Japan to pay 60% of costs of moving US troops to Guam

Justin McCurry in Tokyo
Tuesday April 25, 2006
The Guardian

After weeks of stalled negotiations, Japan has agreed to pay almost 60% of the cost of transferring thousands of US marines from Okinawa to Guam in a move designed to reduce the US's military burden on one of its closest allies.
Japan's defence minister, Fukushiro Nukaga, announced the deal after more than three hours of talks in Washington on Sunday with the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
"I had not expected that such an agreement was possible," Mr Nukaga told reporters. "Japan and the United States were still wide apart on the issue and I thought 'It won't go anywhere unless I directly meet Mr Rumsfeld for talks aimed at a breakthrough.'"


Under the agreement, which is part of Washington's plans to realign its forces around the world, Japan will pay $6.1bn (£3.4bn) towards the $10bn it is expected to cost to move 8,000 marines and their families to Guam, a US territory located roughly midway between Japan and Australia.
Japan will pay $2.8bn in grants, with the remainder coming in various loans. Japan had refused US demands to pay 75% of the total while it struggles to rein in its huge public debt. Many Japanese also blame the bases for causing pollution, accidents and crime.
Mr Rumsfeld said he and Mr Nukaga "have come to an understanding that we both feel is in the best interests of our two countries". Okinawa comprises a fraction of Japan's total area, but is home to around half of the 50,000 US troops stationed in the country. "One big goal of this realignment was to reduce the burden on the people of Okinawa, and our thought is to carry this out as quickly as possible," Shinzo Abe, a Japanese government spokesman, told reporters. "Our burden was unavoidable in order to speed up the process."

Guardian

I am happy with the deal.

Your article has a little spin to the anti American side of things. Japan had only offered to pay 30% of the costs when negotiations. The article failed to mention that. That figure seems low when you think about how bad some Japanese wanted US troops off the island. Okinawa has had a lot of anti US sediment in the last few years.

As I said, I am happy with the deal

Hmm...interesting news, thanks for the sharing, Sandy.

Why did Japan have to pay anything? This is basically paying tribute for an occupying power to leave

Okinawa is actually a crammed island full of people and the military bases are taking up much needed space. I think the japanese govt just wanted to sweeten the deal so that the Americans could finally give the property up. It's been an issue for a while now.

Stupid decision they are soooo going to regret taking.

The article is from one of UK's more leftist papers, The Guardian, hence the bias.

Another source:

Deal reached specifies Japan must pay $6.1 billion for the privilege of evicting the U.S. Army
Japan and the United States have resolved a dispute over the costs of relocating 8,000 US marines from Okinawa to the Pacific island of Guam.
Tokyo had objected to US calls for it to pay 75% of the estimated $10bn cost.
But after talks in Washington on Sunday, a compromise deal was reached under which Tokyo will contribute $6.1bn towards the cost of relocation.
The dispute has held up agreement on overall realignment plans for the US military presence in Japan.
The agreement was due to have been finalised at the end of March.
Japanese Defence Minister Fukushiro Nukaga had a three-hour meeting with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
“We have come to an understanding that we both feel is in the best interests of our two countries,” Mr Rumsfeld said.
Further talks
Tokyo and Washington agreed last year the broad framework of a plan to reduce the number of troops on Okinawa, where most of the American forces are based.
It included the proposal to redeploy the 8,000 marines to Guam but the Japanese government felt its contribution to the moving costs should be smaller.
After several rounds of negotiations over the last few weeks, Japan’s Defence Agency agreed to pay 59% of the costs in grants, loans and investments.
Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said Japan’s contribution was needed to accelerate the transfer.
“Japan needs to shoulder the necessary costs in order to achieve as early as possible our two goals of reducing the local burden and maintaining the deterrent capability,” he told reporters in Tokyo.
Meanwhile, talks continue in Washington and the overall relocation plan is expected to be finalised next month.

I say it's about time that Japan wants to establish itself as not needing american military presence on a constant basis. What has it done since the korean war? The marines just sit there doing nothing while they could be used in the mideast and elsewhere, it's unnecessary. Even during vietnam the japanese bases weren't very useful since they were too far away. If it costs a lot of money then the japanese can afford it, it's just how much they have to pay that is the question.

I think that the USA should've stayed on the Island. But that's because the USA payed for that Island in Blood. Just like the island of Iwo Jima, which is once again a Japanese military base.

Somethings shouldn't change, we fought for that island and we should stay on it.

I have nothing against the Japanese today, but the idea that the island that thousands of GIs and Marines fought and died for to capture to be given back. It just shakes my core because I feel that the memories of those Soldiers and Marines are now worth a little less. By having our troops stationed there, they are reminded of the heroism of the Soldiers and Marines that took that Island.

It isn't wrong to give japan back their territory. Those GIs didn't waste their lives because the military bases are going to become defunct, they fought and died so that japan could be relieved of its military dictatorship that was oppressing everyone they conquered. The GIs succeeded and we salute them, now japan with a healthy code of honor can take on the responsibility of securing their own territory. I have no problem with that, our boys can comeback home and we don't have to worry about bases out in the middle of the pacific since we can use their facilities anyway.

The article is from one of UK's more leftist papers, The Guardian, hence the bias.

Thanks IG,I didn,t know Guardian as leftiest paper.
Why are left-wing people pro-China?
I think.
After people's left-wing soul traveled to left far &far on the world map.
At last,Their soul decided to live in Beijing.