Okinawa Governor says MCAS Futenma can stay!
In what seems like a "convenient" change of heart, Okinawa Governor Hirokazu Nakaima, now supports MCAS Futenma remaining on Okinawa. Plans to return MCAS Futenma to land owners were agreed on in 1996 and again in 2005, alongside a program to move approximately 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents stationed in Okinawa to Guam. The Japanese government previously decided to allocate $689 million during the fiscal year for projects related to realigning U.S. forces in Japan. I have long argued that the move would create more economic lows in Okinawa but lead to a political and for some, a psychological, high. Outside of that, and as mentioned in one of my previous posts, I look at how the US could respond to threats in the region:
”If the US had to respond to a conflict on the Korean Peninsula and needed troops from the Continental United States, it would take a Carrier Task Force (CTF) traveling at 20 knots 11-days to reach the peninsula. If it had to respond to a Middle East crisis it would need 20-days to reach the Gulf of Oman. On the other hand, it would take that same CTF two-days to reach the Korean Peninsula and 11-days to reach the Gulf of Oman if the US maintained forward deployed forces in Japan. The first troops to arrive in response to Iraq invading Kuwait leading to the first Gulf war were the Marines from the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Okinawa. One has to remember that seven of the world’s largest armed forces are located in the Asia-Pacific region. The unpredictable security climate in the Asia-Pacific region (e.g., the Takeshima/Tokdo dispute, a rising China, the Taiwan issue, the unstable DPRK regime, piracy in the Strait of Malacca, conflict in South West Asia, terrorism, other) requires that the US rapidly respond. For instance, considering the number of humanitarian crisis in the Asia-Pacific region recently, removing too many bases and troops will potentially diminish the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.” Additionally, one has to look at the DPJ and their call to "reexamine" the plan to close MCAS Futenma, relocate the US Marines to Guam and revise the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). In examining the later, I also previously wrote: "Host nation support and the SMA are very important to both the US and Japan and key to my claim that the economy of Okinawa would take a major hit. For example, If host nation support does not pass the Diet, it would affect the security arrangement. However, the DPJ’s call for the government to cut down on Japan’s omoiyari yosan does not address a key point: host nation support is all in yen (e.g., yen payments to Japanese workers on USFJ bases, contract laborers, utility and construction companies) which means all the money stays in Japan. It NEVER leaves Japan. What happens if host nation support is decreased? The political component to the SMA is very domestic (a.k.a. economic stimulation for the local economy) and is something that is not presented in a bilateral context. Therefore, if the DPJ wants to talk about reducing the omoiyari yosan, it should present all the facts and issues. It seems that the DJP once again misses (or hides) not only the international but domestic points of view. You can read more on my opinion here.
The governor of Japan's Okinawa prefecture said a US military base could stay on the island, officials said Wednesday -- the latest twist in a row weeks before President Barack Obama visits the country.
Japan's new centre-left government, which took power last month, has said it wants the air base moved off the island or even outside Japan, which would reverse a 2006 pact that a conservative government reached with Washington.
The renewed debate over where to move the controversial US Marine Corps Futenma Air Base -- now located in a densely populated urban area of Okinawa -- has cast a cloud over a scheduled November 12-13 Tokyo visit by Obama.
Read the rest of the story here!
[ad#468x60-ad]
