|
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. SEE Overview Presentation of Guam Move (2007). Link provides best concise overview of the Guam project we've seen. 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 the Constitution banning offensive military action should be revised and that nuclear armament should be an option. Abe has maintained for some years that the Constitution does not stop Japan from acquiring nuclear arms, that it should acquire them, and that it is capable of making them within a week. North Korea is providing Japan with the excuse -- and if it goes forward with a nuclear test, it might be enough to tip the balance. (SITE NOTE: The US has considered giving the Japanese the nuclear option under every administration since Reagan, but the Japanese Peace Constitution prevented this. It is believed that the Japanese have the capabilities to assemble a nuclear weapon -- including the development of a triggering device already. In other words, many believe the Japanese have the components on hand to assemble a weapon, but cannot breathe a word of such a program because of the Peace Constitution prohibitions.) The island country already had 43.1 tons of plutonium at the end of 2004. (SITE NOTE: This amount in excess of their nuclear needs allowed the Japanese to ship quantities to France under the strict monitoring in 2005.) If a nuclear reprocessing plant in the village of Rokkasho in Aomori Prefecture goes into operation next year, it will turn out four tons of plutonium a year during the first two years and eight tons thereafter, enough to make thousands of nuclear weapons. Given the determination of Abe's faction, Japan's nuclear armament is only a matter of time. A nuclear-armed Japan would upset the power balance worldwide. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) Reuters reported on 2 Nov 2006 that Japan had started operations to produce reprocessed nuclear fuel for commercial sale for the first time, Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. said. It will make uranium-plutonium mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel as a finished product by mid-November at its reprocessing plant in the village of Rokkasho in northern Japan's Aomori prefecture, it said in a statement. "Our company is considering selling the finished MOX fuel and it will be the first time in Japan to make MOX fuel for commercial use," a spokesman for Japan Nuclear Fuel said. He said the company had not decided when it would ship the product or to whom it would be sold. A Japanese Cabinet minister had previously hinted that this plant could be converted to military use to convert plutonium to weapons grade use -- though most people did not lend credence to this statement. On 14 Nov 2006 Reuters reported that the Japanese government issued a statement which contended that its constitution allowed it to possess nuclear weapons as long as they are kept to "a minimum level necessary for self-defense". Controversy over debate on nuclear arms erupted last month when Shoichi Nakagawa, the policy chief of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, said Japan needs to discuss if it should acquire nuclear weapons after the DPRK conducted a nuclear test -- an emotional issue in the only nation to have suffered nuclear attacks. Foreign Minister Taro Aso has also said debate should not be ruled out, prompting opposition lawmakers to call for his dismissal. Abe has said repeatedly that Japan would maintain its decades-old ban on nuclear weapons, denying that the government would even discuss the topic. Analysts say Japan is capable of producing nuclear weapons with its high technology and a stockpile of plutonium from its nuclear power plants, but they add that it is highly unlikely to do so, given opposition both at home and abroad. Japan's basic law on atomic energy limits research, development and use of such power to peaceful purposes, while the country is bound under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not to receive or manufacture nuclear weapons. US Supports Japan Taking on Regional Defense Role (Sep 2006) Kyodo News on 7 Sep reported that Commander James D. Kelly of the US Naval Forces in Japan suggested on 7 Sep that he sees the need for Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense so bilateral missile defense can work effectively. Kelly, speaking to a group of Japanese reporters at the naval headquarters, also expressed hope that increased discussions on issues including a possible ''change of the Constitution'' will be held in Japan. Kelly said a system of ''mutual defense'' is necessary between the US and Japan. He questioned the current situation where the US Navy can defend the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force in the event Japan comes under foreign attack while both countries are involved in missile defense, but in a reverse case Japan cannot do likewise. Missile Defense System A second part of its strategy is to deploy batteries of anti-missile defenses, in close cooperation with the US. It is anticipated that Tokyo will spend about a trillion yen (US$100 billion) beginning next year on developing the necessary hardware, first by importing missiles from the US and then by fabricating them under license. (SITE NOTE: The Japanese manufactured PAC-2 missiles under license.) The key element is the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 surface-to-air missile. PAC3 missiles are designed to hit incoming missiles that have escaped Standard Missile-3 (SM3) interceptors launched from Aegis-equipped destroyers at sea. They can intercept a missile at an altitude of up to 20 kilometers. The first batch of the PAC3 missiles will be imported from the US and deployed in the Tokyo metropolitan region. But the Defense Agency is planning to have domestic defense contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd licensed to produce the rest. Although the cost of producing the missiles domestically is much higher than purchasing them from the US, the long-term costs, including maintenance, will be lower and Japan will also be able to boost its own missile production technologies. Beyond that, the Japanese government decided last December to start joint development with the US of a new sea-based interceptor missile as a main pillar of the US-led missile defense system. The joint development cost of the new interceptor missile, an advanced version of the SM3, is estimated to be as much as $2.7 billion, with Japan shouldering up to $1.2 billion and the US paying for the remainder. Japan's share will be spread over nine years starting in fiscal 2006. The two allies plan to begin production of the next-generation interceptor missile in fiscal 2015, which will be deployed on Aegis-equipped destroyers. Japan and the US have conducted joint technological research into the new missile since 1999, after North Korea's test-firing of a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan in August 1998. Joint missile development has required changes in Japan's decades-old ban on arms exports. In December 2004 it adopted a National Defense Program Outline enabling the export of parts and components needed for the joint development and production of the advanced system. This easing of the arms export ban paved the way for Japan to move into the development stage of a new interceptor missile. In July last year, the diet also revised the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) Law to allow the Defense Agency chief to order emergency missile intercepts without waiting for approval from the prime minister and the cabinet. Since North Korean missiles would reach Japanese territory in about 10 minutes, the defense chief could not afford to follow normal procedures for getting permission at a cabinet meeting to launch interceptor missiles. Under the revised SDF Law, if there are no clear signs of a launch but conditions call for high alert and there is no time to seek consent, the agency chief can mobilize the SDF to stand by for any sudden attack and order an intercept under emergency guidelines approved in advance by the prime minister. Under the new law, the prime minister must report the results of any intercept to the diet shortly after launch. Additionally, in early May, Japan and the United States signed a final agreement on the realignment of US bases and forces in Japan, which includes the movement of Japan's Air Defense Command to the US Air Force's Yokota base in western Tokyo. There they will create a joint missile-defense command center in fiscal 2010. Creation of the center is aimed at strengthening Japan's ability to detect and deal with enemy missile launches. The Defense Agency plans to deploy the first PAC3 interceptor missiles in Saitama prefecture, next to Tokyo, by next March, as originally planned, and in three other prefectures, also adjacent to Tokyo, by the end of 2007, instead of the original March 2008 deadline. At the end of last month, the agency requested more than a 50% increase in its missile defense budget for fiscal 2007, which starts next April. The budget request of 219 billion yen is mainly to pay for accelerating the deployment of PAC3 missiles. The agency's budget request, if approved by the cabinet and diet, would advance some PAC3 purchases from the US originally planned for fiscal 2008 or later, resulting in an increase in the number of PAC3 missiles to be deployed at SDF bases in the four prefectures surrounding Tokyo by the end of 2007. Still, it will take five more years for the PAC3 deployment program to cover not only the Tokyo metropolitan area but also other areas of the country. For this reason, the Defense Agency requested recently that the US deploy a seaborne missile defense system around Japan as soon as possible. The US Navy had already deployed, as of the end of August, the USS Shiloh, a cruiser equipped with both the Aegis missile tracking and engaging system and SM3 interceptor missiles, at the Yokosuka Naval Base near Tokyo. The Shiloh is one of three upgraded Aegis-equipped warships and is the first to be deployed outside the United States. According to the US Navy, eight Aegis-equipped warships, including the Shiloh, are now stationed at Yokosuka Naval Base. Some of the warships started patrol duties in the Sea of Japan two years ago after they were equipped with capabilities to detect and track ballistic missiles. But among the eight Aegis-equipped warships, only the Shiloh can shoot down short- and medium-range missiles. Defense Agency director general Nukaga reportedly sent a letter to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in late July requesting the provision of more PAC3 missiles than currently planned. In response, the Pentagon told Japan that it is possible to provide an additional 80 missiles. Japan now plans to deploy the imports in fiscal 2008 and 2009 instead of the ones produced domestically under license as originally planned. Meanwhile, the US successfully conducted an anti-missile test at the beginning of this month. The target missile launched from Alaska was successfully shot down by an interceptor sent up from California. The test immediately drew harsh criticism from Pyongyang, which accused the US of threatening war. Despite the recent success, however, the US system has a mixed record, with only five successful tests out of nine, prompting critics to charge that the system, whose budget has reportedly grown to $10 billion a year, is a waste of money. Japan's post-World War II pacifist constitution bars the use of military force in settling international disputes and prohibits Japan from maintaining a military for warfare. Successive Japanese governments have interpreted that as meaning that the country can have armed troops to protect itself, allowing the existence of its 240,000-strong SDF. But Japan has no cruise or ballistic missiles that can reach North Korea. Nor has it a fighter equipped with air-to-surface missiles with a range long enough to make a sortie to North Korea and then return safely. Abe, a hawk and conservative, has expressed a strong desire to see the postwar constitution revised early, to expand the boundaries of Japan's military activities. The LDP presidential election that will determine whether Abe is the new Japanese prime minister is set for September 20. (Source: Asia Times.) Abe Aims for New Constitution in 5 Years Kyodo News on 11 Sep 2006 reported that Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, who is almost certain to be Japan's next premier, said Monday he aims to enact a new Constitution in about five years to replace the current US-drafted, pacifist Constitution if he becomes prime minister. ''It isn't something that can be done in a year or two, so we should be thinking in terms of a span of about five years,'' Abe said in a debate session with two other contenders in the Sept. 20 ruling party presidential election. ''But if public consensus develops...it's possible to do so earlier.'' (SITE NOTE: Perhaps it is coincidental that the 2011 date for the Constitutional change is BEFORE the completion of the changes for the shift into a new command structure of the SDF forces into a regional force by 2014. The Article 9 change is required for the SDF to assume a regional defense role -- especially as the Diayo/Senkakyu island dispute with China is heating up. The Realignment of the USFJ will be complete by 2012 -- with the infrastructure for Guam anticipated complete in 2014.) Guam Move Still Unfunded (Sep 2006) Even though the agreements don't apply to bases outside Japan, the Japanese government has agreed to cover part of the cost as a means to reduce Okinawa's burden of hosting 75 percent of the land used by U.S. bases in the country. But Japan is planning to fund other realignment moves first. A budgetary request the Defense Agency submitted last month for the next Japanese fiscal year (April 2007 through March 2008) includes open-amount categories connected with moving Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Camp Schwab in northern Okinawa, transferring carrier-based aircraft from Naval Air Facility Atsugi to MCAS Iwakuni and moving flight training at Kadena Air Base to Japan Self-Defense Force bases on the mainland. However, the budget request, listed under "Measures to Reduce the Burden of Local Communities," does not include any specific amount. It also does not mention moving Marines to Guam. "The budgetary request is for 2007 fiscal year, only for the next one year," said a spokesman for the agency's public relations office. "Also, the plan for moving Marines to Guam is yet to be finalized in many details before we can request the estimated cost in the budget." In an agreement signed May 1, Japan promised to pay $6.09 billion of the estimated $10.27 billion cost to move the Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. Of that sum, $2.8 billion would be in direct cash contributions to jump start the move, "recognizing the strong desire of Okinawa residents that such force relocation be realized rapidly," according to the "Roadmap for Realignment Implementation." The rest of Japan's contribution includes $1.5 billion for special investments and $1.79 billion in long-term loans. Japan Defense Agency Chief Fukushiro Nukaga has stated that Japan would recoup the investments and loans. At the time the deal was made, during negotiations in Washington in April, a Japan Self-Defense Force spokesman said the outright grants would go to build the III Marine Expeditionary Force headquarters, other military-related construction and schools on Guam. The investments would be made to a yet-to-be-named entity for housing construction. The loans would go toward funding utilities, he said. But funding details have yet to be hammered out, according to Japanese officials. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Air Force Lt. Gen. Daniel P. Leaf, deputy commander of U.S. Pacific Command, is on Guam this week to talk about the military expansion on the island and to hear community ideas and concerns. Under Leaf's direction, the military has written the Guam Integrated Military Development Plan, an early blueprint of the move of 8,000 U.S. Marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam and other forces to the island. Construction is set to begin in 2008 for an estimated $10.3 billion, a cost to be shared with the Japanese government under an agreement. Another $5 billion in military buildup is expected in tandem with the III Marine Expeditionary Force arrival. No money for the $10.3 billion project has been approved, either by the U.S. Congress or the Japanese Diet, which has pledged assistance to ease the military burden on Okinawa, from where the Marines will be relocated to Guam. plans for a proposed $1 billion road on the island's eastern corridor remain too preliminary to discuss. Challenges within the island's schools and medical community loom, as both military and local officials acknowledge that the increase in population and construction will further stress the struggling systems. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) According to the Yomiuri Shimbun on 2 Oct, the Defense Agency estimated the Japan government's total cost of the realignment of US military forces stationed in Japan at about 1.86 trillion yen, including the cost of relocating US marines to Guam, lower than the US government's initial estimate of 3 trillion yen. This will need to be resolved in the near future to reconcile the estimates on costs.
Japanese to Launch Two More Spy Satellites (Jan-Jul 2006) According to the Kyoto News on 8 Jan 2006, Japan will launch two more reconnaissance satellites targeted at the Korean peninsula. The two additional satellites were to be placed in different orbits from the first two that began flying over Korea in 2006. The Japanese reconnaissance satellite system consists of an optical satellite system and a radar satellite system, and two satellites operate as a team. If the second units are added, the photographic frequency of the Japanese surveillance will be increased from once every other day to once a day. Japan launched the first set of spy satellites in March, 2003. In the same year, Japan had previously attempted an H2A rocket launch, developed by Japan itself, in December, 2003, but it failed because the satellite exploded. The rocket laden with the second set of two satellites was launched but the rocket derailed and the two satellites were lost. A re-launch was scheduled last year, but it was delayed due to the detection of a glitch in the satellite. The H2A launch was scheduled for Jan 2006 due to a malfunction in the ground equipment. On Jan. 24, the space agency successfully launched a land-observation satellite after a lapse of nearly a year. The H-2A rocket, which carried the Advanced Land Observing Satellite, nicknamed "Daichi," launched from the Tanegashima Space Center in Kagoshima Prefecture. Japan has begun production of a third generation of satellites with remarkable discrimination capacity and plans to put them into service in 2009. The current satellites in operation have a capacity to identify objects within a meter in size. However, Japanese third-generation satellites are able to discern objects 50cm across, matching the capacity of U.S. commercial satellites.  H2A Launch (18 Feb 2006) The second H2A rocket successfully delivered into orbit on 18 Feb a satellite for weather observation and air traffic control. The rocket lifted off from the launch pad on Tanegashima Island off the southern tip of Kyushu. It was the first time H2As have been launched successfully within a one-month span. The satellite carried into space was officially called the Multifunctional Transport Satellite 2 (MTSAT-2), and was expected to reach geostationary orbit about 36,000 km above the equator in 5 1/2 days. MTSAT is a dual mission satellite for the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Japan Meteorological Agency performing an air traffic control and navigation function as well as a meteorological function. On one hand, it is an integral part of a next-generation global-scale air traffic safety system comprised of communications, navigation, tracking and air traffic control. The purpose is to improve traffic congestion and safety in the Asia Pacific region. On the other hand, the MTSAT-2 is designed to take on a meteorological mission to capture, collect and deliver meteorological images and/or data. In this capacity it inherits and expands the mission of a previous satellite. It weighs in at 4.7 tons, making it one of the heaviest satellites Japan has so far launched. The MTSAT-2 will be a backup for the MTSAT-1, which was put into orbit in February 2005. The MTSAT-1 was later named the Himawari-6. Himawari means sunflower. The Himawari-6's mission is scheduled to end in 2010, according to the satellite's operator, the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry. The ministry also plans to use the MTSAT-2 as an air traffic control satellite. The MTSAT-2 and Himawari-6 satellites will be part of a safer air traffic control system that can cope with an increase in civil aviation flights in the Asia-Pacific region. (NOTE: Other newspapers report this as: "It marked the start of an intelligence-gathering programme prompted partly by North Korea's launching of a long-range ballistic missile over Japan in 1998, although Pyongyang said it was a rocket launching a satellite." The two satellites, the first of at least four in the 250-billion-yen ($2.05bn) spy programme, were propelled into clear but windy skies by a Japanese-made H2-A rocket.The North Korean KCNA news agency warned on 17 Feb that Tokyo was "wantonly violating" an agreement on improving relations made by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il last year. At that summit, North Korea pledged to extend its moratorium on ballistic missiles beyond 2003. The Japanese replied that it would not be sucked into a missile-arms race that is against its Peace Constitution. After North Korea launched its Taepodong long-range ballistic missile, Japan decided to have its own spy satellites, not relying on the U.S. for surveillance information. (SITE NOTE: The advantage that the US has is its Thermal Surveillance technology in its satellites. Unfortunately, the ROK is fully reliant on the US for its spy intelligence -- and are not even near the stage of technological development that it could seriously think of doing the same. In 2000 it dreamed of creating a space launch program centered in the Chollabuk-do area, but it soon fell apart as a pipe dream. The ROK has launched communications satellites piggy-backed into space on Arianne rockets, but the technology was not home-grown. Instead of pursuing a weapons program it has decided to pursue the option of denying that there is a missile threat. The ROK is fully dependent on the PAC-3 Patriot Missiles to defend against any missile threat from the North. It is procuring PAC-2 surplus missiles from Germany but it will not be finalized until 2006.) More spy satellites (Apr 2006) The Japanese government announced that it will launch additional data-collecting satellites aimed at watching the Korean peninsula in July. On May 1, the daily Yomiuri reported that the Japanese government will launch an optimal satellite in July and a radar satellite around next January or February. The data-collecting satellite system consists of an optimal satellite and a radar satellite. Japan launched the first set of satellites in March, 2003. In the same year, a rocket laden with the second set of two satellites was launched in November. But the rocket derailed and the two satellites were lost at once. To disperse risk, they will launch an optimal satellite and a radar satellite separately this time. If the second set is added to the power of the first, Japan can scan every point in the world once a day. The latest satellite is the third in a series of four that would provide Japan an all-weather capability to survey virtually any point in the world. The first two were launched in March 2003; the fourth and last is scheduled to take off next year. This month's launch had been planned long before North Korea's missile tests this past summer. Two of the satellites, including the one launched this month, have optics that produce images of objects as small as 1 meter in diameter when photographed from outer space. The other two use radar imaging to penetrate cloud cover. The package will provide Japan an all-weather, all-day surveillance capability. In 2009 an optical satellite with even greater resolution is expected to be launched into orbit. Critics of the surveillance program claim that sending up the satellites runs afoul of a resolution adopted in the diet, Japan's parliament, in 1969 that restricts the use of space to peaceful purposes. That's why the authorities carefully avoid describing them as "spy satellites". The program is under the direct supervision of the cabinet, not the military, but it is obvious that its primary purpose is to keep close tabs on North Korea's military movements. Some members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) are strenuously trying to push through a bill to review the 1969 diet resolution and allow the use of space for self-defense purposes. (Source: Asia Times.) USFJ Reorganization Timeline Tough -- but Achievable (Nov 2006) Announced target dates for the U.S. military’s transformation in Japan are within reach, the U.S. Forces Japan and 5th Air Force commander, Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright said on 14 Nov. The U.S.-Japan military realignment report released in May contains several lofty goals: Marine Corps Air Station Futenma’s move to Camp Schwab by 2014; transfer of the Navy’s Carrier Air Wing 5 from Naval Air Facility Atsugi to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni by 2014; shift of the Japan Air Self-Defense Command to Yokota in 2010; and overhaul of the Army’s command structure at Camp Zama — to include bringing I Corps in from Fort Lewis, Wash. — by 2008 and moving the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force’s Central Readiness Force headquarters there by 2012. Japan also is contributing $20 billion for the relocation of 8,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam by 2014. In 2004, Japan paid $4.4 billion in host-nation support and it renewed a pledge last January to provide $1.2 billion in direct funding for each of the next two years. Strong Japanese public opinion toward America and the U.S. military presence here should aid the process, he said. A U.S. Embassy poll taken in May and June showed 80 percent of the 1,012 adults surveyed across Japan favor the U.S. alliance — the fourth consecutive year that opinion increased. Seventy-three percent also believe the U.S. military presence in East Asia is important while 67 percent believe U.S. bases in Japan are important. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) 2007January 2007Japan Upgrades Defense Agency to Ministry (Jan 2007) Kyodo News reported on 8 Jan 2007 that the Defense Agency was be upgraded to a Defense Ministry on 9 Jan, attaining full ministry status for the first time since its inception amid persistent concerns about its effective civilian control of the nation's defense forces. Along with the upgrade, the Self-Defense Forces' overseas operations for international disaster relief, U.N.-led peacekeeping and logistical support in case of a regional contingency, as well as its special missions in Iraq and in the vicinity of Afghanistan, will be redefined as main duties rather than subordinate ones as at present.At the same time, the Prime Minister has vowed to press forward in the new year for a constitutional amendment of the Peace Constitution on Article 9. Along with the strengthening of its ties with the US for its defense, the ROK has made overtures to the ROK -- which were rejected -- for it to be included in its proposed US-Japan Missile Defense System. February 2007Japan Launches Fourth Spy Satellite (Feb 2007) New York Times on 26 Feb reported that Japan had launched its fourth spy satellite into orbit, increasing its ability to independently gather intelligence. The satellite will allow Japan to monitor any point on Earth once a day. In addition to anxiety over DPRK's missile and nuclear programs, Japan also expressed concern after PRC shot down a satellite last month with a ballistic missile.March 2007Japan Compiles Guideline to Mobilize MDS (Mar 2007) Kyodo News reported on 8 Mar that Japan had compiled a guideline allowing its defense minister to issue an order without gaining approval from the prime minister to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in the event of emergencies. It stated that the defense minister can issue such an advance order to the Self-Defense Forces when there are suspicions or fears that missiles have been fired against Japan or when satellite-launch vehicles are feared to fall on the country.Coalition to Push Referendum Bill in Diet for Constitutional Revision (Mar 2007) Asahi Shinbun reported on 8 Mar that Japan's ruling coalition plans to pass a national referendum bill in the Lower House in Mar 2007 to revise the pacifist Constitution, even if it requires steamrolling the legislation through the Diet. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he intends to have the referendum law enacted by Constitution Day, on May 3, and wants constitutional revision to be a focal point in the Upper House election this summer. Abe said he also wants studies conducted on Japan's exercising of the right to collective self-defense, which is banned under current interpretations of the Constitution. Australia-Japan Security Pact (Mar 2007) BBC reported on 13 Mar that the prime ministers of Japan and Australia have signed a security pact designed to enhance military co-operation between the two nations. Japan's PM Shinzo Abe said the pact would help to stabilise the region. The defence deal - Japan's first with a country other than the US - includes co-operation on border security, counter-terrorism and disaster relief. It is the result of closer co-operation on security matters in Asia that Japan and Australia have been pursuing. The four part agreement Mr Abe signed with Australian PM John Howard in Tokyo sets out priorities for co-operation on counter-terrorism activities, maritime security, border protection and disaster relief. The Associated Press reported on 13 Mar that the PRC and ROK have raised concerns at the secrecy with which the pact was negotiated amid feared it was aimed at containing the PRC's power in the region. Australian army chief Peter Leahy said the security pact signed with Japan on 13 Mar was aimed at peaceful co-operation. Lt-Gen Leahy said while the pact would eventually lead to intelligence-sharing, initial operations would involve peacekeeping training. (SITE NOTE: This is an extension of the PSI agreement and reflects the growing regional role the Japanese are assuming.) Move to Guam could cost Marine Corps extra $465M a year (Mar 2007) The move of some 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam by 2014 is expected to cost the Marine Corps an extra $465 million annually. However, a recent inspector general’s report concluded that the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are not prepared for the increased annual costs resulting from the planned changes to the force structure in the Pacific. The 14-page report, released on 12 Mar, is the culmination of a yearlong audit and interviews with military officials. It states the Marine Corps is the only branch so far to estimate how much it will cost yearly to move assets to Guam from Okinawa. However, the corps has not included the cost in its budget projections. “The source of funds for the additional requirements (has) not been resolved between Headquarters, Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy,” the report states. The Navy and Air Force also will incur additional annual costs by moving assets to Guam, but the services have not determined what they are, the report adds. “If DOD and the Services do not include the projected increased annual funding requirements in the next Program Objective Memorandums for DFY 2009,” the report read, “the quality of life for servicemembers and their dependents and the readiness of U.S. forces in USPACOM may be adversely affected.” The United States has reached agreements with Japan and South Korea for a major restructuring of U.S. forces in the Pacific. A reduction of some 12,500 U.S. Forces Korea personnel is expected to be complete by the end of 2008. The United States and Japan agreed last May to replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma with a new airfield on Camp Schwab and to close several other Marines bases on Okinawa. That would result in the move of 8,000 Marines and about 9,000 family members to Guam, with Japan picking up about $6 billion of the estimated $10.3 billion cost. To help cover that cost, Japan officials are considering reducing host-nation support for U.S. forces remaining in Japan. Japan now pays about $3.03 billion a year to maintain U.S. forces and is expected to pay that much until 2008. “DOD must recognize and plan for a possible substantial increase in funding requirements to support forces remaining in Japan if Japan reduces its host nation support,” the IG report states. Besides the Marines, the Air Force plans to relocate about 3,500 servicemembers, civilian employees and their families to Guam from various locations, but has not estimated the increased budget requirements for the move, according to the report. Also, the Navy, which closed many facilities on Guam in 1993, will need an increase in funds to “refurbish and adequately maintain facilities” for the influx of Marines and airmen. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) SEE Overview Presentation of Guam Move (2007). Link provides best concise overview of the Guam project we've seen. Protecting Tokyo Today (Mar 2007) The Japanese are so concerned about North Korean ballistic missiles, that they are setting up Patriot anti-missile missile batteries inside Tokyo. This is because the anti-missile version of Patriot (the PAC 3) can only defend out to about twenty kilometers. These launching sites are considered "emergency launching sites." Apparently the Japanese consider the current relationship with North Korea to be an emergency, because the Patriot missiles are being brought in this month. Patriot missiles are very noisy when they launch. Basically it's a sudden, and very loud, explosion. If you are at home asleep when that happens, you will definitely wake up. This was the experience of civilians living within several kilometers of Patriot batteries in northern Saudi Arabia in 1991. The 17 foot long PAC 3 anti-missile missiles cost about $3.4 million dollars each. The first versions of these missiles were used in 1991, and much development has taken place since then. The current PAC 3 can stop most North Korean ballistic missiles. Over the next three years, Japan will deploy Patriot batteries to sixteen sites around the country (including four in the Tokyo area.) Japan has had poor relations with North Korea of late because the North Koreas have ignored Japanese demands that more information be provided on dozens of Japanese civilians kidnapped by North Korean agents in the 1970s. North Korea admitted they did this, but the Japanese believe information on some of the victims is being withheld. At the moment, North Korea is making a lot of noise about the mistreatment of Koreans in Japan. All foreigners get "mistreated" in Japan, but the North Koreas are mostly concerned about Japanese crackdowns on fund raising, and criminal activity, among pro-North Korea Koreans in Japan. (Source: Strategy Page.) April 2007National Referendum Bill (April 2007) Japan's lower house on 13 Apr approved the national referendum bill in a bid to amend the country’s post-war pacifist Constitution. The upper house was widely expected to pass the bill in May 2007. Japan's upper house of the Diet, or the House of Councilors, started on 16 Apr to debate the bill which set procedures to amend the country's pacifist Constitution. The bill, which was submitted to the Diet in May 2006, was approved by the lower house of the Diet on 13 Apr given the majority of seats held by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its minor coalition partner, the New Komeito party, which aims to gain parliamentary approval for the legislation as soon as possible. The vote came after members of the LDP and coalition partner New Komeito Party pushed the legislation through a lower house panel meeting on 12 Apr despite calls for more debate by the opposition.While both politics and legal procedures preclude the actual tabling of reform proposals before 2010, the stage is being set with no-holds-barred determination by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and company to rewrite the Constitution. Japanese laws stipulate that constitutional amendments can be put in motion only with the approval of more than two-thirds of both lower and upper house members and must then be put to a referendum. It has been virtually impossible to amend the Constitution, since the law on referendums has not been enacted. But the passage of the bill in the lower house has set the legal framework to make that possible. After the bill was passed, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he wished the constitutional amendment would take place during his tenure. The national referendum law will enable the lower and upper houses of parliament to create their own committees to research constitutional amendments and make preparations for such changes. And beginning in 2010, national referendums will be possible to decide on constitutional amendments. The legislation also calls for discussion of a proposal to lower the voting age from 20 to 18 years. Japan’s ruling coalition has already secured the necessary two thirds of the seats in the lower house and plans to win more than two thirds of the seats in the upper house during elections in July. This prospect is reportedly very likely, considering the prevailing public sentiment in Japan. The most controversial matter in the prospective constitutional revision is Article 9, which states that Japan "forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes." Article 9 of Japan’s constitution, enacted in 1947, binds Japan to a pacifist policy renouncing the use of war and force to settle international disputes and prohibits the country from possessing army, naval and air force combat capabilities. Special legislation is currently needed for Japanese soldiers to participate in peacekeeping and other missions abroad. Conservative factions in Japan have been stubbornly pushing for an amendment since the 1950s, criticizing the constitution for having created a “castrated” nation. The position of Japan’s opposition Democratic Party on the issue is not much different. Abe, who is strengthening military cooperation with the United States and requiring schools to teach patriotism, has campaigned to loosen the constitution's limits on military action. However, analysts regard a referendum before 2011 as almost impossible given all the complicated procedures required, Kyodo said. Though Japan has debated constitutional change off and on for decades, polls show that support for an amendment has declined recently. Many Japanese credit the charter's pacifist clause with keeping the country out of war since 1945, preventing a resurgence of wartime militarism and allowing Japan to focus on becoming wealthy. "It is obvious that this legislation is to change the constitution to turn Japan into a country that goes to war," said Akira Kasai, a Communist party lawmaker opposing the legislation shortly before the chamber went to vote. Abe and supporters, however, argue that Japan needs to take more responsibility in maintaining global peace and security. The country dispatched troops on a humanitarian mission to Iraq in 2004-2006, the first time since World War II that Japanese soldiers have entered a combat zone. Polls by Yomiuri newspaper show support for an amendment dropping this year for the third year in a row. Still, 46 percent of respondents favor revisions while 39 percent favor no change, according to the poll. "The people of Japan are far from rushing to change," said Kiyomi Tsujimoto, a lawmaker of the opposition Social Democratic Party. "Isn't it Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ... who is in rush?" (Source: Xinhua News and CNN News.) Japan Pushing for Controversial Fighter Jet Deal (Apr 2007) The Washington Times newspaper said on April 20 that Japan expressed a desire to buy 100 F-22 fighter jets worth US$30 billion and the matter will be on the agenda at a summit between U.S. President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe slated for next week. The U.S. newspaper said that some U.S. conservatives support Japan's bid, saying Japan needs the fighter jets to counter North Korea's missile threat and China's intimidation against Taiwan. Some dispute the report, however, as buying 100 Raptors requires two or three times more money than Japan’s total budget for the replacement program. The Japanese were eyeing buying the F-15X first and the F-22 later. The F-15X is to replace the F-15J and F-15DJ which are the mainstays of the JASDF. The JSADF has about 200 F-15J and F-15DJ models, with are said to deliver lesser performance compared to the F-15Ks of the ROK Air Force. The strength of the F-22 fighter jet lies in its ability to avoid radar detection almost 100 percent, its excellent maneuverability, and its early warning and reconnaissance capabilities. On radar, an F-22 fighter jet appears as only a quarter to one-sixth the size of an F-117 Stealth fighter bomber -- almost invisible to the naked eye. In a mock aerial dogfight over Alaska last year, major U.S. fighter jets like the F-15s, F-16s and F-18s were overwhelmed by F-22s because they had no idea the the latter were approaching them. The F-22s won a complete victory, achieving a 144:0 kill-to-loss ratio. F-22s can engage in battles from a vantage point, as they can cruise at supersonic speed and detect enemy's fighter jets from more than 300 km away, just like an AWACS. The U.S. was willing to talk about selling the ultramodern F22 stealth fighter jets, which are restricted for overseas sale, to Japan, it emerged on 25 Apr. Each of the jets deployed by the U.S. starting late 2005 costs up to US$300 million. The fighter jets, which are undetectable by radar, have an operational radius of more than 2,000 km. The Chinese government expressed dissatisfaction on Thursday since their sale to Japan would change the strategic balance in Northeast Asia drastically. The F-22 is considered the most advanced stealth fighter aircraft in service and can perform intelligence and reconnaissance missions. With an operational radius of more than 2,000 kilometers, it could even target mainland China beyond the Korean peninsula from Japan. That's got both South Korea and China worried about the possible deal. In a briefing on 25 Apr on Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's U.S. visit, the senior Asia director at the U.S. National Security Council, Dennis Wilder, said Washington is "very positively disposed" to talk to the Japanese about the aircraft. Asked about rumors that Japan eyes 100 F-22s, Wilder said the Japanese obviously feel some threat from North Korea's development of missile and nuclear capabilities, while China is modernizing its air force at a rapid pace. He said the question was which aircraft model would suit Japan's needs best. Japan will not sit by idly as China arms itself. The U.S. is seeking to counter China by aggressively supporting Japan’s missile defense systems and by boosting the country’s air force and naval capabilities. And Washington’s gift, coinciding with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit, is 100 F-22 fighter jets.  F-22 fighter jets In order to facilitate the sale of F-22 fighter jets to Japan, the U.S. is ready to change its law banning overseas sales of the planes until 2015. But Washington has yet to give South Korea a definitive answer regarding the sale of Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Japan are forming a Pacific security triangle with Australia, which is filling a place once held by South Korea. South Korean military authorities believe that if Japan buys the jets it would create a serious air power imbalance between South Korea, China and Japan. That could prompt Seoul to revise its air power buildup plan. If Japan has 100 of the jets, the imbalance in the air forces of Japan, China and South Korea would get worse. Japan would probably enjoy overwhelming superiority, experts say. According to them, the F-22s would win any air war even if their array of weaponry is smaller than that of the F-15Ks, South Korea's newest fighter model. Beijing is also alarmed by the possible deal. Quoting the Hong Kong daily Wenweipo, China’s semi state-run news outlet China News Service reported Sunday that the purchase would break the 20-year military balance in the Taiwan Strait between mainland China and Taiwan. In 1998, the U.S. Congress banned the overseas sale of F-22s for fear of the technology finding its way to China. In a press briefing Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said Beijnig "is watching" reports on the sale of the fighter jets. "We hope that nations which have an interest in Northeast Asia will not damage to the stability of the region," he said. China hawks in the White House believe the sale of F-22 fighter jets to Japan will make it possible to entrust Tokyo with some responsibility for the security of Taiwan and want to upgrade strategy against China to that extent. But doves oppose the sale for fear of unnecessary friction. Supporters also claim that overseas sale of the jets will create jobs, and the U.S. Air Force needs to sell more to recoup its capital investment. Some observers predict it will be a while before Japan acquires the F-22 because the U.S. is reluctant to export the aircraft which was deployed on active duty just two years ago. And a U.S. ban on the overseas sale of the jet that was imposed in 1998 has not been lifted. A South Korean defense expert predicted that Japan will be able to purchase the F-22 jets after 2015. The expert said that South Korea urgently needs to rewrite its plan to beef up its Air Force by 2020 since the plan was drawn up without taking the possible F-22 deal into account. South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense says it will reexamine its air force reinforcement plans, which were centered around F-15K fighter jets. But there is no way of knowing whether the United States would sell the F-22 to South Korea. And even if it does, South Korea will find it hard to purchase the F-22, which costs up to US$300 million apiece, or double the price of an F-15K. With GDP growth only in the four percent range, South Korea is facing a tough time looking for ways to protect itself in Northeast Asia, where it is stuck between North Korea, which is unwilling to give up its nuclear program, and China and Japan, which are about to embark on an armament race. (Source: Chosun Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo.) Official Discounts F-22 Sale to Japan (Apr 2007) The top U.S. government arms sale official has discounted media reports that the United States would sell its premier fighter jet to Japan or Israel. In a Friday interview with Reuters news agency, Air Force Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kohler said that designing an export version of radar-evading F-22 Raptor could cost more than one billion dollars and be "prohibitively expensive" for any would-be foreign buyer. Kohler said that even if export were to be cleared by Congress, the stealth fighter would have to be redesigned, rebuilt, retested and then go into production. Kohler, head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, oversees the U.S. government's arms sales to foreign countries. He said that any redesign would require degrading the aircraft's capabilities and making them tamper-proof to keep the technology exclusive --- a process he said would take years. He added that the airplane was built to give the United States an edge way into the future, and that's why it's not exportable. On On 26 Apr, U.S. National Security Council staffer Dennis Wilder said Washington would welcome talks on supplying the next-generation fighter jets to Japan, citing allegedly increasing threats from China and North Korea. (Source: KBS News.) Eurofighter Considered for Next Generation Fighter (Oct 2007) It was reported on 21 Oct 2007 that Japan was having a difficult time procuring a next generation fighter for its air force. Japan wanted a top line air defense fighter to replace its F-15s, and tried to acquire the U.S. F-22. But the U.S. was reluctant to export the F-22 to Japan, mainly because poor Japanese security allowed foreign spies to steal a lot of U.S. military technology the Japanese had previously purchased. The Japanese then looked at the French Rafael, but concluded that aircraft too difficult to use. Dismissed out of hand were Russian fighters (largely because of territorial disputes between the two nations, and little respect for Russian high tech.) That left the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is being studied. The Japanese had also looked into building their own F-22 type aircraft, but backed off when they realized how expensive, and risky, that would be. (Source: Strategy Page.) May 2007Referendum Decision by End of May (May 2007) Despite the fervent support of Prime Minister Abe, Kyodo reported that the leader of the New Komeito party in Japan's ruling coalition on on 2 May expressed opposition to the country's possible use of the right of collective self-defense, a contentious issue to be discussed in a governmental panel later in May. Hiroaki Ota said in a speech in Tokyo, "We don't oppose individual research on matters in the gray area" -- a reference to Article 9 of the Constitution. "However, we are firmly uphold the first and second clauses of Article 9 and do not recognize the use of the right of collective self-defense."Kyodo reported on 2 May that Japan will mark the 60th anniversary of the enforcement of the postwar Constitution with the nation embracing the genuine possibility of constitutional revision for the first time and the prime minister, who is aiming for an amendment, set to make the divisive issue the focus of a national election this summer. The House of Councillors is currently deliberating a bill that would set procedures for a referendum to ask citizens if they want a revision of the country's highest statute and it is set to be enacted into law by the end of May. Agence France-Presse reported on that Japan marked the 60th anniversary of its pacifist constitution on 3 May amid protests and debate about Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's renewed call for revision to reflect the nation's growing global influence. Thousands of pacifist activists rallied through the capital to protest against the conservative premier's call for revising the absolute pacifism of the post-war constitution. On 3 May Kyodo reported that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reiterated his call for revising the postwar Constitution, saying Japan can no longer proceed with major changes to its administration system, relations between central and local governments, and the basic framework for foreign and security policies under the current charter that was written 60 years ago and has remained unamended. Japan's parliament is certain to pass a bill setting the procedures for constitutional amendment during the current 150-day regular session lasting through June 23, paving the way for a constitutional revision. Kyodo News reported on 7 May that a government panel set up to examine Japan's right to collective defense is dominated by members critical of the current official interpretation of the Constitution that says Japan is banned from coming to the aid of an ally under attack. It was learned that twelve of the 13 members, including panel chief Shunji Yanai, a former ambassador to the US, have publicly expressed criticism of the interpretation or called for a reinterpretation in their statements in the Diet and in publications. The composition of the membership of hawks suggests that the panel's findings may be a foregone conclusion in line with Abe's stance. ROK and China Decry Japan Arming Itself (May 2007) Joongang Ilbo on 15 May reported that ROK politicians on both sides of the spectrum ripped Japan after its parliament approved a bill marking the first step toward possible changes to the country's pacifist constitution. Grand National Party Spokeswoman Na Kyoung-won called the development "very concerning," and said neighboring countries were bound to engage in an arms race. The more liberal Uri Party also criticized Tokyo for what it called a threat to "prosperity and peace in the East Asian region," in a statement. Reuters reported on 15 May that the PRC expressed concern at Japan's plans to rewrite its pacifist constitution, saying it was a cause for misgiving for Asian countries which suffered Japanese invasion and occupation. PRC Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a news conference that neighboring Asian countries had given their "utmost attention" to the plan to revise the constitution. "The facts demonstrate that the Japanese people were correct in choosing the path of peaceful development. We hope that Japan adheres to this direction." US Calls on Japan to Shield it from DPRK missiles (May 2007) Kyodo News on 17 May reported that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has urged Japan to declare the right to collective defense so its missile defense shield can be used to intercept DPRK ballistic missiles targeted at the US, according to Japanese and US diplomatic sources. Gates made the call during talks with Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma late last month in Washington, the sources said. US-Japan Alliance Solid after Summit (May 2007) Prime Minister Abe called the US-Japan alliance "irreplaceable", emphasizing both its importance and its solidity. In talks with both the president and congressional leaders, Mr. Abe emphasized the contributions Japan has been making to the war on terror. Immediately prior to the summit the announcement was made of the establishment of a blue-ribbon panel on collective defense. With a membership drawn mostly from the hawkish and internationalist part of the Prime Minister's circle, the panel is likely to recommend significant expansions of the rules of engagement for Japan Self Defense Forces (JSDF) under the present constitution, beyond the limits indicated by the Cabinet Legislative Bureau (CLB). Since the CLB's interpretation of the Constitution has been the major stumbling block preventing the fuller participation of Japan in collective defenseeither in the context of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty or JSDF deployments in UN peace keeping operationsthe removal of these impediments will likely precede a constitutional revision. One of the gratifying changes over the past few years has been the fading away of the charges that Japan is a free rider in the global security system. Part of this change is due to the activism demonstrated by former Prime Minister Koizumi, sending support vessels to the Indian Ocean as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom and Ground Self Defense Forces to Iraq in cooperation with the Coalition Authority's reconstruction efforts. The repurposing and ongoing reconfiguration of the Japan-U.S. alliance as a "global alliance" has helped to erase the misunderstandings that used to undermine Japan's image in America. (Source: Nautilus: Yukio Okamoto, 17 May 2007.) Japan approves funding to relocate U.S. forces (May 2007)Japan passed a law on 22 May to fund the reorganization of U.S. forces in Japan and help move thousands of American marines from the country's south to the U.S. territory of Guam. Tokyo and Washington agreed last year on a plan to streamline American troops in Japan and to give Japan greater responsibility for security in Asia. The deal also envisioned lightening the burden on local communities by downsizing some U.S. bases and consolidating troops at other ones throughout the region. Japan has agreed to pay $6 billion for the transfer of troops from Okinawa to Guam, about 2,400 kilometers, or 1,500 miles, south of Tokyo in the Pacific. Washington has said it would contribute $4 billion. Under the realignment plan, the U.S. Marine Corps's Futenma Air Station in Ginowan will be relocated to Nago, both in Okinawa. The carrier-borne fighters of the U.S. Navy's Atsugi base, southwest of Tokyo, will move to Iwakuni in western Japan. The bill paving the way was passed into law Wednesday by the upper house of the Japanese Parliament, after being approved by the lower house last month. It allows local governments with consolidated U.S. military facilities to receive state subsidies to expand their infrastructure to accommodate the increased troop burden. It also allows the state-run Japan Bank for International Cooperation to give loans to contractors hired to help relocate 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam. Under the plan, the bank will give loans and investments to an American company that will build new housing for the marines in Guam, according to the Japanese Defense Ministry. The company will pay back the money with the rent it receives. Many Okinawans complain about the noise and crime related to the heavy U.S. military presence, but others say the troops benefit the economy in Okinawa, where the unemployment rate is the highest in Japan. (Source: International Herald Tribune.) SEE Overview Presentation of Guam Move (2007). Link provides best concise overview of the Guam project we've seen. June 2007Iwakuni city among host hold-outs (Jun 2007) Repositioning of U.S. Forces Japan affects 68 prefectures and municipalities throughout Japan, including Okinawa, Tokyo, Kanagawa, Yamaguchi and Aomori. Projects include relocating the Japan Air-Defense Command to Yokota Air Base, moving the carrier air wing from Naval Air Facility Atsugi to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni and sending 8,000 Okinawa-based Marines and their families to Guam. The United States and Japan agreed last year to share the estimated $10.27 billion cost for moving Marines to Guam, with Tokyo paying 59 percent.Japan’s Diet passed a bill May 23 to facilitate implementation of the realignment plan. The law will enable the government to provide subsidies to local municipalities that accept new military facilities and air drills. The communities would be paid incrementally in four stages:
As of May, 47 of the 68 local communities agreed to host new facilities or training, said Iwao Kitahara, director general of the Defense Facilities Administration Agency. In mainland Japan, Iwakuni city is one of the communities that hasn’t given its approval for the deal, with overwhelming opposition shown by the residents in last year’s nonbinding referendum. DFAA has held 29 meetings with local residents to explain how the relocation will affect them, according to Kitahara. Residents’ main concerns are jet noise, safety and the added incidents caused by 4,000 more servicemembers and families that are expected to move to the base. Kitahara said he has explained to residents in the Iwakuni area that a new runway is being built about half a mile off shore. He said a study conducted by the agency shows noise damage will lessen in most areas and should be safer as jets will take off over the ocean rather than the mainland. “Our staff is prepared to go and explain anytime,” Kitahara said. “We will continue to explain.” July 2007Japan to Launch First Joint Missile Defense Exercise with U.S. (Jul 2007) Japan will launch its first marine missile defense (MD) joint exercise with the U.S. Navy in January next year, said the Yomiuri Shimbun on July 5, a Japanese daily newspaper, quoting Japanese government officials. Before the joint exercise, Japanese Navy Self-Defense Forces will test in December the MD functions of the Kongo, its Aegis destroyer. The newspaper reported that the joint exercise will involve Aegis destroyers that are MD-equipped from both countries.The exercise aims to improve joint response capabilities of both naval forces to run a MD system. The exercise is likely to be held on the East Sea, and will assume that North Korea is attacking with ballistic missiles. The plan is to respond to a North Korean attack using its mid-range Rodong missiles, which can reach all of Japan with a range of 1,300 km, by launching Standard Missiles (SM-3) from the Aegis destroyers. The joint exercise will be carried out on a computer, instead of using live shells. When North Korea conducted a missile test on July 5 last year, the Japanese Ministry of Defense loaded SM-3s on the Kongo three months earlier than scheduled. The Yomiuri Shimbun said that with the joint exercise, the MD system between Japan and the U.S. will be applied more seriously. (Source: Donga Ilbo.) Japan Unable to Intercept Missiles Fired at US (Jul 2007) Kyodo reported on 10 Jul that Japan and the United States had conducted five rounds of joint missile defense exercises. The latest exercise was carried out 6 Jul using three Aegis vessels from the U.S. 7th Fleet, one Aegis ship from Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force, and aircraft equipped with the Airborne Warning and Control System from Japan's Air Self-Defense Force. Agence France-Presse reported on 10 Jul that Japan said it was technically unable to shoot down a missile fired over its territory at the US, even as it moves to be legally able to do so. The admission came as the US military said it held its latest exercise with Japan aimed at improving coordination in the event of a missile launch. "The missile system that our country is now introducing is aimed consistently at defending our country," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said. "But since missiles heading to other countries are supposed to fly fairly high, technically it is extremely difficult to intercept such missiles." Japan has 1 Minute for Interception Decision (Jul 2007) Yomiuri Shimbun reported on 10 Jul that anxiety has risen in Japan as a result of a simulated missile attack showing it would take a minimum of six minutes after a missile has been launched by the DPRK for it to be intercepted. It would take 10 minutes for a missile to hit the Tokyo metropolitan area. This gives the Japanese military less than one minute to respond. This summer, the United States will deploy the Joint Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS), which receives missile launch information directly from an infrared surveillance satellite, at its Misawa Air Base in Aomori Prefecture. Poll Shows Increase in Figures for a Study of Nuclear Armament (Jul 2007) Kyodo News reported on 16 Jul that thirty-two percent of Liberal Democratic Party candidates for the July 29 upper house election think Japan should study nuclear armament, a Mainichi Shimbun poll showed. The latest figure is 7 percentage points higher than a similar poll conducted before the previous 2004 election. According to the poll, 17 LDP candidates, or 24 percent, said Japan should consider arming itself with nuclear weapons, depending on the international situation, while six, or 8 percent, said Japan should start a study on nuclear armament. Japan Dropped Live Bombs in Guam Sorties -- SO WHAT??? (Jul 2007) Japan's Air Self-Defense Force dropped live bombs near Guam as part of an exercise, the New York Times reported on 23 Jul. The U.S. daily said Japan practiced dropping 500-pound live bombs as part of its annual joint drill with the U.S., which is held at the U.S. Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. The fact that the live bombs were dropped is insignificant, but the exercise, which involved flying directly to Guam from Japan to drop the bombs and immediately return home. This demonstrated Japan's capability to air refuel and attack a target in North Korea (or elsewhere) in the same way. (SITE NOTE: The involvement in the US exercise was previously announced and indicated the closer ties between US and JSDF forces. The only range "near" Guam is Tinian which shows that the US has upgraded the range in anticipation of the US forces arrival from Okinawa by 2012. Another range is: "The Farallon de Medinilla, an uninhabited 200-acre island, stands about 280 feet above sea level and its' size is approximately 3 miles by 1/2 mile. The Farallon de Medinilla Target Range is located about 150 miles north of Guam and is leased from the Government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. The Farallon de Medinilla Target Range is the Pacific Fleet's only U.S.-controlled range available for live-fire training for forward deployed naval forces." Cited in "Farallon de Medinilla (FDM) 16° 01' north latitude, 146° 04' east", GlobalSecurity.org. (Source: Farallon de Medinilla.) August 2007After 40 Years, Japan Achieves Warship Dream (Aug 2007) On 23 Aug, a naval vessel with a large flight deck reminiscent of a light aircraft carrier was launched at the IHI Marine United shipyard in Yokohama, Japan. The 13,500-ton vessel Hyuga, a helicopter-carrying destroyer for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, made its magnificent presence known to the public for the first time. The name comes from an Imperial Navy warship that saw action in World War II. The original Hyuga was a battleship, but toward the end of the war it was modified into a unique aircraft-carrying battleship that could load some 20 fighters. The new Hyuga-class vessel meanwhile can carry several choppers and is mainly tasked with chasing and destroying enemy submarines. (SITE NOTE: The ROK also has plans for a similar class for the Admiral Shin serving as a helicopter carrier -- but with visions of incorporating a ski-jump ramp for short-takeoff aircraft or perhaps VTOL aircraft.)Despite minimal attention from the Korean press, the launch of the Hyuga is worth noting for several reasons. First, the Hyuga, which is also known as 16DDH, is Japan's largest warship since World War II, and it's the Maritime Self-Defense Force's first warship greater than 10,000-tons. The Hyuga is also equipped with a state-of-the-art radar system, likened to a mini Japanese version of the Aegis system. The radar can cover all directions around the clock just as the Aegis does. What's most noteworthy about the vessel is the debate over what exactly it is. Japan officially calls it a helicopter-carrying destroyer, claiming it is neither a light aircraft carrier nor a helicopter carrier. But many Korean and foreign media outlets are calling it Japan's first post-war helicopter carrier or light aircraft carrier. Japan plans to operate four to six of the ships, each with a hangar and deck for up to 11 choppers. Four SH-60 anti-submarine helicopters can lift off from the Hyuga flight deck at the same time. It doesn't carry vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, and is not equipped with the special "ski jump" decks needed for fixed-wing jets to take off. Experts point out that the Hyuga is not a light aircraft carrier for now, but it can still serve as a helicopter carrier. In contrast to Japan's Haruna-class helicopter destroyer, which carries only three choppers, the Hyuga can carry nearly four times as many, greatly improving the Maritime Self-Defense Force's helicopter operation capabilities. The Hyuga is much larger than the 8,900-ton Oosumi-class vessels, a large landing ship that prompted a public outcry that it could be rebuilt into a light aircraft carrier. The Hyuga can also function as a flagship commanding a fleet and as a disaster rescue command station. Also worth noting is that the launch of the Hyuga has laid the foundation for the Maritime Self-Defense Force to achieve its long-cherished desire to possess an aircraft carrier. Despite Japan's defeat in World War II, the Maritime Self-Defense Force long had a dream of operating an aircraft carrier. During the peak Cold-War years in the 1960s, it wanted to build a 10,000-ton anti-submarine helicopter carrier with a large flight deck. America's military advisory group approved the idea, and Japan pushed to build it with partial funding from the U.S. Seething public opinion and a lack of budget saw the plan scrapped. Haruna and Shirane helicopter-carrying destroyers were built instead, and now as they begin to age the Hyuga has been launched to replace them. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) September 2007Shinzo Abe Resigns as Prime Minister (Sep 2007) Shinzo Abe was born on 21 September 1954. As the 90th Prime Minister of Japan, he was elected by a special session of the National Diet on 26 September 2006. He was Japan's youngest post-World War II prime minister and the first born after the war. With his selection as Prime Minister, there was a grass roots swelling of nationalism -- and with it the hopes by the US that Article 9 of the Peace Constitution could be changed. Unfortunately, he resigned abruptly on 12 September 2007 after months of mounting political pressure. He was replaced by Yasuo Fukuda as Prime Minister.Since 1997, as the bureau chief of "Institute of Junior Assembly Members Who Think About The Outlook of Japan and History Education," Abe supported the controversial Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform and the New History Textbook. He denies the abduction of comfort women by Japanese troops, claims that a history textbook must contribute to the formation of national consciousness, and cites South Korean criticism of the New History Textbook as foreign interference in Japanese domestic affairs. In March 2007, Abe along with right-wing politicians have proposed a bill to encourage nationalism and a "love for one's country and hometown" among the Japanese youth. The US concern was that the right-wing nationalism fostered by Abe was the best chance to pass the changes to Article 9 of the Peace Constitution. Abe sought to revise or broaden the interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan in order to permit Japan to maintain de jure military forces. He stated that "we are reaching the limit in narrowing down differences between Japan's security and the interpretation of our constitution." The Article 9 changes to Peace Constitution came out of the committee in Nov 2005 and was being circulated and discussed nationally prior to a vote on a constitutional amendment. The JSDF reorganized to implement Japan in a regional role. Japan was preparing for their regional role with joint exercises with the USFJ -- as well as deployments to Alaska. Abe expressed the need to strengthen political, security, and economic ties within the Southeast Asian region. Abe increased its allies in its international campaign to counter the North Korean nuclear cards. However, after a series of political scandals including the suicide of his Agricultural Minister and low approval ratings, he abruptly resigned on 12 Sep 2007. Abe said his unpopularity was hindering the passage of an anti-terrorism law, involving among other things Japan's continued military presence in Afghanistan. Party officials also said the embattled prime minister was suffering from poor health, with Abe blaming crippling diarrhea. He was replaced by Yasuo Fukuda, a moderate in the LDP. After Abe's departure, the Article 9 debate was put on a back burner -- and the great hopes of the US to have a regional defense partner was sidelined -- at least temporarily. October 2007Sea-based Missile Defense System (Oct 2007) The Asahi Shimbun on 15 Oct reported that the Defense Ministry would conduct a trial exercise with newly developed ballistic missile defense (BMD) technology in December ahead of plans the following month to deploy the nation's first sea-based system to defend against such strikes. Ministry officials said the guided missile destroyer Kongo will be based in waters off Hawaii in mid-December for the exercise to be conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Navy to intercept a ballistic missile using the advanced Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) system.The Associated Press on 15 Oct reported that Russia was concerned that a joint US-Japanese missile defense effort could be an effort to preserve military superiority, the country's foreign minister said in a news interview published Saturday. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow regarded the joint missile defense efffort as an "object of concern," expressing wariness over what he called the possibility that the system could be directed against Russia and the PRC . "We oppose the construction of missile defense systems whose purpose is to ensure military superiority," Lavrov wrote. Japan to Conduct Intercept Missile Test Off Hawaii (Dec 2007) Japan is conducting a missile test off the coast of Hawaii on 18 Dec. Japan’s Defense Ministry said the Maritime Self-Defense Force will fire the interceptor missiles from the Aegis destroyer Kongo at sea to hit mid-range ballistic missiles fired by the U.S. from Kauai Island, Hawaii. The interceptor missiles should hit the targets in the atmosphere at an altitude of more than 100 km. Except for the U.S., Japan is the first country to conduct an SM-3 test. Japan’s Mainichi Shimbun said since an earlier SM-3 test by the U.S. failed, Japan conducted virtual tests in November in cooperation with the Americans. The Japanese Defense Ministry puts the chances of the current test’s success at 90 percent. Japan's missile defense is a two-step system comprising sea-to-air and ground-to-air interceptors. SM-3 interceptors are fired at ballistic missiles in the atmosphere. If these fail, ground-based Patriot Advanced Capacity-3 interceptors are launched. The ministry will deploy a Kongo at the Sasebo base in January. Four Aegis destroyers will be placed in the East Sea and the capital area of Yokozuka by 2010. PAC3 interceptors were already put in place in Saitama and Chiba in March and November this year. Japan is to deploy additional PAC3 missiles in 16 military units in 11 areas by 2012. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) Reuters on 17 Dec reported that a Japanese navy destroyer shot down a ballistic missile in space on Monday in a test over the Pacific, a first for a U.S. ally. "They got it. It's an historic moment for Japan ," Riki Ellison, a prominent U.S. missile-defense advocate, told Reuters by telephone. The shootdown marked a success for a shipboard detection and tracking tool called Aegis built by Lockheed Martin Corp and the Standard Missile-3 interceptor, produced by Raytheon Co. January 2008Chinese Floats Three-Carrier Group Plans: Could Upset Taiwan Defense and Japanese SDF (Jan 2008) On December 31, a Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Pao cited a report that no one in the Western media has detected concerning a Jane's Defence Weekly article which reported that China has plans to develop three-carrier battle groups over the next decade. News about this development has been widely discussed in the Hong Kong and Taiwanese press. Citing Jane's, Wen Wai Pao reported that as a part of its carrier battle group plans the People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN) intends to establish an even stronger submarine fleet; having added 20 nuclear-powered submarines in the past five years, increasing the total number of submarines to 55. The report indicated that the PLAN currently has 70 destroyers and frigates, 50 dock-landing ships and 45 coastal warships.Taiwanese news sources highlighted Gordon Jacobs, a Chinese military analyst based in the United States - whose report on the modernization of China's navy in the Jane's report was one of the sources for the report - as stating that if the Chinese government contracted for the construction of the carrier groups in 2006, then it is possible for the first battle carrier group to break water as early as 2011, be in service in 2014, and by 2016 be accompanied by a second service-ready aircraft carrier group. Jacobs cited Chen Yung-kang, an official in Taiwan's Ministry of Defense, who during a presentation at a defense conference held in Taiwan in 2006 argued that Taiwan needed submarines to strengthen its defense capability against China's quickly expanding naval power and its plan to develop two battle carrier groups by 2020. Chen added that the Soviet-made Varyag Carrier was being upgraded and repaired at Dalian in Northeastern China, and being prepared for training use. The Chinese government is still tight-lipped about its plans for the former Soviet aircraft carrier which is now dry docked in Dalian and painted in standard PLAN gray. Taiwanese experts believe that the PLAN intends to activate the carrier as a part of its three-carrier battle group plan. In 2007, Chinese government sources admitted for the first time that Beijing is researching and capable of building an aircraft carrier, as stated by Huang Qiang, a spokesman for the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense of China (CSTIND). Furthermore, Zhang Yunchuan, the CSTIND chairman, said last March that China was indeed researching the building of aircraft carriers: "China stands for strategic active defense and, even when it owns aircraft carriers, it will definitely not intrude into or occupy any other nation or resort to force with the use of carrier vessels," Zhang said. On December 4, 2007, during a meeting with a visiting US delegation headed by US Representative Eni Faleomavaega, chairman of the sub-committee on Asia, The Pacific, and the Global Environment in the US House of Representatives, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian asserted that China was planning to design an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) within the Taiwan Strait. Chen alleged that Beijing planned to submit the proposal to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and at the same time, Beijing planned to inaugurate a new air route on the Chinese side of the median of the Taiwan Straits. According to Joseph Wu - Taiwan's de facto ambassador to the United States - in early December, the General Administration of Civil Aviation of China issued a press release stating that the Central Military Commission and the State Council had approved the route and flights would run some 4.2 nautical miles (7.8 kilometers) west of the centerline. The Taiwanese government claims that since approval for the bid had to be attained from the Central Military Commission, which has authority over China's civilian aviation and airspace, China's bid to the ICAO to operate on Taiwan's side of the strait can be construed as a militarily provocative move, as it also gives them the ability to deny access to foreign aircraft in the area. China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang repeatedly denied any knowledge of China's plan to establish an ADIZ within the Taiwan Strait. In related news, citing Taiwanese military sources that Japanese government sources later confirmed, Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun revealed that Chinese Hong-6 bombers from the Huaining air force base in Anhui province conducted military maneuvers in areas of the East China Sea in September 2007, the route covered areas that are jointly enclosed by the Taiwan Strait Air Defense Identification Zone and the Japan Air Defense Identification Zone. The Hong-6 bombers reportedly made 20 sorties to the area on September 11 and 23, which forced Japanese F4 fighter jets based at Naha base in Okinawa Prefecture to respond by conducting a total of 12 sorties along the routes. In an interview with Kensuke Ebata, a subject matter expert on defense and military affairs in Tokyo and member of the Japanese Security Export Control Committee, Asahi Shimbun reported Ebata as saying: Hong-6 bombers can carry long-range air-to-sea missiles ... So it is possible for the bombers to attack vessels at sea. Personally, I think the bomber pilots were undergoing a training exercise under the scenario of blocking the arrival of US aircraft carriers in Taiwan in the event of an emergency situation there. The flights may also have been aimed at trying to contain US forces following large-scale maneuvers near Guam in August under a scenario that the United States was at war with China. (SITE NOTE: If the Chinese filed three carrier groups along with submarine expansion, it will mean the US will have to significantly change its strategy for the region. The Chinese could easily overpower the single carrier group out of Japan -- and this would mean that another carrier group might have to be stationed in the area. The alternative is to allow Japan to form a carrier group -- after Article 9 of its Peace Constitution is changed -- to help regain the balance of power in the region. The Taiwanese are now building up their defenses and their "independence" movement from China is gaining ground in Taiwan's politics. They have just built an indigenous cruise missile -- with the cooperation of the ROK -- and though they will not confirm it, the missile has the range of reaching the Chinese mainland. This will only complicate the equation in the future.) February 2008Japan Local Election Won by US Base Move Advocate (Feb 2008) Bloomberg on 11 Feb reported that Yoshihiko Fukuda, who campaigned in favor of moving U.S. troops to Iwakuni from Atsugi near Tokyo, was elected mayor of the western Japanese city. Fukuda yesterday beat incumbent mayor Katsusuke Ihara, who had campaigned against the move. The victory will increase the chances that an agreement between Japan and the U.S. to relocate air squadrons from Atsugi, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) west of Tokyo, to the Iwakuni base in Yamaguchi prefecture by 2014 is fulfilled, the paper said.Article 9 Revision on Hold (Feb 2008) Following Shinzo Abe's resignation in September 2007, Yasuo Fukuda announced that he would run in the Liberal Democratic Party leadership election, which would also determine the prime minister, given the LDP's majority in the House of Representatives. Fukuda received a great deal of support in his bid, including that of the LDP's largest faction, led by Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura, of which Fukuda is a member. Yasuo Fukuda was formally elected as Japan's 91st prime minister on September 25, 2007.. He received 338 votes, almost 100 more than necessary for a majority, in the House of Representatives; although the House of Councillors (the upper house), led by the opposition Democratic Party, elected Ichiro Ozawa over Fukuda by a margin of 133 to 106. This deadlock was then resolved in favor of the lower house's choice, according to Article 67 of the Constitution. Though Fukuda's Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner, the New Kômeitô, hold over two-thirds of the seats in the House of Representatives, they are now in the minority in the House of Councillors, where last summer's election put Ozawa Ichirô's Democratic Party of Japan in effective control. Ozawa's stance is that Japan should not dispatch troops to the UN nor support the US War on terrorism with SDF troops. The stalemate in the Diet today is an intrinsic problem of the upper house -- an unusual entity from the very beginning -- has finally surfaced because of the LDP's crushing defeat in last year's upper house election. This situation where the lower house control by the LDP is used to override the House of Councillors has placed the debate over collective defense -- and the revision of Article 9 of the Peace Constitution -- on a indefinite hold. Regardless, Fukuda won in reinstating the Japanese support of the Afghanistan refueling operations was a major victory considering the opposition, but it came at a cost politically -- but it was only reported as such by the Wall Street Journal. Deliberations on the proposed legislation had remained stalled, partly because of the distraction from revelations of serious misbehavior in the Ministry of Defense. It was hardly surprising that the administration had been experiencing rough sailing given the current composition of the National Diet. One concern expressed about the MSDF mission was the suspicion that some fuel supplied by the MSDF unit was and would continue to be diverted to operations in Iraq. The issue was hotly debated in the Diet during deliberations before the new Antiterrorism Law's establishment. The refueling operations were terminated in Nov 2007, but reinstated in Jan 2007 by Japan. The navy destroyer Murasame left Yokosuka, to be joined by a tanker, to resume a refueling mission in the Indian Ocean as part of the American-led military effort in Afghanistan. Japan had performed the largely symbolic mission since 2001 but was forced to abandon it last fall when a divisive battle in Parliament caused a three-month suspension that was later overturned. “Japan will fulfill its global responsibilities,” Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba said at a send-off ceremony attended by about 200 people. The Maritime Self-Defense Force's resumption of its refueling mission in the Indian Ocean after a four-month hiatus served to demonstrate Japan's renewed determination to continue the fight against international terrorism in cooperation with other countries. According to the U.S. government, in the 4-1/2 years until November, when Japan's previous Antiterrorism Law expired, the MSDF unit supplied 7.3 percent of fuel consumed by all multinational forces warships. Though nationalists still cry for Japanese self-defense under the "right of collective defense," there still remains approximately 64 percent of the Japanese who favor the retention of Article 9 forbidding Japan militarism. Most of the revisionists of Article 9 argue for the elimination of Section 2 of Article 9, and enabling Japan to exercise its right of collective self-defense. The corporate sector, with its interest in pursuing joint developments with and weapons export to the United States, also supports the revision of Article 9. But because of the situation in the National Diet, the time for debate is not at present. The impact to the US global restructuring is obvious. First is the Missile Defense Shield (MDS) that the US-Japan are erecting at this time. The latest Patriot batteries were installed in Yokosuka in Feb 2008. However, the contention comes with the ability of the Aegis destroyers using their SM-3 missiles to knock out a North Korean missile headed for the US because it cannot invoke the right for collective defense. Thus far it is a one-sided operation with the US providing for the Japanese defense, but the Japanese unable to provide any reciprocal action. The second was the refueling operations in Afghanistan. The success in Feb 2008 to reinstate the operations did much to cement the US-Japan alliance, though opposition still is heard. The third was Iraq. In 2003, the SDF were deployed to Iraq, but these troops will be removed in 2008. In addition, there are the future plans of the US at stake. If the Japanese SDF cannot fulfill the role of "collective defense" the withdrawal of troops from Okinawa MAY be impacted. In essence, Japan would expand its sphere of influence militarily to include Taiwan -- and could engage in military intervention on disputed territories. The SDF has undergone a massive reorganization and it is starting to come together. In Feb 2008, the SDF Air Defense Command opened up shop at Yokota AB. The SDF is pressing forward to be able to assume the "collective defense" posture for Japan, regardless that the Constituion has not been revised at this time. There are also a lot of moves to Japan from Korea that will be happening in the future. US also plans to move the ROK contingency operations headquarters to Camp Zama, Japan when the CFC disbands in 2012. At the same time, the UNC will also move to Camp Zama and out of Korea -- as the bases in Japan have been identified as UN bases to support Korea dating back to the Korean War. There are a lot of things that are going on in the ROK that need to be resolved immediately before the Oct 2008 Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) that may impact the shape of the forces in Korea AND Japan AND Guam. April 2008US Base-Hosting Deal Expires Due to Lack of Diet Approval (April 2008) Kyodo on 31 Mar reported that a Japan-U.S. agreement obliging Japan to pay part of the costs to host U.S. military bases expires at midnight 31 Mar due to a lack of approval by the Japanese parliament of a government plan to extend it for fiscal 2008 that begins Tuesday. While no major immediate effect is expected on U.S. military operations, as the United States will cover the expenses including utilities and labor costs for the time being, key Japanese officials are worried that a disruption in funding could hurt bilateral relations.June 2008USFJ's Rice says realignment plans are on target (Jun 2008) Despite delays and criticism from the Okinawa community, Air Force Lt. Gen. Edward Rice, U.S. Forces Japan commander, said plans to realign U.S. troops by 2014 are on target. During a two-day trip to Okinawa, Rice toured Kadena Air Base, visited the site of a planned air station at Camp Schwab and met with military leaders to discuss the role of U.S. forces on Okinawa. On the last leg of his visit Friday, Rice fielded questions from Japanese and military reporters about the realignment; the progress of the sexual assault task force formed to review prevention programs at U.S. bases; and military morale amidst deployments and strained relationships with the Okinawan community.The realignment, which has been in the works since 1996, calls for the new air station and the reduction in U.S. forces on the island by relocating about 8,000 Marines and their families to Guam. The new air station will replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. Camps Kinser and Lester and part of Camp Foster also would be closed. Environmentalists and local officials have disagreed over the location of the air station’s runways — planned to jut out into Oura Bay — citing noise issues and concern for marine life. Rice acknowledged the concerns, but said Schwab’s coastal location is an ideal spot. "The agreement we negotiated is still the right agreement. We didn’t make this agreement with the local government, but with the government in Tokyo," he said. "I’m more convinced than ever that the DPRI initiatives (Defense Posture Realignment Initiative) are the right ones to underpin the realignment." (Source: Stars and Stripes.) July 2008Missile Defense System Test (Jul 2008) Kyodo News on 10 Jul reported that Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force conducted a missile firing drill involving destroyers off Hawaii during a joint exercise of defense forces from the United States, Japan and eight other countries. The destroyers Kirishima and Setogiri and two other vessels fired SM-2 surface-to-air missiles at an unmanned target plane launched by the US military. Of the seven planned to be fired, two misfired while some of them are believed to have hit the target, according to the MSDF.Feb 2009U.S., Japan sign pact to move Marines to Guam (Feb 2009) Hoping to give new momentum to a plan to rework the deployment of U.S. troops in the Pacific, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed an agreement Tuesday with Japan that will move 8,000 Marines off the southern Japanese island of Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam. The framework of the transfer had already been agreed on in 2006, but several major points remain to be worked out, including the location of a base to replace Okinawa’s Futenma air station, a major hub for the Marines there. Officials on both sides have agreed to relocate the operations of the base to another, less crowded part of Okinawa, but local opposition has stalled progress. “This agreement reflects the commitment we have to modernize our military posture in the Pacific,” Clinton said. “It reinforces the core of our alliance—the mission to defend Japan against attack and to deter any attack by all necessary means.”Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone also hailed the agreement. “We believe this Guam agreement shows the strength of our alliance,” he said. “We agreed to work toward the implementation of the 2006 pact in a manner that does not compromise readiness or capability.” There are currently about 13,000 Marines stationed on Okinawa, and 23,000 U.S. troops there overall. They are part of about 50,000 U.S. troops deployed in Japan under a post-World War II mutual security pact. The cost of the realignment plan has generated intense debate in Japan. Guam’s transformation is expected to cost at least $15 billion and put some of the U.S. military’s highest-profile assets within the fences of a vastly improved network of bases. In the pact signed Tuesday, Japan agreed to give Washington $2.8 billion for the transfer costs, though its contribution is expected to go higher. On Monday, the Asahi, a major newspaper, reported that some of the budget will be used to improve Naval and Air Force facilities on Guam. The daily said that would go against the pact, which has been interpreted to limiting Japanese spending to Marine-related projects. (Source: Japan Today.) Clinton signs Guam pact --Agreement details Japan's $6.09 billion share of Marines' move (Feb 2009) On her first trip to Asia since taking office, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed an agreement in Tokyo on Tuesday that puts teeth into a plan to move 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam. The agreement, signed by Clinton and Japan Minister of Foreign Affairs Hirofumi Nakasone, spells out how the $6.09 billion Japan has said it will contribute to the project will be spent. Specifically, Japan agreed to spend a total of $2.8 billion for "projects to develop facilities and infrastructure on Guam." The new agreement reinforces a bilateral agreement signed in May 2006 to realign U.S. troops in Japan. Key to the so-called "Realignment Roadmap" is the building of a new airfield on Camp Schwab to replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. But the plan has been stalled because of opposition by some Okinawa officials who want runways for the new facility to be built offshore. "This agreement reflects the commitment we have to modernize our military posture in the Pacific," Clinton said at the signing. "It reinforces the core of our alliance — the mission to defend Japan against attack and to deter any attack by all necessary means." Nakasone said the agreement "shows the strength of our alliance." "We agreed to work toward the implementation of the 2006 pact in a manner that does not compromise readiness or capability," Nakasone said. The cost of the realignment plan has raised some hackles in Japan, with officials eager to reassure the public that Japanese companies would profit and the money would not go to other projects. The realignment would transfer the headquarters of the III Marine Expeditionary Force and some 8,000 Marines and their families to Guam. Japan and the U.S. have said they expect the move to be completed in 2014, although in recent weeks the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific and a Guam senator have said it may take a decade or more. About half of the U.S. troops in Japan are based on Okinawa, including 13,200 Marines. Once the new Marine airport is built, the U.S. has agreed to close several Marine bases in southern Okinawa. In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, Guam Gov. Felix Camacho said the agreement "reaffirms the commitment to relocate U.S. Marines to Guam and further expand the military into the Western Pacific." "The finalization of this agreement confirms the need for our leaders to unite and ensure development will be sustained for years to come," Camacho said, according to a press release. "This administration will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Defense to make certain the buildup benefits all those who call Guam home." The agreement was not as well received on Okinawa, where the prefectural assembly last year passed a resolution against the new airport. They want the air facility to be located anywhere but Okinawa. The six parties that make up the majority in the assembly sent a written request Monday to Nakasone urging him not to sign the agreement. "The consensus of Okinawa is against construction of a new military facility on Okinawa," Yonekichi Shinzato, who leads the coalition, said before the signing. "The Japanese government, while fully aware of this, is about to sign the pact over the heads of Okinawan people." Their demand was echoed by a group of 14 Okinawa scholars who issued a statement Monday that the realignment plan "would do nothing but add a further burden to Okinawa." Seigen Miyazato, who leads the group of the scholars, said that Prime Minister Taro Aso’s administration is in a hurry to sign the bilateral pact while Liberal Democratic Party and the Komeito party still control Japan’s House of Representatives. Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakamine also had reservations and hoped the two governments would reconsider his request to move the airport offshore. "We understand that the agreement was made to ensure the move of Marines from Okinawa to Guam, which will contribute to reduce the burden of Okinawa," he said. "From the standpoint of giving due consideration to the wish of local communities and natural environment, we continue to ask the governments to move the site farther offshore." (Source: Stars and Stripes.) April 2009Funds for Marines’ Guam move a step closer with Japan legislation (Apr 2009) The move of some 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam crept a step closer Tuesday (14 Apr) when Japan’s House of Representatives approved a bilateral pact that obligates Japan to contribute $2.8 billion for the move. The bill, supported by Japan’s ruling parties, is expected to be rejected by the House of Councilors later this week, according to officials of Status of Forces Agreement Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, in such cases the lower house’s decision overrides.The bill is considered a treaty and is expected be enacted by May. For a treaty, the choice of the House of Representatives overrides the selection of the House of Councilors as provided by constitution, the officials said. The bill is to become effective 30 days after the House of Councilors vote. The pact on the Guam move was signed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Japan Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone in February. As part of the realignment, Marine Corps Air Station Futenma is to be closed and replaced by a new air facility on Camp Schwab. The move of the Marines to Guam is scheduled to be complete in 2014. The bilateral agreement also limits the use of the funds to the Guam project. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) June 2009USFJ Base Relocation: Kyodo News ("NO CHANGE SEEN IN U.S. FORCES REALIGNMENT DESPITE MARINE INDICATION", 2009/06/08) reported that Japan does not see any need to alter the planned realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, the modification of which was suggested last week by the U.S. Marine Corps chief, Vice Defense Minister Kohei Masuda said Monday. ''The realignment of U.S. forces in Japan is a plan to be steadily implemented according to the road map agreed upon between Japan and the United States in 2006,'' the ministry's top bureaucrat told a news conference.June 2009U.S. and Japan Moving Forward on U.S. Force Realignment On July 11, 2009 in Tokyo, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of the United States of America James P. Zumwalt and Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone exchanged Notes pertaining to the transfer of funds provided by the Government of Japan to the United States Government in accordance with the Agreement on the Relocation of United States Marine Corps Personnel from Okinawa to Guam, signed by Secretary of State Clinton and Foreign Minster Nakasone on February 17, 2009.Based on the exchanged Notes, the Government of Japan will provide $336 million to the United States Government during FY2009 to be used for projects to develop facilities and infrastructure on Guam for the relocation of 8,000 U.S. Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. This is a significant step forward towards implementation of the realignment package. The United States Government remains committed to the full implementation of the realignment package as agreed in the May 1, 2006 Realignment Roadmap. Projects to be funded by the Government of Japan during FY2009 for the relocation of U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam: On-base infrastructure project in Finegayan area (initial phase) $124.8 million On-base infrastructure project in the north area of Andersen Air Force Base $27 million On-base infrastructure project in Apra area $169.1 million Design project (fire station and bachelor enlisted quarters in Finegayan area, and port operation unit headquarters building and medical clinic in Apra area) $15.1 million TOTAL $336 million Japan gives $336M toward base realignment (Jul 2009) The U.S. and Japan took a major step Saturday in moving some 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam when officials exchanged notes allowing for the transfer of $336 million from Japan for construction projects for this fiscal year. “This is a significant step forward towards implementation of the realignment package,” the U.S. State Department announced in a news release. The move of the major Marine commands on Okinawa is scheduled to be completed in 2014. Japan has promised to pay a total of $6.09 billion for the estimated total cost of $10.27 billion. Japan will pay $2.8 billion in cash and the rest in third-party loans and investments, according to an agreement signed by the two countries in February. The $6.09 billion does not include the cost of building a new air facility on Camp Schwab to replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma.(Source: Stars and Stripes.) October 2009Japan FM: US base should stay on Okinawa (Oct 2009) Japan's new government appeared to bow to intensifying pressure from visiting top U.S. military officials, saying Friday it supports keeping a major U.S. Marine airfield on the southern island of Okinawa. The move narrows - but doesn't close - a rift between the two alliance partners ahead of President Barack Obama's visit in three weeks. The new Tokyo administration, elected in a landslide in August, is eager to assert a more independent stance with Washington - but doesn't want to unduly strain ties with its chief ally and key trading partner.The government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has suggested it would like to make changes to a 2006 agreement that would realign the 47,000 U.S. troops in Japan, including moving 8,000 Marines to the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam. A major sticking point has been the future of Futenma airfield, which under the pact would be relocated to a less crowded part of Okinawa. However, Hatoyama has suggested he would like the airfield moved off the island entirely. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, visiting Tokyo earlier this week, insisted the Futenma - a busy Marine Corps air base - must be relocated on the island, calling any other options "politically untenable and operationally unworkable." Admiral Mike Mullen added to that pressure Friday during meetings with Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada and other officials, urging them to quickly resolve the issue. After his meeting with Mullen, Okada said moving Futenma airfield off the tiny island "is not an option" - although it would be difficult to resolve the location of the new site before Obama's Nov. 12-13 visit. "Starting from scratch on other ideas would not serve the best interests of the people of Okinawa," he said. While the plan would lighten Okinawa's share of hosting American troops, local opposition has stalled progress on choosing a new site. Many residents say they're worried about base-related crime, cost and environmental issues. The Camp Schwab area, in a less populated part of Okinawa, remains the most likely candidate. Kadena Air Base, which is also on the island, is another possibility. Washington has grown concerned that Tokyo was balking at key elements of the agreement, which took more than a decade of negotiations with Japan's previous conservative administrations. Mullen said he understood Hatoyama's desire to review the pact, but was concerned further delays could derail the overall timeline. "We're barely on track with what was laid out in 2006," Mullen told reporters, adding that "from a purely military perspective, it is very important that we move ahead with previous agreements." Hatoyama has repeatedly said he did not intend to rush to a decision, although he said Friday that the matter should be resolved "sooner than later." Okada, however, acknowledged the issue needs to be addressed urgently. "We should not spend too much time on this," he said after meeting Mullen. "Our time is limited." The Hatoyama government has also signaled that it plans to end its naval mission in the Indian Ocean - tankers that have been used as refueling pit stops for Afghanistan-bound allies. Instead, Tokyo is considering reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. During his visit, Gates told Okada that the refueling mission provides important support for the U.S. coalition forces, though whether to continue the mission is Japan's decision. He urged Japan to continue providing support for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Futenma is used by helicopters, transport planes and other aircraft as the primary air support base for the more than 10,000 U.S. Marines based on Okinawa. U.S. officials have argued that it must stay somewhere on Okinawa to be close to the Marines on the ground. Okada was keen to avoid perceptions that the two nations are increasingly at odds. "I don't think we have any disputes or serious problems between us," he said after meeting with Mullen. "There is no need to overreact. I believe that the United States understands that we cannot simply accept everything just because an agreement is already made." (Source: AP.) |
