America's Unsinkable Fleet

Why The U.S. Military Is Pouring Forces Into A Remote West Pacific Island.

Christian Caryl
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Feb 26, 2007

For an out-of-the-way spit of land in the West Pacific, Guam has been getting a lot of interesting visitors recently. First came a steady stream of Pentagon bureaucrats and senior U.S. military officers. Then, a few weeks ago, a high-ranking delegation of Japanese officials arrived. And this week the island is set to greet its most illustrious guest yet: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.

So why all the fuss over a tropical island just 30 miles long, known mainly for its white-sand beaches and glorious sunsets? The answer: the Pentagon has begun a major redeployment of U.S. forces in the region, pulling troops and equipment out of sometimes unreliable allies and beefing up its presence in more-congenial locales. First on its list is Guam, a U.S. territory since 1898 that is fast becoming the linchpin of Washington's new Asia strategy. Current U.S. forces on the island number just a few thousand but within a decade will total well over 20,000--about the same size as the Bush administration's planned surge in Iraq. By comparison, there are some 29,000 U.S. troops left in South Korea, yet despite the dangers of a nuclear-armed North, that number is expected to drop significantly.

At a time when most of the world's attention is focused on the United States' misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon planners are quietly working on ways to fortify the U.S. presence in East Asia. And they're looking to do so in ways that will give them a free hand in a wide range of contingencies--including fighting regional terrorists and a possible showdown with China. Guam offers the U.S. military both proximity to potential hot spots and the advantages of operating off U.S. soil. The transfer of forces to the island also reflects the Pentagon's determination to give regional allies such as South Korea and Japan more responsibility for their own security.

Guam, a sleepy but diverse place that looks like a cross between Micronesia and Middle America, has long served as a U.S. air base and way station for troops traveling through the Pacific. At the end of the cold war, the Pentagon began shutting down some facilities on the island. But then came September 11, and a dramatic reassessment of America's global forces. Former secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld began to advocate the lily-pad strategy: rather than relying on large, static bases in Germany and South Korea, the Pentagon should create a global network of jumping-off points for quick responses to unpredictable attacks. Guam is an ideal lily pad, since the United States can act there without seeking permission from allies, says Honolulu-based defense analyst Richard Halloran. Declares Carl Peterson of the Guam Chamber of Commerce: "This is the U.S. in Asia. This is the tip of the spear."

The island has already become a convenient base for fighting Washington's "Global War on Terror" in Indonesia and the Philippines. Small wonder that Brig. Gen. Douglas H. Owens, the commanding officer of Guam's Andersen Air Force Base, describes the island as "an unsinkable aircraft carrier."

It's also well positioned for possible trouble to come. As Rear Adm. Charles Leidig, U.S. Navy commander on Guam, points out, if you take a map and draw a circle with Guam at the center and a radius of 1,500 nautical miles--equivalent to three hours' flying time or two to three days by ship--you come close to the main islands of Japan, Okinawa, Indonesia and the Philippines. China and the Korean Peninsula are only a bit farther off. So are several of the world's most important sea lanes, such as the Strait of Malacca, through which some 50 percent of the world's oil passes each year.

The Pentagon, however, may be building up its forces on Guam with even bigger game in mind. "The larger strategic rationale [for the shift] can be summed up in one word, and that's 'China'," says Halloran. "They [the Bush administration] don't want to contain China, and they couldn't. What they are trying to do is to deter the Chinese. That's what the buildup on Guam is all about."

The nature of the U.S. reorganization reinforces this point. Washington and Tokyo have agreed to move 8,000 Marines to Guam from Okinawa by 2014, at a cost of $10 billion (60 percent of which will be paid for by the Japanese government). But this is only the most public part of a broader buildup that has largely escaped notice. If all the pieces come together, it could mean billions more in Defense Department funds and a total increase in Guam's population (which is currently just 170,000) of 35,000.

Guam is already home to a major U.S. Navy port and one of the biggest bases in the U.S. Air Force, featuring twin two-mile-long runways. Not long after September 11, flights of massive B-52 bombers began returning to Andersen to carry out regular training missions. Now the Air Force has begun to prepare for the deployment of tanker aircraft and up to 48 fighter planes, including the state-of-the-art F-22 Raptor. Andersen has also already started construction of a $52.8 million project that will house up to 10 Global Hawks--large unmanned spy planes that, according to Pacific Command Air Force Gen. Paul Hester, could end up replacing aging U-2 spy planes now based in South Korea.

Meanwhile, the Navy has turned its port at Guam's Apra Harbor into a home for two Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarines, with a third to come later this year. It also plans to refurbish wharves to accommodate aircraft carriers and to transform Guam into a base for its new Littoral Combat Ship (a shallow-draft stealth ship designed to operate close to shore) and Trident submarines. The Tridents, immense cold-war-era craft converted to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, can also be used by Navy Special Operations Forces, who can set off on missions in mini-submarines launched through the Tridents' missile ports. Guam is already home to an undisclosed number of Navy SEALs, many of whom have seen duty in the war on terror, and their number will likely grow.

Guam's new capabilities, however, are designed for more than just low-intensity conflicts. The attack submarines that will soon be based there, for example, probably wouldn't be much use in a conflict with North Korea or Qaeda-allied terrorists in the Philippines; the presence of the subs, experts say, is clearly aimed at the possibility of a naval confrontation with China over the Taiwan Strait. Similarly, analysts argue, the stationing of F-22s and tanker planes on Guam points to the Pentagon's desire to ensure dominance in the air should it have to fight the Chinese. China's media often worry about just this scenario, but not everyone agrees that China is the main target of the Guam buildup. Evan Medeiros of the RAND Corporation says "the initial impetus and primary driver" were to restructure the U.S. military for the wide range of operations it now faces, from fighting the war on terror to chasing pirates and conducting humanitarian missions.

In the complicated post-9/11 world, the United States believes it must be able to respond to various threats as flexibly as possible. This means keeping its forces close to the action. In the past that's required basing them in other countries' territories. But Guam offers an almost unique combination of a good location, excellent facilities (including a topnotch harbor, vast warehouses and massive airfields) and a lack of political restraints. As Kurt Campbell, a former White House staffer and Defense Department official now at the Center for a New American Security, says, "[Guam is] a point from which you can do a variety of things. And it's a place to remind people that you're still focused on the region."

Campbell points out that these secondary missions, such as protecting sea lanes, countering weapons proliferation and conducting relief missions, remain important; the U.S. military's humanitarian efforts after the tsunami of December 2005 gave a huge boost to the country's reputation in Asia. Brad Glosserman, executive director of Pacific Forum CSIS, a Hawaii-based think tank, agrees. The Asia-Pacific region, he says, "is a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces are changing shape and size all the time. China's the big story--but there are also changes going in on Japan, India, South Korea, Taiwan."

One such development driving the move to Guam has been the steady withdrawal of the United States from South Korea in recent years (more than 9,000 troops have left in the last three years)--a result, in part, of rising anti-Americanism there and Rumsfeld's reluctance to keep troops in politically sensitive places. Some Air Force units that have pulled out of South Korea have already arrived on Guam; others may be yet to come. That, along with the planned removal of the Marines from Okinawa, has led some commentators to characterize the Guam expansion as evidence of a virtual U.S. retreat from East Asia. But Campbell and others disagree: "I would see this not as a retrenchment but as a diversification." Indeed, after years of maintaining an even balance between its Atlantic and Pacific fleets, the U.S. Navy is now clearly emphasizing its force in Asia.

Whatever the rationale, the changes represent good news for Guam's population. The locals were hit hard in the early 1990s when the U.S. military's post-cold-war drawdown, combined with the Asian financial crises and the resulting plunge in tourism, caused the loss of thousands of skilled and unskilled jobs on the island. Guamanians are hoping that the Pentagon's new plan can bring billions in investment into the territory as well as new support for its sagging infrastructure. Contractors are already maneuvering for deals to build housing and other structures. Real-estate prices shot up 50 percent between 2005 and 2006 and there were more property sales in the fourth quarter of last year than in all of 2003.

To be sure, hurdles remain, such as ensuring that the Marines from Okinawa actually make the move. The deal, which requires Japanese cooperation, has already run into political problems there. Then there's the possibility that local activists in Guam will throw a wrench into the works. Some of Guam's indigenous Chamorro people, who wield great influence on the island, have opposed the changes, warning that the military could overrun the island. The Pentagon, which already controls one third of the territory, has promised not to expand this share, but that pledge could prove hard to keep. Still, most Guamanians support the buildup, given their traditional patriotism--traumatic memories linger of Japan's occupation during World War II--and the potential economic benefits the rebasing will bring.

Guam's significance as a regional base and steppingstone for U.S. military power therefore seems set to grow exponentially. Notes Gov. Felix Camacho: "We can no longer be ignored as some distant American territory." He seems right about that. If, as many in the region predict, the 21st century ends up belonging to the nations of the Pacific--and conflict in the region rises--Guam will have to get used to being in the headlines.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/68465

Some Question Japan's Hard Line Against N. Korea on Abductee Issue

Jason Miks | 26 Feb 2007/
World Politics Review Exclusive

TOKYO -- With his cabinet's popularity hitting new lows according to a poll by the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took the opportunity of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's visit last week to highlight one of his pet issues -- the abduction by North Korean agents of up to 20 Japanese citizens.

Abe's tough stance on North Korea has always been a political trump card for him, bringing him to prominence under former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. During Koizumi's visit to Pyongyang in 2002, he led negotiations on behalf of the families of those abducted, and then cemented his position as front runner in his party's leadership race last year with his tough rhetoric following North Korea's decision to test seven ballistic missiles in July.

Photo: Cheney and Abe meet at the prime minister's official residence Feb. 21.

However, some observers, both inside and outside Japan, have begun to question the country's hard line against North Korea, arguing that Japan runs the risk of isolating itself, not least in the six-party effort aimed at resolving the problem of North Korea's nuclear program.

"The abductee issue almost appears a national obsession, to the point where it is preventing the Japanese government from making a clear calculation of just what national security priorities the country should have," argues Peter Beck, director of the Northeast Asia Project for the International Crisis Group.

"Japan could -- and should -- have the most leverage over North Korea, precisely because it owes North Korea a huge development package if and when the two countries were to normalize relations," says Beck. "But by making all progress contingent on resolving the abduction issue, something that [North Korea] is either unwilling or unable to do, it has really taken Japan completely out of the game."

The issue of the abductions, believed to have taken place in the late 1970s and early 1980s, was reignited following Koizumi's visit to Pyongyang in 2002, where North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il admitted to just 13 abductions by North Korean agents -- a claim that angered many Japanese -- and announced eight had died. The Japanese media's interest has been intense ever since, with regular updates and features.

"The Japanese media has played a big role in this issue," says Yoichiro Sato of the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies, who adds that he is more optimistic than Beck about Japan's ability to stay relevant in the six-party talks. "This is something ordinary Japanese can understand, unlike all the details of non-proliferation that many might understand only vaguely. It's kind of a human drama."

However, though the media have undoubtedly played their part in fanning public anger, Abe has done his best to ensure the issue remains at the forefront of voters' minds. He took the opportunity during his trip to meet European leaders in January to reiterate his stance on the issue, while last year he drew sharp criticism even from some members of his own party when it emerged his administration had "encouraged" state broadcaster NHK to place greater emphasis on the issue.

"Abe can't backtrack on this issue now," says Jacob Kovalio, associate professor of Japanese and Asian studies at Carleton University. Unlike Beck, he believes Abe is right to stand firm on the issue. "I am very strongly in favor of this position. As long as China is changing its tune, including on the abductee issue, I think that the chances of Japan getting its own way are much better."

However, he also admits that there are still dangers ahead for Japan. "One element that could undermine this is South Korea. South Korea has not imposed any sanctions, and if it supplies North Korea with increased resources in a way that prevents Japan being able to pressure it, then I think there could be a problem."

Arthur Stockwin, emeritus director of Oxford University's Nissan Institute of Japanese Studies, agrees that South Korea's approach differs markedly from Japan's. "The South Koreans are rather bemused by this, as they've had hundreds kidnapped over the years."

Stockwin also sees potential problems for Japan's relationship with the United States. "I think the Americans may be getting a bit fed up. There's already a fraying of relations over Iraq," he explained, in reference to recent comments by the Japanese defense minister that the Iraq war was "a mistake." "This is a fairly new development for Japan as its government has so far toed the American line on this issue."

Japanese officials reportedly are also disappointed that despite America's public support over the abductee issue, a point Cheney was clear to emphasize during his visit, it was given little attention at the six-party talks.

However, faced with upper house elections later this year and concerned about shoring up the conservative support that forms his base, Abe is unlikely to abandon the issue any time soon.

Beck says he is puzzled at this calculation, and at what he says is Japan's apparent willingness to risk marginalizing itself in nuclear talks over the issue.

"Most rational human beings would assume that having nuclear weapons and other sorts of missiles pointed at your country would be a much greater threat from a hostile and unpredictable country than the fate of a handful of people," he says.

"Everyone wanted North Korea to be the odd one out [in these talks]. Then for a while it was the United States and Japan that seemed to be the most hard-line. Now the Bush administration has compromised, it leaves Japan all by itself."

Jason Miks is a Tokyo-based writer and senior editor with the Center for International Relations.

Japan's Stealthy Military

Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007
By BRYAN WALSH/IWAKUNI

Helicopters, it turns out, do not fly upside down. I know this by hard, albeit simulated, experience. I was on the stick of an MH-53 helicopter, a 21-ton flying monster that is one of the largest craft of its type in the world, at the Iwakuni Air Base in western Japan. My co-pilot and instructor—an officer in the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF)—guided me as I lifted the copter off the ground and pointed it toward the Akinada Sea. A little spin over the water, no problem, and then my instructor asked me to turn around for home. I pulled left on the stick, and pulled, and pulled. The next thing I knew, I was staring up at the pixelated ground of Iwakuni that was probably supposed to be below, and then the screen went red, which I knew was a bad thing because my instructor said "Uh-oh." But not to worry—he hit reset (the advantage of video games) and gave me another shot. I showed my gratitude by immediately crashing the new helicopter into the runway.

If I had been flying a real helicopter, I would be dead and the government of Japan would be out $50 million, the cost of one its 10 MH-53 copters. They wouldn't miss me—and they might not miss the $50 million either. Though its constitution officially prohibits war and its army and navy are innocuously called the Self-Defense Forces (SDF), Japan is a stealth military power, with an annual budget of around $42 billion—the sixth largest in the world. Despite all that money, Japan's armed forces have traditionally kept a very low profile, at home and abroad. But that's changing. Over the past few years, Japanese forces have taken part in operations in Iraq and the Indian Ocean. Conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last month elevated Japan's Defense Agency to a full-fledged Cabinet-level ministry, and is aiming to change the country's pacifist constitution, which could open the door for more frequent deployments of the SDF abroad. U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's Feb. 20-22 visit to Tokyo included talks on expanding coordination between American and Japanese forces. "For the past 50 years, Japan intentionally ignored the matter of defense," says Toshiyuki Shikata, a defense analyst at Teikyo University. But now, he adds, Japan is waking up to its own military power.

That change is slowly playing out at Iwakuni. The seaside MSDF facility not far from Hiroshima was a main Japanese air force base through World War II, before it was eventually taken over by the Americans, and the grounds are now shared with the U.S. Marines. It's in the midst of a $1.9 billion expansion program, paid for by the Japanese government, and its contingent of U.S. planes will eventually double to over 100 as part of a global realignment of American forces. There's a reason for the move—Iwakuni is within striking distance of every potential hot spot in Northeast Asia, from Beijing to Pyongyang to Taipei. As he gives a group of foreign journalists a briefing on Iwakuni, Satoru Shoji, an MSDF captain with the blunt build and cauliflower ears of a rugby player, points toward the area west of Japan on a map and says, "This is the area we have to watch out for." There isn't any doubt about which countries he's referring to: North Korea and China.

The specter of a rearming and aggressive Japan gives the rest of Asia flashbacks to the war, but the truth is that Iwakuni, like all Japanese military facilities, is still far more defensive than offensive. While missile-armed F/A-18 Hornets launch daily from the American side of the base, Japan's hangars are filled with support craft like the MH-53, which sweeps for mines, and the US-1A, a giant propeller-powered flying boat used for sea rescues. The division of labor is obvious at Iwakuni in other ways. The U.S. keeps nearly half of the base to itself. But the two countries are slowly moving toward greater cooperation, though the process hits the occasional political hiccup. Despite the emphasis on security policy during his trip, Cheney pointedly did not meet with Japanese Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma—perhaps because Kyuma said last month that the Iraq invasion, which Tokyo officially supported, was a "mistake." Still, as the country's politics—and politicians—mature to allow a more assertive foreign policy, Japan may not remain a stealth military power for long.

With reporting by Michiko Toyama/Tokyo

Overpaid to move over here

Feb 22nd 2007 | IWAKUNI
From The Economist print edition


American forces in Japan
The local politics of “realigning” America's bases

FRUSTRATED with local officials, who have been playing politics over the relocation of American forces around Japan, the government in Tokyo has decided to give the carrot one last chance. If it is not nibbled, out will come the big stick. Legislation is being introduced to provide ¥100 billion ($840m) of special subsidies for local municipalities that accept more American troops and aircraft. But woe betide local politicians who resist.

Last May Japan and America agreed on far-reaching changes aimed at building a more nimble and effective strike force in the region, partly in response to the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea. This “realignment” was one item on the agenda of Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, who visited Japan this week. One important aim is to reduce America's enormous presence in Okinawa, home to half its 48,000 troops in Japan. The Marine Corps' Futenma air station is to be closed and the land handed back to the nearby city of Ginowan. Some 8,000 marines and their families will be moved to Guam, where the Japanese government will foot two-thirds of the bill for housing them.

Ever since 1995, when a 12-year-old schoolgirl was abducted and brutally raped by three American servicemen, the Futenma base has been a flashpoint for opposition to America's military presence. With tempers running high, President Clinton offered to hand the base back to the local authorities as soon as an alternative could be found. That alternative is a V-shaped pair of runways to be built on largely reclaimed land next to an existing American base in the remote, and even poorer, northern part of Okinawa.

However, scenting the chance for an even huger handout from Tokyo, Yoshikazu Shimabukuro, the newly elected mayor of the nearby city of Nago, demanded that the plan be rethought from scratch. He may have overplayed his hand. Blaming the lack of co-operation, defence ministry officials made it clear last week that the funds for Nago—thought to be a big chunk of the ¥5.1 billion of “realignment subsidies” in this coming year's budget—will now be diverted to other uses. That has set off alarm bells in other city halls.

Nowhere more so than in Iwakuni, near Hiroshima, where the marines share a large coastal base with Japan's Maritime Self-Defence Force. Iwakuni is America's most important base in north-east Asia, being its closest airfield to North Korea and within easy reach of other potential hotspots, such as Taiwan. As part of the realignment plan, some 70 American aircraft and their crews are to be shifted to Iwakuni from elsewhere in Japan.

Nothing can happen at Iwakuni, however, before the completion of a new runway in 2008. Constructing the $2.5 billion runway on reclaimed land in waters off the existing base has already poured a good deal of money into the area. Even so, fearing increased crime and congestion, city officials have fiercely resisted the expansion. Under pressure from the Americans to complete the project as quickly as possible, the defence ministry has now decided to start banging heads. In the new budget for the fiscal year starting this April, the ministry pointedly left out any mention of subsidies for Iwakuni.

That was enough to get Katsusuke Ihara, the mayor of Iwakuni, on the train to Tokyo in a bid to reopen talks about realignment, and revive the suspended subsidies for his city's fancy new municipal-government building. But Fumio Kyuma, the defence minister, acted tough, telling his visitor that to provide the subsidies as things stand would be against the law. That has left Nago's Mr Shimabukuro with a lot to chew on as well.

Cheney supports Japan-Australia security agreement

Peter Alford
Tokyo correspondent
February 21, 2007

US Vice-President Dick Cheney is expected to encourage Japan's move towards closer security co-operation with Australia during meetings with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his senior ministers today.

During his week-long tour of both countries, the Americans' closest Asia-Pacific allies, Mr Cheney will discuss the US need for more help in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

Also on the agenda will be North Korea's nuclear weapons and the Australia-Japan security co-operation declaration to be signed by Mr Abe and John Howard next month.

Mr Cheney, who arrived in Tokyo yesterday, will reassure the Japanese Government of the US commitment to protecting its interests in nuclear disarmament negotiations with North Korea.

The Abe Government is unsettled by what it regards as the excessively favourable terms for North Korea approved by US envoy Christopher Hill at last week's six-party agreement.

Mr Cheney is expected to reassure Mr Abe that Japan's particular issue with the Pyongyang regime, the fate of citizens abducted by North Korean agents more than 20 years ago, will not be swept under the table.

But his visit has been complicated by the apparent snub of Defence Minister Fumio Kyuma, whose exclusion from Mr Cheney's Tokyo meetings has been attributed to annoyance at his criticisms of the invasion of Iraq and US handling of military base relocations on Okinawa.

Mr Kyuma and Foreign Minister Taro Aso both claimed yesterday the non-meeting was simply a matter of protocol.

"There is a difference in rank," Mr Kyuma told reporters.

"The Defence Minister would probably meet with the (US) Defence Secretary, but the Vice-President is a matter that pertains to the Prime Minister."

However, Mr Cheney's representative said more than a week ago that Mr Kyuma had requested a meeting, but the Tokyo schedule had already been settled by the time his proposal arrived.

Outside Mr Cheney's hotel last night, a van with loudspeakers caused a brief disturbance as nationalists shouted slogans such as "Yankee go home".

Today, Mr Cheney will hold talks with Mr Abe, Mr Aso and Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki. A senior Foreign Ministry official said that the discussions "should be seen in the context of mutual reconfirmation of the importance of the Japan-US alliance".

US officials indicated Mr Cheney would ask the Japanese for more help with the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Japan's Self Defence Forces give logistical support in both campaigns but have no troops on the ground.

Mr Cheney was also due to have an audience with Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko. However, the empress was ill with a fever and cancelled her appointments yesterday.

Mr Cheney is due to arrive in Australia tomorrow evening.

Cheney's visit to Japan exposes tensions

By David Pilling in Tokyo
Published: Feb 20, 2007

Fumio Kyuma, Japan' s outspoken defence minister, on Tuesday felt obliged to explain why he would not be meeting Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, who on Wednesday begins a visit to Japan during which security will take centre stage.

Mr Cheney, Mr Kyuma explained, could not be expected to meet a mere defence minister. "There is a difference in rank. It is a matter that pertains to the [Japanese] prime minister, " he said.

Behind Mr Kyuma's humble remarks lie an awkward diplomatic moment. Earlier this month he lashed out at US foreign policy, saying Washington was wrong to invade Iraq and lambasting its arrogant attitude towards Okinawa, the island where the bulk of US troops in Japan are stationed.

Tokyo remains Washington's main regional ally, and the relationship is ro­bust enough to survive minor disagreements, analysts say. Yet Mr Kyuma's remarks provoked outrage among Japan-handlers in the Bush administration and the embarrassment that has followed is one of several points of contention.

Japan continues to support US policy in Iraq, a point recently underlined by Shinzo Abe, prime minister, in a speech to Nato and again in parliament.

However, Taro Aso, foreign minister, suggested that Washington's post-invasion strategy had been naive.

Tokyo has begun to pull out 550 ground troops stationed in Iraq to help reconstruction. It has also, however, stepped up the activity of its air self-defence force, which helps to supply US troops in Iraq.

There has also been concern in Japan about the deal struck with North Korea to shut down its main nuclear facility in exchange for oil. Some Japanese officials have, sotto voce, criticised Washington for conceding too much to Pyongyang.

Robert Dujarric, a security expert at the National Institute for Public Policy in the US, said: "The impression is that the deal was hammered out between the US, China and North Korea and that no one asked the Japanese what they thought. "

In particular, Mr Abe's government has been embarrassed by the fact that the deal did not address North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens, although a senior foreign ministry official has countered claims Japan had been sidelined.

"I don't think it is the policy of the US to speed ahead at 100 miles per hour and leave behind all the other issues, including the abduction issue, " the official said. "All the other five parties, including North Korea, know there needs to be a huge participation by Japan. "

READERS IN COUNCIL Why accommodate Cheney?

Sunday, 18, 2007
By YOSHIO SHIMOJI
Naha City, Okinawa

Regarding the Feb. 12 article "U.S. nixes talks with Cheney, Kyuma": If U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney doesn't want to meet with Japanese Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma because of Kyuma's open criticism of the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, why let Cheney meet with the officers under Kyuma's command when Cheney visits Japan this week?

Every reasonable person agrees that Kyuma hit the nail on the head. So if Cheney doesn't want to meet with Kyuma because of this, why does it matter? The disgraced Kyuma has authority over the men in uniform whom Cheney wants to meet. What if Kyuma were to order that they not meet with the visitor? Or does Cheney think that since these officers are embedded with U.S. units in the U.S. Pacific Command, he can freely meet with them in outright disregard of their legitimate superior?

The relocation of Futenma U.S. Marine base on Okinawa is another moot point yet to be solved between Japan and the United States. Washington wants Tokyo to expedite the Oct. 25, 2005, agreement by all means, even if it diametrically conflicts with Japan's legal processes and strong local opposition.

The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.