Category: Uncategorized

NARPI Response to Artillery Exchange between North and South Korea

November 23, 2010

In response to the artillery exchange which took place over the West maritime border of North and South Korea, in the afternoon of November 23, 2010, the Northeast Asia Regional Peacebuilding Institute members wish to express our concerns as follows:

1. NARPI members first wish to extend our deepest condolences to the communities, families and friends of those who lost their lives unnecessarily due to this event. The lives of these young people were precious and we acknowledge the emotional toll this loss brings to the involved communities. We also express deep regret and sadness towards those who have sustained injuries and those people whose property was damaged in the artillery exchange.

2. This incident reminds us that the present situation of military confrontation will continue to bring unnecessary deaths. We ask for a ceasefire and for no further military action from all sides in order to prevent further loss of life and injuries. In place of violent military action, we ask that the focus of leaders and military personnel would be directed to peaceful resolution through dialogue. We also express deep concern over continued military drills, including U.S.-joint drills, near the border or the Northern Limit Line (NLL), which only escalate the tensions in North and South Korea and the region.

3. We must also acknowledge the ongoing fragility of the situation between North and South Korea and the region as whole, and the fear and concern that is experienced by civilians throughout Northeast Asia. The impacts of this artillery exchange and other past conflicts between North and South Korea are not only felt by these two countries but indeed by Northeast Asia as a whole. Therefore we call upon other civil society groups in Northeast Asia and the international community to raise their voices in concern over this and to advocate for the use of non-violent, non-military approaches.

4. This event indicates more than ever the need for the people of Northeast Asia to find realistic and concrete solutions to the cold war structure, which was created by the world powers against the will of the Korean people, and the 55-year military conflict within the Korean peninsula. We are convinced that in our region, capacity building for nonviolence through peacebuilding institutes such as NARPI, instead of ongoing reliance on military strength and solutions, is absolutely vital in our present reality. Therefore, as a civil society peace organization in Northeast Asia, we call for the cooperation of all groups toward the transformation of the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia into a peaceful region.

-Northeast Asia Regional Peacebuilding Institute

Administration office: 82-2-554-9615

6F Aroma Ville, 648-3 Yeoksam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea 135-911

U.S. Pursues Wider Role in Yemen

Americans Move to Bring In Equipment and Operatives and Propose New Bases for Fight Against al Qaeda Affiliate

By ADAM ENTOUS and JULIAN E. BARNES in Washington and MARGARET COKER in Abu Dhabi

[YEMEN] Reuters

The U.S. is preparing for an expanded campaign against al Qaeda in Yemen, mobilizing military and intelligence resources to enable Yemeni and American strikes and drawing up a longer-term proposal to establish Yemeni bases in remote areas where militants operate.

The developments are part of a U.S. scramble to step up the hunt for members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terrorist organization behind a recent failed attempt to blow up two planes over the U.S. using bombs hidden in cargo.

Limited U.S. intelligence experience in Yemen has created “a window of vulnerability” that the U.S. government is “working fast to address,” a senior Obama administration official said.

For now, the U.S. gets much of its on-the-ground intelligence from a growing partnership with Saudi Arabia, which shares a border with Yemen and has a fruitful informant network in Yemen’s tribal areas.

In the rush to build up capabilities, the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies are moving in equipment and personnel from other areas, and over the past year have expanded the size of teams in the U.S. analyzing intelligence on AQAP. The emphasis now is on expanding the number of intelligence operatives and analysts in the field.

READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Thanks to Sung-Hee Choi for forwarding the link to this documentary in English about the controversy surrounding the sinking of the Cheonan and the “official story” blaming North Korea.

>><<

Beneath the Surface: the investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan
hanitv | November 11, 2010

‘A documentary about unknown story behind the mysterious sinking of the warship. On March 26, 2010, the South Korean Navy’s patrol combat corvette Cheonan sank, and with it took the lives of 46 of the 104 sailors aboard. Journalists have worked to uncover the facts behind what happened, and this documentary is a gathering of our investigation findings to date. Our findings uncovered significant flaws in the Civilian-Military Joint Investigation Group’s report, and suggest that the next necessary step is a reinvestigation.’

Global Military Agenda: Increased US-NATO Military Presence in Southeast Asia. Completing Plans For Asian NATO

by Rick Rozoff

In keeping with the global trend manifested in other strategically vital areas of the world, the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – a consortium of all major Western military (including nuclear) powers and former colonial empires – are increasing their military presence in Southeast Asia with special emphasis on the geopolitically critical Strait of Malacca.

The latter is one of the world’s most important shipping lanes and major strategic chokepoints.

In an opinion piece The Times of London granted to George Robertson and Paddy Ashdown – the first a former NATO secretary general and current Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, the other a past intelligence officer and the West’s viceroy in Bosnia at the beginning of the decade who nearly reprised the role in Afghanistan two years ago – in June of 2008 which in part rued the fact that “For the first time in more than 200 years we are moving into a world not wholly dominated by the West.” [1]

In fact for the first time in half a millennium the founding members of NATO in Europe and North America are confronted with a planet not largely or entirely under their control.

With the elimination of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its network of allies around the world a generation ago, the prospect of the West reestablishing uncontested worldwide domination appeared a more viable option than it had at any time since the First World War.

Much as the British Empire had done earlier in positioning its navy and its military outposts overlooking maritime access points to monitor and control vital shipping lanes and to block adversaries’ transit of military personnel and materiel, the West now collectively envisions regaining lost advantages and gaining new ones in areas of the world previously inaccessible to its military penetration.

Southeast Asia is one such case. Divided during the colonial epoch between Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain (with the U.S. supplanting the last-named in the Philippines in 1898), it has a combined population of approximately 600 million, two-thirds that of the Western Hemisphere and almost three-quarters that of Europe.

The Strait of Malacca runs for 600 miles between Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore to the east and the Indonesian island of Sumatra to the west. According to the United Nations International Maritime Organization, at least  50,000 ships pass through the strait annually, transporting 30 percent of the goods traded in the world including oil from the Persian Gulf to major East Asian nations like China, Japan and South Korea. As many as 20 million barrels of oil a day pass through the Strait of Malacca, an amount that will only increase with the further advance of the Asian Century.

When the U.S. went to war against Iraq in 1991, notwithstanding claims concerning Kuwait’s territorial integrity and fictitious accusations of infants being torn from incubators in the country’s capital, one of the major objectives was to demonstrate to a new unipolar world that Washington had its hand on the global oil spigot. That it controlled the flow of Persian Gulf oil north and west to Europe and east to Asia, especially to the four nations that import the most oil next to the United States: Japan, China, South Korea and India. The first three receive Persian Gulf oil primarily by tankers passing through the Strait of Malacca.

The U.S. Department of Energy has provided a comprehensive yet concise blueprint for the Pentagon to act on:

“Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes. They are a critical part of global energy security due to the high volume of oil traded through their narrow straits. The Strait of Hormuz leading out of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Malacca linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans are two of the world’s most strategic chokepoints. Other important passages include: Bab el-Mandab which connects the Arabian Sea with the Red Sea; the Panama Canal and the Panama Pipeline connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; the Suez Canal and the Sumed Pipeline linking the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea; and the Turkish/Bosporus Straits joining the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea region to the Mediterranean Sea.” [2]

The U.S. has moved its military into the Black Sea and Central Asia as well as into the Persian Gulf, and two years ago the Pentagon inaugurated U.S. Africa Command primarily to secure oil supplies and transport in Africa’s Gulf of Guinea and in the Horn of Africa.

The Strait of Malacca is the main channel connecting the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. On its southeastern end it flows into the South China Sea where the natural resource-rich Paracel and Spratly island groups are contested between China on the one hand and several members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on the other. The Spratly Islands are claimed in part by ASEAN member states Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam as well as Taiwan. The Paracel Islands were seized by China in a naval battle with South Vietnam in 1974.

The U.S. deployed the USS George Washington nuclear-powered supercarrier and the USS John S. McCain destroyer to the South China Sea in August for the first joint military exercise ever conducted by the U.S. and (unified) Vietnam, three weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said while attending the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in the Vietnamese capital that “The United States…has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea,” adding “The United States is a Pacific nation, and we are committed to being an active partner with ASEAN.”

Clinton’s trip to Hanoi was preceded by visits to the capitals of Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Korea, all three Asian nations solidly in the U.S. military orbit. While in the last country she traveled to the Demilitarized Zone separating South from North Korea with Pentagon chief Robert Gates, in the first such joint visit by U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the start of the Korean War (which led to war with China within three months).

Four days after Clinton left Seoul the U.S. launched the Invincible Spirit joint war games in the East Sea/Sea of Japan with South Korea, the following month the latest of annual Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercises with 30,000 American and 56,000 South Korean troops, and in September anti-submarine drills in the Yellow Sea. [3]

Reflecting on Clinton’s statements at July’s ASEAN summit, Malaysian-based journalist and analyst Kazi Mahmoud wrote:

“Washington is using the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional group for a bigger military purpose and this strategy is becoming clear to observers due to the U.S. push for greater influence in Asia.

By reaching out to nations like Vietnam, Laos and even Myanmar (Burma) as it has lately – ASEAN consists of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam – “The United States is fomenting a long-term strategy to contain both China and Russia in Southeast Asia….Before the Afghan war, the Americans could count on Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia along with Brunei in the region. Today the U.S. has Vietnam and Cambodia on its side.” (In July U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Army Pacific led the Angkor Sentinel 2010 multinational exercises in Cambodia.)

Furthermore, Washington’s recruitment of ASEAN nations, initially over territorial disputes with China, will lead to “turn[ing] ASEAN into
a…military corps to fight for American causes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen
and surely Georgia and North Korea….Once the U.S. has achieved such goals, it will control the Malacca Straits and the seaways of the region.” [4]

Non-ASEAN nations Taiwan, with which the U.S. formalized a $6.4 billion arms deal earlier this year [5], is involved in a Spratly Islands territorial dispute with China and Japan is at loggerheads with China over what it calls the Senkaku Islands and China the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.

On October 11 U.S. Defense Secretary Gates met with Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa at the ASEAN defense ministers’ meeting in Hanoi, and the “defense chiefs agreed in their talks…that their countries will jointly respond in line with a bilateral security pact toward stability in areas in the East China Sea covering the Senkaku Islands that came into the spotlight in disputes between Japan and China….” [6]

The pact in question is the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States signed in 1960, comparable to mutual military assistance arrangements the Pentagon has with Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand in the Asia-Pacific region. “It is also developing a strong strategic relationship with Vietnam, of all places. It is also working hard on Indonesia and Malaysia, both of which have indicated they want to get closer to Washington.” [7]

During the Shangri-La Dialogue defense ministers’ meeting in Singapore this June Gates stated: “My government’s overriding obligation to allies, partners and the region is to reaffirm America’s security commitments in the region.” [8]

Singapore and, since July, Malaysia are official Troop Contributing Countries for NATO’s war in Afghanistan. In June Malaysia and Thailand joined this year’s version of the annual U.S.-led Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises, the largest in the world (with 20,000 troops, 34 ships, five submarines and over 100 aircraft this year), hosted by the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. RIMPAC 2010 marked the two Southeast Asian nations’ first participation in the war games. Other nations involved were the U.S., Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and South Korea.

In addition to occupying Afghanistan with 152,000 U.S. and NATO troops, building an Afghan army and air force under the West’s command, and integrating Pakistan in joint commissions with the U.S. and NATO [9], Washington is also consolidating a strategic military partnership with India. Last October the U.S. Army participated in the latest and largest of Yudh Abhyas (training for war) war games held since 2004 with its Indian counterpart. Exercise Yudh Abhyas 2009 featured 1,000 troops, the U.S.’s Javelin anti-tank missile system and the first deployment of American Stryker armored combat vehicles outside the Afghan and Iraqi war theaters. [10]

The U.S. has also been holding annual naval exercises codenamed Malabar with the world’s second most populous country and in the past four years has broadened them into a multinational format with the inclusion of Canada, Australia, Japan and Singapore.

Malabar 2007 was conducted in the Bay of Bengal, immediately north of the Strait of Malacca, and included 25 warships from five nations: The U.S., India, Australia, Japan and Singapore.

This September 28 India and Japan held their first army-to-army talks in New Delhi which “aimed at reviewing the present status of engagements, military cooperation and military security issues….” Japan thus became the ninth country with which the Indian Army has a bilateral dialogue, joining the U.S., Britain, France, Australia, Bangladesh, Israel, Malaysia and Singapore. At the same time the Indian Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Naik, was on a “three-day goodwill visit” to Japan to meet with his Japanese counterpart, Air Self-Defense Force chief of staff General Kenichiro Hokazono. [11]

On October 14 the Pentagon launched the latest bilateral Amphibious Landing Exercise (PHIBLEX) and Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) in the Philippines, with over 3,000 U.S. troops and six ships and aircraft involved.

If a recurrence of the 1974 Battle of the Paracel Islands or the 1988 Chinese-Vietnamese clash over the Spratly Islands erupts between China and other claimants, the U.S. is poised to intervene.

On October 13 South Korea for the first time hosted an exercise of the U.S.-formed Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) naval interdiction operation, launched by President George W. Bush in 2003 with initial emphasis on Asia but which in the interim has assumed a global scope. [12]

To end on October 22, it involves the participation of 14 nations including the U.S., Canada, France, Australia and Japan, which are contributing a guided missile destroyer, maritime patrol planes and anti-submarine helicopters.

Six years ago Admiral Thomas Fargo, at the time head of U.S. Pacific Command, promoted a Regional Maritime Security Initiative which was described as “grow[ing] out of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)” and designed to “deploy US marines with high-speed boats to guard the Malacca Straits….” [13] Both Indonesia and Malaysia objected to the plan to station American military forces off their coasts.

In January of 2009 NATO announced plans for the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1), part of the NATO Response Force of up to 25,000 troops designed for global missions, to engage in “a six-month deployment to the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean” and to travel “through areas such as the Strait of Malacca, Java and the South China sea, an area of the world that is not frequented by NATO fleets.” [14] The Indian Ocean, which the Pentagon divides between its Central Command, Africa Command and Pacific Command, is now also being patrolled by NATO warships. [15]

The SNMG1, which was the first NATO naval group to circumnavigate the African continent two years before, was diverted to the Gulf of Aden for NATO’s Operation Allied Provider begun in April of 2009 and succeeded in August with the still active Operation Ocean Shield. Also last April, the NATO naval group, with warships from Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, arrived in Karachi, Pakistan “to conduct a two-day joint naval exercise with the Pakistan Navy in the North Arabian Sea” [16] en route to Singapore. According to the Alliance, “The deployment of warships in South East Asia demonstrates the high value NATO places on its relationship with other partners across the globe….” [17]

Just as the U.S. has reactivated Cold War-era military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region in the first decade of this century, [18] so have its main NATO allies.

Shortly after Washington deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln nuclear-powered supercarrier with “F/A-18C Hornet, F/A-18E/F super Hornet, C-2A Greyhound, MH-60R Seahawk and MH-60S Seahawk helicopters and other fighter jets” [19] to the Port Klang Cruise Centre in Malaysia this month, the defense ministers of the United Kingdom-initiated Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) collective – whose members are Britain, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore – met in the capital of Singapore for the 13th FPDA Defence Chiefs’ Conference.

“The Defence Chiefs…issued the FPDA Exercise Concept Directive during the conference.

“The directive aims to guide the development of future FPDA exercises and activities to strengthen interoperability and interactions between the armed forces of the five member countries.

“It also aims to further enhance the FPDA’s capacity in conducting conventional and non-conventional operations….” [20] The five defense chiefs then left Singapore to attend the opening ceremony of Exercise Bersama Padu 2010 at the Butterworth Airbase in the Malaysian state of Penang on October 15.

The military exercise continues to October 29 and includes “13 ships and 63 aircraft from the five FPDA countries working together in a multi-threat environment.” [21]

The FPDA was set up in 1971, at the height of the Cold War, and along with similar military groups – NATO most prominently – has not only continued but expanded in the post-Cold War period.

According to the Australian Department of Defence, Bersama Padu 2010, “is a three-week exercise [commenced on October 11] designed to enhance regional security in the area.

“The exercise, which is part of the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA), will take place at various locations across the Malaysian Peninsula as well as the South China Sea.” It includes four Australian warships and eight F/A-18   multirole fighter jets. Australian Lieutenant General Mark Evans, Chief of Joint Operations, said “the FPDA countries shared a common interest in the security and stability of the region, and the exercise would enhance the interoperability of the combined air, ground and naval forces of member nations.” [22]

All five FPDA members are engaged in NATO’s war in Afghanistan as part of a historically unprecedented exercise in warfighting interoperability with some 45 other nations. Britain has the second largest amount of troops assigned to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, an estimated 9,500, and Australia the most of any non-NATO member state, 1,550. [23]

Afghanistan is the training ground for a global expeditionary NATO. And for a rapidly emerging Asian NATO, one which is being prepared to confront China in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Notes

1) The Times, June 12, 2008
2) U.S. Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/world_oil_transit_chokepoints/background.html
3) U.S.-China Conflict: From War Of Words To Talk Of War, Part I
Stop NATO, August 15, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/u-s-china-conflict-from-war-of-words-to-talk-of-war-part-i
Part II: U.S.-China Crisis: Beyond Words To Confrontation
Stop NATO, August 17, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/part-ii-u-s-china-crisis-beyond-words-toward-confrontation
4) Kazi Mahmood, U.S. Using ASEAN To Weaken China
World Future Online, August 13, 2010
5) U.S.-China Military Tensions Grow
Stop NATO, January 19, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/u-s-china-military-tensions-grow
6) Kyodo News, October 11, 2010
7) The Australian, August 19, 2010
8) Ibid
9) NATO Pulls Pakistan Into Its Global Network
Stop NATO, July 23, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/nato-pulls-pakistan-into-its-global-network
10) India: U.S. Completes Global Military Structure
Stop NATO, September 10, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/india-u-s-completes-global-military-structure
11) The Hindu, September 29, 2010
12) Proliferation Security Initiative And U.S. 1,000-Ship Navy: Control Of
World’s Oceans, Prelude To War
Stop NATO, January 29, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/proliferation-security-initiative-and-us-1000-ship-navy-control-of-worlds-oceans-prelude-to-war
13) Financial Times, April 5, 2004
14) Victoria News, January 30, 2009
15) U.S., NATO Expand Afghan War To Horn Of Africa And Indian Ocean
Stop NATO, January 8, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/u-s-nato-expand-afghan-war-to-horn-of-africa-and-indian-ocean-2
16) The News International, April 27, 2009
17) Indo-Asian News Service, March 26, 2009
18) Asia: Pentagon Revives And Expands Cold War Military Blocs
Stop NATO, September 14, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/asia-pentagon-revives-and-expands-cold-war-military-blocs
U.S. Marshals Military Might To Challenge Asian Century
Stop NATO, August 21, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/u-s-marshals-military-might-to-challenge-asian-century

19) Bernama, October 8, 2010
20) Government of Singapore, October 14, 2010
21) Ibid
22) Australian Government
Department of Defence
October 11, 2010
23) Afghan War: NATO Builds History’s First Global Army
Stop NATO, August 9, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-builds-historys-first-global-army
Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rick Rozoff

© Copyright Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, 2010

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21562

The Defense Industry Daily blog wrote this about the recent auction of the Hawaii Superferry ships to MARAD:

Hawaii Superferry’s Bankruptcy = US Navy Opportunity

The two ships of the failed Hawaii Superferry venture were sold at a foreclosure auction to the Maritime Administration (MARAD) for $25 million apiece, according to the Honolulu Star Advertiser:

After filing for bankruptcy on May 30, 2009, Hawaii Superferry agreed to turn over the ships to the Maritime Administration.

The agency had provided two loan guarantees totaling roughly $140 million to help finance the $190 million construction cost of the two ships. The agency paid its roughly $140 million obligation to investors and lenders in December, and sued to foreclose on its interest in the ships as a first-priority mortgage holder.

The agency submitted a $25 million bid for each ship at the auction conducted by the U.S. Marshals Service. No one bid higher, according to court records.

No money is transferring hands with the sale. The agency used the value of its mortgage to back up its bid for the ships. The agency could have driven bidding up to nearly $140 million in total.

Austal USA, the Alabama shipbuilder that built the vessels, and the state of Hawaii, which provided $40 million in harbor improvements, held second and third mortgages.

Austal USA was owed $23 million.

J.F. Lehman & Co., which was founded by former Navy Secretary John Lehman, was the largest private investor in the project. Lehman’s firm, which owns the shipyard that built the Superferry ships, invested $85.2 million in the business.

The Navy Times reports that the ships will most likely be used by the military:

…it was widely expected the ships would be acquired for use by the Navy, which has operated several similar ships. On April 6, 2009, during a press conference to accompany submission of the 2010 defense budget, Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that, “to improve our inter-theater lift capacity, we will increase the charter of joint high-speed vessels from two to four until our own production program begins deliveries in 2011.” The two additional vessels were widely thought to be the former Hawaii Superferries.

Navy Times also reports:

In response to queries, neither MARAD, nor the Military Sealift Command, which operates MARAD ships for the Navy, nor the Navy could say Oct. 13 exactly what use the ships would be put to under government orders.

Meanwhile, Austal USA’s JHSV program got a boost Oct. 12, when the Navy announced a total of $204.6 million in construction orders for the fourth and fifth ships. The yet-to-be-named JHSV 4 will be built for the Navy, while JHSV 5 is intended for Army use. Both ships should be delivered by the end of 2013.

Austal USA also is building its second LCS, the Coronado. The first Austal LCS, the Independence, was commissioned in January.

The company is in competition with Lockheed Martin to build as many as 51 more LCS ships. The Navy, which has put off a decision several times, expects to announce a winner before mid-December.

Initially dismissed as paranoia, activists’ concerns that the ships were ultimately for military use have turned out to be true.

The Dispatch Japan blog posted several articles that give good analysis of the state of U.S.-Japan relations related to the realignment of bases in Okinawa.  “NSC Shakeup Could Impact US-Japan Relations” provides insight into  the appointment of Tom Donilon to the position of National Security Advisor and its implications for U.S.-Japan relations.   The article describes the split within the administration between those who favor a hard line on the Futenma-Henoko military base issue (Gates, Clinton, Donilon) and those who favor a more flexible line to protect the U.S.-Japan security alliance (Campbell, Biden). Donilon’s appointment indicates that the Pentagon is dicating international policy to the Obama administration and sends a signal that tensions with Japan will worsen:

The much-anticipated announcement by President Obama October 8 that Tom Donilon will be his new national security advisor might not be the greatest of news for US-Japan relations.

Donilon has been a prominent supporter of the blinkered view that “tough love” succeeded with Japan over the past year, moving a dangerously-naïve Yukio Hatoyama out of power, and opening the door for more pragmatic leaders of the DPJ to steer US-Japan relations back on track.

With the strong backing of Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Donilon’s perspective has until recently prevented a more flexible approach to the intractable Futenma problem from emerging within the Obama administration, sending the US-Japan alliance into one of its most contentious periods in many years.

The White House has placed a virtual moratorium on high-level celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the US-Japan Security Treaty, partly out of anger, and partly out of a determination to not give any sign of pulling back from insistence that the Henoko project to replace the US Marine Air Station Futenma move forward.

Meanwhile “Campbell downplays Futenma. Is a solution in sight?” underscores the rift between the two camps.   Here’s an excerpt that speaks directly to the situation with Futenma-Henoko:

Futenma issue lives

The Obama administration has not abandoned the project to replace Futenma; Campbell said nothing to indicate otherwise.

And, while the recent skirmish between Japan and China over the disputed Senkaku islands south of Okinawa has brought the US and Japan closer together, it did not alter in any significant way the dynamics on Okinawa working almost completely against the plan for a Futenma replacement facility.

For now, the Administration appears to have ‘shelved’ the issue until early next year, with the hope that some ‘breathing space’ will allow Washington and Tokyo to focus on some really pressing alliance issues, including challenges posed by China, and then revisit Futenma in a hoped-for more amiable context.

President Obama will visit Japan in November, as scheduled, and the two sides will work hard to keep the Futenma issue from rearing its divisive head. It remains to be seen if the White House will drop its virtual moratorium on 50th anniversary celebrations of the US-Japan Security Treaty, which was signed in 1960, though sentiments seem to be moving in that direction.

In any case, most officials in Tokyo are happy with the breathing space, but have not changed their assessment that opposition on Okinawa will prove too strong to allow the project to proceed.

Thus, Futenma could still cause considerable tension, which explains the lingering, myopic White House aversion to 50th anniversary celebrations.

The November 28 race for governor of Okinawa will have a big impact on how events unfold. Land usage and other regulations give the governor authority to block the project. The incumbent, Hirokazu Nakaima, harbors sympathy for construction of a replacement facility in the Henoko area of Okinawa, but has been pressured by public opinion to endorse placement of the facility outside of Okinawa.

His challenger in the race, Yoichi Iha, is a fierce opponent of the Henoko plan.

American officials are hoping Nakaima wins, and that the time-worn tactics of using economic aid to buy off opposition on Okinawa will once again work. Officials in Tokyo are not optimistic those tactics will work, but are willing to try.

An Iha win is likely to provoke disagreement among US officials, and potentially between Washington and Tokyo. Some US officials would favor pressuring Kan to try to push through the Diet a “special measures” law that would allow the central government to overrule the Okinawan governor. Others argue that approach would only make matters worse.

Regardless, Kan is very unlikely to take such action, if only because his government would collapse if he were to try to enforce the “special measure” by deploying police to confront the demonstrators who would inevitably gather in large numbers around the construction site.

Instead, Kan would more likely argue with Washington that he needs more time, and more time, and still more time to win over Okinawan opponents. The new project would never be built, with Kan’s government all the while arguing that it was doing its best.

There is some hope on both sides that if Washington and Tokyo “fail together” to bring about construction of a Futenma replacement facility, alliance managers will be able to limit any lingering clamor. Said one high-ranking US official: “If it comes down to it, we will not allow a fight over Futenma to ruin the alliance.” But there could be another round or two of high-stakes stalemate before that stage is reached.