Posted on 09/01/2009 3:08:42 AM PDT by BradtotheBone
The United States on Monday ruled out renegotiating a deal on US military bases with Japan's new left-leaning government, which has pledged a fresh look at US forces in its territory.
Japan's incoming prime minister Yukio Hatoyama in the past called for the United States to remove the Futenma Marine base -- long a sore point as it lies in a crowded urban area off the southern island of Okinawa.
But State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the United States would not revisit a deal finalized just months ago by Japan's long-ruling conservatives that also includes moving troops to the US territory of Guam.
"The United States has no intention to renegotiate the Futenma replacement facility plan or Guam relocation with the government of Japan," Kelly said.
After exhaustive negotiations, former president George W. Bush's administration agreed to dismantle Futenma and shift the facilities to reclaimed land in a quiet part of Okinawa.
Some Okinawan activists -- backed by Hatoyama's Democratic Party while in opposition -- want the United States to get the base off Okinawa completely.
In their platform for Sunday's election, the Democrats said they would "move in the direction of re-examining the realignment of US military forces in Japan and the role of US military bases in Japan."
Okinawa, a tiny subtropical island chain strategically located near the Taiwan Strait, is home to more than half of the 47,000 US troops across Japan.
The United States has agreed to shift 8,000 Marines from Okinawa -- along with 9,000 of their dependents -- to Guam by 2014, with Japan paying 2.8 billion dollars for the move.
The Democrats won a crushing election victory on Sunday -- ousting the Liberal Democratic Party which had ruled almost uninterrupted since 1955 -- on a wave of voter discontent with a bumbling economy and revolving-door politics.
While foreign policy was not a key campaign issue, Hatoyama has pledged that Japan would seek a more "equal" alliance with the United States.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs played down Hatoyama's criticism of US-led globalization, saying the two countries "have always had a strong relationship" that would continue "regardless of what Japanese government is in power."
While in opposition, the Democrats -- saying Japan should not be part of "American wars" -- used parliamentary tactics to disrupt an Indian Ocean mission providing fuel and other support to US-led forces in Afghanistan.
Hatoyama has agreed not to interrupt the mission before it expires in January, setting the stage for a potentially divisive debate in his party on whether to extend it.
Kelly said that the Japanese "play a critical role in some of our refueling efforts."
"A stable, prosperous Afghanistan is in the interests of the entire international community, including Japan," Kelly said.
But he added: "It's up to each country to determine how they can best contribute to that effort."
"We look forward to a discussion of what kind of role Japan will play," Kelly said.
Japan's landmark election made the front-pages of the major US newspapers, but their editorials were divided on what Hatoyama meant for the United States.
The Wall Street Journal said that while change was "healthy" -- and could break Japanese policymakers' cozy relationship with the bureaucracy and business elites -- Hatoyama's policies "may be disappointing."
The conservative newspaper said that the new prime minister may not "understand the imperative of encouraging entrepreneurship" in the world's second largest economy.
But The Christian Science Monitor said Japan was "invigorating its democracy."
"While this enhanced democracy may diminish US interests -- which include using Japan as an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in Asia -- there are long-term benefits to rooting Japan's future more deeply in the wishes of its people," it wrote.
Barack Hussein Hatoyama
It’s their country, and their right to have the bases removed.
Like Germany, when Cheney told them we would pull our troops out, Japan will see the light and realize that they will forfet billions of dollars from our military. Screw them, abandon and destroy the bases, and let them defend themselves against the Koreans and Chinese.
On the one hand, they bombed Pearl Harbor, so if they don’t want the bases, tough. On the other, I’m tired of paying for their military defense.
Plus, we have a treaty with Japan that in desperate times, forces the US to supply oil to them before the needs of our own country. How’s them apples.
I hope we don’t turn over the Marine base. They have a great golf course. ;^)
They don't want to but are paying for about 40% of the costs. The Japanese are war makers by nature. It's foolish to let them loose.
The Japan election was between two interestingly weak and compromised opponents.
Aso-Hatoyama. ( In English, A$$hole Hat Mountain)
No good can come of it for the USA.
It’s our nuclear umbrella(protection)that they care the most about. When all else fails, Nukes are what will save their bacon and they know it. We leave, how many hundreds of billion yen will it cost to rearm? Okinawa’s a very anti military prefecture in Japan, all the pro military were either killed or have since died. China would love to have that Island.
You and the Japanese government need to be reminded of how the bases got there and why they remain there.
Hey, we’ve got one more country that loves us again!!
Obama: Japan, I could really care less if North Korea is lobbing missile over your country. Oh yeah, and we aren’t moving our troops. Sure I know they are useless since we don’t care about North Korea, but we ain’t moving them anyway.
And don’t even think about developing weapons to protect yourself.
Don’t you just love us now?
What military defense?
Maybe we should just cut to the chase and just start calling zer0 "the spoiler" since his only agenda seems to be to spoil everything good about America including the support of our allies.
Too many forget that.
One point that should be remembered is that Okinawa got stuck with most bases as an area regarded as less than Japanese by the central government. The WW2 decision-makers and sympathisers viewed Okinawa with contempt. If the bases are there to somehow punish for WW2, ten you've put them in the wrong prefecture entirely.
The closest analogy would be occupying Russia after WW2 and putting you long term bases in Latvia or Estonia.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Japanes government has ever come close to making amends for their earlier crimes. Even Germany has demonstrated far greater prowess in this area.
Let’s hear why the bases remain there.
They remain there as a stablizing force in Asia and because Japan’s neighbors still have very good reason not to trust them left on their own. Plus, they lost.
Obama destroys contracts when it serves his interests. He is setting such a fine example for world leaders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.