Okinawa Governor wants US base moved out

[NNN0LHI]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20111227_20.html

updated at 13:23 UTC, Dec. 27

Okinawa Governor Hirokazu Nakaima has reiterated that he does not want the US Marine Corps Futenma Air Station to be relocated within the prefecture.

Nakaima was speaking to reporters on Tuesday morning, ahead of the expected arrival of a government assessment report on the proposed base's impact on the local ecology.

Nakaima said he would accept the report and submit an opinion based on legal procedures to minimize the effects on the environment. Under an agreement between Japan and the United States, Futenma is slated to be moved to an offshore site in Nago City.

-----------------------

I am with the governor on this one.

[doc03]

1. +1 n/t

[MoonRiver]

2. I'm with him too.

Why do we need to be there anymore?

[MineralMan]

4. I think we should close almost all US military bases

outside of the US.

[Bucky]

5. Not a good development. America's navy really needs operating bases in eastern Asia

One of the reasons, perhaps the biggest reason, there's been fewer major wars in the past 70 years is because the US Navy straddles the world with mostly peaceful intent. America's unmatched naval might is a stabilizing force and has allowed world trade to expand to the point where wars between great powers are almost unthinkable.

Put crudely, either someone's gonna dominate the Asian end of the Pacific Rim or different powers are gonna compete for naval dominance there. I can't think of a major nation who I'd trust more than the US to back up the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea, based on FDR's belief that the world's oceans should be open for everyone to trade upon. This has been the strategic goal and the net effect of US naval dominance since 1945. Okinawa's a big part of that. If we lose that, we'd have to spend more money and diplomatic capital to find a replacement--which is of course costlier in the long run.

Please note: I don't think the US Navy should be quite as big nor quite as expensive as it is. But the idea that it's a good thing for us to start losing are most important bases is a bit too radical and a bit too irresponsible about our role in keeping world peace.

[RC]

6. With our war record in the Middle East and elsewhere?

"I can't think of a major nation who I'd trust more than the US to back up the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea,..."

Who do you think starts and supplies those disputes all over the world to justify our military bases all over?

[sarcasmo]

7. The United States and peacful inetent in the same sentence.

Funny stuff.

[Bucky]

16. Glad to give you a giggle

But seriously, compare the wars in the region since 1945 to the wars carried on during the same time span prior to 1941.

Under American dominance: The expulsion of Chinese Nationalists to Taiwan, anti colonial wars in Indochina, Malaya & Indonesia, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Indonesia–Malaysia fights of the 1960s, Vietnam's aggressions against its Indochinese neighbors in the 1970s and the showdown with China in 1979. Since the 1980s there's been a gradual drift toward democratization and a great expansion of political freedom and economic prosperity.

Before American dominance: the Netherlands spent 30 years conquering Indonesia then fought another war to conquer Bali, France conquered IndoChina and put down constant rebellions, Russia fought Japan, Germany and America nearly went to war over Samoa, Spain fought a century of opposition from Filipinos, then America conquered the Philippines and spent another decade putting down the resistance.
Everybody cut a violent slice out of China: France in the 1880s, Russia and Japan in the 1890s. England had already fought two "Opium Wars" against China to force the legalization of the drug there at the same time they were outlawing it back home. France fought another war attempting to take over Thailand (called Siam then). Japan outright conquered the former Chinese vassal of Formosa just 'cause. Germany muscled the already humiliated China into turning over control of part of its lands around Tsingtao (that's why they produce a great lager there today). Finally China responded with the violent Boxer Uprising, only to see itself put down once again. These constants losses led to China's 1911 Revolution. There would be almost constant internal rebellions over the next 30 years resulting from this weakness.
Then Japan and Russia fought over competing interests in China. This was a dress rehearsal for World War One, a fight among all the great colonial powers. In the Pacific Rim, Japan conquered all of Germany's holdings, including Tsingtao and Samoa. Toward the end of the war Russia had a revolution, leading to Japan, Britain, and the United States all invading Siberia and trying to set up Vladivostok at a separate nation, which eventually led to the Communists violently driving them out of Russia's Pacific Coast.
Then in the 1930s, Japan would twice launch major invasions of China, retaking Manchuria and culminating in the bloody reprisals at Nanjing (Nanking then) in 1937. American support for Chinese resistance (which was rooted in American wishes to maintain trade with the Far East and protect the Philippines) and the US embargo on oil for Japan's war led directly to the 1941 simultaneous attack on all French, British, and Dutch outposts in the Pacific Rim and the brief conquest of the Philippines.

By any reasonable measure, the fight for dominance was vastly bloodier and more turbulent--and led to greater repression of local populations--than all of what has transpired since US dominance was established. I don't excuse American belligerence in the world. But I'm not so blind to history to think that other nations would provide the same level of peace among the nations of the Far East if there were suddenly to be a new scramble for power.

Or perhaps you think that if the US withdrew from its Pacific bases that somehow there would NOT be a scramble for power in the resulting vacuum.

[Romulox]

8. Why should the US people pay to patrol the Pacific Ocean? You haven't made your case. nt

[Robb]

10. How else can we enjoy our cheap goods?

I'd not thought of it as a naval trade subsidy before, but there it is. Heaven forbid we allocate such resources to reduce the price of US-made goods.

[Romulox]

11. "Externalities" (e.g. a massive military shield) give a bogus sense of "cheap". It's not "cheap"

to the American consumer, when the massive deficit spending on the military is considered.

"I'd not thought of it as a naval trade subsidy before, but there it is"

What is the case for subsidizing far east manufacturing? It becomes rather circular, I suspect--the answer is, of course, so that we can have access to the military bases (which are needed to keep commerce running smoothly, etc., et nauseum...)

[Bucky]

13. If the US withdrew from the Pacific, those goods wouldn't be so cheap

If China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other trading partners started building up their navies in the power vacuum left by American withdrawal, there would be a massive redirection of national resources to military and naval expenditures throughout the Pacific Rim. To those who think that war is always a waste of resources, you would see a tremendous example supporting your beliefs in the Far East. Even if war never came, the diversion of wealth out of civilian pursuits and into military power would impact the prices of everything we bought from that section of the world.

[Bucky]

12. I think reality makes the case.

I'm talking Realpolitik here, of course. But in the 70 years prior to 1945, no one dominated the oceans like America does today. Thus Japan, the US, Britain, France, and Holland all competed for dominance of the far eastern seas. Britain dominated the Indian Ocean, but had a few lesser rivals over the Atlantic, and the US controlled everything east of Hawaii.

The OP is arguing for a wider US withdrawal from our present domination of all three oceans. But what would happen in case of a power vacuum like that? I suspect in the far Pacific, you'd quickly see another competition between China and Japan, with South Korea freaking out and Indonesia slowly becoming a regional player. Taiwan would be peacefully reabsorbed and the people there would pray they get the Hong Kong treatment. Probably the Indonesians would seek help from Russia a/o India, neither of which would want either Asian giant winning this competition.

Competition for alpha male status among nations can turn ugly. But moreover, neither giant has the tradition that the United States has for supporting Freedom of the Seas. This term sounds like FDR to us, but it actually originates in Wilson's 14 Points, which in turn builds on the old Open Door Policy of the 19th century. Americans have traditionally pushed for open trade on the seas. Last time Japan was a player, they had a less liberal philosophy. China, psychologically still recovering from European & Japanese domination, would also be less liberal about sharing the seas.

If these two competed, because America withdrew, the chances of wars among their proxies and allies would increase exponentially. Under America's 70 year umbrella, there's been peace--the only exceptions have been peripheral and contained exceptions. Outside that umbrella, where there isn't dominance by major powers, the usual human atrocities prevail--Cambodia, East Timor, the periodic border skirmishes between China and Vietnam. But where the umbrella has extended, the major powers do not fight wars any longer. Compare the numbers of major wars between the 1870s and 1940s with the major wars since 1945. For that matter, compare the threats of war, the instances of successful saber-rattling between powers in those two time periods. By any measure, the Industrial Age was far more violent and far more dangerous than the Atomic Age and Post Cold War period.

For the Pacific Rim, at least, American naval dominance has been a boon. This is not to dismiss the problems that come with this role as global cop. American sailors have, on occasion, done terrible things to individual Okinawans. But in the big picture, in the strategic interests of the nation-states of the region, that doesn't matter too much. If you have a competition among nation-states for dominance of the region, individual human rights will come to matter even less.

[d_r]

14. I agree with you

[Romulox]

15. I notice you didn't mention the interests of the AMERICAN PEOPLE once in your lengthy response! nt

[Bucky]

17. Sorry, somehow I deleted that paragraph

The boon to America is that the goods imported from those countries comes at a lower price because they are not diverting resources into buying big competing armies and navies. And of course because they are not fighting wars, there is not disruption of trade among each other and back and forth with the US that would come from actual fighting.

All war spending is a huge black hole of lost commercial productivity. I think we should be diverting fewer resources to our navy, but I don't think the reduction should be so great that we jeopardize the three generations of expanding peace and economic development that our historic dominance has brought us. As those populations over in the Rim gain more affluence, American export opportunities will grow. That's our dog in this hunt.

[Romulox]

19. Your answer is contradictory. How can a "huge black hole of lost commercial productivity" be a boon?

"As those populations over in the Rim gain more affluence, American export opportunities will grow. That's our dog in this hunt."

Unfortunately, your prediction isn't born out by any real world data. Indeed, the American standard of living has declined precipitously under this precise arrangement, such that all of this military spending is paid for with monies BORROWED FROM ASIA!

[Romulox]

9. Don't make me laugh. The Japanese people will never agree to allow the US to leave Japan.

WWII remains very much an open wound between Japan and China.

[jwirr]

18. For anyone wanting to know why read "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson. I totally agree.