Japan pays 6 Billion Dollars to relocate Marine Base to Guam

[lycheng]

From my hometown newspaper, the Pacific Daily News (http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/NEWS01/705240304). Here's an excerpt:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding approved for Marine relocation to Guam
By David V. Crisostomo
Pacific Daily News

Japan yesterday committed in law to funding the Marine relocation to Guam.

It is a $6 billion commitment from Japan -- the bigger chunk of the $10 billion relocation-to-Guam price tag -- that paves the way for the largest military buildup on island since World War II. At least $1 billion a year could flow into the island over the next decade.

The law that was passed by Japan's upper house of parliament yesterday, after being approved in the lower house last month:

Funds the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan; and
Enables the state-run Japan Bank for International Cooperation to provide investment and loans for the planned transfer of 8,000 U.S. Marines and thousands of their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. Japan has agreed to pay $6 billion for the transfer of troops to Guam, while Washington has said it will contribute $4 billion.

The U.S. military also plans to spend an additional $5 billion on Guam during the next decade to support an increased presence on island.

The move is just a small part of the largest restructuring and shifting of U.S. forces in decades in an effort to better respond to threats and hotspots in Asia.

"The realignment of the U.S. troops in Japan will contribute to maintaining peace and security in Japan. The realignment is also extremely important to reducing the burden on residents near defense facilities," the legislation said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about this. For years, Okinawan's have protested the presence of a U.S. Marine base on their island. The protests started when three U.S. Marines raped a 12 year old Japanese schoolgirl in 1995 (http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/13/news/story07.html). The U.S. Government heavily resisted the idea until Japan agreed to pay the U.S. 6 Billion (that's Billions with a B) Dollars. That's right; Japan has to pay the U.S. government to move a U.S. Military Base off their island after three of their Marines were found guilty of raping a girl! Is that incredible or what?

Let's see if the major news organizations carries this or not.

lycheng

[Vahz]

Good news but also sick.

[lycheng]

According to a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawan_Rape_incident) on the 1995 rape incident:

United States Navy Admiral Richard C. Macke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Macke) was commander of United States Pacific Command at the time of the attack. At a press conference in November, 1995, in which the Admiral discussed the attack, he said of the men's actions: "I think it was absolutely stupid. I have said several times: for the price they paid to rent the car [used in the crime], they could have had a girl [prostitute]". Due to these insensitive comments, the admiral was immediately removed from his post and forced into early retirement, and at the rank of a two-star admiral rather than a four-star admiral, which affected his pension severely.

This is a good example of what can happen when Asian women are stereotyped as prostitutes.

lycheng

[Anansasem]

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the United States should move an entire military base because three twisted deviants committed this infamy?

I personally don't see how the Japanese have the right to complain, after WWII other Asian countries were enraged at the United States for their efforts to preserve and rebuild Japan. Particularly China, without a U.S. presence in that region there would probably be even more maneuvering, espionage, and kidnapping than there is now. Japan's rebound after WWII was due to their own abilities and even more so to the heavy boons given by the United States. Who exactly in that broken post-WWII country financed all of the reconstruction efforts? Six billion is a pittance compared to what the United States has supplied, not to mention the fact that the United States will protect and preserve their country for them.

Granted, if the military base was exhausting the local infrastructure than this move is probably necessary. Though, I still don't believe that the U.S. would be under any significant obligation to initiate this themselves unless it was resulting in excessive difficulties. Additionally, if the U.S. is abusing it's authority in the country and ignoring the people’s qualms to the extent that they build resentment like a tyrant, then the U.S. should begin efforts to satisfy the problems.

Even so, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the level of support the U.S. has given their former enemy far surpasses the problems they may be causing now. This is why I say six billion to move an entire base isn't an entirely outrageous position.

If I overlooked anything, please point them out to me. I'm truly interested in the current situations of Japan and United States in that region.

[minbo]

Actually, there was no Marshall plan for Japan. No massive influx of rebuilding money. Japan was in a desperate recession immediately post WWII. The US occupied it, not to protect it for benevolence sake, but for their own interests in preventing the militaristic leadership to take over again, and also to prevent Communist Russia (then Communist China) from expanding.

Japan's economic revival happened because of the Korean war. The Keiretsu realized that the US needed war materials, so they came up with ways to produce the goods in Japan cheaper then the US counterparts, and since they were already across the Pacific, their goods were cheaper to transport to the war front as well. The inexpensive goods are the real reason the US did not crack down on the intellectual property liberties the Keiretsu took, because the US and it's servicemen were buying it. If they cracked down, then the US cost for the war would go up. After Korea was the Vietnam war. If neither of those wars happened and the Keiretsu were not already industrialized and efficient capitalist businesses, then Japan would not have been able to rebuild into the economic power house it is today. It was not any heavy boon, it was just a capitalistic exchange. Goods for money. War profiteering.

As for moving the military base, there are empirical crime statistics. They show that there is significant increase in crime near the US bases, and that the majority of of the crimes are committed by US servicemen, or by "camp followers" associated with the military base, both foreign and domestic.

The move was brought up because the US wanted to expand the base in Okinawa in order to re-align the forces in the Pacific. One large central base and many smaller forward bases. To expand, they needed to get more land. There is also concern for the environmental impact to the area the US wanted to expand in. Okinawa did not want to permit the expansion, so the US needed to either keep the base in Okinawa the same size and forgo the planned military re-alignment, convince Okinawa to allow the expansion and lease the additional land to the US or find an alternate place to make their main consolidated base. It just happens that Okinawa found a way to get their way and make the US happy with the third option.

The talk about the 1995 rape is just old laundry that is/was being used by some to symbolize the crime issues in order to rally their people to their cause, the rape itself as a singular incident is not the real issue.

[atlasien]

There is also concern for the environmental impact to the area the US wanted to expand in.

Military bases are often toxic nightmares. The Naval base that just moved away from the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico... they'd been firing depleted uranium rounds. The result was a nice spike in cancer rates for island inhabitants.

[minbo]

That is entirely true, but on the flip side, Vieques is also a well protected animal and plant sanctuary because it was used as a firing range. A bit of both very very bad and unintended good.

Off the top of my head, the environmental impact for Okinawa that I recall was that the US wanted to build a large helicopter base on a protected reef, thereby destroying the reef. Then you also add in the potential issues of spilled fuel potentially destroying nearby fishing grounds.

[Anansasem]

Thanks Minbo, I wasn't aware of half of that. Though, regardless of their reasons the United States still helped tremendously in the restructuring of the country after the war, for both the infrastructure and defense. Although, I didn't realized just how much the U.S. wars helped the country, much like Canada.

If I remember correctly, "The Food Network" that the United States set up to feed the people after the collapse of the ruling system and near destruction of most cities cost over 1 million dollars a day. In today’s terms it would probably amount to far more. Add this to the amount of building contracts, land reform, weapons disposal and conversion of weapons facilities, and the overall cost of maintaining the U.S. military as Japan's standing army would probably amount to more than the countries current budget.

The depth that “The Military Industrial Complex” influences events in almost every country continually amazes me. In a perfect world, China and the U.S. could literally "end world hunger" if they put their defense budgets towards this instead of preparing to smash them against each other.

The level of crime is always an issue surrounding military bases. I think there was some mention of this in the bases in New Jersey and Virginia that’s on American soil, where businesses and women were complaining about the reckless acts of servicemen. Hell, even American women in the service have to be cautious around "their brother's in arms" or they could find themselves raped and pregnant while still being forced to serve out their terms. Sadly, I've seen this happen too many times.

I may not know all of the details, though would it really be so much more difficult for the military to properly police themselves and their actions instead of just relocating themselves to a another area just to repeat the process?

After hearing you mention all of those environmental issues, I now doubt there was really another option but to relocate. It strange though, that the Japanese seemed to have no problem demolishing several acres of reef off the coast to built that massive airport.

Tell me, is the reallocation caused by the growing fear of Chinese expansion into the Pacific?

I thought they were just adding the rape incident in for shock value. How exactly does the U.S. deal with these incidences? Do they turn them over to the Japanese Judicial system, where they're probably 'guilty until proven innocent,' or try them in the Military Courts, which would probably amount to the same thing?

[minbo]

Not to downplay the contributions the US made to Japan for reconstruction. As with everything people do things for different reasons, some were helping the Japanese for benevolent reasons, some for selfish reasons.

As for policing themselves, any time you have thousands of displaced young people concentrated in a small geographic location with few outlets for recreation, you are going to have problems no matter how much you police. It doesn't matter if it is in Japan, Philippines, Germany, etc. Domestic bases are better for discipline because the troops often can find more recreational outlets when off duty and can see their friends/family far more easily.

The re-alignment is the new Rumsfield paradigm (and not a bad one either, for all his faults). He wants to have small forward bases close to "hotspot" areas. This way they can react quickly to a local problem, rather than have to send equipment from far away. Then while the forward base engages in initial action, the resources from a larger regional base will be able to re-supply the base and back them up. If the action is expected to be long, then they will rapidly expand the forward base to a much larger one as needed because they will have pre-existing agreements and leased land larger than they needed for the small forward base. No need to scramble around and get denied like Turkey for the Iraq war. It is not China specific, but certainly Taiwan is one of the potential hotspots they are going to target for a forward base. *edit Not that they are specificly going to put a forward base in Taiwan itself, but that they are going go make sure that it is within the sphere of influence of a forward base.

As for the environmental effects, it is just a case of "not in my back yard". Everyone wants the benefits, but no one wants the damn thing near them. Environmental problems in Japan vs environmental problems in Guam. Crime in Japan vs crime in Guam. Guam may feel that economic benefit from the base will outweigh the negatives, but I don't know as I have not heard anything from them one way or the other.

[lycheng]

Thanks everyone for contributing. I'm learning a lot here too.

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the United States should move an entire military base because three twisted deviants committed this infamy?

I think they are connected. I'm not an Okinawan, but I would guess many Okinawan's probably think the pressure placed on the Japanese government worked. There were other incidents that were less sensationalistic, but nevertheless highlighted the tension between the locals and the military.

I do appreciate the role the U.S. played in the peace and security of the region. But does this translate into Japan having to pay more than half the cost of relocating a U.S. base? As Minbo pointed out, the U.S. had its own strategic interests in mind. Therefore, I don't think Japan owes any "debt" to the U.S. in that respect. I would concede that Japan probably could pay for some costs associated with the move, but not more than half the cost.

The talk about the 1995 rape is just old laundry that is/was being used by some to symbolize the crime issues in order to rally their people to their cause, the rape itself as a singular incident is not the real issue.

Yes, it is old news. But I brought it up as a way to illustrate local discontent with the foreign military presence, from the Okinawan perspective. I'm not suggesting the majority of U.S. servicemen would rape local girls.

The move was brought up because the US wanted to expand the base in Okinawa in order to re-align the forces in the Pacific. One large central base and many smaller forward bases. To expand, they needed to get more land. There is also concern for the environmental impact to the area the US wanted to expand in. Okinawa did not want to permit the expansion, so the US needed to either keep the base in Okinawa the same size and forgo the planned military re-alignment, convince Okinawa to allow the expansion and lease the additional land to the US or find an alternate place to make their main consolidated base. It just happens that Okinawa found a way to get their way and make the US happy with the third option.

This is my understanding too. The fact that the third option involved payment of a substantial amount of money by the Japanese government is shocking to me. I'm now wondering if there was pressure from the U.S. to do this? Or did the Japanese government come up with the idea themselves?


Off the top of my head, the environmental impact for Okinawa that I recall was that the US wanted to build a large helicopter base on a protected reef, thereby destroying the reef. Then you also add in the potential issues of spilled fuel potentially destroying nearby fishing grounds.

Guam, being a U.S. Territory, doesn't have the same options as a country like Japan. In fact, from the political perspective, it's an ideal base because:

A) It has a pro-American military civilian population. Guam. already has a large Air Force and Navy base on the island (a third of the island is U.S. military, off limits to civilians).
B) Its economy will grow as a result of another military base.
C) Its culturally American too.

Unfortunately, similar reef damage and other environmental impact will surely happen on Guam too. It's just that most residents there are willing to overlook it.

Tell me, is the reallocation caused by the growing fear of Chinese expansion into the Pacific?

Yes, along with North Korea. I think the U.S. military basically says this… I'll have to find a link to confirm.

lycheng

[lycheng]

The Federal Government is obligated to perform the same kind of Environmental Impact Study on Guam as it does on the U.S. mainland. You can read a fact sheet (http://www.guampdn.com/news/assets/EIS_OEIS%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf) on this here.

lycheng

[Anansasem]

Appreciate it, Lycheng.

Were the Philippine Islands considered? I think they became independent after The Second Indochina War, though aren't they traditionally pro-American?

By the way Lycheng, you live in Japan right? Can I ask you for a brief explanation of the consensus in Japan with the growing power of China and their tension with The United States? I've heard that the Japanese Prime minister has declared unwavering support for the United States, are there any in your country who would prefer to see China rise and America decline?

[lycheng]

^^ No, I don't live in Japan, Anansasem. I live in Los Angeles. I grew up on Guam. Last time I visited Guam was in 2005.

lycheng

[Anansasem]

Oh, I see now. When you mentioned 'local newspaper,' I guess I jumped to a conclusion about which of the relevant countries would report this.