|
This page is graphically intense with long load times due to photos. However, the photos and narratives by the men who served at Osan Air Base makes the wait well worthwhile. The opinions expressed are those of the author and in no way represents any official statement of Osan AB or the USAF. 
US-JAPAN MILITARY REALIGNMENTChanges in Japan and Guam will Affect the ROK (Jan-Mar 2006) (See Revising Japanese Peace Constitution May Spell Big Trouble for ROK (Dec 2005) for background.) On 26 Feb 2005, Pacific Air Forces Commander Gen. Paul V. Hester says President Bush's proposed fiscal 2006 defense budget includes several construction projects at U.S. bases on Guam, such as a new high school at U.S. Naval Base Guam and an AAFES complex at Andersen Air Force Base. But on March 1, Pacific Air Force wing commanders are told to curtail spending in non-mission-essential areas in the face of mounting war debt. Later in the year, there was talk of stationing the nuclear carrier at Guam if the stationing in Japan was not possible and having a naval air wing at Anderson AB. (SITE NOTE: In Mar 2007, it was decided that the USS Carl Vinson, a nuclear carrier, would be stationed in San Diego instead of Guam.) Part of the master plan for restructuring Japan was to move the headquarters element of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force to Guam -- along with its dependents.On 29 Oct 2005, top U.S. and Japanese officials announced a sweeping realignment of military forces. Plans called for 7,000 Marines to move from Okinawa to Guam and 57 carrier jets and E-2 Hawkeye aircraft to be relocated from Atsugi to Iwakuni. Immediately the Iwakuni residents protested. At the same time, a joint U.S.-Japanese operations center would be set up at Yokota Air Base, and components of the U.S. Army's I Corps would be moved from Fort Lewis, Wash., to Camp Zama, among major shifts. The plans sparked anti-base protests at Yokosuka, Yokota and Zama. The realignment proposed a substitution for the stalled MCAS Futenma replacement project in Henoko: building a smaller facility on Camp Schwab and reclaimed land in adjacent Oura Wan Bay. The report drew immediate opposition from Okinawa officials, despite also calling for moving III MEF headquarters element to Guam and closing some Marine bases in southern Okinawa. On 16 Nov 2005, President Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in Kyoto. Koizumi drew fire from local officials opposed to the military realignment plan when he said "Japan's prosperity is based on peace and security" and that the country "was to pay the necessary costs" for the defense pact with the United States. This meant that the relocation of troops from Okinawa costing $1.2 billion would be partially funded by Japan. However, some Japanese politicians feel that cutting the Marines on Okinawa to too low a level might entail an attack on Taiwan by the PRC -- and then threaten Okinawa. Unlike the ROK, the Japanese are aligning itself closely with the US in coordinated efforts to deal with the North. Senior Vice Foreign Minister Yasuhisa Shiozaki on 6 Jan assured the United States that Japan would not normalize ties with North Korea unless the abduction, missile, nuclear and other pending issues are comprehensively resolved. Japan's talks with North Korea agreed to set up three separate but parallel working groups to address diplomatic normalization, the North's past abductions of Japanese nationals and security-related problems. Japan agreed with the senior U.S. officials to continue cooperating closely on moving the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions forward and achieving U.N. reforms. Japan's position is that North Korea's demand that the United States remove its financial sanctions should not be linked with the six-party talks, because the sanctions are a law enforcement matter. (Source: Japan Times) In Washington on 7 Mar, U.S. Pacific Commander William Fallon confirmed that working-level negotiations in Hawaii on the implementation details "are nearing conclusion, with an agreed implementation plan expected by 30 March." In written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Fallon said the Defense Policy Review Initiative pact "assessed the security environment in the region and bilaterally determined the required roles, missions, capabilities, and force structure." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also indicated on 7 Mar that realignment plans were almost set. "It's a final report … that we've negotiated out with the government of Japan," he said at a news conference. Japanese officials, he said, will "work with their local communities to sort things out — the details. … Not to worry. It will be fine. It will all work out." While acknowledging that several thousand people attended a rally in Okinawa on Sunday to oppose the plan, he downplayed the event's significance. "If you've got millions of people in a country," Rumsfeld said, "there are always going to be different views. … You expect that. That's what democracy's about." The Japanese government "has made a decision," he said. "There will be people who will agree with it and people who don't agree with it. … Life goes on." (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: The problem is that everything is like a set of dominoes lined up in a row. One cannot change one piece of the set without affecting the entire chain. The Japanese government was afraid that opening up separate items for renegotiation with local officials would cause the entire agreement to collapse. This reluctance to renegotiate specific items for change -- except the cost sharing options which some Japanese politicians think is excessive -- applies also to the US. In Japan, the local protests were growing. For example, in Iwakuni, Yamaguchi Prefecture, the city officially announced it would hold a plebiscite March 12 on plans to relocate U.S. carrier-borne aircraft to a U.S. base in that city. Since most residents are expected to vote against the plan, the real question is whether enough people will turn out. However, the results would not be legally binding. In all the cities affected in Okinawa and Japan, there have been rising protests. In Apr 2006, a survey showed that one in two Japanese polled felt that the share of Japan in relocating the troops to Guam was excessive. The Japanese government sought to reduce its cost share to offset the growing public disapproval of the realignment plan -- though the Japanese government was pressing ahead with negotiations. The plan that was supposed to be signed in March was stretched into May 2006. In May 2006, the agreement was signed by Japan by passing local government approval. Reuters reported on 30 May 2006 that Japan approved a final plan to tighten security ties with the US and reorganize US troops in the country, part of Washington's strategy to make its forces more flexible in the face of modern threats. Cabinet approval of the plan paves the way for streamlining the approximately 50,000 US military personnel in Japan and giving Tokyo a bigger role in the key alliance, the central pillar of its post-war diplomacy. ) Guam Air Force Units The 13th Air Force is located at Anderson AFB and Det 1, 13th AF maintains the Diego Garcia contingency base. In June 1991, Mount Pinatubo buried Clark in volcanic ash and forced the closure of the base on Nov 26, Thirteenth Air Force relocated to Andersen and officially established its headquarters on Guam on December 2, 1991. Andersen is one of four Bomber Forward Operating Location [BFOL] in the Air Force. These locations provide forward support to bomber crews deploying overseas in Europe, Southwest Asia and in the Pacific. The Air Force is establishing forward-deployed bomber bed-down support at key locations throughout the world and Andersen is one of two critical bases in the Asia Pacific region. The other location is Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The 7th AEW was activated in late February or early March 2003 at Andersen Air Force Base just prior to the arrival to 12 B-1Bs and 12 B-52s that were deployed to Guam from in an effort to deter North Korea. The rapid response deployment to the Pacific region made history as the largest bomber deployment since the Vietnam era and the largest B-1 deployment ever. On 14 Mar 2006 it was announced that the 36th Air Base Wing was being renamed the 36th Wing at Anderson AFB. The wing is the basic war-fighting unit of the Air Force. This signals a change in the wind with Anderson once more becoming the center of the Asian regional defense encompassing the South Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, and contiguous land areas. Naval Units at Guam The Navy has home ported three to five attack submarines in Guam so the boats can spend more time on station in the western Pacific. Transit times from Hawaii and the West Coast substantially impact the availability of subs deploying along the Pacific rim. Stationing submarines in Guam allows them to follow a different operating concept, further increasing the number of mission days they can perform. Attack submarines in the United States typically deploy for a 180-day stretch every two years or so. Submarines based in Guam were to deploy for periods of up to 56 days, but much more often, so they will spend about 182 days a year at sea and 183 days a year in their home port. Creation of a homeport in Guam could not happen prior to around 2005, since the Navy would have to create an infrastructure to care for the ships, an additional 650 to 700 sailors and their families. (NOTE: The movement of 9,000 dependents of the 3rd MEU from Okinawa will also be impacting on the infrastructure with the total movement costs estimated at $10 billion.) The Los Angeles-class City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705) arrived at its new homeport in Guam in October 2002, marking the first time the Navy has "forward deployed" an attack sub from the Pacific island. The USS San Francisco arrived in 2003, and a third submarine arrived in 2004. By June 2004 the Navy had decided that up to three more attack submarines will be based in Guam, positioned to respond to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. In 2005, the topic of stationing an aircraft carrier at Guam with the naval air wing at Anderson was surfaced when there was a possibility of the Japanese refusing a nuclear carrier to be home ported at Yokosuka. (NOTE: Naval AS Agana is closed. In Mar 2007, it was decided that the USS Carl Vinson, a nuclear carrier, would be stationed in San Diego instead of Guam.) The Japanese acquiesced as there was no other option -- and the matter was quietly dropped. However, periodically the topic pops up meaning that officials are still considering it as an option. 3rd MEU HQ to Guam Part of the master plan for restructuring Japan was to move the headquarters element of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force to Guam -- along with its dependents. On 2 Feb 2006 the Asahi Shimbun reported that The U.S. Defense Department will ask Japan to shoulder 75 percent of the estimated $8 billion (940 billion yen) needed to relocate U.S. Marines from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam. Later the Stars and Stripes stated that the DOD requested $250 million to initiate environmental impact studies in Guam prior to the relocation of the personnel. The original realignment plan called for the move of 7,000 Marines off Okinawa, some 6,000 of them to Guam. That would include moving headquarters of the III Marine Expeditionary Force to Guam and consolidating most Marine bases south of Kadena Air Base to existing Marine bases in northern Okinawa. (NOTE: Later the plan was changed to 8,000 Marines, with 7,000 to Guam -- and the departure of 9,000 dependents from Okinawa.) Under a bilateral interim report on realignment issued in Oct 2005, the headquarters of the III Marine Expeditionary Force would be relocated to Guam and the remaining Marine units on the island would be reduced to a Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The transferred personnel would come from air, ground, logistics and command elements. In addition, about 9,000 dependents would move to Guam. The United States has asked Japan to pick up part of the tab for the move -- some $7.6 billion. The October report states that Marine Corps units that remain in Okinawa would be consolidated to camps in the north. This would enable the return of significant land in the densely populated areas south of Kadena Air Base. Okinawa officials have interpreted that portion of the report to mean that Camp Kinser, as well as MCAS Futenma, would be closed, along with Camp Lester, which is already going through a return process as outlined in a 1996 agreement. Parts of Camp Foster also would be closed. Earlier agreements identified part of the Kishaba Housing Area to be returned. Also, single-family housing in the development is slated to be razed and replaced with multifamily units. On 27 Feb 2006, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported that the US had told Japan that it would withdraw some 8,000 marines -- 1,000 more than originally proposed -- from the Japanese island of Okinawa as part of its military realignment. The number was increased after Washington reassessed its personnel needs. A Japan official confirmed reports that the United States was offering to move an additional 1,000 Marines from the island as part of its realignment of U.S. forces in Japan. If included in a final bilateral realignment report, it would mean that some 8,000 Marines would be transferred, most of them to Guam, effectively cutting their numbers on Okinawa by more than half. Both governments are working on a concrete plan to be compiled in March. Currently 13,000 Marines are assigned to Okinawa. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) On 8 Mar, the Stars and Stripes reported that the strength of the Okinawa opposition to the realignment was being overstated in the press. The Okinawa opposition at Ginwon claimed that 35,000 attended a rally, but the US military contended less than 10,000 were present. Also noted was the absence Sunday of Okinawan political leaders, including Gov. Keiichi Inamine and Yoshikazu Shimabukuro, mayor of Nago, where the plan calls for building a new air base. Both objected to the airport plan, though Shimabukuro said he was willing to accept it if Japan and the U.S. tweak some details, such as moving aircraft flight paths away from residential areas. Many Okinawans concerned about the heavy U.S. military presence on their island have expressed mixed feelings. They applaud the proposal to move some 8,000 Marines and more than 9,000 of their dependents off Okinawa, mostly to Guam. They also support the plan's call to return "significant land in the densely populated areas south of Kadena Air Base," which Okinawa officials have interpreted as Camp Kinser, Naha Military Port, the rest of Camp Lester and parts of Camp Foster. But they object to moving Marine air operations to a facility to be built on part of Camp Schwab and reclaimed land in Oura Bay in rural northeastern Okinawa. US and Japanese were to meet in Hawaii in mid-March over the plan. Okinawa Marines for the first time joined other U.S. officials in asserting publicly that only minor details remain to be agreed. US officials have said they consider the bilateral realignment agreement released in October final, with only implementation details remaining to be hashed out. According to a Voice of America report on 7 Mar, Marines considered the October announcement final, not a draft. Quoting Lt. Col. Richardo Stewart, deputy assistant chief of staff for U.S. Marine Corps Bases in Japan. "It's an agreement and what comes out in March is really, how do we implement that agreement?" he said, according to the report. But Japanese officials have called the report an "interim" plan, saying it's not to be finalized until month's end. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) The wrangling over the final details stalled temporarily over the cost sharing factor and approval extended into May 2006. Finally it was hammered out in Washington between the Japanese Minister of Defense and Donald Rumsfeld personally. Reuters reported on 30 May 2006 that Japan approved a final plan to tighten security ties with the US and reorganize US troops in the country, part of Washington's strategy to make its forces more flexible in the face of modern threats. Cabinet approval of the plan paves the way for streamlining the approximately 50,000 US military personnel in Japan and giving Tokyo a bigger role in the key alliance, the central pillar of its post-war diplomacy. Futenma AS and Camp Schwab Airstrip The interim report called for replacing MCAS Futenma with an air facility to be built on Camp Schwab and reclaimed land in the shallow waters of Oura Bay. It has been met with near universal opposition by Okinawa officials, who had favored an air base, jointly used by civilian aircraft, to be built on reclaimed land and a reef about two miles offshore, near Camp Schwab. In 1996, the two countries agreed MCAS Futenma, located in the middle of urban Ginowan in central Okinawa, posed a hazard to the surrounding community and needed to move to a more remote area of Okinawa. The crash of a Marine helicopter on the grounds of adjacent Okinawa International University in August 2004 May 2005, almost 24,000 people surrounded Marine Corps Air Station Futenma with a 6.8-mile human chain, to demand its closure. The United States and Japan agreed in 1996 to close the base within seven years once an alternate Okinawan site was found. A Henoko site later was chosen but protests and construction delays stalled the project. Then the US-Japan restructuring plan proposed to move the site to another location on Okinawa -- killing the off-shore airstrip proposal at Futenma. Later newly-elected mayor of Nago, Yoshikazu Shimabukuro, said he was ready to show flexibility if the government considered revisions supported by local residents -- viewed as positive by the Japanese with the plan already drawing flak everywhere, the government may not want to amend anything. The proposals included moving the flight path away from residential areas to reduce complaints of potential noise. Then some started to propose ridiculous ideas. The mayor of Okinawa's capital city Naha, Takeshi Onaga, sought support from Kanagawa Gov Shigefumi Matsuzawa for his proposal to relocate the U.S. Marine Corps' Futemma Air Station in Okinawa to Iwo Jima Island about 1,200 kilometers south of Tokyo. Okinawa Governor Keiichi Inamine, who supported the original plan for an off-shore Henoko site which included a shared civilian airport, said that he could accept the realignment plan if the Futenma issue could be resolved. In Feb 2006, 8000 people in Kanoya, Kagoshima Province protested U.S. plans to make the MSDF base at Kanoya a candidate for the transfer Marine refueling planes from Futenma. The mayor stated the noise was already at "intolerable levels" without adding the KC-135 tankers. On 21 Mar Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Defense Agency Director General Fukushiro Nukaga agreed that the government would consider making minor changes to the government's plan to relocate U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station to a coastal area of U.S. Camp Schwab in Nago in the prefecture. The two agreed that minor changes would help win the cooperation of local governments to be affected by the relocation. The prime minister has been opposed to making changes to the plan. However, he seems to have changed his position to win the acceptance of local communities as the Japanese and the U.S. governments aim to complete a final report on the realignment of U.S. forces stationed in Japan within the month. The two agreed that a modified plan should be one that can be realized even if a protest movement develops. This is a reflection of the way that a plan to relocate the air station to waters off Henoko district in Nago became deadlocked due to protest activities. The defense chief said minor revisions to the plan, which is based on the Japan-U.S. interim report on the realignment agreed in October, will be accepted by the United States. Proposals by them included a change in the angle of the planned runway to reduce noise because the flight path of U.S. aircraft from the runway overflys 10 houses. Another change proposal calls for constructing the runway 50 meters farther out to sea. There is an idea, among local officials, of constructing the runway 200 meters to the sea from the original plan. However, the government and the ruling parties oppose the proposal because it would increase the area of reclamation and adversely affect the natural environment. Thus, if the runway is built at a location different from the plan, the distance will be between 50 meters and 200 meters, government officials said. However, there still remains dissention amongst local leaders to the relocation plan. (Source: Yomiuri Online.) After the USFJ Realignment Agreement was approved by Japan in May 2006 -- bypassing local government approval -- there were objections by local governments. However, soon after the local governments started taking a pragmatic view and started negotiations on the IMPLEMENTATION of the plan to their local benefit instead of outright objections to the plan. Reuters reported on 30 May 2006 that Japan approved a final plan to tighten security ties with the US and reorganize US troops in the country, part of Washington's strategy to make its forces more flexible in the face of modern threats. Cabinet approval of the plan paves the way for streamlining the approximately 50,000 US military personnel in Japan and giving Tokyo a bigger role in the key alliance, the central pillar of its post-war diplomacy. New Nuclear Carrier at Yokosuka On 28 Oct 2005, the Navy announced the conventionally powered Kitty Hawk was to be decommissioned in 2008 and replaced at Yokosuka by a Nimitz-class carrier, the first nuclear-powered carrier to be deployed to Japan. The Navy later announced the replacement carrier would be the USS George Washington. The announcements trigger numerous protests among anti-nuclear and anti-military groups, but Japan acquiesced to the change saying there was no alternatives. The US agreed that the nuclear reactor would be off-line while in port. At the same time, there was discussion of a carrier being stationed at Guam with a naval airwing at Anderson AFB but no firm commitment that this was being considered. (SITE NOTE: In Mar 2007, it was decided that the USS Carl Vinson, a nuclear carrier, would be stationed in San Diego instead of Guam.) In Apr 2006, the Mayor of Nagoya changed his mind about objections to a nuclear carrier after what he said was "impressive documentation" of nuclear safety on the carriers. Iwakuni NAS Under the plan, some 57 aircraft, including F/A-18 fighters, and 1,600 troops would relocate to the base. Currently 3,500 U.S. troops, most of them Marines, are stationed there. The plans call for the air wing from the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier, now based near Tokyo, to be moved to the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, 450 miles southwest of the capital. Also on 28 Oct 2005, it was announced the runways at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni was to be used for both military and commercial aircraft operations, base officials say. No timetable is announced but a new $2.2 billion runway under construction in Iwakuni won't be completed for about four years, engineers have said. Tokyo and Washington reached an agreement in October to allow up to four commercial flights a day to land at the existing Iwakuni airfield after the U.S. marines' new landing strip is built. The agreement was reached as part of a measure to compensate Iwakuni's city government and business community for the transfer of 57 U.S. carrier-based planes and 1,600 marines from the U.S. Navy's Atsugi base in Kanagawa Prefecture to Iwakuni. A 2,440-meter runway is planned to be completed on reclaimed land about one kilometer from Iwakuni Air Station in fiscal 2008. The new strip will replace the existing runway. The Japanese government put forward a proposal to build a terminal for civilian flights on the space vacated by the existing runway, but the U.S. government in January refused the plan at a meeting of senior officials, saying the vacated space was earmarked as a parking area for carrier planes as well as for other military purposes. In Jan 2006, the U.S. government requested that tanker planes stationed in Okinawa be relocated to the U.S. Marine Corps' Iwakuni Air Station in Yamaguchi Prefecture instead of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force's Kanoya base in Kagoshima Prefecture as initially agreed by Japan and the United States. Reason suspected that the US wants to concentrate Marine operations at Iwakuni. The Japanese are opposed to the idea. Most local governments named in the report as possible hosts for the U.S. military have expressed opposition, and central government officials fear that reviewing any component of it would lead to an escalation of demands for the entire document to be amended, the sources said. On 10 Feb 2006, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported that the U.S. has refused to allow the construction of an air terminal for commercial use on the site of the U.S. Marine Corps' Iwakuni Air Station in Yamaguchi Prefecture, despite a basic agreement reached last year to allow civilian flights to land at the airfield. The Pentagon has insisted on siting the new terminal for civil flights outside the base, putting the current plan to allow commercial airlines to land at Iwakuni from fiscal 2009 in doubt. Concerns have been raised among Iwakuni's local community that construction of a new terminal outside the air station might delay the start of commercial flight services and result in higher construction costs and a less convenient service. The Pentagon's refusal to let the civilian air terminal construction proceed at the agreed site could impact Iwakuni's March 12 referendum on whether to accept the transfer of the U.S. carrier-based planes. (SITE NOTE: It was announced on 8 Mar that Japan was going to sign the Restructuring Agreement without seeking local approval because of the dissent. In addition, the referendum was not legally binding, but would most likely would succeed adding more fuel to the dissent. In other words, local support was not likely in the future so the Japanese government has given up on the idea of attempting to persuade the local government.) (Source: Yomiuri News.) On 12 Mar the non-binding referendum over whether the troops were welcome resulted in a total of 43,433 residents in the city voting against the relocation; while just 5,369 voted in favor. Some 58 percent of Iwakuni's 85,000 eligible voters cast ballots -- easily over the 50 percent needed for the vote to be valid. However, just prior to this referendum the Japanese government decided to press ahead with signing the accord without gaining public concensus on the subject. The government stated the results of the referendum was "expected." In May 2006, the cabinet approved the reorganization plan for the USFJ. Yokota Airspace In 2003, Yokota became a joint use base with the JSDF moving an Air Defense element to Yokota, however, the proposal of Tokyo Governor Ishihara to make Yokota into a joint use civilian airport was rejected. The ASDF's Air Defense Command (ADC) and Air Support Command (ASC) headquarters, both now based in Fuchu, Tokyo, are to be shifted to Yokota AB. In Nov 2005, it was reported that the US military and the Japanese Self-Defense Forces also plan to develop a "common operational picture" with US and Japanese command centers co-located at Yokota Air Base in Japan. "Close and continuous coordination at every level is "essential to dissuade destabilizing military build-ups, to deter aggression and to respond to diverse security challenges," the report said. The two countries agreed on the need to intensify bilateral contingency planning and include Japan's civilian agencies and local authorities in the process. They also agreed to share real-time intelligence, expand joint training and share facilities both inside and outside Japan." In the interim report released Oct 2005 the US-Japan agreed to explore giving Japan more control of Yokota's airspace to facilitate movement of civilian aircraft through the area. On 13 Mar 2006, the Japan Times ("U.S. TO RETURN PART OF YOKOTA AIRSPACE", 2006-03-13) reported that the US has basically agreed to return part of the airspace over Yokota Air Base in Tokyo as part of the realignment of US military forces in Japan. The basic agreement is expected to alleviate the overcrowding caused by the 470 commercial flights that must take detours around the so-called "Yokota RAPCON (Radar Approach Control)" area each day. A separate report last week by the Asahi Shimbun stated the United States and Japan struck a deal during recent talks in Hawaii on partial return of Yokota airspace by 2009 as a measure to prevent near misses. However, this was refuted by the USFJ on 21 Mar 2006 with the statement that the US and Japan hadn't reached any agreement on the possible return of Yokota airspace by the military but the issue is being debated as part of higher-level transformation talks. USFJ said the reporting on the subject has been "misleading" and disputed statistics in Asahi Shimbun (Feb 25) and Japan Times (Mar 13) that claimed up to 470 commercial flights a day to and from Haneda and Narita airports in Tokyo are disrupted by Yokota's Radar Approach Control. The Asahi Shimbun report cited a survey by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. According to the USFJ, civilian aircraft generally avoid Yokota radar approach by choice, but there are established procedures for them to receive permission for flyovers. Most don't ask, but the base granted 17,000 requests in 2004 and 22,632 last year. Yokota has approved virtually every flyover request and has the ability to accept increased over-flight traffic. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) The United States and Japan reached agreement on 27 Oct 2006 on a partial return of Yokota airspace. According to the U.S.-Japan military realignment report released in May, the two sides had to identify specific portions of the airspace to be returned to Japanese control by September 2008, a necessary adjustment before the opening of a fourth runway at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport scheduled for 2009. The deal will affect neither U.S. nor Japanese Self-Defense Force operations, a USFJ spokesman said. But placing additional Yokota airspace under Japanese control is expected to reduce flight times, ease congestion and deliver fuel savings for commercial airliners by establishing more direct routes. In late September 2006, the United States and Japan entered an arrangement allowing “flexible use” of the airspace, a process that transfers jurisdiction over certain blocks between the Tokyo Air Control Center and Yokota Radar Approach Control. Other changes and benefits on tap in the new airspace design include reducing Yokota’s primary air space, which lies directly to the west of Haneda Airport, by about 40 percent; and shortening all departure and arrival flight times from Haneda. Flights bound for the northern part of Kyushu and other areas will be reduced by about three minutes, saving commercial air carriers time, fuel and money. In 2009, Haneda air traffic is expected to increase by 40 percent, according to USFJ. Japanese aircraft transit Yokota airspace every day, Murphy said. The base granted more than 22,000 requests for entry in 2005. Since 1971, Yokota airspace has been adjusted seven times to accommodate Japan’s growing civil aviation industry. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Camp Zama A small element of I Corps was relocated to Camp Zama in July 2005 without fanfare. Camp Zama was the previous home of I Corps before its relocation to Fort Lewis in Washington state. Local residents are opposed to the I Corps returning to the area. The return of part of the Sagami General Depot and the other base, Camp Zama, was not included in an interim report on the realignment of U.S. forces released by the two governments in October. The interim report did, however, say the U.S. Army planned to build a new Asia-Pacific command headquarters at Camp Zama in Zama and Sagamihara, a plan that was strongly opposed by local city governments. After further discussions, the US agreed to the return of part of the Sagami General Depot for the construction of a road, but the return of 5 hectares of Camp Zama was rebuffed and only a small portion was to be returned. Tokyo asked Washington to return about five hectares of the 235-hectare Camp Zama. However, due to concerns that the Zama city government might prevent the establishment of the new Asia-Pacific command headquarters at the camp if it regained control of five hectares of the camp, Washington has said it will return only a small area of the land, according to the sources. (Source: Yomiuri Online.) Missile Defense Line The Japanese are also involved in joint development of a Missile Defense against North Korea in cooperation with the US -- though the Japanese are concerned about the escalating costs. In the US Quadriennial Review, the DOD stated that a Missile Defense line would be constructed to thwart any North Korean missile threat -- and any potential future Chinese threat. The Japan Times reported on 18 Jan that Defense Agency chief Fukushiro Nukaga stated that Japan and the US will integrate their information networks on missile defense by the end of fiscal 2006. After working out details such as the roles of the Self-Defense Forces and the US military in the initiative, the two countries are expected to sign an agreement possibly this summer, according to Nukaga. On 3 Mar, it was reported that the Defense Facilities Administration Agency will ask the Aomori prefectural and Tsugaru municipal governments to host a U.S. military radar for missile defense at Japan's Air Self-Defense Force base in Tsugaru, Aomori Prefecture. The Japanese assemble the PAC-3 missiles in Japan under contract and already are equipped with the PAC-3 in the SDF. Its 4 Aegis destroyers are now equipped with SM2 missiles -- with 4 more Aegis destroyers to be constructed --and the US-Japan joint research into larger more advanced SM-3 interceptor missiles. On 6 June 2006 Reuters reported that the US government told Congress it had agreed to sell Japan up to 44 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles built by Raytheon Co. , and related equipment, in a deal valued at up to $70 million. The Pentagon's Defense Security and Cooperation Agency said the missiles would be used aboard Japanese combat ships, helping Japan to better defend critical sea-lanes of communication. The SDF has also been delegated the authority to launch their missiles if Japan is attacked. The reason was that missile launch was critical that immediate response was essential because of the close proximity of North Korea. These destroyers now patrol the straits between Japan and North Korea along with USFJ ships. The Japanese have also started aggressive maneuvers dealing with anti-submarine warfare in its territorial waters -- and in disputed areas. In Jun 2006, the US and Japan moved forward with plans to bolster Japan's missile defense, amid growing concern North Korea may launch a long-range test missile. The US informed Japan of the proposed details of the deployment of PAC-3 batteries to US bases in Japan and Japan approved the measure. Japanese news reports said there were to three or four batteries -- with 16 missiles each -- and several hundred U.S. troops to operate them. Reports stated that the batteries to Okinawa were anticipated before the end of 2006. The Yomiuri Shimbun on 26 Jun reported that the US government notified Japan at a 17 June working-level meeting in Hawaii about missile defense that it will deploy Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missiles at the Kadena Air Base or the US Air Force's Kadena Ammunition Storage Area in Okinawa Prefecture by the end of the year. The deployment will be the first time the surface-to-air missiles have been installed to defend US forces in Japan from the perceived threat of DPRK ballistic missiles. On 13 July 2006 Kyodo News reported that Japan and the US have decided to deploy PAC-3 batteries at Kadena Air Base and the US Air Force's Kadena Ammunition Storage Area in Okinawa Prefecture as early as this summer, possibly in August. In the first-ever deployment of such a weapons system at a US base in Japan, a total of 24 launching pads are planned to be installed, requiring an additional 600 US troops to be stationed in the prefecture, according to the sources. Meanwhile, the US and Japan exchanged notes in Jun 2006 agreeing to the procedures for developing a longer-range interceptor missile for deployment in Japan. Agence France-Presse on 27 Jun reported that Japan and the US had expanded their agreement over missile defense programs to include joint development and production of related materials. The two nations Friday signed the agreement which would allow them to jointly develop an advanced capability missile interceptor for the ballistic missile defense system. Senior officials agreed to begin developing the new interceptor last October, and officials say the process could take years. The new missile will be similar to one tested in Jun 2006 off the coast of Hawaii as part of the fledgling U.S. missile defense program. Experts say it is that type of missile that could respond to a North Korean attack on Japan, not the Patriots, which are designed to intercept shorter-range missiles. On 1 Sep the DoD said it conducted a successful test of its land-based ballistic missile defense system on Friday. Officials say a missile launched from California intercepted a target missile from Alaska 23 minutes after it was launched on Friday, in outer space somewhere over the Pacific Ocean. The test involved U.S. military personnel, rather than civilian technicians who developed the system's components. The troops at a fire-control facility in Colorado received news of the target missile's launch from the same radar systems that would be used in an actual emergency, and followed normal procedures to launch the interceptor. "I don't want to ask the North Koreans to launch against us. That would be a realistic end-to-end test. Short of that, this is about as good as it gets," Lt Gen Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency said. But General Obering says his team has a more challenging test planned for late this year, in which the target missile will deploy decoys to try to confuse the interceptor. He says even more sophisticated tests will follow. General Obering said the sea-based part of the system is more developed than the land-based part, but he expressed confidence that the overall system has what he called a "good chance" of intercepting an enemy missile, if that becomes necessary. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) However, Korea still remains under the USFK "umbrella" with PAC-3 Patriot units in Suwon, Osan and Kwangju. The ROK still is "negotiating" with the Germans for used PAC-2 Patriots that was supposed to be completed in 2006. NGO activist groups in Korea area adamantly against the Korean involvement in the US Missile Defense System (MDS). Its ships and submarines are limited to coastal defense at this time. (NOTE: In Jun 2006 the new 214 class sub was launched to give the ROK submarines a range to Hainan and the Philippines.) It has developed an indigenous ship-to-surface missile "Hae-song" (Sea Star) to replace the US Harpoon missiles on its ships. (NOTE: It has also developed the ``Shin Kung (New Bow),'' a portable shoulder-held short-range surface-to-air missile and ``Chong Sango (Blue Shark)," a lightweight torpedo primarily for coastal defense.) However, the ROK has shown an inability to respond to coastal infiltration of North Korean submarines in the past. Fumio Kyuma, former SDF chief and presently chairman of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party general affairs council, was in Washington in Jan 2006 to discuss the need for a mutual aid pact to let Japan repair top-secret U.S. military equipment based in Japan, including Aegis guided missile destroyers. He said he spoke with high-ranking U.S. defense officials, former Defense Secretary William Cohen and Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state. Diet members were to visit America in May 2006 to discuss such a pact with U.S. defense officials. However, in Korea the US has shown a reluctance to allow military technology to be released to the ROK. The latest was the reluctance to provide defense digital mapping software to the ROK -- though they did provide the digital mapping to upgrade the ROK systems that have not updated since 1993. The reason appears to be that the ROK approaches purchases of equipment with the attached concept of technology transfer -- while the Japanese obtain the technology transfer while assembling/repairing/manufacturing end products under license. For example the Japanese JF-16 was better than the original with Mitsubishi graphite-epoxy composite wings. This technology led to the Japanese F-2 fighter (F-16 variant) which is reported to be better than the F-16 in some aspects of air defense. The ROK KF-16 was assembled at Socho with some technology transfer, but most of the production was in assembling pieces provided by General Dynamics for the final production. The F-15K production is all in St. Louis. (SITE NOTE: South Korea will purchase 20 more F-15K fighter bombers from the United States, in addition to the 40 already contracted for delivery, online military news outlet Strategy Page reported on 28 May 2006. South Korea is paying US$100 million for each F-15K, the Korean version of the F-15E, it said. It should be noted that the original order was for 200, but cut to 40 -- even though it requires 120 aircraft to operate effectively as a group. In June 2006, an F-15K crashed into the sea without warning. A search for the black box was initiated to find the cause. The ROK requested the US company cease production until the cause was found. The GE engines are made in Korea, while the aircraft is assembled in St. Louis. On 31 Jul the video cockpit recorder was found. The recorder is expected to yield data on the crashed plane's altitude and flight speed as well as a record of the warning signs that occurred during its flight. The Air Force said it would send the recorder today to the manufacturer in the United States, Smith Aerospace, for analysis. While the analysis is expected to help the Air Force's investigation in determining the cause of the crash, finding the "black box," a data recorder that contains detailed flight information from the plane, is still the main priority. The Air Force says that the device was capable of withstanding water pressure at depths of up to 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) for about a month.) The Japanese are also producing their own military applications for coastal radar and aircraft avionics. The ROK claims to have started research and development into this area. The US has already transferred the coastal defense radar responsibility to the ROK. The Japanese also already possess indigenous satellite launch capability -- and it can be assumed that they also possess the ability to develop their own indigenous missiles -- but find it economically beneficial in the long term to do joint research in this area with the US. The ROK prefers to do this on its own. (SITE NOTE: On 26 Sep 2006: The U.S. has revealed that China's developed a powerful, land based laser, that has been fired at American satellites. This has apparently been going on for three years. In theory, a land based laser of sufficient power could damage some types of low orbit photo and radar satellites. No details on the effects of the laser attacks were given, as this would inform the Chinese as to how well, or not well, they were doing. The Chinese may have lasered some of their own satellites, as part of what is apparently a development project. It's long been believed that interceptors (small satellites that can maneuver) would be a better way to take down enemy birds. Electronic jamming can also be used to interfere with communications with a satellite. A laser is also limited to satellites that pass nearby. Moreover, satellites can be modified to make them more difficult for lasers to damage. It is believed the Chinese project is a result of China realizing that a major American vulnerability is its large satellite network. Thus any damage to U.S. satellites would have a larger payoff than if the money were spent on more conventional defense investments. (Source: Strategy Page.) Japan to Buy SM3 Missile Interceptors (Jan 2006) On 10 Jan 2006, Kyodo News reported that Japan was to buy 36 sea-based missile interceptors from the US between 2007 and 2010 for deployment on Aegis-equipped destroyers under Japan's missile defense shield program. The Defense Agency plans to conduct a joint test with the US around 2008 in Hawaii for one of the SM-3 interceptors by deploying it on the Kongo, a Sasebo-based destroyer equipped with the advanced Aegis air defense system. (SITE NOTE: READ BETWEEN THE LINES: Once the Missile Defense Line is erected in Japan, if the US forces were to leave Korea, the new defense line would be the East Sea (Sea of Japan) -- and the increased pressure on settling the Tokdo issue as it would then become a matter of national defense to the Japanese. This is a terrible worst case scenario where the US wants its ground forces out of Korea so that it could prepare for a preemptive strike on North Korea. The thought is insane -- but it was reported that the US warned the North of just such a strike in April 2004. It should be noted that the ROK is NOT investing in missile defenses, but in submarine defenses -- pointedly aimed NOT at the North, but at Japan -- and supposedly China.)On 12 Feb, it was reported that there were sweeping changes called for in an interim U.S.-Japan military realignment report. The two countries are to place a massive new missile detection radar system in Japan. The details of when and where the system will be based are being decided, but the report, issued in October 2005, indicates a pivotal change in the countries' approach to missile defense technology is in the works. The two countries have shared research and technology in the past and signed a memorandum of understanding on missile defense cooperation in 2004, but the October 2005 report recommended not only a tangible example of the cooperation but signaled both sides' willingness to move forward. The new Forward-Based X-Band radar will form part of a web of surveillance designed to find and help destroy an enemy incoming ballistic missile. It also intricately aligns the two nations and nudges them toward closer cooperation, information-sharing and potentially a joint ballistic defense system, officials say. A final realignment report, expected to contain more specifics, is due this spring. The new X-Band radar is one of three the Pentagon plans to place in allied countries, Chris Taylor, a Missile Defense Agency (MDA) spokesman, wrote in an e-mail. In January, the Pentagon deployed a similar but larger radar system, a massive floating ocean-going radar called Sea Based X-Band. From its main base in Adak, Alaska, it will operate around the Pacific. (SITE NOTE: On 28 Sep 2006, the Associated Press reported that the US military had activated a high-powered radar outpost in northern Japan that will enable it to track ballistic missiles in the region amid concerns about the DPRK.)The X-Band radars are capable of differentiating missiles from decoys as well as tracking their trajectory in the stratosphere, according to the Missile Defense Agency. The so-called X-Band radar is so powerful it can identify baseball-size objects from thousands of miles away and is designed to differentiate between decoys and real missile warheads. They augment radars on U.S. and Japanese Aegis warships, the latter of which began scanning for missiles in the Sea of Japan in 2004, according to Navy reports. The radar systems will join one Japan is developing called "FPS-XX," which it hopes to deploy by fiscal 2011, according to a Defense Department report released in 2005 White Papers on Japan's defense. Together, the systems allow a new level of shared surveillance. But they are only a piece of the missile defense plan. The missile defense system (MDS) is comprised of three elements. First is the low-altitude, low-trajectory defense of the Patriot PAC-3 missiles. Second is the ship-borne SM2 missiles carried aboard Aegis destroyers. (NOTE: The USS Shiloh with SM-3 missiles will be stationed in Japan.) The third is the high-altitude interceptor missiles intended for intercontinental or high-altitude missile trajectories. (NOTE: In Japan, the first two elements are in place in Japan's MDS. Israel and Germany are in work on missiles with a lower-altitude interception than the PAC-3.) The high altitude interceptor missiles, or Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAD), are designed to destroy incoming missiles in the stratosphere but unfortunately have had limited success thus far. Interceptor missiles are positioned at Fort Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., according to the MDA. Japan and the United States also are working jointly on a similar sea-based interceptor that would deploy on ships, according to Japanese government reports. Besides the technology, the October agreement also committed both countries to working more closely in their missile defense command and control, the heart and brains of the operation. Although both governments laud the joint effort, changes have been slow and carry with them political turmoil in Japan as not all agree with the MDA. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Japan Reorganizing for Regional Role and North Korean Missile Attacks The ROK had best pay attention to what is happening in Japan. The Self-Defense Forces will begin operating under a new system on March 27 that will centralize the chains of command of the Air, Ground and Maritime self-defense forces. It will be the first organizational change of this kind since the SDF was founded in 1954. Under the new system, the ASDF, GSDF and MSDF will be controlled by one commander. Under the new system, control will be unified into an integrated staff office that has yet to be established. All operations will be centralized, including the organization of integrated troop units for defensive mobilizations; the dispatch of ASDF, GSDF and MSDF personnel on disaster-relief missions; warning and surveillance missions carried out with P-3C patrol aircraft; and scrambling aircraft for the interception of enemy planes. The characteristics of the ASDF, GSDF and MSDF have been described as discreet, traditional and fearlessly courageous, but also "obstinate and headstrong" (the GSDF), "self-centered" (the MSDF) and "incoherent" (the ASDF). The ASDF, GSDF and MSDF employ different terminology, codes, and maps drawn to different scales, all of which have been highlighted as reasons why the SDF arms have failed to communicate adequately. The need to centralize information and chains of command among the three branches of the SDF has long been urged. In Japan-U.S. joint war games held at the GSDF Western Army Headquarters in late January, GSDF Gen. Naoto Hayashi acted as the commander of the first integrated troop unit. The exercise involved shutting down the supply routes of enemy troops trying to land in Japanese territory. (SITE NOTE: The Japanese consider the Chinese submarines operating in Japanese territorial waters a direct threat and have now undertaken policies and programs to improve their anti-submarine warfare. They still consider the Chinese as an open threat in invading Japan because of their overwhelming manpower.) The recent joint exercise was based on the premise that ballistic missiles--some with chemical warheads--were raining down on Japan while Japanese and U.S. Aegis-equipped destroyers were on patrol in the Sea of Japan. Various terrorist attacks, including on nuclear power plants, were anticipated in the exercise. (SITE NOTE: This is directly aimed at defense from North Korea with its long-range Taepdong missiles and special operations forces that will infiltrate and attack the infrastructure to create panic.) (Source: Yomiuri Online.) In June 2006, it looked very likely that the DPRK was preparing for a test launch of a missile. This has sent tremors through Japan as the DPRK sent a missile over Japanese airspace 8 years ago -- illustrating the vulnerability of the Japanese defense to the North's pointed oft-heard claim that it would turn Tokyo into a "sea of fire." This forced Tokyo to join the MDS and start preparing for a regional role in its defense. The Associated Press reported that the Japanese cabinet on 9 Jun endorsed a bill to upgrade the Defense Agency to a full-fledged ministry, reflecting the growing role of the country's military at home and abroad. The proposal, one of several government measures aimed at shedding Japan's staunch pacifism in the decades since World War II, was expected to be submitted to Parliament the same day. Following the North Korea missile "tests" on 4 Jul and the subsequent UNSC resolution condemning the DPRK, Japan's Defense Minisitry again resurfaced the issue of Japan having a "limited" offensive capability. On 24 Jul Agence France-Presse reported that Defense Agency chief Fukushiro Nukaga, said Japan should not "sit still and die" if attacked in the latest call for the pacifist nation to boost its military after the DPRK's missile tests. Nigata recently suggested that Japan should consider "a limited assault capability," and said that Japan needed full discussions on ways to deal with threats. The ROK denounced Japan for considering building up a pre-emptive strike capability. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles The Associated Press reported on 12 Jan that Japan was planning to introduce unmanned spy planes (UAV) as early as April 2007 to gather intelligence about a possible ballistic missile launch by the DPRK. Defense Agency chief Fukushiro Nukaga said officials will travel to the US, Germany and Italy to examine difference types of the unmanned vehicles before deciding which type to buy, Kyodo News agency reported. What makes this interesting is that the US has refused the ROK request to purchase their UAV while approving the request of Japan. The UAV Predators have been tested along the DMZ -- but under the USFK control. The ROK has stated that it intends to develop its own indigenous UAV in the future, and has already developed a small-scale indigenous reconnaissance UAV. In July 2006, the Donga Ilbo reported, "According to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, military authorities requested the U.S. to sell it four Global Hawks in 2008 at last year's SCC in Hawaii in order to secure independent surveillance ability on North Korea. Korea requested this several times. However, last June, the U.S. put out a "not for sale" policy and have rejected Korea's requests.Increased US-Japan SDF Cooperation (Jan-Apr 2006) There has been a significant increase in cooperation between the Japanese SDF and the US military. In Jan 2006, it was announced that Japanese troops were to land on the U.S. mainland next week for the first-ever exercise there with Marines. In a move that demonstrates how Japanese troops will increase joint exercises with U.S. troops under Japan' new defense program adopted in 2005, about 130 Japan Ground Self-Defense Force troops will begin training at Camp Pendleton, Calif. The drills, to run through Jan. 27, are to train the Japanese soldiers to respond to threats against Japanese islands off Kyushu and Okinawa under Japan's new national defense program guideline. He said the training will simulate landing on an occupied island, something they had not practiced under their previous "conventional defense-oriented posture." The Western Army regiment, formed in 2002, is under direct command of Western Army Headquarters, which is in charge of defense of Kyushu and Okinawa. (Source: Stars and Stripes) On 23 Jan 2006, Foreign Minister Taro Aso and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick signed an agreement that requires Japan to cover some of the costs of stationing U.S. military forces in Japan for the two Japanese fiscal years from April 1. The latest agreement extends a similar accord but calls for shortening the current term of five years because of the difficulty in assessing changes in the structure and activities of the U.S. forces under the planned U.S. military realignment in Japan, Japanese officials said. The Special Measures Agreement calls on Japan to provide 139.8 billion yen annually to defray expenses for labor, utilities and relocating military drill sites. (Source: Crisscross.) For the first time, the JSDF is sending the soldiers to Camp Pendleton. This comes soon after Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso cited China as a threat to the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea between Taiwan and Ishigaki Island. The islands, approximately 138 miles northeast of Taiwan, 230 miles east of the Chinese mainland, and 230 miles southeast of Okinawa, are believed to be sitting on vast oil and gas deposits. On Nov. 10, 2004, tensions between Japan and China Jan 2006 that Japanese Defense Agency Director General Fukushiro Nukaga expressed eagerness for the Self-Defense Forces to take a more proactive role in international cooperation activities by making them part of the SDF's main duties. "World peace is directly linked to peace in Japan. Participation in international cooperation activities has been deemed a secondary duty, but we are considering upgrading it to a main duty," The statements were made by Nukaga in a speech delivered at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies during his visit to London. (SITE NOTE: As of January 2006, the Japanese changed their strategy to obtain a UN Security Council seat by distancing itself from the other four G-7 nations seeking a permanent seat, and attempting to formulate a proposal for UN reform that the US will support. Japan has refused to join Germany, India and Brazil in a new bid for permanent seats on an expanded UN Security Council, deciding instead to negotiate with the US to come up with an alternate proposal. Tokyo would continue as part of the so-called Group of Four, however, calling it the "primary driving force for council reform. Previously they had shelved the issue after declaring that it might reduce its contributions to the UN due to its failed UNSC seat bid. As of Mar 2006, it appears the Japanese still have not given up on the idea, but now are seeking to become a regional military power first -- then reenter their bid with the backing of the US. The change to Article 9 of the Peace Constitution must first take place.) On 27 Apr the Yomiuri Daily reported that the alliance between the U.S. and Japan will undergo an upgrade as the two nations have settled how to share the relocation cost of the U.S. navy base in Okinawa, Japan. The Daily Yomiuri reported that the U.S. and Japan have agreed to amend the Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation, which were agreed to in 1997, and that they are currently working out the final details. According to the Japanese daily, the U.S. and Japan are currently discussing amending the guidelines during US-Japan Security Consultative Committee, a meeting attended by U.S. state and defense secretaries, and Japanese foreign affairs and defense ministers planned for early May. As a result, military integration between the two countries will be accelerated. What will be in the new guidelines?-Pact to be signed in April (Mar 2006) Because of the on-going protests and political upheaval caused by the local politicians and NGO activists, on 8 Mar 2006 it was announced that Japan would finalize the Realignment and Restructuring Agreement with the US in early April on realigning U.S. forces in Japan -- effectively giving up on gaining prior consent from local authorities. The Japanese government is eyeing having Defense Agency chief Fukushiro Nukaga and Foreign Minister Taro Aso visit the United States for security talks with their U.S. counterparts April 1-2. The move reflected Tokyo's prioritizing Washington over local opinion and risks igniting further anger from areas to be affected by the relocation plans. After the announcement was made, the Okinawa Governor attempted to lobby the Ministry of Defense in Tokyo to allow public concensus on the issue, but the Ministry stated that it would work with the local governments after the accord was signed. A plan to realign U.S. troops in Japan was that was to be completed in early April -- but negotiations stretched into May 2006 because of the cost sharing issues, Comments from U.S. and Japanese officials indicated, regardless of reaction from affected communities. Japan Defense Agency Chief Fukushiro Nukaga and Foreign Minister Taro Aso visited Washington April 1-2 to sign a pact reached in October to cut U.S. troop strength on Okinawa and relocate a carrier air wing from Naval Air Facility Atsugi to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japanese government sources. The agreement stalled because of the cost sharing issues. After the Japanese Minister of Defense and Donald Rumsfeld met personally on the issue, the agreement was reached in May 2006. Reuters reported on 30 May 2006 that Japan approved a final plan to tighten security ties with the US and reorganize US troops in the country, part of Washington's strategy to make its forces more flexible in the face of modern threats. Cabinet approval of the plan paves the way for streamlining the approximately 50,000 US military personnel in Japan and giving Tokyo a bigger role in the key alliance, the central pillar of its post-war diplomacy.Impact to Korea The impacts to Korea is that these moves are the prelude to the possible relocation of the CFC functions OUT of Korea if the US-ROK alliance sours. In the Oct 2005 Security Consultative Meeting (SCM), Secretary of Defense Rumsfield stated that there was a major change as the US would become a "supporting partner with the ROK" and no longer would be its "patron." All that is awaiting is the Article 9 changes to Peace Constitution which came out of the committee in Nov 2005 and is being circulated and discussed nationally prior to a vote on a constitutional amendment. The JSDF has reorganized to implement a regional role. The Japanese government has declared that Taiwan is of "strategic importance." Currently the Japanese are preparing for their regional role with joint exercises with the USFJ -- as well as deployments to Alaska. Roh has been stating repeatedly that he would seek to gain wartime control BEFORE the end of 2006. The US position is that it should be accomplished after the transfer of specific tasks to the ROK -- based on the ROK capability to assume the roles. Seven of ten tasks have been transferred and should be completed by 2007. Working-level groups are in work identifying the next set of items for transfer to the ROK but it is admitted that these tasks may take significantly longer. For example, the ROK "spy satellite" (Arirang 2) is still in the development stage -- but the US is reluctant to allow the software to exploit the data to be transferred to the ROK. (Arirang 2 was scheduled for launch in July from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, about 200-kilometers northeast of Moscow.) Currently the ROK is NOT able to fulfill many missions until new weapons systems and upgrades are in place -- and much of this is in question as the ROK has a falling tax base in ability to come up with funding for all the social welfare, foreign grants (including North Korea), and domestic programs (including the Administrative City). (EPILOGUE: The ROK successfully launched Arirang 2 in Jul 2006. The ROK signed a contract with the French firm SPOT to work on "compensations" of the images to enhance the quality of the images. The image improvements were anticipated to be complete by early 2007. ADDITIONAL NOTE: On 26 Sep 2006: The U.S. has revealed that China's developed a powerful, land based laser, that has been fired at American satellites. This has apparently been going on for three years. In theory, a land based laser of sufficient power could damage some types of low orbit photo and radar satellites. No details on the effects of the laser attacks were given, as this would inform the Chinese as to how well, or not well, they were doing. (Source: Strategy Page.)) (SITE NOTE: Korea's first joint civilian-military communications satellite, the Mugunghwa 5, was scheduled for an 10 Aug 2006 launch. The satellite was to be launched from international waters in the South Pacific and sent into an orbit of 113 degrees east longitude some 36,000 km above Earth off the deck of a ship. South Korea's first military communications satellite will offer a new mode of communication free from the topographical interference that hampered previous communication nets. Together with the new C4I (command, control, communication, computer and intelligence) command systems technology, which is gradually being introduced into Army units, the satellite will play a major role in boosting the combat effectiveness of Korean forces. "Using the Mugunghwa 5, command will not only be able to dispatch communiqués to each and every officer, but voice communications with naval vessels will be possible anywhere and at any time, and text and video communications in real time will also be possible," the ministry official said. The satellite has 12 relays for military use and 24 for the private sector. The military relays contain technology that can override enemy attempts to block frequencies. Korea Telecom and the Defense Ministry invested about W150 billion (US$1=W958) each in the satellite body and relays alone. The lifespan of the Mugunghwa 5 is set at 10 years, but the two parties expect to get 13-15 years of use out of it. Sea Launch will be in charge of sending the satellite into orbit, after which the manufacturer, France's Alcatel, will run tests on satellite and relay equipment before passing control to KT and the ministry in November. The two partners are to sign an agreement on their joint operation of the satellite at KT headquarters in Bundang, Gyeonggi Province on 28 Jun 2006. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) ) (EPILOGUE: Mugunghwa 5 launched successfully along with the Arirang 2 in Jul 2006. The ROK signed a contract with the French firm SPOT to work on "compensations" of the images to enhance the quality of the images. The image improvements were anticipated to be complete by early 2007. The Multipurpose Satellite-3 boasting a 0.7m camera is scheduled for launch in Sept. 2009. Before that, the Multipurpose Satellite-5 is to be launched at the end of 2007 and was to be equipped with radar technology that allows it to observe surface movements even through thick cloud cover.) The ROK does not seem to be paying attention to the subtle changes that have been occurring since the US-Japan restructuring negotiations have been going on. When it first started in earnest about three years ago, the US was still adamantly speaking of the solidarity in the US-ROK alliance. After the negotiations entered a more concrete phase where numbers were being discussed in reductions in Japan, the tone of USFK talks were more concessionary in acceding to ROK "demands" of the transfer of wartime control. At the same time, the USFJ moved elements of I Corps back into Camp Zama, Japan in July 2004. In 2005, the implementation of the transfer of the major tasks were underway and the US was now speaking vaguely about transferring control to the ROK of wartime control in the future and Donald Rumsfield agreed to "appropriately accelerate" the process. At this point the agreement was coming together with Japan agreeing to the stationing of a nuclear carrier and movement of troops to Futenma. Then there was a stumbling block over Futenma with the environmentalists and the US switched the move to another Okinawa location. At this point, the USFK started to speak of transferring control when the ROK was capable of handling the missions. Roh on the other hand, was still attempting to gain war-time control with his latest demand in March 2006. After the hub-bub of moving the base on Okinawa and the removal of 8,000 Marines and 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam was agreed upon, the tone in ROK talks on transfer of power again took on a concilliatory tone. The USFK seemed more willing to discuss the matter. In his first meeting with President Roh on 1 May 2006, USFK Commander General B.B. Bell said that it was "normal for a sovereign South Korea to have wartime military control of its troops." The general was quoted as saying the United States supported Seoul's position and would work to make progress on such a transfer, which he reportedly said Washington supports. The bottomline is that the fate of the CFC hangs in the balance with the signing of the restructuring agreement in Japan. AND if the CFC disappears, the UN Command will surely follow immediately thereafter. The Missile Defense Line has been agreed upon -- and Korea is on the outside of the line. (NOTE: This is the same scenario as the Dean Acheson line that started the Korean War -- but this time the North is much too weak and there is no element of surprise that could take place.) Realistically, the CFC would not disappear overnight, but could be reduced to a three-star position within two years (2008) when the US completes the majority of its move off of the DMZ US and Japan Near Agreement on Cost Sharing (Apr 2006) The United States and Japan have settled their differences on a payment plan to move thousands of U.S. Marines out of Japan, with Japan agreeing to contribute nearly 60 percent of the $10.3 billion cost, the Japanese defense chief said. Japanese Defense Minister Fukushiro Nukaga flew to Washington to secure the agreement, spending more than three hours in a meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Officials were uncertain about the outcome of the talks. An official who was accompanying Nukaga said prior to the meeting, "The probability is 90 percent for a collapse and 10 percent for an agreement." During senior working-level talks in March, the United States demanded that Japan shoulder 75 percent of the 10 billion dollars. Japan, fearing the costs might swell, responded with an offer of 3 billion dollars in loans for construction of housing for marines' families. The nations' positions on cost-sharing were poles apart. Nukaga said that Japan wanted an "appropriate sharing of the cost" of transferring 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam. Nukaga and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Japan would cover 59 percent of the 10.27 billion dollars relocation cost, or 6.09 billion dollars, of which the government will pay 2.8 billion dollars in grants from its general account, with the remainder in the forms of investment and loans. Japan had earlier balked at a U.S. proposal that Japan contribute $7.5 billion of the cost to relocate the Marines from the Japanese island. The United States initially asked Japan to shoulder 75 percent of about 10 billion dollars in expected costs, but the government only said it would pay about 3 billion dollars in the form of loans for housing for families of U.S. soldiers. Japan later suggested it could offer up to 3 billion dollars in grants in addition to the assistance in loans. Washington then offered to split the burden into three--Japanese grants, government investment and loans, and the remainder underwritten by the United States. But Japan rejected this offer, claiming it would be difficult to gain the understanding of the Japanese public. The two countries finally settled on reducing Japan's burden to under 60 percent. According to the agreement, government grants, which form the core of Japan's burden, will be used mainly to construct headquarters and other buildings for marines and school buildings for their families. Out of 2.55 billion dollars earmarked to build houses for marines' families, the government will invest 1.5 billion dollars into a newly established third sector body and pay the remainder in loans through the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and other financial institutions. Tokyo likely will pay through loans the costs for social infrastructure, including electricity and sewage facilities. The United States will pay the costs of training facilities for marines, runways and recreational facilities, such as golf courses. The U.S. government's expenditure from its general account will be 3.18 billion dollars. The remaining 1 billion dollars the United States agreed to provide will be used mainly to construct roads around the base in Guam. (Source: Daily Yomiuri.) With the agreement made, the government was expected to start working on legislation necessary for allocating necessary funds. This was because no existing law made it possible to earmark money for construction of U.S. military facilities to be built outside Japan. The government was considering a revision of the law on establishment of the Defense Agency so that fiscal funds for the relocation plan could be allocated in the general account by giving new authority to the Defense Facilities Administration Agency. For loans through such institutions as the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, the government also could revise the law on the government-affiliated bank, which was established with the unification of the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund and Export-Import Bank of Japan. The government also was considering submitting a set of bills promoting the realignment of U.S. forces to the current Diet session. The aim was to gain public support for the plan. Targeting local governments that would bear heavier burdens hosting remaining U.S. bases after the realignment, the government was considering the establishment of a new law to allocate grant funds for those local governments. As of April 2006, how the money would be funded was still up in the air. (Source: Daily Yomiuri.) The agreement is part of a broader plan to streamline the 50,000 U.S. forces based in Japan and to give Japan's military greater responsibility for security in the Asia-Pacific. An outline of the overall realignment plan was announced in October and was to be finalized by the end of March. However, it bogged down over details. Four U.S. military facilities in Okinawa Prefecture--including the U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station--will be returned to Japan by the end of fiscal 2013 according to an outline of the final report on the reorganization of the U.S. military in Japan. The other three facilities to be returned are Naha Military Port in Naha, Makiminato Service Area in Urasoe, and Camp Kuwae in Chatancho. They have a combined area of about 880 hectares, accounting for about 4 percent of the total area of U.S. bases in the prefecture. In addition to these four facilities, part of Camp Zukeran, located in Ginowan and neighboring towns, and part of the U.S. Army petroleum depots in Chatancho--thought to be several hectares in size--will be returned. The two countries will compile a final report in early May. Besides outlining the cost of sharing the relocation of U.S. marines to Guam, the report will include details of:
However, shortly after the announcement of the cost sharing agreement, the Japanese media outlets reported that the Japanese government was in shock when Richard Lawless, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, stated that Japan's share of the relocation costs wouldl amount to 3 trillion yen (approximately $25.5 billion). Japanese government officials played down the statement as a message to satisfy the U.S. citizens. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi went on record to conjecture that the U.S. government is just countering the U.S. media which is unhappy that Japan committed too little to meet America's contribution. If Lawless's statement is accurate, Japan will have to pay an average of 500 billion yen yearly, which accounts for 10 percents of Japan's yearly defense costs of about 4.8 trillion What was unclear was why Lawless would release such information knowing full well that there would be a backlash in the Japanese press. High level officials stated Lawless's figures were a "little exaggerated." The following appeared in the Yomiuri Shimbun on 28 April 2006: Japan may have to spend more than 2 trillion yen to assist in the realignment of U.S. forces in the next six to seven years, although the U.S. estimation has been said by Tokyo to be exaggerated, government sources said Wednesday.The Japan Times on 27 Apr 2006 reported that the Japanese government plans to slash defense spending to come up with the 2.71 trillion yen that Japan will need to shoulder the cost of realigning the US military presence. It also plans to ask the US for an overhaul of Japan's payments to support hosting US forces, including abolishing the practice of Tokyo paying the utility bills for bases. Realignment Plan Signed in Washington (May 2006) The realignment plan was signed on 1 May 2006 between the US and Japan at the so-called two-plus-two meeting between Foreign Minister Aso, Defense Agency Director General Fukushiro Nukaga, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington, where the agreement was made. Following the agreement, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon of Korea played down concerns that the buttressed military cooperation between the United States and Japan could weaken Seoul's military alliance with Washington. The agreement raised concerns in Seoul that it may transfer greater power over to the U.S.-Japan alliance if a crisis broke out on the Korean peninsula. North and South Korea are still technically at war. Ban Ki-moon said excessive worries were not appropriate for the Korea-U.S. alliance and said he wished the realignment of U.S. troops in Japan will contribute to stabilizing Northeast Asia. Korea and the United States are currently negotiating for Seoul to assume greater independent security from Washington and to reduce its dependency on U.S. forces. South Korea is still in negotiations with the United States over who will take charge of military operations on the Korean Peninsula in the event of war. "South Korea and the U.S. have no disagreement over the operational control issue and will continue to have consultations to draw up a roadmap for the transfer as early as December this year," the ministry said in a statement. The changing Korea-U.S. military alliance continues to remain a thorny issue. (Source: Korea Herald.) A former U.S. commander said on 1 May that the Seoul government should consider whether it is doing enough to secure independent military capability in its push to assume a bigger role in its own national defense. John Tilelli, former head of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), said the transfer of wartime operational control to South Korea was a designated path but that Asia should be aware of the consequences. "It's not a matter of if wartime operational control changes, it's a matter of when," he was quoted as saying during the Korea-U.S. Forum held in Washington. (SITE NOTE: Though President Roh keeps talking of assuming military control in 2006, he still has committed only 2.8 percent of GDP -- though some say it is 2.57 percent of GDP. Other countries that are "flash points" (Israel, Pakistan, India, etc.) commit a minimum of 6 percent of GDP. Since Kim Dae-jung the portion committed to defense has fallen from 8 percent to the current 2.8 percent -- though the ROK continues to mouthe the words of increased spending. New weapons procurements continue, but there are questions as to how the ROK will fund the new expenditures for new high-tech weapons.) (Source: Korea Herald.) The following editorial is from the Yomiuri Shimbun on 3 May 2006. Reuters reported on 30 May 2006 that Japan approved a final plan to tighten security ties with the US and reorganize US troops in the country, part of Washington's strategy to make its forces more flexible in the face of modern threats. Cabinet approval of the plan paves the way for streamlining the approximately 50,000 US military personnel in Japan and giving Tokyo a bigger role in the key alliance, the central pillar of its post-war diplomacy. DoD Report: ROK paid 40 percent of USFK cost in 2002 (Jan 2006) Digging up old news, a recent DoD Report stated that South Korea contributed US$843.11 million toward the cost of having United States military forces stationed on the peninsula in 2002, about 40 percent of the total expense. At the same time, Japan paid $4.41 billion toward the stationing of U.S. troops on its soil, the largest among nations hosting U.S. military forces at 74.5 percent of the total. Japan's contribution amounted to over 50 percent of the total defense contributions paid by 26 allies covered in the report. South Korea's payment was about 9 percent of total contributions. (Source: Yonhap News.) This is old news, but important when listening to the ROK's claims of how it is paying too much. Remember that in 2002, the massive anti-Americanism was sweeping the nation. The Koreans were claiming that the US was in Korea for their own geo-political purposes and wanted the Americans out. After the hysteria died down in 2003, the Koreans still wanted the Americans out -- but many changed their minds into "not just yet." But the key point was that before the ROK was a poor country, but it had grown to a G-11 nation by that time. Unfortunately it still did NOT want to pay its share. In Japan, 75 percent of the married servicemen had their dependents with them. In Korea, 10 percent had their dependents -- and most of them were living off-base in 2002. There was a building freeze since the Nunn-Warner initiative in 1990 and the USFK intended drawdown. The full drawdown never took place as the North Korean nuclear crisis escalated in 1994 and forces were frozen. Even with the nuclear crisis threatening South Korea, it continued to play "poor country" and "developing nation" cards as it grew to a G-11 nation. In 2002, the anti-Americanism exploded and the cries for "Yankee Go Home" resounded throughout the land. With it Roh Moo-hyun was swept into office. The massive changes in the ROK-US alliance has taken place with the ROK refusing to pay its "share" in 2005. Crisis after crisis has been created by the Roh government because it claims that it was paying too much -- but at the same time, it engaged in give-aways to the North in the form of fertilizer and food. The US is getting fed up with the ROK foot-dragging on the moves off the DMZ and unwillingness to shoulder its fair share. The release of this dated tid-bit might be in time for the Jan 2006 Strategic Consultation for Allied Partnership. The point will be driven home that the US will no longer be a "patron" but instead become a "supporting partner." The US wants the ROK to foot its fair share -- or else the implied threat is that the promise that George Bush made to the Korean people may come true. He stated if the Korean people did not want the US, the US would stay a minute longer. With the new Japanese Alliance Pact to be signed in March 2006, the ROK playing hand is very weak -- and the US is fed up. US and Japan Near Unified Command (Sep 2006) As the US-ROK alliance crumbles, the power center is shifting toward Japan. Under the U.S.-Japan Roadmap for Realignment issued last year, the two nations were seeking to establish de facto unified alliance mechanisms to strengthen defense cooperation and capabilities in line with Washington's Global Defense Posture Review (GPR) to make its overseas forces rapidly deployable. Conservative forces in Japan are seeking a revision of Article 9 of the Peace Constitution to make this possible. Kyodo News on 5 Sep reported that Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, all but certain to be Japan's next premier, again expressed his strong ambition to revise the nation's pacifist Constitution and enable the exercising of the right to collective self-defense on specific occasions. But Abe, known for his hawkish position on security issues, also did not rule out the possibility of just changing the government's interpretation of the war-renouncing Constitution to achieve the goal. "Given the expectations for Japan to contribute actively on the international stage and to maintain stability and security in the region, we must consider more seriously specific cases (to exercise the right)," Abe told a news conference in response to a reporter's question, citing changes in international affairs since the Constitution was written 60 years ago. To promote closer operational coordination and improved interoperability, the U.S. Forces in Japan (USFJ) and Japan's Self-Defense Forces (SDF) are set to collocate their major bases by military branches, even though the sides maintain separate military commands. Under the 2005 forces repositioning plan, the U.S. Army I Corp Headquarters in Fort Lewis, Washington is to be relocated to Camp Zama near Tokyo by 2008. The headquarters will serve as the U.S. military's operational command in case of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula as well as Northeast Asia. The headquarters of the Ground SDF Central Readiness Force, which will operate units for nation-wide mobile operations and special tasks, is also scheduled to be pursued at Camp Zama by 2012. Japan's Air Defense Command and relevant units will also be collocated with the headquarters of the U.S. 5th Air Force at Yokota Air Base by 2010, as part of efforts to boost the coordination on air and missile defense system by setting up a bilateral, joint operations coordination center to share relevant sensor data.  US Bases in Japan (Korea Times) Besides the base consolidation of the two forces, the USFJ and SDF have agreed to develop annual bilateral training plans from next year, advancing bilateral contingency planning. The current participation of 1-5 aircraft for the duration of 1-7 days of joint training will be expanded to 6-12 aircraft for 8-14 days at a time. The Tokyo government is the largest contributor to the U.S military in the world. It currently pays about $6 billion annually in support of U.S. forces. The figure accounts for 10 percent of Japan's total defense budget. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is accelerating the joint buildup of a ballistic missile defense shield to shoot down incoming missiles, particularly to counter Pyongyang's long-range missile threats. On Aug. 29, the USS Shiloh, the first missile defense-capable destroyer, was deployed in Yokosuka Naval Base in Kanagawa Prefecture, 45 kilometers southwest of Tokyo. The deployment of the Shiloh equipped with the ship-to-air Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) for taking medium-range ballistic missiles is ``a symbolic first step'' in a joint U.S.-Japan BMD program, a spokesman for the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs office in Yokosuka told reporters. The 10,000-ton, 155 meter-long destroyer is outfitted with Aegis technology to track up to 100 targets simultaneously, while countering air, surface and submarine threats. Once a hostile missile has been detected, Aegis BMD will launch its Standard Missile-3 interceptor from its MK41 Vertical Launching System. The U.S. Navy also permanently deployed the 9,200-ton USS Mustin equipped with missile tracking and missile engaging systems last July after the North launched a series of missiles into the East Sea. The U.S. Navy now has a total of 18 warships in Japan, including 11 in Yokosuka. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington is scheduled to be deployed by 2008. As a second line of defense , the U.S. military is deploying Patriot Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors at Kadena Air Base on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa. (Source: Korea Times.) Japan Potentially a Nuclear Power (Sep 2006) The former Japanese prime minister Yasuhiro Nakasone on 5 Sep said Tokyo needs to consider developing nuclear weapons given its proximity to nuclear states and in case of a sea change in the U.S.-Japan Security (AMPO) Treaty. Nakasone headed a subcommittee of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's committee to redraft the country's pacifist postwar Constitution last year. He more or less represents the position of Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, who is all but certain to become the next prime minister and believes Article 9 of th |