Network for Okinawa’s Statement on Current Situation with U.S. Base Relocation

http://closethebase.org/2010/06/14/network-for-okinawas-statement-on-current-futenma-situation/

Network for Okinawa’s Statement on Current Situation with U.S. Base Relocation

June 14, 2010

We, the Network for Okinawa, firmly oppose the Joint Statement of the U.S.-Japan Consultative Committee issued on May 28, in which the two governments confirmed their intention to build a 1,800-meter long runway (or more than one runway portions) at Henoko on Okinawa as a “replacement facility” for Futenma Air Station, and the partial relocation of training to Tokunoshima Island.

The people of Okinawa, after losing 100,000 lives, one quarter of its civilian population in the Battle of Okinawa towards the end of World War II, sacrificed much of their sovereignty, human rights, and freedom during the U.S. military occupation, and still today—38 years after the island’s reversion to Japan. Although Okinawa accounts for only 0.6% of Japanese territory, it hosts 74% of Japan’s U.S. military bases on illegally expropriated land in the prefecture.

The proposed U.S. military base goes against democratic principles, threatens the environment, and does not improve the security of Japan or the United States.

In March, Washington reiterated a pledge requiring local consent before proceeding with construction. Okinawans have opposed and blocked U.S. military expansion on their island in the name of “Futenma relocation” for the past 13 years, and their resistance at present is stronger than ever. In the Mainichi Newspaper poll conducted from May 28 to 30 in Okinawa, 84% of the residents oppose construction of a new base in Henoko. According to this poll, 91% of Okinawans want US bases in Okinawa either reduced or removed and 71% don’t think Marines are needed in Okinawa. On April 25 at the all-Okinawa rally, 90,000 Okinawans; Governor Nakaima; mayors of all the municipalities; members of the prefectural assembly; and all but one members of Parliament representing Okinawa gathered to call for the unconditional closure of Futenma Air Station and to oppose construction of a new base within Okinawa.

On May 16, 17,000 people surrounded Futenma Air Station in a human chain. Villagers have engaged in an ongoing sit-in at Henoko Beach for more than 2,200 days. Even local business leaders, many of whom would profit from base expansion, refuse to sacrifice “Okinawa’s pride, dignity and autonomy” for the economic benefits that the central government would provide to base-hosting communities.

On June 5, Japan’s new Prime Minister Naoto Kan and President Obama held their first phone conference and acknowledged their commonality as former civic activists. In the same conversation, they confirmed their commitment to follow through on the bilateral agreement to build a new base in Henoko, a decision that ignore the overwhelming civic opposition of Okinawa.

We should halt base expansion in Okinawa not only for people’s sake, but for other species and the sea as well. Henoko, where the two countries are planning to build a massive state-of-art military complex to host accident-prone Osprey helicopters, is located on Oura Bay, a unique fan-shaped bay that holds complex and rich ecosystems – those of wetland, sea grass, coral reef, and mangrove that relate to each other and maintain a fragile balance. The combination of forests, rivers and oceans is important to conserving these biodiversity. It is the feeding area of diverse marine animals including the dugong, an endangered marine mammal. In January 2009, a U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) had violated the National Historic Preservation Act by failing to “take account” the effects of the base construction on the dugong, as an Okinawan “natural monument” with significant cultural and historic heritage. On April 24, then Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said, “Reclaiming land in Henoko’s ocean would be an act of sacrilege against nature.”

The U.S. Marine Corps presence in Okinawa has no strategic value. The Japan-US Security Treaty does not require Japan to provide bases to U.S. Marines. Rather than protecting Japan or Okinawa, the bulk of the U.S. Marines whose home base is Okinawa are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their training in Okinawa is for a mission that has nothing to do with “protecting Japan,” as many Japanese have been led to believe. Likewise, Marines won’t serve a role that justifies the plan for a massive, environmentally and socially destructive buildup in Guam.

The Network of Okinawa calls on the U.S. president and Japanese prime minister to change the bilateral agreement; return the Futenma land to its owners; and cancel plans to build new military facilities. We urge President Obama to “uphold and extend fundamental rights and dignity” to all Asian people, including Okinawans and beyond, as he declared in the National Security Strategy of May 2010.

June 14, 2010

Network for Okinawa

New Japan Prime Minister said Okinawa should become independent

A new book by Okinawan member of Parliament and peace activist Shoukichi Kina quotes the Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan as saying Okinawa “should just become independent”.  The article below makes this seem like a ridiculous idea, but it is not far off. Okinawa was an independent Kingdom, much like Hawai’i. It was invaded and occupied by Japan and later by the U.S.  After the U.S. occupation, Okinawa ‘reverted’ to Japan., but retained most of the U.S. military bases in Japan.   Apparently, Kan believed that the U.S. bases issue was so difficult that the solution would be for Okinawa to become independent again.  Hmm. I wonder if Obama would say the same about Hawai’i…

>><<

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100616x2.html

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Kan said Okinawa should become independent state?

By JUN HONGO

Staff writer

Remarks last year by Naoto Kan on Okinawa made waves Wednesday after a book by an Upper House member from the prefecture said the new prime minister recently recommended it should become independent from Japan.

In “Okinawa no Jikoketteiken” (“Okinawa’s Right to Autonomy”), written by Democratic Party of Japan member Shokichi Kina and published May 31, Kan is quoted as saying in a conversation with Kina that issues surrounding Okinawa “are too heavy” and he would “rather not touch it.”

Kina, who heads up the Okinawa chapter of the DPJ, also claimed that Kan told him Okinawa ” should just become independent” and that negotiations to remove the U.S. bases in the prefecture “aren’t resolvable.”

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku refused Wednesday to comment on the matter, saying he hadn’t read the passages in question. He added that he couldn’t immediately confirm the circumstances in which Kan made the comments or how accurate they might have been recorded.

Relocation of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma has been a cause of distress since the DPJ took power, with locals criticizing the ruling coalition for backpedaling on its pledge to move the base out of Okinawa.

Kan, who met with Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima on Tuesday, promised to alleviate the military burden on the prefecture. But he also reiterated his intention to follow through on the deal reached with Washington last month to keep the Futenma base in Okinawa.

According to the book, Kina and Kan exchanged their opinions shortly after the DPJ came to power last September. The Okinawa native wrote in the book that such comments by the party’s key figure carries great weight, “whether he made it half-jokingly or not.”

Sengoku said he has no intention of discussing the topic with Kan, who is scheduled to make his first visit to the prefecture as prime minister on June 23 to attend a ceremony marking the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Okinawa.

NYT’s Risen Hits Back At Critics On Afghan Minerals Story, Raises More Questions

NYT’s Risen Hits Back At Critics On Afghan Minerals Story, Raises More Questions

Over the weekend, the New York Times‘s James Risen had an attention-grabbing story that touted the discovery of “nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan” said to be “far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself.”

The story was met with substantial criticism since the news of the mineral riches was not exactly new, which led many to question the convenient timing of the piece. The Atlantic‘s Marc Ambinder, for example, said it “suggest[ed] a broad and deliberate information operation designed to influence public opinion on the course of the war.”

Read More…

General David Petraeus faints during grilling over US in Afghanistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/15/general-david-petraeus-faint-afghanistan

General David Petraeus faints during grilling over US in Afghanistan

• Hearing suspended for the day as Petraeus recovers

• Dehydration, jetlag and lack of food cited as causes

Ewen MacAskill in Washington

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 June 2010 20.21 BST

America’s top commander, General David Petraeus, fainted during a congressional hearing as he was being grilled by senators sceptical about US strategy in Afghanistan.

His collapse came about an hour into the hearing as a Republican senator, John McCain, questioned him about recent setbacks. McCain stopped mid-sentence, his face frozen, as Petraeus slumped forward from his seat on to the witness table.

The hearing was suspended as Petraeus, looking dazed, was led out by army colleagues. He returned 20 minutes later, blaming not McCain’s questions but dehydration.

He told the senators he wanted to continue but the chairman of the Senate armed services committee, Carl Levin, overruled him, and postponed the hearing until tomorrow morning.

The hearing is being held against a backdrop of growing unease about the war in Afghanistan. A long-trumpeted offensive against the Taliban in Kandahar province had to be delayed until at least September, while there are fresh doubts over the loyalty to the US of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai.

Casualties have been climbing in the last few weeks, with five Nato fatalities today, three of them British. Two of the British soldiers were shot dead in Helmand province and a third died from wounds sustained in an exchange of fire on Sunday, also in Helmand.

In Congress, both McCain and his Democratic colleague, Levin, pressed Petraeus on whether it was feasible for US forces to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in July next year, the deadline set by the US president, Barack Obama.

“I am deeply concerned about our campaign in Afghanistan. Many of the key trends seem to be heading in a bad direction, perhaps even signalling a mounting crisis,” McCain said.

In the opening first hour, McCain and Levin both kept returning to the withdrawal deadline. Petraeus, 57, a four-star general who was treated last year for prostate cancer, seemed sprightly at the start of the hearing. He had returned to Washington to give evidence at the end of a week-long overseas trip and could have been suffering from jetlag or stress.

In the five minutes before he fainted, he turned pale, his eyes began to glaze over and his speech slowed down as if he had trouble gathering his thoughts. He was repeatedly sipping from a glass of water.

Reflecting opinion among politicians in Washington that there will be only a token withdrawal next year and that the US will be in Afghanistan for years to come, Levin asked Petraeus if he fully supported Obama’s deadline. Petraeus, who had earlier in the hearing qualified the deadline, saying it would be based on conditions on the ground, hesitated for what seemed like an embarrassingly long time. He finally said the military had to be careful with timelines.

Levin asked him if that was a qualified yes, a qualified no or a non-answer. Petraeus said it was a qualified yes.

McCain questioned him about an Afghan intelligence chief liked by the US but sacked by Karzai last week who claimed Karzai was losing faith in the US and planned to shift his loyalty to the Taliban. It was about then that Petraeus collapsed. After being escorted out, Levin, McCain and other senators milled around their desks. Levin made a brief announcement to say Petraeus was recovering: “He’s eating. He probably didn’t have enough water to drink coming in here this morning.”

Petraeus returned shortly afterwards to applause, shook hands with the senators and resumed his seat. “I was feeling a bit light-headed there,” he said. “It was not senator McCain’s questions. I just got dehydrated.”

Temperatures in Washington in the last few days have reached over 32C (90F), added to which Petraeus said he had not had breakfast that morning. His spokesman, Colonel Erik Gunhus, added jet lag to the list of possible explanations.

Petraeus, who is credited in the US with having turned the war around in Iraq, is being touted by supporters as a potential Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential race. Petraeus has denied he is planning to stand.

Question marks over candidates’ health have ruled out would-be candidates in the past.

U.S. military identifies vast mineral riches in Afghanistan

Echoes of the science fiction film Avatar, the U.S. military has located mineral riches in the ground in Afghanistan.    Were the minerals a factor driving the war?   Why is the U.S. military even doing mineral prospecting in Afghanistan? The NYT article says that the size of the deposits are valued at a $1 trillion, the cost of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afghanistan’s mining law was designed with help from the World Bank, to help make the resources available to foreign investors and exploiters, no doubt.  It also seems that the U.S. is trying to head off China as a competitor for these resources.   Or will tribal leaders fight the Afghan national government over control of these resources?

>><<

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan

By JAMES RISEN

Published: June 13, 2010

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The New York Times
June 14, 2010

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.

“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.

So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.

Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.

“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.

Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.”

With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.”

The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”

Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.

In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

“There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war,” said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.

Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.

The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.

The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.

But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.

Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.

So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.

Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.

For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.

“On the ground, it’s very, very, promising,” Mr. Medlin said. “Actually, it’s pretty amazing.”

Are beaked whales harmed by sonar in Hawai’i? “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

http://honoluluweekly.com/feature/2010/06/beak-show/

Ocean

Beak show

Hawai‘i isn’t seeing beaked whale beachings due to sonar exercises. Why not?

Christopher Pala

Jun 2, 2010

Like dolphins, beaked whales have snouts known as “beaks.”

Robin Baird, a marine mammal scientist who’s been studying Hawaii whales for 11 years, wondered why sonar used during naval exercises around Hawaii never produced a single mass stranding of beaked whales, the extreme divers of the ocean and the most vulnerable to sonar. Similar exercises by the Spanish Navy in the Canary Islands, off the coast of West Africa, have produced at least six strandings, leaving a total of 43 beaked whales dead on beaches and rocks.

In all, out of 40 mass strandings recorded since a new, more powerful sonar was introduced worldwide in the early 1960s, 28 were simultaneous with such exercises, according to a 2007 study by Lindy Weilgart of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. They killed 206 beaked whales and eight members of other species.

Baird and graduate student Meghan Faerber of the University of Wales in the United Kingdom examined the evidence. Last month, they published a paper that showed that the reason we aren’t seeing mass strandings here isn’t necessarily that the whales aren’t affected; rather, they found half a dozen reasons why we wouldn’t see the dead whales if they were. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” they wrote in the journal Marine Mammal Science.

Weilgart, in her study, noted that the fact that it has taken 30 years to discover a link between naval exercises and strandings (the first paper to do so, in the journal Nature, dates from 1991) underscores how easy it is to miss such impacts from human activities.

A whale of a creature

Whales and dolphins that have teeth and hunt other animals (as opposed to baleen whales, which scoop up plankton or schools of small fish) tend to stick to the upper 1500 feet of the water column, as do predatory fish like tiger sharks and bluefin tuna. But beaked whales, which have snouts that are called beaks, have evolved in a unique way. They developed collapsing lungs and other traits that enable them to routinely dive to 5,000 feet, where the water pressure is 1,500 pounds per square inch and not much above freezing, according to Andreas Fahlman, a marine mammal physiologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Despite their speed of 5 miles per hour, it still requires them to spend up to 90 minutes under water, though most dives last about an hour.

At that depth, the water contains so little oxygen, the main fuel of marine life, that everything moves around in slow motion. Using their bat-like clicking sonar locators (it’s pitch dark down there), they are able to scoop up squid and fish with ease without competition.

The down side: to avoid nitrogen bubbles, known as the bends, they need to come up very carefully. Autopsies of stranded whales suggest they were so disturbed by mid-range sonar during the naval exercises that they surfaced too fast, dying of the bends. “It seems they may live with nitrogen levels right at the brink of getting the bends and a small behavior change can put over the top and kill them,” Falhman adds.

Examining six cases between 1985 and 2004 in the Canary Islands, Baird and Faerber found that in most cases, juveniles were overrepresented, though not the majority of victims. “It looks like some adults tend to get used to the sonar but juveniles and some adults might panic when they hear it for the first time,” says Baird.

Explanations

Baird and Faerber listed the following reasons why we probably won’t see dead whales on our beaches anytime soon, regardless of how often the Navy uses its sonar.

• Hawaii has a lot of very aggressive tiger sharks, which prey on sick humpback whales. In the Canaries, in contrast, reports of sharks feeding on whales are rare.

• Hawaii has gentler slopes than the Canaries, so the beaked whales spend most of their time further away from the coastline than they do in the Canaries.

• Hawaii has stronger currents than the Canaries, so a sick whale is likelier to be carried out to sea.

• Hawaii, with half the coastline human population density of the Canaries, also has large swaths of coastline that are either high sea cliffs or utterly unpopulated or both, so the chances of anyone seeing a beaked whales–they average 20 feet–is more remote.

Hawaii has two groups of subspecies of beaked whales: Cuvier’s (55 individuals) and Blainville’s (120). Neither commonly ventures beyond 30 miles of the Big Island.

“It would make sense to at least ban sonar within 30 miles of the Big Island,” argues Baird. The population of Cuvier’s has fewer juveniles than normal, but it’s not clear whether either population is declining, he adds.

Farther offshore, in the 927,000 square miles that form Hawaii’s Exclusive Economic Zone, the federal government estimates that there are at least 7,000 Cuvier’s and about at least 1,200 Blainville’s. “As far as we know, most Navy exercises take place off Oahu and Kauai, and some of these whales are probably being affected,” said Baird.

A second measure the Navy could take is, at the start of exercises, to use their sonars on a low-power setting, which would allow the whales to leave or get used to the sound rather than being startled.

A third involves the Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion, which consists of 18 hydrophones covering 880 square nautical miles. “These hydrophones are going to be upgraded this year and will be able to pick up the sound beaked whales make when they use their own sonar to find food,” says Baird. “Once that’s done, if the hydrophone shows the whales are feeding in the range, the Navy could delay using their sonar until the whales have moved away, or they could use a different part of the range. These are all measures that would reduce the impact on whales without too much cost to the Navy.”

Japan’s Prime Minister resigns over broken pledge to remove U.S. military base from Okinawa

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world/asia/02japan.html?th&emc=th

Japan’s Premier Will Quit as Approval Plummets

By MARTIN FACKLER

Published: June 1, 2010

SEOUL, South Korea — Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of Japan, who swept into power last year with bold promises to revamp the country, then faltered over broken campaign pledges to remove an American base from Okinawa, announced Wednesday that he would step down.

Mr. Hatoyama faced growing pressure to quit, eight months after taking office, amid criticism that he had squandered an electoral mandate to change Japan’s sclerotic postwar political order.

Since taking office in September, he had come to be seen as an indecisive leader. This image was reinforced by his wavering and eventual backtracking on the base issue, which set off huge demonstrations on Okinawa and drove his approval ratings below 25 percent.

Calls had been rising within his Democratic Party for him to step aside before elections on July 11 that are seen as a referendum on the party’s first year in power.

“Unfortunately, the politics of the ruling party did not find reflection in the hearts of the people,” Mr. Hatoyama told an emergency meeting of Democratic lawmakers, broadcast live on television. “It is regrettable that the people were gradually unwilling to listen to us.”

Mr. Hatoyama is the fourth Japanese prime minister to resign in four years, which is likely to renew soul-searching about Japan’s inability to produce an effective leader and to feed concerns that political paralysis is preventing Japan from reversing a nearly two-decade-long economic decline. Mr. Hatoyama, who was teary-eyed as he announced his departure, was also following the common Japanese practice of leaders’ resigning to take responsibility for failure.

His resignation will not force a change in government, because the Democrats still hold a commanding majority in Parliament’s Lower House, which chooses the prime minister. But it will be a damaging blow to a party that had taken power in a landslide election victory that ended more than a half-century of nearly unbroken one-party control.

Mr. Hatoyama took power with vows to challenge the bureaucracy’s grip on postwar governing and revive Japan’s economy. Instead, his inexperienced government appeared to become consumed by the issue of the Okinawa base and a series of investigations into the political financing of Mr. Hatoyama and his backer in the party, Ichiro Ozawa.

Mr. Hatoyama said Wednesday that Mr. Ozawa, the Democratic Party’s secretary general and its shadowy power broker, would also resign. Japan’s public broadcaster, NHK, said the party would meet Friday to choose a new prime minister. Candidates include party veterans Naoto Kan, the finance minister, and Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada.

The contention over the American base, which dragged on for months, was emblematic of Mr. Hatoyama’s inability to make up his mind, or follow through on ambitious campaign promises.

The Democrats failed to deliver on a number of pledges, from eliminating highway tolls to finding enough savings from cutting waste to finance new subsidies like cash allowances for families with children. Instead, the spending ended up raising concerns that Japan’s ballooning deficit could one day lead to a Greek-style financial collapse.

Mr. Hatoyama had been expected to be a diplomatic personality who would be able to build consensus among the members of his ideologically broad party. He had appeared to be naturally suited to the job, as a political blue blood who hailed from one of Japan’s most powerful families. His grandfather had been a founding member of the Liberal Democratic Party, whose long grip on power Mr. Hatoyama’s Democrats ended last summer.

During the election campaign, he had drawn attention by pledging to end Japan’s postwar dependence on the United States, and to build closer ties with China and the rest of Asia.

M. Amedeo Tumolillo contributed reporting from New York City.

+++

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100602x1.html

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Hatoyama quits as prime minister

Futenma fiasco, funds scandals proved undoing; Ozawa also out

By JUN HONGO

Staff writer

Ending a turbulent eight months in office, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said Wednesday he will step down to take the blame for his Cabinet’s plunging approval rate, brought on by funds scandals and the row over relocating a U.S. base in Okinawa.

Hatoyama also said Democratic Party of Japan Secretary General Ichiro Ozawa, embroiled in a shady transfer of political funds, will step down from the party’s No. 2 post.

“I apologize for the amount of confusion caused,” Hatoyama told a general meeting of DPJ lawmakers held at the Diet. “I thank you all for letting me lead (the administration) for the duration of eight months. I hope you will be able to create a new DPJ and a new government,” he said.

DPJ members from both chambers of the Diet are scheduled to choose the party’s new leader at a meeting Friday. The DPJ’s new head will be elected prime minister the same day at the Diet, where the party holds a comfortable majority in the Lower House.

Ozawa reportedly said the new Cabinet will probably be formed Monday and he “regrets” he couldn’t fulfill his duty to support Hatoyama.

Despite the slide in the opinion polls to less than 20 percent, Hatoyama was widely expected to remain in his post with only two weeks left in the ongoing Diet session and about a month until a crucial Upper House election.

But during the surprising farewell speech Wednesday, Hatoyama pointed to two blunders that continued to cloud his administration.

“First is the issue over Futenma’s relocation,” Hatoyama said, apologizing for his unsuccessful bid to relocate U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma outside of Okinawa despite months of searching for an alternative.

Hatoyama’s decision to keep the base in Okinawa resulted in the departure of the Social Democratic Party from the ruling coalition, after SDP chief Mizuho Fukushima was sacked as consumer affairs minister for refusing to sign the Cabinet resolution on the base deal.

The prime minister reiterated the importance of keeping Futenma in Okinawa for regional security, but said he hoped Japan “will be able to provide protection for itself” in the future and free Okinawa from the burden of hosting the bases.

Hatoyama also pointed to the continued political funds scandals that dogged his party as a reason for leaving office.

“I never imagined myself” being embroiled in such a scandal, he said, touching on the unregistered donations from his mother to his political funds management body that led to the indictment of his former secretaries.

Ozawa’s case, involving irregularities related to the purchase of a plot of Tokyo land in 2004, also resulted in his aides being indicted. Ozawa quit the DPJ presidency last spring over a separate funds scandal.

In addition to Ozawa resigning his post, Hatoyama urged DPJ Lower House member Chiyomi Kobayashi, also involved in a scandal involving illegal donations, to step down as a lawmaker.

While Hatoyama in his speech highlighted the new child allowance and tuition-free high schools as his Cabinet’s achievements, DPJ members were quick to move on and look toward the party’s future.

DPJ Lower House member Hajime Ishii indicated that Deputy Prime Minister Naoto Kan is a strong contender to succeed Hatoyama, saying his party doesn’t “have much time” to look around. “There is no question that he is a candidate, since we need to make a quick decision,” the veteran lawmaker said.

But Ishii, who also serves as the DPJ’s election campaign chief, expressed concern over how Hatoyama’s resignation will affect July’s Upper House election. “I’ve always said that changing the cover of a book doesn’t have much effect” on voters, he said.

DPJ Upper House member Koji Matsui, who serves as deputy chief Cabinet secretary, said the time is now right for his party to “regain what it once had, change from within and reform itself.”

Meanwhile, other DPJ members were left in shock about Wednesday’s abrupt announcement by Hatoyama.

“I saw the breaking news alert on television, but it could be a false report,” one DPJ lawmaker said heading into the general meeting of party members. “But a plenary session of the Upper House was canceled, which is a sign that there will be a big announcement.”

Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano said Hatoyama’s decision was “extremely regrettable,” but added that the government will remain composed and fulfill its duties until a successor administration is installed.

Hirano, who served as a key figure in negotiating the relocation of the Futenma base, said he “felt a sense of responsibility” over Hatoyama’s exit.

Health minister Akira Nagatsuma also expressed regret over the development, saying any prime minister should remain on the job for a certain period to properly govern the state.

“It’s regrettable, but the party must build a strong structure,” Nagatsuma said.

Opposition parties meanwhile were swift to criticize Hatoyama’s move.

“The resignation of the prime minister is merely like changing the costumes in order to trick the public,” Liberal Democratic Party Secretary General Tadamori Oshima told reporters. Opposition parties were already moving forward to submit a no-confidence motion and a nonbinding censure motion at the Diet.

“We will seek to have the Lower House dissolved now,” Oshima said.

But following his speech at the party meeting, Hatoyama looked like a big weight had been removed from his shoulders.

+++

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060100426_pf.html

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama resigns

By Blaine Harden
Wednesday, June 2, 2010; A07

SEOUL — Having squandered a historic electoral mandate in less than a year, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama resigned Wednesday, leaving his Democratic Party of Japan without a leader before a pivotal July election.

The kingmaker of the ruling party, veteran politician Ichiro Ozawa, also quit Wednesday, after his ties to fundraising scandals had soured voters on the DPJ’s leadership. Sometimes called the “Shadow Shogun,” Ozawa was the political mastermind behind a landslide victory that last August ended nearly half a century of one-party rule in Japan, when the DPJ trounced the Liberal Democratic Party and Hatoyama took control of the government.

Hatoyama’s popularity collapsed, in large measure, because he could not make up his mind. He spent months sending contradictory signals — to Japanese voters and to the Obama administration — over where to put a noisy U.S. Marine airbase on the southern island of Okinawa.

His final decision, which came Friday, pleased the Americans, keeping the Marines and their howling helicopters on the crowded island. But it enraged Okinawans and left most Japanese voters with the impression that Hatoyama was an incompetent and vacillating leader.

“It is unfortunate that people have come gradually to not listen [to my government] and I realize that I am to blame,” Hatoyama said, in announcing his resignation at a meeting of party leaders.

Polls in recent days have shown that support for his government had fallen to 17 percent. A small party — a key to his party’s control of the upper house of parliament — abandoned Hatoyama’s ruling coalition over the weekend.

Hatoyama blamed his handling of the Okinawa issue for his failure as prime minister. But he insisted that Japan needs a strong security relationship with the United States and said that his decision to keep the U.S. base was in the country’s best interest.

“I hope you understand my pained grief that we must sustain trust between Japan and the United States,” he said, noting that the March sinking of a South Korean warship, apparently by North Korea, shows that “security has not been secured in Northeast Asia.”

At some point in the distant future, Hatoyama said, Japan will not need the security umbrella provided by the United States, nor will it have to accommodate the “burden” of hosting tens of thousands of Americans troops. But he said that “is not possible in my era” to secure regional peace without Japan’s partnership with the United States.

When his party won power last year, Hatoyama and the DPJ had insisted that Japan needed to assert more independence from the U.S. government in shaping its foreign policy. His resignation — at a time when North Korea’s unpredictable threat appears to be growing and China’s military power is expanding — suggests that a new Japanese leader will not similarly test the country’s security alliance with Washington.

Hatoyama, a wealthy man and the grandson of a former prime minister, said that his popularity and the support for his party were also undone by the issue of money. He had been linked to financial improprieties in fundraising activities by an aide.

“We strove to bring about politics that is clean,” he said. “But it turned out that I had a former secretary that had violated the law . . . I am very sorry for creating great trouble to everyone, and for forcing the public to come to terms with why the head of the clean Democratic Party of Japan was involved in such issue.”

Money in politics also led to Ozawa’s decision to quit, Hatoyama said. “Everyone knows this issue lies with Ozawa, too,” Hatoyama said. “I consulted with him and said to him, ‘I will resign, and I would like you to resign, too, to make our party clean.’ Ozawa said he understood.”

Hatoyama’s unusual frankness — especially in the murky context of Japanese politics — won a standing ovation from his audience of DPJ lawmakers, many of whom have been demanding in recent days that he quit. Political commentators were also astounded — and impressed — by the candidness of Hatoyama’s remarks.

Thanks to last year’s election win, the DPJ holds a commanding majority in the lower house of parliament, the body that chooses the prime minister and has the greatest say in controlling the government.

But analysts say that the DPJ may lose ground in the July 11 election for the upper house, which could cripple the party’s capacity to pass laws.

Hatoyama, 63, was never a natural politician. Stiff and shy, he has a doctorate in engineering from Stanford University and has said that he spent many hours there wondering what it was that made him avoid human relationships. After he entered politics in the 1980s, his faraway look, an eccentric manner and wooden style of speaking caused him to be nicknamed “the alien” by the press and even by some of his political supporters.

In announcing Tuesday that he was quitting, Hatoyama referred to his odd reputation — but suggested he was merely looking further into the future than more conventional politicians.

“People call me alien but my understanding is that I seem that way because I am talking about Japan in five, 10, 20 years,” he said.

Hatoyama won his party’s nod as prime minister because the DPJ’s longtime leader, Ozawa, had seen his popularity collapse due to questions over his fundraising activities.

In a sense, Hatoyama was a kind of placeholder for Ozawa, who continued to work in background as the party’s chief political strategist. There had been widespread speculation that at some point Ozawa might take over from Hatoyama, but that talk ended when new fundraising abuses were linked to Ozawa and his perceived electability collapsed.

Analysts and diplomats predicted that Finance Minister Naoto Kan could succeed Hatoyama. On a trip to the United States in April, Kan laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery — a visit that one senior diplomat described as a “campaign stop.”

Correspondent John Pomfret in Beijing and special correspondent Akiko Yamamoto in Tokyo contributed to this report.

Hawaiian national sues President Obama in Federal Court in Washington, D.C.

Hawaiian national sues President Obama in Federal Court in Washington, D.C.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Kane`ohe, Hawaiian Islands, June 1, 2010 – Dr. David Keanu Sai, a national of the Hawaiian Kingdom, today filed a complaint in Federal Court in Washington, D.C., against U.S. President Obama, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton, U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates, U.S. Pacific Command Commander Admiral Willard and Hawai`i Governor Lingle for violation of an 1893 Executive Agreement between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom and is seeking punitive damages of $10 million dollars for malicious indictment, prosecution and conviction of a so-called felony. The Defendants have 60 days from date of service to file an answer to the complaint.

Additional Materials and Information

Dr. Sai has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Hawai`i at Manoa specializing in international relations and public law, with particular emphasis on the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Kingdom. His doctoral dissertation is titled “The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Beginning the Transition from Occupied to Restored State.” Dr. Sai also served as lead agent in international arbitration proceedings (Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom) at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands (1999-2001); filed a Complaint with the United Nations Security Council on July 5, 2001; and has numerous articles on the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State.

In the Federal complaint filed today, Dr. Sai alleges the violation of an executive agreement entered into between Queen Lili`uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom and President Grover Cleveland of the United States in 1893, whereby Hawaiian executive power was temporarily and conditionally assigned to the President to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law throughout the Hawaiian Islands. This executive agreement, known as the Lili`uokalani assignment (January 17, 1893), was assigned under threat of war, and binds President Cleveland’s successors in office in the administration of Hawaiian Kingdom law until such time as the Hawaiian Kingdom government has been restored in accordance with a second executive agreement between the Queen and President, known as the Agreement of restoration (December 18, 1893), whereupon the executive power would be returned and the Hawaiian Kingdom would grant amnesty to those individuals who participated or supported the 1893 insurrection.

In U.S. v. Belmont (1937), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that executive agreements entered into between the President and a sovereign nation does not require ratification from the U.S. Senate to have the force and effect of a treaty; and executive agreements bind successor Presidents for their faithful execution. Other landmark cases on executive agreements are U.S. v. Pink (1942) and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi (2003). In Garamendi, the Court stated, “Specifically, the President has authority to make ‘executive agreements’ with other countries, requiring no ratification by the Senate or approval by Congress.” Dr. Sai alleges that President Barack Obama, being the successor in office to President Cleveland, is legally bound to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom until the Hawaiian Kingdom government is restored in accordance with the Agreement of restoration.

The suit was filed under Title 28, United States Code, §1350, “Alien’s action for tort,” for maliciously prosecuting and convicting Dr. Sai for complying with Hawaiian Kingdom law, whereby the prosecution and conviction were violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment; the 1907 Hague Convention, IV; and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. §1350 provides that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

In the complaint, it states that the Hawaiian Kingdom became a full member of the Universal Postal Union in 1882, and currently has treaties with Austria-Hungary (June 18, 1875), now Austria and Hungary; Belgium (October 4, 1862); Bremen (March 27, 1854) now Germany; Denmark (Oct. 19, 1846); France (September 8, 1858); French Tahiti (November 24, 1853); Germany (March 25, 1879); Great Britain (March 26, 1846); Great Britain’s New South Wales (March 10, 1874), now Australia; Hamburg (January 8, 1848), now Germany; Italy (July 22, 1863); Japan (Aug. 19, 1871, January 28, 1886); Netherlands (October 16, 1862); Portugal (May 5, 1882); Russia (June 19, 1869); Samoa (March 20, 1887); Spain (October 9, 1863); Sweden and Norway (April 5, 1855), now separate States; Switzerland (July 20, 1864); and the United States of America (December 20, 1849).

On July 7, 1898, the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands for military purposes by enacting a joint resolution of annexation through its Congress over protests by the Queen and political organizations representing the people of Hawai`i that was filed with the U.S. State Department in the summer of 1897, and a 21,269 signature petition protesting annexation that was also filed with the U.S. Senate on December 9, 1897 by Senator George Hoar (R-MA). On August 12, 1898, the Hawaiian Kingdom was occupied during the Spanish-American War and the Hawaiian Kingdom has since been under prolonged occupation under the guise of a U.S. territory. Presently, Hawai`i serves as headquarters for the largest U.S. Unified Combatant Command in the world, the U.S. Pacific Command, which controls 20.6% of lands (nearly 200,000 acres) throughout the islands under troop commands of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The complaint alleges that the U.S. military’s presence has been and continues to be a violation of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as a Neutral State under international law and the laws of occupation.

According to the complaint, the United States misrepresented Hawai`i to be a part of the United States since the Spanish-American War by enacting Congressional laws claiming to have annexed the Hawaiian Islands in 1898; to have established the Territory of Hawaii in 1900; and to have transformed the Territory of Hawai`i into the State of Hawai`i in 1959. The complaint alleges that these actions by the Congress are in direct violation of the 1893 executive agreements, and that the Congress has no force and effect beyond U.S. territory.

In a 1988 U.S. Department of Justice legal opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, acting Assistant Attorney General Douglas Kmiec stated, “It isŠunclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.” According to Dr. Sai, “The U.S. Congress could no more annex the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 by passing a joint resolution when it was at war with Spain, than it could annex Afghanistan today by passing a joint resolution while fighting the war on terrorism. U.S. laws do not have extraterritorial force and are limited and confined to U.S. territory. Only through a treaty of cession with the Hawaiian Kingdom could Hawai`i’s territorial sovereignty be ceded or transferred to the United States, the 1893 executive agreements and other international treaties being superseded, and only thereafter could Congressional laws be legally enforced throughout the Hawaiian Islands without violating international law.”

Among the alleged misrepresentations that the United States made to the international community:

· That the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands was lawfully ceded to the United States by a treaty of cession in 1898;

· That the international treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and other sovereign States were superseded by the United States’ treaties with those States;

· That United States laws and not Hawaiian Kingdom laws governed the Hawaiian Islands to include taxation, tariffs and duties; and

· That the Hawaiian Islands is the territory of the United States through the State of Hawai`i and not the Hawaiian Kingdom, being a sovereign State, which has been under prolonged occupation since the Spanish-American War.

Dr. Sai’s complaint alleges Obama, Clinton, Gates, Willard and Lingle with violating the Lili`uokalani assignment, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and for allowing the State of Hawai`i to have maliciously indicted, prosecuted and convicted Dr. Sai of a manufactured felony count of attempted theft of real property on March 7, 2000 for adhering to Hawaiian Kingdom laws, which by definition constitutes a “war crime” under Title 18 U.S.C. §2441(c)(1). The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, including punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution, to prevent and remedy any violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment and the international laws of occupation.

# # #

For more information about this law suit, contact:

Dr. Keanu Sai at: 808-383-6100 or email: keanu.sai@gmail.com

The sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin incident

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/

The sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin incident

May 20, 2010

By Stephen Gowans

While the South Korean government announced on May 20 that it has overwhelming evidence that one of its warships was sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine, there is, in fact, no direct link between North Korea and the sunken ship. And it seems very unlikely that North Korea had anything to do with it.

That’s not my conclusion. It’s the conclusion of Won See-hoon, director of South Korea’s National Intelligence. Won told a South Korean parliamentary committee in early April, less than two weeks after the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, sank in waters off Baengnyeong Island, that there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking. (1)

South Korea’s Defense Minister Kim Tae-young backed him up, pointing out that the Cheonan’s crew had not detected a torpedo (2), while Lee Ki-sik, head of the marine operations office at the South Korean joint chiefs of staff agreed that “No North Korean warships have been detected…(in) the waters where the accident took place.” (3)

Notice he said “accident.”

Soon after the sinking of the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted, and no torpedo had been spotted. Intelligence chief Won See-hoon, said there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking.

Defense Ministry officials added that they had not detected any North Korean submarines in the area at the time of the incident. (4) According to Lee, “We didn’t detect any movement by North Korean submarines near” the area where the Cheonan went down. (5)

When speculation persisted that the Cheonan had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo, the Defense Ministry called another press conference to reiterate “there was no unusual North Korean activities detected at the time of the disaster.” (6)

A ministry spokesman, Won Tae-jae, told reporters that “With regard to this case, no particular activities by North Korean submarines or semi-submarines…have been verified. I am saying again that there were no activities that could be directly linked to” the Cheonan’s sinking. (7)

Rear Admiral Lee, the head of the marine operations office, added that, “We closely watched the movement of the North’s vessels, including submarines and semi-submersibles, at the time of the sinking. But military did not detect any North Korean submarines near the country’s western sea border.” (8)

North Korea has vehemently denied any involvement in the sinking.

So, a North Korean submarine is now said to have fired a torpedo which sank the Cheonan, but in the immediate aftermath of the sinking the South Korean navy detected no North Korean naval vessels, including submarines, in the area. Indeed, immediately following the incident defense minister Lee ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted, and no torpedo had been spotted. (9)

The case gets weaker still.

It’s unlikely that a single torpedo could split a 1,200 ton warship in two. Baek Seung-joo, an analyst with the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis says that “If a single torpedo or floating mine causes a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine.” (10)

The Cheonan sank in shallow, rapidly running, waters, in which it’s virtually impossible for submarines to operate. “Some people are pointing the finger at North Korea,” notes Song Young-moo, a former South Korean navy chief of staff, “but anyone with knowledge about the waters where the shipwreck occurred would not draw that conclusion so easily.” (11)

Contrary to what looks like an improbable North-Korea-torpedo-hypothesis, the evidence points to the Cheonan splitting in two and sinking because it ran aground upon a reef, a real possibility given the shallow waters in which the warship was operating. According to Go Yeong-jae, the South Korean Coast Guard captain who rescued 56 of the stricken warship’s crew, he “received an order …that a naval patrol vessel had run aground in the waters 1.2 miles to the southwest of Baengnyeong Island, and that we were to move there quickly to rescue them.” (12)

Some members of South Korea’s opposition parties – which have been highly critical of the government for blaming North Korea for the disaster– “contend that the boat was sunk either by a ‘friendly fire’ torpedo during a training exercise or that it broke part while trying to get off a reef.” (13) Whatever the cause, they don’t believe the findings of the official inquiry.

So how is it that what looked like no North Korean involvement in the Cheonan’s sinking, according to the South Korean military in the days immediately following the incident, has now become, one and half months later, an open and shut case of North Korean aggression, according to government-appointed investigators?

South Korean president Lee Myung-bak is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors. His foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea.

The answer has much to do with the electoral fortunes of South Korea’s ruling Grand National Party, and the party’s need to marshal support for a tougher stance on the North. Lurking in the wings are US arms manufacturers who stand to profit if South Korean president Lee Myung-bak wins public backing for beefed up spending on sonar equipment and warships to deter a North Korean threat – all the more likely with the Cheonan incident chalked up to North Korean aggression.

Lee is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors (and by Pyongyang, as well. It’s worth mentioning that North Korea supports a policy of peace and cooperation. South Korea, under its hawkish president, does not.) Fabricating a case against the North serves Lee in a number of ways. If voters in the South can be persuaded that the North is indeed a menace – and it looks like this is exactly what is happening – Lee’s hawkish policies will be embraced as the right ones for present circumstances. This will prove immeasurably helpful in upcoming mayoral and gubernatorial elections in June.

What’s more, Lee’s foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea. When he took office in February 2008, he set about reversing a 10-year-old policy of unconditional aid to the North. He has also refused to move ahead on cross-border economic projects. (14) Lee’s goal, as Selig Harrison, the US establishment’s foremost liberal expert on Korea describes it, is to “once again [seek] the collapse of the North and its absorption by the South.” (15) Forcing the collapse of North Korea was the main policy of past right-wing and military governments to which Lee’s government is historically linked. The claim that the sinking of the Cheonan is due to an unprovoked North Korean torpedo attack makes it easier for Lee to drum up support for his confrontational stance.

But it does more than that. It also helps Lee move ahead with his goal of re-unifying the Korean peninsula by engineering the collapse of the North. Lee has used the Cheonan incident to: cut off trade with the North; block the North’s use of the South’s shipping lanes; argue for stepped up international sanctions against Pyongyang; call for the beefing up of the South’s military; and issue a virtual declaration of war, branding North Korea the South’s principal foe and announcing that “It is now time for the North Korean regime to change.” (16) Seoul already spends $20 billion per year on its armed forces, almost three times more than the $7 billion Pyongyang allocates to military spending. South Korea has one of the most miserly social welfare systems in the industrialized world, in part because it spends so much on defense. (17) Only 28 percent of the South’s working population is covered by a government pension plan, a state of affairs that has given rise to “’silver’ job fairs, established to find jobs for people aged 60 and over.” (18) Even so, the South’s military spending as a percentage of its GDP is a drop in the bucket compared to the North’s. With a smaller economy, North Korea struggles (and fails) to keep up with its more formidably armed neighbor, channeling a crushingly large percentage of its GDP into defense. It is caught in a difficult bind in which it not only has to defend its borders against South Korea, but against the 30,000 US troops stationed on the Korean peninsula and twice as many more in nearby Japan. By expanding the South’s military budget, and using the Cheonan affair to put the country on a virtual war footing, Lee forces the North to either divert even more of its limited resources to its military – a reaction which will ratchet up the misery factor inside the North as guns take even more of a precedence over butter – or leave itself inadequately equipped to defend itself.

This meshes well with calls from the RAND Corporation for South Korea to buy sensors to detect North Korean submarines and more warships to intercept North Korean naval vessels. (19) An unequivocal US-lackey – protesters have called the security perimeter around Lee’s office “the U.S. state of South Korea” (20) – Lee would be pleased to hand US corporations fat contracts to furnish the South Korean military with more hardware. Lee’s right-wing party and US military contractors win, while North Koreans and the bulk of Koreans of the south are sacrificed on the altar of South Korean militarism.

The United States, too, has motivations to fabricate a case against North Korea. One is to justify the continued presence, 65 years after the end of WWII, of US troops on Japanese soil. Many Japanese bristle at what is effectively a permanent occupation of their country by more than a token contingent of US troops. There are 60,000 US soldiers, airmen and sailors in Japan. Washington, and the Japanese government – which, when it isn’t willingly collaborating with its own occupiers, is forced into submission by the considerable leverage Washington exercises — justifies the US troop presence through the sheer sophistry of presenting North Korea as an ongoing threat. The claim that North Korea sunk the Cheonan in an unprovoked attack strengthens Washington’s case for occupation. Not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has seized on the Cheonan incident to underline “the importance of the America-Japanese alliance, and the presence of American troops on Japanese soil.” (21)

Given these political realities, it comes as no surprise that from the start members of Lee’s party blamed the sinking of the Cheonan on a North Korean torpedo, (22) just as members of the Bush administration immediately blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, and then proceeded to look for evidence to substantiate their case, in the hopes of justifying an already planned invasion. (Later, the Bush administration fabricated an intelligence dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons.) In fact, the reason the ministry of defense felt the need to reiterate there was no evidence of a North Korean link was the persistent speculation of GNP politicians that North Korea was the culprit. Lee himself, ever hostile to his northern neighbor, said his “intuition” told him that North Korea was to blame. (23) Today, opposition parties accuse Lee of using “red scare” tactics to garner support as the June 2 elections draw near. (24) And leaders of South Korea’s four main opposition parties, as well as a number of civil groups, have issued a joint statement denouncing the government’s findings as untrustworthy. Woo Sang-ho, a spokesman for South Korea’s Democratic Party has called the probe results “insufficient proof and questioned whether the North was involved at all.” (25)

Lee announced, even before the inquiry rendered its findings, that a task force will be launched to overhaul the national security system and bulk up the military to prepare itself for threats from North Korea. (26) He even prepared a package of sanctions against the North in the event the inquiry confirmed what his intuition told him. (27) No wonder civil society groups denounced the inquiry’s findings, arguing that “The probe started after the conclusions had already been drawn.” (28)

Jung Sung-ki, a staff reporter for The Korean Times, has raised a number of questions about the inquiry’s findings. The inquiry concluded that “two North Korean submarines, one 300-ton Sango class and the other 130-ton Yeono class, were involved in the attack. Under the cover of the Sango class, the midget Yeono class submarine approached the Cheonan and launched the CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea.” But “’Sango class submarines…do not have an advanced system to guide homing weapons,’ an expert at a missile manufacturer told The Korea Times on condition of anonymity. ‘If a smaller class submarine was involved, there is a bigger question mark.’” (29)

“Rear Adm. Moon Byung-ok, spokesman for [the official inquiry] told reporters, ‘We confirmed that two submarines left their base two or three days prior to the attack and returned to the port two or three days after the assault.’” But earlier “South Korean and U.S. military authorities confirmed several times that there had been no sign of North Korean infiltration in the” area in which the Cheonan went down. (30)

“In addition, Moon’s team reversed its position on whether or not there was a column of water following an air bubble effect” (caused by an underwater explosion.) “Earlier, the team said there were no sailors who had witnessed a column of water. But during [a] briefing session, the team said a soldier onshore at Baengnyeong Island witnessed ‘an approximately 100-meter-high pillar of white,’ adding that the phenomenon was consistent with a shockwave and bubble effect.” (31)

The inquiry produced a torpedo propeller recovered by fishing vessels that it said perfectly match the schematics of a North Korean torpedo. “But it seemed that the collected parts had been corroding at least for several months.” (32)

Finally, the investigators “claim the Korean word written on the driving shaft of the propeller parts was same as that seen on a North Korean torpedo discovered by the South …seven years ago.” But the “’word is not inscribed on the part but written on it,’ an analyst said, adding that “’the lettering issue is dubious.’” (33)

On August 2, 1964, the United States announced that three North Vietnamese torpedo boats had launched an unprovoked attacked on the USS Maddox, a US Navy destroyer, in the Gulf of Tonkin. The incident handed US president Lyndon Johnson the Congressional support he needed to step up military intervention in Vietnam. In 1971, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon Papers, a secret Pentagon report, revealed that the incident had been faked to provide a pretext for escalated military intervention. There had been no attack.

The Cheonan incident has all the markings of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. And as usual, the aggressor is accusing the intended victim of an unprovoked attack to justify a policy of aggression under the pretext of self-defense.

1. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010.
2. Nicole Finnemann, “The sinking of the Cheonan”, Korea Economic Institute, April 1, 2010. http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/kei/issues/2010-04-01/1.html
3. “Military leadership adding to Cheonan chaos with contradictory statements”, The Hankyoreh, March 31, 2010.
4. “Birds or North Korean midget submarine?” The Korea Times, April 16, 2010.
5. Ibid.
6. “Military plays down N.K. foul play”, The Korea Herald, April 2, 2010.
7. Ibid.
8. “No subs near Cheonan: Ministry”, JoongAng Daily, April 2, 2010.
9. Jean H. Lee, “South Korea says mine from the North may have sunk warship”, The Washington Post, March 30, 2010.
10. “What caused the Cheonan to sink?” The Chosun Ilbo, March 29, 2010.
11. Ibid.
12. “Military leadership adding to Cheonan chaos with contradictory statements”, The Hankyoreh, March 31, 2010.
13. Barbara Demick, “In South Korea, competing reactions to sinking of warship”, The Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2010.
14. Blaine Harden, “Brawl Near Koreas’ Border,” The Washington Post, December 3, 2008.
15. Selig S. Harrison, “What Seoul should do despite the Cheonan”, The Hankyoreh, May 14, 2010.
16. “Full text of President’s Lee’s national address”, The Korea Times, May 24, 2010.
17. Selig S. Harrison, “What Seoul should do despite the Cheonan”, The Hankyoreh, May 14, 2010.
18. Su-Hyun Lee, “Aging and seeking work in South Korea,” The New York Times, September 11, 2009.
19. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, The Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
20. The New York Times, June 12, 2008.
21. Mark Landler, “Clinton condemns attack on South Korean Ship”, The New York Times, May 21, 2010.
22. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010.
23. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
24. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010; Choe Sang-Hun, “South Korean sailors say blast that sank their ship came from outside vessel”, The New York Times, April 8, 2010.
25. Cho Jae-eun, “Probe satisfies some, others have doubts”, JoongAng Daily, May 21, 2010.
26. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, The Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
27. “Seoul prepares sanctions over Cheonan sinking”, The Choson Ilbo, May 13, 2010.
28. Cho Jae-eun, “Probe satisfies some, others have doubts”, JoongAng Daily, May 21, 2010.
29. Jung Sung-ki, “Questions raised about ‘smoking gun’”, The Korea Times, May 20, 2010.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.

Most of the articles cited here are posted on Tim Beal’s DPRK- North Korea website, http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/, an invaluable resource for anyone interested in Korea.

“Superferry is completely dead”

Brad Parsons, who diligently followed the Hawaii Superferry saga on his blog and did amazing detective work to discredit the Superferry business plan, expose the military transport contracts lurking behind the Superferry facade, and calculate a seasickness index for voyages, declared “Superferry is completely dead.” Here’s his post about the revocation of a Public Utilities Commission license to operate a passenger vessel in Hawaii and the pending auction of the two ships by the Maritime Administration.

>><<

http://hisuperferry.blogspot.com/search/label/Superferry%20Sayonara

Friday, May 28, 2010

Superferry Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Cancelled Yesterday‏‏

Here was how I summarized it to a friend after reviewing the following two docs. I may be simplifying it, but:

The bankruptcy representative asked the PUC to cancel the CPCN because Superferry does not have the finances to perform some of the obligations under the CPCN and this needs to be cancelled so that the bankruptcy can be completed. The PUC approved it, and closed the docket on the Superferry yesterday. So basically somebody from the private sector who might try to come in again and operate under the Superferry’s prior charter will not be able to do so (unless the PUC reverses it’s decision?). The process would have to begin again, and that was about a 2 year process with public input again. Superferry is completely dead. The ships will be auctioned by MARAD soon.

The full-text docs are:
03/10/10 Request to Surrender CPCN
05/27/10 Order Approving Voluntary Surrender of CPCN

Other related news today on this otherwise old story:

From: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100528/BREAKING01/100528052/Lingle+criticizes+Hannemann+over+Hawaii+Superferry+remarks

BREAKING NEWS/UPDATES
Updated at 5:06 p.m., Friday, May 28, 2010

“Lingle criticizes Hannemann over Hawaii Superferry remarks”

Associated Press

HONOLULU — Gov. Linda Lingle is criticizing Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mufi Hannemann over his remarks about her handling of the Superferry controversy. Hannemann, the mayor of Honolulu, contended Thursday Lingle will not allow his proposed commuter rail project to move forward while she is in office. Lingle is now reviewing the project’s environmental impact study. Hannemann said the irony is Lingle “blew the Superferry” because she didn’t want to conduct a full environmental report on the interisland vessel. Lingle said in a statement Friday that Hannemann’s comments were “misinformed and patently false.” She says the state Supreme Court blocked the Superferry in March 2009 with an unprecedented reading of state environmental law.

I say, let ’em Duke it out. I’m only hangin’ around this story long enough to find out who buys the vessels at auction and at what price. Otherwise, I’m done wit’ dis’ story…
A – L – O – H – A!