Let us look at the US Marines at Okinawa, and the US-Japan joint project to build a new airbase there, as those are symbolic of the US pressure on Japan still persistent under the Military Review.
All the four forces of the US military are at Okinawa. But the Marines are 58% of the total, using 67% of the bases. During the Korean War 3rd Marines Division was stationed there. It has been there all the time, making Okinawa the only place outside the US where the Marines are stationed on this scale. During those decades the Marines have been dispatched to Vietnam and other theatres of war.
If the US opens fire upon Iran, however, as she is rattling the sabre now, they will be sent immediately, once again, as a convenient amphibious assault force. That means the US will return to the two-front policy even before they have really discarded it. After all the US has been militarily encircling Iran for the past decade with their bases on both sides of Iran.
During Mr.Obama's trip to Australia in November last, it was agreed that 2.500Marines will be permanently stationed at Darwin, the northernmost tip of that country. How should one be to reconcile this new deployment with the concentration of the US military might in the Asia-Pacific area, with probably China in mind, mentioned before? Here the 'Asia-Pacific' primarily refers to its northwestern part, including China and the Korean Peninsula, and Australia is outside this sphere, although the whole of the ASEAN countries are within easy reach from Darwin. It is different from Sydney or Melbourne.
Australia is allied to the US, and the above measure will undoubtedly tie her more closely to the US.
The US, as a new country, has learned diplomacy from European countries. Otto Bismarck is one of the teachers. He used to say that in making an alliance his country should be in the position of the rider, not the horse. In dealing with Japan, the US is clearly following the advice.
The new airbase project at Okinawa is an example of such relations, and has been discussed here more than once. It was decided that the Futemma airbase, Okinawa, would be renounced by the US as it was too dangerous, being in the midst of dense residential quarters. This was in 1996, but in a few months time both sides agreed that an alternative base would be provided.
It is a plan to construct two 1,800 metre-long runways in a big V shape by reclaiming 160 hectares of land from the sea of exceptionally rich bio-diversity. The residents have been picketing the place for 15 years to prevent the constructors from having any access there. The Japanese Government is expected to seek the permission of the Governor of Okinawa Prefecture for the reclamation around June. As the things stand it is doubtful if the Governor will say 'yes'.
If the US still regards Okinawa as the stepping stone for its military deployment into the Asian Continent by insisting on the above plan, what is the meaning of discarding the 'outdated cold war-era systems', as Mr.Obama put it?
In his 'State of the Union' speech of 24 January, which was broadcast while writing, Mr.Obama said that the money spent on the war will now be spent for nation building. He criticized China, but not for military reasons but for economic reasons. Those are matters for welcome. He also said that the US will have 'the finest military in the world'. The point is not if the US is militarily strong. The point is if she is still going to treat others as semi-colonial countries.
For Japan, the alliance has long been outdated. It is the product of the cold war. When Japan regained her independence she was already an aligned country. Many of her people are eagerly looking forward to seeing their country playing a more positive role for peace and development in Asia as a non-aligned, neutral, and more independent one.
No comments:
Post a Comment