wrong way<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\nThe Washington, D.C.-based Atlantic Council is one of the biggest think tanks responsible for generating U.S. foreign policy proposals.<\/p>\n
In 2024, it reported getting nearly a quarter of its $66 million revenues from government grants. The Department of War and Department of State are listed among the think tank\u2019s most generous donors.<\/p>\n
Monday\u2019s report suggested renegotiating of the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative, or DPRI.<\/p>\n
The 2006 international agreement is what kicked off the $8 billion Marine relocation effort, known locally as the military buildup.<\/p>\n
That agreement \u201cwas designed to reduce the number of US service members stationed on Okinawa for political reasons dating back thirty years or more,\u201d the report stated.<\/p>\n
Marine relocation has been delayed for years, it stated, and now \u201ccomes at a time when China is accelerating its bid for dominance in the Western Pacific and pressing its claim on Taiwan.\u201d<\/p>\n
Moving those 5,000 Marines from Okinawa \u201cundermines\u201d deterrence against a Taiwan conflict, the report stated.<\/p>\n
Fast-moving Marine Corps troops are better located in Japan, part of the \u201cFirst Island Chain,\u201d authors wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cUnfortunately, if fully implemented, the DPRI would give Chinese military planners exactly what they want\u2014a removal of US forces from the locations where they would be most essential in a First Island Chain conflict,\u201d they stated.<\/p>\n
Asked for updates on the Marine relocation last October, Under Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao told Guam media the military is \u201cconstantly reevaluating.\u201d<\/p>\n
Okinawa negotiations<\/p>\n
The Feb. 2 Atlantic Council report stated that renegotiating the Marine move out of Okinawa \u201cwill not be easy.\u201d<\/p>\n
More economic incentives to Okinawans are floated, like an exemption from Trump administration tariffs meant to boost trade in the Japanese prefecture.<\/p>\n
The report pointed to greater concern over economic issues, and loosening power from U.S. military base-opposed factions in Okinawa politics.<\/p>\n
At the national level, renewed U.S. security commitments to Japan, especially nuclear defense, could help boost negotiations, authors suggested.<\/p>\n
Authors also point to Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa, the closure and relocation of which has been cited as a delay in getting Marines moved to Guam.<\/p>\n
The Futenma base should be kept open, and both U.S. and Japanese Self-Defense Force troops could operate out of the base.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe decision to close the still-active Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, based on past crimes committed by US troops and noise concerns, deserves reassessment,\u201d authors stated.<\/p>\n
\u201cFutenma is superbly capable,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n
The rape of a Japanese elementary school girl by three U.S. service members in 1995 intensified the push to shutter and relocate Futenma.<\/p>\n
Monday\u2019s Atlantic Council report stated that \u201cU.S. military crime rates on Okinawa are now far lower than in decades past, a trend that runs counter to some of the original arguments for relocating US forces.\u201d<\/p>\n
Army to Guam<\/p>\n
As for Marine facilities already built on Guam, the report suggested that the Army move in.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Army has been pushing more presence in the Pacific,\u201d it stated. \u201cIt may make sense for the larger, heavier army units to position themselves in the vicinity of the Marianas, which are outside the range of many Chinese missile systems but close enough to push forward at the right time.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Pentagon last May denied international media reports that the Trump administration plans to move 4,500 soldiers out of South Korea and into Guam and other locations in the Indo-Pacific.<\/p>\n
There are already soldiers living at Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz, though not as part of a relocation from South Korea.<\/p>\n
The first of 700 Army troops coming to man a 360-degree missile defense system for Guam are staying at the Marine base, the Pacific Daily News reported in December.<\/p>\n
\u2018Another layer of uncertainty\u2019<\/p>\n
Pacific Center for Island Security chairman Robert Underwood said the Monday report sounded like what his Guam-based think tank has been saying for some time.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Marines don\u2019t really want to come to Guam,\u201d said Underwood, Guam\u2019s former delegate to Congress and a former president of the University of Guam.<\/p>\n
He said the report indicates there is very serious consideration in D.C. about the possibility of keeping Marines in Okinawa.<\/p>\n
\u201cSome people may think it\u2019s just a trial balloon, just to see what the response is,\u201d he said. \u201cBut it wouldn\u2019t even get to that level of being floated out there if there wasn\u2019t a serious consideration.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said it was hard to imagine Marines would stay in Okinawa, given the decades of controversy around the issue.<\/p>\n
But the possibility of a canceled military buildup only added \u201canother layer of uncertainty\u201d over what role Guam will play in any conflict, Underwood said.<\/p>\n
It also made the fate of Camp Blaz uncertain, he said.<\/p>\n
The base was a vital concern, given the environmental and cultural importance of the land it was built on in northern Guam, he added.<\/p>\n
Experts have said that the site of the base, where ancient artifacts and remains were routinely unearthed during construction, may be one of the most culturally significant sites in the Marianas.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019ve destroyed that whole area of the island,\u201d Underwood said Friday, at a cost of billions of dollars.<\/p>\n
While the Atlantic Council report considered economic incentives for Okinawa, Guam was not considered, Underwood noted.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s active conversation and discussion between Japan, U.S. and Okinawa. What\u2019s missing in that whole conversation is Guam,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The former delegate said local elected leaders needed to push for more accurate information on the Marine relocation, so the community could be informed, and either weigh in or respond to those plans.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The 5,000 U.S. Marines and 1,300 dependents now stationed in Okinawa should stay there, and the $6.2 billion…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":7426,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[8,220,173,162],"class_list":{"0":"post-7425","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-okinawa","8":"tag-japan","9":"tag-local","10":"tag-news","11":"tag-okinawa"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7425\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7426"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/japan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}