Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
1
**OKINAWA AFF**
**INDEX**
1AC
Plan
Adv 1 US Economy
Adv 2 Bio-diversity
Adv 3 US/Japan Relations
Solvency
2
4
5
8
10
12
**RELATIONS**
Okinawa hurts relations
Withdrawal solves relations
Impact SE Asia War
Impact China
Impact Prolif
15
18
20
21
23
**ECONOMY**
U/ Economy Recovering
Base hurts recovery
Withdraw k US Economy
Jobs k US Economy
24
25
28
28
**ADD-ONS**
2AC Japan Economy Add-on
29
**2AC ANSWERS**
AT: Fem IR
AT: Solvency T/O
AT: Japan CP
31
33
35
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
2
Observation I: Inherency
Current US military basing in Japan strains both relationships and economies.
First, Okinawan citizens want US bases removed, adding to tensions between Washington and
Tokyo.
Bandow 2010 (Doug, Sr. Fellow @ Cato Institute, fmr. special asst. to Pres. Reagan. “Japan Can Defend
Itself”. National Interest Organization. <http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23390)
World War II ended 65 years ago. The Cold War disappeared 21 years ago. Yet America’s military deployments have little changed. Nowhere is
that more evident than on the Japanese island of Okinawa. Okinawans
are tired of the heavy U.S. military
presence. Some 90,000—nearly 10 percent of the island’s population—gathered in protest at the end of April.
It is time for Washington to lighten Okinawa’s burden. An independent kingdom swallowed by imperial Japan,
Okinawa was the site of a brutal battle as the United States closed in on Japan in early 1945. After Tokyo’s surrender, Washington filled the main
prefecture island with bases and didn’t return it to Japan until 1972. America’s military presence has only been modestly reduced since. The
facilities grew out of the mutual defense treaty between America and Japan, by which the former promised to defend the latter, which was
disarmed after its defeat. The island provided a convenient home for American units. Most Japanese people also preferred to keep the U.S.
military presence on Japan’s most distant and poorest province, forcing Okinawans to carry a disproportionate burden of the alliance. Whatever
the justifications of this arrangement during the Cold War, the necessity of both U.S. ground forces in Japan and the larger mutual defense treaty
between the two nations has disappeared. It’s time to reconsider both Tokyo’s and Washington’s regional roles. The United States imposed the
so-called “peace constitution” on Japan, Article 9 of which prohibits the use of force and even creation of a military. However, American
officials soon realized that Washington could use military assistance. Today’s “Self-Defense Force” is a widely accepted verbal evasion of a clear
both domestic pacifism and regional opposition have discouraged
reconsideration of Japan’s military role. Washington’s willingness to continue defending an increasingly wealthy Japan
constitutional provision. Nevertheless,
made a rethink unnecessary. Fears of a more dangerous North Korea and a more assertive People’s Republic of China have recently increased
support in Japan for a more robust security stance. The threat of piracy has even caused Tokyo to open its first overseas military facility in the
African state of Djibouti. Nevertheless, Japan’s activities remain minimal compared to its stake in East Asia’s stability. Thus, Tokyo remains
heavily dependent on Washington for its security. The then opposition Democratic Party of Japan promised to “do away with the dependent
relationship in which Japan ultimately has no alternative but to act in accordance with U.S. wishes.” The party later moderated its program,
calling for a “close and equal Japan-U.S. alliance.” However, the government promised to reconsider a previous
agreement to relocate the Marines Corps Air Station at Futenma elsewhere on Okinawa.
The majority of residents want to send the base elsewhere. The Obama administration responded badly, insisting
that Tokyo fulfill its past promises. Only reluctantly did Washington indicate a willingness
to consider alternatives—after imposing seemingly impossible conditions. Still, the primary problem is
Japan. So long as Tokyo requests American military protection, it cannot easily reject Washington’s request for bases. Thus, Okinawan residents
must do more than demand fairness. They must advocate defense independence. Who should protect Japan? Japan. Tokyo’s neighbors remain
uneasy in varying degrees about the prospect of a more active Japan, but World War II is over. A revived Japanese empire is about as likely as a
revived Mongol empire. Both Japan and India could play a much larger role in preserving regional security. Many Japanese citizens are equally
opposed to a larger Japanese military and more expansive foreign policy. Their feelings are understandable, given the horrors of World War II.
However, the most fundamental duty of any national government is defense.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
3
Second, rising tensions between the U.S. and Tokyo put the future of the alliance in jeopardy.
Auslin 2010 (Michael, Resident scholar at AEI, “The US-Japan Alliance” AEI (American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research) < http://www.aei.org/outlook/100929>)
As of January 2010, however, the new Japanese and U.S. administrations find themselves in a
rare, public dispute over fulfilling the 2006 agreement on realigning U.S. forces in Japan. Of particular
controversy is the move of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station at Futenma, in Okinawa, to a
new location on the same island at Camp Schwab. Hatoyama has repeatedly called for a renegotiation of the
agreement, which would also affect the timetable for moving eight thousand U.S. Marines
from Okinawa to Guam, as well as the consolidation and return of other areas on Okinawa
used by U.S. forces to Okinawa's government. Both U.S. and Japanese diplomats have
traded sharp words over the fate of the agreement, and a failure to come to an acceptable
resolution would certainly cast a pall on U.S.-Japan relations during President Barack
Obama's term in office. Already, senior observers on both sides of the Pacific worry that
the unresolved disagreement is doing significant damage to long-term political relations. Yet,
if the overall goal of the realignment process is to allow U.S. forces to maintain their presence in Northeast Asia while minimizing the burden
placed on the Japanese host areas, then the agreement as a whole should be fulfilled as planned.
Of greater concern for the long-term viability of the alliance is whether Washington and
Tokyo continue to share common political and security goals for maintaining East Asian
stability and prosperity. As the North Korean nuclear crisis continues to drag on, both
sides retain their focus on missile defense, which now has resulted in several successful interception tests by Japanese
Maritime SDF destroyers outfitted with Aegis antimissile systems.[8] Yet, with Tokyo beginning to reduce its commitment to future missiledefense systems and with no current political movement on negotiations with North Korea (the six-party talks), it is unclear whether
Washington and Tokyo share the same vision for dealing with Pyongyang. Further, Japan's demand that the status of its citizens abducted by
North Korea be fully resolved has also caused strains within the alliance, since the Bush administration treated such concerns as secondary to the
goal of achieving North Korean denuclearization. Considering the failure so far to end Pyongyang's nuclear programs, U.S.
unwillingness to pressure North Korea on the abductees issue has resulted in subdued, yet
real, resentment on the part of some Japanese officials. That said, Japanese support for the U.S.-led Proliferation
Security Initiative (to stop the export of illicit materials) and United Nations sanctions against North Korea have allowed the allies to work
together to control the maritime domain in Northeast Asia.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
4
Thus the plan:
The United States Federal Government should withdraw all active service members in the United
States Marine Corps from the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station from the Okinawa Prefecture of
Japan. Funding and enforcement through normal means. We reserve the right to clarify.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
5
Contention 2 is the advantages. We’ll highlight 3 advantage scenarios. First, the U.S. economy:
First, the U.S. economy is already facing economic woes because of military deployments.
Adams and Leatherman, 2010 (Dr. Gordon Adams and Matthew Leatherman, “Time to discipline
defense spending,” BudgetInsight, July 19).
Now is the time for Congress and the Pentagon to take a closer look at the military’s missions, make
a realistic risk calculation and reshape a smaller and better tailored force. House defense appropriators are
poised to take an important step in this direction with their coming markup of the Pentagon’s budget request. Indications are that Rep. Norm
Dicks (D-Wash.), chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, may cut the defense budget — though President Barack Obama
and the Senate Budget Committee had exempted it from the larger freeze on discretionary accounts. However, this would be only
the first step in dealing with the two tidal waves bearing down on the defense budget. The
Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review ignored both. It did nothing to acknowledge the nation’s
grave budget woes or the timeline for U.S. withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Second, removing U.S. bases from Okinawa would save billions
Cogan 2010 (Editor, Guam Echo, fmr. Asst. to the Dept. of Interior, “More Okinawa Marines to the
U.S.” Pacific Daily News, June 25 2010.
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20100625/OPINION02/6250316)
the move of troops away from Futenma has
been estimated to cost about $26 billion, $10 billion of which would come from U.S.
taxpayers and $16 billion through a loan from Japan. Sources of funding do not yet seem clear. The U.S. has already
borrowed billions of dollars from China and Japan to keep our federal government
afloat. I would hate to see us borrowing more that we would have to pay back with interest in order to make this move. I have
recommended transporting the 8,600 troops, and their dependents, back to the
mainland, where there are plenty of empty barracks and unemployed workers to build
whatever else is necessary. That would save billions of dollars and be a win-win
situation.
While the conference referred to a $20 billion buildup of the Marianas,
Third, reducing the federal debt is the key to preventing stagflation, which would tank the dollar.
Bayh, 2009 (Evan, D-Indiana, “Why Democrats Must Restrain Spending,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 18.
Last month the Office of Management and Budget predicted that the national debt will increase by $9 trillion over the next decade—$2
trillion more than forecast just four months earlier. Government net interest payments exceed $1 trillion in 2019, up from $382 billion this
year. Because projected deficits exceed projected economic growth, the gap will be self-perpetuating. The consequences of all this will not
A world saturated with U.S. currency will eventually look elsewhere to invest,
causing the dollar's value to drop; foreign creditors, their confidence shaken by our fiscal
profligacy, will demand higher payments to keep holding our debt. The net effect will be
"stagflation," that pernicious combination of slower growth, higher inflation and
interest rates, and lower living standards Americans suffered through in the 1970s. These events
will diminish our global influence, because fiscal strength is essential to diplomatic
leverage, military might and national significance. No great nation can rely upon the
generosity of strangers or the forbearance of potential adversaries to meet its security
needs. America is doing both. China uses its monetary reserves to curry favor in developing countries once in the U.S. sphere of
be benign.
influence; we must borrow to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
6
Fourth, stagflation causes depression.
Schiller, 1997 (Bradley, Prof. Econ @ American U, “The Deficit Problem is Far From Over,” Los
Angeles Times, May 6)
The ever-cautious budget office hints at the kind of disaster that might ensue: "Foreign
investors might suddenly stop investing in U.S. securities, causing the exchange value of
the dollar to plunge, interest rates to shoot up and the economy to stumble into a severe
recession . . . Higher levels of debt might also ignite fears of inflation in the nation's
financial markets, which would push up interest rates even further. Amid the
anticipation of declining profits and rising rates, the stock market might collapse, and
consumers, fearing economic catastrophe, might suddenly reduce their spending.
Moreover, severe economic problems in this country could spill over to the rest of the
world and might seriously affect the economics of U.S. trading partners, undermining
international trade." In other words, the projected U.S. deficit might trigger another
Great Depression.
Fifth, U.S. economic recession causes global wars.
Mead 2009 (Walter Russell, Sr Fellow @ Council on Foreign Relations, “Only Makes You Stronger,”
The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/article/only-makes-you-stronger)
Every crisis is different, but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the world
position of the leading capitalist countries. Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe,
the ability to exploit the
advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in international
competition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change,
dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while providing their tumultuous market
societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies
that translate into military and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever
more productive. They typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow
people of different political and religious viewpoints to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in
the face of accelerating social and economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project
influence around the world and, to some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom
and the United States have done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent.
In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political
framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of
the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has
never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so
signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid
transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an
unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only
half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such halfhearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther
behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic
states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want
to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or
authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks
based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in
wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and
shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as,
inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge
the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which
means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain
If financial crises have been a normal part of life
during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The
their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well.
wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
7
The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad
economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the
Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the
current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward
Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get
World Wars; the cold war:
the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
8
Advantage 2: Bio-Diversity
First, P.M. Kan has agreed that if the USMC stays in Japan, they will be moved to Camp Schwab—
it’s now a question of WHEN not IF.
Gajinaas 2010 (“Okinawa: Futenma MCAS controversy explained.”
http://gaijinass.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/okinawa-futenma-mcas-controversy-explained/ July 12 2010)
Public pressure to have the base and corresponding personnel removed is immense and it has become a national hot point in recent months yet
again. Prime Minister Kan however, has assured the Obama administration that he will support the air stations relocation as opposed to its
removal from Okinawa. PM Kan has agreed to the relocation, as of May 27th, of Futenma MCAS
from the area of Ginowan city to the Camp Schwab Henoko-saki area and adjacent waters.
This would involve a massive amount of construction including “land reclamation” or
building over the water. It is also clear that this endeavor would seriously damage the
enviroment in the surrounding area including a spectacular coral reef located near Camp
Schwab.
Second, moving the base would be devastating—it would destroy the Okinawan coral reefs and
eradicate endangered species, including sea turtles and the dugong. Now is the key time to prevent
extinction.
Center for Biological Diversity 2009 (“Dugongs vs. the U.S. Military,” An Open Letter to President
Obama, Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, and Ambassador Roos. http://cop10.org/issues/military/106henokodugongs December 3).
Okinawa has been called the “Galápagos of the East” because of the incredible
variety of marine and terrestrial life it supports. Unfortunately, a joint military project proposed by the U.S. and
The island of
Japanese governments threatens to destroy one of the last healthy coral-reef ecosystems in Okinawa, pushing many magnificent species to the
brink of extinction. You have the power to protect these unique and priceless creatures. Under a 2006 bilateral agreement, U.S.
and Japanese governments agreed to relocate the contentious U.S. Marine Corps’ Futenma Air
Station to Camp Schwab and Henoko Bay. This shortsighted plan does not take into consideration that the relocation will
destroy a valued ecosystem, including the nearly 400 types of coral that form Okinawa’s
reefs and support more than 1,000 species of fish. It will also hurt imperiled sea turtles and marine mammals.
Current plans call for construction of the new military base near Henoko and Oura bays in Okinawa. But the habitat this project would destroy
supports numerous endangered species — animals protected by American, Japanese, and international law for their biological and cultural
The critically endangered and culturally treasured
dugong, a manatee-like creature, relies on this habitat for its very survival in Okinawa.
Japan’s Mammalogical Society placed the dugong on its “Red List of Mammals,”
estimating the population in Okinawa to be critically endangered. The U.S. government’s Marine
importance. These species include: Okinawa dugong:
Mammal Commission and the United Nations Environmental Program fear the project would pose a serious threat to this mammal’s survival. The
World Conservation Union’s dugong specialists have expressed similar concerns and have placed the dugong on its Red List of threatened
species. The Okinawa dugong is also a federally listed endangered species under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act. The Okinawa dugong has extreme cultural significance to the
Okinawan people, and only about 50 dugongs are thought to remain in these waters. The base
construction will crush the last remaining critical habitat for the Okinawa dugong, destroying feeding trails and seagrass beds essential for
dugong survival. Sea turtles: Three types of endangered sea turtle — the hawksbill, loggerhead, and
green — also depend on this ecosystem. These turtles are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the global
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The turtles use nearby beaches to feed and lay their
eggs. The construction and operation of the new base will cause water and air pollution,
create artificial light pollution, and increase human activity — all of which are harmful to
sea turtle survival. Many plant and animal species are still being discovered in Henoko Bay. Since the base plan was announced, new
types of seagrass — a vital staple food for the dugong — and mollusks have been discovered on the project site. New wonders of nature are
found here each year. The base plan would devastate dugong habitat in Henoko Bay and nearby Oura Bay, and would be extremely harmful to
turtles, fish, coral, and other marine life.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
9
Third, the loss of coral reef will result in a complete collapse of the marine ecosystem which
will have ripple effects of hunger, poverty, and political instability.
Skoloff 2010 (Brian, AP Science Writer, “Death of World’s Coral Reefs Could Wreak Global
Chaos, USA Today Online, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/environment/2010-03-26coral-reefs_N.htm)
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida — Coral reefs are dying, and scientists and governments around the world are contemplating what will happen if
Coral reefs are part of the foundation of the ocean
food chain. Nearly half the fish the world eats make their homes around them. Hundreds of
millions of people worldwide — by some estimates, 1 billion across Asia alone — depend on
them for their food and their livelihoods. If the reefs vanished, experts say, hunger, poverty
and political instability could ensue. "Whole nations will be threatened in terms of their
existence," said Carl Gustaf Lundin of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Numerous studies predict coral reefs are
they disappear altogether. The idea positively scares them.
headed for extinction worldwide, largely because of global warming, pollution and coastal development, but also because of damage from
bottom-dragging fishing boats and the international trade in jewelry and souvenirs made of coral. At least 19% of the world's coral reefs are
already gone, including some 50% of those in the Caribbean. An additional 15% could be dead within 20 years, according to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Old Dominion University professor Kent Carpenter, director of a worldwide census of marine species,
"You could argue that a
complete collapse of the marine ecosystem would be one of the consequences of losing
corals," Carpenter said. "You're going to have a tremendous cascade effect for all life in the oceans." Exotic and colorful, coral reefs aren't
lifeless rocks; they are made up of living creatures that excrete a hard calcium carbonate exoskeleton. Once the animals die, the
rocky structures erode, depriving fish of vital spawning and feeding grounds.
warned that if global warming continues unchecked, all corals could be extinct within 100 years.
Fourth, the impact of this type of biodiversity loss is total human extinction
Diner 1994 (David N., a Major in JAG, and not the bad television show, “The Army and the
Endangered Species Act.” Military Law Review, Winter, 1994).
4. Biological Diversity. – The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction
has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species,
Biologically
diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow
ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems.
"The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a
net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist
collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks
down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially
simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert
and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173]
in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and
intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new
extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets
from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
continues. Theoretically,
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
10
Advantage 3: U.S. Japan Relations
First, the current US Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is generate an outpouring of
resentment from Japan.
C. Douglas Lummis. Journalist. 2008. “The US-Japan Status of Forces Agreement and Okinawan Anger” The Asia-Pacific
Journal: Japan Focus. <http://www.japanfocus.org/-C__Douglas-Lummis/2933>
In her article “How to Stay in Iraq for 1,000 Years,” Frida Berrigan takes up the issue of status of forces agreements (SOFAs), those treaties that
determine the standing of US troops based or operating in foreign countries. She mentions that the special privileges granted
under the US-Japan SOFA have been a particular source of resentment in Okinawa, where
GIs who had committed crimes against Okinawans were repeatedly spirited away by US
military police and disappeared, apparently transferred back to the US, leaving it unclear
whether they were ever charged in a military court. Find the full Japanese and English texts of the 1960 SOFA
agreement ratified by the Japanese and US governments here. The Okinawa experience brings into focus the
humiliation of this extraterritoriality, but a recent incident here raises another question: When push comes to shove, to what
extent is the US military willing to abide by even its own agreements?
Second, the USMC base at Futenma is creating political tensions between Washington and
Tokyo—only removing the base will ease these tensions.
Shimoji 5/10. (Yoshio Shimoji. born in Miyako Island, Okinawa, M.S. (Georgetown University), taught English and English linguistics at the University of the Ryukyus, “The Futenma Base and the U.S.‐Japan Controversy: an Okinawan perspective,” The Asia‐Pacific Journal, 18‐5‐10, May 3, 2010. http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?p=7118 ) That the U.S. intends to perpetuate its military presence in Japan is evident from its insistence that not only Futenma’s operations be transferred to a new high tech base at Henoko, but also that other facilities such as Naha military port, whose return was promised years before Futenma, must be relocated within
Okinawa. The 2006 Road Map betrays Washington’s real intention by accidentally stating, “A bilateral framework to conduct a study on a
permanent field-carrier landing practice facility will be established, with the goal of selecting a permanent site by July 2009 or the earliest
possible date thereafter.” (Italics mine) The Defense Ministry’s bureaucrats and their close associates at the Ministry-affiliated National Institute
for Defense seem well aware of Washington’s designs, for their East Asia Strategic Review 2010 is written on this unspoken premise.
the Futenma relocation issue is grounded on political rather than military foundations, and the party most responsible for this confusion is the U.S. government, not the Hatoyama government, despite the latter’s ham‐fisted handling of the matter. U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma should be closed down and the land returned to its legitimate owners unconditionally and without delay in accordance with the overwhelming wish of the Okinawan people. The U.S. has no inherent right to demand a quid pro quo in exchange for its return. Military training can be conducted on the vastness of U.S. soil with impunity and to their satisfaction Concluding RemarksAs suggested above,
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
11
Third, maintaining a strong alliance between the U.S. and Japan is key to prevent a war in
Southeast Asia.
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 2010. “Foreign Relations” State government
website. < http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm>
The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of U.S. security interests in Asia and is
fundamental to regional stability and prosperity. Despite the changes in the post-Cold War strategic landscape,
the U.S.-Japan alliance continues to be based on shared vital interests and values. These
include stability in the Asia-Pacific region, the preservation and promotion of political and
economic freedoms, support for human rights and democratic institutions, and securing of
prosperity for the people of both countries and the international community as a whole.
Japan provides bases and financial and material support to U.S. forward-deployed forces, which are essential for maintaining stability in the
region. Under the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, Japan hosts a carrier battle group, the III Marine Expeditionary Force,
the 5th Air Force, and elements of the Army's I Corps. The United States currently maintains approximately 50,000 troops in Japan, about half of
whom are stationed in Okinawa. Over the past decade the alliance has been strengthened through revised Defense Guidelines, which expand
Japan's noncombatant role in a regional contingency, the renewal of our agreement on Host Nation Support of U.S. forces stationed in Japan, and
an ongoing process called the Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI). The
DPRI redefines roles, missions, and capabilities of
alliance forces and outlines key realignment and transformation initiatives, including reducing the number of troops
stationed in Okinawa, enhancing interoperability and communication between our
respective commands, and broadening our cooperation in the area of ballistic missile
defense. In February 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone signed the Guam International
Agreement (GIA) in Tokyo. The GIA commits both nations to completing the transfer of approximately 8,000 U.S. Marines from bases in
Okinawa to new facilities in Guam built with the assistance of Japan. Following the 2009 election, the DPJ-led government pledged to review the
existing agreement. The United States continues to work constructively with the Government of Japan to find a solution to the Okinawa basing
issue. Because
of the two countries' combined economic and technological impact on the
world, the U.S.-Japan relationship has become global in scope. The United States and
Japan cooperate on a broad range of global issues, including development assistance,
combating communicable disease such as the spread of HIV/AIDS and avian influenza, and
protecting the environment and natural resources. Both countries also collaborate in
science and technology in such areas as mapping the human genome, research on aging,
and international space exploration. As one of Asia's most successful democracies and its
largest economy, Japan contributes irreplaceable political, financial, and moral support to
U.S.-Japan diplomatic efforts. The United States consults closely with Japan and the Republic of Korea on policy regarding
North Korea. The United States works closely with Japan and Australia under the auspices of the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue and the Security
In Southeast Asia,
U.S.-Japan cooperation is vital for stability and for political and economic reform. Outside Asia,
and Defense Cooperation Forum to exchange views and increase coordination on global and regional initiatives.
Japanese political and financial support has substantially strengthened the U.S. position on a variety of global geopolitical problems, including the
Gulf, Middle East peace efforts, and the Balkans. Japan, a member of the United Nations Security Council for the 2009-2010 term, is an
indispensable partner in the UN and the second-largest contributor to the UN budget. Japan broadly supports the United States on
nonproliferation and nuclear issues.
Fourth, we control the magnitude. Any conflict in Asia would escalate globally
East Asian arms race will cause extinction.
Ogura & Oh ’97 [Toshimaru Ogura and Ingyu Oh are professors of economics, April, “Nuclear clouds over the
Korean peninsula and Japan,” 1997Accessed July 10, 2008 via Lexis-Nexis (Monthly Review)]
North Korea, South Korea, and Japan have achieved quasi- or virtual nuclear armament.
Although these countries do not produce or possess actual bombs, they possess sufficient technological know-how to possess one or
virtual armament creates a new nightmare in this region - nuclear
annihilation. Given the concentration of economic affluence and military power in this region and its
growing importance to the world system, any hot conflict among these countries would
threaten to escalate into a global conflagration.
several nuclear arsenals. Thus,
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
12
Contention 3: Solvency
First, removing the USMC from Okinawa would solve the environmental problems and
address disputes with Okinawan citizens.
Seigen Miyasato, Chairman of the Study Group of Okinawa External Affairs and Professor and Director of the
Center for Japan-U.S. Relations at the International University of Japan, et al., with 17 co-signers, 2009 (“A Letter
to President Obama from Okinawans,” Close The Base—a project of the Institute For Policy Studies, November 9th,
Available Online at http://closethebase.org/background/letter-to-the-president/)
Dear President Barack Hussein Obama, We are residents of Okinawa and we would like to express our views regarding the United States Marine
Corps Futenma Air Station and the current agreement to build a new base in Nago City, Okinawa. We urge you to withdraw all of USMC from
Okinawa. The people of Okinawa have been and will continue to be firmly opposed to the current US plan to relocate the dangerous Futenma Air
We demand that the Futenma Air Station be shut down and
returned unconditionally. The USMC has been stationed in Okinawa since the mid 1950s. The only real solution to
the Futenma problem is a total withdrawal of the USMC from Okinawa. Here we respectfully
state the reasons for our demand. First, the current agreement between the US and Japanese governments regarding
the construction of a new USMC base in Nago City was reached without consultation with the government or the
people of Okinawa in 2005 and 2006. As many recent election results and public opinion polls show, Okinawa’s people have been
calling for relocating Futenma out of Okinawa. Second, the sea area of the new base, located off shore of USMC Camp Schwab
in Nago City, is a habitat for various endangered species, including dugong, the Asian manatee. It
is unacceptable to destroy the highly valuable ocean environment with the construction of a
military base. Third, the US and Japanese governments agreed to close the USMC Futenma
and return its land to Okinawa in 1996, with the condition that a replacement facility be
constructed in Okinawa. However, the new facility has not yet been built. The fourteen years
since have proven that it is simply not possible to squeeze a new military base in Okinawa,
which has long suffered an overburden of US military presence. Finally, when the closure of Futenma Air
Station to another location within Okinawa.
Station was first discussed, it was assumed that the ground combat element and logistic combat element would remain in Okinawa. However,
there is virtually no possibility of building a new air station in Okinawa, the USMC
should relocate both the ground combat element and aviation combat element out of
Okinawa. Indeed, it would be more logical and beneficial for the USMC if all the elements of
the Marine Air-Ground Task Force were relocated together. Our proposal of a total
withdrawal of USMC from Okinawa would actually fit the necessity of the MAGTF’s
integration of elements most effectively. By withdrawing from Okinawa, the USMC could
avoid the unreasonable arrangement of keeping some troops in Okinawa and stationing
others in Guam or Hawaii. It would be more desirable for the USMC, while at the same
time preserving the highly valuable ocean environment and satisfying the demands of the
people of Okinawa. In conclusion, we wish to urge the United States and Japanese
governments to begin the process of planning for a total withdrawal of the USMC from
Okinawa. Now is the time to act for “CHANGE” to create a better relationship between Japan and the United States. Both
countries would benefit from a break with the status quo and a fresh perspective on the
Futenma issue.
since
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
13
Second, removing the USMC base from Okinawa is the key to restoring U.S. Japan relations.
Withdrawing from Okinawa is key to preserve U.S.-Japan relations—it’s the key issue.
Guardian 10 (Simon Tisdall, 3/9/10, "World briefing: Japan and US huff and puff - but need each other
more than ever", lexis)
A long-running row about relocating a US Marine Corps base on Okinawa is threatening
to boil over, with Yukio Hatoyama, Japan's prime minister, admitting at the weekend that failure to resolve the dispute could force his
resignation. Given that his Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) swept to a watershed election victory only last August, such an outcome could be
Despite its stated intention to pay greater attention
to Asia, the Obama administration is making a hash of relations with Japan. Its insistence that
deeply embarrassing for the US and deeply resented in Japan.
Tokyo's new centre-left leaders honour a 2006 deal on the Futenma base between George Bush and their long-entrenched conservative
predecessors looks like an attempt to ride roughshod over Japan's democratic process. Blame for rising bilateral strains also lies with Hatoyama,
who seems to have promised more than he can deliver. Shigeru Ishiba, a senior Liberal Democrat party opposition leader, openly mocked the
The Okinawa dispute
reflects broader differences. Hatoyama's view that Japan needs a more "balanced"
relationship with Washington after 65 years of polite subservience in the security sphere,
and his related interest in developing an EEC-style east Asian economic community
including China, have produced sharply critical reactions in Washington. Hatoyama, meanwhile, is
prime minister last week for supposedly making an election pledge he had "no idea" how to fulfil.
paying the price for appearing indecisive, with only one in four voters now intending to support the DPJ in upper-house parliamentary elections
in July.
"The relationship between the US and Japan is in its worst state ever," wrote Hisahiko
Okazaki, a former ambassador, in the daily newspaper Sankei Shimbun.
asset to lose," he added.
"The Japan-US alliance is too valuable an
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
1AC
Okinawa Aff
14
Third, decreasing the number of bases in Japan solves U.S. military spending and focus on
American’s own defense
Bandow 2010 (Doug, Sr Fellow @ Cato, fmr. Special Asst. to Reagan, “Needed: A New U.S.
Defense Policy for Japan,” http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/06/02/needed-a-new-u-s-defense-policy-for-japan/)
Prime Minister Hatoyama was hit by a campaign scandal—a regular of Japanese politics. But the most important cause of his resignation was his
botched handling of American bases on the island of Okinawa. In early 1945 Okinawa became the first part of the Japanese homeland to fall as
the U.S. closed in on imperial Japan. Washington held onto the island after the war and loaded it with military installations. Only in 1972 was
Okinawa returned to Japanese sovereignty. Despite some reduction in U.S. forces, American military facilities still account for roughly one-fifth
of the island’s territory. Okinawans long ago tired, understandably, of the burden and have been
pressing for the removal of at least some bases. The DPJ campaigned to create a more equal alliance with America
and promised to revisit plans by the previous government to relocate America’s Futenma facility elsewhere on the island. However, under strong
U.S. pressure Hatoyama reversed course. He said the rising tensions on the Korean peninsula reminded him about the value of America’s
American taxpayers have paid to defend
Japan for 65 years. Doing so made sense in the aftermath of World War II, when Japan
was recovering from war and Tokyo’s neighbors feared a revived Japanese military. But long
military presence. Japan’s military dependency is precisely the problem.
ago it became ridiculous for Americans to defend the world’s second-ranking power and its region.
Of course, having turned its defense over to Washington, Tokyo could do no more than beg the U.S. to move its base. After all, if Americans are
going to do Japan’s dirty defense work, Americans are entitled to have convenient base access. Irrespective of what the Okinawans desire.
Unfortunately, Hatoyama’s resignation isn’t likely to change anything. The new prime minister won’t be much different from the old one. Or the
ones before him. If
change is to come to the U.S.-Japan security relationship, it will have to come
from America. And it should start with professed fiscal conservatives asking why the U.S.
taxpayers, on the hook for a $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone, must forever subsidize the
nation with the world’s second-largest economy? Cliches about living in a dangerous world and defending freedom
are no answer. America is made not only poorer but less secure when it discourages its friends
from defending themselves and when it accepts their geopolitical conflicts as its own. To
coin a phrase, it is time for a change. And not just with Japan. There’s also South Korea. And especially the Europeans.
It’s not clear who they have to be defended from, but whoever their potential adversary or adversaries may be, the Europeans should defend
Americans
shouldn’t have to help pay for the Europeans’ even bigger welfare state at the same time.
The U.S. should maintain a strong defense. Of America. Washington should stop
subsidizing the defense of prosperous and populous allies. When the Constitution speaks of “the common
defense,” the Founders meant of Americans, not of the rest of the world. A good place to start ending foreign military
welfare would be Japan.
themselves. The Obama administration is impoverishing Americans to support a growing welfare state at home.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
15
Okinawa Tanks Relations
US-Japan Relations tense over situation in Okinawa; put future of alliance in
jeopardy
Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at AEI. A version of this Outlook appeared in Japanese in the January 2010 edition of Gaiko Forum.
“The US-Japan Alliance” AEI (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research) < http://www.aei.org/outlook/100929 >
As of January 2010, however, the new Japanese and U.S. administrations find themselves in a
rare, public dispute over fulfilling the 2006 agreement on realigning U.S. forces in Japan. Of particular
controversy is the move of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station at Futenma, in Okinawa, to a
new location on the same island at Camp Schwab. Hatoyama has repeatedly called for a renegotiation of the
agreement, which would also affect the timetable for moving eight thousand U.S. Marines
from Okinawa to Guam, as well as the consolidation and return of other areas on Okinawa
used by U.S. forces to Okinawa's government. Both U.S. and Japanese diplomats have
traded sharp words over the fate of the agreement, and a failure to come to an acceptable
resolution would certainly cast a pall on U.S.-Japan relations during President Barack
Obama's term in office. Already, senior observers on both sides of the Pacific worry that
the unresolved disagreement is doing significant damage to long-term political relations. Yet,
if the overall goal of the realignment process is to allow U.S. forces to maintain their presence in Northeast Asia while minimizing the burden
Of greater concern for the
long-term viability of the alliance is whether Washington and Tokyo continue to share
common political and security goals for maintaining East Asian stability and prosperity. As
the North Korean nuclear crisis continues to drag on, both sides retain their focus on
missile defense, which now has resulted in several successful interception tests by Japanese Maritime SDF destroyers outfitted with
placed on the Japanese host areas, then the agreement as a whole should be fulfilled as planned.
Aegis antimissile systems.[8] Yet, with Tokyo beginning to reduce its commitment to future missile-defense systems and with no current political
movement on negotiations with North Korea (the six-party talks), it is unclear whether Washington and Tokyo share the same vision
for dealing with Pyongyang. Further, Japan's demand that the status of its citizens abducted by North Korea be fully resolved has also caused
strains within the alliance, since the Bush administration treated such concerns as secondary to the goal of achieving North Korean
denuclearization. Considering the failure so far to end Pyongyang's nuclear programs,
U.S. unwillingness to pressure North
Korea on the abductees issue has resulted in subdued, yet real, resentment on the part of
some Japanese officials. That said, Japanese support for the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (to stop the export of illicit
materials) and United Nations sanctions against North Korea have allowed the allies to work together to control the maritime domain in Northeast
Asia.
Failure to enact some sort of action will degrade the alliance Robert Eldridge (Ph.D. Director, U.S.‐Japan Alliance Affairs Division Center for International Security Studies and Policy (CISSP), School of International Public Policy, Osaka University (OSIPP)) 05 (9/24, Toward a Viable, Comprehensive, Long‐term Approach to the Okinawa Basing Issue and the True Strengthening of the Alliance, OSIPP, http://www2.osipp.osaka‐u.ac.jp/~eldridge/) Before beginning, I must express several caveats. First, I believe the
U.S.-Japan alliance to be one of the most important, mutually
has served the respective individual interests of Japan
and the United States, our mutual interests, regional interests, and international interests, and
we must build on this for the future. This region, lacking a NATO-like security structure and a widespread commitment to democratic systems,
helpful alliances and relationships in modern history. It
and ripe in historical and territorial problems, would be in worse shape without the alliance, as would the world, without the U.S.-Japan
partnership. If the realignment discussions currently being pursued by the two governments
continue to their logical conclusion, I fear that they will actually and ironically bring about
the political and strategic degradation of the alliance rather than its strengthening.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
16
Okinawa Tanks Relations
Incidents make Japan angry over SOFA
Chiyomi Sumida. Journalist. 2009. Stars and Stripes Magazine. “Yomitan residents want soldier accused of hit-and-run turned over”
<http://www.stripes.com/news/yomitan-residents-want-soldier-accused-of-hit-and-run-turned-over-1.97284 >
Yomitan residents rallied Sunday, demanding a U.S. soldier suspected in a fatal hit-and-run be turned over to Japanese authorities immediately.
Rally organizers claim about 1,500 residents gathered near Torii Station, urging both governments to expedite the investigation of the accident
The body of a 66-year-old Yomitan man was found Nov. 7 in
bushes by the side of a village road. Three days later, a 27-year-old staff sergeant assigned to Torii
Station was identified as the driver of a car that police suspect hit the man.The soldier, however,
refused questioning by Okinawa police after three sessions, claiming that a statement he gave them during an
initial question was mistranslated. “The servicemember has fled into the military base, taking advantage
of the status of forces agreement, (SOFA)” said a protest resolution that was to be
submitted to the Tokyo government.The resolution called for a change in the SOFA, which
and to change the status of forces agreement.
allows for the U.S. military to retain custody prior to indictment of any servicemember not arrested by Japanese police off base. The soldier, who
lives in Yomitan, has been restricted to Torii Station pending the outcome of the investigation into the incident.” While the suspect has been long
identified, why don’t police ask for his custody?” Yomitan Mayor Keizo Yasuda, an organizer of the rally, said Sunday. Sunday’s protest
continues Okinawa officials’ push to have the soldier turned over to Japan prior to indictment. The Okinawa Prefectural Assembly passed a
nonbinding resolution Dec. 6 advocating such a move. Yasuda said he plans to visit U.S. Forces Japan headquarters at Yokota Air Base, the U.S.
Embassy and Japanese government agencies in Tokyo next week. Under the agreement, Japan is required to formally inform the military of the
crime. After making the notification, Japan has 20 days to press charges, after which they can take custody of a suspect.
Sexual assault and violence against women makes the Futnema base a sticking
point in relations.
Junko
.
Ogrua
CNN Analyst.
2008.
“Japan probes new allegations of rape linked to U.S. military”
<http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/20/okinawa.rape/index.html?>
Investigators in Japan are investigating a second reported sexual assault connected to the
U.S. military, police said Thursday. Investigators said they are looking into allegations that a member
of the U.S. Army raped a Filipino woman on the island of Okinawa. Last week, police
detained a U.S. Marine in the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl on Okinawa – a case that
has stirred outrage across Japan.It was not immediately clear whether the suspect in the second case was a soldier or a
civilian employee at the military’s sprawling base in southern Japan, where tens of thousands of troops are based. The U.S. Army said
commanders are aware of the second allegation and are looking into it. In the first case, police said they had detained 38-year-old Tyrone Luther
Hadnott. Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda condemned the alleged incident as “unforgivable,” and the U.S. military confined troops to their bases or
off-base homes for “a period of reflection” as of Wednesday morning, except for work, worship, school or medical appointments, according to a
news release from Camp Butler on Okinawa. “This period of reflection will allow commanders and all service members an opportunity to further
review procedures and orders that govern the discipline and conduct of all U.S. service members serving in Okinawa,” the release said. The
military did not indicate how long the restrictions – which began at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday – would remain in effect. The U.S. military said it
formed a sexual assault prevention task force after the incident. Similar cases have strained relations between the
United States and Japan in the past. Anti-U.S. sentiments boiled over in 1995 after a 12-yearold Okinawan schoolgirl was gang-raped by three American servicemen. Two years ago, a U.S.
civilian military employee was jailed for nine years for raping two women.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
17
RELATIONS: OKINAWA TANKS RELATIONS
The issue of relocating US military bases in Okinawa is stirring up resentment
between the US and Japan
Tankha ’10 (Brij: visiting professor, Hitotsubashi University. “The Okinawa Question” Express Buzz. The New Indian Express Group.
May 22, 2010. http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/the-okinawa-question/175389.html. Accessed: May 21, 2010. LV)
The self-imposed May 31 deadline for resolving the question of relocating the US military
base on Futenma, Okinawa island, is nearing and Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is
nowhere near a decision. His inability to do this reflects the strength of the US embrace of
Japan, his own indecisiveness, as well as the complex and conflicting interests that are
inextricably linked to this issue. The problem is not just a question of re-locating a military
base but the debate has opened up the discussion on the nature of the US military alliance
and the terms on which it was cast. Many sections of Okinawa have been angered by
Hatoyama’s statement on his May 4 visit that they must accept the base given that his election platform had
included a commitment to relocate the base. The US sees him as endangering Japan’s regional security, the
conservative opposition as leaving Japan open to possible Chinese threats. His coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party
wants Futenma out of Japan. In the headline grabbing focus on Futenma, Hatoyama’s policy of better relations with China and
an East Asian Community has been pushed off the page.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
18
Withdrawing Bases Solves Relations
Military Withdrawl Solves Relations – allows cooperation on other issues
Bandow 2009 (Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties.
Special assistant to President Reagan)
(Agust 31, 2009 “Tokyo Drift”. National Interest Online http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22122)
Expecting Tokyo to protect itself doesn’t mean severing bilateral security relationships.
The United States and Japan should cooperate on issues ranging from intelligence
sharing to emergency base access. Nye also writes of “a new set of transnational
challenges to our vital interests, such as pandemics, terrorism, and human outflows from
failed states. Chief among these challenges is the threat posed by global warming.”
None of these, however, compares to the importance of preserving the nation from
attack. And none are relevant to a military alliance. In fact, today’s emphasis on
military issues may inhibit bilateral cooperation elsewhere.
The DPJ intends to change Tokyo’s relationship with the United States. In what direction will the new
government move? Washington should take the lead, turning defense responsibilities
over to Japan, which would benefit both countries.
U.S. reduction of military presence on Okinawa solves Japanese voters popularity and the alliance while stabilizing the political climate of Japan Vaughan 2010 (Michael Vaughan, Michael Vaughn, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at Saint Louis University 3‐
23‐2010) (“Japan’s New Government – Finding or Losing Its Way? http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:200332) Okinawa is Japan’s poorest Prefecture, its history and culture are distinct from those of the rest of the country and its inhabitants feel like second‐class citizens. They recall that Okinawa bore the brunt of the US invasion of April 1945 and many believe that at the time the Imperial Japanese Army forced its soldiers to commit mass suicide rather than surrender to the Americans. In a poll of Okinawan residents taken in November 2009, more than 52% favoured removing all the US bases completely. Just under 12% wished to maintain the status quo, perhaps because of the employment opportunities and rental payments that the US presence provides them. For its part, the US military has largely treated Okinawa as its own fiefdom since 1945. Some 12,500 Americans died and 37,000 were wounded in the battle for the island. Until it officially reverted to Japan in 1972, the US military ran the place with a free hand, often defying the wishes of both the Japanese Government and the US State Department. In one incident, in 1966, the US military secretly transported nuclear weapons from Okinawa to Honshu, Japan’s main island, in flagrant violation of the 1960 Security Agreement. The US military also resisted Okinawa’s reversion to Japanese rule and it continues to have a proprietary attitude about what takes place there. The US Government should respect Japan’s desire to reduce the US military presence on its sovereign territory, as it has respected the same desire on the part of Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. It should be willing to renegotiate the agreement that governs the presence of US troops in Japan, which to some is redolent of 19th Century assertions of extraterritoriality. It should be aware that, at the end of the day, Japanese voters will determine the course of the alliance. Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
19
Withdraw solves Relations
US base removal would solve relations problems Xinhua News 6/9 (Xinhua News Agency) News Analysis: U.S. military presence to remain thorn in relations with Japan: experts Friday, July 09, 2010 10:17 PM The U.S. military presence in Japan will remain a long term source of consternation between the two allies, in spite of a recent easing of tensions, some experts said. "All you need is another rape case and it comes up as a high profile issue," said Rodger Baker, director of East Asia analysis at global intelligence company Stratfor. Residents of Okinawa, a Japanese island that hosts about two‐thirds of Japan's 40,000 U.S. troops, still recall the 1995 case in which three U.S. servicemen kidnapped and raped a 12‐year‐old Japanese girl. They continue to complain about noise from overhead U.S. aircraft and the island has seen mass demonstrations calling for U.S. forces to leave. Last year, then Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama sparked a row when he called for a "partnership of equals" in a relationship dominated by Washington since the end of World War II. When the dust cleared, Hatoyama resigned because of a broken campaign promise to shutter Futenma, a U.S. air base located in Okinawa. The relationship underwent a public reset at the recent G20 summit in Toronto. Japan's new Prime Minister Naoto Kan pledged he will stick to a previous agreement with Washington to move Futenma to the north of the island, even though Okinawans want the base gone altogether. U.S. President Barack Obama responded that he understands the delicacy of the matter and that he would strive to make the U.S. military presence more palatable to Tokyo. Still, analysts said the problem is not going away. "The issue is not dead," Baker said, adding that tensions are high with locals wherever U.S. troops are deployed overseas. In South Korea, for example, dissatisfaction with the U.S. military presence has led to a number of mass demonstrations over the years. Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato (NYSE:CATO) Institute, said the issue could become messy for Japan's ruling party, as Okinawans are unlikely to compromise over the issue.The Kan administration may, however, take a cue from the former ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which in 2006 agreed to move Futenma but dithered on the relocation so as not to arouse anger in Okinawa, Bandow said. "Kan's best hope is to kick the can down the road," he said. Ichiro Fujisaki, Japanese Ambassador to the United States, said in a speech from Washington on Thursday that "we have to lessen the burden" on the people of Okinawa, but that the U.S.‐Japan alliance "will be honored." Richard Bush, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Japan's leadership deemed the former prime minister's approach a political loser. "They needed to cut their losses, they did so and that brought about an immediate improvement in U.S.‐Japan relations," he said. While the party will continue to deal with expectations raised by former Prime Minister Hatoyama, Kan is deflating those expectations, he said. While Kan will feel Washington's pull on one side and Okinawa's tug on the other, he will respond more to the former, Bush said. For now, both Washington and Tokyo are downplaying the military issue and Japan's leadership is focusing on the economy in the face of an ongoing global recession. Baker said Japan understands its inability to provide fully for its defense, and a number of what Washington perceives as Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
20
regional security concerns will cause the United States to keep a sharp eye on the region, he said. Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
21
RELATIONS IMPACTS: SE ASIA WAR US‐Japan alliance is the key to stability in SE Asia and preventing war from breaking out Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 2010. “Foreign Relations” State government
website. < http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm>
The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of U.S. security interests in Asia and is
fundamental to regional stability and prosperity. Despite the changes in the post-Cold War strategic landscape,
the U.S.-Japan alliance continues to be based on shared vital interests and values. These
include stability in the Asia-Pacific region, the preservation and promotion of political and
economic freedoms, support for human rights and democratic institutions, and securing of
prosperity for the people of both countries and the international community as a whole.
Japan provides bases and financial and material support to U.S. forward-deployed forces, which are essential for maintaining stability in the
region. Under the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, Japan hosts a carrier battle group, the III Marine Expeditionary Force,
the 5th Air Force, and elements of the Army's I Corps. The United States currently maintains approximately 50,000 troops in Japan, about half of
whom are stationed in Okinawa. Over the past decade the alliance has been strengthened through revised Defense Guidelines, which expand
Japan's noncombatant role in a regional contingency, the renewal of our agreement on Host Nation Support of U.S. forces stationed in Japan, and
an ongoing process called the Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI). The
alliance forces and outlines key realignment and transformation initiatives,
DPRI redefines roles, missions, and capabilities of
including reducing the number of troops
stationed in Okinawa, enhancing interoperability and communication between our
respective commands, and broadening our cooperation in the area of ballistic missile
defense. In February 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone signed the Guam International
Agreement (GIA) in Tokyo. The GIA commits both nations to completing the transfer of approximately 8,000 U.S. Marines from bases in
Okinawa to new facilities in Guam built with the assistance of Japan. Following the 2009 election, the DPJ-led government pledged to review the
existing agreement. The United States continues to work constructively with the Government of Japan to find a solution to the Okinawa basing
issue. Because
of the two countries' combined economic and technological impact on the
world, the U.S.-Japan relationship has become global in scope. The United States and
Japan cooperate on a broad range of global issues, including development assistance,
combating communicable disease such as the spread of HIV/AIDS and avian influenza, and
protecting the environment and natural resources. Both countries also collaborate in
science and technology in such areas as mapping the human genome, research on aging,
and international space exploration. As one of Asia's most successful democracies and its
largest economy, Japan contributes irreplaceable political, financial, and moral support to
U.S.-Japan diplomatic efforts. The United States consults closely with Japan and the Republic of Korea on policy regarding
North Korea. The United States works closely with Japan and Australia under the auspices of the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue and the Security
In Southeast Asia,
U.S.-Japan cooperation is vital for stability and for political and economic reform. Outside Asia,
and Defense Cooperation Forum to exchange views and increase coordination on global and regional initiatives.
Japanese political and financial support has substantially strengthened the U.S. position on a variety of global geopolitical problems, including the
Gulf, Middle East peace efforts, and the Balkans. Japan, a member of the United Nations Security Council for the 2009-2010 term, is an
indispensable partner in the UN and the second-largest contributor to the UN budget. Japan broadly supports the United States on
nonproliferation and nuclear issues.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
Okinawa Aff
22
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
RELATIONS IMPACT--CHINA
Japan and US political alliance necessary to keep China from becoming too
powerful and preventing war
Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at AEI. A version of this Outlook appeared in Japanese in the January 2010 edition of Gaiko Forum.
“The US-Japan Alliance” AEI (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research) < http://www.aei.org/outlook/100929 >
Japan and the United States share the same strategic conundrum regarding China: how can
each country maintain and develop economic relations with China while attempting to hedge against its growing military capabilities? The
U.S. Navy and the Japanese Maritime SDF are particularly concerned about the power of
China's Navy, which now has over sixty submarines and increasing numbers of destroyers,
patrol ships, Coast Guard–equivalent vessels, and the like. With China stating that it plans to
build several aircraft carriers, alliance military planners are questioning why Beijing is
developing power-projection capabilities that could be used to deny access to U.S. naval
ships and to control strategic waterways.[9] Similarly, the growth of the Chinese Air Force's fighter
squadrons, including advanced 4.5 generation fighter planes, indicates that the United
States, along with alliance partners like Japan, may not have air superiority in the case of a
conflict with China (such as over the Taiwan Strait) in the future. This, combined with the expansion of China's strategic rocket
forces, complicates the alliance's plans for ensuring peace and stability in Northeast Asia. On top
of such strategic changes, the Obama administration's decision to halt America's F-22 Raptor fleet at 187 planes and not to allow export variants
of the Raptor also leaves Japanese planners uncertain about whether the United States will continue to maintain a credible regional force to
protect Japan. One way to maintain the alliance's importance in coming years is to create some regional trilateral or quadrilateral mechanisms
with the U.S.-Japan alliance at the core. These
security-related issues raise important political questions
for the future of the alliance. Neither Washington nor Tokyo wants to see trade and
political relations with China deteriorate, but both naturally question why Beijing
continues to build such powerful military capabilities. When Japanese and U.S. leaders inserted a clause on their
interest in peaceful resolution of territorial issues in the Taiwan Straits in their 2005 Security Consultative Committee joint statement, Beijing's
negative reaction led them to remove the words in subsequent official statements.[10] Given the alliance's stated commitment to respond to
"situations in areas surrounding Japan,"[11] however, concerns over Beijing's unwillingness to work more closely with regional powers on
security issues have raised the question of how the alliance can work together to shape Chinese behavior in positive ways for regional stability.
Distrust between China and Japan will likely result in war in Northeast Asia Kent E. Calder, staff writer Foreign Affairs, 2006 [China and Japan’s Simmering Rivalry] <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61515/kent‐e‐calder/china‐and‐japans‐simmering‐rivalry> As with the United Kingdom and Germany a century ago, the contest for regional leadership between China and Japan today is creating new security dilemmas, prompting concerns over Chinese ambitions in Japan and fears of renewed Japanese militarism in China. Both states are adopting confrontational stances, partly because of rising popular involvement in politics and resurgent nationalism exacerbated by revived memories of World War II; mutually beneficial economic dealings alone are not effectively soothing these tensions. Fluid perceptions of power and fear, Thucydides observed, are the classic causes of war. And they are increasingly present in Northeast Asia today. Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
Okinawa Aff
23
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
Relations Impact: China
China-Japan conflict will inevitably lead to war
Michael Heazle. Associate professor with the Griffith Asia Institute.
<http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2010/06/01/Rethinking-the-US-role-in-Asia.aspx>
Rethinking
the
US
role
in
Asia.
2010.
Indeed, the many realist arguments about how a continuing US military presence is, and will remain, essential to maintaining peace in the region
share the common assumption that, without the US around, China, Japan, and one or both of the Koreas would soon be at each others' throats.
But try the following thought experiment...The
influence of China's increasing economic and military
power on its relations with Japan, and regional security more broadly, is mostly seen as increasing
competition within a shifting balance of power that will lead to military conflict at some
point (the past repeats itself, realists observe).
China-Japan conflict has serious ramifications for world powers
James Chieh
Hsiung. China and Japan at Odds: Deciphering the Perpetual Conflict. September 2007.
Immediately after Abe took office, some experts were calling him the youngest but “most hawkish prime minister since the Second World War.”
As will be shown in Chapter 11, it is premature to assume that simply because Koizumi is gone Sino-Japanese relations will reverse course. This
is because the root causes of the animosity and distrust between the two countries run intractably deep, and the schism is not likely to be healed
by one or two summit contacts and superficial fence-mending. The China-Japan feud inevitably promises to spill
over into their respective circles of friends and allies, including the United States,
converting the bilateral conflict into an impasse of much wider and far-reaching
consequence. In other words, the United States and other countries have much at stake in
the Sino-Japanese feud and its outcome.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
RELATIONS EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
24
Relations Impact: Prolif
Sustainable alliance vital to Prolif cooperation
Nye and Armitage 07
[Nye, Joseph Ph.D Harvard and Armitage, Richard, Former Deputy Secretary of State. “The US-Japan Alliance: Getting Asia Right Through
2020.” CSIS 2-17-07. Pg 16 http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/070216_asia2020.pdf Kwalk]
To address the growing threat of missile proliferation in the region, the United States and Japan have cooperated to develop missile defense
technologies and concepts. The United States and Japan are now in the process of producing and
employing a missile defense system, sharing the technological capabilities of the world’s
two largest economies. By cooperating on this important venture, Japan will benefit from
the synergies resulting from a missile defense command and control system, improving its
joint operational systems and our bilateral ability to quickly share critical information. To
produce and employ missile defense systems successfully together, Japan changed its prohibition on military exports, allowing such exports to
the United States. Through all of these measures, the alliance made rapid progress in defense cooperation to meet challenges imposed by the
existing security environment.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
ECONOMY EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
25
Uniqueness: US Economy Recovering
The US economy is recovering, but is nowhere near normalcy.
Greg Robb is a senior reporter for MarketWatch in Washington. 2010. Market Watch. “U.S. recovery gathering strength but risks remain”
< http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-economy-recovering-well-but-risks-remain-imf-2010-07-08>
The U.S. economy is gathering strength but the high unemployment rate will continue to
restrain consumer spending, according to a report prepared by the staff of the International
Monetary Fund released Thursday. The report comes at the end of an annual checkup of the U.S. economy conducted by the IMF staff. The
IMF executive board will review the report and make recommendations for actions later this summer. The general theme of the
diagnosis is that the U.S. economy and financial system have improved since the Great
Recession but are not out of the woods by any means. The IMF forecast GDP growth of
3.25% in 2010, decelerating a bit to 3% in 2011. Inflation will remain very low while the
unemployment rate will remain above 9%. The key task ahead for the Obama
administration is to get the deficit under control without putting the recovery in jeopardy, the IMF said. The
debt held by the public could reach 95% of GDP by 2020, the IMF said. Tougher budget measures are
needed that are currently contemplated, the report said. There is room for stimulus in the short term but it should be carefully targeted and offset
in future years. The European debt crisis has tipped the risks in the forecast to the downside, and weak economic data over the last few weeks,
since the IMF report was written, have only increased that risk, IMF officials said. The report on the U.S. comes on the heels of an update on the
global economy released by the IMF on Thursday morning in Hong Kong. The IMF said the global economy will continue to recover this year
and next, despite the turbulence from Europe and worries about sovereign debt. See full story. The international agency separately examined the
U.S. financial system for the first time and found "important parts of the banking system remain vulnerable to shocks." In particular, banks
continue to experience losses from commercial real estate, IMF officials said. "The wave of defaults has yet to crest," said Christopher Towe,
deputy director of the IMF's monetary and capital markets department. The hot-spots are on the West Coast and in the South. Many small and
mid-sized banks need to raise additional capital to support the recovery, IMF officials said. Lack of credit is still putting a constraint on the
recovery, the IMF said. "We
still see financial conditions as a little on the tight side... so we still see that
as something of a restraint potentially to growth going forward," said Charles Kramer,
head of the IMF's western hemisphere division. Securitization markets "remains pretty moribund" and banks will
therefore need to find capital from other sources, Kramer said. The IMF said that regulatory reform efforts in Congress would take "major steps"
in eliminating gaps in oversight of Wall Street exposed by the financial crisis. The proposals missed a chance to streamline supervision, which
leaves a heavy burden on the different agencies to cooperate effectively, the IMF report said. The international agency supported the Fed's
monetary policy stance of leaving rates at exceptionally low levels for an extended period. The IMF retains a long wish-list of policy actions for
Congress and the Obama administration. This includes ending the ability of taxpayers to deduct mortgage interest from their tax returns. In
general, the IMF said that the current housing system, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was "costly, inefficient and complex." Other
proposals on the IMF wish-list are higher taxes on energy and a national consumption tax or financial activities tax.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
ECONOMY EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
26
Okinawa Bases Hurt Economy
It’s not wise for the United States to remain in Japan economically
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Reagan, he is the author of Tripwire: Korea
and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World (Cato) and co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations with North and
South Korea.
2010. “Japan Can Defend Itself”.
National Interest Organization. <http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23390>
If the Japanese people want a minimal (or no) military, that is their right. But they should not expect other nations to fill the defense gap.
Moreover, with an expected $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone, the United States can no longer
afford to protect countries which are able to protect themselves. Washington has more than
enough on its military plate elsewhere in the world. Raymond Greene, America’s consul general in Okinawa, says:
“Asia is going though a period of historic strategic change in the balance of power.” True enough, which is why East Asian security and stability
require greater national efforts from Japan and its neighbors. Regional defense also warrants improved multilateral cooperation—something
which should minimize concerns over an increased Japanese role. The other important question is, defend Japan from what? Today Tokyo faces
few obvious security threats. For this reason, many Japanese see little cause for an enlarged Japanese military. However, North Korea’s uncertain
future and China’s ongoing growth should give the Japanese people pause for concern. East Asia might not look so friendly in coming decades.
Richard Lawless, assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs in the
Bush administration, claimed: “observers perceive a Japan that is seemingly content to marginalize itself, a Japan that appears to almost
intentionally ignore the increasingly complex and dangerous neighborhood in which it is located.” Nevertheless, only the Japanese
can assess the threats which concern them rather than Washington. And only the Japanese
can decide how best to respond to any perceived threats. Moreover, so long as Japan goes hat-in-hand to the
United States for protection, Washington is entitled to request—or, more accurately, insist on—bases that serve its interests. And Tokyo cannot
easily say no. Before the demonstration Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said that “It must never happen that we accept the existing plan.”
Afterwards he visited Okinawa and indicated that he planned to renege on his government’s earlier promises: “we must maintain the Japan-U.S.
alliance as a deterrent force, and . . . we must ask Okinawa to bear some of that burden." He added that "It has become clear from our negotiations
with the Americans that we cannot ask them to relocate the base to too far-flung a location." Apparently his government intends to move some
facilities elsewhere on Okinawa as well as to the small island of Tokunoshima. With Tokyo retreating from its commitment to chart a more
independent course, it is up to the United States to reorder the relationship. Washington policy makers long have enjoyed America’s quasiimperial role. But U.S. citizens are paying for and dying in Washington’s quasi-imperial wars. An
expansive American role made sense during the Cold War in the aftermath of World War II. That world disappeared two decades ago.
Promiscuous intervention in today’s world inflates the power of Washington policy makers
but harms the interests of U.S. citizens. American forces and personnel are expected to be
at perpetual risk guaranteeing the interests of other states, including Japan. Thus the U.S. reliance on Okinawa.
Lieutenant General Keith Stalder, the Marine Corps Pacific commander, said the island deployment is “the perfect model” for the alliance’s
objectives of “deterring, defending and defeating potential adversaries.” For years the most obvious target of the American forces was North
Korea, with the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) expected to reinforce the Republic of Korea in the event of war. Yet the ROK is both
financially and manpower rich. More recently some Americans have talked about deploying the MEF to seize Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons in
the event of a North Korean collapse. Alas, so far the North has proved to be surprisingly resilient, so the Marines might wait a long time to
undertake this mission. Checking China is next on the potential Okinawa mission list. However, no one expects the United States to launch a
ground invasion of the People’s Republic of China irrespective of the future course of events. Thus, the MEF wouldn’t be very useful in any
conflict. In any case, a stronger Japanese military—which already possesses potent capabilities—would be a far better mechanism for
encouraging responsible Chinese development. There’s also the kitchen sink argument: the Marines are to maintain regional “stability.” Pentagon
officials draw expanding circles around Okinawa to illustrate potential areas of operation. The mind boggles, however. Should U.S. troops be sent
to resolve, say, the long-running Burmese guerrilla war in that nation’s east, a flare-up of secessionist sentiment in Indonesia, violent opposition
to Fiji’s military dictator, or border skirmishes between Cambodia and Thailand? It hard to imagine any reason for Washington to jump into any
local conflict. America’s presumption should be noninvolvement rather than intervention in other nations’ wars. Making fewer
promises to intervene would allow the United States to reduce the number of military
personnel and overseas bases. A good place to start in cutting international installations
would be Okinawa. America’s post-Cold War dominance is coming to an end. Michael Schuman argued in Time: “Anyone who thinks
the balance of power in Asia is not changing—and with it, the strength of the U.S., even among its old allies—hasn’t been there lately.” Many
analysts nevertheless want the United States to attempt to maintain its unnatural dominance. Rather than accommodate a more powerful China,
they want America to contain a wealthier and more influential Beijing. Rather than expect its allies to defend themselves and promote regional
stability, they want Washington to keep its friends dependent. To coin a phrase, it’s time for a change.
U.S. intransigence over
Okinawa has badly roiled the bilateral relationship. But even a more flexible basing policy
would not be enough. Washington is risking the lives and wasting the money of the
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
ECONOMY EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
27
American people to defend other populous and prosperous states. Washington should close Futenma—as a
start to refashioning the alliance with Japan. Rather than a unilateral promise by the United States to defend Japan, the relationship should
become one of equals working together on issues of mutual interest. Responsibility for protecting Japan should become that of Japan .Both
Okinawans and Americans deserve justice. It’s time for Washington to deal.
US forces in Japan causes tons of deficit spending.
Bandow 2009 (Dough Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties. Special assistant to President Reagan)
(September 2, 2010 “Dealing with the New Japan: Washington won’t take “No” for an answer”” CATO institute.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10513/)
Japan remains dependent on America for its security, a minor military player
despite having global economic and political interests. There are historic reasons for Tokyo's stunted
Yet
international role, but it is time for East Asian countries to work together to dispel the remaining ghosts of Japanese imperialism past rather
than to expect America to continue acting as the defender of last resort.
Since Japan and Asia have changed, so should America's defense strategy. There
should be no more troops based on Japanese soil. No more military units tasked for
Japan's defense. No more security guarantee for Japan. The U.S. should adopt a
strategy of off-shore balancer, expecting friendly states to defend themselves, while
being ready to act if an overwhelming, hegemonic threat eventually arises. China is the
most, but still not very, plausible candidate for such a role — and even then not for
many years. Washington's job is not to tell Japan, which devotes about one percent of
its GDP, one-fourth the U.S level, to the military, to do more. Washington's job is to do
less. Tokyo should spend whatever it believes to be necessary on its so-called "Self-Defense Force." Better relations with China would
lower that number. So would reform in North Korea. Of course, the former isn't certain while the latter isn't likely: let Japan assess the
risks and act accordingly. In any case, the U.S. should indicate its respect for Japanese democracy and willingness to accommodate itself
to Tokyo's changing priorities. Reverse the situation and Americans would expect the Japanese to do likewise.
It's the same strategy that Washington should adopt elsewhere around the globe. The Marine Expeditionary Force stationed on Okinawa is
primarily intended to back up America's commitment to South Korea. Yet the South has some 40 times the GDP of North Korea. Seoul
should take over responsibility for its own defense. Even more so the Europeans, who possess more than ten times Russia's GDP. If they
don't feel at risk, there's no reason for an American defense guarantee. If they do feel at risk, there's no reason for them not to do more — a
Defending populous and prosperous allies made little sense in good economic
times. But with Uncle Sam's current year deficit $1.6 trillion and another $10 trillion in
red ink likely over the next decade — without counting the impact of any additional
financial disasters — current policy is foolish and unsustainable. The U.S. essentially is
borrowing money from China to spend defending Japan from China. America does not
need to spend roughly as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.
lot more.
The tremors of Tokyo's political earthquake are being felt in Washington, where officials are rounding the wagons to protect the status
quo. But America's alliance with Japan — like most of its defense relationships — is outdated. The Obama administration should take the
Both America and Japan
would benefit from ending Tokyo's unnatural defense dependence on the U.S.
lead in modernizing a security pact originally designed for a world which disappeared years ago.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
ECONOMY EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
28
Withdraw key to US Economy
US withdrawal would save money and create jobs Carlton Meyer. Former Marine Corps officer who participated in military operations around the world, hasv written dozens of articles for military magazines. October 2009. “Outdated US military Bases” The Magazine of Future Warfare. < http://www.g2mil.com/Japan‐bases.htm>
closing or downsizing some of these bases would save the USA millions of dollars a year
and shift thousands of jobs to the U.S. economy. However, many powerful Japanese and American corporations
The irony is that
support the status quo from which they profit. They work with American Generals and Admirals to argue that Japan helps defray the cost of U.S.
bases in Japan by paying for some utilities and the salaries of some Japanese workers. In reality, Japan never pays one cent to the U.S. military,
and most of the claimed contributions are artificial. For example, goods imported for sale at U.S. military stores are not taxed by the Japanese
government, so this is counted as a financial contribution. Another major "contribution" is rent paid to Japanese landowners. Cost sharing
contributions have been reduced in recent years, and further cuts have been promised to prod the American military to reduce its presence.
Maintaining 50,000 U.S. troops in Japan requires millions of dollars each year to rotate GIs for three-year
tours, which includes shipping their children, pets, and household goods. In addition, mainland Japan is an unpopular duty station because of cold
weather, high costs, and polite yet unfriendly locals. Since housing costs for military families and American civilian employees are twice that of
the USA, the U.S. military also spends millions of dollars for additional housing costs and "locality" pay.
Keeping military families, aircraft, and ships permanently based in Japan is not only extremely expensive, it is strategically unwise. The USA
maintained dozens of aircraft at Clark Field in the Philippines in 1941 to deter a Japanese attack. They provided an easy target for a surprise
attack and all aircraft were destroyed on the ground. The defense of the Philippines was poorly organized as a key concern for American officers
was the evacuation of military families. The same problem exists today in the unlikely event that war erupts with North Korea, China, or Russia.
Dozens of American aircraft and thousands of American lives may be lost to surprise missile, bomber, or commando attacks, while officers are
distracted with family concerns. While American servicemen are brave, many would abandon their post after an attack to ensure the welfare of
their family. An attack on Japan may cause panic, and Admirals would face problems of sailors refusing to abandon their family to set sail. The
Navy would be anxious to move its ships out of port to slip past lurking enemy submarines to the safety of bases in the central Pacific. From a
military standpoint, it is far better to base ships, aircraft, and families far from the Asian mainland. However, American Generals and Admirals
resist change because they enjoy the imperial flavor of "their" bases in Japan. They stall political efforts to close outdated bases by insisting on
years to study proposed changes, and then years to implement them. A recent example occurred when U.S. Army Generals quietly defeated
Donald Rumsfeld’s attempt to downsize Army bases in Germany. If President Obama expects results, he must dictate changes and insist on rapid
action. Closing and downsizing foreign military bases requires no congressional approval. The
first steps are to close the
American airbases at Futenma and Atsugi, and transfer the aircraft carrier battle group based near Tokyo to the USA.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
ECONOMY EXTENSIONS
Okinawa Aff
29
Jobs k to US economy
Jobs and money are key to stopping the recession
.
Steven R. Hurst. Associated Press Writer. December 13, 2009
Washington Examiner. “Obama advisers: Jobs key focus, deficit comes
next”http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/Obama-advisers-Jobs-key-focus-deficit-comes-next--79185352.html
President Barack Obama's chief economic advisers said Sunday that putting Americans back to
work is the first order of business in bringing the country out of the deepest economic
downturn in six decades. Only then can they start tackling the soaring federal debt. At the same
time, Christina Romer, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said she
would not consider the recession truly at an end until employment returns to levels last
seen at the end of 2007 when the recession began.Her view was technically at odds with that of Lawrence Summers,
director of the White House National Economic Council, who said third quarter growth of the gross domestic product — the measure of
economic activity — marked a statistical end to the recession. But the pair did agree with forecasts that the economy would begin producing
more jobs in the spring, a trend that could lower the U.S. jobless rate from 10 percent. "I believe that, as do most professional forecasters, that by
spring, employment growth will start to be turning positive," Summers said. Romer agreed but cautioned that the upward trend could be hit by
poor showings in some months as those who had given up looking for work re-enter the labor market. "I would anticipate some bumps in the
road as we go ahead," Romer said. The administration took heart when the November jobs report showed only 11,000 people joined the
unemployment rolls. That figure had been as high as 700,000 in January, when Obama took office. To keep pace with new job seekers entering
the work force for the first time, the economy needs to create 100,000 jobs a month. "We can make incredible progress, we can get that
unemployment rate coming down," Romer said. "The whole key is not just growing again, you've got to grow robustly, that's how you get a lot of
The administration's focus on creating
jobs first and worrying about the deficit second shows itself in the president's call for using
$200 billion that unexpectedly is available from the $700 billion bank bailout to further
stimulate the economy. He wants to create jobs through spending to improve the nation's infrastructure, lending to small businesses
job creation, that's how you get a lot of progress on the unemployment rate."
and financial incentives for Americans to make their homes more energy efficient."What I'm interested in is a targeted jobs package that can help
to boost what's already taking place. Companies are already starting to hire again. Is there a way to boost their confidence and I think there is,"
Obama told the CBS television news magazine' "60 Minutes" in an interview airing Sunday night. Even so, long-term worries about increasing
the deficit are evident as Obama continues to insist that the long and politically charged attempt to overhaul America's health care system not
increase U.S. government indebtedness, and with indications the reforms could increase taxes. Concerned that government spending not be
hamstrung by deficit fears, Democrats broke a Republican attempt Saturday to block a final vote on a huge end-of-year spending bill. The Sentate
on Sunday passed the $1.1 trillion spending bill that gives budget increases far exceeding inflation to much of the government. "We are in a very
special kind of economic situation, and frankly, jobs have to be the top priority, and every bill is going to be a jobs bill going forward," Summers
said.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
JAPAN ECONOMY ADD-ON
Okinawa Aff
30
JAPAN ECONOMY ADD ON Fronline
First, Japan’s economy on the brink of collapse; Japan needs financial help
Michael Schuman. Time Journalist. 2010. “A Cloudy Outlook”. Time Magazine
<http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/49aLVc/www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2005689,00.html/r:t>
Time may finally be running out for Japan. In the wake of Greece's sovereign-debt crisis,
investors have begun focusing on the sick state of national finances in the industrialized
world, and Japan's are among the sickest. Decades of fiscal mismanagement have saddled
the government with debt equivalent to nearly 200% of the country's entire economic
output — the biggest burden among developed nations — and pressure is building on Kan to introduce painful austerity measures. "There is
an awareness that things can't stay the same," says Jeffrey Kingston, director of Asian studies at Temple University's Japan campus. "The
problem is, people really don't know what is next. Japan's huge problems are just festering and Japan remains rudderless." From Dynamo to
Dinosaur In many ways, Japan is a glimpse into a possible future for the U.S. and Western Europe. The Japanese have been struggling with
major issues — an aging society, a fiscal disaster, weakening competitiveness — that the West is beginning to contend with as well. Japan's
struggle today starkly shows the perils of inaction, of allowing domestic political calculations and ideological inflexibility to take precedence over
the pragmatism necessary to thrive in a changing world. What makes Japan's story so much more frustrating is that not so long ago, the nation
was at the forefront of change. Japan's bureaucracy-led economic system was heralded as a growth machine superior to the more laissez-faire
approaches of the West. The management practices of Japan's biggest corporations — from ultra-efficient "just-in-time" manufacturing processes
to consensus-based decisionmaking — were the envy of the world. Long before Apple's iPad, it was Japan's Sony that invented the must-have
gadgets that changed global lifestyles (remember the Walkman?). Japan didn't need answers; Japan was the answer. Yet those same policies and
practices that sparked Japan's miracle have come to strangle it. Japan has remained wedded to the same basic growth model it used in its miracle
years — bureaucracy-led policymaking and a die-hard devotion to exports and manufacturing — even though it no longer fits Japan's modern,
Japan's financial sector generally avoided the
subprime-induced meltdown that hit the U.S., it got smacked much harder by the global
downturn. In 2009 the economy sank 5.2% compared to 2.4% in the U.S.
high-cost economy or keeps the country competitive. Though
Second, United States military presence is overwhelming for Japan economically REIJI YOSHIDA. Journalist.
bin/nn20080325i1.html>
2008 “Basics of the US military.” The Japan Times. < http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-
According to U.S. Forces Japan headquarters at Yokota Air Base, as of February there were 47,200 service
members based in Japan, including 11,700 aboard vessels of the 7th Fleet. In addition, there were 3,510 U.S. civilian personnel and
41,695 family members. Of the 47,200 service members, 17,400 were in the navy, 15,000 in the marines corps, 12,300 in the air force and 2,500
in the army.
Okinawa hosts more service members by far than any other prefecture. According to the
prefectural government, Okinawa was home to 23,140 U.S. military-related individuals, including 13,480
marines and 7,080 airmen, as of September 2006. According to a 2004 report by the U.S. Department
of Defense, Japan contributed direct financial support worth $3.23 billion and indirect
support worth $1.18 billion in fiscal 2002, which offset as much as 74.5 percent of the total costs for the U.S. to station its forces
in Japan.”Japan . . . provides over $4 billion in host-nation support — the most generous of any U.S. ally — and remains steadfast in supporting
its share of the costs of alliance transformation,” Adm. Timothy Keating, naval commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, testified before the
Senate Armed Services Committee on March 11. Japan’s
direct financial support includes paying the salaries
of some 25,000 nonmilitary workers at U.S. military facilities in Japan. Japan also pays for
the electricity, gas, water and sewage as well as for the cooking and heating fuels at U.S.
military housing facilities.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
JAPAN ECONOMY ADD-ON
Okinawa Aff
31
Third, Japanese economic collapse would cripple the region
Auslin, 2010 (Micheal, Wall Street Journal, Feb 17, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123483257056995903.html)
Recently, many economists and scholars in the U.S. have been looking backward to Japan's banking disaster of
the 1990s, hoping to learn lessons for America's current crisis. Instead, they should be looking ahead to what
might occur if Japan goes into a full-fledged depression. If Japan's economy collapses, supply chains
across the globe will be affected and numerous economies will face severe disruptions, most notably
China's. China is currently Japan's largest import provider, and the Japanese slowdown is creating tremendous
pressure on Chinese factories. Just last week, the Chinese government announced that 20 million rural migrants
had lost their jobs. Closer to home, Japan may also start running out of surplus cash, which it has used to
purchase U.S. securities for years. For the first time in a generation, Tokyo is running trade deficits -- five
months in a row so far. The political and social fallout from a Japanese depression also would be
devastating. In the face of economic instability, other Asian nations may feel forced to turn to more
centralized -- even authoritarian -- control to try to limit the damage. Free-trade agreements may be
rolled back and political freedom curtailed. Social stability in emerging, middle-class societies will be
severely tested, and newly democratized states may find it impossible to maintain power. Progress toward
a more open, integrated Asia is at risk, with the potential for increased political tension in the world's
most heavily armed region.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
2AC Answers
Okinawa Aff
32
AT: FEM IR
Sexual exploitation in Okinawa is ongoing – in times of peace and war.
Tanaka 2002 (Yuki "Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World
War II and the US Occupation" Professor at the Hiroshima Peace Institute in Hiroshima)
Although military violence against women is heightened to extreme levels during war, such a
firm-rooted tendency towards the sexual exploitation of women by military men is not limited to
wartime. The fact that soldiers are possessed of a strong propensity to commit sexual violence
even in peacetime is well sup- ported by studies of base area prostitution, including numerous
criminal cases involving soldiers. For example, it is well known that sexual violence committed
by US military personnel was long endemic at its Subic Bay naval base in the Philippines, which
it operated until the end of 1992. It remains a serious concern for residents living near the US
military bases in Okinawa and Korea. Military violence against Okinawan women continued
after the Battle of Okinawa,despite a widespread clandestine prostitution that was regulated by
the US military authorities. For example, in 1955, a 6-year-old girl, Nagayama Yumiko, in
Ishikawa city, was abducted, raped, and murdered by a GI stationed at Kadena Base. This is
only one, if the most shocking, of numerous cases of sexual crimes committed by American
soldiers in Okinawa over the past half century.34 One of the most widely publicized cases was
the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan girl on her way home from shopping by three
US servicemen in September 1995. The incident triggered massive demonstrations against the
location of US military facilities on Okinawa.35 In Korea, too, in the 20 years between 1967 and
1987, there were 72 reported cases of rape, in addition to numerous cases of physical violence
against women committed by the members of the US troops stationed there. The most shocking
case in Korea is probably the murder of Yun Kumi, a 26-year-old employee at one of the US
military recreation clubs. She was killed by a young US soldier in October 1992. Her dead body
was covered with heavy bruises, two beer bottles and a coke bottle being inserted in her
vagina.36
The plan intervenes in the dominant, military narrative of patriarchy by remembering the
unofficial narratives of women’s persecution. This process creates real meaningful change.
Yoneyama 2003 Lisa Traveling Memories, Contagious Justice:
Americanization of Japanese
War Crimes at the End of the Post-Cold War Journal of Asian American Studies PhD in Cultural
Studies from Stanford, Director of the Critical Gender Studies Program at UCSD, Associate
Professor
Transnational minorities' memories are never fully in alliance with the dominant national
history and memory, yet they are constantly imperiled by nationalizing forces that, through
domesticating and assimilating excess knowledge, threaten to produce a seamless narrative
of national self-affirmation and innocence. Insofar as the discourse of redress and reparation inevitably holds out as its
telos some form of closure, settlement and sublation, the official acknowledgement of and accounting for past wrongs may be as perilous as it is
enabling. In this process the state-corporate entity can disavow the oppression, pain, and marginalization that continue to exist for racial and
colonial minorities. 55 It moreover risks relegating justice, legitimacy, and even agency for redress and reconciliation to the very state-corporate
entities that offer reparations and apologies (i.e. Japan) and promote redress and authorize the rectification of injustice (i.e. the United States),
rather than to the survivors of the original moment of violence. Transnational memories can challenge such statist foreclosures and pose
possibilities for critical interventions into the imagined linear progress of universal history. In closing, let me add a note on the temporal index,
"the end of the post-Cold War," that appears in my article title. The rupture known to us [End Page 82] as "the end of the Cold War" has had
numerous effects on the conditions under which memories of the Asia-Pacific War(s) are collected. The post-cold war milieu has enabled stories
of atrocities, alliances and even hopes that have been suppressed or marginalized within the dominant national and global historical narrative that
had ruled most of the decades after the Second World War. To be sure, denoting the period after 1989 as "post-cold war" privileges the West's
temporality and experiences. In northeast Asia, the division of Korea into two political regimes persists as a stark reality of the Cold War's legacy.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
2AC Answers
Okinawa Aff
33
Still, this transitional moment has enabled transnational coalitions of activism that are not strategically bound by the claims of "national security"
or a political binary. The post-1990 eruption of memories of the Japanese military's sex
enslavement system was undoubtedly a symptom of such shifts. Protests against the
Japanese government's obstinate denial of historical accountability for its direct
involvement in the military comfort station system, did not only criticize Japan's former
military and present government. They also interrogated the patriarchally constructed postindependence South Korean anti-Communist nationalism, the shortcomings of the U.S.-Allied persecution of
violence against women in the war's immediate aftermath, as well as the continuing
neocolonial U.S. military presence in South Korea. Other memories that could not have been unleashed without the post-Cold
War sensibility include the 4.3 Incident, in which an estimated thirty thousand Cheju islanders were massacred in a 1948 red hunt. The post-Cold
War moment fostered opportunities for remembering and redressing past injustices within the fields of multiple and often even contradictory
forces. Redress activism has also demonstrated that, unless some of the seemingly immutable North East Asian Cold War architecture is put
under scrupulous examination, historical justice cannot be fully attained. While the many lawsuits have not been successful in obtaining
immediate material results, the very processes of pursuing historical justice in the formal institutional arena have generated critical knowledge
that makes the legacy of the Cold War global order increasingly questionable. Yet, the current post-9.11 milieu and the preemptive war of
invasion against Iraq reintroduces many discursive characteristics of the Cold War [End Page 83] regime, even as it appears to exceed every
premise of past U.S. foreign policies for military involvement. Indeed, the moment in which America and its allies are engaged in the "new war"
on the unidentifiable and amorphous enemy of "terrorism" is one that Secretary of State Colin Powell has proclaimed is the period that marked
the end of the "end of cold war." The war against Iraq indicates a clear break from Cold War containment policy to the active preemptive
interventionist doctrine advocated by individuals like Paul D. Wolfowitz. While an official proclamation alone cannot determine the vast terrain
of culture and politics, its implications cannot be easily dismissed. Nevertheless, the binary logic of us versus them, good versus evil, justification
of intelligence operations, faith in American good will and innocence, micro-mechanisms of national surveillance and discipline in the name of
"collective security" and "homeland defense," as well as self-righteous advocacy for justice, democracy and freedom alongside the simultaneous
practice of racism, anti-immigrant activism and repression of civil liberties—all these developments of the last two years or so seem to confirm
that, despite the rhetoric of "new-ness," the war against "terrorism" at the end of the post-Cold War may not be so new after all. The difference
may simply be that such familiar U.S. imperialist endeavors are more unabashed and no longer covert. The Cold War architecture of Asia and the
Pacific and the ties between the United States and pro-U.S. allies appear to be undisturbed, as American warplanes take off in a matter-of-fact
manner from U.S. military bases located in these regions. This being so, the Americanization of redressive efforts may offer one site through
which we might in the coming years witness how the poetics and politics of America's "new war" may be prematurely foreclosing post-cold war
ruptures. Finally,
the process of the "Americanization of Japanese war crimes" and crimes
against humanity that I have described in this article has been no less propelled by the Japanese
government's inability to come to terms with its own past than by U.S. nationalism and its
claim to global justice. Japanese legislators continue to fail to urge the Japanese government and corporations to acknowledge
sufficient responsibility for their wartime and colonial offenses and violations. Thus the U.S. judicial system may prove
to be the only available channel through which survivors/victims [End Page 84] can seek
swift and proper redress for the injuries inflicted by past Japanese aggressions. Japanese
nationalism, which marginalizes other Asians even as it is pitifully fixated in Oedipal fashion on U.S. paternalism is of enormous consequences in
allowing such an American arrogation of world justice. It may also be argued that the Japanese male power elites' insistence that Japanese
military invasion was wrong and atrocious yet justifiable in defending against Western domination ironically reveals a tortured acceptance of
white- and Western supremacy that seeks the origin of every social and historical development in the white/West. Insofar as the Japanese elites
continue to subordinate themselves perversely to their internalized sense of white- and Western-supremacy, they will not admit their
accountability for the crimes of colonialism and racism until the United States or some European nations begin to apologize for and redress their
own history of colonialism and racism against non-white, non-Western people. The "Americanization of Japanese war crimes" is a process that is
still evolving. It would be premature to draw any conclusions as to what kinds of effects the Americanization process will ultimately have on the
politics of knowledge and the realization of historical justice. We
need to carefully disentangle residual elements
from the emerging possibilities. We also need to be vigilant in discerning if the process of
the "Americanization of world justice" simply serves to reestablish the United States as the
innocent custodian of world peace and humanity while regimenting Asian/America and its
"un-American" memories. Yet, by highlighting U.S. imperialist violence and racism both
inside and outside the national borders, that same process may foster a new, anti-colonial,
anti-racist American publicity and nurture a new agent-subject of justice around
transnational alliances of multiple publics. Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
2AC Answers
Okinawa Aff
34
A2: Solvency Takeouts
A2: Okinawa Already Controlled by Japan – Even though administrative rights technically belong
to Japan, they’ve given the US indefinite right to use the land
Japanese Communist Party ’00 (“Problems of US Military Bases in Okinawa” Pg 4. February 2000.
http://www.jcp.or.jp/tokusyu/okinawa/Okinawa.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2010. LV)
In 1972, twenty-seven years after the end of WWII the administrative rights over Okinawa were returned
to Japan. The prefecture’s people did not doubt at all that they could enter their own lands over the fences of the
bases and get them back. The Okinawan people’s desire was again betrayed. In the past 28 years since the
reversion of Okinawa, the percentage of Okinawa’s land returned to the owners has been only 15
percent of the total base area while in the mainland Japan it was 60 percent. This is a compelling evidence
to show that there has been almost no change in the circumstances of the bases in Okinawa. What
underlies this situation is the fact that the Japanese government assured the U.S. that Okinawa’s
U.S. base functions would not decline after the reversion. In order to fulfill its promise to the U.S. ,
the Japanese government enacted a specific law to allow the U.S. to continue using the lands that
were taken by the U.S. military by force under its occupation of Japan. As soon as the law expired, the
government enacted another law. Being enacted amid frequent visits to Japan by the U.S. secretaries of state and
defense, the law brought about a system to allow the U.S. to continue using the lands indefinitely in
neglect of the opposition of land owners. Was Okinawa returned to Japan in any sense? Isn’t it still under the
occupation of the U.S. ? This is the frank view of the prefecture’s people.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
2AC Answers
Okinawa Aff
35
AT: SOLVENCY T/Os
Moving the base out of central city isn’t enough (possible I/L to a Taiwan/Korea Scenario)
Japanese Communist Party ’00 (“Problems of US Military Bases in Okinawa” Pg 11-12. February 2000.
http://www.jcp.or.jp/tokusyu/okinawa/Okinawa.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2010. LV)
The Action Program drawn up by Okinawa called for the return of the U.S. Marine Corps
Futenma Air Station as a first action concerning U.S. bases on the island. Since Futenma Air Station is
located in the midst of a densely populated area, accidents are likely to occur and take lives. But the U.S. and
Japanese governments are planning to construct a new military base by exploiting the call of the
Okinawan people for the removal of the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station. They want to
construct a more useful and powerful military base than Futenma Air Station by means of
“relocating” it to an area near U.S. Camp Schwab in Nago City. The aim of the plan is to replace the 50year-old aging Futenma Air Station with a state-of-the-art military base where the Osprey, a new
military aircraft, can be deployed as a replacement for helicopters. A 1996 U.S. Department of Defense
report stresses that the Osprey “is necessary to conduct...forcible-entry operations” and “allows
Marines to strike rapidly at objectives located deep inland.” They want to deploy the Osprey because its
cruising speed is twice as fast, its payloads three times as much and its flying range is five to ten times their present
helicopters. The Osprey would allow the U.S. Forces to deploy troops directly from Okinawa to the
Taiwan Straits and to the Korean Peninsula. It can also conduct horizontal flight like fixed wing aircraft, as
well as vertical landing and take-off like helicopters. Because of these capabilities the Osprey makes
terrible noises and does greater damage to runways when it takes off and lands. This is why the
U.S. wants to deploy the Osprey in a state-of-the-art base instead of the aged Futenma Air Station.
The plan is closely linked with the U.S. attempt to keep its bases in Okinawa almost permanently.
The “DoD Operational Requirements and Concept of Operations for MCAS Futenma Relocation, Okinawa, Japan
(final draft) “ clearly states, “The SBF (sea-based facilities of the new military base) and all associated structures
shall be designed for a 40 year operational life with a 200 year fatigue life.” The U.S. plans to construct a military
base that can be used well into the 21st century.
Utah Forensics
Summer Workshop
2AC Answers
Okinawa Aff
36
A2 Consult Japan CP
Japan relies on US presence for protection- say No to consult plan.
Bruce Klingner is Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.2010.
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/05/With-Re-Acceptance-of-Marines-on-Okinawa-Time-to-Look-Ahead>
The DPJ policy reversal is the result of senior Japanese officials having a belated epiphany
on geostrategic realities. They now realize that the Marines on Okinawa are an
indispensable and irreplaceable element of any U.S. response to an Asian crisis. Foreign
Minister Okada affirmed that “the presence of U.S. Marines on Okinawa is necessary for
Japan’s national security [since they] are a powerful deterrent against possible enemy
attacks and should be stationed in Japan.” Prime Minister Hatoyama now admits that after coming to power he came to
better understand the importance of the U.S.–Japan alliance in light of the northeast Asian security environment. He commented, “As I learned
more about the situation, I’ve come to realize that [the
Marines] are all linked up as a package to maintain
deterrence.” Japanese officials also remarked that rising tensions on the Korean
Peninsula—triggered by North Korea’s sinking of a South Korean naval ship[1]—made
clear to Japan that it lives in a dangerous neighborhood and should not undermine U.S.
deterrence and defense capabilities.