TOKYO (Kyodo) — Japan will sharply cut expenses for the planned transfer of Okinawa-based U.S. Marines to Guam after the U.S. Congress on Monday cut all funding for the relocation for fiscal 2012 through next September, government sources said Tuesday.

The Defense Ministry and Finance Ministry are looking to cut the allocation related to the relocation to less than 10 billion yen in the budget for the next fiscal year from April, a significant reduction from the roughly 52 billion yen earmarked in the fiscal 2011 budget, they said.

The latest development comes after the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives agreed Monday to cut from an annual spending bill the entire $150 million funding for the planned transfer of some 8,000 U.S. Marines and 9,000 of their family members to Guam.

To read the whole article at the  Mainichi Daily News

The Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russia’s foremost national policy think tank, takes the imminent collapse of the North Korean regime as a given in a special report published recently. IMEMO concludes that Korean reunification led by South Korea coincides with Russia’s national interests.

IMEMO spent years to prepare the report, which is part of the Russian government’s 20-year master plan and was published in September.

The 480-page special report obtained by the Chosun Ilbo has five pages referring to the Korean Peninsula. It says the regime’s collapse is “accelerating” and that although reunification may not be fully achieved, the two Koreas will take “actual steps” toward reunification in the next two decades.

IMEMO believes the 2012-2020 transfer of power from North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to his son Jong-un will trigger the collapse of the North. The leadership crisis will lead to a power struggle between “bureaucrats” with foreign business connections and “military and security officials” with no outside links, the report said.

To read the whole article at  The Chosun Ilbo

TOKYO — Asian countries should work together to encourage China’s increasingly assertive military to obey the rules of the sea, Japan’s prime minister has told the Financial Times.

Yoshihiko Noda’s comments come against a background of rising tensions in the South and East China Seas, where several countries have competing territorial claims.

“(We will) appeal in all kinds of meetings for China to abide by the rules, he told the paper. “Pushing for the rules to be followed should be something done in cooperation with all the countries in the area.”

Noda, who took office just two months ago, has previously urged Beijing to act as a “responsible member of the international community.”

In September, he became the latest senior Japanese figure to express concern over the speed and “opaqueness” of China’s military buildup, which has seen huge rises in Beijing’s military budget over a number of years.

To read the whole article at  The China Post

When Barack Obama met Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda Wednesday at the U.N. General Assembly, it must have felt a bit like speed dating. Mr. Noda, who assumed office earlier this month, is the fourth Japanese leader that Mr. Obama has met in just three years, and Japan’s sixth premier in a half decade

This churn in Tokyo makes it almost impossible for U.S. and Japanese leaders to forge a stable working relationship. It is becoming a strain on ties between the two Pacific allies, and is one reason Japan has slipped off the radar in Washington. Yet the two partners need each other more than ever, given the common challenges they face, from economic stagnation to continued instability in East Asia.

The point of greatest contention remains implementing a 2006 agreement to move a U.S. Marines Corps Air Station from congested Futenma in the south of Okinawa to an existing facility in the less-populated north of the island. Mr. Hatoyama capriciously upended the agreement last year, causing a flurry of diplomatic activity to try to right the plan.

To read the whole article at  the Wall Street Journal

The new Japanese government is trying to earn back trust from the United States, its most important ally, by showing support for initiatives that recent prime ministers in Tokyo have let languish.

The ideas include support for a multi-nation free-trade agreement and for allowing easier exports of Japanese weapons technology, ventures that have strong support in Washington. New Japanese leaders have also signaled their intention to carry out a long-stalled agreement with Washington that would put the U.S. Marine presence in Okinawa on a more solid footing.

To read the whole article on the Washington Post

With no end to the standoff in sight, relations between Asia’s two biggest economies are in danger of backsliding, after progress in recent years under more China-friendly Japanese prime ministers.

China at the last minute delayed an official visit to Japan over the dispute, and last week postponed talks planned for this month on a disagreement over natural gas in another area of the East China Sea, according to Reuters.

“Japan provoked this situation and Japan should take all responsibilities,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu in a press conference Tuesday, according to CNN. “We urge the Japanese to stop so-called legal procedures and let him return safely and immediately.”

Read the article in its entirety at the Christian Science Monitor.

(September 7, 2010 – WASHINGTON) The U.S. may face trouble achieving its long term strategic goals in Northeast Asia while continuing to shelter its allies beneath a nuclear umbrella and in the absence of leverage with China, a forum in Washington D.C. noted yesterday.

The event, “Extended Deterrence in N.E Asia Achieving Mixed Results”, was hosted by the Korea Chair and the Proliferation Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C.

By way of example, Dr. Patrick Morgan of the University of California Morgan noted how little the “nuclear umbrella” has helped in reversing North Korea’s nuclear program, curbing its proliferation related activities or in limiting its capacity to conduct nuclear blackmail.

While agreeing that North Korea is unlikely to ever use its nuclear weapons directly against U.S. allies; Morgan told the forum he believes this is primarily because of other factors and does not detract from his analysis of the failings of nuclear deterrence in this case.

Morgan emphasized that ever since increasing differences between North and South Korea in economic, military and political terms first caused Pyongyang a “terrible deterrence” problem, Pyongyang “has worked very hard to try and overcome” it by building its own nuclear weapons, and now, as a result, many of Washington’s policy goals cannot be realized through the provision of its own extended deterrence in the region.

To try and change the game, Morgan firstly advised the U.S to try and find ways to adjust the regional security management arrangement to compensate for “detaching extended nuclear deterrence from the problem.”

While one such adjustment could be a strengthening of conventional forces in the area, Morgan also noted that China’s role is critical in this situation, and pointed out that one way to influence China to better coordinate with Washington could be to indirectly threaten Beijing, perhaps one day through a gradual promotion of nuclear programs in Japan or South Korea; programs that Beijing would almost certainly view with the utmost suspicion.

However, another speaker, Dr. Victor Cha, cautioned against ending the nuclear umbrella.

Cha, while pointing to Washington’s inability to limit Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile tests and its conventional belligerency as evidence of some of the failings in the system, stopped short of advocating its end, saying that North Korea could view such a move as a major act of conciliation or even an admission of defeat; perhaps giving Pyongyang the misconceived confidence that they exercise “nuclear superiority” on the Korean peninsula.”

Contemplating how best to overcome the nuclear impasse, Robert Carlin, Co-Chair of the National Committee on North Korea, advocated dialogue, saying, “What can we accomplish in utilizing this extended deterrence directly with North Korea? Well we can’t accomplish anything with it I don’t think if we don’t eventually engage in some sort of conversation. There are a lot of things we have to know about their concept of the utility of their nuclear weapons, apart from the public statements.”

“Unless we sit down and talk to them about it at length, in depth,” Carlin went on, “we are not going to be able to figure out the danger points, the points at which they may have misconceptions, and the points they are willing not to press on the nuclear issue.”

Originally reported 1 September 2010 by the DailyNK

(September 7, 2010 – SEOUL) President Jose Ramos-Horta of East Timor on Monday slammed North Korea for violating international law by committing an “unacceptable” and “irresponsible” action. He was referring to the sinking of the South Korean Navy corvette Cheonan.

The East Timorian leader was the first head of state in the world to blast Pyongyang for torpedoing the ship right after the incident occurred.

He is visiting South Korea at the invitation of Ewha Womans University’s Peace Research Institute.

At a press conference Monday, the 1966 Nobel peace laureate also told reporters that six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea’s nuclear development program must continue. “A system grounded on oppression and fear is fated to fall in the end. North Korea won’t sustain itself for decades unless it changes,” he added.

Originally reported 7 September 2010 by the Chosun Ilbo.

WASHINGTON — The United States is currently the world biggest weapons supplier — holding 30 per cent of the market — but the Obama administration has begun modifying export control regulations in hopes of enlarging the U.S. market share, according to U.S. officials.

President Barack Obama already has taken the first steps by tucking new language into the Iran sanctions bill signed in early July. His aides are now compiling the “munitions list,” which regulates the sale of military items.

The administration’s stated reason for the changes is to simplify the sale of weapons to U.S. allies, but potential spinoffs include generating business for the U.S. defense industry, creating jobs and contributing to Obama’s drive to double U.S. exports by 2015.

Critics say the reforms are being rushed and warn that the expedited procedures could allow weapons technology to fall into the wrong hands.

India, which currently is seeking 126 fighter-jets worth over $10 billion, 10 large transport aircraft worth $6 billion, and other multi-billion dollar defense sales, could be among the possible beneficiaries. Allies seeking advanced U.S. weaponry and equipment, who now often buy elsewhere due to the cumbersome U.S. approval process, would draw immediate benefit from the reforms, U.S. officials said.

Obama first called for the reforms in August 2009, then referred to them in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address as an element toward doubling exports by 2015.

In the House of Representatives, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, (D-Calif.), is drafting a bill that parallels the president’s plan.

However, it isn’t clear that the Senate will go along, as it is still reviewing the president’s proposals.

“It is probably going to be some time yet before there is movement in the relevant committees on formal hearings or writing or legislation,” said Andy Fisher, spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Obama’s plan, according to top officials, is to ask Congress to streamline the bureaucratic process for approving arms sales by setting up a single new agency to oversee one list of exportable weapons, “tiered” according to the sensitivity of the technology. Currently the State and Commerce Departments maintain separate lists, and the State Department list contains many restrictions.

“Our aim is to make the system more transparent, efficient, and effective,” said Ben Chang, a White House spokesman. “This means we are improving our ability to administer our controls, which improves our ability to enforce them, and equally important, improves the ability of companies to comply.”

Critics say decontrolling weapons systems could fuel regional arms races, allow technology to fall into the wrong hands and, because arms purchasers often want to set up their own industries, end up exporting jobs abroad.

“The concern that we have is that the net result of this process would be to open the floodgates for military sales to states that do not meet the standards established in years previous,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.

“We’re No. 1 in weapons in the world, so I don’t understand what the problem is we need to fix,” said a Republican staffer for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the topic.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the most outspoken administration advocate for the new system, said it will “build high walls around a smaller yard” by narrowing in on the nation’s “crown jewels.”

However, critics point out that what those crown jewels are depends on decisions yet to be made.

“There’s nothing in their top tier currently,” the Senate GOP staffer said. “They can’t figure out what should be in their top tier.”

Senior officials have said possible “top tier” items include certain night vision technology and advanced stealth technology, which makes aircraft invisible to radar, infrared, and sonar.

The new system would allow older technology such as Lockheed Martin’s F-16 fighter to fall to a lower tier as newer, more advanced technology emerges. The staffer said that some versions of the plan currently circulating don’t include the F-16 in the top tier of the secured list.

The F-16 may no longer be top technology for the U.S., but as is the case with much of the aging technology that will be decontrolled, the Senate GOP staffer said, “It’s often a question of what China, a terrorist, or even a rogue state would do with these things.”

Members of the Obama administration say that changes will enhance national security.

“In fact, our system itself poses a potential national security risk based on the fact that its structure is overly complicated, contains too many redundancies, and tries to protect too much,” United States National Security Advisor General James Jones said in a speech introducing the plans.

The administration hopes that by streamlining the process, allies will be able to receive more weapons and technology faster, making their equipment more compatible with that of the United States, and making it easier to complete joint operations.

“It spells the difference between U.S. forces going it alone or having allies who are able to operate in the lethal battle space with U.S. military forces,” said former Bush administration arms regulator Amb. Lincoln Bloomfield Jr.

Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., represents a district with aerospace and other manufacturers, and said reform is needed for the survival of U.S. manufacturing.

“We can begin to manufacture our way out of this recession by reforming our export controls,” Manzullo said in a speech at the American Enterprises Institute, a conservative think tank.

Manzullo has worked for export control reform throughout his career and says that the job creation benefits make the initiative worthwhile, but he retains doubts about the current review.

“I have a problem with giving all that power to one agency,” Manzullo said.

Manzullo explained that having one agency to govern export controls could be dangerous if the wrong person were put in charge.

Similarly, Christopher Wall, former assistant secretary of commerce, said he supports reform but thought initially that the changes were being rushed. In recent weeks, he said, the administration appears to have a better understanding of the immensity of the task.

“Whether it has to do with the possible departure of Secretary Gates or the election timetable coming up, neither of these should drive the reform process,” Wall said.

The Senate GOP staffer said that if the United States decontrols as the number one seller in the market, then others with less scrupulous records will follow suit.

The Obama administration isn’t the first executive to see the benefits of export control reform; both former President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush undertook similar reviews, which according to Gregory Suchan, a former deputy assistant secretary of state, “crashed and burned essentially because of opposition from Congress.”

“Anybody who thinks that they can come to a conclusion as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing,” Suchan said, “such a judgment is premature”

McClatchy Newspapers 2010

China may soon put an end to that.

U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles)

___

EDITOR’S NOTE — The USS George Washington supercarrier recently deployed off North Korea in a high-profile show of U.S. sea power. AP Tokyo News Editor Eric Talmadge was aboard the carrier, and filed this report.

___

Analysts say final testing of the missile could come as soon as the end of this year, though questions remain about how fast China will be able to perfect its accuracy to the level needed to threaten a moving carrier at sea.

The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China’s role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington’s ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China’s 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.

While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D’s uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision.

The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to the AP’s request for a comment.

Funded by annual double-digit increases in the defense budget for almost every year of the past two decades, the Chinese navy has become Asia’s largest and has expanded beyond its traditional mission of retaking Taiwan to push its sphere of influence deeper into the Pacific and protect vital maritime trade routes.

“The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities,” said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. “The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose.”

Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity.

It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes.

The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan.

U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.

“We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world,” Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.

But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy.

“China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back,” said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War.

Carrier-killing missiles “could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers,” he e-mailed to The AP. “It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore.”

Yoshihara said the weapon is causing considerable consternation in Washington, though — with attention focused on land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — its implications haven’t been widely discussed in public.

Analysts note that while much has been made of China’s efforts to ready a carrier fleet of its own, it would likely take decades to catch U.S. carrier crews’ level of expertise, training and experience.

But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention.

“When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically — fighter to fighter or ship to ship — and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options,” he said.

Gates said China’s investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, “could threaten America’s primary way to project power” through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups.

The Pentagon has been worried for years about China getting an anti-ship ballistic missile. The Pentagon considers such a missile an “anti-access,” weapon, meaning that it could deny others access to certain areas.

The Air Force’s top surveillance and intelligence officer, Lt. Gen. David Deptula, told reporters this week that China’s effort to increase anti-access capability is part of a worrisome trend.

He did not single out the DF 21D, but said: “While we might not fight the Chinese, we may end up in situations where we’ll certainly be opposing the equipment that they build and sell around the world.”

Questions remain over when — and if — China will perfect the technology; hitting a moving carrier is no mean feat, requiring state-of-the-art guidance systems, and some experts believe it will take China a decade or so to field a reliable threat. Others, however, say final tests of the missile could come in the next year or two.

Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington.

That would usher in a “new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States.”

While China’s Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before they become operational, the DF 21D — which would travel at 10 times the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads — has been much discussed by military buffs online.

A pseudonymous article posted on Xinhuanet, website of China’s official news agency, imagines the U.S. dispatching the George Washington to aid Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

The Chinese would respond with three salvos of DF 21D, the first of which would pierce the hull, start fires and shut down flight operations, the article says. The second would knock out its engines and be accompanied by air attacks. The third wave, the article says, would “send the George Washington to the bottom of the ocean.”

___

AP writer Christopher Bodeen in Beijing and National Security Writer Anne Gearan in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.