Tokyo, Washington must keep alliance from eroding
The Japanese and U.S. governments must step up efforts to prevent the bilateral alliance from eroding.
Twelve MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, new U.S. military transport planes, were unloaded at the U.S. Marine Corps' Iwakuni Air Station in Yamaguchi Prefecture Monday. The aircraft arrived without major disruption, although protests were held by some people.
Tokyo and Washington have agreed that the Ospreys will not fly in Japan until after reports on two Osprey accidents that occurred this year are published and their safety is confirmed. Opposition to the unloading of the aircraft at the Iwakuni base appears to be an excessive response.
According to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey conducted in the prefecture, 54 percent of respondents answered that they would "approve the temporary stationing of Ospreys at the Iwakuni base if safety is confirmed."
The MV-22's accident rate is less than the average for all aircraft operated by the U.S. Marine Corps. So it is unrealistic to assume that only Ospreys are dangerous.
Obviously, it is impossible for any aircraft to be totally accident-free. It is necessary to discuss safety in a cool manner, without getting emotional.
===
Safety a top priority
Even so, in light of the importance of the Japan-U.S. alliance, it is essential to confirm the safety of Ospreys to a greater than usual degree so they can be deployed on schedule at the U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in Okinawa Prefecture in October.
It must be remembered that deploying Ospreys with excellent flight performance will enhance the deterrent power of U.S. troops stationed in Japan.
The Japan-U.S. Joint Committee will hold a meeting Thursday to discuss safety measures in connection with Osprey flight training in Japan. The government plans to send to the United States this month an inspection team consisting of experts from the Defense Ministry and the Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Ministry as well as the private sector to receive explanations on the U.S. report on an Osprey accident in Morocco in April.
Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto will visit Washington in early August to confer with his U.S. counterpart, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Morimoto will also go on an Osprey demonstration flight.
Through the series of bilateral consultations, it will be essential for Japan to ask the United States to ensure measures to prevent further accidents and set safer flight routes while examining the causes of accidents.
U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said during a news conference in Tokyo last week that his country will give top priority to confirming the safety of Ospreys.
We hope that Washington will provide as much information as possible on the Osprey accidents and bolster safety measures in line with Carter's commitment.
===
Maehara's ill-advised stance
A source of confusion is that Seiji Maehara, chairman of the Democratic Party of Japan's Policy Research Committee, has openly called for postponing the Osprey deployment, saying that the government "is making light of public will in Okinawa and Yamaguchi [prefectures]."
As an executive member of the ruling party who is versed in diplomatic and security issues, Maehara is in a key position to seek the cooperation of local governments and communities where the Ospreys will be deployed. As long as there is disarray between the government and the ruling party, it will be extremely difficult to expand local support for the Osprey deployment.
The bilateral alliance must not be undermined by mishandling on the part of Japan.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 25, 2012)
(Jul. 26, 2012)
Don't decide energy option through ad hoc discussions
The basic policy on energy, which will determine the nation's future, should not be decided through ad hoc "national debates."
The government presented three options on the ratio of nuclear power in the nation's mix of power sources for the year 2030, namely zero, 15 percent, or 20 percent to 25 percent. It is carrying out procedures to seek public opinions regarding which option would be most desirable.
Among such procedures are hearings where randomly selected members of the public express their opinions. Eleven such hearings have been or will be held through Aug. 4 at 11 locations nationwide.
It is reasonable for the government to seek a wide sample of public opinions, but it cannot be overlooked that the hearings have caused trouble.
At hearings on July 15 and 16, employees of electric power companies, who identified their employers by name, called for the continued use of nuclear power. Both times, this caused a fierce backlash from other participants who support moving away from dependence on nuclear energy.
The government then hastily decided not to allow employees of power companies and affiliated businesses to express opinions at such hearings. At hearings held Sunday at two locations, the government kept four people working in the industry from expressing their views.
===
Why have a gag rule?
We are concerned that prohibiting people in the power industry from expressing their views on energy policy is a form of suppression of free speech. The government needs to convincingly explain why it changed the rules in the middle of the process.
To avoid unproductive black-and-white arguments over pro- or anti-nuclear power positions, we consider it vitally important for members of society to express opinions from various points of view and calmly discuss them.
It is also distressing to observe the bad manners displayed by some participants at those hearings, such as excessive booing by those seeking an end to nuclear power.
We also cannot eliminate our concerns over a "deliberative poll," a new method of public survey and discussions the government plans to conduct on Aug. 4 and 5.
Among about 3,000 people nationwide who responded in an opinion survey on the energy options, 200 to 300 who wished to participate in a two-day discussion meeting will do so. After the meeting, the government will again conduct an opinion survey on the participants.
===
An opinion experiment
We understand the purpose of such a measure--to deepen public understanding of the issue through discussions and observe how public opinions change. But public views could be influenced in certain directions, depending on the content of materials used for discussions and how such an event is held. The government should consider such a method as a mere experimental project--it must not directly reflect the results derived from the event in shaping its policies.
In the first place, all three policy options the government presented are based on the assumption that the ratio of renewable energy sources, including hydroelectric power, will be raised from the current 10 percent or so to 25 percent to 35 percent. People in business circles and others have vocally opposed such scenarios as unattainable.
As long as current circumstances remain unchanged, none of the three policy choices represent a realistic composition of power sources to ensure a stable power supply.
To hammer out a mid- to long-term energy policy in which impacts on the economy and the environment are taken into account, the government should reconsider the suitability of the three options.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 25, 2012)
(Jul. 26, 2012)
0 comments:
Post a Comment