This editorial in the Huffington Post by a fellow at the libertarian Cato institute names the problem as empire and calls for justice for Okinawans.  Would he also back justice for Guam and Hawai’i?

>><<

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/okinawa-and-the-problems_b_512610.html

Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute

Okinawa and the Problem of Empire

A bloody military battlefield in 1945, Okinawa is the subject of an equally bitter political fight today. A majority of the prefecture’s residents want the American military to go elsewhere.

The U.S.-Japan alliance is almost 50 years old. Like most of Washington’s military relationships, the security treaty really isn’t an alliance. The treaty’s terms are simple. The U.S. agrees to defend Japan. In return, Tokyo agrees to be defended. Japan long has enjoyed the benefits of the world’s second largest economy while devoting a far smaller proportion of its resources than America to defense.

Tokyo’s international role has been circumscribed by Article 9 of the post-war Japanese constitution which formally bans creation of a military and use of force; domestic pacifism growing out of World War II; and regional fears of revived Japanese imperialism. Public concern over China’s rising military expenditures and North Korea’s ongoing nuclear program is growing, but the pace of policy change remains glacial.

In elections last August the Democratic Party of Japan ousted the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Five years ago the DPJ promised to “do away with the dependent relationship in which Japan ultimately has no alternative but to act in accordance with U.S. wishes.” But Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama quickly moderated his party’s position; the most recent platform called for a “close and equal Japan-U.S. alliance.”

Nevertheless, the new government is proving less receptive to Washington’s desires. For instance, the DPJ let expire authority to refuel U.S. and other allied ships in the Indian Ocean. Tokyo also has talked of renegotiating the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), cutting host nation support, and reconsidering the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as applied to U.S. nuclear weapons passing through Japanese territory.

Finally, there is the prefecture of Okinawa (the largest island of which also is named Okinawa).

Okinawa’s saga is long and sad. Once independent, the territory was absorbed by Imperial Japan and treated like an untrustworthy stepchild. In April and May 1945 the island suffered through one of the most brutal battles of World War II, during which roughly 100,000 Japanese soldiers and perhaps even more civilians died (estimates vary wildly). After the war the occupying U.S. military loaded the main island with bases. Okinawa was not turned back to Japan until 1972, but with only a modest U.S. military drawdown.

Today the prefecture, Japan’s smallest with just 0.6 percent of the country’s land area, hosts roughly three-quarters of American military facilities and two-thirds of American military personnel — some 27,000 personnel stationed on 14 major bases — located in Japan. U.S. operations take up about 18 percent of the main island’s territory. Although some Okinawans benefit from land rent, construction contracts, and consumer spending, for most residents the inconvenience is monumental, the limits on development costly, and the environmental consequences substantial. No surprise, the vast majority of residents want to reduce or eliminate the American presence.

The rape of a 12-year-old girl by three U.S. personnel in 1995 led to mass protests against both the SOFA (which left the accused in American custody) and the bases. A decade later the U.S. and Japanese governments agreed to move the Marines Corps Air Station at Futenma out of Ginowan to a less heavily populated area on Okinawa, and relocate 8,000 Marines (plus dependents) to Guam. Tokyo pledged to cover about $6 billion of the relocation cost.

However, Okinawa residents want to remove, not relocate the base, and Japanese taxpayers aren’t thrilled about picking up part of the moving tab. The DPJ government announced plans to revisit the 2006 agreement. The Obama administration responded by demanding that Tokyo live up to its responsibilities. More recently, U.S. officials suggested that Washington would not agree to any change that lacked local approval — which would conveniently leave Futenma unmoved. Now the Hatoyama government is holding consultations, with a decision promised for May.

Okinawa activists have brought their case to Washington and joined with interested Americans to set up a website and undertake educational activities. It’s a worthwhile effort. But the primary problem remains in Tokyo.

Today both U.S. and Japanese government officials cheerfully conspire against Okinawans. When the latter complain, Washington points to Tokyo. Tokyo points back at Washington.

But, in fact, the ultimate decision lies in Tokyo. The American military is not organized to follow the will of Okinawa residents. That is the responsibility of their own national government. If Washington is going to both defend Japan and use Japanese territory as a launch pad for intervention elsewhere, troops must be stationed somewhere, and Okinawa is centrally located.

In fact, there’s no reason for the U.S. to do either. Allies are a means to an end; the defense of America, not allies, is America’s vital interest. Sometimes protecting other nations is necessary for U.S. security, as during the Cold War. But that world disappeared long ago. Enemy threats are far fewer and allied capabilities are far greater.

True, politicians and analysts alike routinely term America’s alliances “cornerstones” and “linchpins” of U.S. security, regional stability, and world peace. In reality, today’s alliance are unnecessary at best and dangerous transmission belts of conflict and war at worst.

Consider Japan. President Barack Obama says that “America’s commitment to Japan’s security is unshakable,” but does that mean the U.S. forever must defend that nation? The 1951 military treaty committed Japan to “increasingly assume responsibility for its own defense against direct and indirect aggression.”

In fact, Tokyo is capable of defending itself. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada recently expressed doubt that “Japan on its own can face up to such risks” as China, but Tokyo needs a deterrent capability, not superiority. That is well within Japan’s means. Certainly the U.S. would be far more secure if its allies and friends created forces to discourage aggression and worked together to encourage regional stability, rather than depended on Washington.

If the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force located on Okinawa is not needed to defend Japan, then what is it for? South Korea vastly outranges the North on virtually every measure of power and can do whatever is necessary to deter North Korean adventurism. There also is much talk, offered unceasingly and uncritically, about maintaining regional stability. But what invasions, border fights, naval clashes, missile threats, and full-scale wars are the Marines preventing?

And if conflict broke out, what would the Marines do? Launch a surprise landing in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square during a war over Taiwan? Aid Indonesia, really the Javan Empire, in suppressing one or another group of secessionists? Help Thailand in a scrape with Burma triggered by the latter’s guerrilla conflict spilling over the border? America has no reason to enter conflicts which threaten neither the U.S. nor a critical ally.

Still, if the U.S. government desires to defend Japan and Japan wants to be defended, Washington inevitably must deal with the national government in Tokyo and ask for the best possible lodgings for its forces. Okinawa’s travails will always be irrelevant from the U.S. government’s standpoint. It’s up to Japan to decide on where to place foreign bases and then to work with its prefectures and towns accordingly. Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, stated the brutal truth: “local conditions come to play, but these big decisions are at the level of our central governments.”

The Japanese government prefers to blame the U.S., since most Japanese don’t want to change the status quo. Okinawans — from the smallest, poorest, and most distant prefecture — pay to host U.S. forces, leaving the rest of Japan free to enjoy the benefits while suffering little of the inconvenience. Okinawan opposition is undercut through subsidies from the central government and overridden by raw political power, since the prefecture has just a handful of seats in the national Diet. Explained Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano: “It’s not necessary to have the understanding and agreement from the local people.”

Thus, the issue of fairness to Okinawa is tied to the more basic question of Japan’s foreign policy and military posture. If Tokyo demands alliance equality, it must behave in a way that justifies being treated as an equal. Which means Japan must take over responsibility for its own defense, as well as contribute to regional and global security.

The Japanese people may decide that the threats they face are small — as, indeed, they are today. However, the future might not be so safe. Brad Glosserman of the Pacific Forum CSIS argues that “Northeast Asia, from a Japanese perspective, is a scary place.” A threatening North Korea and aggressive China are much bigger potential threats to Tokyo than to Washington.

The Japanese government needs to assess future dangers and decide on appropriate responses — without assuming that the U.S. Marines will show up to the rescue. It is Japan’s decision, but it should not be based on the presumption of American intervention. Having made its decision, then Tokyo should reconfigure its forces. Fairness suggests a major drawdown from Okinawa irrespective of whose military is protecting Japan. If the U.S. disengaged militarily, these decisions could be made without pressure from Washington.

The two countries would still have much to cooperate about, including security. Leaving responsibility for Japan’s defense with Tokyo would simply eliminate the unrealistic expectations engendered by the alliance on both sides. The governments could focus on issues of mutual interest, sharing intelligence, preparing emergency base access, and otherwise cooperating to meet international challenges.

The best way for Americans to help residents of Okinawa is to press Washington to reshape U.S. foreign policy, making it more appropriate for a republic than a pseudo-empire. With the rise of numerous prosperous allied and friendly states — most notably Japan, but also South Korea, Australia, India, and others — the U.S. should step back, prepared to deal with an aggressive hegemon should one arise but determined to avoid being dragged into routine geopolitical squabbles.

Then Tokyo could chart its own destiny, including deciding what forces to raise and where to base them. The Japanese government could no longer use American pressure as an excuse for inaction in Okinawa. Then Okinawans finally might gain justice — after 65 long years.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100323/BREAKING/100323042/Endangered+whale+birth+photos+taken+near+Navy+site

Updated at 12:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Endangered whale birth photos taken near Navy site

Associated Press

SAVANNAH, Ga. — Scientists conducting a survey for the U.S. military say they photographed an endangered right whale giving birth near where the Navy plans to establish a training range off the coast of northern Florida.

Researchers said today it’s just the second time a live birth of the critically endangered whales has been documented. Experts estimate only about 400 North Atlantic right whales still exist.

William McLellan, a University of North Carolina Wilmington research biologist, said the photos were taken Saturday during an aerial survey. His team was cataloging species in waters near a proposed range for submarine warfare training. The whale birth was outside of the proposed range.

Environmentalists say the Navy’s plans could pose a threat to right whales, which migrate to shallow waters off Georgia and Florida each winter to birth their calves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/world/asia/16afghan.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

U.S. Is Reining In Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and ROD NORDLAND

Published: March 15, 2010

KABUL, Afghanistan — Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, has brought most American Special Operations forces under his direct control for the first time, out of concern over continued civilian casualties and disorganization among units in the field.

“What happens is, sometimes at cross-purposes, you got one hand doing one thing and one hand doing the other, both trying to do the right thing but working without a good outcome,” General McChrystal said in an interview.

Critics, including Afghan officials, human rights workers and some field commanders of conventional American forces, say that Special Operations forces have been responsible for a large number of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan and operate by their own rules.

Maj. Gen. Zahir Azimi, the chief spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Defense, said that General McChrystal had told Afghan officials he was taking the action because of concern that some American units were not following his orders to make limiting civilian casualties a paramount objective.

“These special forces were not accountable to anyone in the country, but General McChrystal and we carried the burden of the guilt for the mistakes they committed,” he said. “Whenever there was some problem with the special forces we didn’t know who to go to, it was muddled and unclear who was in charge.”

General McChrystal has made reducing civilian casualties a cornerstone of his new counterinsurgency strategy, and his campaign has had some success: last year, civilian deaths attributed to the United States military were cut by 28 percent, although there were 596 civilian deaths attributed to coalition forces, according to United Nations figures. Afghan and United Nations officials blame Special Operations troops for most of those deaths.

“In most of the cases of civilian casualties, special forces are involved,” said Mohammed Iqbal Safi, head of the defense committee in the Afghan Parliament, who participated in joint United States-Afghan investigations of civilian casualties last year. “We’re always finding out they are not obeying the rules that other forces have to in Afghanistan.”

“These forces often operate with little or no accountability and exacerbate the anger and resentment felt by communities,” the Human Rights Office of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan wrote in its report on protection of civilians for 2009.

Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, General McChrystal’s deputy chief of staff for communications, cautioned against putting undue blame on Special Operations forces. Since night raids are dangerous, and most missions take place at night, most of them are carried out by the more highly trained special groups. In January, General McChrystal issued restrictions on night raids.

Admiral Smith said that General McChrystal had issued the new directive on Special Operations forces within “the last two or three weeks.” While it is being circulated for comment within the military and has not been formally announced, General McChrystal has already put it into practical effect, he said.

Only detainee operations and “very small numbers of U.S. S.O.F.,” or Special Operations forces, are exempted from the directive, Admiral Smith said. That is believed to include elite groups like the Army’s Delta Force and the Navy’s Seals.

Previously, Special Operations forces in Afghanistan often had separate chains of command to their own headquarters elsewhere. That remained true even after General McChrystal was appointed last year and consolidated the NATO and American military commands under his own control.

Three recent high profile cases of civilian casualties illustrate the concern over Special Operations forces.

On Feb. 21 in Oruzgan Province, a small Special Operations forces unit heard that a group of Taliban were heading their way and called for air support. Attack helicopters killed 27 civilians in three trucks, mistaking them for the Taliban.

Military video appeared to show the victims were civilians, and no weapons were recovered from them. “What I saw on that video would not have led me to pull the trigger,” one NATO official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in line with his department’s rules. “It was one of the worst things I’ve seen in a while.”

General McChrystal promptly apologized for the Oruzgan episode, both directly to Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, and in a videotaped statement released to local television stations.

On Feb. 12 in a village near Gardez, in Paktia Province, Afghan police special forces paired with American Special Operations forces raided a house late at night looking for two Taliban suspects, and instead killed a local police chief and a district prosecutor when they came out, armed with Kalashnikov rifles, to investigate. Three women who came to their aid, according to interviews with family members and friends, were also killed; one was a pregnant mother of 10, the other a pregnant mother of 6.

A press release from the International Security Assistance Force, as NATO’s force here is known, said at first that the three women had been discovered bound and gagged, apparently killed execution style. NATO officials now say their bodies were wrapped in traditional manner before burial. Admiral Smith said Afghan forces fired the shots in the compound.

“The regret is that two innocent males died,” Admiral Smith said. “The women, I’m not sure anyone will ever know how they died.” He added, however, “I don’t know that there are any forensics that show bullet penetrations of the women or blood from the women.” He said they showed signs of puncture and slashing wounds from a knife, and appeared to have died several hours before the arrival of the assault force. In respect for Afghan customs, autopsies are not carried out on civilian victims, he said.

Interviews with relatives and family friends give a starkly different account and described an American cover-up. They say a large number of people had gathered for a party in honor of the birth of a grandson of the owner of the house, Hajji Sharaf Udin. After most had gone to sleep, the police commander, Mr. Udin’s son, Mohammed Daoud, went out to investigate the arrival of armed men and was shot fatally.

When a second son, Mohammed Zahir, went out to talk to the Americans because he spoke some English, he too was shot and killed. The three women — Mr. Udin’s 19-year-old granddaughter, Gulalai; his 37-year-old daughter, Saleha, the mother of 10 children; and his daughter-in-law, Shirin, the mother of six — were all gunned down when they tried to help the victims, these witnesses claimed.

All the survivors interviewed insisted that Americans, who they said were not in uniform, conducted the raid and the killings, and entered the compound before Afghan forces. Among the witnesses was Sayid Mohammed Mal, vice chancellor of Gardez University, whose son’s fiancée, Gulalai, was killed. “They were killed by the Americans,” he said. “If the government doesn’t listen to us, I have 50 family members, I’ll bring them all to Gardez roundabout and we’ll pour petrol on ourselves and burn ourselves to death.”

On Dec. 26 in Kunar Province, a night raid was launched on what authorities thought was a Taliban training facility; they later discovered that they had killed all nine religious students in a residential school. Admiral Smith said United States Special Operations forces were nearby at the time, but not directly involved in the attack, which was carried out by an Afghan unit.

Admiral Smith confirmed that all three events, which took place outside of any larger battle, involved Special Operations forces. But he said that General McChrystal’s unified command initiative was not in response to those events.

He depicted General McChrystal’s new policy as a natural outgrowth of the general’s plans all along to unify his command; when he first took charge, he brought together under his control what had been separate NATO and American command structures in Afghanistan.

The NATO official said that the unified command initiative would be obeyed, though it was not universally popular. “They may not like it, they may not want to follow it, but they are going to follow it,” the official said.

Aides to General McChrystal say he has been deeply troubled by the continuing episodes of civilian casualties, including the three major ones still under investigation. “You won’t believe how focused on these issues this command is, almost more than anything else,” the NATO official said.

Mr. Safi, the Parliament member, expressed concern that with the continued exemption of some Special Operations units from the directive, the problem of civilian casualties would continue. “If they are excluded, naturally it means the same thing will happen,” he said. “If there are individuals who do not obey McChrystal, then what are they doing in this country?”

General McChrystal addressed that concern in the interview. “There are no operators in this country that I am not absolutely comfortable do exactly what I want them to do,” he said. “So I don’t have any complaints about that, particularly after the latest change.”

Tension between Special Operations and conventional commanders has often surfaced in the American military, but General McChrystal himself has a great deal of credibility in the black operations world. Before he became the top commander in Afghanistan, he was in charge of the Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and Afghanistan, which ran elite, secretive counterterrorism units, believed to include Delta Force and the Seals, hunting high-value targets.

Reporting was contributed by Sangar Rahimi in Kabul; Alissa J. Rubin in Kunar, Afghanistan; Thom Shanker in Washington; and an employee of The New York Times in Khost, Afghanistan.

http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20100315_inouye_should_heed_wind_shift_on_earmarks.html

EDITORIAL

Inouye should heed wind shift on earmarks

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Mar 15, 2010

Members of Congress use earmarks to spend federal dollars on projects in their home states, and no one is more deft in doing so than Sen. Daniel Inouye. At some point, Inouye should prepare to accept guidelines issued by President Barack Obama and supported by House members claiming the ethical high ground.

The highly political issue is receiving great attention in the House, even though earmarks consist of less than 2 percent of the federal budget. However, all House members are up for re-election in November and are trying to be seen as ethically pure. While House Democratic leaders favor banning budget earmarks to private industry, House Republicans are calling for a more sweeping ban, not limited to for-profit companies.

Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, called the announcement by the House Democrats “quizzical,” adding in a statement: “I don’t believe this policy or ceding authority to the executive branch on any spending decision is in the best interests of the Congress or the American people.”

Inouye has been effective in his effort to bring federal dollars home to Hawaii for various projects. None of his earmarks have been shown to be as outrageously wasteful as former Sen. Ted Stevens’ $223 million earmark to build a “bridge to nowhere,” linking a small Alaska town to a remote island.

Inouye, whose earmarks have concentrated on the military, especially at Hawaii bases, pointed out that they were the early source of funding for what became the Predator program, the drones used today in airstrikes in Afghanistan. If not for earmarks, he said, “we would not have the Predator today.”

Changes in the past few years have required every earmark, its sponsor and the amount and nature of the project to be made public before Congress votes on it, so present standards prevent skullduggery.

Under the House Democratic proposal, only not-for-profit institutions such as schools and colleges, state and local governments, research groups, social service centers and others remain free to receive earmarks.

Inouye said “it does not make sense to discriminate against for-profit organizations.”

As he pointed out, many nonprofit organizations have powerful lobbying operations.

However, an investigation by the nonpartisan Office of Congressional Ethics reported two weeks ago about a “widespread perception” among private-sector recipients of earmarks that giving political contributions to House members of the defense appropriations subcommittee helped them secure grants.

Hawaii’s king of pork needs to brace himself for new rules that are bound to make the task more difficult but aims to regain the public’s trust.