The US Military’s 2005 Naval Port Plan: Futenma Replacement
In 2005, U.S. military forces stationed in Japan held restructuring talks to discuss a potential replacement facility for U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. Just prior to making their interim report, military leaders drafted construction plans for a new base. In that plan, they stressed the necessity of establishing a naval port that could make use of Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) hovercraft and high speed vessels (HSV). These plans were made public when the Okinawa Times disclosed an internal document from the U.S. military on June 15.
Last year, the Okinawa Defense Bureau presented to the prefecture an application for creating a landfill in Nago, Henoko. The application indicated that this landfill was intended to create a ramp by which hovercraft would be able to enter and exit the area. It became glaringly obvious that, just as the American side had originally conceived, plans were proceeding for improved naval port functionality and integrated facilities.
The internal document obtained by this newspaper showed that leaders of U.S. military forces stationed in Japan had addressed their recommendations to U.S. Military Deputy Commander [Major General Timothy] Larsen. “With regards to Okinawa,” it stated, “we should unify the northern sections of the U.S. Marine Corps.” This document was drawn up on Aug. 1, 2005, approximately three months before Japan and the U.S. jointly released a facility relocation interim report in which they agreed to an “L-shaped plan” for the Camp Schwab marine base.
According to the same document, the U.S. military was requesting the installation of a “LCAC and HSV capable ramp at Camp Schwab” for naval port functionality. In writing its landfill application, the Okinawa Defense Bureau clearly noted in its “statement of purpose” that it would include a ramp for the purpose of embarking and debarking amphibious vessels. They were supporting the American side's plan.
HSVs were also described in the interim report on American military reorganization. It stated, “In addition to air transport, we should expand marine transportation to include high speed vehicle capabilities.” Additionally, the military is claiming there's a need to start using these HSVs in order to strengthen the capabilities of joint Japan-U.S. operations.
In the same document, top military leaders pointed out that “integrating the northern units is our response to a request from the Japanese government that we alleviate their burden.” They also emphasized that “the integration has to do with the burdens that would necessarily fall on the Japanese government in connection to a facility relocation, which would include new construction and reconstruction, repairs to infrastructure, and the costs of expanding all facilities.”
Furthermore, this document included mention of a 1999 cabinet decision, alluding to previous plans to construct an alternative facility in Henoko's offshore area. One of the terms set by Okinawa prefecture and Nago at the time was a 15 year expiration date. However, due to U.S. military restructuring, the interim report stated that such a condition “should be withdrawn.” Presently, in accordance with a final report on U.S. military restructuring from 2006, the expiration date will be annulled.
Editor’s note: The “internal military document” that this article references could not be found
Last year, the Okinawa Defense Bureau presented to the prefecture an application for creating a landfill in Nago, Henoko. The application indicated that this landfill was intended to create a ramp by which hovercraft would be able to enter and exit the area. It became glaringly obvious that, just as the American side had originally conceived, plans were proceeding for improved naval port functionality and integrated facilities.
The internal document obtained by this newspaper showed that leaders of U.S. military forces stationed in Japan had addressed their recommendations to U.S. Military Deputy Commander [Major General Timothy] Larsen. “With regards to Okinawa,” it stated, “we should unify the northern sections of the U.S. Marine Corps.” This document was drawn up on Aug. 1, 2005, approximately three months before Japan and the U.S. jointly released a facility relocation interim report in which they agreed to an “L-shaped plan” for the Camp Schwab marine base.
According to the same document, the U.S. military was requesting the installation of a “LCAC and HSV capable ramp at Camp Schwab” for naval port functionality. In writing its landfill application, the Okinawa Defense Bureau clearly noted in its “statement of purpose” that it would include a ramp for the purpose of embarking and debarking amphibious vessels. They were supporting the American side's plan.
HSVs were also described in the interim report on American military reorganization. It stated, “In addition to air transport, we should expand marine transportation to include high speed vehicle capabilities.” Additionally, the military is claiming there's a need to start using these HSVs in order to strengthen the capabilities of joint Japan-U.S. operations.
In the same document, top military leaders pointed out that “integrating the northern units is our response to a request from the Japanese government that we alleviate their burden.” They also emphasized that “the integration has to do with the burdens that would necessarily fall on the Japanese government in connection to a facility relocation, which would include new construction and reconstruction, repairs to infrastructure, and the costs of expanding all facilities.”
Furthermore, this document included mention of a 1999 cabinet decision, alluding to previous plans to construct an alternative facility in Henoko's offshore area. One of the terms set by Okinawa prefecture and Nago at the time was a 15 year expiration date. However, due to U.S. military restructuring, the interim report stated that such a condition “should be withdrawn.” Presently, in accordance with a final report on U.S. military restructuring from 2006, the expiration date will be annulled.
Editor’s note: The “internal military document” that this article references could not be found