Americans to stay in Okinawa, Korea used as excuse

[scarletghoul]

The Japanese PM has had to apologise to the public for allowing the US to stay in Okinawa, something he promised he would not do. As with all recent japanese PMs, his approval ratings are ridiculously low. The Japanese people are quite rightly sick of US imperialism and hegemony, but none of the 2 main bourgeois parties have the balls to stand up to it.

Whats interesting to me is that the sinking of the South Korean ship, allegedly by North Korea, is being used to justify the continued Amerikan presence. This really does give more weight to the idea that it was a false flag attack, or at least willfully provoked. The attack came just as the new Japanese government attempted to get the US base out, and the accusations against the DPRK emerge just as the PM announces the US will stay. Maybe this is a coincidence, but it's certainly very conveniant to the Imperialists. If it wasn't a false flag attack, I think its very likely that Amerika and their Southern puppets deliberately provoked North Korea in order to raise tensions in the region.

Still, I doubt most Japanese would buy the 'security' excuse. Japan has a good navy in its own right.. and the idea that a foreign occupation is necessary to prevent foreign attack, well thats just ridiculous obviously.

This also has interesting implications for Japanese politics...


Japanese prime minister accepts Marine Corps air base in Okinawa

Sunday, May 23, 2010; 6:50 AM


BEIJING -- Japanese Prime Minister Yukio announced Sunday that his country would abide by a 14-year-old agreement with the United States to move a Marine Corps air base in Okinawa in a significant breakthrough on an issue that has bedeviled the two allies and worried many other Asian countries since he took office eight months ago.
Hatoyama's decision comes as tension has increased in northeast Asia between Japan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/japan.html?nav=el) and China (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/china.html?nav=el) and also on the Korean peninsula following a report by South Korea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/korea.html?nav=el) that implicated North Korea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/korea.html?nav=el) for the deadly torpedoing of a South Korean warship on March 26.
U.S. officials and analysts cited the heightened security threats to Japan as an important factor in pushing Hatoyama to break one of his signature campaign promises to move the Futenma air base off Okinawa -- and even out of Japan.
Apologizing to the people of Okinawa, Hatoyama on Sunday announced he was generally accepting a plan worked out between Japan and the United States in 1996. U.S. officials welcomed the news cautiously, pointing out that the agreement was made 14 years ago and has yet to be carried out.
"The relocation of Futenma will have to stay in Okinawa," Hatoyama said in a meeting with Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima. "I apologize from the bottom of my heart for the confusion that I have caused the people of Okinawa in not being able to keep my promise."
Hatoyama's party, the Democratic Party of Japan, took power in August as only the second opposition to win a national election in Japan in 50 years. Hatoyama ran on a platform calling for a more equal relationship with the United States. To drive home his point, he froze the $26 billion base relocation plan, which would have seen 8,000 Marines move from Okinawa to Guam and Futenma relocated from the center of a city of 80,000 to Henoko, an isolated town on Okinawa's eastern coast.



Because Hatoyama's party was new in power, the U.S. response swung back and forth from tough to understanding with some U.S. officials, particularly in the Pentagon, arguing that the United States needed to stand its ground and others elsewhere contending that Washington needed to show some flexibility. Hatoyama himself promised President Obama twice that he would abide by the agreement, but back at home he continued to rail against the deal and advocated that Futenma be moved completely out of Japan.
Japan's position began to shift following a brief meeting on April 12 between Obama and Hatoyama in Washington on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit. The president told his Japanese counterpart that they were "running out of time" to seal the deal and asked him whether he could be trusted. Japanese officials were shocked by Obama's tone, they said, but it did serve to remove any confusion about where the United States stood.
Other events also conspired to push Hatoyama to accept the deal. On March 26, the Cheonan, a 1,200-ton South Korean warship was sunk by a torpedo. Last week, South Korea issued an internationally-backed report implicating North Korea in the attack, a position Japan has strongly supported. Then two incidents with China further brought home to Japan just how unsteady the security environment in Northeast Asia remains.
On April 8, a helicopter from a Chinese naval vessel in international waters south of Okinawa flew to within 300 feet of a Japanese defense force escort ship - so close that Japanese sailors could clearly see a gun-wielding Chinese soldier. Japan protested, describing the incident as an "extremely dangerous act."
China's ambassador to Japan dismissed the protest and then, as if to rub salt into Japan's wounds, China's navy on April 21 sailed northward, between Okinawa and another Japanese island chain, and conducted a large-scale exercise. Once again, a Chinese military helicopter buzzed a Japanese escort ship. A retired Chinese military officer called on Japan to get used to China's navy appearing in Japan's exclusive economic zone.
Then on May 15, China's foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, erupted at his Japanese counterpart Katsuya Okada after Okada suggested that China cut its nuclear arsenal. Yang almost walked out of the talks during a meeting in the South Korean city of Gyeongju, according to diplomatic sources, and screamed at Okada that his relatives had been killed by Japanese forces in northeastern China during Japan's occupation of China from the 1930s through World War II.
U.S. officials said the events had a hand in convincing Hatoyama and his cabinet that now was not the time and Futenma was not the issue to use to re-examine the foundation of Tokyo's alliance with the United States. During talks between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Okada on Friday, U.S. officials said they got a strong sense that Japan's new government was on a fast learning curve about the dangers of weakening their ties with Washington.
"There is pretty substantial understanding among the Japanese people about the nature of some of the challenges they face on the Korean Peninsula and [with a] rising China in their backyard," said a senior U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity. "I think recent developments, if anything, have provided a substantial reminder of what was needed to the new leadership about what we are facing collectively in Asia."
Added another U.S. official: "There was a realization that this is still a very dangerous neighborhood and that the U.S.-Japan alliance and the basing arrangements that are part of that are critical to Japan's security."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/23/AR2010052301712.html

[Antifa94]

War? Is it coming?

[scarletghoul]

Don't think so, not any time soon.. Neither side seems to really want war right now and they've proven good at avoiding it for 50 years. Things are very tense in the region generally but I don't think anyone would be so careless as to start a proper war

[Tablo]

Fucked up. Japanese people are pissed off and will likely continue to be pissed off at the lack of change brought about through politics. Hopefully this will bring about the return of the Left in Japan.

[Dire Helix]

What`s the opinion of Japanese Communist Party on the issue and what`s their reaction to this? I think I remember them being against the US military presence in Japan.

[x359594]

What`s the opinion of Japanese Communist Party on the issue and what`s their reaction to this?...

The JCP has consistently called for the removal of all US bases from Japan. They're currently criticizing Hatoyama's back-peddling on the issue.

[GreenCommunism]

By Stephen Gowans

While the South Korean government announced on May 20 that it has overwhelming evidence that one of its warships was sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine, there is, in fact, no direct link between North Korea and the sunken ship. And it seems very unlikely that North Korea had anything to do with it.

That’s not my conclusion. It’s the conclusion of Won See-hoon, director of South Korea’s National Intelligence. Won told a South Korean parliamentary committee in early April, less than two weeks after the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, sank in waters off Baengnyeong Island, that there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking. (1)

South Korea’s Defense Minister Kim Tae-young backed him up, pointing out that the Cheonan’s crew had not detected a torpedo (2), while Lee Ki-sik, head of the marine operations office at the South Korean joint chiefs of staff agreed that “No North Korean warships have been detected…(in) the waters where the accident took place.” (3)

Notice he said “accident.”


Soon after the sinking of the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted by radar, and no torpedo had been spotted. Intelligence chief Won See-hoon, said there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking.
Defense Ministry officials added that they had not detected any North Korean submarines in the area at the time of the incident. (4) According to Lee, “We didn’t detect any movement by North Korean submarines near” the area where the Cheonan went down. (5)

When speculation persisted that the Cheonan had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo, the Defense Ministry called another press conference to reiterate “there was no unusual North Korean activities detected at the time of the disaster.” (6)

A ministry spokesman, Won Tae-jae, told reporters that “With regard to this case, no particular activities by North Korean submarines or semi-submarines…have been verified. I am saying again that there were no activities that could be directly linked to” the Cheonan’s sinking. (7)

Rear Admiral Lee, the head of the marine operations office, added that, “We closely watched the movement of the North’s vessels, including submarines and semi-submersibles, at the time of the sinking. But military did not detect any North Korean submarines near the country’s western sea border.” (8)

North Korea has vehemently denied any involvement in the sinking.

So, a North Korean submarine is now said to have fired a torpedo which sank the Cheonan, but in the immediate aftermath of the sinking the South Korean navy detected no North Korean naval vessels, including submarines, in the area. Indeed, immediately following the incident defense minister Lee ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted by radar, and no torpedo had been spotted. (9)

The case gets weaker still.

It’s unlikely that a single torpedo could split a 1,200 ton warship in two. Baek Seung-joo, an analyst with the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis says that “If a single torpedo or floating mine causes a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine.” (10)

The Cheonan sank in shallow, rapidly running, waters, in which it’s virtually impossible for submarines to operate. “Some people are pointing the finger at North Korea,” notes Song Young-moo, a former South Korean navy chief of staff, “but anyone with knowledge about the waters where the shipwreck occurred would not draw that conclusion so easily.” (11)

Contrary to what looks like an improbable North-Korea-torpedo-hypothesis, the evidence points to the Cheonan splitting in two and sinking because it ran aground upon a reef, a real possibility given the shallow waters in which the warship was operating. According to Go Yeong-jae, the South Korean Coast Guard captain who rescued 56 of the stricken warship’s crew, he “received an order …that a naval patrol vessel had run aground in the waters 1.2 miles to the southwest of Baengnyeong Island, and that we were to move there quickly to rescue them.” (12)

So how is it that what looked like no North Korean involvement in the Cheonan’s sinking, according to the South Korean military in the days immediately following the incident, has now become, one and half months later, an open and shut case of North Korean aggression, according to government-appointed investigators?


South Korean president Lee Myung-bak is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors. His foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea.
The answer has much to do with the electoral fortunes of South Korea’s ruling Grand National Party, and the party’s need to marshal support for a tougher stance on the North. Lurking in the wings are US arms manufacturers who stand to profit if South Korean president Lee Myung-bak wins public backing for beefed up spending on sonar equipment and warships to deter a North Korean threat – all the more likely with the Cheonan incident chalked up to North Korean aggression.

Lee is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors (and by Pyongyang, as well. It’s worth mentioning that North Korea supports a policy of peace and cooperation. South Korea, under its hawkish president, does not.) Fabricating a case against the North serves Lee in a number of ways. If voters in the South can be persuaded that the North is indeed a menace – and it looks like this is exactly what is happening – Lee’s hawkish policies will be embraced as the right ones for present circumstances. This will prove immeasurably helpful in upcoming mayoral and gubernatorial elections in June.

What’s more, Lee’s foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea. When he took office in February 2008, he set about reversing a 10-year-old policy of unconditional aid to the North. He has also refused to move ahead on cross-border economic projects. (13) The claim that the sinking of the Cheonan is due to an unprovoked North Korean torpedo attack makes it easier for Lee to drum up support for his confrontational stance.

Finally, the RAND Corporation is urging South Korea to buy sensors to detect North Korean submarines and more warships to intercept North Korean naval vessels. (14) An unequivocal US-lackey – protesters have called the security perimeter around Lee’s office “the U.S. state of South Korea” (15) – Lee would be pleased to hand US corporations fat contracts to furnish the South Korean military with more hardware.

The United States, too, has motivations to fabricate a case against North Korea. One is to justify the continued presence, 65 years after the end of WWII, of US troops on Japanese soil. Many Japanese bristle at what is effectively a permanent occupation of their country by more than a token contingent of US troops. There are 60,000 US soldiers, airmen and sailors in Japan. Washington, and the Japanese government – which, when it isn’t willingly collaborating with its own occupiers, is forced into submission by the considerable leverage Washington exercises — justifies its troop presence through the sheer sophistry of presenting North Korea as an ongoing threat. The claim that North Korea sunk the Cheonan in an unprovoked attack strengthens Washington’s case for occupation. Not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has seized on the Cheonan incident to underline “the importance of the America-Japanese alliance, and the presence of American troops on Japanese soil.” (16)

Given these political realities, it comes as no surprise that from the start members of Lee’s party blamed the sinking of the Cheonan on a North Korean torpedo (17), just as members of the Bush administration immediately blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, and then proceeded to look for evidence to substantiate their case, in the hopes of justifying an already planned invasion. (Later, the Bush administration fabricated an intelligence dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons.) In fact, the reason the ministry of defense felt the need to reiterate there was no evidence of a North Korean link was the persistent speculation of GNP politicians that North Korea was the culprit. Lee himself, ever hostile to his northern neighbor, said his “intuition” told him that North Korea was to blame. (18) Today, opposition parties accuse Lee of using “red scare” tactics to garner support as the June 2 elections draw near. (19) And leaders of South Korea’s four main opposition parties, as well as a number of civil groups, have issued a joint statement denouncing the government’s findings as untrustworthy. Woo Sang-ho, a spokesman for South Korea’s Democratic Party has called the probe results “insufficient proof and questioned whether the North was involved at all.” (20)

Lee announced, even before the inquiry rendered its findings, that a task force will be launched to overhaul the national security system and bulk up the military to prepare itself for threats from North Korea. (21) He even prepared a package of sanctions against the North in the event the inquiry confirmed what his intuition told him. (22) No wonder civil society groups denounced the inquiry’s findings, arguing that “The probe started after the conclusions had already been drawn.” (23)

Jung Sung-ki, a staff reporter for The Korean Times, has raised a number of questions about the inquiry’s findings. The inquiry concluded that “two North Korean submarines, one 300-ton Sango class and the other 130-ton Yeono class, were involved in the attack. Under the cover of the Sango class, the midget Yeono class submarine approached the Cheonan and launched the CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea.” But “’Sango class submarines…do not have an advanced system to guide homing weapons,’ an expert at a missile manufacturer told The Korea Times on condition of anonymity. ‘If a smaller class submarine was involved, there is a bigger question mark.’” (24)

“Rear Adm. Moon Byung-ok, spokesman for [the official inquiry] told reporters, ‘We confirmed that two submarines left their base two or three days prior to the attack and returned to the port two or three days after the assault.’” But earlier “South Korean and U.S. military authorities confirmed several times that there had been no sign of North Korean infiltration in the” area in which the Cheonan went down. (25)

“In addition, Moon’s team reversed its position on whether or not there was a column of water following an air bubble effect. Earlier, the team said there were no sailors who had witnessed a column of water. But during [a] briefing session, the team said a soldier onshore at Baengnyeong Island witnessed ‘an approximately 100-meter-high pillar of white,’ adding that the phenomenon was consistent with a shockwave and bubble effect.” (26)

The inquiry produced a torpedo propeller recovered by fishing vessels that it said perfectly match the schematics of a North Korean torpedo. “But it seemed that the collected parts had been corroding at least for several months.” (27)

Finally, the investigators “claim the Korean word written on the driving shaft of the propeller parts was same as that seen on a North Korean torpedo discovered by the South …seven years ago.” But the “’word is not inscribed on the part but written on it,’ an analyst said, adding that “’the lettering issue is dubious.’” (28)

On August 2, 1964, the United States announced that three North Vietnamese torpedo boats had launched an unprovoked attacked on the USS Maddox, a US Navy destroyer, in the Gulf of Tonkin. The incident handed US president Lyndon Johnson the Congressional support he needed to step up military intervention in Vietnam. In 1971, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon Papers, a secret Pentagon report, revealed that the incident had been faked to provide a pretext for escalated military intervention. There had been no attack. The Cheonan incident has all the markings of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. And as usual, the aggressor is accusing the intended victim of an unprovoked attack to justify a policy of aggression under the pretext of self-defense.
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/

[Proletarian Ultra]

The JCP has consistently called for the removal of all US bases from Japan. They're currently criticizing Hatoyama's back-peddling on the issue.

Yeah. It's actually the #1 demand on the JCP's program (http://www.jcp.or.jp/english/23rd_congress/program.html#04):


The following is a list of democratic reforms Japanese society needs at present:

[National independence, security, and foreign relations]

1. The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty will be abrogated in accordance with Article 10 providing that Japan can notify the U.S. government of its intention to terminate the treaty, and the U.S. forces and military bases will be withdrawn from Japan. Japan will conclude a friendship treaty with the United States on an equal footing.

Unjustifiable U.S. intervention will be rejected also in economic affairs, so as to establish independence in all fields, including finance, foreign exchange, and trade.