Reducing the Impact of the US Military Base in Okinawa

[Neser Boha]

Japan Lawmaker Pushes to Scale Back U.S. Bases - WSJ.com

OKINAWA, Japan -- As Japan's new ruling party begins to question its military alliance with the U.S., one freshman lawmaker whose personal history reflects the longstanding ties between the two nations is already pressing the issue.

Denny Tamaki, a newly elected member of the Democratic Party of Japan, is the son of a local woman and a U.S. serviceman. His main goal is to sharply shrink the U.S. military presence in Okinawa, a remote southern island that hosts roughly half of some 45,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan.
...
Determining the future of the Futenma air station, amid urban sprawl in central Okinawa, is an immediate challenge. A 2006 agreement calls on the U.S. to move 8,000 Marines to Guam by 2014 and move the helicopter facility to another part of the island. Critics want to move it completely off the island, if not from Japan itself.

...

Many Okinawans worry the departure of U.S. personnel could worsen Okinawa's economy. "Of course, we all wish the bases weren't here," says Kiyomitsu Nakama, the 60-year-old owner of a motorcycle shop near Kadena Air Base. "But so many people depend on the bases for our living, and our economy would crumble without them."

The U.S. has used Japan as a primary host for its military presence in East Asia. The Japanese government spends roughly $2 billion a year to help cover the costs. The presence of U.S. forces let Japan keep its own military small and focused on self-defense, freeing up resources to help fuel its postwar boom.

Mr. Tamaki and allies believe the bases limit economic development because their presence spurs government aid, but local industries haven't grown. "We need to wean our economy from its dependence on the bases," Mr. Tamaki says. He wants to build a railway on the land to help ease rural joblessness.

On the GAO (the US Government Accountability Organization) website I read that:

A new U.S.-Japanese agreement (1998) to reduce the American military presence on Okinawa includes replacing a Marine air station with a new $4 billion sea-based facility built and paid for by Japan. Operating costs for the new facility are estimated at nearly $200 million a year, much higher than costs for the existing air station. Japan has been asked to pay these costs but has yet to agree. GAO raises the issue of responsibility for cleaning up any environmental contamination at the military facilities being returned to Japan. Also, the construction and operation of the sea-based facility could have harmful consequences for the environment.

Does anyone have an opinion one way or the other?

I personally find it unacceptable that Japan pay for the entire construction of the proposed off-shore base as well as 100% of its operational costs - if it is to take place. It is not only Japan that benefits from the existence of this base, but also the US government. The US needs to maintain its presence in the Pacific to maintain the current balance of power just as well as Japan needs it to stay there.

Should the base stay the way it is, should they go through with the off-land option, or should they just scrap the whole base (definitely the cheapest option)?




U.S. GAO - Overseas Presence: Issues Involved in Reducing the Impact of the U.S. Military Presence on Okinawa

 

[dilloduck]

Japan Lawmaker Pushes to Scale Back U.S. Bases - WSJ.com

OKINAWA, Japan -- As Japan's new ruling party begins to question its military alliance with the U.S., one freshman lawmaker whose personal history reflects the longstanding ties between the two nations is already pressing the issue.

Denny Tamaki, a newly elected member of the Democratic Party of Japan, is the son of a local woman and a U.S. serviceman. His main goal is to sharply shrink the U.S. military presence in Okinawa, a remote southern island that hosts roughly half of some 45,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan.
...
Determining the future of the Futenma air station, amid urban sprawl in central Okinawa, is an immediate challenge. A 2006 agreement calls on the U.S. to move 8,000 Marines to Guam by 2014 and move the helicopter facility to another part of the island. Critics want to move it completely off the island, if not from Japan itself.

...

Many Okinawans worry the departure of U.S. personnel could worsen Okinawa's economy. "Of course, we all wish the bases weren't here," says Kiyomitsu Nakama, the 60-year-old owner of a motorcycle shop near Kadena Air Base. "But so many people depend on the bases for our living, and our economy would crumble without them."

The U.S. has used Japan as a primary host for its military presence in East Asia. The Japanese government spends roughly $2 billion a year to help cover the costs. The presence of U.S. forces let Japan keep its own military small and focused on self-defense, freeing up resources to help fuel its postwar boom.

Mr. Tamaki and allies believe the bases limit economic development because their presence spurs government aid, but local industries haven't grown. "We need to wean our economy from its dependence on the bases," Mr. Tamaki says. He wants to build a railway on the land to help ease rural joblessness.

On the GAO (the US Government Accountability Organization) website I read that:

A new U.S.-Japanese agreement (1998) to reduce the American military presence on Okinawa includes replacing a Marine air station with a new $4 billion sea-based facility built and paid for by Japan. Operating costs for the new facility are estimated at nearly $200 million a year, much higher than costs for the existing air station. Japan has been asked to pay these costs but has yet to agree. GAO raises the issue of responsibility for cleaning up any environmental contamination at the military facilities being returned to Japan. Also, the construction and operation of the sea-based facility could have harmful consequences for the environment.

Does anyone have an opinion one way or the other?

I personally find it unacceptable that Japan pay for the entire construction of the proposed off-shore base as well as 100% of its operational costs - if it is to take place. It is not only Japan that benefits from the existence of this base, but also the US government. The US needs to maintain its presence in the Pacific to maintain the current balance of power just as well as Japan needs it to stay there.

Should the base stay the way it is, should they go through with the off-land option, or should they just scrap the whole base (definitely the cheapest option)?




U.S. GAO - Overseas Presence: Issues Involved in Reducing the Impact of the U.S. Military Presence on Okinawa

It doesn't matter. In 1967-69 they were having the same political arguments as they are now. Try to kick the military out or accept the fact the the military contibutes millions to them. Okinawa is flourishing and the southern half of the island is barely recognizable.
Where they used to butcher chickens in the street now stands modern grocery stores and elevated monorails.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I've been stationed at Yokota AB Japan and Kadena AB Okinawa. I also stayed in family housing at Camp Foster MCS while in Okinawa. It was quite nice by the way.

Okinawa has the highest unemployment of all of Japans' prefectures (counties) and depends heavily on tourism for it's economy. My wife is from Okinawa and her grandfather wanted only one thing for her; to move to America or mainland Japan. "There's no future here" he used to say.

That being said, there are far too many troops in Okinawa. No matter where you go on that tiny island you can't get away from them. I think there were 50,000 of all services when I was there in 89-92. Yes, you need to get away from them because servicemen, especially the Marines, don't act like they do in the states.

My wife and I own a home about 30 minutes from 29 Palms Marine base in So Cal. We encounter plenty of Marines in and around the base and nearby cities of Yucca Valley and Joshua Tree. They are always polite and well mannered. In fact, my wife and I were in the local theater once and these three Marines (The haircut gives them away) were talking and swearing quite loudly. I asked them if they would keep it down and they were very appologetic and were quiet for the rest of the movie. And no, they didn't jump my ass in the parking lot either.

But when servicemen are overseas, all branches for that matter, they act like total bad asses. Even the shrimpy ones. And you think race relations are bad here? We got segregation overseas. Encountering a serviceman overseas is sorta like seeing a rival gang member, they'll just glare at you.

I don't know what it is, maybe a combination of newfound freedom, getting laid for the first time or what. But they do act differently overseas.

We should either significantly reduce our presence overseas and/or make the host countries pay the vast majority of the expenses because they do benefit from us being there.

This argument isn't new either, both sides have been saying this for decades.

 

[editec]

It's their island.

If they don't want us there, we ought to get out.