities to air, water, land, and underground, and the amount transferred off-site for disposal. Regulatory controls apply to many of the reported releases. Reporting facilities must comply with environmental standards set by local, state and federal agencies.

Annual Toxics Release Inventory reporting began in 1987 after the enactment of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1996). The inventory provides information to the public on annual toxic chemical releases reported by certain industrial and federal facilities. The TRI does not include data on toxic emissions from cars and trucks, nor from the majority of non-industrial sources, such as agriculture. In 2000, TRI expanded to include persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, or PBTs, at ranges from 0.1 grams to 100 pounds. PBT pollutants are toxic chemicals that remain in the environment and food chain, posing risks to human health and ecosystems.

National TRI Findings:

§ There was a 6% decrease in total reported releases into the environment nationwide from 2007 to 2008

§ The number of facilities reporting chemical releases decreased 5% nationally

§ Total PBT chemical releases decreased by 2% nation-wide

For more on the TRI program including additional city, county and facility information, please visit the EPA’s Web sites: http://www.epa.gov/tri, http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer and http://www.epa.gov/enviro.

State fact sheets are available at: http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/tri/ and http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/statefactsheet.htm.

For more information on the PBT Chemicals Program, please visit the EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt

Written by :
News Release

Report: Japan suspends talks on future of U.S. base on Okinawa

Report: Japan suspends talks on future of U.S. base on Okinawa

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:15 AM

SEOUL -- A rift between the United States and Japan over the future of a military air station on Okinawa widened Tuesday, as Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada told Japanese media that talks on relocating the base have been suspended.

The report offers additional evidence that the newly elected government of Japan is uncomfortable with the military footprint of the United States. Most of the 36,000 U.S. forces in Japan are based on the southern island of Okinawa.

Japan may ask the United States to mitigate the military's impact on the daily life of Okinawans before reaching a conclusion on what to do about the disputed air station, chief cabinet secretary Hirofumi Hirano said Tuesday.

"The biggest priority for the Japanese side is to reduce burdens on the people of Okinawa,'' he said at a news conference.

Asked if the U.S. government could comment on the reported suspension of U.S.-Japan talks about the air base, a spokesman for the American Embassy in Tokyo said, "No."

During his visit to Tokyo last month, President Obama and Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama set up a "high-level working group" to resolve the dispute about the location of the Futenma Marine air station, which is located in a densely populated part of Okinawa and has become a symbol of the noise, pollution and crime that many Japanese associate with the U.S. military presence.

But the group's meetings were inconclusive and have been suspended, with no resumption set, Okada said at a press conference, according to the Kyodo news agency.

"We are now waiting to see whether we should hold the discussions again," said Okada, who is a member of the working group, as is U.S. Ambassador John Roos.

After the group's last meeting, on Friday, U.S. officials had said that they expected there would be more negotiating sessions.

Japan and the United States agreed in 2006, as part of a $26 billion plan to move U.S. troops off and around Okinawa, that the Futenma air station would be moved to a new site on the island.

But Hatoyama, who was elected in August on a promise that he would be more assertive than previous Japanese leaders in dealing with the United States, has said he wants the air station moved off Okinawa altogether -- possibly out of the country.

In recent weeks, mixed signals from his government about the future of the air station have frustrated the Obama administration. Obama said that the working group the two created would merely "implement" the existing agreement from 2006, but Hatoyama later said that unless the working group had the power to renegotiate the agreement, its meetings were pointless.

Since then, a number of the prime minister's statements on the base issue have been confusing or contradictory. He said last week that the issue need not be decided soon, then he said perhaps the air station should move to Guam and then he said the issue should be decided soon.

His statement to reporters Tuesday -- "We've come fairly close to a saturation point,'' he said -- was especially vague, and Japanese officials continued to act in ways that could be seen as contradictory.

First, the government approved the allocation of funds to pay for commitments Japan made in its 2006 agreement with the United States over moving American bases and troops, including the relocation of the Marine air field on Okinawa and the transfer of 8,000 Marines from the island to Guam.

But later Hirano, the senior spokesman for Hatoyama, suggested that United States will have to reduce base-hosting burdens on the island before Japan can agree to sort out the air-station issue.

Japanese officials said that Hatoyama may try to meet with Obama next week at the Copenhagen climate conference to discuss the base issue.

Hatoyama is facing a possible revolt by a coalition partner whose votes he needs to pass legislation in the upper house of parliament. The leader of the Social Democratic Party, Mizuho Fukushima, said last week her party might quit the coalition if Hatoyama honors the deal to keep the air station on Okinawa.

The new prime minister is also troubled by declining popularity and an economy at risk of a double-dip recession. To avoid a return to recession, his government on Tuesday agreed to spend $81 billion in new stimulus efforts.

Hatoyama's approval ratings dipped below 60 percent in a newspaper poll released Monday, as many of those polled criticized the prime minister for indecision on the base issue.

Japanese protest against US base

Japanese protest against US base

BBC News


Protesters said they did not want the new government to let them down

Thousands of people have protested on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa demanding the removal of a US military base there.

The local mayor called on new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama "to put an end to Okinawa's burden and ordeal".

Japan and the US agreed in 2006 to relocate the Futenma base from an urban area to reclaimed land but the PM's election has rekindled opposition.

The protest comes ahead of this week's visit by US President Barack Obama.

The BBC's Roland Buerk in Tokyo says the row over the relocation of the base threatens to sour relations between Japan's new government and the country's key security ally.

Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada warned it was unlikely to be resolved before Mr Obama arrives in Japan on Friday.

Japan's new government has expressed a determination to have a less subservient relationship with the US.

Coral reefs

Organisers of the protest claimed 21,000 people took part.

Mayor of Ginowan, Yoichi Iha, told the rally: "I urge Prime Minister Hatoyama to tell President Obama that Okinawa needs no more US bases."

One protester, Yoshiko Yonamine, told AFP news agency: "Okinawans voted for the new administration, thinking it would remove the base from the island. I don't want it to betray us."

The base is in a busy city centre and amid local concern about noise, pollution and crime the two countries agreed in 2006 to move it to reclaimed land on Okinawa's coast.

But, our correspondent says, there is opposition to the new site too because of possible damage to coral reefs.

Okinawa is host to about half the 47,000-strong American force in Japan.

Mr Hatoyama, whose election in August ended more than half a century of conservative dominance, has suggested the base could be moved off the island, or perhaps out of Japan altogether.

The US insists Japan honour the 2006 agreement to move to the coastal Camp Schwab area.

The agreement would see Japan fund the replacement base and the transfer of 8,000 US marines to Guam by 2014.

Oil firm fined for underreporting Guam pollution

Oil firm fined for underreporting Guam pollution

Updated 2 hours 15 minutes ago

The Shell oil company in Guam has been fined for violating a US federal environmental law. In July we reported that the US Environmental Protection Agency had ordered the multinational oil company clean up its facility in Guam's west. A survey of the area uncovered contaminated groundwater, which has the potential to leak into nearby rivers and the ocean.

With the facility due to be sold, the agency raised its concerns that the vital clean-up of hazardous waste may be neglected.

Presenter: Geraldine Coutts
Speaker: Dean Higuchi, US Environmental Protection Agency's Pacific office in Hawaii

19 Beaches on Guam Listed as Unsafe This Weekend

19 beaches listed as unsafe by Guam EPA
By Jason Salas
Published Nov 15, 2008

If you're headed out to one of Guam's beaches this weekend an astounding 19 public beaches, reaching from as far north as Harmon to down south in Umatac, have been cited by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency as being unsafe. They include East Hagatna Bay, the Asan Bay Beach, Padre Palomo Park, Umatac Bay, Southern Christian Academy Beach and the Merizo Pier.

You're advised not to swim or fish in any of these waters, as doing so could cause serious illness.