Saturday, December 20, 2003

Okinawa's Christmas Presents


Santa Claus came to town

Saturday, December 20, 2003
Saturday Evening Edition

Several meetings were held in Tokyo Thursday regarding Okinawan development plans by the central government in connection with U.S. military base conversion to commercial use. It is an annual function of budget allocation coinciding with the Christmas season. Both the central government and Ginowan City agreed to complete conversion planning for Futenma Marine Corps Air Station by fiscal year 2005.

The central government put the total budget for the Northern Area Development Plan at 2.1 billion yen for the second portion of this fiscal year's allocation. The government opened the joint assembly of two working groups, one for northern area development and the other for relocation and development of surrounding areas, with the attendance of the Minister of the Okinawa Bureau Toshimitsu Mogi, Governor Keiichi Inamine, and Nago City Mayor Tateo Kishimoto.

Minister Mogi announced the budget and four new projects for the northern part of Okinawa, designated as the new host area for Futenma MCAS. The government will pour billions into the development of the north in compensation for accepting a potentially new troublesome facility. In his speech, Minister Mogi showed enthusiasm to work hard for northern area development in cooperation with the governor and citizens.

On the same day, the government held another meeting with Ginowan City Mayor Yoichi Iha to discuss the conversion planning of Futenma MCAS after its relocation to the north. It was decided to complete a basic plan by fiscal 2005 to convert the military base for civilian use. It was the first meeting for the group to reach a definite time line.

Ginowan City and the OPG will form a study committee inviting Futenma landowners to help make the conversion plan within this fiscal year. Mayor Iha welcomed the progress of the working group and requested an earlier return of the land. He also explained that he was elected by citizens who supported his promise to return the land within five years and went on to complain about the annoying aircraft noise. Minister Mogi replied, "We take your words seriously."

For Chatan Town, where serious soil contamination was found on returned land used as a U.S. military base, the central government promised to take necessary measures for recovery. Chatan Mayor Choichi Hentona appreciated the central government's efforts concerning hazardous materials and recovering cultural treasures found after U.S. base removal.

The four new projects for northern area in the second portion of this year's budget are as follows: a 340 million yen processing facility on Iheya Island for packing and sales of Mozuku seaweed; a 332 million yen IT Business Integration Project which would serve as a data base center for new business in Nago City; a 147 million yen Wide Area Network Project for the northern area which would connect public facilities of the four municipalities of Nago, Ginoza, Kin, and Onna with optic fiber; and a 23 million yen Long Life and Healing Village Project in Ogimi Village, known for its many centenarian residents, which would study the home helper service and associated businesses.

Saturday, December 6, 2003

Futenma Relocation Still Undecided



The Futenma issue a hot potato

Saturday,December 6, 2003
Saturday Evening Edition

The deadline for the return of land used by U.S. Futenma Marine Corps Air Station to the local community passed last Thursday. It was on December 2, 1996 that the Japanese Prime Minister and the U.S. Ambassador to Japan had declared the return of Futemna within five to seven years. The condition for land return was to provide a new air station within Okinawa, but plans have not even been put down on blueprint and it seems the process will take ten years or more.

The idea of relocating Futenma to Camp Shwab in Nago City is seemingly halted. Nago wants several limitations on the kinds of planes, flight patterns, and for environmental protection. And the dugong, a natural treasure, resides around the seashore of Camp Shwab. Many issues lie in the way of planning to build a new military airbase there.

Going back seven years, the declaration by both the U.S. and Japanese governments was to return Futenma by making a helipad to land helicopters and other related facilities. Later it was revealed that they needed a runway and certain other facilities, which was far from image of a pad, and proposed locations for the new air station jumped from one place to another like a grasshopper.

Keiichi Inamine became governor in 1998 and decided to accept the building of a new air station in Henoko, Nago City and within the area of Camp Shwab on the conditions of making an additional runway for commercial use and limiting military use for only fifteen years. Many local residents supported his appeal during his gubernatorial election campaign.

But the U.S. government publicly stated it would be impossible to accept a time limitation regarding security matters and they believed the governor's request could not be granted. The Japanese government also took the same stance.

The horrible crime of U.S. servicemen assaulting an elementary schoolgirl in 1995 attracted world-wide attention to Okinawa military base issues. Both governments set up a Special Action Committee, SACO, for the consolidation and reduction of military bases on Okinawa to ease the burden of the local people. It included the return of Futenma.

Although SACO agreed to return eleven military facilities, only two have actually been returned to local communities. It proved difficult to relocate military bases within Okinawa which was already saturated by bases. Even if the SACO agreement would be implemented, Okinawa would still host seventy percent of the total U.S. military facilities in all Japan.

The seven-year anniversary of the SACO agreement was not a celebration, but the reality and difficulty of U.S. military base issues remains.

There is little progress on the Futenma issue between Tokyo and Okinawa. There was the question of who would be in charge of the commercial runway and it was agreed that the central government would be. Before agreeing, Okinawa argued that accepting a new military base was itself a heavy political cost and the Defense Agency said it could not manage anything other than a military facility.

Monday, December 1, 2003

Henoko Ordnance Ammunition Depot

Okinawa, Japan
[ca December 1, 2003]

Henoko Ordnance Depot, which is adjacent to Camp Schwab, is an ammunition storage facility for the U.S. Marine Corps. Most of the ordnance depot is covered over with dirt. Henoko is the village closest to Camp Schwab.

The US military has had plans to construct a new heliport in Henoko. In December 1999 Nago City Mayor, Tateo Kishimoto accepted plans to move the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station to Nago’s southeastern district of Henoko. The Mayor’s approval was considered to have cleared the final obstacle towards the relocation of Futenma. It also ended a debate that has been going on for more than three years. The isssue first came up in 1996, when the US and Japan decided to move Marine air operations to other, less developed areas of Okinawa.

Henoko heliport is planned to be the upgraded version of the major Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station, which is nestled in a crowded metropolitan area on the South End of Okinawa. Futenma has long been the object of controversy, as its noise pollution and other chemical contagion have been pinpointed as major causes of health problems in the area. Schools, hospitals, and thousands of homes are located within mere yards of this highly valued Marine transportation hub and supplies outpost.

The new air station, which would replace Futenma Marine Corps Air Station, would be built over a reef that is almost 2 miles off the shores of Henoko. The environmental assessment is the first step toward making the move northward. Government officials have been working on the plan and estimate that the size of the proposed facility will be about 195 hectares. It would be 2,600 meters long and 750 meters wide. The planners considered eight different proposals on different construction methods depending on the location. The construction work is estimated to take between eight to nine years. The total cost is estimated to be from ¥200 billion to trillion.

Surveys, expected to begin in December 2003 and to take about three years, will assess the area where land is to be reclaimed and the airport construction’s environmental impact.

Some environmentalists expressed fear that the airport would harm the seabed grazing grounds of an endangered saltwater manatee, the dugong. Henoko city officials said the dugongs never really were a consideration in the decision. Most of the 18 confirmed dugong sightings in Okinawa waters since 1979 were beached carcasses. And officials said they know of no sightings inside the reef where the airport will be built.

In December 1996, after 12 months of study and consultations, the governments in Tokyo and Washington and their representatives on the Special Action Committee on Okinawa produced their final report concerning the return of US military base properties on the island. The plans for the Futenma Air Station - the single most important issue for Okinawans - were not finalized.

A floating heliport was the leading option, but its location and the construction method had not been determined. The focus of the December 1996 Special Action Committee on Okinawa final report was an accord is to relocate the major military heliport now at the US Marine Corps Futenma Air Station to a 1,500-meter sea-based facility off the east coast of the main island of Okinawa. It envisaged developing and constructing the facility off Camp Schwab, located in the city of Nago. But an exact location for the heliport was not specified in the report, because agreement from local residents had not been reached. In the past, such marine super floating structure had been considered and talked about many times as a touch-and-go base as the replacenent of the Atsugi Airbase as well as a candidate for the Kansai Airport. At the meeting between President Clinton and Japanese Prime Minister Hashimoto, held in New York on September 24, Clinton commented on proposed sea floating heliport as a replacement facility for the Futenma Airbase by saying, "no matter where it would be moved, it should be done in a way that the US military system would not be harmed, and it must be solved in a way that in the future the problem like that of Futenma should never be resurfaced".

The United States established a runway length requirement of about 4,200 feet for the sea-based facility. Arresting gear would be located about 1,200 feet from either end of the runway to permit carrier aircraft to land. In addition, the runway would have 328-foot overruns at each end to provide a safety margin in case a pilot overshoots the optimal landing spot during an approach and a parallel taxiway about 75 feet wide alongside the runway. Additional aircraft facilities include a drive-through rinse facility for aircraft corrosion control, an air traffic control tower, and aircraft firefighting and rescue facilities. Up to 10,000 pounds of ordnance would be stored in a magazine collocated with an ordnance assembly area aboard the sea-based facility. Also, flight simulators and security and rescue boat operations, among other capabilities, are required aboard the sea-based facility. The "DoD Operational Requirements and Concept of Operations for MCAS Futenma Relocation, Okinawa, Japan (final draft)" stated that the sea-based facilities of the new military base and all associated structure shall be designed for a 40 year operational life with a 200 year fatigue life.

The United States planned to locate the headquarters, logistics, and most operational activities aboard the sea-based facility and most quality-of-life activities, including housing, food service, and medical and dental services, ashore at Camp Schwab. US officials estimate that over 2,500 servicemembers currently stationed at MCAS Futenma would transfer to the sea-based facility and Camp Schwab. To accommodate the incoming arrivals from MCAS Futenma, Marine Corps Bases, Japan, plans to relocate about 800 to 1,000 servicemembers currently housed at Camp Schwab to Camp Hansen and absorb the remainder at Camp Schwab. US engineers estimated that about 1,900 people would work on the sea-based facility.

In August 1997 the Okinawa Prefectural Government officially accepted a central government request to conduct borings at a site off Nago on the east coast of Okinawa Island as part of a survey for a sea-based US military heliport facility. Despite strong pressure from Tokyo, local people in Nago voted against the heliport proposal in a referendum in December 1997.

By November 1997 the Japanese government was considering two methods of construction for the sea-based facility, which would be approximately 1,500 meters long and 600 meters wide. One called for a pontoon platform, protected by breakwaters, moored outside a coral reef at a point approximately 3 km from Henoko, the nearest residential area. The other entailed a platform supported by stilts sunk in the sea bottom inside the reef and about 1.5 km from Henoko. Within the reef, the water is less than 3 meters deep, while outside the reef it is 10 meters to 70 meters deep. A thir method, dubbed the "semisub" system, had been dismissed due to potentially exorbitant costs. Both methods included construction of a runway about 1,300 meters long and 45 meters wide, along with a control tower, hangers, an apron, repair facilities and warehouses. Additional residential facilities would be built at nearby Camp Schwab to accommodate some 2,500 Marines and their families.

According to the proposal, about 60 aircraft would be deployed at the sea-based facility, including UH-1 utility helicopters, AH-1 attack helicopters, and CH-53 and CH-46 cargo transport helicopters.

A March 1998 report by the General Accounting Office noted that the sea-based facility, planned to replace the Marine Corps Air Station at Futenma, faced three major technological, financial and operational challenges. Annual operations and maintenance costs for the sea-based facility were initially estimated at $200 million based on a $4-billion design and construction cost, significantly higher than the $2.8 million being paid by the United States at Futenma.

The area planned for the new base is in a natural conservation area dedignated by Okinawa Prefecture. The area, where a diverse ecosystem is maintained, such as coral reefs, tideland and sea weed grounds, is given high priority for conservation. The sea area is the northern habitable limit of dugongs, an internationally protected animal.

In June 2001 the Futenma Relocation Committee was presented with eight different designs and three different methods of construction. The conceptions were for structures either within the coral reef or beyond it. Generally the methods are based on structures connected by piers, floating pontoons or land reclamation.

Sunday, November 23, 2003

U.S. takes first step away from S. Korea

Sunday, Nov. 23, 2003
By RICHARD HALLORAN
Special to The Japan Times

HONOLULU -- U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's visit to South Korea this past week should be seen for what it really was, an early step in a long, gradual disengagement of U.S. land forces from South Korea and a greater reliance on sea power to maintain an American security posture in Asia.

As he flew through Northeast Asia, Rumsfeld sprinkled clues about the future of U.S. military dispositions there even as he reaffirmed the American treaty commitments to South Korea and Japan. Other U.S. officials explained what the hints meant.

A primary reason for pulling back from South Korea is that the U.S. needs the 17,000 soldiers of the Second Infantry Division elsewhere. As Rumsfeld and military leaders have said repeatedly, U.S. forces are stretched thin. The U.S. Army has only 10 divisions and cannot afford to have one tied down in South Korea.

Related to that need has been the refusal of South Korea to send a division of 12,000 soldiers to secure a sector in Iraq, as requested by the U.S. Instead, Seoul will post only 3,000, and that will include the 700 already there.

Moreover, anti-Americanism is so widespread that moving American troops out of Seoul and positions north of the capital will ease tensions only slightly. In a discussion of South Korea and North Korea, an American officer said, only half joking, "Sometimes I wonder which one is really our adversary."

Despite superficial agreement, U.S. President George W. Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun disagree on how to dissuade North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. The U.S. president advocates a firm approach while the South Korean leader would be more accommodating.

Thus, over the next five years the U.S. will shift most of the 7,000 people in its headquarters in Seoul out of the city. The U.S. will move the Second Division into posts south of Seoul near airfields. Those soldiers will prepare for swift strikes in contingencies elsewhere in Asia. The 37,000 troops in Korea today will be cut to an undecided number.

Why five years? That would have changes made before the end of the second Bush administration, assuming Bush is re-elected next November.

In addition, the United Nations headquarters, in South Korea since the Korean War of 1950-53, will probably be disbanded. The Combined Forces Command, which gives the U.S. operational control over South Korean troops, will be dissolved and authority returned to the South Korean government; those controls have long irritated nationalistic South Koreans.

Finally, the position of the four-star U.S. Army general, who today commands the U.N. mission, the Combined Forces Command, and U.S. troops, will be abolished in favor of a lower-ranking commander. The four-star flag may be moved to the headquarters of the U.S. Army in the Pacific, as many senior Army officers have advocated.

Rumsfeld's clues: On the way to Guam, he told the traveling press that the Pentagon has been reviewing "our force deployments and stationings." He said: "We're now at a stage where we can begin discussing [that] with our allies and with Congress."

Aboard the Navy command ship Blue Ridge in Yokosuka, Japan, Rumsfeld said: "I think those of you who are serving in the Navy are going to see the responsibilities of the United States Navy increase generally, and increase particularly here."

Addressing Americans in Okinawa, the defense secretary said: "We've got to continue to pull down deployments." He said some overseas deployments would continue but added: "Once they do that job they ought not to be there any longer than they need to be there." American troops have been in South Korea since the Korean War.

At a press conference in Seoul, after meeting with the defense minister of South Korea, Cho Young Kil, Rumsfeld said: "I have assured the minister that any changes to U.S. military posture in Northeast Asia will be the product of the closest consultation with our key allies. Most important they will result in increased U.S. capabilities in the region."

Rumsfeld said those adjustments "will reflect the new technologies that are available, the new capabilities and they will strengthen our ability to deter and if necessary defeat any aggressions against allies such as South Korea."

After meeting with Roh, Rumsfeld said the president had asserted that his nation "could become more self-reliant. I agree with that." He said the same thing in a meeting with American troops at Osan Air Base.

Translation: South Korea is capable of defending itself and U.S. forces are needed elsewhere.

Richard Halloran, formerly a correspondent for Business Week, The Washington Post and The New York Times, is a freelance journalist.

Friday, November 14, 2003

Japanese Rebuff Rumsfeld on Eve of Visit


Posted on: Friday, 14 November 2003, 06:00 CST

Any hope Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had of being greeted in Japan with government assurances of a speedy dispatch of troops to Iraq were dashed even before he arrived Friday.

Rumsfeld was whisked directly from the airport to an evening meeting with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, whose government announced a day earlier while Rumsfeld was visiting Guam that it almost certainly will delay sending a contingent of non-combat troops until sometime next year.

Japan is one of America's most steadfast allies - arguably the most important in Asia - and it has pledged billions of dollars in financial aid for Iraq's reconstruction. The Bush administration had hoped the Japanese also would send troops before the end of the year. But after Wednesday's deadly attack on the Italian compound in south-central Iraq, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda backed off, saying the security situation in Iraq is not yet stable enough.

In an interview with reporters flying with him to Tokyo, Rumsfeld showed no sign of disappointment at Japan's decision and even suggested that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is gaining strength.

He said he was impressed by Italy's stated determination to remain in Iraq, even after losing 14 people in the attack at Nasiriya. The Italians indicated they may send replacement forces, he said.

"So the signal that's been sent is quite the contrary" to any suggestion that the coalition is in trouble in Iraq, Rumsfeld said, noting that 32 countries have troops on the ground and that Washington is in discussions with 14 more on providing either combat or humanitarian troops.

Rumsfeld acknowledged, however, that the anti-American resistance in Iraq is learning to stay one step ahead of the technologically superior U.S. military.

"The remnants of the regime are going to school on us," he said. "They watch what takes place and then they make adjustments. The test is who's going to outlast the other, and the answer is we're going to outlast them."

Tokyo was the second stop on an Asia tour that is Rumsfeld's first since becoming secretary of defense nearly three years ago.

After two days in Japan, to include a visit Sunday with American troops stationed on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa, Rumsfeld was headed to Seoul, where the South Korean government also dealt the Pentagon a setback this week by pledging a smaller troop deployment to Iraq than Washington had hoped for. It also is unclear how soon the 3,000 South Korean troops will go.

Rumsfeld has said repeatedly that the Bush administration wants countries to contribute troops to Iraq only if they feel it is in their self-interest - and in numbers that suit them. But the timing of the announcements by Tokyo and Seoul - while Rumsfeld was still en route - gave weight to the perception that even the administration's best allies are doubtful of progress in Iraq.

And in recent days Rumsfeld has underscored how difficult these troop decisions have become.

"It's a dangerous country, it's a violent country," he said Thursday in Guam. "It's been a violent country for a long time and it very likely will be for a long time. Certainly people need to participate there with their eyes open."

Speaking to U.S. troops over lunch at Andersen Air Force Base on the north end of Guam, Rumsfeld said Friday that stabilizing Iraq is "a tough, dangerous business," and that while progress has been made in the six-plus months since major combat ended May 1, "we have a way to go" before the situation is stable enough to transfer control of the country back to the Iraqis.

Rumsfeld also said the Bush administration has abandoned its original plan to restore sovereignty to the Iraqis only after they have written and ratified a new constitution and held elections.

"The experts say to do that would take a very long period of time - a couple of years," he said.

The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council has "come up with ideas," presented to President Bush through L. Paul Bremer, the top American administrator in Iraq, on how to "find some transfer of responsibility at a pace that is earlier" than the projected two-year timetable, he said.

"It does not mean we would physically leave the country any sooner," he added. "What it means is the Iraqis would begin to take on a greater portion of responsibility sooner than the original (plan)."

During his stop in Guam, Rumsfeld got briefings from U.S. Navy and Air Force commanders on the island's growing importance as a launching pad for American firepower in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Navy stationed two Los Angelese-class attack submarines in Guam last year and another is due to arrive next year. It also may add an aircraft carrier. No Air Force attack planes are permanently based there, but the Air Force is considering basing F/A-22 fighters as well as bombers and the Global Hawk surveillance plane.

Saturday, November 1, 2003

"Farewell, dear Isle!" The cost of demilitarizing Okinawa

"Farewell, dear Isle!" The cost of demilitarizing Okinawa: Okinawans may soon get what many of them have long wanted: the departure of US troops and the return of their land. But be careful what you wish for.

From: Japan Inc. | Date: 11/1/2003 | Author: Stanley, Michael E. Japan Inc.

BY THE BEGINNING OF the 19th century, the inhabitants of the Ryukyu Kingdom -- including what are now the 159 islands of Okinawa Prefecture -- were well aware that foreign ships occasionally prowled their waters. Among them were trading vessels bound for the European trading enclaves in the region and a few European and American whalers, who had begun to search out the great pods of leviathans that dwelt in the western Pacific. These vessels came and soon departed, usually without incident, often leaving only puzzlement and speculation in their wake.

In 1816, two Royal Navy vessels, the Alceste and the Lyra, had borne a part of Lord Amherst's mission to the imperial court at Peking. The two ships were ordered to survey the western coast of the Korean peninsula and the Ryukyu islands. In mid-September, the ships met their first Okinawans and the crews were duly impressed, noting their friendly and generous demeanor.

Between that first meeting and the departure of the two vessels, there was an ongoing mutual admiration and lack of friction that has few parallels in the history of Western voyaging and exploration. The journal of Dr. John M'Leod, ship's surgeon aboard the Alceste, recorded the impression left upon the English voyagers: "... The kindness and hospitality of its inhabitants have fixed upon every mind a deep and lasting impression of gratitude and esteem."

Another officer put his feeling into verse: "Farewell, dear Isle!--on thee may ne'er/The breath of civil discord blow!/Far from your shores be every fear,/And far--oh! Far--the invading foe!"

On the homeward voyage, the Lyra put in at the lonely South Atlantic isle of St. Helena, where the exiled Napoleon Bonaparte was in enforced residence. Captain Basil Hall secured an interview with Bonaparte, in which he mentioned that during his stay in the Ryukyus he saw no weapons of any kind. Hall noted that Bonaparte was "... completely perplexed ... Nothing struck him so much as their having no arms." Bonaparte was equally surprised by the Ryukyus' life without war. "'No wars!' cried he, with a scornful and incredulous expression, as if the existence of any people under the sun without wars was a monstrous anomaly."

But in 1945, as the Empire of Japan tottered toward defeat in World War II, the islands of the Once-flourishing Ryukyu Kingdom bristled with Japanese arms, and did indeed feel the tread of "the invading foe." The rest is a history with an especially ironic twist for that apparently unarmed land whose story had so amazed Napoleon.

Today, Okinawa is the least economically viable of Japan's 47 prefectures, and has had a sizable contingent of forward-deployed United States military forces on its soil for almost six decades. In that time, the prefecture has grown considerably from its Third World-like status as a war ravaged backwater.

Over the years, the presence of a large number of US military personnel -- approximately 25,000, with about 23,000 dependents -- making exclusive use of 19 percent of the main island's land area has become an increasingly visible source of friction between the Okinawans, the US military personnel stationed there and the government of Japan. Despite the politicians and bureaucrats who dodge the issue every time it is brought forward, it is quite clear that to the Japanese government, the large Okinawa-based forces and their facilities are in that prefecture until it's in their best interest to leave, and no amount of local protest will dislodge them.

In the meantime, 75 percent of the land reserved for use by US military forces in Japan is in the prefecture, the vast majority of it on the same main island that is home to 90 percent of Okinawa's overall population. Better there than here--or in Kyoto, Fukuoka or Sapporo -- is the attitude demonstrated but never precisely articulated by the Tokyo decision makers.

The really telling facts are these: Okinawa has a small population (just over 1,300,000 compared with Tokyo's over 12 million) and comprises only 0.6 per cent of Japan's total land area. Moreover, the prefecture is very heavily dependent on largesse from the national government to keep its books balanced, and must rely on Tokyo handouts on a perennial basis. In the thirty years since the switch from US military occupation to Japanese civilian rule in 1972, the Japanese government spent [yen] 6.7 trillion on improving Okinawa's infrastructure.

It is hard to go cold turkey on an addiction of that scale.

Those two hard truths -- small political presence and reliance on largesse from Tokyo--ensure that while there are well-orchestrated local choruses of caterwauling about the US military presence, they can have no effect until either Washington or Tokyo, or both, decide to drastically alter their relationship.

That may come to pass in the very near future. Over the next few years, the US will likely implement a large-scale repositioning of its overseas forces. Despite the official press-release denials, it is far from inconceivable that the forces stationed in Okinawa could well he shifted to other locations in the western Pacific area. Such moves may be much more likely than anyone is letting on at the moment, especially it there is a diplomatic breakthrough -- or a coupd'etat -- that guarantees the stability of the Korean peninsula.

In recent months, there has been speculation that some of the units now in Okinawa could move to bases in northern Australia, Guam or the Philippines in very short order. While there are indeed several potential locations, one certain factor is that any move is likely to be made on a large scale. The two major units of the US Forces in Okinawa are the Marine Corps' 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF), headquartered at Camp Courtney, and the Air Force's 18th Wing, headquartered at Kadena Air Base. These are large and intricate elements of the total US force structure in the Asian-Pacific region.

The structure and mission of these two critically important force components are such that the larger part of the US forces in Okinawa cannot be drawn away gradually, a piece at a time. Each has to maintain its function and readiness together. If there is a realignment that causes the 3rd MEF and/or the 18th Wing to relocate, that removal would have to be on a large scale. Fragmentary or small-scale changes of a long-term nature could not occur; neither of these force's components can effectively function if, say, its electronics repair personnel, cooks or military police units were to be removed. The far greater part has to essentially move together, just as a spleen, liver and gall bladder have to move with the rest of a living human body in order for that body to survive. Essentially, it's a case or "all or nothing.'"

Force relocation out of Okinawa would not only be on a large scale, it would be precipitous: these components--despite their size and complexity -- cannot afford a long down time while they pack, move and unpack. And there are important strategic and tactical aspects to consider: the Pentagon is absolutely unwilling to reveal its forces' movements any more than is necessary. As long as the major threat in the region is only two hours by air (or less than 15 minutes by missile) from Okinawa, it is indeed naive in the extreme to think that any long-term advance notice of a major redeployment would be offered. Given these two conditions, it is apparent that any moves in store for the Okinawa-based US military would be both large and relatively sudden. And with US military presence in Okinawa of such a scale that it is deeply woven into the fabric of life on the island, any such move would have a broad-based and potentially devastating economic impact.

Back during the bubble years of the 80s, the term '3 K' was used to describe work seen as demeaning to the younger Japanese generation: kiken, kitanai, kitsui (dangerous, dirty, harsh). The Okinawan economy has its own different set of Ks: kanko, kichi, kokyo jigyo. These describe the bases of the prefecture's economy--tourism, the military bases and public-works spending. (Note that agriculture and manufacturing are nowhere in the mix, even with tax incentives aimed at aiding these sectors.)

At the time of reversion to Japanese sovereignty, military-related transactions accounted for 15.6 percent of the prefecture's total economic activity, for a total of [yen] 78 billion. In recent years, that same category--including rent paid for the land occupied by military facilities, salaries of Japanese employees on the bases and the calculated expenditures by the US personnel in the local economy -- has hovered at just about 5 percent, with a total of around [yen] 180 billion. Much of this, including the salaries of Japanese-national employees and the rental payments to land owners for the use of their "conscripted" property, is actually paid for by the Japanese government.

However, these monies are contingent on the presence of the US forces, and whatever the source, for years the total has been more than double the figure for the income generated by Okinawa's agricultural sector. Despite the claims that the bases cause economic hardship by depriving Okinawans of their land, a quick look at the rentals paid for the use of that land reveals that the amounts paid are higher on the average than the profits resulting from sugar cane or pineapple cultivation -- a fact which is grudgingly conceded even by some of the bases' most vociferous opponents. Some of these individuals are owners of the properties themselves. The economic reality of this payment is underlined by the fact that there are Okinawan real estate agencies that specialize in buying and selling titles to individual parcels of the land on which the bases sit.

The US Air Force and Marine Corps together employ about 7,500 Okinawans, with another 1,200 or so employed at the smaller US Army and Navy facilities. This makes the US military one of the prefecture's largest employers; it is fairly easy to envision the impact of the loss of both those jobs and the concomitant economic input by the US military.

With Japan still in its decade-plus recession (and no sign of it ending soon), with tax revenues in a slide and necessary expenditures rising, it requires no mental wizardry to understand the government's aversion to having to further bail out Okinawa. The entire prefecture could suddenly plunge into a depression by the loss of an amount approaching [yen] 180 billion per year--not to mention the sudden disappearance of local construction, maintenance and service contracts let for base facilities and paid for by the Japanese government through the Defense Agency's Defense Facilities Administration Agency.

The presence of the Gordian-knot state of tension on the Korean peninsula will assuredly keep the US forces in Okinawa for the time being. However, if the Bush administration's evident coolness toward the apparent threat of a nuclear-armed and nuclear arms-exporting North Korea (as opposed to its fervent heat over a Baathist Iraq) is any indication, a removal of major force components from Okinawa to another location becomes a greater possibility. Such relocation to bases from which they may better be able to operate, say, against Islamic guerillas and terrorists in Southeast Asia is a definite possibility for the near term. The rising profile of Islamic terrorism in that region will be a major motivation. With such large forces tasked and based outside Japanese territory, being unable to "let George do it" will surely provide an impetus for Japan to arm itself more fully so as to be able to mount a far more vigorous defense than the currently eggshell-thin Defense Forces could muster on their own.

It is already evident that some new and precedent-setting measures in this direction are not only being contemplated, but acted upon. For example, last February, Defense Agency chief Shigeru Ishiba blustered that if Japan's reconnaissance satellites were to detect North Korea fueling its ballistic missiles, Japan could rightly mount a strike against North Korea as an act of self-defense.

Ishiba may have revealed more than he intended to at the time. As things stand today, the Japan Air Self Defense Force could not do much; but the new -- and air-refuelable --F-16-based F-2 attack fighter is configured to employ the GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) "smart bomb" system. This combination will multiply Japan's air-strike capabilities by several orders of magnitude, and so make a quick-reaction strike such as that mentioned by Mr. Ishiba well within the capability of the JASDF in very short order. His comments might be hinting that active acquisition of this system is now on the fastest of tracks and that reaching operability at the earliest opportunity is a major priority.

A few years ago, during an interview covering the day-to-day realities of the Japan-US defense relationship, a Japan Air Self Defense Force colonel -- a wing commander at the time -- opined: "In Japan there is no long view; everything is a reaction to the perceived problems of the moment. That is our real problem, and that will hurt us." If the colonel's assessment is indeed accurate, Japan may encounter a painful and dangerous set of difficulties of which there is no apparent precedent.

The impact of the sudden relocation of the large Marine and Air Force components from Okinawa would not be limited to that island alone; it would ripple throughout the nation and the region. But the two dollars-and-cents problems that Japan would face are the relief of an Okinawa plunged suddenly into a prefectural depression of unprecedented scale, and the need for the nation to arm and train to thoroughly and completely defend itself in the event of a regional crisis. Whether it is politically up to that challenge is something we may see in the months and years ahead. The days of a chaotically overheated, virtually unmanaged economy and a head-in-the-sand approach to international difficulties should be over, and the real test may just be beginning.

* MICHAEL STANLEY
(Farewell Dear Isle, page 52) has lived in Japan for 24 years, working in the fields of print and broadcast media. He is a veteran documentary photographer specializing in challenging environments such as deserts, rain forests, oceans--and the cockpits of high-performance military aircraft. His work has appeared in Japanese magazines ranging from Bungeishunju to Elle Japon. He is also an analyst and commentator for Fuji TV news and a frequent contributor to J@pan Inc. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-110807936.html

Saturday, August 16, 2003

JAPAN-U.S. RELATIONSHIP : A turnaround remembered

Saturday, Aug. 16, 2003
By RICHARD HALLORAN
Special to The Japan Times

HONOLULU -- August stirs memories of the darkest hours in the complicated 150-year history of America's relations with Japan.

On Aug. 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima and on Aug. 9 the second on Nagasaki. About 200,000 Japanese perished in that holocaust.

On Aug. 15, Emperor Showa announced that, in an acute understatement, "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage."

On Aug. 28, the first Americans landed to begin seven years of occupation.

Then, after four years of bitter war that had filled each nation with hatred, there began a remarkable turnaround. Over the ensuing half-century, Americans and Japanese not only learned to live with each other but to forge an alliance that serves the best interests of both countries. This month Japan stands with Australia, Britain and Canada as America's most reliable allies.

A white paper issued by the Defense Agency in Tokyo last week restated Japan's need to nurture its alliance with the United States, including the dispatch of its Self-Defense Forces on more peacekeeping missions abroad. Japan's Constitution forbids using military force to settle international disputes.

Japan's relations with America stand in marked contrast to those with China, North Korea and South Korea, all of which experienced Japanese aggression in the first half of the 20th century. Beijing and Pyongyang rarely miss an opportunity to criticize Japan and the U.S. Seoul's dealings with Tokyo are often edgy, and Korean anti-Americanism has become rampant.

From the outset in 1945, Emperor Showa and American Gen. Douglas MacArthur put their respective nations on the path to partnership. The emperor, in his Aug. 15 radio address, charged the Japanese not to resist the victors because "we have resolved to pave the way to peace for ten thousand generations by enduring the unendurable and suffering the insufferable."

MacArthur, accepting Japan's surrender aboard the battleship Missouri on Sept. 2, struck a tone for a magnanimous occupation. As supreme commander, he said he would proceed with "justice and tolerance" to see that "the Japanese people are liberated." Naoyuki Agawa, a Japanese scholar, said in a recent paper that the U.S. occupation had been "benevolent and generous."

A telling note: No Japanese shot at the American occupiers. A soldier in the 11th Airborne Division said they landed in Atsugi, southwest of Tokyo, with rifles loaded. Within a couple of days, they felt secure enough to stack their rifles and wander into town to see if they could find an open bar to drink beer. (Contrast that with Iraq where 160 Americans have been killed since hostilities ended.)

Even some American and Japanese warriors became friends. Adm. Arleigh Burke, who detested the Japanese but was posted to Japan in the 1950s, and Adm. Jinichi Kusaka, who fought Burke in the South Pacific, toasted each other over dinner. Burke also studied Japanese history under Adm. Kichisaburo Nomura, who had helped mask Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

After the occupation, U.S.-Japan relations were often on a roller coaster. Anti-American riots greeted a new security treaty in 1960. The U.S. return of the island of Okinawa to Japan in 1972 relieved much tension. The 1980s saw repeated trade disputes and "Japan bashing" by Americans. In the early 1990s, Japan drew American grumbling because it sent only money to the first war against Iraq.

Throughout this period, Japan wrapped itself in a pacifist cocoon, the consequence of the atomic bombings and the defeat of World War II. Japan's ambassador to the U.S., Ryozo Kato, told an audience in Washington last month: "We largely were on the sidelines when it came to global security issues."

In the last few years, Kato said, "Japan has been moving from supportive observer to active player." Noting Japanese deployments in peacekeeping, humanitarian missions and naval support for the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, Kato said: "Together with the United States, we are ready to have boots on the ground for the world's peace."

On a personal level, good relations between Japanese and Americans are all the more remarkable considering their cultural differences. Americans come from the Judeo-Christian tradition, Japanese from the teachings of Shinto, Buddhism and Confucius. Americans are individualistic, Japanese prize social harmony. Americans talk of their rights, Japanese of their obligations.

The list could go on forever. Indeed, many learned tomes have dissected the differences between Japanese and Americans. Nonetheless, as Agawa the scholar has written: "We will continue to work, study, suffer, laugh, cry and live together for a long time to come."

Richard Halloran, formerly a correspondent for Business Week, The Washington Post and The New York Times, is a freelance journalist.

Monday, July 21, 2003

Triple alliance stands behind Washington

Monday, July 21, 2003
By RICHARD HALLORAN
Special to The Japan Times

HONOLULU -- Two journeys to Tokyo this past week have underscored the forging of a new, albeit informal, triple alliance comprising Japan, Australia and Britain that stands alongside the United States in the war on terror.

First, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia met with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to concur that North Korea must be dissuaded from its nuclear ambitions by a multinational effort. That is the demand of U.S. President George W. Bush, who has lumped North Korea with Iraq and Iran as an axis of evil.

Then, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, fresh from a visit to Washington, followed Howard to Tokyo to agree that both pressure and negotiations were needed to get North Korea to give up its nuclear program.

Koizumi, Howard and Blair have been marching along parallel roads for many months. Each has taken a strong diplomatic stand in support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Each has been vigorously opposed in politics at home for taking that stance. All three have dispatched armed forces to Iraq -- Britain and Australia with troops on the ground and Japan with warships and logistics vessels at sea.

Perhaps most important, all three have given the same reason for aligning themselves with the U.S., which is that it serves their national interests now. As Lord Palmerston, the famed British prime minister, asserted in the 19th century: "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual and those interests it is our duty to follow."

The Japanese, Australian and British leaders have not sided with the U.S. because they think the Americans are good guys or even that Bush was right to invade Iraq. They have decided, in this day of Bush's maxim "you are either for us or for the terrorists," that it is better to be allied with the world's superpower than to oppose it.

Their reasons for looking to America for political and military backing are discernible:

* Many Japanese have recently expressed concern over an immediate threat from North Korea, which has 200 to 300 missiles that could reach Japan, is seeking nuclear arms, and has abducted Japanese citizens from their homeland. In the longer run, Japan is wary of the emergence of a powerful and belligerent China.

* Australians are worried about what they call the "Near North," meaning Indonesia and Southeast Asia. Muslim extremists exploded a bomb in a nightclub in Bali in October 2002, killing nearly 200 people, many of them Australian tourists. Those extremists are known to be operating in several other Southeast Asian nations.

* The British have been confronted with an attempt by France and Germany to turn the European Union into a bloc that would dominate Britain and contain American influence.

Britain, which has long sought to maintain a balance of power in Europe, has been part of a triple alliance before, including one with Sweden and the Netherlands against France in 1668.

Beyond power politics, the most immediate benefit gained by the triple alliance is that British, Australian and Japanese leaders have quick access to the highest levels of Washington. As an Australian White Paper said earlier this year: "We have never been better placed to put our views before the United States -- and have them heard -- including on issues where we disagree."

Contrast that position with the anti-American posture of France whose leaders slammed the U.S. on Bastille Day, the French national holiday on July 14, then announced that France would not send troops to help police strife-ridden Iraq. It does not take a degree in political science to figure that the French ambassador's telephone calls to the White House are not likely to be answered readily.

For the U.S., the triple alliance provides a triangle of democratic allies on islands off the eastern, southeastern and western shores of the Eurasian land mass. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz took note of two of the three when addressing the recent Shangri-La conference of defense ministers in Singapore. He said:

"Japan is in the process of its own national level evaluation and planning process, driven in part by new threat dynamics, and will make decisions based on its own needs as well as the perceived strength of our relationship.

"Australia's central role in Iraq, its support to coalition efforts in Afghanistan and its commitment to fight terrorism at home prove once again how valuable it is to have an ally that takes security and its commitments to the common defense seriously."

Richard Halloran, formerly a correspondent for Business Week, The Washington Post and The New York Times, is a freelance journalist.

Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Okinawa Rape Grabs Headlines, Little Political Impact

Weekly Review #99: June 24, 2003

Okinawa Rape Grabs Headlines, Little Political Impact

John de Boer (Research Associate, GLOCOM)


The arrest of yet another US military personnel in Okinawa on charges of rape this past week grabbed headlines in the international media. News of the crime was featured in major papers such as New York Times and the Washington Post and received the most coverage in national dailies of countries playing host to US troops and bases (ex. South Korea & the Gulf region). In Japan, an editorial (20 June) in the Asahi Shimbun called for the immediate revision of to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). While Japanese English dailies such as the Japan Times and the Mainichi News reported on Okinawa governor Keiichi Inamine's efforts to garner support for SOFA revision.

This arrest of a US marine for rape has forced US authorities to arrange a swift meeting, to be held within the next several weeks, between US and Japanese officials. On the agenda is the SOFA, which has not been revised since 1960. Although, Inamine's call for revision has been supported by the likes of Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara, little if anything is expected to change. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who thwarted Ishihara's plans to run for premiership several months ago, has already come out clearly on the matter saying that, "the government is unlikely to meet immediately the Okinawa government's request for SOFA revision" (Linda Sieg, "U.S. to Hand Over Marine in Japan Rape Case", Reuters, 18 June).

Okinawans have always been secondary to interests that have long profited from the US-Japan alliance. The plight of Okinawans is well known. Okinawa hosts approximately seventy-five percent of all US forces in Japan who live on bases that occupy eleven percent of the Island. Since 1945, these people have endured crime, pollution, corruption and economic dependence stemming from this "security" arrangement. Most Okinawans have long protested the occupation, however, they have fallen victim to what the commander of US Marine Corp Bases in Japan, Lt. General W. C. Gregson, recently classified as, "the confluence of many, many interests" (Linda Sieg, "Okinawa's Strategic Value to Grow--Top U.S. Marine", Reuters, 20 June).

For US military strategists, Okinawa is of vital importance says Gregson, as it "facilitates the projection of US forces throughout Asia". The General predicts that improved mobility will increase this value. In return, the Japanese government has relieved itself of much of the burden related to national security and in the process has secured preferential access to US markets and US patents. In the loop are also many Okinawan land lords who profit from the long-term leasing of their land to US troops and object to their withdrawal.

That SOFA has not been revised in nearly 50 years despite over 5,000 crimes, including murder, rape and robbery, having been committed by US military personnel, civilian employees or dependents since 1972, demonstrates, with excruciating clarity, the low priority given to the well-being of the average Okinawan within the circles of power (Military Base Affairs Office 1999; 3-7).

As the Koizumi cabinet rushes to get laws passed that will allow Japan to make a military contribution to the Bush administration's plans for Iraq, very little attention is being given to people in Okinawa. Upon hearing about the rape, Koizumi expressed no more than "regret". His foreign minister used the same word.

While the strategic value of Okinawa as a launching pad for US led military conquests is heralded by politicians, the toll on the well-being of Okinawa's inhabitants is brushed aside as regretful. General Gregson argues that Okinawa's role in US military plans will heighten. For him the key is mobility. "If we have more mobility", says Gregson, "we can expand our involvement throughout the region". While this may sound like good news to US and Japanese policy makers who will profit from exploiting Okinawa, there is no doubt that Okinawans will continue to suffer. In this sense, the status of Okinawa certainly classifies under what Prof. John Dower calls "indefinite neo-colonial control". For Okinawans today, there seems little hope for a better future.

Saturday, May 10, 2003

Shigeru Ishiba: Japan's hawk-in-chief

By Axel Berkofsky
Apr 10, 2003

Spying on North Korea, boosting Japan's military capabilities and attacking Pyongyang preemptively - these should be on Japan's defense policy agenda as far as Defense Agency chief Shigeru Ishiba and other Japanese defense hawks are concerned.

Ishiba, known for chronic difficulties at holding his tongue when elaborating on Japan's defense policy, started his series of verbal blunders when heading a delegation to South Korea at the end of March.

Although Japanese-South Korean efforts to deal with the security situation on the Korean Peninsula were on his agenda, the Defense Agency chief chose to inform his hosts that attacking North Korea preemptively is not "unconstitutional" if Pyongyang were suspected of planning to launch a missile at Japan.

As usual, cautious rhetoric and a cool head are not for Ishiba with evil-doer North Korea on the agenda - regardless that the timing for another gaffe could hardly have been worse.

Japan's defense hawk-in-chief considered attacking North Korea on Fuji television only shortly after he agreed with his South Korean counterpart Cho Young-Kil to resolve the crisis on the Korean Peninsula peacefully.

The "good news" is that Ishiba still plans to let the United States do the dirty work, reportedly limiting Japan's role to logistical support for US military stationed on Japanese soil for now. "We will keep intact the policy of leaving necessary preemptive strikes to the US and there is no change in that policy," he said, confirming that Japan will still be watching from a distance should North Korea be next on the US list of countries to be "liberated".

At least for the time being, it seems.

"At some point, we have to inspect, however, how correct that policy is," he added, indicating that Japan might one day be obliged to move beyond the stage of helpful bystander if North Korea pulls the trigger.

This was not the first time, of course, that Ishiba had suggested launching an attack on North Korea to solve the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. As recently as the end of February, he had the same idea, urging his country's armed forces to be prepared to attack North Korea before Pyongyang's missiles were on their way to downtown Tokyo. But he blamed the foreign media for his verbal blunder, claiming that the translators got it all wrong.

Back in Tokyo from his visit in Seoul, Ishiba switched back to diplomatic mode and announced that Tokyo and Seoul are in "nearly perfect agreement" on how to deal with North Korea and its occasional threats to send rogue missiles over East Asia.

Colleagues traveling with him, however, were less enthusiastic about the level of agreement. "While we stressed the necessity to protect Japan from North Korean missiles with a missile defense system, the South Koreans seemed hardly interested in mentioning the issue at all," complained a member of the Japanese delegation.

Government officials in Tokyo joined in, claiming that South Korea's rhetoric to strengthen efforts to solve the crisis on the Korean dialogue was no more than an attempt to patch up things temporarily.

Ishiba and like-minded members of the defense establishment seem more interested in preparing Japan for an attack anyway and last Friday urged the government to upgrade Japan's current missile defense capabilities.

Since 1999, Japan and the US have conducted joint research to develop the Navy Theater Wide Defense system which, if feasible, will be deployed on high-tech Aegis warship to intercept ballistic missiles. The research, however, could take up to another two years and Japan has yet to make up its mind whether it wants to move on to the development phase.

Time is quickly running out for Japan, warn Defense Agency officials who for their part seem eager to shoot down missiles long before Japan's politicians get around to making up their minds.

After the US "successfully tested" the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile system in the war against Iraq, the Japanese military is now urging the government to order the PAC-3 system if Japan wants to shoot down missiles without US help.

The Air Self-Defense Force is already equipped with the missile system's earlier version (PAC-2), which the US used during the first Gulf War to shoot down Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles targeted at Israel. Unlike the PAC-3 system, the older PAC-2 version, however, is not able to shoot down North Korean Nodong missiles.

According to Defense Agency sources, North Korea has already deployed up to 100 of its medium-range Nodong ballistic missiles, which have a range of 1,300 kilometers - capable of hitting any target in Japan.

Japan, therefore, needs the upgrade badly, confirms Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who put the advanced US Patriot surface-to-air missile system, the missiles and software that comes with it on top of the Defense Agency's shopping list for 2004. Spy technology that is "made in Japan", meanwhile, was fired into orbit for the first time on March 28, enabling Tokyo to keep an eye on its neighbor with nuclear ambitions. Although the Defense Agency promises that the second and third generation of Japanese spy satellites will catch up with the US high-tech eyes eventually, the Japanese taxpayer for now ended up paying US$3.77 billion for a pair of satellites that see less than US satellites could during the Cold War.

While Koizumi thinks that the spy satellites and missile defense system will "improve" Japan's negotiating position with North Korea, Pyongyang for its part calls Japan's efforts to beef up its military capabilities a "hostile act".

Japan, however, might get much more "hostile" if it is up to Ishiba.

He grabbed another headline asking the government to equip the country's military with offensive capabilities enabling Japan to conduct a preemptive strike "if necessary". He reportedly requested US state-of-the-art equipment and, according to the Japanese daily newspaper Mainichi Shimbun, thought that buying a couple Tomahawks from the US soon is "worth considering".

While political commentators in Japan are indeed beginning to fear that the Defense Agency chief's rhetoric is taking a prolonged break from common sense, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's secretary general Taku Yamazaki finds it only "politically difficult" to equip the country's armed forces with military offensive capabilities.

The Japanese government has no plans to expand the country's armed forces' mission from defending Japan to attacking its neighbors and sent Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda to set the record straight.

"The government is not at all considering to buy Tomahawks," said Fukuda, who disappointed the defense hawks by claiming that deploying offensive capabilities is a non-starter given Japan's "self-defense-only policy".

It seems Koizumi and his aides remain busy keeping the country's defense establishment in check. More work, however, is yet to be done as long as the hawks send their minds on vacation while ordering their mouths to be working overtime.

Saturday, March 1, 2003

Pull unwanted U.S. troops out

Saturday, March 1, 2003
By RICHARD HALLORAN
Special to The Japan Times

HONOLULU -- As a tsunami of anti-Americanism circles the globe from Seoul to Jakarta and on to Paris and Berlin, a focal point of protest is the visible presence of U.S. military forces.

An American backlash against that vehemence has begun. The Bush administration is reviewing the deployment of U.S. forces abroad and more than one newspaper columnist, evidently reflecting the neoisolationist streak in America, has declared that the United States should not be where it is not wanted.

U.S. Secretary of the Army Thomas White recently said the Pentagon was seeking to determine what would be "the most appropriate posture" that would "better fit the situation as it currently exists."

Earlier, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said: "Eleven years after the end of the Cold War, there is a school of thought to rethink the numbers and types of forces we have in different locations." He continued: "We are seeking a posture that is U.S. presence suitable to each region."

Influential New York Times columnist William Safire wrote recently: "Because the U.S. is not an imperialist power, it does not belong where a democratic nation decides America is unwanted."

In the post-Cold War world, an American looking out at the world would see five nations of greatest importance to U.S. security: Canada and Mexico on the northern and southern borders, Britain across the Atlantic, and Japan and Australia in the western reaches of the Pacific. In addition, the U.S. has a strong commitment to the security of Israel.

Here are suggestions for future U.S. deployments from South Korea to Saudi Arabia once the current disputes with Iraq and North Korea have been settled by diplomacy or military force. The U.S. cannot back away from those confrontations without losing the confidence of allies or credibility with adversaries.

The U.S. should begin by getting reaffirmations of treaties with South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand and Australia.

South Korea, site of vociferous anti-Americanism, should be asked whether it wants to keep its security treaty or abrogate it. South Korea's new president, Roh Moo Hyun, has called for a "rebalance" in relations with the U.S.

Whatever South Korea decides, the U.S. Second Infantry Division there should be relocated to the U.S. where it would be available, as it is not now, for duty anywhere. The U.S. Eighth Army headquarters in Seoul should be dissolved and absorbed into the U.S. Army Pacific Command in Hawaii. A small contingent could be left behind as a symbolic United Nations Command.

Osan Air Base should be closed and warplanes transferred to Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, where anti-American demonstrations are mostly directed against U.S. Marine ground forces. Those troops could be relocated to Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Central Pacific, or to the northern coast of Australia where they would be within easy reach of Southeast Asia.

Australia has been a close ally since World War II, and became reliant on the U.S. after Britain's decision in 1968 to withdraw most of its military forces from east of Suez. Australians, official and otherwise, are quick to point out that dependence on the U.S. does not make Canberra follow Washington blindly. There is also a fair amount of anti-Americanism in their nation. Nonetheless, the Australians and the U.S. have begun exploratory discussions about basing U.S. Marines there.

The U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, whose home port is Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, could stay there, as only Japanese leftists appear to be unhappy with the alliance with America.

Thailand, which has no U.S. military bases, maintains what appear to be balanced security relations with the U.S. The Cobra Gold joint ground maneuvers for a month each year arouse little anti-Americanism. Singapore is host to a small naval support base that draws little objection. Thailand and Singapore may be models for other U.S. deployments in Asia.

In contrast, the Philippines threw out its U.S. bases more than a decade ago and has since been reluctant to have U.S. forces return even to fight terrorists.

In the Persian Gulf, the U.S. should withdraw after dealing with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. gets only 4.6 percent of its oil from Iraq and could import more from Latin America or Africa. Europeans should devise ways to protect their oil suppliers around the Persian Gulf.

The same should apply to Saudi Arabia, which is a more difficult issue because it is the second largest supplier of oil to the U.S., after Canada. Even so, Saudi Arabia has a dictatorial, corrupt government and the U.S. should withdraw from that nation since it is the source of explosive anti-Americanism.

Richard Halloran, formerly a correspondent for Business Week, The Washington Post and The New York Times, is a freelance journalist.

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

Japan seeks parasol in shade of US umbrella


February 26, 2003

IF SHIGERU ISHIBA, Japan’s defence minister, was having a difficult morning yesterday, the signs were subtle.

There was the note slipped into his hand by an underling during the middle of an interview with The Times, and the minister’s sudden disappearance from the room for an urgent telephone call or off-stage conversation.

And then there was the small white tube, a remedy for nicotine cravings commonly used by Japanese salarymen, which Mr Ishiba sucked on intermittently.

But if anyone could be forgiven for needing a fag yesterday morning, it was Japan’s defence minister. It was Mr Ishiba’s first interview with a Western newspaper and it came on one of the most trying days of his career.

Less than 24 hours earlier, in South Hamyong province in the eastern part of North Korea, a 2.3 tonne Silkworm anti-ship missile had been launched into the Sea of Japan.

As the latest in a series of carefully calculated provocations, it sent shivers of alarm through ministries and intelligence agencies all over the world. But no one faced a tougher task than Mr Ishiba.

As Director-General of the Japan Defence Agency — his official title — he lives and breathes the paradoxes and euphemisms that dominate his country's security policy.

With 240,000 members, Japan’s so-called “Self- Defence Forces” (JSDF) represent one of the most formidable armed forces in the world: and yet Article Nine of Japan's Constitution explictly forbids the maintenance of “war potential”.

To maintain this fiction, the JSDF are permitted to operate only within the strictest limits, to the extent that, if a North Korean missiles made it over the Sea of Japan in the direction of, say, Tokyo, they would be forbidden from acting until after it had been fired.

The head of the world’s most powerful non-military military force, a self-defence force incapable of defending itself, is well aware of the contradictions in his position.

In his interview with The Times yesterday he floated an intriguing and far-reaching idea: that, after 57 years under the protective umbrella of the United States, the time has come for Japan to develop an independent means of preventing missile attack.

“Until the other side actually starts something we cannot exercise self-defence,” he said.

“It has been agreed that Japan is the shield and the US is the arrow, but we have to discuss whether this is adequate or not. Henceforth, this will be discussed in parliament.”

Monday, February 3, 2003

Japan calls for fewer US troops on Okinawa

By David Pilling in Tokyo
Published: Feb 03, 2003

Yoriko Kawaguchi, Japan's foreign minister, said yesterday that her government would strive to reduce the US military presence on Okinawa, where nearly 60 per cent of American troops stationed in Japan are based.

The government in Tokyo has long come under pressure from Okinawa, Japan's southernmost island, to spread the burden of hosting US troops more evenly throughout Japan. Although Okinawa accounts for just 0.6 per cent of the country's land area, about three-quarters of land occupied by US forces is on the island.

Okinawa, which is heavily dependent on tax transfers from Tokyo, often in the form of public works programmes, has an ambiguous relationship with mainland Japan with which it feels only loosely connected.

Yesterday, Keiichi Inamine, Okinawa's governor, told Mrs Kawaguchi during a visit to the island: "It is important for consistent progress to be made, and the issue must be dealt with not only as an issue of Okinawa, but of Japan as a whole."

Mr Inamine is pressing for a 15-year limit on the use by the US military of a planned new military-civilian airport to be built on reclaimed land at an estimated cost of Y330bn (£1.7bn). The US has so far refused to accept any time limit.

A US government official said Washington was not averse to redeploying troops in the region but there had been no specific approach from the Japanese government about reducing the troop presence in Okinawa.

It would be difficult for Japan to find room for new bases on its crowded mainland, the US official said. Nor had there been any indication from the Philippines that its government would be prepared to re-establish bases there, a proposal floated by a number of Japanese politicians. The US official said that rebuilding a military presence in the Philippines would suit Washington's strategic goals.

US bases in Japan, which are maintained largely at the expense of Japanese taxpayers, have long been controversial, partly because of aircraft noise. In Okinawa, there has also been deep sensitivity over the issue of crime, particularly after the rape of a 12-year-old girl by three US servicemen in 1995.

The Japanese have attacked the US military over such incidents. Suspected US offenders are often disciplined under US military codes rather than being handed over to the Japanese police.