Category: Uncategorized

Japan Focus just published two excellent articles about the release of the environmental impact study for the military base expansion in Okinawa: “The Fatally Flawed EIS Report on the Futenma Air Station Replacement Facility – With Special Reference to the Okinawa Dugong” by Sakurai Kunitoshi and  “Pre-Dawn Surprise Attack: The “Drop-off” of the Environmental Impact Statement” by Urashima Etsuko.

In the introduction to the articles, Gavan McCormack writes that Tokyoʻs delivery of the EIS under the cover of darkness “showed the mentality of the rapist: violent, contemptuous of its victim, and moved by shame to commit its deed at the darkest hour of the night, when witnesses could least be expected.”

Hereʻs an excerpt from the introduction:

Here is not the place for a comprehensive account of the deepening crisis of Japan-Okinawa-US relations. The forthcoming study by Satoko Oka Norimatsu and myself attempts to do that in a systematic way (Gavan McCormack and Satoko Oka Norimatsu, Resistant Islands: Okinawa vs Japan and the United States, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2012.)

Here, however, we present two Okinawan accounts of the events on which the year 2011 ended: one by Okinawa’s leading environmentalist, specialist in environmental assessment law and till 2010 president of Okinawa University, the other by the long-time chronicler of the Okinawan resistance movement and Nago city resident. Both are core members of that movement. They write of the astonishing events that marked the end of 2011.

[…]

The fact is that the DPJ government today faces a level of resistance unprecedented in the history of the modern Japanese state, with the (conservative) Governor, the prefectural Assembly (Okinawa’s parliament), virtually all city, town and village assemblies and mayors, and all media groups and civic and labour organizations firmly opposed to the attempted relocation of the Marine base to Henoko.

The following accounts deal with the submission by the Government of Japan of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) designed to accelerate construction at the projected Henoko site.  The story, told here from two different but closely connected viewpoints, reveals the depths to which the DPJ has sunk, its disregard for due process and law, its insistence on the priority that must be attached to service to the US over attention to the interests of its own citizens, its contempt for democracy, and its systematic and continuing discrimination against Okinawans. This might not be unique among contemporary industrial democratic states, but this deepening crisis is little appreciated. Okinawa is Japan’s Tahrir Square. The “Okinawa problem” is Japan’s problem. And it is presently the crux of the US-Japan problem.

Just weeks before the “delivery” described here, the head of Okinawa’s Defense Bureau, the local section of the national Ministry of Defense, had to resign over his statement explicitly comparing the delivery of the EIS to rape. When about to commit rape, he said, you do not announce it to your victim in advance. The Government of Japan might have submitted to pressure to replace him in his post, but in the way it went about delivery of the crucial EIS in December, it showed the mentality of the rapist: violent, contemptuous of its victim, and moved by shame to commit its deed at the darkest hour of the night, when witnesses could least be expected.

As Christine Ahn of the Korea Policy Institute writes in Foreign Policy In Focus, there are interesting and hopeful changes taking place in the Korean peninsula. Many in the west are speculating about what will happen in the aftermath of the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.  But the transition to new leadership has been rather smooth and quite.   While it remains to be seen how Kim Jong Ilʻs son and successor Kim Jong Un will lead the country, Ahn reminds us that:

What happens in North Korea, however, is also clearly influenced by what happens in Seoul, and the winds of change are blowing strong south of the Demilitarized Zone where grassroots movements are challenging the country’s retrograde neo-Cold War leadership. After four long years under President Lee Myung Bak’s repressive and hard-line policies, 2011 marked the revival of democracy in South Korea thanks to three particularly inspiring developments for peace, economic justice, and anti-corruption.

These hopeful developments include the powerful anti-base struggle in Jeju island, militant labor and economic justice struggles and a growing public outcry against government corruption that has the potential to dramatically change the course of South Korea for the better.

She also reports on recent positive developments regarding Jeju:

Good news finally arrived on December 30 when the National Assembly cut 96 percent of the 2012 budget for the naval base. According to Gangjeong activist Sung-Hee Choi, “such a tremendous defense budget cut is unprecedented in the history of the Republic of Korea.” Although this cut heralds a major victory for Gangjeong villagers, Choi cautions that nearly 75 percent of the 2011 budget of 151.6 billion won was not used due to the delay in construction, which the Navy will likely use for 2012 and to justify more funding for 2013.

The Washington Post reported that eight U.S. soldiers have been charged with crimes related to the October 3 death of a fellow soldier who apparently committed suicide.  This is the second Asian American military personnel in recent months who allegedly committed suicide after abusive treatment by fellow GIs.  It appears that there were racial elements to the this recent incident.  In the earlier incident, Kane’ohe Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Harry Lew also committed suicide after hazing by comrades.  Several Marines face courts martial for their hazing of Lew.  Chen’s death comes at a time when the U.S. military is facing an epidemic of suicides in the ranks:

Eight American soldiers deployed in Afghanistan have been charged in connection with the Oct. 3 death of a comrade who apparently committed suicide in a guard tower, U.S. military officials said Wednesday.

Pvt. Danny Chen, 19, an infantryman, died from an “apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound” at a small combat outpost in Kandahar province, according to a statement issued by the NATO command in southern Afghanistan.

A military official told Chen’s parents that fellow soldiers had been physically abusive toward Chen, and taunted him with ethnic slurs, the New York Times reported in October.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

When President Obama announced his strategic ‘pivot’ to the Asia Pacific region, most understood that it was primarily aimed at bolstering the U.S. economy and containing China. However, in Playing with Fire: Obama’s Risky Oil Threat to China, Michael Klare provides crucial analysis of the shifting “energy equation” for China and the U.S. It explains much about the political, economic and military calculus behind this move.   He writes:

The U.S. military buildup and the potential for a powerful Chinese counter-thrust have already been the subject of discussion in the American and Asian press.  But one crucial dimension of this incipient struggle has received no attention at all: the degree to which Washington’s sudden moves have been dictated by a fresh analysis of the global energy equation, revealing (as the Obama administration sees it) increased vulnerabilities for the Chinese side and new advantages for Washington.

The New Energy Equation

For decades, the United States has been heavily dependent on imported oil, much of it obtained from the Middle East and Africa, while China was largely self-sufficient in oil output.  In 2001, the United States consumed 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, while producing only nine million barrels itself.  The dependency on foreign suppliers for that 10.6 million-barrel shortfall proved a source of enormous concern for Washington policymakers.  They responded by forging ever closer, more militarized ties with Middle Eastern oil producers and going to war on occasion to ensure the safety of U.S. supply lines.

In 2001, China, on the other hand, consumed only five million barrels per day and so, with a domestic output of 3.3 million barrels, needed to import only 1.7 million barrels.  Those cold, hard numbers made its leadership far less concerned about the reliability of the country’s major overseas providers — and so it did not need to duplicate the same sort of foreign policy entanglements that Washington had long been involved in.

Now, so the Obama administration has concluded, the tables are beginning to turn.  As a result of China’s booming economy and the emergence of a sizeable and growing middle class (many of whom have already bought their first cars), the country’s oil consumption is exploding.  Running at about 7.8 million barrels per day in 2008, it will, according to recent projections by the U.S. Department of Energy, reach 13.6 million barrels in 2020, and 16.9 million in 2035.  Domestic oil production, on the other hand, is expected to grow from 4.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 5.3 million in 2035.  Not surprisingly, then, Chinese imports are expected to skyrocket from 3.8 million barrels per day in 2008 to a projected 11.6 million in 2035 — at which time they will exceed those of the United States.

The U.S., meanwhile, can look forward to an improved energy situation.  Thanks to increased production in “tough oil” areas of the United States, including the Arctic seas off Alaska, the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and shale formations in Montana, North Dakota, and Texas, future imports are expected to decline, even as energy consumption rises.  In addition, more oil is likely to be available from the Western Hemisphere rather than the Middle East or Africa.  Again, this will be thanks to the exploitation of yet more “tough oil” areas, including the Athabasca tar sands of Canada, Brazilian oil fields in the deep Atlantic, and increasingly pacified energy-rich regions of previously war-torn Colombia.  According to the Department of Energy, combined production in the United States, Canada, and Brazil is expected to climb by 10.6 million barrels per day between 2009 and 2035 — an enormous jump, considering that most areas of the world are expecting declining output.

What does this all mean?

All of this ensures that, environmentally, militarily, and economically, we will find ourselves in a more, not less, perilous world.  The desire to turn away from disastrous land wars in the Greater Middle East to deal with key issues now simmering in Asia is understandable, but choosing a strategy that puts such an emphasis on military dominance and provocation is bound to provoke a response in kind.  It is hardly a prudent path to head down, nor will it, in the long run, advance America’s interests at a time when global economic cooperation is crucial.  Sacrificing the environment to achieve greater energy independence makes no more sense.

A new Cold War in Asia and a hemispheric energy policy that could endanger the planet: it’s a fatal brew that should be reconsidered before the slide toward confrontation and environmental disaster becomes irreversible.  You don’t have to be a seer to know that this is not the definition of good statesmanship, but of the march of folly.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Stars and Stripes reports:

South Korea plans to build accommodations for U.S. servicemembers on one of the Yellow Sea islands near the disputed maritime border it shares with North Korea, but officials from both countries insist there are no plans to permanently station Americans there.

“The Republic of Korea is building a transient barracks for the (South Korean) Marine Corps on (Baengnyeong) Island for use during training or in a crisis,” U.S. Forces Korea spokesman Jason Chudy said Monday. “It could also be used as temporary billeting for any U.S. forces training with our (South Korean) counterparts on the island, which increases our readiness and strengthens our alliance.

“There is no plan for the permanent stationing of U.S. forces on the Northwest Islands,” he said.

Baengnyeong Island is west of Yeonpyeong Island, which almost a year ago was shelled by North Korea. That attack left four South Koreans dead – including two civilians — and prompted a series of changes aimed at making sure the South is better prepared to respond to any future provocations from the North.

North Korea will surely see this move as a provocation by South Korea and the United States.  It will increase the danger of war in this volatile and disputed region:

A variety of experts on the two Koreas have suggested in recent months that the Northwest Islands are a likely location of future military conflict between the North and South given their location and history.

The North has long disputed where the maritime border between the two countries was drawn in the wake of the Korean War, suggesting it should be farther to the south. In addition, the five westernmost islands are actually closer to the North Korean mainland than the South’s.

Adding to the potential for armed conflict is the new shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach being taken by the South Korean military on and around the islands.

That more-aggressive approach was on display June 17 when two South Korean marines mistakenly fired 99 rounds from a Byondong Island guard post at an Asiana Airlines plane enroute to landing at the South’s Incheon International Airport.

No one was injured in the incident, and the marines were not reprimanded for their actions because officials said they had followed the new rules of engagement.