A Statement on the Futenma Base Transfer Plan
The Ryukyu Shimpo
January 19, 2010
To the Governments of Japan and the United States and to the People of Japan:
A Statement on the Futenma Base Transfer Plan
Tension is rising between the Hatoyama government and the United States government over the planned transfer of Futenma Marine Airfield (Ginowan City). Even in Okinawa, where so many US bases are concentrated, this airfield is located in a densely populated residential area and is said to be the most dangerous of all bases. It should be speedily closed and dismantled. The Government of the United Stetes calls for the problem to be solved by transferring the base to Henoko (on the Camp Schwab coastline) in accordance with the agreement reached with the former LDP government. The Hatoyama Government, having called during the election for Futenma to be transferred either outside Okinawa or outside Japan, conscious of the expressions of opposition welling up among the Okinawan people and concerned over the opposition on the part of the Social Democratic Party of Japan, in December 2009 avoided the call for compliance within the year and instead announced it would decide by May 2010 on what steps to take.
This problem is not one to be considered just by the Hatoyama Government and the people of Okinawa. Everyone living in Japan should consider it seriously, pooling knowledge and seeking ways for a solution. We who live in mainland Japan cannot ignore the current moves surrounding the Futenma transfer. Respecting the wishes of the Okinawan people, noting positively the decision of Prime Minister Hatoyama not to simply yield over the Japan-US “agreement,” we call upon the Governments of Japan and the United States, and on the people of Japan, as follows:
(1) We oppose not only the construction of a new base at Henoko but the transfer of the Futenma base functions anywhere within Okinawa. Already Okinawa is made to bear too heavy a base burden and that burden must not be made even heavier. Furthermore, the will of the Okinawan people has been shown by voting in local plebiscite, by many public opinion surveys, by the Prefectural Assembly elections, and by the recent Lower House elections to be saying a clear “No.” Japan is a democracy and the will of the Okinawan people as shown in elections must be respected. Furthermore, Oura Bay, designated site for base construction under the Japan-US “Agreement,” is a naturally rich marine area, home to the dugong and other creatures. Today, as humanity as a whole is called upon to respond to global warming, we are yet to hear any credible explanation as to why this rich nature should be destroyed for construction of a base.
(2) The United States urges the new government to respect and carry out the “Agreement” made with the old government. However, the Henoko transfer plan proved impossible to carry forward for 13 years even under LDP national and prefectural governments. Actually, the Henoko problem goes back to the 1995 incident of the rape of the schoolgirl by US marines, when complete return [of Futenma] within five to seven years was promised as part of easing the burden on Okinawa. Somehow or other, this was turned into a project for the construction of a massive new base in northern Okinawa. This was unacceptable, not just for the people of Okinawa. The Aso government, anticipating a change of government, negotiated with the US the extremely unequal Guam Transfer Agreement and, using the two-thirds majority it still enjoyed in the House of Representatives, rammed it through the Diet and ratified it. The new government should take its time to consider anew the course of events leading up to the “Guam Transfer Agreement,” and while that process is underway the US should not put pressure on it.
(3) The bases provided for the US forces under the Japan-US Security Treaty are too heavily concentrated in Okinawa. Even taking for granted the existing Japan-US security system, the possibility of having these bases either accepted somewhere in mainland Japan or transferred overseas should be seriously considered.
(4) However, the Japan-US Security Treaty system was drawn up on the basis of the Cold War confrontation more than half a century ago between the United States and the Soviet Union (and China). Now that twenty years have passed since the end of the Cold War, the international environment of East Asia has greatly changed, and it is unimaginable that a large-scale military clash of the kind envisioned during the Cold War could occur in East Asia in the near future. It is time to cast off Cold War thinking, build trust with neighbor states, and construct an East Asia without enemies. From such a perspective, the Okinawan bases, above all Futenma, are unnecessary. We should strive to achieve the abolition not just of Futenma but eventually of all the bases. We believe it is necessary to proceed to reconsider the Japan-US Security Treaty system, starting with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the New Defense Guidelines (the Defense Cooperation Guidelines) and going on to consider the implementation of a “security without foreign troops permanently stationed” such as Prime Minister Hatoyama once proposed, and eventually the Security Treaty itself.
Showing posts with label SOFA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOFA. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Election Don't Expected to Alter US-Japan Ties
Election not expected to alter U.S.-Japan ties
By David Allen and Chiyomi Sumida, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, August 30, 2009
CHATAN, Okinawa — Even though Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party is expected to get a spanking in Sunday’s Lower House election, don’t look for any immediate changes in the U.S.-Japan security relationship, political observers say.
The Democratic Party of Japan, which is expected to win about 300 of the 480 seats up for grabs, has backed off of previous calls for major revisions to the country’s military relationship with the United States.
Instead, it has campaigned on pledges that focus on domestic issues.
U.S. officials have taken a wait-and-see stand on the prospect of dealing with a new government, particularly in regards to plans to reduce the U.S. military footprint on Okinawa by transferring 8,000 Marines and their families to Guam by the end of 2014 and closing several bases.
In a broader agreement signed in May 2006, the so-called Roadmap to Realignment hinged on moving Marine air operations from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to a new air facility to be built on Camp Schwab.
In the past, the DPJ has opposed the project that U.S. officials have called non-negotiable.
"It’s not maybe everything that everybody wanted," Lt. Gen. Edward Rice, commander of U.S. Forces Japan, said earlier this month. "But it certainly is progress in terms of both providing for the continued defense of Japan and security in the region and decreasing the impact of the presence of U.S. forces on the local communities."
Political observers say the DPJ will be treading cautiously on relations with the U.S. and international relations in general during the first few months it is in power.
That is because DPJ’s priority is domestic issues, said Kazuya Sakamoto, professor of international politics at the University of Osaka.
"Because of this, they would rather maintain the status quo in foreign affairs," he said.
The one change in international affairs, Sakamoto said, will be discontinuing the refueling operations conducted by the Japan Self-Defense Force in the Indian Ocean as part of Japan’s support of U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan.
"The DPJ announced earlier that refueling operations would be discontinued after January," Sakamoto told Stars and Stripes last week. But that will have little effect on relations between the two countries, he said.
"The operation has rather a symbolic meaning for U.S.-Japan cooperation," he said.
The DPJ has backed away from its previous call for sweeping changes in the status of forces agreement and host nation support for the U.S. bases.
The party’s current platform now calls for minor changes in the SOFA, including stronger requirements on the U.S. to restore property to its original condition when it’s turned over to Japan.
Okinawan DPJ candidates, although strongly against the Futenma relocation project, appear to be toeing the party line.
While Dennie Tamaki, the party’s candidate from the Okinawa City area, is strongly against the project and wants a drastic reduction in the U.S. military presence on Okinawa, he will not be pressing the issue, senior campaign official Masayoshi Ishikawa said Thursday.
"His priority will be on making sure the jobs of the Japanese employees of the bases are secure," Ishikawa said, adding that Tamaki wants to be sure there is replacement employment whenever a base is closed.
After the post-election confetti has been swept away, the DPJ will also be looking to the situation in North Korea, Sakamoto said.
"The most imminent matter for Japan is North Korea’s nuclear issue, not the realignment of U.S. Forces in Japan or the relocation of Futenma air station," he said. "Japan hopes for denuclearization of the peninsula to secure peace and stability in the region."
In an op-ed piece Friday in the New York Times, party leader Yukio Hatoyama, who is expected to be the next prime minister, said "the Japan-U.S. security pact will continue to be the cornerstone of Japanese diplomatic policy."
However, the country will no longer be the "yes man" he accused the LDP of being.
"We want a relationship where we can make suggestions because we are an ally of the U.S., and not a relationship where we dispatch the Japan Self-Defense Forces overseas having been told to do so by the U.S.," Hatoyama said recently during a news conference in Tokyo.
While the realignment of U.S. troops in Japan may continue, it won’t be at full speed, predicts Masaaki Gabe, professor of international relations at University of the Ryukyus.
Gabe said it will be difficult for the DPJ to abandon the Futenma relocation project, however.
"It’s already ongoing," Gabe said. "But, if they win more than 300 seats, they will likely meddle with the 2010 budget bill, which includes realignment related costs, scheduled to be submitted to the Diet in September."
That could affect Japan’s promise to contribute 60 percent of the $10 billion price tag placed on the relocation of Marines to Guam, Gabe said.
By David Allen and Chiyomi Sumida, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, August 30, 2009
CHATAN, Okinawa — Even though Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party is expected to get a spanking in Sunday’s Lower House election, don’t look for any immediate changes in the U.S.-Japan security relationship, political observers say.
The Democratic Party of Japan, which is expected to win about 300 of the 480 seats up for grabs, has backed off of previous calls for major revisions to the country’s military relationship with the United States.
Instead, it has campaigned on pledges that focus on domestic issues.
U.S. officials have taken a wait-and-see stand on the prospect of dealing with a new government, particularly in regards to plans to reduce the U.S. military footprint on Okinawa by transferring 8,000 Marines and their families to Guam by the end of 2014 and closing several bases.
In a broader agreement signed in May 2006, the so-called Roadmap to Realignment hinged on moving Marine air operations from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to a new air facility to be built on Camp Schwab.
In the past, the DPJ has opposed the project that U.S. officials have called non-negotiable.
"It’s not maybe everything that everybody wanted," Lt. Gen. Edward Rice, commander of U.S. Forces Japan, said earlier this month. "But it certainly is progress in terms of both providing for the continued defense of Japan and security in the region and decreasing the impact of the presence of U.S. forces on the local communities."
Political observers say the DPJ will be treading cautiously on relations with the U.S. and international relations in general during the first few months it is in power.
That is because DPJ’s priority is domestic issues, said Kazuya Sakamoto, professor of international politics at the University of Osaka.
"Because of this, they would rather maintain the status quo in foreign affairs," he said.
The one change in international affairs, Sakamoto said, will be discontinuing the refueling operations conducted by the Japan Self-Defense Force in the Indian Ocean as part of Japan’s support of U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan.
"The DPJ announced earlier that refueling operations would be discontinued after January," Sakamoto told Stars and Stripes last week. But that will have little effect on relations between the two countries, he said.
"The operation has rather a symbolic meaning for U.S.-Japan cooperation," he said.
The DPJ has backed away from its previous call for sweeping changes in the status of forces agreement and host nation support for the U.S. bases.
The party’s current platform now calls for minor changes in the SOFA, including stronger requirements on the U.S. to restore property to its original condition when it’s turned over to Japan.
Okinawan DPJ candidates, although strongly against the Futenma relocation project, appear to be toeing the party line.
While Dennie Tamaki, the party’s candidate from the Okinawa City area, is strongly against the project and wants a drastic reduction in the U.S. military presence on Okinawa, he will not be pressing the issue, senior campaign official Masayoshi Ishikawa said Thursday.
"His priority will be on making sure the jobs of the Japanese employees of the bases are secure," Ishikawa said, adding that Tamaki wants to be sure there is replacement employment whenever a base is closed.
After the post-election confetti has been swept away, the DPJ will also be looking to the situation in North Korea, Sakamoto said.
"The most imminent matter for Japan is North Korea’s nuclear issue, not the realignment of U.S. Forces in Japan or the relocation of Futenma air station," he said. "Japan hopes for denuclearization of the peninsula to secure peace and stability in the region."
In an op-ed piece Friday in the New York Times, party leader Yukio Hatoyama, who is expected to be the next prime minister, said "the Japan-U.S. security pact will continue to be the cornerstone of Japanese diplomatic policy."
However, the country will no longer be the "yes man" he accused the LDP of being.
"We want a relationship where we can make suggestions because we are an ally of the U.S., and not a relationship where we dispatch the Japan Self-Defense Forces overseas having been told to do so by the U.S.," Hatoyama said recently during a news conference in Tokyo.
While the realignment of U.S. troops in Japan may continue, it won’t be at full speed, predicts Masaaki Gabe, professor of international relations at University of the Ryukyus.
Gabe said it will be difficult for the DPJ to abandon the Futenma relocation project, however.
"It’s already ongoing," Gabe said. "But, if they win more than 300 seats, they will likely meddle with the 2010 budget bill, which includes realignment related costs, scheduled to be submitted to the Diet in September."
That could affect Japan’s promise to contribute 60 percent of the $10 billion price tag placed on the relocation of Marines to Guam, Gabe said.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
US Troop Role in Philippines
US troops’ combat role in RP revealed
By Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:23:00 08/27/2009
MANILA, Philippines-The woman who blew the whistle on a fund mess involving the RP-US Balikatan exercises said American soldiers were purportedly “embedded” with Filipino troops in combat situations in Mindanao, and that the United States had taken part in the “planning of combat operations” against terrorist and Moro targets.
With nuns from the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines serving as her bodyguards, retired Navy Lt. Nancy Gadian Wednesday faced the media in a press conference organized by the militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan).
Copies of her affidavit detailing her observations while stationed in Mindanao and affirming her belief that US troops were based permanently in the country were distributed at the press conference.
Gadian’s lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, said the affidavit would be submitted to the Senate on Thursday. Gadian has expressed willingness to testify at the joint congressional hearing on the continued stay of American troops in the country.
“The [US] soldiers who are deployed in Mindanao are part of the Special Operations Command. This is a unit of highly capable and technically skilled individuals. They will not be deployed here if they are not combat-ready,” Gadian said.
She admitted that she had no personal knowledge on the US soldiers’ purported involvement in actual warfare, but said in her affidavit that Filipino soldiers had confirmed to her “that US troops are embedded in Philippine troops who are engaged in actual combat in Mindanao.”
She also said in her affidavit that she had attended “a couple of situation briefings” where members of the US Special Operations Command gave the Philippine military “intelligence reports on the location of the Abu Sayyaf and secessionist groups in Mindanao.”
Asked to comment, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesperson Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner Jr. said Gadian would have to prove her claims in the “proper court.”
At press time, the US Embassy had yet to respond to a text message seeking comment, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Commission on the Visiting Forces Agreement had yet to issue a statement.
Violation of Constitution
At the press conference, Gadian asserted that the US military had taken part in the planning of Philippine combat operations.
Aided by their “highly sophisticated equipment, they give information to the AFP counterpart,” she said.
“They have special intelligence equipment and in many instances that I was in the briefings in the conference room, the US counterpart would say where … the enemies are, either Abu Sayyaf or Muslim secessionist,” Gadian said.
“In [the Balikatan] 2002-1, the focus was on the Abu Sayyaf, and we know that they had a role in the neutralization of high-ranking personalities of the Abu Sayyaf,” she said.
Ursua said the participation of US troops in combat planning or their providing intelligence information was a violation of the 1987 Constitution.
“The most fundamental [provision] is national sovereignty … and our Constitution prohibits the presence of US troops. What Ms Gadian is saying is, for the past seven years their presence in the Philippines has been permanent and continuous,” the lawyer said.
She added: “The intelligence [operations], how do they justify that? That is part of the prohibition. They are allowed to use intelligence equipment all over, wherever they want. How do you justify that legally?”
US structures
The US military has also built permanent and temporary structures in several AFP camps in Mindanao, Gadian said.
These structures are often “off limits” to AFP personnel, and Filipino soldiers, including generals and other ranking officials, can enter only upon invitation and are limited to certain areas, she said.
In her affidavit, Gadian explained that the permanent structures “are those with fixed foundations made of concrete and cannot be easily removed.”
She said that since 2002, the Americans had temporary, as well as two permanent, structures in Camp Basilio Navarro, the headquarters of the AFP Western Mindanao Command (Wesmincom) in Calarian, Zamboanga City.
The headquarters of the US Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P) is also at Camp Navarro.
Said Gadian in her affidavit: “The American camp in Camp Navarro consists of two permanent structures, built by the Americans, located near the office of the Headquarters Service Group of the [Wesmincom].
“The two permanent structures are fenced off by barbed wires and guarded by US Marines. Filipinos have no access to those two structures except that on occasions, a few Filipino officers are invited inside the bigger structure [but still on a limited access] which has the name of the [JSOTF-P].”
4 AFP camps
Gadian said the Americans had also built and maintained temporary and permanent structures in the Edwin Andrews Air Base for their personnel and equipment, including tanks and communication facilities.
“This area is fenced and secured by Filipinos and Americans hired by Dyn Corp., an American private military contractor. Filipinos have no access to this area,” she said.
According to Gadian, the Americans have access to the air base’s airstrip, and their planes come and go almost every other day. Their aircraft-C-12, C-130 and Chinook-are parked at the base operations center.
Gadian named the four AFP camps where the US troops maintain “temporary structures”-Camp Malagutay in Barangay Malagutay, Zamboanga City, the training camp of the Philippine Army; the Philippine Naval Station in Batu-Bato, Panglima Sugala, Tawi-Tawi; the Naval Forces Wesmincom in Lower Calarian in Camp Navarro; and Camp General Bautista in Busbus, Jolo, Sulu.
Wood, GI sheets
In Camp Malagutay, the Americans’ office is a structure made of wood and GI sheets with a container van beside it, Gadian said.
It occupies 200-300 square meters of land, fenced off and “generally not accessible to Filipinos,” but the Americans have access to the Philippine Army’s training facilities, she said.
Gadian said she first saw the temporary structure, also made of wood and GI sheets, in the Philippine Naval Station in 2004.
Staffed by seven US Navy personnel, the structure occupies some 200 sq m and houses advanced satellite communication equipment, she said. Rubber boats and land vehicles are parked in the vicinity.
Gadian said the Americans had been operating their structure at the Naval Forces in Wesmincom since 2002.
In Camp General Bautista, they have temporary structures occupying some 1,000 sq m that house personnel of the US Special Operations Command Pacific “365 days a year,” Gadian said in her affidavit.
“In all, the US troops stationed inside Camp Navarro and other parts of Mindanao total about 500 at each particular time, on a rotating basis of three months each. These troops are stationed in Mindanao even without any Balikatan exercises going on,” she said.
At the press conference, Gadian said she and mostly AFP junior officers and enlisted personnel had wondered about the US structures in the Philippines, as well as the US warships (called “frigates”) seen within the country’s “exclusive economic zone.”
She said that on a superior’s instructions, some Filipino soldiers were once brought to a warship where they even sold bottles of a popular local rum for $3 each to the US troops.
In her affidavit, she explained that frigates were for “war and equipped with missiles,” and were utilized as a “fleet in being” or a show of force.
Free ride
Gadian lamented at the press conference that Filipino soldiers had gained very little benefits from the RP-US Balikatan exercises.
At most, she said, Filipino soldiers got a “free ride” in state-of-the-art US aircraft.
As for the humanitarian missions, Gadian said that while it was true that US troops had built school buildings and roads for Filipinos, these were infrastructure that the Philippine government should provide its constituents.
She pointed out that Filipino women were being forced into prostitution by the continued US presence in Mindanao.
Gadian also denounced the arrogance with which US troops treated Filipino soldiers like herself.
She recalled an American soldier signaling to her using his fingers instead of calling her by her name. She said she was incensed and told him: “Don’t treat me like a dog. This is our country.”
Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090827-222208/US-troops-combat-role-in-RP-revealed
By Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:23:00 08/27/2009
MANILA, Philippines-The woman who blew the whistle on a fund mess involving the RP-US Balikatan exercises said American soldiers were purportedly “embedded” with Filipino troops in combat situations in Mindanao, and that the United States had taken part in the “planning of combat operations” against terrorist and Moro targets.
With nuns from the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines serving as her bodyguards, retired Navy Lt. Nancy Gadian Wednesday faced the media in a press conference organized by the militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan).
Copies of her affidavit detailing her observations while stationed in Mindanao and affirming her belief that US troops were based permanently in the country were distributed at the press conference.
Gadian’s lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, said the affidavit would be submitted to the Senate on Thursday. Gadian has expressed willingness to testify at the joint congressional hearing on the continued stay of American troops in the country.
“The [US] soldiers who are deployed in Mindanao are part of the Special Operations Command. This is a unit of highly capable and technically skilled individuals. They will not be deployed here if they are not combat-ready,” Gadian said.
She admitted that she had no personal knowledge on the US soldiers’ purported involvement in actual warfare, but said in her affidavit that Filipino soldiers had confirmed to her “that US troops are embedded in Philippine troops who are engaged in actual combat in Mindanao.”
She also said in her affidavit that she had attended “a couple of situation briefings” where members of the US Special Operations Command gave the Philippine military “intelligence reports on the location of the Abu Sayyaf and secessionist groups in Mindanao.”
Asked to comment, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesperson Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner Jr. said Gadian would have to prove her claims in the “proper court.”
At press time, the US Embassy had yet to respond to a text message seeking comment, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Commission on the Visiting Forces Agreement had yet to issue a statement.
Violation of Constitution
At the press conference, Gadian asserted that the US military had taken part in the planning of Philippine combat operations.
Aided by their “highly sophisticated equipment, they give information to the AFP counterpart,” she said.
“They have special intelligence equipment and in many instances that I was in the briefings in the conference room, the US counterpart would say where … the enemies are, either Abu Sayyaf or Muslim secessionist,” Gadian said.
“In [the Balikatan] 2002-1, the focus was on the Abu Sayyaf, and we know that they had a role in the neutralization of high-ranking personalities of the Abu Sayyaf,” she said.
Ursua said the participation of US troops in combat planning or their providing intelligence information was a violation of the 1987 Constitution.
“The most fundamental [provision] is national sovereignty … and our Constitution prohibits the presence of US troops. What Ms Gadian is saying is, for the past seven years their presence in the Philippines has been permanent and continuous,” the lawyer said.
She added: “The intelligence [operations], how do they justify that? That is part of the prohibition. They are allowed to use intelligence equipment all over, wherever they want. How do you justify that legally?”
US structures
The US military has also built permanent and temporary structures in several AFP camps in Mindanao, Gadian said.
These structures are often “off limits” to AFP personnel, and Filipino soldiers, including generals and other ranking officials, can enter only upon invitation and are limited to certain areas, she said.
In her affidavit, Gadian explained that the permanent structures “are those with fixed foundations made of concrete and cannot be easily removed.”
She said that since 2002, the Americans had temporary, as well as two permanent, structures in Camp Basilio Navarro, the headquarters of the AFP Western Mindanao Command (Wesmincom) in Calarian, Zamboanga City.
The headquarters of the US Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P) is also at Camp Navarro.
Said Gadian in her affidavit: “The American camp in Camp Navarro consists of two permanent structures, built by the Americans, located near the office of the Headquarters Service Group of the [Wesmincom].
“The two permanent structures are fenced off by barbed wires and guarded by US Marines. Filipinos have no access to those two structures except that on occasions, a few Filipino officers are invited inside the bigger structure [but still on a limited access] which has the name of the [JSOTF-P].”
4 AFP camps
Gadian said the Americans had also built and maintained temporary and permanent structures in the Edwin Andrews Air Base for their personnel and equipment, including tanks and communication facilities.
“This area is fenced and secured by Filipinos and Americans hired by Dyn Corp., an American private military contractor. Filipinos have no access to this area,” she said.
According to Gadian, the Americans have access to the air base’s airstrip, and their planes come and go almost every other day. Their aircraft-C-12, C-130 and Chinook-are parked at the base operations center.
Gadian named the four AFP camps where the US troops maintain “temporary structures”-Camp Malagutay in Barangay Malagutay, Zamboanga City, the training camp of the Philippine Army; the Philippine Naval Station in Batu-Bato, Panglima Sugala, Tawi-Tawi; the Naval Forces Wesmincom in Lower Calarian in Camp Navarro; and Camp General Bautista in Busbus, Jolo, Sulu.
Wood, GI sheets
In Camp Malagutay, the Americans’ office is a structure made of wood and GI sheets with a container van beside it, Gadian said.
It occupies 200-300 square meters of land, fenced off and “generally not accessible to Filipinos,” but the Americans have access to the Philippine Army’s training facilities, she said.
Gadian said she first saw the temporary structure, also made of wood and GI sheets, in the Philippine Naval Station in 2004.
Staffed by seven US Navy personnel, the structure occupies some 200 sq m and houses advanced satellite communication equipment, she said. Rubber boats and land vehicles are parked in the vicinity.
Gadian said the Americans had been operating their structure at the Naval Forces in Wesmincom since 2002.
In Camp General Bautista, they have temporary structures occupying some 1,000 sq m that house personnel of the US Special Operations Command Pacific “365 days a year,” Gadian said in her affidavit.
“In all, the US troops stationed inside Camp Navarro and other parts of Mindanao total about 500 at each particular time, on a rotating basis of three months each. These troops are stationed in Mindanao even without any Balikatan exercises going on,” she said.
At the press conference, Gadian said she and mostly AFP junior officers and enlisted personnel had wondered about the US structures in the Philippines, as well as the US warships (called “frigates”) seen within the country’s “exclusive economic zone.”
She said that on a superior’s instructions, some Filipino soldiers were once brought to a warship where they even sold bottles of a popular local rum for $3 each to the US troops.
In her affidavit, she explained that frigates were for “war and equipped with missiles,” and were utilized as a “fleet in being” or a show of force.
Free ride
Gadian lamented at the press conference that Filipino soldiers had gained very little benefits from the RP-US Balikatan exercises.
At most, she said, Filipino soldiers got a “free ride” in state-of-the-art US aircraft.
As for the humanitarian missions, Gadian said that while it was true that US troops had built school buildings and roads for Filipinos, these were infrastructure that the Philippine government should provide its constituents.
She pointed out that Filipino women were being forced into prostitution by the continued US presence in Mindanao.
Gadian also denounced the arrogance with which US troops treated Filipino soldiers like herself.
She recalled an American soldier signaling to her using his fingers instead of calling her by her name. She said she was incensed and told him: “Don’t treat me like a dog. This is our country.”
Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090827-222208/US-troops-combat-role-in-RP-revealed
Monday, February 11, 2008
US Marine Charged Over Japan Rape
US marine charged over Japan rape
Al Jazeera English
2/11/08
A US marine has been arrested and charged with raping a schoolgirl on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa, in an incident that could strain ties between the two allies.
The 38-year-old marine staff sergeant who was stationed at Camp Courtney in Okinawa, denies that he raped the 14-year-old on Sunday, although he has admitted he forced the girl down and kissed her.
Japan's Kyodo news agency said he decided to drive the girl home when she started crying, and that the girl had telephoned her friends for help.
Hirokazu Nakaima, the governor of Okinawa, said he felt "great anger" over the alleged assault.
"I can never forgive such a crime, especially when the victim is a junior high school student."
A similar incident involving the rape of a 12-year-old Japanese schoolgirl by three US servicemen in Okinawa sparked huge protests in 1995.
The three marines convicted of rape were each jailed between six-and-a-half to seven years.
News of the latest alleged rape comes as the Japanese government tries to persuade residents to accept a plan to relocate a US air base from a densely-populated city in central Okinawa to the coastal city of Nago.
The US Marine Corps in Japan, in an e-mailed statement, said it took the allegation "very seriously" and was fully cooperating with the Okinawa police.
Japan is home to some 50,000 US troops, the bulk of them based in Okinawa, under a mutual security pact.
But residents have long resented bearing what they see as an unfair burden for maintaining the US-Japan security alliance and complain about US military bases causing crime, noise and accidents.
In 2006, Japan and the US agreed to realign US troops in the country including relocating air stations and moving some 8,000 marines from Okinawa to the US Pacific territory of Guam.
Al Jazeera English
2/11/08
A US marine has been arrested and charged with raping a schoolgirl on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa, in an incident that could strain ties between the two allies.
The 38-year-old marine staff sergeant who was stationed at Camp Courtney in Okinawa, denies that he raped the 14-year-old on Sunday, although he has admitted he forced the girl down and kissed her.
Japan's Kyodo news agency said he decided to drive the girl home when she started crying, and that the girl had telephoned her friends for help.
Hirokazu Nakaima, the governor of Okinawa, said he felt "great anger" over the alleged assault.
"I can never forgive such a crime, especially when the victim is a junior high school student."
A similar incident involving the rape of a 12-year-old Japanese schoolgirl by three US servicemen in Okinawa sparked huge protests in 1995.
The three marines convicted of rape were each jailed between six-and-a-half to seven years.
News of the latest alleged rape comes as the Japanese government tries to persuade residents to accept a plan to relocate a US air base from a densely-populated city in central Okinawa to the coastal city of Nago.
The US Marine Corps in Japan, in an e-mailed statement, said it took the allegation "very seriously" and was fully cooperating with the Okinawa police.
Japan is home to some 50,000 US troops, the bulk of them based in Okinawa, under a mutual security pact.
But residents have long resented bearing what they see as an unfair burden for maintaining the US-Japan security alliance and complain about US military bases causing crime, noise and accidents.
In 2006, Japan and the US agreed to realign US troops in the country including relocating air stations and moving some 8,000 marines from Okinawa to the US Pacific territory of Guam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)