Japan Press Weekly

Tweet

2011 May 18 - 24 [US FORCES]

Japan’s payment for US Marines relocation to Guam exaggerated

The whistleblowing WikiLeaks website has recently revealed that the Japanese and U.S. governments deceived the public by exaggerating the number of U.S. Marines projected to transfer from Okinawa to Guam. The cost Japan shoulders for the relocation was also padded since it was calculated based on the exaggerated number.

The two governments agreed in 2006 that about 8,000 servicemen and their 9,000 family members will be transferred from Okinawa to Guam. A secret telegram sent from the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo to the U.S. Secretary of State on December 12, 2008, made public by WikiLeaks, states: “both the 8,000 and the 9,000 numbers were deliberately maximized to optimize political value in Japan, but the two sides knew that these numbers differed significantly from actual Marines and dependents assigned to units in Okinawa.”

The 2006 bilateral agreement also states that Japan will pay 6.09 billion dollars for the construction of military facilities, schools, family housing units, and infrastructure for a U.S. military base in Guam.

During a Diet deliberation on April 28, 2006, a defense ministry official working under the former Liberal Democratic-Komei government said, “We estimate 3,500 housing units will be needed in Guam for 9,000 family members moving there from Okinawa.”

On March 19, 2010, a government official stated in the Diet that the Democratic Party of Japan-led government will give shape to the construction of facilities and infrastructure in Guam based on the planed relocation of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa.

The cost for building one housing unit is extraordinarily expensive. Japan is required to pay 2.55 billion dollars for the construction of 3,500 units in Guam, which amounts to 728 thousand dollars per unit.

No other U.S. ally has paid for the construction of a U.S. military base on U.S. territory. Japan’s payment for the relocation of the U.S. military personnel to Guam is being called into question again at a time when funding for the domestic reconstruction from the March 11 disaster is urgently needed.