Local Vote Could Decide Japan Base Issue
By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: January 22, 2010
TOKYO — Few Americans have ever heard of Yoshikazu Shimabukuro or Susumu Inamine, or even the tiny Okinawan city of Nago where the two men are candidates in a heated race for mayor.
But this seemingly minor election could, in an indirect way, have major consequences for the United States’ ties with Japan, its most important Asian ally. Depending on the outcome, political experts say, the vote on Sunday could fuel a widening diplomatic rift with Japan, and possibly even add to pressure to reduce the 50,000 American military personnel now stationed there.
Nago is where the United States and Japan agreed four years ago to relocate a busy Marine helicopter base in a controversial deal that took a decade to complete — largely because it was so hard to find a community that was willing to accept the Americans.
Now Nago, a city of 60,000, may be about to reconsider its acceptance of the base, with its runways built on landfill in pristine turquoise waters near Henoko, a sleepy fishing village administered by Nago. The question of whether to reject the 2006 deal has emerged as the dominant issue in Sunday’s vote, which pits the pro-base incumbent, Mr. Shimabukuro, 63, against Mr. Inamine, 64, the chairman of the city’s education board, who opposes the base.
In Tokyo, the election is being closely watched as a crucial referendum on the 2006 deal that could sway the new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, who has yet to state clearly whether he supports or opposes the plan. Mr. Hatoyama has raised the ire of the Obama administration by putting the relocation agreement on hold until May, when he will decide whether to support it, or name a new site for the base.
Mr. Hatoyama is caught between the demands from Washington that he honor the agreement and domestic pressure to make good on his campaign promises to review the deal. But Mr. Hatoyama has said he will heed voters on Okinawa, who overwhelmingly backed his party in last summer’s historic national election, which ended the half-century rule of the Liberal Democrats, and Sunday’s election in Nago is widely seen as an important barometer of public opinion on the island.
An equally large problem, say political experts, is the fact that Nago was the only community that Tokyo could convince to take the base, the sprawling United States Marine Air Station Futenma, now located in the middle of Okinawa’s crowded Ginowan city. Losing Nago as an option leaves few realistic alternatives, say analysts. These could include merging the Marine base into a nearby Air Force base, or moving them off of Okinawa altogether, most likely to Guam — both options that have been resisted by Washington.
“If Mr. Inamine wins, it becomes very hard to do the current plan,” said Takashi Kawakami, a professor specializing in security issues at Tokyo’s Takushoku University. “It will feed calls for moving the base out of Okinawa or out of Japan.”
In Nago, current popular acceptance of the base stands on a fragile consensus that it will bring much needed jobs and investment. But last summer’s election victory by Mr. Hatoyama’s Democrats stirred up hopes for a reduction in the military burden for Okinawa, the southern island where many of the American military personnel in Japan are located.
A group of antiwar and environmental protesters has erected a large tent on the beach at Henoko to stage a permanent sit-in against the planned base, which they say would destroy one of the last habitats of the endangered dugong, a large sea mammal related to the manatee.
These sentiments have helped give Mr. Inamine, the anti-base challenger, a slight lead in recent polls by local newspapers. Another factor, revealed in interviews late last year with Nago residents, is a growing feeling of irritation with the constant delays in construction, and the stress this has caused their community.
“The base has divided our community, and even families have been split,” said Shoji Gishitomi, 35, a fisherman in Henoko. “We want to get this past us, one way or the other.”
Indeed, political experts and local residents agree that Mr. Hatoyama’s decision to delay a decision on the base, made out of an apparent desire to find a solution to please both Washington and Okinawa, may only end up angering both.
“The United States doesn’t know if it can trust Hatoyama or not,” said Hiroshi Ashitomi, one of the protesters staging the sit-in at Henoko, “and neither do we Okinawans.”
Showing posts with label US Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Government. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
U.S., Japanese tension colors pact anniversary
U.S., Japanese tension colors pact anniversary
By David Allen and Chiyomi Sumida, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Monday, January 18, 2010
Base deal controversy overshadows 1960 treaty remembrance
CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — Tuesday marks the 50th anniversary of the American treaty with Japan that allowed the U.S. military to keep a strategic foot in the door in the Western Pacific and provided Japan a powerful security umbrella.
But while simple ceremonies of the anniversary are scheduled for Tuesday at a handful of bases in Japan, they will be held amid a backdrop of controversy that has strained the alliance in recent months. At the center of the issue is the reluctance of Japan’s new government to accept a 2006 agreement to build a new Marine Corps air station in northeast Okinawa.
Japan’s new left-center ruling coalition, which in August swept from power the party that had led the country since the early days of the U.S.-Japan pact, says it needs to review the 2006 plan and perhaps move Marine air operations elsewhere.
The U.S., on the other hand, has steadfastly contended that Camp Schwab is the only viable relocation site for Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and is, indeed, the linchpin of the entire plan to realign U.S. troops throughout Japan and move some 8,000 Okinawa-based Marines and their families to Guam.
On Friday, the coalition again stood its ground, when Mikio Shimoji, a senior member of a subcommittee studying alternative sites, insisted after completing a tour of Japanese communities that moving Marine air units from Futenma, in urban Ginowan to Kadena Air Base, also on Okinawa, is still the best alternative to building a new facility.
"My trip to the possible relocation sites (for fighter jets and Marine helicopters) convinced me that our packaged relocation idea is the best and the most practical proposal," Shimoji said during a news conference Friday in Naha, Okinawa’s capital.
Shimoji advocates moving the bulk of Futenma operations to Kadena, while moving some Marine helicopter training to Japan Self-Defense Force bases in Nagasaki and Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni on Japan’s main island of Honshu. He dismissed a concern recently expressed by Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces, that moving the Marines to Kadena was a bad idea because it simply would move noise and safety concerns from the Futenma area a few miles away to the sprawling Air Force base — also in an urban area.
Shimoji’s plan includes stepped up training on Ie Shima, an island near Okinawa, and the Higashi Fuji training ground. To reduce noise levels at Kadena, Shimoji suggests the U.S. move flight training for F-15s to Misawa and conduct training by visiting aircraft at Kansai Airport in Osaka.
Shimoji said the reactions from mayors of municipalities hosting the military bases and the international airport were overall very favorable.
"If the U.S. military can use Kansai Airport and conduct training in the region, I cannot imagine that it would be disadvantageous," he said.
Shimoji also pointed out that Japan enacted a contingency law in 2003 that gives the U.S. military access to every port, airport and road in the country during emergencies. His subcommittee is scheduled to forward its recommendations to Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama at the end of the month.
Last week, in a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Japan Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said the alliance must continue to be "sustainable for the next 30 or 50 years." But he hedged on the Futenma issue, promising only to "come up with a conclusion by May, so that there will be a minimum impact on the Japan-U.S. alliance."
Anniversary ceremonies marking the Jan. 19, 1960, signing of the alliance pact will be held at Sasebo and Yokosuka naval bases and Naval Air Facility Atsugi. Neither U.S. Forces Japan — whose mission revolves around maintaining and strengthening the alliance — nor bases on Okinawa have planned events Tuesday.
"This is a tremendous milestone, demonstrating the treaty’s lasting impact in the Asia-Pacific Theater," Lt. Gen. Edward Rice Jr., commander of U.S. Forces Japan and 5th Air Force, said in a statement released Saturday. "This treaty is indicative of our strong partnership with the Japan Self-Defense Forces and Japan officials we share every day."
By David Allen and Chiyomi Sumida, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Monday, January 18, 2010
Base deal controversy overshadows 1960 treaty remembrance
CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — Tuesday marks the 50th anniversary of the American treaty with Japan that allowed the U.S. military to keep a strategic foot in the door in the Western Pacific and provided Japan a powerful security umbrella.
But while simple ceremonies of the anniversary are scheduled for Tuesday at a handful of bases in Japan, they will be held amid a backdrop of controversy that has strained the alliance in recent months. At the center of the issue is the reluctance of Japan’s new government to accept a 2006 agreement to build a new Marine Corps air station in northeast Okinawa.
Japan’s new left-center ruling coalition, which in August swept from power the party that had led the country since the early days of the U.S.-Japan pact, says it needs to review the 2006 plan and perhaps move Marine air operations elsewhere.
The U.S., on the other hand, has steadfastly contended that Camp Schwab is the only viable relocation site for Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and is, indeed, the linchpin of the entire plan to realign U.S. troops throughout Japan and move some 8,000 Okinawa-based Marines and their families to Guam.
On Friday, the coalition again stood its ground, when Mikio Shimoji, a senior member of a subcommittee studying alternative sites, insisted after completing a tour of Japanese communities that moving Marine air units from Futenma, in urban Ginowan to Kadena Air Base, also on Okinawa, is still the best alternative to building a new facility.
"My trip to the possible relocation sites (for fighter jets and Marine helicopters) convinced me that our packaged relocation idea is the best and the most practical proposal," Shimoji said during a news conference Friday in Naha, Okinawa’s capital.
Shimoji advocates moving the bulk of Futenma operations to Kadena, while moving some Marine helicopter training to Japan Self-Defense Force bases in Nagasaki and Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni on Japan’s main island of Honshu. He dismissed a concern recently expressed by Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces, that moving the Marines to Kadena was a bad idea because it simply would move noise and safety concerns from the Futenma area a few miles away to the sprawling Air Force base — also in an urban area.
Shimoji’s plan includes stepped up training on Ie Shima, an island near Okinawa, and the Higashi Fuji training ground. To reduce noise levels at Kadena, Shimoji suggests the U.S. move flight training for F-15s to Misawa and conduct training by visiting aircraft at Kansai Airport in Osaka.
Shimoji said the reactions from mayors of municipalities hosting the military bases and the international airport were overall very favorable.
"If the U.S. military can use Kansai Airport and conduct training in the region, I cannot imagine that it would be disadvantageous," he said.
Shimoji also pointed out that Japan enacted a contingency law in 2003 that gives the U.S. military access to every port, airport and road in the country during emergencies. His subcommittee is scheduled to forward its recommendations to Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama at the end of the month.
Last week, in a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Japan Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said the alliance must continue to be "sustainable for the next 30 or 50 years." But he hedged on the Futenma issue, promising only to "come up with a conclusion by May, so that there will be a minimum impact on the Japan-U.S. alliance."
Anniversary ceremonies marking the Jan. 19, 1960, signing of the alliance pact will be held at Sasebo and Yokosuka naval bases and Naval Air Facility Atsugi. Neither U.S. Forces Japan — whose mission revolves around maintaining and strengthening the alliance — nor bases on Okinawa have planned events Tuesday.
"This is a tremendous milestone, demonstrating the treaty’s lasting impact in the Asia-Pacific Theater," Lt. Gen. Edward Rice Jr., commander of U.S. Forces Japan and 5th Air Force, said in a statement released Saturday. "This treaty is indicative of our strong partnership with the Japan Self-Defense Forces and Japan officials we share every day."
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Loosening ties
Loosening ties
Thursday, 31 December 2009 18:17
by Eric Talmadge | Associated Press
Standoff over US base closure sours US-Japan ties
GINOWAN, Japan (AP) – When the U.S. took over a Japanese airfield here in the closing days of World War II, it was surrounded by sugarcane fields and the smoldering battlegrounds of Okinawa. It is now the focus of a deepening dispute that is testing Japan's security alliance with the United States and dividing its new government in Tokyo.
A large city has grown up around the base, and helicopters and cargo planes from the U.S. Marine Corps facility buzz so low over Futenma No. 2 Elementary School, whose playground fence borders the facility, that the windows rattle and teachers stop class until the aircraft are on the ground.
"It's just too much," said the school's vice principal, Muneo Nakamura. "I understand the political role the U.S. bases in Japan play. But we have to live here."
That Marine Corps Air Station Futenma must go is not the dispute. U.S. military officials agree the base must be moved. The problem is where.
The United States says that Futenma cannot be shut down until a replacement is elsewhere on Okinawa, an idea that most Okinawans oppose.
They have the ear of a new left-leaning Japanese government that took office in September and is reassessing the U.S.-Japan alliance.
The standoff has clouded relations between Tokyo and Washington, delayed a plan to restructure America's military presence in Asia and divided Japan's political leadership. It comes as China's rising military strength and North Korea's nuclear program are changing the security landscape in Asia, underscoring the importance for the U.S. and Japan of keeping the issue from creating a major rift.
The Futenma facility, home to about 2,000 Marines and one of the Marines' largest facilities in the Pacific, is surrounded by urban sprawl.
"This base violates so many regulations and safety rules that it would be illegal to operate it in the United States," Yoichi Iha, the mayor of Ginowan, told The Associated Press. "The situation has just been left to fester for too long, and no one has been willing to accept responsibility to do anything."
He also accused the Marines of regularly ignoring agreements on when and where they can fly. The city is installing a 2 billion yen ($20 million) radar system next year to keep tabs on them. A Japanese court ruled last year the noise levels are unacceptable, and ordered the Japanese government to compensate residents. An appeal is ongoing.
Progress on the Futenma issue has generally only occurred after major incidents have sent Okinawans into the streets in protest.
That "strategic roadmap" included moving the facility farther north to a less crowded area and reducing the U.S. presence in Okinawa by transferring 8,000 Marines from Futenma and other bases to Guam.
But the decision to replace the Futenma base with another on the outskirts of Nago, another Okinawan city, sparked intense protests.
The new base would likely require bulldozing beaches near an existing Marine facility, Camp Schwab.
"We are not going to let them destroy our ocean to build another military base," said Hiroshi Aratomi, the co-leader of a group that has held a daily sit-in for the past five years. "We will be glad to see Futenma go, but not at the price of simply substituting it with another base in our backyard."
Thursday, 31 December 2009 18:17
by Eric Talmadge | Associated Press
Standoff over US base closure sours US-Japan ties
GINOWAN, Japan (AP) – When the U.S. took over a Japanese airfield here in the closing days of World War II, it was surrounded by sugarcane fields and the smoldering battlegrounds of Okinawa. It is now the focus of a deepening dispute that is testing Japan's security alliance with the United States and dividing its new government in Tokyo.
A large city has grown up around the base, and helicopters and cargo planes from the U.S. Marine Corps facility buzz so low over Futenma No. 2 Elementary School, whose playground fence borders the facility, that the windows rattle and teachers stop class until the aircraft are on the ground.
"It's just too much," said the school's vice principal, Muneo Nakamura. "I understand the political role the U.S. bases in Japan play. But we have to live here."
That Marine Corps Air Station Futenma must go is not the dispute. U.S. military officials agree the base must be moved. The problem is where.
The United States says that Futenma cannot be shut down until a replacement is elsewhere on Okinawa, an idea that most Okinawans oppose.
They have the ear of a new left-leaning Japanese government that took office in September and is reassessing the U.S.-Japan alliance.
The standoff has clouded relations between Tokyo and Washington, delayed a plan to restructure America's military presence in Asia and divided Japan's political leadership. It comes as China's rising military strength and North Korea's nuclear program are changing the security landscape in Asia, underscoring the importance for the U.S. and Japan of keeping the issue from creating a major rift.
The Futenma facility, home to about 2,000 Marines and one of the Marines' largest facilities in the Pacific, is surrounded by urban sprawl.
"This base violates so many regulations and safety rules that it would be illegal to operate it in the United States," Yoichi Iha, the mayor of Ginowan, told The Associated Press. "The situation has just been left to fester for too long, and no one has been willing to accept responsibility to do anything."
He also accused the Marines of regularly ignoring agreements on when and where they can fly. The city is installing a 2 billion yen ($20 million) radar system next year to keep tabs on them. A Japanese court ruled last year the noise levels are unacceptable, and ordered the Japanese government to compensate residents. An appeal is ongoing.
Progress on the Futenma issue has generally only occurred after major incidents have sent Okinawans into the streets in protest.
That "strategic roadmap" included moving the facility farther north to a less crowded area and reducing the U.S. presence in Okinawa by transferring 8,000 Marines from Futenma and other bases to Guam.
But the decision to replace the Futenma base with another on the outskirts of Nago, another Okinawan city, sparked intense protests.
The new base would likely require bulldozing beaches near an existing Marine facility, Camp Schwab.
"We are not going to let them destroy our ocean to build another military base," said Hiroshi Aratomi, the co-leader of a group that has held a daily sit-in for the past five years. "We will be glad to see Futenma go, but not at the price of simply substituting it with another base in our backyard."
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Full move to Guam nixed
Full move to Guam nixed
Monday, 28 December 2009 04:36
by Mar-Vic Cagurangan | Variety News Staff
Report blows whistle on 10,000 ‘ghost troops’
JAPAN’S Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has dropped his administration’s tentative proposal to relocate the entire U.S. Marine Corps' Futemma Air Station in Okinawa to Guam, saying the idea was “unrealistic in light of the deterrence'' provided by the U.S. forces, Kyodo News reported yesterday.
“'There was a time when we should have studied the possibility of total relocation (of Futemma Air Station) to Guam,” Kyodo news quoted Hatoyama as saying.
He suggested that Japan may have no other choice but to stick to the 2006 agreement between the United States and Japan, which involves the transfer of 8,000 U.S. Marine Corp troops and their dependents.
With Hatoyama giving up the complete transfer of Marines to Guam, the government will now have to seek alternative sites in Japan as no other overseas location for hosting the U.S. military base is being considered, according to Kyodo News.
A Japanese expert on international affairs, however, claimed the relocation plan was based on a bogus blueprint with numbers fabricated by Japan’s Foreign Ministry.
Ghost troops
Tanaka Sakai, creator and editor of Tanaka News, said the Foreign Ministry fabricated 10,000 “phantom troops” to maintain a myth that 10,000 Marines will remain on Okinawa after the transfer of 8,000 units to Guam.
Citing figures from the American Military’s Japan headquarters, Sakai said the actual numbers of Okinawa-based Marines are 12,500 and 8,000 dependents for a total of 20,500.
“Now if we close our eyes to the negative number of family members, the total number of Marines and their dependents remaining on Okinawa should only be 3,500,” Sakai in his article titled "Japanese Bureaucrats Hide Decision to Move All US Marines out of Okinawa to Guam," published by The Asia-Pacific Journal Dec. 21.
“The Okinawa-based Marines are steadily moving to Guam while leaving a phantom force of 10,000 and continuing to receive huge sums of money from Japan. However, on the premise that 10,000 Marines will remain, talk continues about the need to build a new base in Henoko and the voices of opposition of the Okinawa people grow louder,” Sakai said.
White elephant
He suggested that the Henoko project, which consists of barracks and entertainment facilities, would be further wasteful spending because the facility would be used only briefly at the height of the troop relocation in 2014.
The “phantom troops” were presented in the plan to justify the Henoko project, which Sakai said was the Japanese government’s way of pleasing and bribing the United States.
The 2006 accord between the United States and Japan was forged when the Liberal Democratic Party was the ruling administration, which was perceived to be sympathetic to the United States.
On the other hand, Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan, which defeated LDP in the August elections, has been showing resistance to the U.S. pressure.
Full relocation
The idea of relocating the entire Futenma force to Guam originally came from the United States, according to Sakai.
The proposal was actually included in the “Guam Integrated Military Development Plan” which was drawn up in July of 2006 and released in September.
“The American military, knowing that Japan would pay the construction costs, can be thought to have decided on a plan to develop Guam as a unique global integrated military center,” Sakai wrote.
“The U.S.-Japan Roadmap had earlier called for the removal of Marines from Okinawa to Guam ‘in a manner that maintains unit integrity.’ This also hinted that the transfer would not only involve Marine Corps headquarters but the relocation of combat units as well,” he added.
The Guam Integrated Military Development Plan was posted on the Department of Defense’s website in September, but was deleted one week later, Sakai said.
“Perhaps the Guam Integrated Military Development Plan revealed too much, causing fear that people would wake up to the fact that the Okinawa-based Marines were planning a complete withdrawal. It may have been this fear that caused the site to disappear so quickly,” Sakai said.
Monday, 28 December 2009 04:36
by Mar-Vic Cagurangan | Variety News Staff
Report blows whistle on 10,000 ‘ghost troops’
JAPAN’S Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has dropped his administration’s tentative proposal to relocate the entire U.S. Marine Corps' Futemma Air Station in Okinawa to Guam, saying the idea was “unrealistic in light of the deterrence'' provided by the U.S. forces, Kyodo News reported yesterday.
“'There was a time when we should have studied the possibility of total relocation (of Futemma Air Station) to Guam,” Kyodo news quoted Hatoyama as saying.
He suggested that Japan may have no other choice but to stick to the 2006 agreement between the United States and Japan, which involves the transfer of 8,000 U.S. Marine Corp troops and their dependents.
With Hatoyama giving up the complete transfer of Marines to Guam, the government will now have to seek alternative sites in Japan as no other overseas location for hosting the U.S. military base is being considered, according to Kyodo News.
A Japanese expert on international affairs, however, claimed the relocation plan was based on a bogus blueprint with numbers fabricated by Japan’s Foreign Ministry.
Ghost troops
Tanaka Sakai, creator and editor of Tanaka News, said the Foreign Ministry fabricated 10,000 “phantom troops” to maintain a myth that 10,000 Marines will remain on Okinawa after the transfer of 8,000 units to Guam.
Citing figures from the American Military’s Japan headquarters, Sakai said the actual numbers of Okinawa-based Marines are 12,500 and 8,000 dependents for a total of 20,500.
“Now if we close our eyes to the negative number of family members, the total number of Marines and their dependents remaining on Okinawa should only be 3,500,” Sakai in his article titled "Japanese Bureaucrats Hide Decision to Move All US Marines out of Okinawa to Guam," published by The Asia-Pacific Journal Dec. 21.
“The Okinawa-based Marines are steadily moving to Guam while leaving a phantom force of 10,000 and continuing to receive huge sums of money from Japan. However, on the premise that 10,000 Marines will remain, talk continues about the need to build a new base in Henoko and the voices of opposition of the Okinawa people grow louder,” Sakai said.
White elephant
He suggested that the Henoko project, which consists of barracks and entertainment facilities, would be further wasteful spending because the facility would be used only briefly at the height of the troop relocation in 2014.
The “phantom troops” were presented in the plan to justify the Henoko project, which Sakai said was the Japanese government’s way of pleasing and bribing the United States.
The 2006 accord between the United States and Japan was forged when the Liberal Democratic Party was the ruling administration, which was perceived to be sympathetic to the United States.
On the other hand, Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan, which defeated LDP in the August elections, has been showing resistance to the U.S. pressure.
Full relocation
The idea of relocating the entire Futenma force to Guam originally came from the United States, according to Sakai.
The proposal was actually included in the “Guam Integrated Military Development Plan” which was drawn up in July of 2006 and released in September.
“The American military, knowing that Japan would pay the construction costs, can be thought to have decided on a plan to develop Guam as a unique global integrated military center,” Sakai wrote.
“The U.S.-Japan Roadmap had earlier called for the removal of Marines from Okinawa to Guam ‘in a manner that maintains unit integrity.’ This also hinted that the transfer would not only involve Marine Corps headquarters but the relocation of combat units as well,” he added.
The Guam Integrated Military Development Plan was posted on the Department of Defense’s website in September, but was deleted one week later, Sakai said.
“Perhaps the Guam Integrated Military Development Plan revealed too much, causing fear that people would wake up to the fact that the Okinawa-based Marines were planning a complete withdrawal. It may have been this fear that caused the site to disappear so quickly,” Sakai said.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Indian tribes buy back thousands of acres of land
Indian tribes buy back thousands of acres of land
By TIMBERLY ROSS, Associated Press Writer Timberly Ross, Associated Press Writer – Sun Dec 27, 1:42 pm ET
OMAHA, Neb. – Native American tribes tired of waiting for the U.S. government to honor centuries-old treaties are buying back land where their ancestors lived and putting it in federal trust.
Native Americans say the purchases will help protect their culture and way of life by preserving burial grounds and areas where sacred rituals are held. They also provide land for farming, timber and other efforts to make the tribes self-sustaining.
Tribes put more than 840,000 acres — or roughly the equivalent of the state of Rhode Island — into trust from 1998 to 2007, according to information The Associated Press obtained from the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act.
Those buying back land include the Winnebago, who have put more than 700 acres in eastern Nebraska in federal trust in the past five years, and the Pawnee, who have 1,600 acres of trust land in Oklahoma. Land held in federal trust is exempt from local and state laws and taxes, but subject to most federal laws.
Three tribes have bought land around Bear Butte in South Dakota's Black Hills to keep it from developers eager to cater to the bikers who roar into Sturgis every year for a raucous road rally. About 17 tribes from the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana and Oklahoma still use the mountain for religious ceremonies.
Emily White Hat, a member of South Dakota's Rosebud Sioux, said the struggle to protect the land is about "preservation of our culture, our way of life and our traditions."
"All of it is connected," White Hat said. "With your land, you have that relationship to the culture."
Other members of the Rosebud Sioux, such as president Rodney Bordeaux, believe the tribes shouldn't have to buy the land back because it was illegally taken. But they also recognize that without such purchases, the land won't be protected.
No one knows how much land the federal government promised Native American tribes in treaties dating to the late 1700s, said Gary Garrison, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. The government changed the terms of the treaties over the centuries to make property available to settlers and give rights-of-way to railroads and telegraph companies.
President Barack Obama's administration has proposed spending $2 billion to buy back and consolidate tribal land broken up in previous generations. The program would pay individual members for land interests divided among their relatives and return the land to tribal control. But it would not buy land from people outside the tribes.
Today, 562 federally recognized tribes have more than 55 million acres held in trust, according to the bureau. Several states and local governments are fighting efforts to add to that number, saying the federal government doesn't have the authority to take land — and tax revenue — from states.
In New York, for example, the state and two counties filed a federal lawsuit in 2008 to block the U.S. Department of Interior from putting about 13,000 acres into trust for the Oneida Tribe. In September, a judge threw out their claims.
Putting land in trust creates a burden for local governments because they must still provide services such as sewer and water even though they can't collect taxes on the property, said Elaine Willman, a member of the Citizens Equal Rights Alliance and administrator for Hobart, a suburb of Green Bay, Wis. Hobart relies mostly on property taxes to pay for police, water and other services, but the village of about 5,900 lost about a third of its land to a trust set up for the state's Oneida Tribe, Willman said.
So far, Hobart has been able to control spending and avoid cuts in services or raising taxes, Willman said. Village leaders hope taxes on a planned 603-acre commercial development will eventually help make up for the lost money.
The nonprofit White Earth Land Recovery Project has bought back or been gifted hundreds of acres in northwestern Minnesota since it was created in the late 1980s. The White Earth tribe uses the land to harvest rice, farm and produce maple syrup. Members have hope of one day being self-sustaining again.
Winona LaDuke, who started the White Earth project, said buying property is expensive, but it's the quickest and easiest way for tribes to regain control of their land.
Tribal membership has been growing thanks to higher birth rates, longer life spans and more relaxed qualifications for membership, and that has created a greater need for land for housing, community services and economic development.
"If the tribes were to pursue return of the land in the courts it would be years before any action could result in more tribal land ... and the people simply cannot wait," said Cris Stainbrook, of the Little Canada, Minn.-based Indian Land Tenure Foundation.
Thirty to 40 tribes are making enough money from casinos to buy back land, but they also have to put money into social programs, education and health care for their members, said Robert J. Miller, a professor at the Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore., who specializes in tribal issues.
"Tribes just have so many things on their plate," he said.
Some tribes, such as the Pawnee, have benefited from gifts of land. Gaylord and Judy Mickelsen donated a storefront in Dannebrog, Neb., that had been in Judy Mickelsen's family for a century. The couple was retiring to Mesquite, Nev., in 2007, and Judy Mickelsen wanted to see the building preserved even though the town had seen better days.
The tribe has since set up a shop selling members' artwork in the building on Main Street.
"We were hoping the Pawnee could get a toehold here and get a new venture for the village of Dannebrog," Gaylord Mickelsen said.
By TIMBERLY ROSS, Associated Press Writer Timberly Ross, Associated Press Writer – Sun Dec 27, 1:42 pm ET
OMAHA, Neb. – Native American tribes tired of waiting for the U.S. government to honor centuries-old treaties are buying back land where their ancestors lived and putting it in federal trust.
Native Americans say the purchases will help protect their culture and way of life by preserving burial grounds and areas where sacred rituals are held. They also provide land for farming, timber and other efforts to make the tribes self-sustaining.
Tribes put more than 840,000 acres — or roughly the equivalent of the state of Rhode Island — into trust from 1998 to 2007, according to information The Associated Press obtained from the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act.
Those buying back land include the Winnebago, who have put more than 700 acres in eastern Nebraska in federal trust in the past five years, and the Pawnee, who have 1,600 acres of trust land in Oklahoma. Land held in federal trust is exempt from local and state laws and taxes, but subject to most federal laws.
Three tribes have bought land around Bear Butte in South Dakota's Black Hills to keep it from developers eager to cater to the bikers who roar into Sturgis every year for a raucous road rally. About 17 tribes from the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana and Oklahoma still use the mountain for religious ceremonies.
Emily White Hat, a member of South Dakota's Rosebud Sioux, said the struggle to protect the land is about "preservation of our culture, our way of life and our traditions."
"All of it is connected," White Hat said. "With your land, you have that relationship to the culture."
Other members of the Rosebud Sioux, such as president Rodney Bordeaux, believe the tribes shouldn't have to buy the land back because it was illegally taken. But they also recognize that without such purchases, the land won't be protected.
No one knows how much land the federal government promised Native American tribes in treaties dating to the late 1700s, said Gary Garrison, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. The government changed the terms of the treaties over the centuries to make property available to settlers and give rights-of-way to railroads and telegraph companies.
President Barack Obama's administration has proposed spending $2 billion to buy back and consolidate tribal land broken up in previous generations. The program would pay individual members for land interests divided among their relatives and return the land to tribal control. But it would not buy land from people outside the tribes.
Today, 562 federally recognized tribes have more than 55 million acres held in trust, according to the bureau. Several states and local governments are fighting efforts to add to that number, saying the federal government doesn't have the authority to take land — and tax revenue — from states.
In New York, for example, the state and two counties filed a federal lawsuit in 2008 to block the U.S. Department of Interior from putting about 13,000 acres into trust for the Oneida Tribe. In September, a judge threw out their claims.
Putting land in trust creates a burden for local governments because they must still provide services such as sewer and water even though they can't collect taxes on the property, said Elaine Willman, a member of the Citizens Equal Rights Alliance and administrator for Hobart, a suburb of Green Bay, Wis. Hobart relies mostly on property taxes to pay for police, water and other services, but the village of about 5,900 lost about a third of its land to a trust set up for the state's Oneida Tribe, Willman said.
So far, Hobart has been able to control spending and avoid cuts in services or raising taxes, Willman said. Village leaders hope taxes on a planned 603-acre commercial development will eventually help make up for the lost money.
The nonprofit White Earth Land Recovery Project has bought back or been gifted hundreds of acres in northwestern Minnesota since it was created in the late 1980s. The White Earth tribe uses the land to harvest rice, farm and produce maple syrup. Members have hope of one day being self-sustaining again.
Winona LaDuke, who started the White Earth project, said buying property is expensive, but it's the quickest and easiest way for tribes to regain control of their land.
Tribal membership has been growing thanks to higher birth rates, longer life spans and more relaxed qualifications for membership, and that has created a greater need for land for housing, community services and economic development.
"If the tribes were to pursue return of the land in the courts it would be years before any action could result in more tribal land ... and the people simply cannot wait," said Cris Stainbrook, of the Little Canada, Minn.-based Indian Land Tenure Foundation.
Thirty to 40 tribes are making enough money from casinos to buy back land, but they also have to put money into social programs, education and health care for their members, said Robert J. Miller, a professor at the Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore., who specializes in tribal issues.
"Tribes just have so many things on their plate," he said.
Some tribes, such as the Pawnee, have benefited from gifts of land. Gaylord and Judy Mickelsen donated a storefront in Dannebrog, Neb., that had been in Judy Mickelsen's family for a century. The couple was retiring to Mesquite, Nev., in 2007, and Judy Mickelsen wanted to see the building preserved even though the town had seen better days.
The tribe has since set up a shop selling members' artwork in the building on Main Street.
"We were hoping the Pawnee could get a toehold here and get a new venture for the village of Dannebrog," Gaylord Mickelsen said.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
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.''
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.''
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Budget may cover part of Futenma accord
Budget may cover part of Futenma accord
Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009
Kyodo News
The government may allocate funds for the relocation of a U.S. Marine base in the fiscal 2010 national budget before finalizing its stance on where the base should eventually be relocated, a high-ranking government official said Wednesday.
The possible budgeting for a new facility that would replace the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa reflects Tokyo's concerns that the United States may perceive Japan as having reneged on the bilateral accord stipulating the relocation.
"The budget and the conclusion on a relocation facility are separate issues," the official said on condition of anonymity.
The government plans to compile by year's end the budget for the new fiscal year starting in April.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano said Wednesday the government will decide whether to allocate funds for the replacement facility, which, under the bilateral accord, would be built in Nago, Okinawa, after deliberating the issue at a ministerial committee consisting of the leaders of the three coalition parties.
"The allocation in the budget for the next fiscal year will be decided after policies are set at the ministerial committee on basic policy among the three parties," Hirano said at a news conference.
Hirano left open the possibility that the government may do the allocation on a temporary basis, given that Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has yet to make a final decision on the relocation.
"We have yet to decide what kind of political judgment we should make," Hirano said.
The revisiting of the proposed relocation under the 2006 bilateral accord has strained Japan-U.S. relations, with Hatoyama entertaining the idea of moving the base out of Okinawa or out of the country.
Washington wants Tokyo to stick to the accord, under which the Futenma base in Ginowan will be moved to a new airstrip to be built in Nago by 2014, while moving 8,000 marines to Guam once the new base is operational, as part of the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan at that time.
The Defense Ministry has requested about ¥89 billion for the cost of land reclamation in Nago and transferring marines from Okinawa to Guam in accordance with the accord.
Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009
Kyodo News
The government may allocate funds for the relocation of a U.S. Marine base in the fiscal 2010 national budget before finalizing its stance on where the base should eventually be relocated, a high-ranking government official said Wednesday.
The possible budgeting for a new facility that would replace the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa reflects Tokyo's concerns that the United States may perceive Japan as having reneged on the bilateral accord stipulating the relocation.
"The budget and the conclusion on a relocation facility are separate issues," the official said on condition of anonymity.
The government plans to compile by year's end the budget for the new fiscal year starting in April.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano said Wednesday the government will decide whether to allocate funds for the replacement facility, which, under the bilateral accord, would be built in Nago, Okinawa, after deliberating the issue at a ministerial committee consisting of the leaders of the three coalition parties.
"The allocation in the budget for the next fiscal year will be decided after policies are set at the ministerial committee on basic policy among the three parties," Hirano said at a news conference.
Hirano left open the possibility that the government may do the allocation on a temporary basis, given that Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has yet to make a final decision on the relocation.
"We have yet to decide what kind of political judgment we should make," Hirano said.
The revisiting of the proposed relocation under the 2006 bilateral accord has strained Japan-U.S. relations, with Hatoyama entertaining the idea of moving the base out of Okinawa or out of the country.
Washington wants Tokyo to stick to the accord, under which the Futenma base in Ginowan will be moved to a new airstrip to be built in Nago by 2014, while moving 8,000 marines to Guam once the new base is operational, as part of the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan at that time.
The Defense Ministry has requested about ¥89 billion for the cost of land reclamation in Nago and transferring marines from Okinawa to Guam in accordance with the accord.
Will review unravel ’06 U.S.-Japan troop relocation pact?
Will review unravel ’06 U.S.-Japan troop relocation pact?
Home :: News
Bookmark and Share
Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
Will review unravel ’06 U.S.-Japan troop relocation pact?
By David Allen, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, November 27, 2009
RELATED MATERIAL: Futenma Q&A
YOMITAN, Okinawa — Ever since the United States and Japan signed a pact in 2006 to realign U.S. forces in Japan, the plan has been to close Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, located in urban Okinawa, and relocate its air operations to rural Camp Schwab, where a new airfield would be built to accommodate the move.
Now, however, with a new Japanese government in place that promised Okinawans it would review the U.S. military footprint on Okinawa, Japanese officials want to revisit a formerly discarded plan to move the Marine operation to Kadena Air Base. Or move the base operations outside Okinawa altogether.
At stake is the possible unraveling of the overall pact, painstakingly negotiated over 15 years with the former, more military friendly Japanese government. A key element of the pact was the relocation of more than 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam — but only after Futenma is relocated.
A working group of U.S. and Japanese officials began meetings this month to reconsider all options.
According to a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman after the first meeting, the U.S. side took the position that the existing plan is the only feasible one. Further, any delay in going forward with the Camp Schwab plan could erode U.S. congressional support for the whole realignment plan, which also includes changes for U.S. troops on the Japanese mainland, the spokesman said.
Japanese officials, however, demanded a full examination of the process in which the Camp Schwab plan was selected. Prior to the meeting, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said he was still looking into why the Marines can’t move to Kadena Air Base. "As for the argument that the Marine Corps and Air Force cannot share the same base," Okada said, "I am not yet fully able to understand it."
In the end, the working group agreed only to set a year-end deadline for some kind of resolution to the fractious dispute.
Realignment in Japan
Here’s what the U.S. and Japan "Roadmap to Realignment" agreement signed in 2006 called for:
* Relocating air operations from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to a new facility at Camp Schwab.
* Relocating the headquarters of the III Marine Expeditionary Force to Guam and realigning remaining Marine units on Okinawa into a Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The move would include the transfer of 8,000 Marines and their dependents to Guam.
* Japan contributing to the cost of the move of the Marines to Guam. U.S. officials have pegged the cost at $10.6 billion and asked Japan to cover 75 percent.
* Marine Corps units remaining on Okinawa would be consolidated into a smaller total land area, enabling the "return of significant land in the densely populated areas south of Kadena Air Base." The returned base properties are to include the U.S. Army’s Naha Military Port, Camp Kinser, MCAS Futenma and parts of Camp Foster.
* Providing facilities at mainland Japan Air and Maritime Self-Defense Force bases for Marine KC-130 refueling aircraft.
* A U.S. Navy carrier air wing would be transferred from Naval Air Facility Atsugi to MCAS Iwakuni.
* Moving elements of the U.S. Army’s I Corps from Fort Lewis, Wash., to Camp Zama, adding about 300 personnel.
* Transferring Japan’s Air Defense Command to Yokota Air Base, west of Tokyo.
* Deploying X-band radar to Japan as part of a joint anti-ballistic missile defense program.
* Relocating some fighter jet training from U.S. air bases to Japan Air Self-Defense Force bases to lessen the impact of training activities on host communities, particularly Kadena Air Base.
Home :: News
Bookmark and Share
Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
Will review unravel ’06 U.S.-Japan troop relocation pact?
By David Allen, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, November 27, 2009
RELATED MATERIAL: Futenma Q&A
YOMITAN, Okinawa — Ever since the United States and Japan signed a pact in 2006 to realign U.S. forces in Japan, the plan has been to close Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, located in urban Okinawa, and relocate its air operations to rural Camp Schwab, where a new airfield would be built to accommodate the move.
Now, however, with a new Japanese government in place that promised Okinawans it would review the U.S. military footprint on Okinawa, Japanese officials want to revisit a formerly discarded plan to move the Marine operation to Kadena Air Base. Or move the base operations outside Okinawa altogether.
At stake is the possible unraveling of the overall pact, painstakingly negotiated over 15 years with the former, more military friendly Japanese government. A key element of the pact was the relocation of more than 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam — but only after Futenma is relocated.
A working group of U.S. and Japanese officials began meetings this month to reconsider all options.
According to a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman after the first meeting, the U.S. side took the position that the existing plan is the only feasible one. Further, any delay in going forward with the Camp Schwab plan could erode U.S. congressional support for the whole realignment plan, which also includes changes for U.S. troops on the Japanese mainland, the spokesman said.
Japanese officials, however, demanded a full examination of the process in which the Camp Schwab plan was selected. Prior to the meeting, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said he was still looking into why the Marines can’t move to Kadena Air Base. "As for the argument that the Marine Corps and Air Force cannot share the same base," Okada said, "I am not yet fully able to understand it."
In the end, the working group agreed only to set a year-end deadline for some kind of resolution to the fractious dispute.
Realignment in Japan
Here’s what the U.S. and Japan "Roadmap to Realignment" agreement signed in 2006 called for:
* Relocating air operations from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to a new facility at Camp Schwab.
* Relocating the headquarters of the III Marine Expeditionary Force to Guam and realigning remaining Marine units on Okinawa into a Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The move would include the transfer of 8,000 Marines and their dependents to Guam.
* Japan contributing to the cost of the move of the Marines to Guam. U.S. officials have pegged the cost at $10.6 billion and asked Japan to cover 75 percent.
* Marine Corps units remaining on Okinawa would be consolidated into a smaller total land area, enabling the "return of significant land in the densely populated areas south of Kadena Air Base." The returned base properties are to include the U.S. Army’s Naha Military Port, Camp Kinser, MCAS Futenma and parts of Camp Foster.
* Providing facilities at mainland Japan Air and Maritime Self-Defense Force bases for Marine KC-130 refueling aircraft.
* A U.S. Navy carrier air wing would be transferred from Naval Air Facility Atsugi to MCAS Iwakuni.
* Moving elements of the U.S. Army’s I Corps from Fort Lewis, Wash., to Camp Zama, adding about 300 personnel.
* Transferring Japan’s Air Defense Command to Yokota Air Base, west of Tokyo.
* Deploying X-band radar to Japan as part of a joint anti-ballistic missile defense program.
* Relocating some fighter jet training from U.S. air bases to Japan Air Self-Defense Force bases to lessen the impact of training activities on host communities, particularly Kadena Air Base.
Futenma questions and answers
Futenma questions and answers
Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, November 27, 2009
The increasingly knotty issue of the U.S. base presence in Japan has deep roots tangled in history and ongoing changes in the social fabric and political landscape. Stars and Stripes reporter David Allen, who has been covering Okinawa issues since 1994, offers the following answers to frequently asked questions about the debate swirling around Futenma:
What’s the big deal with Futenma? Is this just political maneuvering, or is it a serious threat to the U.S.-Japan military alliance?
Prior to the landslide victory of his Democratic Party of Japan in August, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s platform was to move the Futenma operations outside Okinawa, if not outside Japan. He has since said he just wants to revisit the agreement, and the issue now is seen in Japan as a test of his leadership. His left-center party is part of the ruling coalition with the Social Democratic Party, which is staunchly anti-military and opposed both to the presence of U.S. forces and the existence of the Japanese Self-Defense Force. If he fails in his bid to renegotiate the Futenma relocation plan and move the Marine air operations elsewhere, he could face serious opposition in elections next year.
Why do they have to move the air station at all?
It’s noisy and dangerous, and a symbol of what the Okinawans claim is their "unfair burden."
The rape and abduction of a 12-year-old Okinawa schoolgirl in 1995 by two Marines and a Navy Corpsman sparked massive anti-base demonstrations on the island and renewed calls for reducing the U.S. military footprint. Bowing to those demands, a bilateral U.S.-Japan committee was formed, devising a plan in 1996 to return about 20 percent of the base property to the prefecture and private landowners. A major component of the plan was to close Futenma, located in urban heart of the city of Ginowan, and build a new base in a more remote location.
In 2003, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Okinawa and flew over the Futenma airfield. He commented that it was amazing there had not been any accidents. A year later, a Marine helicopter crashed on the campus of a university adjacent to the base, and the calls to close MCAS Futenma increased.
Why are the Okinawans upset about the relocation/realignment of U.S. bases on the island?
They don’t trust Tokyo and Washington on the issue. There’s a saying on Okinawa that the U.S. bases are the best deal for Japan and the U.S. and the worst for Okinawa. Japan gets to spend less on defense — one of the reasons why it has the second-largest economy in the world — and have almost half the U.S. troops based on Okinawa, an island far from the other larger, more populated Japanese territories. The U.S. gets bases close to potential trouble spots in the Western Pacific. And Japan picks up a hefty part of the bill. That leaves Okinawa hosting bases that cover a fifth of the island.
Also, there’s always been a strong independent streak on Okinawa. A large segment of the population believes the U.S. took their land at the end of World War II at the point of "bayonets and bulldozers," costing many families their homes and farms. During the 27 years of U.S. military occupation, there was a vibrant movement demanding a "military free" island.
When the prefecture was returned to Japan in 1972, many Okinawans felt betrayed because many U.S. military bases remained, and the Japan Self-Defense Force took other bases given up by the Americans. Some Okinawan critics continue to argue that they bear an unfair burden by hosting 75 percent of the land solely used for U.S. bases in all of Japan.
Supporters of the bases point out that the U.S. military is the second largest source of income on Okinawa, after tourism. Opponents argue that the bases hinder economic development.
Is the new Japanese government’s real agenda to expel all U.S. forces from Japan?
Definitely not. The Hatoyama administration, as well as the majority of the Japanese people, support the present security alliance with the United States, in place to aid in the defense of Japan should the country be attacked.
Hatoyama and his Cabinet members have repeatedly made it clear that the security arrangement is one of the core policies of the country.
Do the Okinawan critics of the realignment offer any alternatives? If so, why are they unacceptable to the U.S.?
During years of negotiations, many alternate sites for Futenma were proposed, including Iwo-to (formerly Iwo Jima), Guam, Hawaii, Japan Self-Defense Force bases on the mainland, Kadena Air Base, and two more remote islands in Okinawa prefecture. They were all rejected. The U.S. contends the Marine flight operations need to remain on Okinawa because of its close proximity to amphibious fleet units in Sasebo, for training on Okinawa and because of its proximity to China and North Korea. Moving the base to more isolated islands would be too costly and there is no room at Kadena Air Base for both Marine and Air Force operations. A plan to build a sea-based Marine air station some two miles off the coast of the Henoko peninsula, on which Camp Schwab is located, was scrapped after intense opposition by anti-base and environmental groups, who used small motorboats and kayaks to disrupt an environmental study of the area.
U.S. officials maintain Okinawa remains the best location, both in terms of cost, with Japan picking up the tab, and its strategic geographical location in the Western Pacific.
Why does the U.S. appear so resistant to any changes in the 2006 agreement?
U.S. officials insist the many years of negotiations leading up to the 2006 "Roadmap to Realignment" resulted in the best deal for both countries. The troop level on Okinawa would be reduced by more than 8,000 Marines plus their families, and Japan agreed to pay most of the tab for building the necessary infrastructure to support them on Guam.
How many U.S. troops are on Okinawa and how much does the Japanese government pay to have them there?
Today there are 43,400 status of forces personnel on Okinawa. They include 22,300 active-duty servicemembers, 2,100 Department of Defense civilians and 19,000 dependents. That number does not include Marines who are temporarily deployed to Okinawa from time to time from U.S. bases for training.
The Japanese government paid more than $5.2 billion for funding the stationing of U.S. troops in Japan in 2009. That includes facilities maintenance and improvements, Japanese support employee salaries, and other needs. Of that funding, $1.6 billion is for military support on Okinawa.
And there is indirect support, which includes waivers of taxes, road tolls and port fees for military operations, and SOFA personnel pay less tax on their cars than Japanese citizens.
What does moving 8,000-plus Marines from Okinawa to Guam have to do with moving a Marine air station on Okinawa?
It is seen as a way to sell the plan to move air operations to Camp Schwab. Sweetening the deal for the Okinawans, besides millions of dollars in subsidies for public projects from Tokyo, was the promise to also shut down Camp Kinser, the Naha Military Port, the rest of Camp Lester, part of Camp Foster and the transfer of major Marine commands to Guam.
While the conservative Liberal Democratic Party ruled, the project seemed inevitable and, except for a small protest group that’s been camped out at the Henoko port for the past five years, most people on Okinawa grudgingly accepted it.
Why can’t the Futenma issue be de-coupled from the Guam issue?
Without the new base development on Camp Schwab, there would be nowhere to put many of the Marines who would remain on the island. U.S officials from the start have said replacing Futenma was the key to the agreement.
Why can’t the U.S. on its own just move the Marines to Guam, where the U.S. territorial government would welcome them and the related economic development?
Under the realignment plan, the Japanese government has pledged to spend $6.1 billion on building up Guam to accommodate the influx of troops. Of that, $2.8 billion is expected in cash. The remaining would come in Japanese investments that the country may recoup over time. But should the realignment plan unravel, the entire cost of building installations, housing and infrastructure — projected at $10.6 billion — might have to be borne by U.S. taxpayers.
Stars and Stripes reporter Chiyomi Sumida contributed to this story.
Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, November 27, 2009
The increasingly knotty issue of the U.S. base presence in Japan has deep roots tangled in history and ongoing changes in the social fabric and political landscape. Stars and Stripes reporter David Allen, who has been covering Okinawa issues since 1994, offers the following answers to frequently asked questions about the debate swirling around Futenma:
What’s the big deal with Futenma? Is this just political maneuvering, or is it a serious threat to the U.S.-Japan military alliance?
Prior to the landslide victory of his Democratic Party of Japan in August, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s platform was to move the Futenma operations outside Okinawa, if not outside Japan. He has since said he just wants to revisit the agreement, and the issue now is seen in Japan as a test of his leadership. His left-center party is part of the ruling coalition with the Social Democratic Party, which is staunchly anti-military and opposed both to the presence of U.S. forces and the existence of the Japanese Self-Defense Force. If he fails in his bid to renegotiate the Futenma relocation plan and move the Marine air operations elsewhere, he could face serious opposition in elections next year.
Why do they have to move the air station at all?
It’s noisy and dangerous, and a symbol of what the Okinawans claim is their "unfair burden."
The rape and abduction of a 12-year-old Okinawa schoolgirl in 1995 by two Marines and a Navy Corpsman sparked massive anti-base demonstrations on the island and renewed calls for reducing the U.S. military footprint. Bowing to those demands, a bilateral U.S.-Japan committee was formed, devising a plan in 1996 to return about 20 percent of the base property to the prefecture and private landowners. A major component of the plan was to close Futenma, located in urban heart of the city of Ginowan, and build a new base in a more remote location.
In 2003, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Okinawa and flew over the Futenma airfield. He commented that it was amazing there had not been any accidents. A year later, a Marine helicopter crashed on the campus of a university adjacent to the base, and the calls to close MCAS Futenma increased.
Why are the Okinawans upset about the relocation/realignment of U.S. bases on the island?
They don’t trust Tokyo and Washington on the issue. There’s a saying on Okinawa that the U.S. bases are the best deal for Japan and the U.S. and the worst for Okinawa. Japan gets to spend less on defense — one of the reasons why it has the second-largest economy in the world — and have almost half the U.S. troops based on Okinawa, an island far from the other larger, more populated Japanese territories. The U.S. gets bases close to potential trouble spots in the Western Pacific. And Japan picks up a hefty part of the bill. That leaves Okinawa hosting bases that cover a fifth of the island.
Also, there’s always been a strong independent streak on Okinawa. A large segment of the population believes the U.S. took their land at the end of World War II at the point of "bayonets and bulldozers," costing many families their homes and farms. During the 27 years of U.S. military occupation, there was a vibrant movement demanding a "military free" island.
When the prefecture was returned to Japan in 1972, many Okinawans felt betrayed because many U.S. military bases remained, and the Japan Self-Defense Force took other bases given up by the Americans. Some Okinawan critics continue to argue that they bear an unfair burden by hosting 75 percent of the land solely used for U.S. bases in all of Japan.
Supporters of the bases point out that the U.S. military is the second largest source of income on Okinawa, after tourism. Opponents argue that the bases hinder economic development.
Is the new Japanese government’s real agenda to expel all U.S. forces from Japan?
Definitely not. The Hatoyama administration, as well as the majority of the Japanese people, support the present security alliance with the United States, in place to aid in the defense of Japan should the country be attacked.
Hatoyama and his Cabinet members have repeatedly made it clear that the security arrangement is one of the core policies of the country.
Do the Okinawan critics of the realignment offer any alternatives? If so, why are they unacceptable to the U.S.?
During years of negotiations, many alternate sites for Futenma were proposed, including Iwo-to (formerly Iwo Jima), Guam, Hawaii, Japan Self-Defense Force bases on the mainland, Kadena Air Base, and two more remote islands in Okinawa prefecture. They were all rejected. The U.S. contends the Marine flight operations need to remain on Okinawa because of its close proximity to amphibious fleet units in Sasebo, for training on Okinawa and because of its proximity to China and North Korea. Moving the base to more isolated islands would be too costly and there is no room at Kadena Air Base for both Marine and Air Force operations. A plan to build a sea-based Marine air station some two miles off the coast of the Henoko peninsula, on which Camp Schwab is located, was scrapped after intense opposition by anti-base and environmental groups, who used small motorboats and kayaks to disrupt an environmental study of the area.
U.S. officials maintain Okinawa remains the best location, both in terms of cost, with Japan picking up the tab, and its strategic geographical location in the Western Pacific.
Why does the U.S. appear so resistant to any changes in the 2006 agreement?
U.S. officials insist the many years of negotiations leading up to the 2006 "Roadmap to Realignment" resulted in the best deal for both countries. The troop level on Okinawa would be reduced by more than 8,000 Marines plus their families, and Japan agreed to pay most of the tab for building the necessary infrastructure to support them on Guam.
How many U.S. troops are on Okinawa and how much does the Japanese government pay to have them there?
Today there are 43,400 status of forces personnel on Okinawa. They include 22,300 active-duty servicemembers, 2,100 Department of Defense civilians and 19,000 dependents. That number does not include Marines who are temporarily deployed to Okinawa from time to time from U.S. bases for training.
The Japanese government paid more than $5.2 billion for funding the stationing of U.S. troops in Japan in 2009. That includes facilities maintenance and improvements, Japanese support employee salaries, and other needs. Of that funding, $1.6 billion is for military support on Okinawa.
And there is indirect support, which includes waivers of taxes, road tolls and port fees for military operations, and SOFA personnel pay less tax on their cars than Japanese citizens.
What does moving 8,000-plus Marines from Okinawa to Guam have to do with moving a Marine air station on Okinawa?
It is seen as a way to sell the plan to move air operations to Camp Schwab. Sweetening the deal for the Okinawans, besides millions of dollars in subsidies for public projects from Tokyo, was the promise to also shut down Camp Kinser, the Naha Military Port, the rest of Camp Lester, part of Camp Foster and the transfer of major Marine commands to Guam.
While the conservative Liberal Democratic Party ruled, the project seemed inevitable and, except for a small protest group that’s been camped out at the Henoko port for the past five years, most people on Okinawa grudgingly accepted it.
Why can’t the Futenma issue be de-coupled from the Guam issue?
Without the new base development on Camp Schwab, there would be nowhere to put many of the Marines who would remain on the island. U.S officials from the start have said replacing Futenma was the key to the agreement.
Why can’t the U.S. on its own just move the Marines to Guam, where the U.S. territorial government would welcome them and the related economic development?
Under the realignment plan, the Japanese government has pledged to spend $6.1 billion on building up Guam to accommodate the influx of troops. Of that, $2.8 billion is expected in cash. The remaining would come in Japanese investments that the country may recoup over time. But should the realignment plan unravel, the entire cost of building installations, housing and infrastructure — projected at $10.6 billion — might have to be borne by U.S. taxpayers.
Stars and Stripes reporter Chiyomi Sumida contributed to this story.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Key marine force to leave Okinawa Prefecture
Key marine force to leave Okinawa Prefecture
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Satoshi Ogawa / Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent
WASHINGTON--About 1,100 marines from a division specializing in amphibious and ground combat missions are among the troops to be relocated from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam as part of the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, it has been learned.
The transfer of 1,100 marines of the U.S. Navy 3rd Marine Division will increase the number of marines to be moved to Guam to 8,552 from an originally planned 8,000.
The relocation of the 1,100 marines was referred to in an environmental impact assessment report the U.S. Navy released Friday in connection with its planned construction of a naval base on Guam for the relocation.
The 3rd Marine Division was widely known for its role in fierce fighting on Iwo Jima island in the closing days of the Pacific War and saw heavy combat in the Vietnam War.
The "road map" for realigning U.S. forces in Japan that Tokyo and Washington agreed on in 2006 said the division's command would be shifted from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam, but made no mention of relocating the marines themselves.
The navy's environmental assessment report, however, noted ground combat troops need to be located "close to a firing range and training exercise area."
Given that a new firing range of the 3rd Marine Division will be built on the islands north of Guam in the Marianas, some of the division's troops likely will be moved to the planned Guam base, according to navy sources.
Moving the 3rd Division troops to Guam in addition to other marines currently stationed in Okinawa Prefecture would mean most of the U.S. Marine Corps' ground combat training exercises will be shifted to Guam, a development that will alleviate the prefecture's burden as a host of U.S. bases.
The navy report also disclosed for the first time a breakdown of marines covered by the relocation plan. Almost 3,050 will be marines under the command of the 3rd Maritime Expeditionary Force and related troops, 1,856 will be mainly from the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing and 2,550 will be from the 3rd Marine Logistics Group.
The bulk of the division's personnel has been stationed at Camp Schwab in Nago. The functions of the Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in Ginowan in the southern part of the prefecture are planned to be relocated to Camp Schwab, although this plan has been hanging by a thread due to political shuffling over the issue.
The navy's environmental assessment report describes the major missions of the 3rd Division as "destroying enemy troops by means of artillery fire, mobile combat operations and close-range fighting."
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Satoshi Ogawa / Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent
WASHINGTON--About 1,100 marines from a division specializing in amphibious and ground combat missions are among the troops to be relocated from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam as part of the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, it has been learned.
The transfer of 1,100 marines of the U.S. Navy 3rd Marine Division will increase the number of marines to be moved to Guam to 8,552 from an originally planned 8,000.
The relocation of the 1,100 marines was referred to in an environmental impact assessment report the U.S. Navy released Friday in connection with its planned construction of a naval base on Guam for the relocation.
The 3rd Marine Division was widely known for its role in fierce fighting on Iwo Jima island in the closing days of the Pacific War and saw heavy combat in the Vietnam War.
The "road map" for realigning U.S. forces in Japan that Tokyo and Washington agreed on in 2006 said the division's command would be shifted from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam, but made no mention of relocating the marines themselves.
The navy's environmental assessment report, however, noted ground combat troops need to be located "close to a firing range and training exercise area."
Given that a new firing range of the 3rd Marine Division will be built on the islands north of Guam in the Marianas, some of the division's troops likely will be moved to the planned Guam base, according to navy sources.
Moving the 3rd Division troops to Guam in addition to other marines currently stationed in Okinawa Prefecture would mean most of the U.S. Marine Corps' ground combat training exercises will be shifted to Guam, a development that will alleviate the prefecture's burden as a host of U.S. bases.
The navy report also disclosed for the first time a breakdown of marines covered by the relocation plan. Almost 3,050 will be marines under the command of the 3rd Maritime Expeditionary Force and related troops, 1,856 will be mainly from the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing and 2,550 will be from the 3rd Marine Logistics Group.
The bulk of the division's personnel has been stationed at Camp Schwab in Nago. The functions of the Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in Ginowan in the southern part of the prefecture are planned to be relocated to Camp Schwab, although this plan has been hanging by a thread due to political shuffling over the issue.
The navy's environmental assessment report describes the major missions of the 3rd Division as "destroying enemy troops by means of artillery fire, mobile combat operations and close-range fighting."
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Japan wants US military base out of Okinawa
Japan wants US military base out of Okinawa
Japan's Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama says he will devise a plan to relocate the US military airfield based in Okinawa as soon as possible
Hatoyama made the remarks after a meeting with his foreign and defense ministers.
His government has called for the US to move its troops off the island, and even Japan altogether.
The new administration in Tokyo has also ordered an investigation into secret US-Japan deals ratified by previous governments.
Washington has about 47,000 troops based in Japan, more than half of which are on Okinawa.
US troops have been continuously stationed on the island since 1945.
Local residents have been angered by crimes committed by US service personnel.
In 1995 the rape of a schoolgirl by three US servicemen infuriated residents of Okinawa.
Japan's Defense ministry proposes the transfer of some F-15 fighter jet drills out of Okinawa as a condition for implementing the 2006 accord with the US.
Meanwhile, a junior partner in Japan's coalition government says the airbase should be moved off southern Okinawa to a more remote islet or to US territory in Guam.
The base is also unpopular because of aircraft noise and the risk of accidents and is due to be moved from an urban to a coastal area by 2014.
Demands to close the base on safety grounds grew when, in 2004, a US helicopter crashed in the grounds of a local university.
Tokyo and Washington have been at loggerheads with each other over the presence of US military forces in the country since the new Japanese government took the reigns of power in September.
Thousands of people held rallies against the American military presence during US President Barack Obama's recent visit to Tokyo.
Japan's Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama says he will devise a plan to relocate the US military airfield based in Okinawa as soon as possible
Hatoyama made the remarks after a meeting with his foreign and defense ministers.
His government has called for the US to move its troops off the island, and even Japan altogether.
The new administration in Tokyo has also ordered an investigation into secret US-Japan deals ratified by previous governments.
Washington has about 47,000 troops based in Japan, more than half of which are on Okinawa.
US troops have been continuously stationed on the island since 1945.
Local residents have been angered by crimes committed by US service personnel.
In 1995 the rape of a schoolgirl by three US servicemen infuriated residents of Okinawa.
Japan's Defense ministry proposes the transfer of some F-15 fighter jet drills out of Okinawa as a condition for implementing the 2006 accord with the US.
Meanwhile, a junior partner in Japan's coalition government says the airbase should be moved off southern Okinawa to a more remote islet or to US territory in Guam.
The base is also unpopular because of aircraft noise and the risk of accidents and is due to be moved from an urban to a coastal area by 2014.
Demands to close the base on safety grounds grew when, in 2004, a US helicopter crashed in the grounds of a local university.
Tokyo and Washington have been at loggerheads with each other over the presence of US military forces in the country since the new Japanese government took the reigns of power in September.
Thousands of people held rallies against the American military presence during US President Barack Obama's recent visit to Tokyo.
US and Japan at odds over bases
US and Japan at odds over bases
Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent
From: The Australian
November 21, 2009 12:00AM
IN spite of Barack Obama's soothing manner in Japan, the argument over restructuring US military forces continues to go badly, stressing the Americans' most important relationship in the region.
The likelihood is Tokyo will be browbeaten into accepting Washington's position which, after all, is enshrined in their 2006 agreement on realigning US forces in Japan.
The risk is that relations between the two administrations will be permanently soured.
Even since Obama and Yukio Hatoyama met in Tokyo last Friday the politics has been messier. The sharp end of the dispute is whether the US marines' Futenma airbase moves from civilian-crowded Ginowan to a new facility beside the marines' Camp Schwab in Nago, to the northeast, as previously agreed.
The end-point of the realignment -- desired by the new Hatoyama government -- is shifting 8000 marines from Okinawa to Guam, a US Pacific territory.
Hatoyama wants the agreement varied so Futenma does not go to Nago. There is disagreement within his cabinet about where it should go, and the PM refuses to clarify.
Scrambling before last week's meeting to avoid a blow-up, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada agreed a high-level working group should resolve the disagreement. But straight afterwards, Obama said the working group "will focus on implementation of the agreement that our two governments reached".
That might be his understanding, Hatoyama responded, but we're interested in changing the 2006 agreement, not agreeing how to implement it.
The US Senate intervened this week, slashing the 2010 budget allocation for the Guam relocation, apparently to chide Japan for backsliding on the agreement. The White House has asked for the Guam cut to be restored and likely it will be. But when congress gets antsy about Japan issues, as the Japanese know too well, disputes tend to turn more difficult and nasty.
"It depends on how big of a thing both sides want to make of Futenma," says Koichi Nakano, an international relations expert at Tokyo's Sophia University.
"Because . . . the end outcome (relocation) is not going to be all that much different.
"In spite of the campaign rhetoric of the Democratic Party of Japan, the government has no clear alternative in mind; it doesn't even seem to have looked seriously at alternatives before the election."
The US seemed unprepared for a new government bringing a new approach to alliance management from their familiar partners of more than 50 years, the Liberal Democratic Party.
However, Obama's administration was forewarned 18 months ago by Seiji Maehara, the best-connected DPJ frontbencher in Washington, that a new government would seek a "clean slate" on Futenma.
LDP ministers dragged their feet over Futenma for a decade. When backed into a corner by the frustrated Pentagon, they signed and then resumed foot-dragging on implementation.
The Hatoyama government's election also completely changed the political dynamic of Okinawa bases.
Okinawans who wanted the burden of US military bases lifted or lightened were used to being sat upon by LDP governments and ignored by most of the other 99 per cent of Japanes.
Hatoyama as opposition leader, however, undertook "we would consider (Futenma) relocation outside of Okinawa and outside of the country".
Now the Okinawans have everyone's attention.
If Hatoyama u-turns on Futenma the domestic damage to his young government could be considerable. If he doesn't, the alliance could be upset in ways he and Obama neither want nor perhaps foresee.
"Please trust me," Hatoyama said last Friday.
"I trust you," Obama responded. Friends of the alliance in both capitals have their fingers crossed.
Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent
From: The Australian
November 21, 2009 12:00AM
IN spite of Barack Obama's soothing manner in Japan, the argument over restructuring US military forces continues to go badly, stressing the Americans' most important relationship in the region.
The likelihood is Tokyo will be browbeaten into accepting Washington's position which, after all, is enshrined in their 2006 agreement on realigning US forces in Japan.
The risk is that relations between the two administrations will be permanently soured.
Even since Obama and Yukio Hatoyama met in Tokyo last Friday the politics has been messier. The sharp end of the dispute is whether the US marines' Futenma airbase moves from civilian-crowded Ginowan to a new facility beside the marines' Camp Schwab in Nago, to the northeast, as previously agreed.
The end-point of the realignment -- desired by the new Hatoyama government -- is shifting 8000 marines from Okinawa to Guam, a US Pacific territory.
Hatoyama wants the agreement varied so Futenma does not go to Nago. There is disagreement within his cabinet about where it should go, and the PM refuses to clarify.
Scrambling before last week's meeting to avoid a blow-up, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada agreed a high-level working group should resolve the disagreement. But straight afterwards, Obama said the working group "will focus on implementation of the agreement that our two governments reached".
That might be his understanding, Hatoyama responded, but we're interested in changing the 2006 agreement, not agreeing how to implement it.
The US Senate intervened this week, slashing the 2010 budget allocation for the Guam relocation, apparently to chide Japan for backsliding on the agreement. The White House has asked for the Guam cut to be restored and likely it will be. But when congress gets antsy about Japan issues, as the Japanese know too well, disputes tend to turn more difficult and nasty.
"It depends on how big of a thing both sides want to make of Futenma," says Koichi Nakano, an international relations expert at Tokyo's Sophia University.
"Because . . . the end outcome (relocation) is not going to be all that much different.
"In spite of the campaign rhetoric of the Democratic Party of Japan, the government has no clear alternative in mind; it doesn't even seem to have looked seriously at alternatives before the election."
The US seemed unprepared for a new government bringing a new approach to alliance management from their familiar partners of more than 50 years, the Liberal Democratic Party.
However, Obama's administration was forewarned 18 months ago by Seiji Maehara, the best-connected DPJ frontbencher in Washington, that a new government would seek a "clean slate" on Futenma.
LDP ministers dragged their feet over Futenma for a decade. When backed into a corner by the frustrated Pentagon, they signed and then resumed foot-dragging on implementation.
The Hatoyama government's election also completely changed the political dynamic of Okinawa bases.
Okinawans who wanted the burden of US military bases lifted or lightened were used to being sat upon by LDP governments and ignored by most of the other 99 per cent of Japanes.
Hatoyama as opposition leader, however, undertook "we would consider (Futenma) relocation outside of Okinawa and outside of the country".
Now the Okinawans have everyone's attention.
If Hatoyama u-turns on Futenma the domestic damage to his young government could be considerable. If he doesn't, the alliance could be upset in ways he and Obama neither want nor perhaps foresee.
"Please trust me," Hatoyama said last Friday.
"I trust you," Obama responded. Friends of the alliance in both capitals have their fingers crossed.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
U.S. tells Japan no other base plan possible
U.S. tells Japan no other base plan possible
Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:54pm IST
TOKYO (Reuters) - Washington's envoy to high level talks on the relocation of a U.S. base on the Japan's southern island of Okinawa told Japanese ministers there was no feasible alternative plan, foreign ministry officials said on Tuesday.
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama promised in the run-up to his August election victory to move the Futenma U.S. Marine base off Okinawa, contradicting an agreement Washington reached with a previous government to move it to another part of the island.
"The existing plan is the only feasible one and that is the view of the entire U.S. government after 15 years of negotiation," a Japanese government official quoted Wallace Gregson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Asia-Pacific region as saying in the first round of talks.
U.S. officials also warned that further delays to the implementation of the deal could affect a related plan to reduce the burden on Okinawa, which hosts about half the 47,000 U.S. military personnel in Japan, by shifting up to 8,000 Marines to Guam, the Japanese officials said.
The blunt comments underscore the gap between the world's two largest economies, which mark the 50th year of their security alliance next year.
On his first visit to Tokyo last week, U.S. President Barack Obama said the purpose of the working group was to implement the agreement on U.S. bases, which is supposed to be completed by 2014.
Hatoyama told reporters in Tokyo on Monday there was no point holding discussions if there was no possibility of change.
His cabinet ministers also appear divided on the issue, with Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada suggesting the Marine base be merged with a nearby U.S. Air Force base, while Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa appears to accept the existing plan.
Thousands rallied in Okinawa just over a week ago to urge Hatoyama to keep his pledge to move the base off the island.
(Reporting by Isabel Reynolds; Editing by David Fox)
Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:54pm IST
TOKYO (Reuters) - Washington's envoy to high level talks on the relocation of a U.S. base on the Japan's southern island of Okinawa told Japanese ministers there was no feasible alternative plan, foreign ministry officials said on Tuesday.
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama promised in the run-up to his August election victory to move the Futenma U.S. Marine base off Okinawa, contradicting an agreement Washington reached with a previous government to move it to another part of the island.
"The existing plan is the only feasible one and that is the view of the entire U.S. government after 15 years of negotiation," a Japanese government official quoted Wallace Gregson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Asia-Pacific region as saying in the first round of talks.
U.S. officials also warned that further delays to the implementation of the deal could affect a related plan to reduce the burden on Okinawa, which hosts about half the 47,000 U.S. military personnel in Japan, by shifting up to 8,000 Marines to Guam, the Japanese officials said.
The blunt comments underscore the gap between the world's two largest economies, which mark the 50th year of their security alliance next year.
On his first visit to Tokyo last week, U.S. President Barack Obama said the purpose of the working group was to implement the agreement on U.S. bases, which is supposed to be completed by 2014.
Hatoyama told reporters in Tokyo on Monday there was no point holding discussions if there was no possibility of change.
His cabinet ministers also appear divided on the issue, with Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada suggesting the Marine base be merged with a nearby U.S. Air Force base, while Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa appears to accept the existing plan.
Thousands rallied in Okinawa just over a week ago to urge Hatoyama to keep his pledge to move the base off the island.
(Reporting by Isabel Reynolds; Editing by David Fox)
U.S. again urges Japan to implement base pact in high-level talks
U.S. again urges Japan to implement base pact in high-level talks
Nov 17 09:22 AM US/Eastern
(AP) - TOKYO, Nov. 17 (Kyodo) — The United States reiterated its demand Tuesday that Japan implement a 2006 bilateral pact on the transfer of a U.S. military airfield in Okinawa during the first meeting of a working group on the thorny issue involving high-ranking officials from the two countries, Japanese officials said.
While the participants agreed on the need to "expeditiously" seek a resolution of the issue involving the U.S. Marine Corps' Futemma Air Station, a senior U.S. defense official warned a delay in finding a solution may change the stance of the U.S. Congress which supports the transfer of thousands of Marines from Okinawa to Guam -- a plan also included in the accord on the U.S. forces realignment.
Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama told reporters the same day he would seriously consider the outcome of the reviewing process under the working group.
"If Japan and the United States come up with one conclusion as a result of the (high-level) consultations, I would naturally need to take it as the gravest decision," he said.
The ministerial-level meeting in Tokyo, which Japan and the United States agreed to set up a week ago, was attended by Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada and Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa from the Japanese side.
From the United States, the participants included U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos, who represents U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The latest meeting followed an accord between Hatoyama and U.S. President Barack Obama last Friday in Tokyo to seek an early settlement of the base relocation issue, which was widely interpreted as sidestepping a decision on a potential flashpoint that could undermine the countries' security alliance.
Wallace Gregson, assistant U.S. secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific, and Michael Schiffer, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific, also attended the meeting.
Gregson repeated Washington's stance that the existing plan is the only viable option, according to the Japanese officials.
Schiffer was quoted as telling Japan the U.S. government is working hard to realize the transfer of the Marines but he cannot deny the possibility of a change in response by Congress if the current unstable situation continues.
The U.S. side did not specifically refer to a time by which the working group should reach a conclusion, the Japanese officials said. But Kitazawa told reporters he and Okada share the understanding that "expeditiously" means "reaching a certain degree of conclusion by the end of this year."
The defense minister said budget compilation procedures in both countries "require an urgent" resolution of the deadlock over the base relocation issue. The Japanese government is scheduled to draft the state budget for fiscal 2010 starting next April by the end of the year.
Roos also told reporters after the meeting, "We share a belief that this issue should be resolved expeditiously."
He also said, "For our part, we have offered our judgment as to the best way forward," but did not elaborate. The Japanese officials said the envoy's remarks apparently suggest Japan should abide by the existing transfer plan.
The officials said the next working group session will likely be held within weeks, rather than in a month, to swiftly review the past bilateral negotiations that led to the 2006 accord.
Tuesday's move is expected to accelerate adjustments between Tokyo and Washington and also within the Japanese government, which has yet to present a clear position on the issue involving the transfer of the Futemma Air Station.
Under the working group, the Japanese and U.S. officials will study how the two countries reached the 2006 accord to relocate the airfield from a downtown residential area of Ginowan to the less densely populated city of Nago in northern Okinawa by 2014.
The accord is part of a broader Japan-U.S. agreement on the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan and also involves the transfer of around 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam. It was agreed on under a previous Japanese government led by the Liberal Democratic Party, which is now the main opposition party.
The working group got off to a rocky start, with Hatoyama saying that Japan will engage in the talks without regarding the 2006 accord as a premise.
Differences among Japanese Cabinet members are compounding the issue, with Kitazawa indicating his support for the existing deal but Okada floating the idea of transferring the air station to the nearby U.S. Kadena Air Base.
Participants in Tuesday's meeting also touched on the function of the Kadena base, but the Japanese officials refrained from explaining the exchanges in detail because it is related to the review process.
Nov 17 09:22 AM US/Eastern
(AP) - TOKYO, Nov. 17 (Kyodo) — The United States reiterated its demand Tuesday that Japan implement a 2006 bilateral pact on the transfer of a U.S. military airfield in Okinawa during the first meeting of a working group on the thorny issue involving high-ranking officials from the two countries, Japanese officials said.
While the participants agreed on the need to "expeditiously" seek a resolution of the issue involving the U.S. Marine Corps' Futemma Air Station, a senior U.S. defense official warned a delay in finding a solution may change the stance of the U.S. Congress which supports the transfer of thousands of Marines from Okinawa to Guam -- a plan also included in the accord on the U.S. forces realignment.
Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama told reporters the same day he would seriously consider the outcome of the reviewing process under the working group.
"If Japan and the United States come up with one conclusion as a result of the (high-level) consultations, I would naturally need to take it as the gravest decision," he said.
The ministerial-level meeting in Tokyo, which Japan and the United States agreed to set up a week ago, was attended by Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada and Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa from the Japanese side.
From the United States, the participants included U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos, who represents U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The latest meeting followed an accord between Hatoyama and U.S. President Barack Obama last Friday in Tokyo to seek an early settlement of the base relocation issue, which was widely interpreted as sidestepping a decision on a potential flashpoint that could undermine the countries' security alliance.
Wallace Gregson, assistant U.S. secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific, and Michael Schiffer, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific, also attended the meeting.
Gregson repeated Washington's stance that the existing plan is the only viable option, according to the Japanese officials.
Schiffer was quoted as telling Japan the U.S. government is working hard to realize the transfer of the Marines but he cannot deny the possibility of a change in response by Congress if the current unstable situation continues.
The U.S. side did not specifically refer to a time by which the working group should reach a conclusion, the Japanese officials said. But Kitazawa told reporters he and Okada share the understanding that "expeditiously" means "reaching a certain degree of conclusion by the end of this year."
The defense minister said budget compilation procedures in both countries "require an urgent" resolution of the deadlock over the base relocation issue. The Japanese government is scheduled to draft the state budget for fiscal 2010 starting next April by the end of the year.
Roos also told reporters after the meeting, "We share a belief that this issue should be resolved expeditiously."
He also said, "For our part, we have offered our judgment as to the best way forward," but did not elaborate. The Japanese officials said the envoy's remarks apparently suggest Japan should abide by the existing transfer plan.
The officials said the next working group session will likely be held within weeks, rather than in a month, to swiftly review the past bilateral negotiations that led to the 2006 accord.
Tuesday's move is expected to accelerate adjustments between Tokyo and Washington and also within the Japanese government, which has yet to present a clear position on the issue involving the transfer of the Futemma Air Station.
Under the working group, the Japanese and U.S. officials will study how the two countries reached the 2006 accord to relocate the airfield from a downtown residential area of Ginowan to the less densely populated city of Nago in northern Okinawa by 2014.
The accord is part of a broader Japan-U.S. agreement on the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan and also involves the transfer of around 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam. It was agreed on under a previous Japanese government led by the Liberal Democratic Party, which is now the main opposition party.
The working group got off to a rocky start, with Hatoyama saying that Japan will engage in the talks without regarding the 2006 accord as a premise.
Differences among Japanese Cabinet members are compounding the issue, with Kitazawa indicating his support for the existing deal but Okada floating the idea of transferring the air station to the nearby U.S. Kadena Air Base.
Participants in Tuesday's meeting also touched on the function of the Kadena base, but the Japanese officials refrained from explaining the exchanges in detail because it is related to the review process.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
US: NMI's challenge to interim rule too speculative
US: NMI's challenge to interim rule too speculative
Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
The U.S. government described as “too speculative” the CNMI's claim that the Department of Homeland Security's interim permit rule on the transitional worker program will lead to disastrous economic conditions.
The U.S. government, through the Office of Immigration Litigation trial attorney Theodore W. Atkinson, insisted that the issuance of the interim permit rule does not add to or alter the CNMI's arguments about the constitutionality of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (federalization law).
Atkinson said the existence of the interim permit rule does not add to the CNMI's challenge to the CNRA, because it does not deviate from the mandates of the CNRA in any way.
Atkinson's arguments are contained in the U.S. government's response yesterday to the CNMI's supplemental memorandum in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction.
“In other words, the mere issuance of regulations to implement the Act does not impact the CNMI's arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Act itself,” the lawyer said.
Atkinson said the CNMI's argument that the interim permit rule proves that the Act ousts local control over two-thirds of the CNMI's private sector workforce is nothing new.
“This is the same argument the CNMI has repeatedly made throughout its briefing on the instant motion, but the issuance of the Interim Permit Rule does not provide support for the CNMI's speculative claims of future injury or add to its challenge of the Act,” he said.
The Act itself, Atkinson said, mandates the implementation of a CNMI-only worker permitting system, and specifies that the number of CNMI-only permits shall be reduced during the period of transition to zero at the end of the transition period.
He said the transition period can be extended for five-year periods at the discretion of the U.S. Labor Secretary.
The attorney emphasized that the CNMI's claim is not only speculative but “is also wholly undermined by the fact that the CNMI challenges the transitional nonresident worker permit system, but does not challenge the application of all other federal immigration laws to the CNMI.”
Atkinson said that position is confounding because it completely cuts against the CNMI's argument that a preliminary injunction would avoid harsh economic and other results.
He said without the provisions of the CNRA creating a transitional worker permitting system and without the interim permit rule, nonresident workers currently in the CNMI and who travel outside the CNMI would be inadmissible upon return to the Commonwealth under federal immigration laws not challenged by the CNMI, once those laws take effect on Nov. 28.
Atkinson added that businesses in the CNMI would be unable to hire nonresident workers from outside the Commonwealth as of Nov. 28, because without a CW (transitional worker) classification, such nonresident workers would also be inadmissible.
“In short, without the Interim Permit Rule being effective on Nov. 28, 2009, current CNMI nonresident workers may not be able to return to the CNMI if they leave within two years of that date, and businesses in the CNMI may not be able to 'import' any new nonresident workers from outside the CNMI if the number of current nonresident workers in the CNMI drops,” Atkinson said.
He pointed out that while the CNMI's claims regarding economic injury arising from the implementation of the transitional worker permit system under the Act is speculative, the impact on the CNMI of the immediate application of federal immigration laws in the absence of the interim permit rule is not.
Atkinson asked the court to conclude that the U.S. Congress properly exercised its authority in enacting the CNRA and applying federal immigration law, including the transitional work permit system, to the CNMI.
He said the court should deny the CNMI's motion for a preliminary injunction and grant the United States' motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
The interim rule was published on Oct. 27, 2009. It is scheduled to become effective on Nov. 28, providing for a CNMI Transitional Worker Program.
The CNMI contends that DHS cannot justify its failure to follow the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act before issuing these regulations in final form.
The CNMI seeks for a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation and enforcement of the interim rule.
The CNMI wants the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would prevent DHS from enforcing or implementing the interim permit rule pending the court's resolution of the Commonwealth's claims on the merits.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
The U.S. government described as “too speculative” the CNMI's claim that the Department of Homeland Security's interim permit rule on the transitional worker program will lead to disastrous economic conditions.
The U.S. government, through the Office of Immigration Litigation trial attorney Theodore W. Atkinson, insisted that the issuance of the interim permit rule does not add to or alter the CNMI's arguments about the constitutionality of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (federalization law).
Atkinson said the existence of the interim permit rule does not add to the CNMI's challenge to the CNRA, because it does not deviate from the mandates of the CNRA in any way.
Atkinson's arguments are contained in the U.S. government's response yesterday to the CNMI's supplemental memorandum in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction.
“In other words, the mere issuance of regulations to implement the Act does not impact the CNMI's arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Act itself,” the lawyer said.
Atkinson said the CNMI's argument that the interim permit rule proves that the Act ousts local control over two-thirds of the CNMI's private sector workforce is nothing new.
“This is the same argument the CNMI has repeatedly made throughout its briefing on the instant motion, but the issuance of the Interim Permit Rule does not provide support for the CNMI's speculative claims of future injury or add to its challenge of the Act,” he said.
The Act itself, Atkinson said, mandates the implementation of a CNMI-only worker permitting system, and specifies that the number of CNMI-only permits shall be reduced during the period of transition to zero at the end of the transition period.
He said the transition period can be extended for five-year periods at the discretion of the U.S. Labor Secretary.
The attorney emphasized that the CNMI's claim is not only speculative but “is also wholly undermined by the fact that the CNMI challenges the transitional nonresident worker permit system, but does not challenge the application of all other federal immigration laws to the CNMI.”
Atkinson said that position is confounding because it completely cuts against the CNMI's argument that a preliminary injunction would avoid harsh economic and other results.
He said without the provisions of the CNRA creating a transitional worker permitting system and without the interim permit rule, nonresident workers currently in the CNMI and who travel outside the CNMI would be inadmissible upon return to the Commonwealth under federal immigration laws not challenged by the CNMI, once those laws take effect on Nov. 28.
Atkinson added that businesses in the CNMI would be unable to hire nonresident workers from outside the Commonwealth as of Nov. 28, because without a CW (transitional worker) classification, such nonresident workers would also be inadmissible.
“In short, without the Interim Permit Rule being effective on Nov. 28, 2009, current CNMI nonresident workers may not be able to return to the CNMI if they leave within two years of that date, and businesses in the CNMI may not be able to 'import' any new nonresident workers from outside the CNMI if the number of current nonresident workers in the CNMI drops,” Atkinson said.
He pointed out that while the CNMI's claims regarding economic injury arising from the implementation of the transitional worker permit system under the Act is speculative, the impact on the CNMI of the immediate application of federal immigration laws in the absence of the interim permit rule is not.
Atkinson asked the court to conclude that the U.S. Congress properly exercised its authority in enacting the CNRA and applying federal immigration law, including the transitional work permit system, to the CNMI.
He said the court should deny the CNMI's motion for a preliminary injunction and grant the United States' motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
The interim rule was published on Oct. 27, 2009. It is scheduled to become effective on Nov. 28, providing for a CNMI Transitional Worker Program.
The CNMI contends that DHS cannot justify its failure to follow the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act before issuing these regulations in final form.
The CNMI seeks for a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation and enforcement of the interim rule.
The CNMI wants the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would prevent DHS from enforcing or implementing the interim permit rule pending the court's resolution of the Commonwealth's claims on the merits.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Japan stands up to US
Japan stands up to US
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 00:55
Varitey[sic] News Staff
JAPANESE leaders are standing up against pressures by the U.S. government to quickly proceed with the deal to move the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Base to a coastal area of Okinawa and transfer about 8,000 troops to Guam.
“I don't think we will act simply by accepting what the U.S. tells us, just because the U.S. is saying this, in such a short period of time,” international wire agencies quoted Japan’s Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada as saying.
Okada made those remarks after U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates pressed Japanese leaders by insisting that Japan and the U.S. had negotiated this issue for as many as 13 years.
“But I told him that we, as an opposition party, had opposed the plan for those years,” Okada told Tokyo Broadcasting System Television. Okada said, “The will of the people of Okinawa and the will of the people of Japan was expressed in the elections.”
The transfer of the 8,000 Marines to Guam is causing many frustrations among the people and the government of Guam. It is mostly attributed to the lack of information.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 00:55
Varitey[sic] News Staff
JAPANESE leaders are standing up against pressures by the U.S. government to quickly proceed with the deal to move the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Base to a coastal area of Okinawa and transfer about 8,000 troops to Guam.
“I don't think we will act simply by accepting what the U.S. tells us, just because the U.S. is saying this, in such a short period of time,” international wire agencies quoted Japan’s Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada as saying.
Okada made those remarks after U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates pressed Japanese leaders by insisting that Japan and the U.S. had negotiated this issue for as many as 13 years.
“But I told him that we, as an opposition party, had opposed the plan for those years,” Okada told Tokyo Broadcasting System Television. Okada said, “The will of the people of Okinawa and the will of the people of Japan was expressed in the elections.”
The transfer of the 8,000 Marines to Guam is causing many frustrations among the people and the government of Guam. It is mostly attributed to the lack of information.
Q+A-Japan-U.S. base feud hits nerve ahead of Obama visit
Q+A-Japan-U.S. base feud hits nerve ahead of Obama visit
By Linda Sieg
10.25.09, 11:15 PM EDT
TOKYO, Oct 26 (Reuters) - A feud over plans to relocate a military base on Japan's Okinawa island as part of a broad reorganisation of U.S. troops is straining Washington's ties with Tokyo's new government ahead of President Barack Obama's Nov. 12-13 visit.
The row coincides with deepening questions about how China's rising military and economic clout will reshape the decades-old U.S.-Japan alliance, under which Japan hosts 88 American bases.
Below are some questions and answers about the origins of the dispute and whether an alliance crisis can be avoided.
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 forces 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. military 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 off-shore facility in northern Okinawa was opposed by locals and environmentalists.
The current plan is for relocation to a northern site 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 with 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 reorganise 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.
While Futenma and the Marines' move grab most headlines in Japan, a package of steps to improve U.S.-Japan military cooperation in areas such as missile defense is equally vital.
WHY IS THIS DISPUTE FLARING NOW?
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's Democratic Party of Japan, which took power last month, promised in its campaign that it would review the realignment pact as well as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) governing the U.S. military in Japan. Hatoyama had said moving Futenma's functions off Okinawa was best.
More broadly, the Democrats have promised to adopt a diplomatic stance less subservient to its close security ally Washington, a shift from the long-dominant LDP, which was defeated in an election in August.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates turned up the heat last week when he stated bluntly that the deal must be carried out and said Washington wanted a resolution by Obama's visit.
Anxiety is being 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.
Some in Japan fear Washington will cosy up to Beijing, while some in the United States worry Tokyo is tilting towards Asia by promoting the idea of an East Asia Community trading bloc.
HOW CAN A CRISIS BE AVOIDED?
The United States appears unlikely to agree to reopen talks given its firm public rejection of that option and Obama's need to focus on other pressing issues such as the war in Afghanistan.
Japan might agree to the current plan as is, or with slight modifications, but bowing to U.S. demands could cause a rift with two tiny coalition partners whose backing is needed to pass laws smoothly, as well as within the Democratic Party.
The two sides might be able to turn down the heat and delay a resolution until after Obama's visit, if Tokyo can convince Washington that it doesn't plan to delay too long.
Appearing to dither or to endanger the U.S.-Japan alliance could undermine Hatoyama's public support, but caving in completely to U.S. pressure could also alienate some voters.
WILL THIS AFFECT ECONOMIC TIES?
Few analysts expect bilateral strains to spill over into trade and investment ties between the world's two biggest economies, and financial markets have taken the row in their stride even as market players express concern.
But damage to U.S.-Japan ties could spell geopolitical uncertainty in a region home to a rising China and an unpredictable North Korea, eventually affecting investment flows.
By Linda Sieg
10.25.09, 11:15 PM EDT
TOKYO, Oct 26 (Reuters) - A feud over plans to relocate a military base on Japan's Okinawa island as part of a broad reorganisation of U.S. troops is straining Washington's ties with Tokyo's new government ahead of President Barack Obama's Nov. 12-13 visit.
The row coincides with deepening questions about how China's rising military and economic clout will reshape the decades-old U.S.-Japan alliance, under which Japan hosts 88 American bases.
Below are some questions and answers about the origins of the dispute and whether an alliance crisis can be avoided.
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 forces 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. military 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 off-shore facility in northern Okinawa was opposed by locals and environmentalists.
The current plan is for relocation to a northern site 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 with 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 reorganise 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.
While Futenma and the Marines' move grab most headlines in Japan, a package of steps to improve U.S.-Japan military cooperation in areas such as missile defense is equally vital.
WHY IS THIS DISPUTE FLARING NOW?
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's Democratic Party of Japan, which took power last month, promised in its campaign that it would review the realignment pact as well as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) governing the U.S. military in Japan. Hatoyama had said moving Futenma's functions off Okinawa was best.
More broadly, the Democrats have promised to adopt a diplomatic stance less subservient to its close security ally Washington, a shift from the long-dominant LDP, which was defeated in an election in August.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates turned up the heat last week when he stated bluntly that the deal must be carried out and said Washington wanted a resolution by Obama's visit.
Anxiety is being 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.
Some in Japan fear Washington will cosy up to Beijing, while some in the United States worry Tokyo is tilting towards Asia by promoting the idea of an East Asia Community trading bloc.
HOW CAN A CRISIS BE AVOIDED?
The United States appears unlikely to agree to reopen talks given its firm public rejection of that option and Obama's need to focus on other pressing issues such as the war in Afghanistan.
Japan might agree to the current plan as is, or with slight modifications, but bowing to U.S. demands could cause a rift with two tiny coalition partners whose backing is needed to pass laws smoothly, as well as within the Democratic Party.
The two sides might be able to turn down the heat and delay a resolution until after Obama's visit, if Tokyo can convince Washington that it doesn't plan to delay too long.
Appearing to dither or to endanger the U.S.-Japan alliance could undermine Hatoyama's public support, but caving in completely to U.S. pressure could also alienate some voters.
WILL THIS AFFECT ECONOMIC TIES?
Few analysts expect bilateral strains to spill over into trade and investment ties between the world's two biggest economies, and financial markets have taken the row in their stride even as market players express concern.
But damage to U.S.-Japan ties could spell geopolitical uncertainty in a region home to a rising China and an unpredictable North Korea, eventually affecting investment flows.
Friday, October 23, 2009
US-Japan alliance gets a jolt
US-Japan alliance gets a jolt
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The US-Japan security alliance has been strained as Tokyo’s new centre-left leaders, in a row over a US military base, make good on their promise to be less subservient to Washington, analysts say.
The five-week-old government has repeatedly signalled it may scrap an agreement to build a new airbase on the southern island of Okinawa, where many residents have long objected to the existing American military presence.
The tone hardened this week when US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s government to quickly “move on” and resolve the issue before President Barack Obama visits Japan next month.
Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada shot back later, saying “I don’t think we will act simply by accepting what the US tells us.” Reviewing the base issue, he added, reflected the will of the people. On Friday, Okada relented somewhat, saying new facilities could be built on the island but suggesting they be merged with another US site, the Kadena Air Base, a plan also not favoured by the United States.
Political observers have taken notice of the new tone in Japan. “Hatoyama’s ‘no’ is the first time Japan is rebelling against the US in decades,” said political analyst Minoru Morita, warning that “Japan-US relations are in danger.”
Some commentators warned that Japan’s new government is allowing domestic politics to threaten the security alliance that protected Japan through the Cold War and ever since. The conservative newspaper Sankei Shimbun in an editorial said the government lacked responsibility and should take seriously Gates’ comments as a “warning that the Japan-US alliance could come to a rupture.”
Hatoyama signalled during his election campaign that although he values the US alliance, he would also seek a “more equal” relationship. His government, which ended half a century of conservative rule, has said it will end a naval refuelling mission that has supported the Nato-led Afghanistan campaign since 2001.
Washington initially played down such comments as campaign rhetoric by Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which had never been in government. But concern has grown, especially over the base issue. The Washington Post on Thursday quoted an unnamed US State Department official as saying: “The hardest thing right now is not China. It’s Japan.”
The flashpoint has been the new government’s pledge to “review” a 2006 agreement to reign the 47,000-strong troop presence in the country, where American soldiers have been based since World War II.
Under the plan, the Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Base, located in an urban area of Okinawa, would be closed and replaced with a new facility in a coastal area of the island by 2014, while 8,000 Marines would be moved to Guam.
Gates warned on Wednesday that reneging on the Futenma deal would unravel the wider pact, including the handover by Washington of the current base on Okinawa, an island dubbed America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier”.
Okinawa is of key strategic importance for the US military, as it lies near mainland China and Taiwan, close to North Korea, and can act as a stepping stone to Afghanistan and the Middle East. Takehiko Yamamoto, professor of international politics at Waseda University, said: “The current uncertainty over the Futenma airbase is accelerating a sense of distrust toward the DPJ, especially among Pentagon officials.”
Mikitaka Masuyama, politics professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, said moving the base off Okinawa would sour relations with Washington, but doubted such a scenario would occur.
“Even if it has promised in its election campaign to relocate the base outside Okinawa, it must by now have realised that in reality there is no such option,” he said. “If there was, the LDP government would have done it much earlier.”
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The US-Japan security alliance has been strained as Tokyo’s new centre-left leaders, in a row over a US military base, make good on their promise to be less subservient to Washington, analysts say.
The five-week-old government has repeatedly signalled it may scrap an agreement to build a new airbase on the southern island of Okinawa, where many residents have long objected to the existing American military presence.
The tone hardened this week when US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s government to quickly “move on” and resolve the issue before President Barack Obama visits Japan next month.
Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada shot back later, saying “I don’t think we will act simply by accepting what the US tells us.” Reviewing the base issue, he added, reflected the will of the people. On Friday, Okada relented somewhat, saying new facilities could be built on the island but suggesting they be merged with another US site, the Kadena Air Base, a plan also not favoured by the United States.
Political observers have taken notice of the new tone in Japan. “Hatoyama’s ‘no’ is the first time Japan is rebelling against the US in decades,” said political analyst Minoru Morita, warning that “Japan-US relations are in danger.”
Some commentators warned that Japan’s new government is allowing domestic politics to threaten the security alliance that protected Japan through the Cold War and ever since. The conservative newspaper Sankei Shimbun in an editorial said the government lacked responsibility and should take seriously Gates’ comments as a “warning that the Japan-US alliance could come to a rupture.”
Hatoyama signalled during his election campaign that although he values the US alliance, he would also seek a “more equal” relationship. His government, which ended half a century of conservative rule, has said it will end a naval refuelling mission that has supported the Nato-led Afghanistan campaign since 2001.
Washington initially played down such comments as campaign rhetoric by Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which had never been in government. But concern has grown, especially over the base issue. The Washington Post on Thursday quoted an unnamed US State Department official as saying: “The hardest thing right now is not China. It’s Japan.”
The flashpoint has been the new government’s pledge to “review” a 2006 agreement to reign the 47,000-strong troop presence in the country, where American soldiers have been based since World War II.
Under the plan, the Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Base, located in an urban area of Okinawa, would be closed and replaced with a new facility in a coastal area of the island by 2014, while 8,000 Marines would be moved to Guam.
Gates warned on Wednesday that reneging on the Futenma deal would unravel the wider pact, including the handover by Washington of the current base on Okinawa, an island dubbed America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier”.
Okinawa is of key strategic importance for the US military, as it lies near mainland China and Taiwan, close to North Korea, and can act as a stepping stone to Afghanistan and the Middle East. Takehiko Yamamoto, professor of international politics at Waseda University, said: “The current uncertainty over the Futenma airbase is accelerating a sense of distrust toward the DPJ, especially among Pentagon officials.”
Mikitaka Masuyama, politics professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, said moving the base off Okinawa would sour relations with Washington, but doubted such a scenario would occur.
“Even if it has promised in its election campaign to relocate the base outside Okinawa, it must by now have realised that in reality there is no such option,” he said. “If there was, the LDP government would have done it much earlier.”
Japan to craft new U.S. base plan by year-end: report
Japan to craft new U.S. base plan by year-end: report
Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:31pm EDT
OKYO (Reuters) - Japan will inform U.S. President Barack Obama during his visit to Tokyo next month that it will come up with a new plan by the end of the year to relocate a U.S. air base within the southern island of Okinawa, the Sankei newspaper reported on Friday.
The report comes days after the U.S. defense secretary bluntly called for a planned realignment of U.S. troops in Japan to be implemented, sparking concern about worsening ties between Washington and Japan's new government.
A broad deal to reorganize U.S. forces in Japan was agreed in 2006 between Washington and Japan's long-dominant conservative party, which was ousted by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's Democratic Party in an August election.
Central to the deal is a plan to move the functions of the Futenma air base to northern Okinawa, while shifting 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam, partly at Japan's expense. Japan is host to about 47,000 U.S. military personnel as part of the decades-old security alliance.
Hatoyama had said he wants the base moved off the island, where many complain about crime, noise, pollution and accidents associated with U.S. bases, but U.S. officials have ruled that out, saying it would undermine broader security agreements.
The Sankei reported that the government plans to come up with a new relocation site within Okinawa, citing unidentified government sources.
Hatoyama said on Thursday that Japan needed more time before making a decision on the Futenma base issue and that he did not regard Obama's November 12-13 visit as the deadline for Japan to reach a conclusion.
"It's about how both sides avoid risks. There is no need to rush," Hatoyama was quoted as saying on Friday by Kyodo News Agency.
(Reporting by Yoko Kubota; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:31pm EDT
OKYO (Reuters) - Japan will inform U.S. President Barack Obama during his visit to Tokyo next month that it will come up with a new plan by the end of the year to relocate a U.S. air base within the southern island of Okinawa, the Sankei newspaper reported on Friday.
The report comes days after the U.S. defense secretary bluntly called for a planned realignment of U.S. troops in Japan to be implemented, sparking concern about worsening ties between Washington and Japan's new government.
A broad deal to reorganize U.S. forces in Japan was agreed in 2006 between Washington and Japan's long-dominant conservative party, which was ousted by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's Democratic Party in an August election.
Central to the deal is a plan to move the functions of the Futenma air base to northern Okinawa, while shifting 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam, partly at Japan's expense. Japan is host to about 47,000 U.S. military personnel as part of the decades-old security alliance.
Hatoyama had said he wants the base moved off the island, where many complain about crime, noise, pollution and accidents associated with U.S. bases, but U.S. officials have ruled that out, saying it would undermine broader security agreements.
The Sankei reported that the government plans to come up with a new relocation site within Okinawa, citing unidentified government sources.
Hatoyama said on Thursday that Japan needed more time before making a decision on the Futenma base issue and that he did not regard Obama's November 12-13 visit as the deadline for Japan to reach a conclusion.
"It's about how both sides avoid risks. There is no need to rush," Hatoyama was quoted as saying on Friday by Kyodo News Agency.
(Reporting by Yoko Kubota; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)