Okinawa tense as US military strategy review deadline nears

By David Pilling
Published: Mar 27, 2006

Why does a crowded community of just 90,000 people need three fire stations? The answer is that Ginowan City, on Japan's southernmost island of Okinawa, is split through the centre by a US Marine Corp air base that is off-limits to ordinary civilians.

To get to a blaze, firefighters have to drive around the horseshoe-shaped conurbation that hugs the base's perimeter fence, making triplication necessary to ensure they can reach fires on time.

"This land was taken from us by force in the 1950s at the point of a bayonet and with the might of a bulldozer," says Yoichi Iha, mayor of Ginowan City, referring to the expropriation of land by the US administration that ran Okinawa until 1972, when it was returned to Japan.

Since 2004, when a Marine Corp cargo helicopter slammed into an adjacent university, exploding in a fireball, Mr Iha's officials have spent much of their time peering through binoculars at helicopters flying in and out of the base. On the flat green roof of their building, in eight-foot high letters visible from the air, they have painted the brusque English message: "Don't fly over our city. US helicopters out now."

Ginowan may get its wish. As part of a huge shake-up of US troops stationed in Japan, officials will resume talks this week aimed at finalising plans to cut the 50,000-strong force and strengthen Japan's responsibilities for its own defence. After years of haggling over details, the plan is supposed to be finished by March 31.

A key element involves moving Futenma base to a safer location. As part of efforts to reduce the burden on Okinawa - a tiny island that hosts about half of all US troops - the 15,000 marines stationed on the tropical island will be halved. Some 8,000 marines will move to a new headquarters in the US territory of Guam.

The arrangement suits both sides. Paring numbers is part of the strategy laid out by Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, for a leaner force better suited to unpredictable post-cold war dangers. From the Japanese viewpoint, fewer US troops should help improve relations with Okinawa, whose people feel abused by politicians in distant Tokyo.

But negotiations have seen into constant hold-ups. One is over money. The US wants Japan to pay the bulk of the estimated $10bn cost of transferring marines to Guam. Japanese officials, who are cutting domestic spending willy-nilly, say it is hard to justify lavishing funds on housing and roads for soldiers living beyond its shores. They propose to lend the US some of the cash.

The second problem is more intractable. Although the total number of US troops stationed on Japan will be cut, the reshuffle means some local communities will face an added burden. This month, citizens in Iwakuni, in western Japan, voted overwhelmingly against expanding the nearby base. Although the referendum is not binding, it could spark similar expressions of local discontent throughout Japan.

The worst problem relates to Futenma. The US is determined to have another runway on Okinawa, which is strategically located close to potential flashpoints in Taiwan and Korea.

When Futenma goes, the idea is to have a replacement runway further north on Okinawa, on a beautiful ocean strip near Nago town. In spite of the potential economic benefits that come with hosting a US base, many local citizens oppose the runway construction, which they say will destroy the pristine coastline and bring noise and danger to Nago's inhabitants.

Mr Iha, Ginowan's mayor, while delighted at the prospect of Futenma vanishing from his backyard, says he supports protesters trying to keep its replacement out of Nago. "Of all the places in the world, why build another base on this small island?" he says.

Robyn Lim, professor of international relations at Nanzan university, says such protests fill a vacuum left by Japanese leaders, who have never fully articulated the strategic value of the US military presence. Nor, she says, have Japan's leaders had the strength to ram past local sentiment in the national interest.

"Few in Japan seem to understand how alliances work," she argues. "In return for the security benefits they supply for both parties, they entail risks and costs for both parties."

Squabbling over details could mean Japan and the US miss this month's deadline for a final settlement. But even if they hit it, nothing will be finalised until Tokyo has squared - or imposed - its decisions on reluctant local communities.