Asia Centre

Shortly prior to this, the two governments renegotiated, after two years, the agreement on special measures regulating the Japanese contribution to the running costs of the bases.

The new agreement on the new special measures, which is based on article 14 of the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), reduces this contribution in 2009 and 2010 by 1.5% in comparison with what it was in the 2007 financial year. The objective announced by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs was for a reduction of 5%[1]. The former agreement was due to expire in March and the one signed on 25 January will be valid for three years.

This agreement stipulates the number of Japanese workers on the bases (kept at 23,000 by the new agreement) and that the energy, electricity and water bills of the bases are to be paid for by the Japanese government (25.3 billion yen for the 2008 financial year, an amount identical to that of 2007; 24.9 billion in 2009 and 2010); lastly, the “transport costs” occasioned by the geography of Okinawa are also to be paid for by the Japanese government (night landings from an aircraft carrier are made on Iōtō, an island in the electoral district of Tōkyō; training exercises involving use of firearms that would go beyond road 104 are carried out on Honshū; parachutists use the runway at Iejima, in the Okinawa prefecture[2]). In 2007, the Japanese government contributed 140.9 billion yen under the terms of this agreement.

A further contribution falling under this agreement is made in accordance with article 6 of the SOFA security treaty. These are costs over and above salaries, such as for language classes given to Japanese workers, and the costs of shared equipment and facilities, which amounted to 76.5 billion in 2007[3].

With the costs associated with  improvements to the outskirts of the bases and the ancillary costs borne by  the Japanese government, the bases cost it around 600 billion yen a year[4].

Since 2000, however, the Japanese government has managed to have its portion of the costs for the bases reduced. The Ministry for Defence has also negotiated with the trade union of those workers working on the bases for the elimination of certain payments and priviliges. These involve an additional salary component, language classes, and a supplementary benefit on retirement – and this will have the effect of producing budgetary savings of a  billion yen[5].

The bases are the subject of transactions between the national government and the local government. The special law on the reorganisation of American forces, passed on May 23 2007, allocates subsidies to those communities, affected by the change, which have accepted the restructuring plans resulting from the inter-governmental agreement of May 1^st 2006 (this law also gives responsibility for financing the transfer of Marines to Guam to the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation). There is a four-step process for allocation of these subsidies. The first occurs once a construction project is accepted; then at the start of an environmental impact study; then once works begin, and finally on their completion. A budget of 5.1 billion yen was provided in 2007. Thirty-three municipalities were designated on October 31 2007 by the Ministry of Defence to be recipients of this aid[6].

Iwakuni (Yamaguchi prefecture) was one of the areas which were late in joining up to the government’s projects. In a March 2006 referendum, its inhabitants had rejected by 87% the government’s plan– involving the transfer of an aircraft carrier and 59 planes from the naval base of Atsugi, as well as 12 refuelling planes from the Marine base of Futenma, to the Marines’ airbase located in the municipality. On February 10 2008, they elected Fukuda Yoshihiko, a candidate favourable to them, voting out the incumbent Ihara Katsusuke[7]. The number of votes separating the two candidates was only around 1 700.

S. Mabuchi: The "junior" elected members from the Democratic and Liberal Democrat parties set up a joint working group after last July's elections to the Upper House.

T. Kōno: I was elected for my first term in 1996. Since then, I have made only one intervention during a plenary session, shortly after my election, and in the following ten years I became extremely frustrated. Hashimoto was Prime Minister at the time, and a special committee had been set up to amend the law concerning Okinawa, which I had joined in the hope of playing an active part, but that did not happen: members of the Diet from the majority side had to remain silent and listen; only the final Friday vote mattered. Members sitting around me were all busy reading novels! When the majority in the Upper House changed, I thought that was all over at last! There could now be an exchange of views between members from the majority and the opposition, and the majority members could play an active role.

If the LDP and the Minshutō were to form a coalition, we would go back to the system where a bill decreed by a minister is passed without a comma being altered.

S. Mabuchi: When I return to my Nara constituency, people tell me that we ought to work together for the common good, "Minshutō or Jimintō, basically what's the difference?". But before thinking about a coalition, we must reform the Diet so that it functions as a place of real debate.

The lack of continuity between the debates in different sessions encourages the opposition parties, particularly the Minshutō, to denounce the flaws in government bills, to put an end to all debate, and to simply wait for the end of the session which will make all discussion superfluous. It is difficult to find a constructive approach with a view to improving a bill. The opposition members also have their own frustrations. Many foreign governments have opted for parliamentary sessions lasting throughout the year, which gives more time for discussion than our system of separate sessions [normally lasting 150 days].

T. Konō: It is the opposition's fault that the committee's agenda is only known one day in advance. The agenda is decided by a meeting of party secretaries [riji kondankai] on the basis of information provided by each secretary. The opposition provides this information at the last moment, most probably because they are used to slowing down a bill's progress and waiting for the session to end. If the government uses its majority to push its bills through, the opposition then denounces it as an abuse of power. This is an example of the type of sterile battles in the parliamentary calendar produced by the opposition.

S. Mabuchi: The blame also lies at the government's door, for trying to get its bills voted through without any alterations. There is no point in trying to show the flaws in any bill and making the civil servants go pale during the session; the government just moves to the vote.

T. Kōno: An extreme illustration of this was the law on IT data security put forward by the Economics Ministry.