http://www.truthout.org/11050912

Tragic.    Army officer, psychiatrist kills fellow soldiers?  What’s going on?

>><<

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091105/BREAKING/91105050/1352

Updated at 12:30 p.m., Thursday, November 5, 2009

Shooters who killed 12, wounded 31 at Fort Hood are soldiers

Associated Press

FORT HOOD, Texas — The U.S. Army says 12 people have been killed and 31 wounded today in a shooting rampage on the Fort Hood Army base in Texas.

The Army says one shooter has been killed and two others apprehended and that all are U.S. soldiers.

Lt. Gen Bob Cone said at a news conference that the shooting began around 1:30 p.m. Cone says that all the casualties took place at the base’s Soldier Readiness Center where soldiers who are about to be deployed or who are returning undergo medical screening.

He says the primary shooter used two handguns in the attack.

Lt. Col. Nathan Banks said the second shooting took place at a theater on the sprawling base.

An Army spokesman said the base was locked down after the shootings.

Covering 339 square miles, Fort Hood is the largest active duty armored post in the United States. Home to about 52,000 troops as of earlier this year, the sprawling base is located halfway between Austin and Waco.

At the Soldier Readiness Center, soldiers who are about to be deployed or who are returning undergo medical screening — on average about 300-400 screened a day, Lampam said.

Lampam said a graduation ceremony for soldiers who finished college courses while deployed was going on in the auditorium at the time of the shooting.

The White House said President Barack Obama was notified of the shootings.

The base is home to nine schools — seven elementary schools and two middle schools — and all were on lockdown, said Killeen school spokesman Todd Martin.

Texas Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange said Texas Rangers and state troopers were en route to Fort Hood to help seal the perimeter of the 108,000 acre base.

Fort Hood officially opened on Sept. 18, 1942, and was named in honor of Gen. John Bell Hood. It has been continuously used for armored training and is charged with maintaining readiness for combat missions.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20091020a3.html

Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009

HOT BUTTON HENOKO

Clock ticking on base, its delicate environment

By ERIC JOHNSTON

Staff writer

Second of two parts

NAHA, Okinawa Pref. — There are many reasons why the plan to relocate U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to the shores of Camp Schwab on the Henoko Peninsula in northern Okinawa Island remains stalled.

Key among them is the debate over the environmental impact the facility would have on the surrounding air, land and sea.

Last week, Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima released his opinion on the results of a preliminary environmental study on what building the Futenma replacement facility would mean for life underneath the flight paths of the two planned runways, designed in a V pattern.

That life includes coral reef colonies in the bay that will be affected by the filled-in area off the cape to accommodate the runways and marine species in surrounding waters, particularly the endangered dugong, now the symbol of an international campaign to block construction of the facility.

Nakaima’s opinion contained strong criticism of the methodology used by the central government in carrying out the study. Nakaima also expressed support for inking a formal agreement with the U.S. that would set how low approaching aircraft can fly over surrounding communities, for ensuring that the new facility in the bay does minimal damage to the coral reefs, and for possibly establishing a dugong sanctuary.

Much of the governor’s language indicated he felt the initial environmental assessment was incomplete and had been a rush job. But Nakaima also suggested that despite his criticism he would be willing to accept the facility if his environmental concerns are addressed.

The environmental assessment of the bay around Henoko that is required before filling in the land for the two runways can start has political and environmental components.

Japan and the United States are now nervously watching the clock, as closing Futenma and relocating its aircraft operations to Henoko is the centerpiece of a broader 2006 realignment on reorganizing the U.S. forces in Japan.

The Henoko airfield is supposed to be operational by 2014. Its delay, postponement or cancellation would impact other terms of the agreement, particularly the downsizing of the Marine Corps presence in the prefecture.

While construction preparations within Camp Schwab, which will essentially be expanded out into the bay under the plan, are moving forward, there is no visible sign on the beaches or surrounding bay that work to start the landfill has begun.

The consensus in Okinawa, as well as among many Japanese and U.S. officials involved in the relocation issue, is that even if the Democratic Party of Japan-led coalition government had come to power highly supportive of the new facility, completing it by 2014 would still be a logistic impossibility. But Nakaima disagrees.

“I think there is still time to meet the 2014 deadline, but the central government has to quickly decide what to do,” Nakaima said Oct. 13.

Environmental activists have long opposed the new facility, arguing that its presence and subsequent pollution will damage the coral reefs and mangrove forests, and threaten the local dugongs and sea turtles, not to mention disrupt currents.

The activists have also warned local residents that despite earlier assurances from Tokyo and Okinawa politicians, including Nakaima, noise pollution from aircraft will be a problem.

On the eve of U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ visit to Japan, the nation’s media reported Sunday from Washington that the U.S. is now willing to consider relocating the Henoko runways farther out on the cape in an apparent effort to placate those who worry about noise pollution.

But altering the plans to fill in deeper areas of the sea raises even more questions about the effect on the marine environment, creating a whole new set of environmental, logistic and political headaches for Tokyo, Washington and Okinawa.

In 2003, environmental protesters took their cause to the United States, filing a case in San Francisco Federal Court that named the Okinawan dugong as the primary plaintiff, along with Okinawa residents and environmental conservation groups in the U.S. and Japan.

The court eventually ruled against the Pentagon, which was named as the defendant. The judge ordered the Defense Department to follow U.S. laws under the National Historic Preservation Act when it came to preparing environmental conservation measures for the Henoko facility.

The San Francisco case was notable not only for its ruling but also for bringing to light U.S. plans for the Henoko facility that include building a 214-meter-long seaport.

That revelation raised questions in Okinawa over whether the U.S. will push Japan, which is responsible for the landfill project, to build a large port to accommodate ships, turning Henoko into something other than a simple replacement facility for landlocked Futenma. In the 2006 gubernatorial election, Nakaima told voters he would not let that happen.

The demands for adjustments in the Henoko plan on the part of Nakaima because of noise pollution concerns in particular created worries in the U.S. about the operational viability of the new facility.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2010 (beginning next April). Contained within the act is a section that prohibits the secretary of defense from accepting, or authorizing any other Defense Department official to accept, a Futenma replacement facility unless the secretary certifies to Congress that the replacement facility satisfies minimal naval aviation safety requirements.

“The passage of the act puts congressional pressure on U.S. Defense Secretary Gates to force Japan to negotiate with Okinawan officials over things like overfly routes and minimum altitudes, negotiations that the central government is unlikely to undertake with any sense of urgency, and in which Nakaima has little room to compromise, given the antibase sentiment,” said one Japan-based U.S. official familiar with the report.

Often caught in the middle of the political and environmental struggles over the Futenma issue are the marines stationed in Okinawa. They face routine public complaints over the noise generated by their aircraft operations.

Lt. Col. Douglas Powell, director of the marines public affairs office at Camp Foster, said marines in Okinawa engage in 1,500 public relations activities a year. To save money, Congress also recently instituted a policy of having most U.S. service members deployed abroad, and their dependents, reside in base housing.

“The new policy will save between $30 million and $50 million annually and we’re aiming to have nearly all military personnel and their families on-base,” Powell said.

Such efforts to be good guests, as Powell said, while welcomed by large numbers of Okinawa citizens and by those businesses that benefit from the U.S. military presence, are now overshadowed by the environmental concerns over constructing the Henoko base and, by extension, the larger political question of just how large the U.S. military presence in Okinawa should be, or if there should be one at all.

The specific debates over how marine life will be affected if the Henoko base is built are a pretext to larger discussions about how U.S. Marine Corps life in Okinawa will be affected.

A good series from Japan Times giving some background on the political changes in Japan and its relevance to the Okinawa bases issue.  Part 2 will be in a separate post.

>><<

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20091019a4.html

Monday, Oct. 19, 2009

HOT BUTTON HENOKO

Opposition to Futenma move won’t go away

By ERIC JOHNSTON

Staff writer

First of Two Parts

To understand why the stalled relocation of the U.S. Marines’ Futenma air base is now arguably the most entrenched political problem facing the Japan-U.S. relationship, it’s a good idea to sit for a long time on the warm beach of Henoko in northern Okinawa.

On this beach next to Camp Schwab, where plans call for a new facility to be built on reclaimed land, a group of local residents opposed to moving Futenma’s functions here have set up a tent and are maintaining a protest vigil that has surpassed 2,000 days.

“It’s our responsibility to ensure that the Henoko bay area, which is home to coral reefs and endangered dugong, remains pristine for our grandchildren. For peace and environmental reasons, the last thing Okinawa needs is another U.S. military base, especially here,” said Hiroshi Ashitomi, cochair of a citizens’ group opposing construction of the new facility and one of the leaders of the sit-in.

The 20 to 30 protesters a day who are usually at the camp on the turquoise bay are often joined by visitors from mainland Japan and abroad. Ashitomi and the others often provide briefings to university students on the social and environmental issues related to the relocation plan, explanations of why they are opposed, and reports on what local Okinawan media are saying about the building of the new base with two runways in a V-shape, a plan the governments of Japan and the United States agreed to in 2006.

While largely a friendly, uneventful camp-out, protesters have occasionally been roused to action. One of the more dramatic incidents was a confrontation last year on the bay and underwater when Japan Coast Guard divers tried to set up cameras on the seabed.

On June 18, 2008, when coast guard boats appeared and divers began setting up cameras and other equipment on the seabed, protesters donned wet suits and air tanks, jumped into small boats and kayaks, and went out to stop them.

Video taken by the protesters shows seven divers surrounding a lone protester underwater and the physical confrontation that followed, as well as a standoff on the surface between other coast guard boats and protesters.

The confrontation fortunately ended without serious injury. But the incident galvanized local political opposition to the Henoko plan. Exactly one month later, on July 18, the prefectural assembly, which had just been captured by the Democratic Party of Japan and other parties opposed to the Futenma plan, passed a resolution calling for the replacement facility to be built outside Okinawa.

Last year, Yukio Hatoyama visited Okinawa and said that if he became prime minister he would work to have Futenma relocated outside Japan. In autumn 2008, Seiji Maehara, now minister of land, infrastructure, transport and tourism and state minister for Okinawa and Northern Territories affairs, told supporters that advisers to Barack Obama had indicated to him earlier that year they were willing to reconsider the entire 2006 agreement if Obama became president.

Such comments by Hatoyama and Maehara raised expectations among Henoko opponents that an Obama presidency and a DPJ-led government would lead to the cancellation of the relocation plan.

By June 2009, an opinion poll conducted by the local Okinawa Times and the Asahi Shimbun showed 68 percent of Okinawa residents opposed relocating Futenma within the prefecture, against only 18 percent in favor.

Survey respondents who were opposed said relocating to Henoko would not reduce the overall burden of the U.S. bases in Okinawa, which hosts 75 percent of all U.S. bases in Japan, and would destroy the marine environment.

Those who approved said relocating to Henoko would get Futenma out of crowded Ginowan, in central Okinawa, and into an area where noise and other problems would be much less of an issue. Others said that in exchange for allowing the Henoko facility to be built, Tokyo would hopefully reward Okinawa with subsidies for local economic development.

In addition to the DPJ-led coalition taking power on the national level, local political opposition to the Henoko plan was further strengthened in the Aug. 30 election when all five winning candidates from Okinawa announced they would oppose funding for the Henoko facility and negotiate with the U.S. to have Futenma relocated outside of not just Okinawa but Japan.

The changed political landscape means the only prominent politician in Okinawa still talking about relocating Futenma within the prefecture is Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima. But Nakaima finds himself surrounded by those who disagree with him and faces a tough re-election campaign in November 2010, where his opponents will likely to be more organized and better financed than they were in 2006 when Nakaima faced a split opposition and won partially by telling voters that he didn’t support the current plan.

Today, however, Nakaima is caught in a tug or war.

The combatants are those in the prefectural assembly and Tokyo who oppose a Henoko facility, the mayor and residents of Ginowan who are demanding Futenma close as early as possible, and members of his Liberal Democratic Party and base supporters.

The latter worry that if the opposition gets its way, the money the U.S. military on Okinawa contributes to the local economy in the form of employment of local residents, base land lease payments, personnel-related spending, and base-related contracts with local businesses, will dry up, leaving what is already one of Japan’s poorest prefectures even worse off.

According to the prefecture, the economic impact of the U.S. military amounts to at least $2 billion annually.

Nakaima has dealt with the pressure, and accusations that he has caved in to Tokyo and Washington, by attempting to convince Okinawans that the Henoko base agreement is a done deal.

“Relocating outside of Okinawa Prefecture would be best. But we can’t resist accepting relocation within the prefecture. However, the central government needs to come up with a plan for resolving the issue as quickly as possible,” Nakaima told reporters in Naha last Tuesday, the day he released his opinions of an environmental impact assessment report on the Henoko plan.

A decision by Tokyo, however, will not come soon despite pressure from both the Okinawans and Washington, which is viewing with increasing concern the growing political opposition in Japan not only to the Futenma relocation plan but also extension of the Maritime Self-Defense Forces refueling mission in the Indian Ocean.

On Friday, Hatoyama said a final decision on the Futenma issue is unlikely before next summer.

“I think we will need a conclusion around the midpoint of the period between the Nago mayoral election and the Okinawa gubernatorial election,” he said.

On the one hand, Hatoyama has said he wants Futenma to leave the prefecture.

On the other hand, the DPJ’s manifesto for the recent Lower House election did not specifically commit the party to carrying out his promise, merely to “review the realignment of the bases and the way they should be,” which those who oppose the Henoko plan fear gives him wiggle room to get out of his verbal promise, but those who hope that a compromise with the U.S. can be reached see as a possible way out of the current stalemate.

Publicly, the United States continues to insist that it wants to stick to the 2006 agreement and the current plans for the Henoko facility. But privately, American officials who deal with Japan and Okinawa say relocating to Henoko is so fraught with logistic problems there is no way the agreement can be carried out by 2014 even if the political opposition in Japan is somehow overcome.

Alternatives to Henoko have yet to be floated by high-ranking policymakers on either side. Years ago, there was talk among some outside policy experts about consolidating the marines now at Futenma with the adjacent Kadena air force base and relocating them farther south to Shimoji Island, where an airport with a 3,000-meter runway is located. The runway and airport are currently used primarily for commercial aviation training. But for political and operational reasons, such proposals were rejected.

Though next year marks the 50th anniversary of Japan’s security treaty with the United States, with political pressure in Okinawa and the rest of Japan on the rise to relocate the Futenma replacement facility outside Japan, highly visible celebrations and public discussion may lead to more political headaches all around for both Tokyo and Washington.

“Some in the U.S. have recently been promoting, a little too loudly, 2010 as the 50th anniversary of the security treaty. Given the current political atmosphere in Tokyo and Okinawa, this is a mistake and may further strengthen opposition in Okinawa and to the Henoko facility,” said one Japan-based U.S. government official, speaking anonymously.

In the meantime, the sit-in protest at Henoko continues. Protesters say they will take to their boats again if construction proceeds. But despite the recent political changes that appear to favor their cause, none of those camping out there are ready to declare victory.

“We’ve been here for more than 2,000 days and have heard lots of promises from politicians in Okinawa and Tokyo, none of which have panned out. While we are hopeful the Hatoyama government will eventually close Futenma and relocate it outside the prefecture, nobody expects that to happen soon,” said Ashitomi.