Burden-sharing must be fair
(From The Japan Times April 16 issue)

在沖縄米海兵隊の移転費分担問題

    Even if they come to an agreement, the Japanese government must fully explain to the people the details of not only the final agreement but of the negotiations leading up to it. The people need such detailed information because the cost of the relocation will not be small and because there are no legal foundations for such a payment — even in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty or the Status of Forces Agreement.

    Both governments have agreed on the relocation as a means of reducing the military burden on Okinawa. The relocation is part of the U.S. plan to realign its military bases in Japan to reduce burdens on local communities and to enhance its capability to deal with military contingencies. The headquarters of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force and about 8,000 personnel will be moved to Guam, explained both governments. If dependents are included, about 17,000 people will move to Guam. The relocation will help reduce the burden on Okinawa and, therefore, should be implemented as soon as possible.

    A problem has cropped up, however. Washington estimates that the relocation will cost $10 billion and has requested that Japan shoulder 75 percent of the cost. The request sounds extraordinary. Having a foreign host government pay for the cost of relocating a U.S. military facility and its personnel to U.S. territories is almost unheard of. In the case of relocation of U.S. forces from Germany to the United States, Washington is reportedly shouldering the entire cost. At one point, it was reported the U.S. estimate for the Guam relocation plan was about $4 billion. It is only natural that the huge increase in the estimate to $10 billion should raise suspicions.

    Describing the cost as a "relocation expense" is misleading in the first place because it is reported that the money is likely to be used for building new headquarters and combat exercise facilities, and such infrastructure as a school for dependents, a hospital and roads. If this is the case, Tokyo would be paying not only for the relocation of Marines but for building military-related facilities for the U.S. Marine Corps in U.S. territories. It is only logical to ask whether using Japanese tax money for this kind of purpose can be allowed under its laws, including the Constitution.

    It could be argued that since the Japanese asked for a reduction of the military burden on Okinawa, and the relocation of U.S. Marines to Guam is a means to achieve it, for Japan to shoulder part of the relocation cost would not be unreasonable. Also the United States can argue that since the Marines relocated to Guam would be used to defend Japan in a military emergency, Japan should pay for a large part of the relocation cost. At the same time, however, the relocation of the Marines to Guam is in line with Washington's strategic policy and in the interest of the United States. The October 2005 interim report on the U.S. forces' realignment in Japan says that as part of its global posture realignment effort, which includes a strengthening of its force structure in the Pacific, the United States is increasing the U.S. Marine Corps' crisis-response capabilities and redistributing those capabilities among Hawaii, Guam and Okinawa. Given this fact, Japan cannot and should not accept the U.S. request in its entirety.

    In the negotiations in the United States, Japan reportedly offered loans of about $3 billion to be provided by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, a government-affiliated financial institution. If the Japanese government agrees to pay for the relocation out of its treasury coffers in addition to these loans, it will need to write a new law to justify the use of tax money for the relocation purpose — almost an ex post facto justification.

    In fiscal 1978, Japan started an exceptional host-nation support for the U.S. military by paying part of the salaries of Japanese workers on U.S. military bases. Host-nation support has since been expanded to cover most salaries, the repair and maintenance of military housing, on-base utility bills and the costs of moving U.S. troops on drills. The support for fiscal 2005 amounted to ¥237.8 billion.

    Japan has been extremely generous in its support of the U.S. military — all the more reason why once Japan and the United States reach an agreement, the government owes the people a full accounting.

The Japan Times Weekly: April 22, 2006
(C) All rights reserved

    最終合意に達した場合、政府はその内容ばかりでなく、交渉の経緯を十分に国民に説明する必要がある。日米安保条約、日米地位協定に照らしても、多額の移転費分担の根拠がないからである。

    両国政府は、 沖縄への基地負担を軽減するため、海兵隊のグアム移転に合意した。移転の対象は第3海兵遠征軍司令部と要員8000人である。

    問題は、米国が日本に対し、移転費100億ドルの75％の負担を求めていることだ。米国が外国政府に対し基地、要員の米領土への移転費用の分担を求めるのは前代未聞だ。「移転費」には、司令部、訓練施設、学校、病院、道路の建設費用が含まれているという。

    緊急事態発生時には、グアムに移転した海兵隊が日本防衛に動員される可能性があるとして、日本は当然移転費を分担すべきであるという議論も米側にはあろう。しかし、移転は米国の戦略の一環でその利益になる。

    05年10月に発表された在日米軍再編に関する中間報告書は、米軍は海兵隊の危機対応能力を増強するため、兵力をハワイ、グアム、沖縄に再配置するとしている。

    米国との交渉で、日本側は国際協力銀行による30億ドルの融資を提案している。これに加え、国庫負担で移転費用を分担するのであれば、そのために新法を制定する必要があろう。

    日本政府は1978年度に、在日米軍駐留経費を一部負担する「思いやり予算」制度を導入した。それ以来、この予算は日本人基地従業員給与の大部分、米軍住宅の修繕、基地の光熱費、訓練のための米軍輸送費用などを含むようになった。05年の出費は2378億円に達している。

    問題について最終合意に達した場合、政府は国民に十分に説明する必要がある。