Transfer of US Marines in Okinawa to Guam	No.625 March 10, 2009
		The two governments of the United States and Japan concluded a pact on the transfer cost of the US Marines in Okinawa to Guam. The relocation plan, which goes along the roadmap of the US military realignment program, is estimated as 10.27 billion dollars in total, out of which Japan will owe over 60%, amounting approximately 6.1 billion dollars. In addition to the financial help, as a package deal Japan will permit construction of another base in Okinawa. The agreement is far from reducing the burden of Okinawa. JAPAN INFINITELY OWES FUNDS FOR US MILITARY REALIGNMENT The Obama government has started working. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton chose Japan as her first official overseas visit. The Aso Government was delighted to receive her as it believes that the new US administration takes special care of Japan. The secretary’s visit, however, sent political messages to the rest of the world: Washington’s attention to China and better relations with Islamic countries through her visits to China and Indonesia. The new secretary just saved Japan’s face. Thus Secretary Clinton was given a big present in return, a pledge of Japanese government to incur the transfer cost of US Marines stationed in Okinawa to Guam. Japan Will Pay for 60% of Total Cost The pact was signed on February 17 to assure that Japan would pay for the major part of fund needed to relocate the 8,000 personnel of the 3rd Marine mobile troops stationed in Okinawa and their family members of 9,000 to Guam: the plan constitutes a core of the Roadmap for US Military Realignment agreed by the Japan-US Security Consultation Committee in 2006. According to US estimates, expenses necessary for infrastructure projects in Guam count approximately 1 trillion Yen, out of which Japan will supply 270 billion Yen and invest another 310 billion Yen, while the US will appropriate 300 billion Yen and another 95 billion Yen for road maintenance. The ratio of the bilateral contribution is roughly 6:4. Why will Japan incur the bigger portion? The relocation program of Marines was made in the US global military context for its interests. But the agreement patronizingly reads ‘for the sake of Japan’ as ‘residents in Okinawa have a strong demand to transfer Marines speedily from the island’. It is a smart replacement of logic. Favorable Conditions for US The pact stipulates that the US military is authorized to spend money paid by Japan on relevant projects, not limited to specific jobs, pursuant to consent of the Japanese government, though it sets forth that the balance and interest of the fund shall be paid back. Japan may be obliged to incur all the costs. Repayment programs for investment are kept unclear, too. The agreement also states clearly as a condition that Japan will work in a concrete manner to complete a substitute facility of the Futenma Air Station and contribute to the transfer plan. It means that US will kindly move Marines to Guam, if the Japanese government has the US build a new base in Henoko, Okinawa, and takes a step to owe the relocation cost. Seventy-five percent of all the US military function is concentrated in Okinawa. The roadmap in question may reduce 1% of the areas the US forces occupy, but it will bring disasters because a new base and helicopter stations will be constructed in Henoko and Takae: destruction of peace in the life of residents and natural environment, including species of corals, dugongs and Gallirallus okinawae. Okinawan people do not want this kind of relocation program. Premier Aso was so glad to have been invited by President Barack Obama as the first foreign head of state in the chorus of the alliance of the biggest two economies. The government of the United States, however, will impose later on Japan closer cooperation with the US military realignment plan, further personnel and financial contribution to the war in Afghanistan and more willingness to accept bonds of US government which faces extraordinarily huge deficits. The invitation is an expression of cool-headed diplomacy. The new US administration will not make a big change in the military strategy. The House of Councilors, in which the ruling bloc does not have the majority, must refuse, at least, ratification of the recently signed bilateral agreement.