Photo: Reuters/ US Navy

Created: 17/05/2011

Last Updated: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:09:00 +1000

Japan has decided to put on hold $US3 billion in funding it had promised for the military expansion in Guam.

The US Navy says the suspension of funding means the bidding process for the contract, which involved establishing new headquarters for the naval base, has been suspended indefinitely.

The Managing Editor of the Marianas Business Journal, Mar-Vic Cagurangan, has told Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat the US Navy says it has not received enough bids for the contract, which has confused people in Guam.

“They were saying there were not enough companies that have bidded for the projects,” Ms Cagurangan said.

“But the local companies here say otherwise, because they have been actually very impatient over the progress of this project.”

The Asahi News published a series of articles from Wikileaks diplomatic cables that reveal Tokyo-D.C. deception & fraud re the planned “Futenma Replacement” U.S. Marine base in Okinawa.   The Network for Okinawa published a synopsis of the disclosures and links to each article in the series.

These damaging disclosures were followed by a statement by powerful U.S. Senators calling for a reworking of the plans for bases and troops realignment in East Asia. The Asahi Shimbun reports:

Three influential U.S. senators, in joint statement on May 11, called on the Pentagon to abandon plans to relocate the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to the Henoko district of Nago in Okinawa Prefecture.

The senators are Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain, R-Arizona, the ranking minority member on the committee and committee member Jim Webb, D-Virginia, who also serves as chairman of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee.

The three recommended the Pentagon consider integrating Futenma’s functions at Kadena Air Base, also in Okinawa.

The Armed Services Committee has authority over the Pentagon’s budget and the senators’ recommendations carry considerable weight. It will likely make more difficult implementation of the Japan-U.S. agreement reached in May 2010 to relocate Futenma to Nago.

Joseph Gerson made the following remarks in an email communication:

As the following article from today’s Asahi Shimbun indicates, the powers that be in the U.S. Congress have decided to pacify Okinawan public opinion – and to reinforce both the U.S. presence on Okinawa and the U.S.-Japan military alliance – by raising the white flag of surrender on Henoko/Nago, and pressing to move Futenma’s functions to Kadena Air Base, one of the largest in the world.  The Pentagon won’t click its heals immediately and follow suit, but this will probably be where the U.S. and Japanese governments eventually go.

Would that all U.S. forces were leaving Okinawa, Guam and elsewhere…

Here is the statement from Senators Webb, Levin and McCain

SENATORS LEVIN, McCAIN, WEBB CALL FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF MILITARY BASING PLANS IN EAST ASIA

Warn present realignment plans are unrealistic, unworkable and unaffordable

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), John McCain (R-AZ), and Jim Webb (D-VA) call on the Department of Defense (DoD) to re-examine plans to restructure U.S. military forces in East Asia, while providing assurances to Japan, Korea, and other countries that the United States strongly supports a continuous and vigorous U.S. presence in the region. The senators believe the current DoD realignment plans are unrealistic, unworkable, and unaffordable.

“Much has changed since the US-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation agreement was signed in 2006,” said Senator Levin. “The projected times are totally unrealistic. The significant estimated cost growth associated with some projects is simply unaffordable in today’s increasingly constrained fiscal environment. Political realities in Okinawa and Guam, as well as the enormous financial burden imposed on Japan by the devastation resulting from the disastrous March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, also must be considered.”

“The Asia-Pacific region’s growing role in the global distribution of power requires us to consistently review and update plans for the U.S. military’s role in the region,” said Senator McCain. “In addition, it’s very important to maintain strong bilateral alliances to ensure regional security and our national security interests.”

“Our country has reached a critical moment in terms of redefining our military role in East Asia,” said Senator Webb. “This moment in history requires that we clearly articulate our operational doctrine, thus reshaping the structure of our military posture in that region, particularly in Korea, Japan and Guam. The success of our relationships is guaranteed by the stability our forward-deployed military forces provide in this region and by our continuing close alliances with Japan and Korea.”

Senators Levin, McCain and Webb Propose

· Placing the realignment of the basing of U.S. military forces in South Korea on hold pending further review, and reevaluate any proposal to increase the number of family members accompanying military personnel.

· Revising the Marine Corps force realignment implementation plan for Guam to consist of a presence with a permanently-assigned headquarters element bolstered by deployed, rotating combat units that are home-based elsewhere, and consideration of off-island training sites.

· Examining the feasibility of moving Marine Corps assets at MCAS Futenma, Okinawa, to Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, rather than building an expensive replacement facility at Camp Schwab – while dispersing a part of Air Force assets now at Kadena to Andersen Air Base in Guam and/or other locations in Japan.

The proposals would save billions in taxpayer dollars, keep U.S. military forces in the region, greatly reduce the timing of sensitive political issues surrounding MCAS Futemna, and reduce the American footprint on Okinawa. The recommendations were based on proposals made by Senator Webb to the Committee and build upon the concerns expressed by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Acts for the past two years.

LETTER FROM SEN. ARMED SERVICES CHAIR LEVIN, ASIA SUBC. CHAIR WEBB TO DOD SEC. GATES LAST FRIDAY:

Dear Secretary Gates:

The purpose for this letter is to give you our observations and recommendations regarding the future U.S. defense posture and restructuring of our forces in East Asia. During the recent Senate recess, we visited Guam, Tinian, Okinawa, and Tokyo. Numerous meetings with US military commanders and diplomats, government officials, business leaders, and members of local communities allowed us to assess the current status of the planned realignment of our military forces and the political dynamics associated with them.

Our country has reached a critical moment in terms of redefining our military role in East Asia. This moment in history requires that we clearly articulate our operational doctrine, thus reshaping the structure of our military posture in that region, particularly in Korea, Japan and Guam. Importantly, it also warns against a basing policy that now seems to be driven by little more than the momentum of DOD appropriations related to construction projects, rather than an analysis of the logic that set those projects into motion. It calls upon those of us in the Congress, and especially on the Armed Services Committee, to both evaluate and become the stewards of the vital role that the United States military will play in Asia throughout the present century.

Much has changed since the US-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation agreement was signed in 2006. The projected times are totally unrealistic. The significant estimated cost growth associated with some projects is simply unaffordable in today’s increasingly constrained fiscal environment. Political realities in Okinawa and Guam, as well as the enormous financial burden imposed on Japan by the devastation resulting from the disastrous March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, also must be considered. What has not changed is that our country is the key to stability in this region. The success of our relationships is guaranteed by the stability our forward-deployed military forces provide and by our continuing close alliance with Japan.

In our view, present realignment plans are unrealistic and unworkable. They need to be carefully re-examined, while providing assurance to Japan, Korea, and other countries in East Asia that we strongly support a continuous and vigorous US presence in the region. Our observations are brief and general in nature, intended as the basis for detailed analysis by your staff.

Observations:

Korea

We are not confident that the proposed basing realignment in Korea is proceeding from an operational posture that fits our future role in Korea and the region writ large. Unlike any other “permanent” posturing of US forces abroad, our military forces in Korea are justified in terms of “local defense” – in other words, the defense of South Korea against an attack from the north. By contrast, our forces in Okinawa and Germany are considered to be available for multiple contingencies throughout their regions and beyond. This reality calls into question their size, positioning, and compatibility with the South Korean military. Thus, the credibility of our commitment to the defense of Korea should not be measured by the simple number of our troops, but by the specific missions that they perform. In that regard, we recommend a stringent review of their present missions to examine which are redundant, or capable of being performed by the South Korean military, and which are unique to the special capabilities of our own.

The ongoing construction of facilities at Camp Humphreys has been taking place through three separate funding mechanisms, only one of which seems to have been subject to careful review by the Congress. First, the South Korean government has been funding “one for one” replacement facilities for the transplacement of US bases in Seoul. Second, the US Commanding General seems to have had wide latitude in approving projects from discretionary funds under his control. And third, future projects, especially those related to the reconfiguration of combat units now on or near the DMZ, will be funded through specific appropriations and thus should receive closer scrutiny by Congress. In some respects this scrutiny is at risk because the momentum from the projects already underway threatens the ability of the Congress to properly examine issues related to the size, functioning and capabilities of US forces that were raised in the above paragraph.

Additionally, the estimated costs for relocations to Camp Humphreys are growing substantially. It is unclear how they will be distributed and whether the Republic of Korea’s share of costs is over and above its total direct financial contribution to support US troops in ways not contemplated when the relocation agreement was adopted. In today’s fiscal environment, we must achieve cost savings and identify cost avoidances in current and planned military construction projects. We recommend that the proposed restructuring of US forces in South Korea be placed on hold until the review mentioned above has taken place.

The US commander in Korea has decided that the number of American family members and civilians be dramatically increased under a process known as “tour normalization.” This process, which would convert almost all US military assignments in Korea from “deployed” status, without family members, to “accompanied” status, would drive up housing, medical, school, recreational, and other infrastructure costs. We are not convinced of the arguments that have been used to support this concept. Nor have we seen clear, measurable data that properly calculates the cost.

We question the analysis that has been used to support the decision to pursue tour normalization. There is an inherent contradiction in planning to increase the number of U.S. military family members in South Korea when there is the real potential that a destabilizing security situation in North Korea could unfold rapidly and unpredictably. We recommend that this proposal be the subject of further, careful review.

Okinawa / Guam

The issues related to downsizing the US presence on Okinawa and transferring some of these functions to Guam are militarily complex, potentially costly, and politically sensitive. The US and Japanese governments have been working for fifteen years to come up with an acceptable formula. A general framework has now been agreed upon, whereby the US will relocate many of its bases from the populous southern end of Okinawa, moving some forces to the less populous north and also rebasing 8,000 US Marines on Guam. However, a stalemate has ensued, with many in Okinawa growing intransigent and, to a lesser extent, many on Guam losing their enthusiasm.

On Okinawa, the most difficult issue regards the long-standing dilemma of relocating the US Marine Corps air facility at Futenma, now operating in a highly populated section of the island and the subject of numerous protests. The Marine Corps insists that any relocation must remain on Okinawa due to the unique air / ground partnership that is characteristic of Marine Corps operations. One option – moving Marine Corps helicopter and other functions from Futenma to nearby Kadena Air Force Base – has been opposed because it would bring increased noise levels to Kadena. Many Okinawans, including many leaders, are adamant that the facility should be relocated off-island.

The present compromise reached between the US government and the Government of Japan calls for the construction of a contiguous, partially offshore replacement facility to the far north at Camp Schwab. The US government and the GOJ seem determined to pursue this option in order to bring final closure to the debate, but it is rife with difficulties. This would be a massive, multi-billion dollar undertaking, requiring extensive landfill, destruction and relocation of many existing facilities, and in a best-case scenario, several years of effort – some estimate that the process could take as long as ten years. Moreover, the recent earthquake and tsunami around Sendai in the north of Japan is creating an enormous burden on the Japanese economy and will require years of reconstruction.

On Guam, environmental issues have not been resolved, and many community leaders are concerned that local communities and facilities would be overwhelmed by any large increase in our military presence. Their clear message is that federal money would be necessary to build up infrastructure outside of the bases in a manner commensurate with an increase in the bases themselves. Although several issues are being debated related to firing ranges on Guam and training activities on places like Tinian, the principal issue for military planners involves whether to relocate families along with the 8,000 Marines who would be assigned to that island or to configure the Marines mostly as deployed units rotating into and out of Guam from a home base such as Hawaii or Camp Pendleton. This distinction would make a strong difference in terms of infrastructure costs for schools, medical, recreational facilities, and housing. A good estimate is that 8,000 Marines would become 23,000 Americans if family members were included.

It should also be noted that Guam’s Anderson Air Force Base is a large, under-utilized facility. Mindful that B-52 missions were conducted continuously there in the 1970s, we estimate that Anderson Air Force Base is now operating at less than half of its capacity.

Recommendations.

The Marine Corps should consider revising its implementation plan for Guam to a stripped-down presence with a permanently-assigned (family accompanied) headquarters element bolstered by deployed, rotating combat units that are home-based elsewhere, and the construction of a “Camp Fuji” style training site on Tinian. The “planned” versus “preferred” options for Marine Corps presence on Guam need to be resolved so that the Navy can develop and provide to the Committee the master plan for the overall buildup on Guam that was first requested in 2006.

DOD should immediately examine the feasibility of moving the Marine Corps assets at Futenma into Kadena Air Force Base, while dispersing a percentage of Air Force assets now at Kadena into other areas of the Pacific region. A number of other options exist in Japan and, especially, Anderson Air Force Base in Guam. In addition, the 6,000-acre ammunition storage area at Kadena could potentially be down-sized, especially in light of the two ammunition storage areas already located on Guam – one of them comprising 8,000 acres in and of itself, and the other one already located on Anderson Air Force Base.

Reducing the burden of the US presence on the people of Okinawa is an important goal associated with the realignment roadmap. Relocating Marine Corps aviation assets as outlined above will allow the US to return the land at the Futenma Air Base faster and at substantially less expense than the current plan for the Replacement Facility at Camp Schwab. Additionally, it is imperative that we pursue every opportunity to avoid unnecessary and unaffordable costs to the US taxpayer. Money saved by abandoning the Camp Schwab FRF could be applied to new projects in the revised realignment plan following negotiations with the Government of Japan to formulate a new cost-sharing agreement.This option would keep our military forces in the region, would greatly reduce the timing of the sensitive political issues surrounding Futemna, could save billions in costs that would have gone into the offshore facility at Camp Schwab, would reduce the American footprint on Okinawa, and potentially could result in the return of more land to the Okinawan people if the size of the ammunition storage area at Kadena could be reduced.

We look forward to discussing these and other possibilities with you and your staff at your earliest convenience.

 

Sad news. The Kwajalein landowners in the Marshall Islands agreed to extend the U.S. missile defense base for another 50 years.  They will immediately cash in on $32 million sitting in escrow since 2003.

http://mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17966%3Armi-agrees-to-extend-us-base&catid=59%3Afrontpagenews&Itemid=109

RMI agrees to extend US base

* Islanders eye $32 million payday

(Majuro) – Eyeing a $32 million payday, Marshall Islanders ended an eight-year holdout Saturday, agreeing to extend for 50 years the United States’ use of a sophisticated anti-missile defense base in the western Pacific.

Former Marshall Islands President and paramount chief Imata Kabua, who led island landowners refusing to approve an agreement for U.S.-use of the Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll beyond 2016, on Saturday said he is ready to sign the new agreement to trigger the large payment.

Kwajalein, an atoll dotted with radar, missile tracking gear and launch pads nestled amid palm trees, has been the Pentagon’s primary site for testing missile defense technology since the early 1960s. Last month, a dummy target warhead launched from Kwajalein toward Hawaii was successfully destroyed in mid-flight by a missile launched from a U.S. Navy vessel.

But since 2003, landowners led by Kabua said the U.S. rent offer of $15 million annually was inadequate and demanded $19 million. Saturday, in the face of growing pressure from a majority of Kwajalein landowners, those holding out agreed to accept the deal as negotiated in 2003 between their government and the United States in order to gain access to a more than $32 million payday.

Landowners have repeatedly criticized the base agreement with the U.S., because they say it is doing nothing to address festering health, sanitation and utility problems on Ebeye, an overcrowded island next to the U.S. Army base headquarters where about 12,000 Marshall Islanders live in slum conditions on 80 acres (32.4 hectares) of land.

The agreement they are expected to sign on Tuesday will extend U.S. use of Kwajalein to 2066, with an option for the U.S. to renew to 2086. It also includes provisions requiring the U.S. Defense Department to provide seven-years’ notice if it wants to close the base.

“We’ve been consulting with the landowners on draft land-use agreements over the past two years to ensure they are in accordance with the military-use and operating-rights agreement (a governmental agreement approved in 2003),” said U.S. Ambassador Martha Campbell Friday in Majuro. “They’ve been steadily improving and it now looks like we’re done. Although eight years ago Kwajalein leaders vowed they would not approve the deal between the U.S. and Marshall Islands governments, this week,” Kabua said, “when (Marshall Islands) President Zedkaia is ready to sign, I will sign it with him.”

President’s office officials said Zedkaia will join landowners on Tuesday at a signing ceremony.

Motivating the landowners to drop their demands is the escalating amount of money in an escrow account, now over $32 million, waiting to be released when the landowners sign the agreement authorizing U.S. use of the military installation through 2066. The Marshall Islands constitution requires landowner approval of all leases since all land in the country is privately owned.

The current land-use agreement signed by landowners in 1986 approving U.S. use of Kwajalein expires in 2016. Under that deal, landowners have been receiving about $12 million annually in rent. The difference in rent levels was paid into escrow since 2003.

As of this week, the escrow fund stood at $32,195,821.57, said officials in the Ministry of Finance in Majuro.

Campbell said once landowners sign the agreement, she and Marshall Islands Foreign Minister John Silk will send an instruction letter to the Bank of Guam to release the more than $32 million for the landowners. This is double the annual rental payments, which are split into quarterly payments, and a quarter of the country’s annual national budget.

Confirming that a signing ceremony as announced for Tuesday should proceed as planned, Marshall Islands Attorney General Frederick Canavor Jr. on Saturday said, “We have a final land-use agreement version approved by everyone. It will secure for the Defense Department a base that is not only a key missile defense facility, but also one used for U.S. Air Force B-52 target practice, Space Shuttle tracking, and refueling for military vessels and aircraft traveling between Asia and the United States.”

Here’s another story from Radio New Zealand

When you cut off a tentacle of a he’e (octopus), the severed arm grows back.  Such is the case with the monstrous octopus of the U.S. military in the Asia-Pacific region.  With the U.S. bases in Hawai’i as the head of this he’e, its tentacles are grasping Okinawa, Guam, Korea, Japan, the Marshall Islands, and now once again the Philippines.  The Philippines People’s Power  movement forced the U.S. to close Subic Bay and Clark military bases more than a decade ago.  But the tentacles of U.S. militarism have regenerated in Mindanao under the guise of fighting terrorists, and now Senators Inouye and Cochran have visited the Philippines to explore the possibility of U.S. forces returning to Subic.  We expect that resistance will be fierce to U.S. forces returning to Subic.  But the peace and justice movements in the Pacific region will need to neutralize the head of the he’e in Hawai’i if we will have peace from America’s empire of bases.

The article below quotes former UH professor Dean Alegado:

In an earlier interview, Dean Alegado, executive director of the Association of Pacific Islands Local Government Conference, said the disaster that hit Japan “made the fate of the military build-up uncertain, to say the least.”

Alegado was once very active in progressive Philippines solidarity work in Hawai’i. He worked with the Filipino American Coalition for Environmental Solutions (FACES) which fought for the clean up of the former U.S. military bases at Clark and Subic and for just compensation for the victims of the environmental contamination.  We hope he will be vocal in opposition to the return of U.S. forces in Subic.

>><<

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110428-333354/Return_of_US_forces_to_Subic_possible

Return of US forces to Subic possible

US military build-up in Guam delayed

By Robert Gonzaga
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:18:00 04/28/2011