national

Buoys floated off Futenma replacement site in Okinawa

44 Comments
By YURI KAGEYAMA

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

44 Comments
Login to comment

"He said assessments on environmental damage were not thorough enough, and accused the government of forcing the issue."

Ummm... "forcing" an issue agreed upon more than twice officially, the first one being back in like 1996 or something? or does he mean that it's being 'forced' given that the agreement stated the movement would be back in 2005?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Notice that they did this in the small hours of the morning, long before any protestors arrived.

LDP fights dirty.

For Abe, Okinawa is a "sute-ishi," an expendable. With so many bases on this small island, in any act of aggression, Okinawa is likely to be the first place to be hit. Abe is very willing to sacrifice Okinawa for the rest of Japan. And, of course, Abe is doing his best to create antagonism in the first place.

With 74% (in a recent survey) against US bases in Okinawa, Abe has some gall to call his party "liberal" and "democratic." It is clearly neither.

What Mayor Inamine said is spot on: “Pushing forward with this tramples on the human rights of the people, and the rich diverse natural life of this region. This is no longer about democracy.”

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

I'm sorry, but somebody's sense of direction and geography is off / wrong. Nago is in the NORTHERN most part of Okinawa. You would think that something this supposedly controversial, that minute detail might not be stated incorrectly. Furthrmore, as stated above, this whole moving of the base was agreed upon more than a decade ago. Now that it's about to happen, all of a sudden it's something new. Unless you want to continue having a MAJOR Air Base smak in the middle of Ginowan, the most JAM PACKED area of the island, you need to make up your minds, or, we can of course remove ALL the bases & ALL the US Military, and everyone can start learning to speak Chinese, North Korean ( dialect ) or possibly Russian. " It's up to YOU ".

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

I'm sorry, but somebody's sense of direction and geography is off / wrong. Nago is in the NORTHERN most part of Okinawa. You would think that something this supposedly controversial, that minute detail might not be stated incorrectly. Furthermore, as stated above, this whole moving of the base was agreed upon more than a decade ago. Now that it's about to happen, all of a sudden it's something new. Unless you want to continue having a MAJOR Air Base smak in the middle of Ginowan, the most JAM PACKED area of the island, you need to make up your minds, or, we can of course remove ALL the bases & ALL the US Military, and everyone can start learning to speak Chinese, North Korean ( dialect ) or possibly Russian. " It's up to YOU ".

To the residing american in ginowan and futenma base be areful for what you wish , chinese and japanese fought together america in vietnam war due to lyndson Johnson blunder diplomacy , so behave yourself and stop being arrogant , the party is over, the base is avoiding future conflict between chinese with american , don't forget that S. Korea needs japan in the next korean war

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Bertie: " With so many bases on this small island, in any act of aggression, Okinawa is likely to be the first place to be hit. "

Chicken or egg? I'd say egg, Bertie because there's a good reason why so many US bases are there, and the same is the main reason why Okinawa would be the first area targeted in an attack -- ITS GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION! Why do you think the US also attacked their first after clearing away colonized islands?

Anyway, Bertie, while I agree with you to an extent on the LDP and Abe on the whole, how many of those people now out there protesting voted against the LDP and Nagai? I'm willing to bet the majority voted for them.

It's going to be built, Bertie, and when it's built you can bet a HUGE number of Japanese businesses will move around nearby to profit from it. And the longer they delay on the promises to build it, the longer the bases stay where they are and people can complain about the noise from the base their grandparents built around (the base didn't ask them to be there!).

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

we can of course remove ALL the bases & ALL the US Military, and everyone can start learning to speak Chinese, North Korean ( dialect ) or possibly Russian.

This is just fear propaganda, and not based in reality. The reality is that none of the countries you mention have a strong enough military to get past Japan's navy, which is the second strongest in the world, and stronger than all three of those countries combined. And since Japan is an island country, the navy is the most important division of their defense force.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

StrangerLand: I hope you are RIGHT, & I am totally WRONG ( especially since I intend to return to Okinawa before too long, and my daughter already LIVES there).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When everything is said and done, it's the price for the losing the war.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"When everything is said and done, it's the price for the losing the war."

A truly simple and simpleminded equation. I haven't heard about any Vietnamese bases in the USA, and that only ended 40 years ago, not 69.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

smithinjapan,

Whereas much you post I can agree with, I'm afraid I don't see this:

a HUGE number of Japanese businesses will move around nearby to profit from it

I don't see a HUGE number of Japanese businesses profiting from Kadena, Futenma, etc. Do you?

US bases for Okinawa in 2013 made up a mere 4% of Okinawa's total income. It's my guess that's going to be even smaller. Tourism is increasing dramatically. And the US bases stand directly in the way of this. They occupy prime land and - as I said - discourage investment.

This is one reason why so many people in Okinawa are against the bases.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This is a lot better than that sea base plan idea that was floated around in the late 90's when the call to move Futenma was first raised. I still can't believe that that was even an idea. Lets get the air facility moved and see how Okinawa uses Futenma.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Other than Real Estate Agencies and maybe Used Car Dealers I don`t think there are many local businesses making a lot of money from SOFA status personnel. Most of the towns outside of the bases like Henoko, Kin Village, Futenma and Okinawa City are in pretty bad economic shape. When I was in the Army on Okinawa from 1967 to 1968 almost all of my paycheck was spent off base but now the average military person does not spend that much off base. Between AAFES, MWR, MCCS and the Commissaries there is not much reason for a SOFA status person to spend their money off base. In fact there are probably just as many or more Japanese eating at on base facilities than there are SOFA status people eating off base.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

No one can dispute that Japan-based U.S. Marines are illegal squatters. The English version of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty vaguely states that U.S. land, air and naval forces are entitled to use bases in Japan. The Japanese version is more specific about these forces, stating explicitly that they are the Army, Air Force and Navy, thus excluding the Marines.

Note also that the Futenma Air Station that MAG-36 operates sits mostly on private lands, that were illegally confiscated in violation of Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

Thus, in every respect, the Marines in Japan (particularly in Okinawa) can be said to be illegally stationed in Japan; hence they are illegal squatters.

On what legal and moral basis, then, can Washington demand a replacement for Futenma and Tokyo give egregious benefits to these illegal squatters, by foolishly building a new base for them?

We are witnessing a comedy opening at Henoko, with Abe and his counterpart in Washington playing leading actors in this utterly unlaughable drama.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

or, we can of course remove ALL the bases & ALL the US Military

This is the best idea yet! how do we get started?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"or, we can of course remove ALL the bases & ALL the US Military

This is the best idea yet! how do we get started?"

How y'all gonna keep the Chinese out after y'all get rid of ALL the bases & ALL the U.S. military?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Japan will not be Japan without a US military base. This is the price Japan must pay for their failed attempt at. colonial rule of Asia. I hate the 'big brother' label that has been put on the US, but this is the result of the failed campaign 70 odd years ago. Suck it up Japan! You rep what you sow!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The problem on Okinawa is not the number of Military Personnel stationed here, it is the number of Military Dependents that are allowed to be here. The reason why the bases take up so much land is because of the need for Military Family Housing, Dependent Schools and Leisure Facilities for the Dependents. Okinawa should be an Unaccompanied Tour where a Military Person would be stationed without dependents, do his or her tour of duty and then rotate somewhere else. Without Military Dependents on Okinawa at least half of the land currently used by the Military could be returned for local use. Even Kadena Air Base is mostly Housing Areas and Schools and Leisure Facilities. If Okinawa is such a dangerous place with a chance of being attacked by China or North Korea at any time then why have all these dependents here in harms way. US Military bases are needed on Okinawa but the bases that are here now have too much space taken up by facilities that are not essential to performing the military mission.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

voiceofokinawaAUG. 14, 2014 - 10:53PM JST No one can dispute that Japan-based U.S. Marines are illegal squatters. The English version of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty vaguely states that U.S. land, air and naval forces are entitled to use bases in Japan. The Japanese version is more specific about these forces, stating explicitly that they are the Army, Air Force and Navy, thus excluding the Marines.

Good thing the Marine Corps is a Department of the Navy. The United States and Japan wouldn't wantany illegal squatters now would they.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't think Japan has the population or the resources to defend itself against the Chinese. Especially if it comes to retaking the Senkakus where ships alone are not sufficient. China has thousands of anti-ship missiles so they can sink the Japanese navy without taking any casualties. You need some allies and hence you need to provide at least the bare minimum for their support. Prove me wrong, I would love to hear how you will defeat the Chinese alone.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Here are some Hard Facts: What the Okinawans think about this base being built is as important as what Hawaiians think about US bases being located on "their" islands. The new base is going to be built, even if, as NHK reported, it will take upwards of 9 years to do so.

You can complain and you can support Okinawans. Fair enough. But that is really a moot point. The bilateral agreement between Japan and the US was reached more than a decade ago; NO Japanese government has ever made a statement to the contrary. Abe has pushed it forward, and now it's starting to progress into the drilling (research) stages.

Sure, you can moan about it, and Okinawans can vote in any number of anti-base governors and a myriad other elected officials into offices, but that STILL won't change a thing. (And by the way: have you been paying attention to world events lately?? In case you haven't noticed: all the hot air about American chauvinism aside, as of August 15th, 2014 (appropriately known as V-J Day in the US, look it up!) -what America wants in the world, America gets, end of story. )

With China becoming ever more belligerent towards Japan, with Okinawans contributing the least amount in national (i.e. defense) tax revenues of all Japanese prefectures while requesting government funding higher than a majority of prefectures here in Honshu, and with "mainland" Japanese far more interested in securing ALL Japanese territory from outside foreign encroachment than in listening to Okinawans' never-ending list of complaints, the conclusion is inevitable: it's going to happen!

This is a done deal.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

japan4life

Okinawa should be an Unaccompanied Tour where a Military Person would be stationed without dependents, do his or her tour of duty and then rotate somewhere else.

Way to appreciate US defenders in Japan! They don't need to bring families along, should be happy just to get paycheck!

Ideal way for USA to defend Japan, ROK, etc. would be to withdraw all defenders, then go back and clean up after China, DPRK have exhausted themselves against Japan, ROK, VN, Phillippines etc. Maybe by attacking Beijing and Pyongyang rather than revisiting fields of battle external to China and DPRK.

Same as WWII. If USA stepped in AFTER Germany invaded the British islands it would have made it a lot easier for USA.

Phillippines kicked US out of bases and now has got China building in the Spratlies.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Japan4life is correct in that most people on post do not come off post anymore- all their needs are met - unless they want someplace off base to "shack up".

even with that - from people based in Japan they still frequent the base for most of their needs.

it has been an uneasy relationship- Japan has been kept virtually defenseless by the imposed constitution- oh yes there is the defense force but that will only last a couple of days. The USA was supposed to take care of all defense for Japan- thus preventing Japan from having to become a military force again.

but that has it's price - i think the price should be a little bit negotiable in 2014

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Japan4life

The reason why the bases take up so much land is because of the need for Military Family Housing, Dependent Schools and Leisure Facilities for the Dependents.

Have you been on any of the bases? You have to have transport because it's just too far to walk between buildings. Kadena particularly is laid out as if it was in Nevada, somewhere where there is plenty of space.

Space is totally wasted on these bases. Kadena could easily function in one tenth of the space it uses.

The US military needs to relocate.

To its own territory.

There is no reason to be here. North Korea is a joke. China is not a threat. At least not in a military sense.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

How y'all gonna keep the Chinese out after y'all get rid of ALL the bases & ALL the U.S. military?

Japan is an island nation, with the second strongest navy in the world. Keeping the Chinese out is easy. They can't invade if they can't get their troops on land.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned (Aug. 14, 2014 - 11:36PM JST):

There are 88 U.S. bases all over Japan (55 in mainland Japan; 33 in Okinawa), water areas (29 in Okinawa alone: 55,327 square kilometers) and airspace (20 in Okinawa alone: 95,000 square kilometers). The U.S. side says its military presence is a necessary measure, that is, deterrence against enemies trying to attack Japan. The USFJ brass say their service members are always prepared to give their life for the defense of Japan.

Believing these words, poor Japanese taxpayers are willing not only to host these bases but also even pay Y117.5 billion annually for their operation and maintenance (the 2010 bilateral agreement). The total sum Japan has paid to the U.S. coffer for this purpose since 1978 amounts to more than $35 billion.

Disillusioned, you are very frank to admit the U.S. military presence is not for the defense of Japan at all but it is the end result of the Pearl Harbor attack 69 years ago. You say, "Suck it up Japan! You rep (reap) what you sow!" You may be right but, if so, what is this bilateral relationship all about? A sand castle?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan is only paying Y117.5B ($1.14B) US per year maintenance/operating costs for 88 bases staffed by US and you're complaining?

Why not pay 100 pct of the cost? You like owing the US for that, even if US not charging for it?

Below figures are old, but still! Why not 100 pct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget_of_Japan

Japanese officials resist United States pressure to agree formally that Japan will support more of the cost of maintaining United States troops, claiming that such a move will require revision of agreements between the two nations. But in FY 1989, the Japanese government contributed US$2.4 billion—roughly 40%—of the total cost. The contribution slated for FY 1990 was increased to US$2.8 billion—nearly 10% of the total defense budget—and by the end of FY 1990 the Japanese government expected to assume all expenses for utilities and building maintenance costs for United States troops stationed in Japan.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

If this is really such a dangerous part of the world, the US military should definitely not be bringing their dependents here. The whole establishment might have been suitable for the colonial era up until 1972, but since then has just been a relaxing overseas posting ("deployment" sounds too serious) costing both countries billions of dollars a year that mainly goes back to big contractors. Give some of the land back that is now used for housing, schools, and recreation and maybe there would be less objection to the new base.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@turbostat: As a former US defender although quite a while back, I was in the Army from 1966 to 1970 including an 18 month tour in Okinawa and a year in the jungles of Vietnam I know very well the hardships of Military Service. But when you join the Military you accept those hardships. If a person in the military cannot do a year or even 2 years without their families then I would suggest a change of careers. The bases on Okinawa resemble American Cities more than they do Military Bases.

@BertieWooster: I was in the Army on Okinawa from Jun 1967 to Nov. 1968 and I have lived here as a non-SOFA status civilian since Oct. 1971 and yes I have been inside of all the US Bases in Okinawa except for missile sites.There is too much wasted space and non-essential military mission facilities on Okinawa.

@Steve Fabricant: You are 100% right.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This tired old issue always brings out the comments by folks with an agenda, bending the issue to meet their own views.

I'd still like to see a non-bias poll that shows precisely how many Okinawans are "against the bases". When I was living there it seemed like the vast majority didn't care either way, sho ga nai.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With 74% (in a recent survey) against US bases in Okinawa,

The survey taken was from among a section of the population that are against the bases. Amazing thing, it isn't 100%, even those so-called anti-base folks are actually apathetic about the bases too!

There has never been an unbiased survey taken in Okinawa regarding the bases.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

turbotsat (Aug. 15, 2014 - 09:06AM JST):

These base-operating costs are called "sympathy budget" in Japan, which implies that Japan is not obliged under any treaty to bear the costs but does so out of sympathy for the budget-pinched U.S. government. The U.S. government doesn't like the nomenclature and suggests to use a more euphemistic "host-nation support" instead.

Now, you suggest Japan pay 100 percent of the base-operating costs. Your suggestion is reasonable if and only if USJF personnel are mercenaries employed by Japanese taxpayers. But are they mercenaries?

According to DOD statistics, South Korea is said to have paid $21,772 and Germany $21,720 per one U.S. sercice member in 2012. Compare these figures with Japan's $105,976. You say this is not enough and are asking to increase Japan's share to $140,000. Would South Korea and Germany agree to pay the same amount as Japan's?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@voice....

Compare these figures with Japan's $105,976. You say this is not enough and are asking to increase Japan's share to $140,000. Would South Korea and Germany agree to pay the same amount as Japan's?

For roughly one billion dollars a year, Japan gets to rent the #1 military in the world. The $49 billion Japan spends on defense amounts to about 1% of the GDP. The population went into back flips over the 3% increase in sales tax, think what kind of tax increase would be required to bring Japan's defense spending up to world par. South Korea and Germany provide far more of their own defense in troops and equipment. Japan gets to pick up the phone and order from the menu and have it delivered.

Japan will spend about $49 billion on defense in the fiscal year to March 2015 Compares with the $200 billion China will likely spend on defense *Compares to the $800 billion the US will spend in 2014

0 ( +2 / -2 )

voiceofokinawa,

The figures you quote are so shocking, they deserve a repeat:

According to DOD statistics, South Korea is said to have paid $21,772 and Germany $21,720 per one U.S. sercice member in 2012. Compare these figures with Japan's $105,976.

Rip off!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"Many Okinawans want the U.S. off the island entirely"

But many more either don't want the U.S. off the island entirely or don't care, right?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

BertieWooster:

Rip-offs, indeed. Japan hands at the DOD's Japan desk are experts on such rip-offs. Poor Japanese taxpayers are always their easy preys for rip-offs and swindling.

The August 13 Japan Times has reported Japan had paid Y380 million in the past 10 years in compensation for accidents caused by U.S. service members and civilian employees.

Tokyo must foot all the bills for the new base at Henoko that are estimated to be over $12 billion plus dismantling of the old one at Futenma and recovering of the status quo ante of the land. Tokyo has also agreed with Washington to shoulder about $6.1 billion of the $10.2 billion relocation cost of 8,000 marines from Futenma to Guam.

Thus, one piece of absurdity after another. This is the end result of what they ballyhoo as the solidification of the Japan-U.S. alliance.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

voiceofokinawa,

Sadly, what you write is true.

I believe the reason for the almost unbelievable blind faith in most Japanese in anyone in authority, sane or insane, is the "education system" here which is even more effective than boot camp as a method of mind control and destroyer of rational thinking.

The article tries to underplay it, "Many Okinawans want the U.S. off the island entirely, but public opinion is divided with Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima backing the plan."

In fact, we know that the majority of Okinawans want the US bases off the island entirely because most of the mayors of the various cities, towns and villages of Okinawa were elected simply because they were anti-base. The most notable of these is, as I'm sure you know, Nakaima, who ran his election platform on this ticket, but who suddenly turned joyously pro-Henoko after a secret meeting with Abe last December.

I wonder what deals were made at that meeting.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes, Japan, ROK, Germany should pay ALL costs. You wouldn't want to be like the neighbor who is always borrowing sugar and never pays back, would you? Wouldn't you be embarrassed to face the neighbor loaning you the sugar at some point? Even when they say "oh, don't worry, I got plenty?"

"Y380 million in the past 10 years in compensation for accidents caused by U.S. service members and civilian employees" is about $380K US per year, for members spread across 88 bases, $4.3K per year per base, does that seem like a lot to you?

Re the large bases in Okinawa, it would be a lot of trouble to reduce size. The land would be given over to developers who would make a big profit, a bit would trickle down to the populace, as usual. Complaints would ensue about the newly shrunken base being so close to the new developments. If the bases see heavier use in the future we may regret shrinking them. The town next to Futenma had population 12K at base start in 1945, now around 95K. And yes, servicemen/women deserve some place overseas to have their families nearby, at their choice, even if they can't do so in all deployments. Without residents under protection carping about the families taking up too much room.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The Japanese Govt. does not have anyone who can say no to the US Military. When they have negotiations for Host Nation Support, the J-Govt. says yes to everything and then writes the US a blank check. Awase Golf Course was recently returned by the US for local use but before it could be returned, the Japanese Taxpayers had to build a new 18 hole golf course at a new location. The US already has a 18 hole golf course at Kadena, a 9 hole golf course at Chibana and I believe they still have a 9 hole course at Okuma Military Resort. Do you think anyone in the J-Govt. questioned the US as to why they needed another golf course and what did it have to do with the military mission? No, because it is in the US-Japan Agreement that any returned facility must be replaced with a new facility the J-Govt. said yes. So the J-Govt. will build a new facility whether it is needed or not and if it has absolutely nothing to do with defense needs.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

turbostat (Aug. 16, 2014 - 04:18AM JST):

Shame on you. Not all U.S. service members commit crimes or cause traffic accidents involving Japanese citizens. But you seem to think they do.

You say $38 million (your $380K is a miscalculation) per year that the Japanese government pays to Japanese victims for the U.S. in compensation for accidents (traffic, criminal, etc.) caused by U.S. service members, their dependants and civilian employees means nothing or negligible.

To me, even one dollar is way too much for such a purpose.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

japan4life,

Well thanks to the numerous golf courses, spacious living, school grounds and leisure facilities provided for the US personnel in Okinawa, we have peace, democracy and freedom on this island.

We have a lot to be grateful for.

(Sarcasm)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tokyo must foot all the bills for the new base at Henoko that are estimated to be over $12 billion, not to mention bills for Futenma's dismantling works. Tokyo is also financially responsible for recovering the status quo ante of the land. Tokyo has also agreed with Washington to shoulder about $6.1 billion of the $10.2 billion necessary for infrastructure development for 8,000 marines moving from Okinawa to Guam.

What else can one call these outrageous events except "rip-offs"? Why do such things happen for starters, with mainstream Japanese politicians and bureaucrats always cozying up to Washington and acting as they are dictated to by Washington?

Satoshi Shirai dubs this "everlasting defeatism" (永続敗戦論). The catch is that these mainstream politicians, penchant for prewar-day values, are intentionally kept alive by Washington (a typical example was Nobusuke Kishi, Abe's grandfather and a Class A war crimes suspect) for its own benefits. As a result, they, the Japanese politicians, feel indebted to Washington, give great favors to Washington in matters of military bases and repeat visiting Yasukuni Shrine, forgetting that Japan was defeated in World War II,

3 ( +3 / -0 )

When the US Constitution was drawn there was a concern known as the "tyranny of the majority". There are protections in place for the minority. In Japan the Japanese rule over the Okinawa people without regard to their wants and needs. They have sold us to the Americans for political gain. They are happy to pay 12 billion for a new base who's building contracts will be had to the highest briber.

The base is a complete waste of money. It is very good for the training needs of the US Marines but is limited in function. The runways are too short and limited parking for aircraft. My bet is once finished the Americans will declare it not a suitable substitute for MCAS Futenma and keep it open.

Oh people have stated Japan gets a good deal on defense. However the units are not under Japanese control and may fail to protect all of Japan. All assistance is up to the Americans. About being "grateful", well the Americans killed off most of my ancestors and made the rest homeless. Growing up on occupied Okinawa just sucked! Went hungry a lot of times though condescending Americans wanted to "help".

Again the vast majority of the Okinawa people are against the new base. This has been shown again and again by vast majorities. Lastly the percentage voting means nothing, it is the percentage of votes made.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Vandalism by Abe government. Lack of due process.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

voiceofokinawa

I didn't post "all US members" I posted "for members spread across 88 US bases". It's different.

I said $380K because I think (Y380M / 10 years) * ($1 / Y100) = $3.8M / 10 years = $380K / year. Please let me know if my math is wrong.

This is based on "about Y380 million over the past decade" from link below, a link to the article you referred to in your previous post. And even that is only 25% of the cost, US pays 75%! I think Japan should pay 100%!

And "negligible" because $380K / year is way below the deficit between what Japan pays for US defense of Japan and what US pays, a yearly deficit of several billion US dollars.

I agree with you on the "even one dollar", but from the other direction. USA's optimal path would be for it to withdraw from Asian, save its funds for itself, only go back in and clean up after parties have exhausted themselves in war if they engage in war. It's not like Japan is protecting us at all from the Canadians or Mexicans.

Apparently Japan is spending $2B US on "Japanese employee salaries, utilities and base maintenance", and even that is a contribution, not full payment. Do they contribute anything at all to costs for US military personnel, equipment, or consumables?

voiceofokinawa:

Shame on you. Not all U.S. service members commit crimes or cause traffic accidents involving Japanese citizens. But you seem to think they do.

You say $38 million (your $380K is a miscalculation) per year ... means nothing or negligible.

To me, even one dollar is way too much for such a purpose.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/08/13/national/japan-paid-%C2%A5380-million-past-decade-compensation-accidents-caused-u-s-military-personnel

Japan paid Y380 million in compensation for accidents by U.S. military personnel

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/japan/u-s-japan-sign-new-five-year-host-nation-support-agreement-1.132428

U.S., Japan sign new five-year 'host nation support' agreement, January 21, 2011

... The Japanese government will spend 188.1 billion yen — or $2.02 billion — annually in the next five years on Japanese employee salaries, utilities and base maintenance. ... The rate Japan pays for base utilities expenses will be reduced from 76 percent under the expiring agreement to 72 percent over the next five years. Japan will pay 24.9 billion yen, or about $267.8 million, for utilities. ...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites