| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| Gates says Japan deal on US airbase must stand |
| 2009-10-21 |
| US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday rejected demands by Japan's new government to review a deal between the two countries about a controversial US airbase and the presence of American troops. Gates made the comments on his plane en route to Tokyo, before he arrived as the first top US official to visit Japan since the new centre-left government took power here just over a month ago. New premier Yukio Hatoyama pledged during campaigning to look again at the 2006 agreement struck by his conservative predecessor and the former Washington administration of George W. Bush. That agreement was about the presence of 47,000 American troops in Japan and the planned relocation by 2014 of a major US airbase from an urban area to a coastal part of southern Okinawa island. But Gates ruled out reopening talks on the deal, after Hatoyama earlier suggested the base may be moved off the island. "We think we need to progress with the agreement that was negotiated," Gates said hours before he was due to meet Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada. Gates said that although Obama's administration understood the new government's "desire to review certain policies," the agreement had been years in the making and other options for Okinawa had already been exhausted. "We've looked at, over the years, at all these alternatives and they are either politically untenable or operationally unworkable," he said. Gates' two-day visit is the first by a member of President Barack Obama's cabinet since Japan's new government took power to end decades of conservative rule and vowing less subservient relations with the United States. Hatoyama's government, which in opposition criticised Japan abetting "American wars," has also announced it would end in January an Indian Ocean naval refuelling mission in support of the Afghanistan war effort. The US military presence on Okinawa has long angered residents because of aircraft noise and the risk of accidents, while crimes committed by US service personnel have caused friction with the local community. The US defense secretary was due to visit Seoul on Wednesday and Thursday before heading to Slovakia for a NATO meeting of defense ministers on Friday. He said he expected to discuss in Japan and South Korea economic and other possible assistance in support of the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. Hatoyama's government has said it is considering new civilian aid as a substitute for the naval mission it plans to end next January that has supported NATO-led forces in Afghanistan since 2001. Japan's Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said Tuesday he would also study sending military personnel to help aid efforts in war-torn Afghanistan. "If you look at the opinions of the international community, including Europe, I have come to worry whether civilian help alone is sufficient as an alternative," said Kitazawa, who was due to meet Gates on Wednesday. "In what way can the Self Defense Forces participate in the efforts? The government has not been able to engage in substantial debate, but I personally wish to study the matter by soliciting ideas from many people." Japan's armed forces are barred under the country's pacifist post-war constitution from offensive combat operations, but they have taken part in overseas humanitarian and military support missions. |
| Posted by:Alaska Paul |
| #20 They may not have the means to really resist. Their demographics have totally tanked. The elderly want stability and the young are tired of the old politicians who aligned with the US. They are heavily export driven and resouce poor in the midst of a serious recession that could tip into a full depression. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-10-21 21:33 |
| #19 CHIN MIL FORUMS > Now thru Year 2020, possib even 2025, is the DECISIVE PERIODS FOR CHINA TO PREVENT THE RISE OF A STRONG NUCLEAR ANTI-CHIN JAPAN, or in altern to DOMINATE/CONTROL SAME. Japan does accept military but not financial domination by the U.S. I'm not at all certain they'd accept even the attempt at either by China. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-10-21 21:11 |
| #18 Lest we fergit II, WMF > US-CHINA CONFLICT = To defeat the USN = US AIRCRAFT CARRIERS + SUBS, CHINA should UNILATER PREEMPTIVELY destroy JAPAN wid its nuclear missles, then turn same towards incoming US Milfors. In any case, HAWAII being a de fact US STATE WID FORMAL SAY + PRE-DETERMINED SHARE IN US = USDOD BUDGETS, + GUAM being only an UN-INCORPORATED TERRITORY whose local Budget $$$ must be anually submitted, debated, and approved by the US Congress, + whose Leadership can't decide on what kind of LR Relations = final Political Status it wants wid the USA, HAWAII THE ALREADY-A-US-STATE-WHILE-GUAM-IS-NOT [US West Coast States]STANDS TO $$$ BENEFIT IFF THE MARINES STAY OR LEAVE JAPAN. This scenario also inclusve if CHIN taking over GUAM + HAWAII, ETC. STRATEGIC AREAS; or inducing the NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION OF SAME AS PERTINENT. E.g. CHINESE MIL FORUM THREAD [DER SPIEGEL Artic] > IIRC CHINA'S PLA SECOND ARTILLERY HAS 400-KILOTON DF-31/31A's LRBMS AIMED JUST AT GUAM PER SE, + exclusive of HAWAII + other major targets. Just one more reason, among many, why Guam is only hurting itself by waffling + NOT having a formal vote of SELF-DETERMINATION/POL STATUS. THE LONGER IT KEEPS PUTTING IT OFF, THE MORE IT RISKS LOSING EVERYTHING. E.g. GUAM PDN Artic this AM > ANTHONY GODWIN [a top Guam realtor] > [paraphrased]MANY IN GUAM'S BUSINESS SECTOR ARE ENDANGERING THEMSELVES $$$ BY "PLACING THEIR BETS" ON THE MARINES BUILDUP/RELOC FROM OKINAWA. I've been saying this for a long time now. But. once again, I digress... |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 21:06 |
| #17 When I saw this article, I realized that the security implications for Japan and the US were huge. Yes, there are problems having the base in Okinawa. There have been problems in the past and there will always be problems in the future. IMHO, this is a defining moment in US/Japan relations. How Obama handles this one will send messages to other allies with other bases. Japan must realize that closing off Okinawa bases has great implications to its own security. And all the while China is watching the whole thing. And so is Taiwan. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-10-21 21:06 |
| #16 Our military bases and naval rights in Japan are the result of bilateral treaties of mutual friendship and military cooperation with the Japanese. If they don't wish to be friendly and don't want to cooperate, we're out of there. It's not quite that simple IMO. For one thing, we've invested heavily in facilities there. And the legal agreements were put in place to allow long term planning, both with regard to materiel and also with regard to where else we have forces. Would you like to see, say, agreements signed with Israel, in which they invested money and agreed to forego alternative defense methods, abrogated unilaterally by the current White House? Sudden denial of technologies they contributed to, or that we promised in exchange for them not investing in equivalents of their own? I agree we're not occupiers there. But the precedent of quietly going home at this point has significant implications that should not IMO be accepted without objection. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-10-21 20:46 |
| #15 PAKISTANI DEFENC FORUM > TAIWAN SAY CHINA CONTINUES ITS MILITARY BUILDUP [1500 Missles], versus CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > TEN YEARS TO TACKLE THE TAIWAN EQUATION. 1990's "YEAR 2020" BENCHMARK raises its head again. ARTIC > GEOPOL-MILPOL "SECURITY OF TAIWAN" IS DITTO ALSO THE "SECURITY OF JAPAN". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 20:43 |
| #14 Lest we fergit, CHINA > wants to include historic autonomous pro-CHIN Vassal kindgom RYUKYU KONGDOM = OKINAWA as part of its desired OFFSHORE CHIN EEZ/SPECIAL EZ ["continental shelf" diplomacy]. It does want to see a strong REARMED = MILITARIZED NUKULAAR JAPAN AS A REGIONAL + GEOPOL COMPETITOR TO THE FTURE CHIN SUPERPOWER ["weak Japan"]. * NET > CHIN MIL FORUMS > Now thru Year 2020, possib even 2025, is the DECISIVE PERIODS FOR CHINA TO PREVENT THE RISE OF A STRONG NUCLEAR ANTI-CHIN JAPAN, or in altern to DOMINATE/CONTROL SAME. SAME > CHIN NETTERS-ARTICS > to defeat or stop the USN, espec its Aircraft Carriers + Subs in war, CHIN MUST BE ABLE TO THREATEN IFF NOT TAKE OVER GUAM-CNMI + MICRONESIA, EVEN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS + PARTS OF ALCAN-NORAM IFF NEED BE. The above is EXCLUSIVE of RADICAL ISLAM'S ENTRY INTO PACOAS [ e.g. Uighurs in PALAU = SYMBOLIC GATEWAY] as per its REGIONAL-UNIVERSAL JIHAD [fight one andor both the US + CHINA, etal.]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 19:07 |
| #13 **BREAKING ** GUAM PDN > JAPAN: US TROOPS MUST GO [prefer any + all USMC, etc. leave OKinawa]; + GUAM K57 RADIO > GATES: NO FUTENMA RELOCATION, NO RELOCATION OF TROOPS TO GUAM. Includes NO FOLLOW-ON US-LED CONSOLADAT OF US FORCES IN JAPAN-OKIN, + NO RETURN OF LAND TO OKINAWA. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 18:51 |
| #12 I wouldn't be surprised if we give them Taiwan before 2012. The senior Chinese have figured out already they can essentially buy Taiwan. Why fight for it? And with the present administration along with the the ancient regime at State, they won't do anything. They'll vote present. So why posture for nothing. It wastes resources and makes you look foolish. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-10-21 18:49 |
| #11 They seem to have completely blanked their minds as to WHY that base is there, They already started and lost one world war, we WILL watch them, closely. And their mouthy politicians will NOT do squat about it. Politicians got them in this mess in the first place. (Yes I know they were called Royalty, if you think Royalty isn't political you need history lessons.) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-10-21 13:09 |
| #10 B-52 missions out of Anderson AFB on Guam to points in SE Asia were 13 - 15 hours depending on where you went. To go anywhere strategically relevant today would take much longer and require multiple aerial refuelings. That would be ugly if you couldn't launch tankers out of Kadena. |
| Posted by: rwv 2009-10-21 12:48 |
| #9 I agree Okinawa is much better positioned. But we can't use it if the Japanese don't want us there. We're friends, not (anymore) occupiers. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-10-21 12:48 |
| #8 Okinawa's like 1200 miles closer to the Taiwanese Straits and a bunch of other Asian theatres of probable future strategic relevance than Guam. Guam is *not* a good replacement for the Okinawan bases. China's a pretty important strategic dilemma. They're square in the Imperial Germany sour spot of: - rising economic power - catastrophic demographic profile - revanchist know-nothing popular sentiment I wouldn't be surprised if we give them Taiwan before 2012. Just flat out - on a platter, here's your dinner and go back to the kiddie's table and be a nice boy, junior. All the song and dance for the ChiCom 60th anniversary is surely signaling *something*. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-10-21 12:10 |
| #7 Our military bases and naval rights in Japan are the result of bilateral treaties of mutual friendship and military cooperation with the Japanese. If they don't wish to be friendly and don't want to cooperate, we're out of there. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-10-21 09:49 |
| #6 What is it that makes it such a leftist peacenik wonderland? The Chinese. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-10-21 09:30 |
| #5 You could also tell the Japanese Government we'll discuss it after the Russians return the northern islands back to their jurisdiction just like we have already returned Okinawa. Which would be, like, never. [Ask the German Prussians and Silesians about that one too]. On the other hand, I think we should be out of there anyway, along with South Korea. They're big enough boys now to take care of their own security. Fall back on Guam for local presence and forward staging. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-10-21 08:46 |
| #4 You don't want to get into "our mountain of corpses is taller than yours" pissing contests with the Japanese over Okinawa, Glenmore. Theirs is taller and has more civilians in it, regardless of the other aspects of the matter. I don't know much about modern-day Okinawa besides its status as Japan's Hawaii - IE, an island-shaped South Seas-themed tourist trap. What is it that makes it such a leftist peacenik wonderland? Is it the sunny weather that attracts all the goddamn hippies? |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-10-21 08:19 |
| #3 We paid for that base in 1945 with 12,000 souls; they can't have it back unless we don't want it anymore. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-10-21 08:03 |
| #2 Now there's a thorny question for the One's administration. If Japan is still an ally, then their "presumptions" can be dealt with the appropriate harshness. However, if Japan is no longer an ally, then their ass must be kissed. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-10-21 03:03 |
| #1 CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > JAPAN MAY NOT LET US USE OKINAWA AIRFIELDS [Nippon expectin' flexibility = compromise wid SecDef Gates in Base talks]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 00:20 |