In the uproar in Okinawa Prefecture over the deployment of the U.S. Osprey transport aircraft, some of the loudest voices have been from people whose homes are in far-off Fukushima Prefecture.
In the uproar in Okinawa Prefecture over the deployment of the U.S. Osprey transport aircraft, some of the loudest voices have been from people whose homes are in far-off Fukushima Prefecture.From experience, they are warning residents and local governments in the southern prefecture not to fall into a trap: depending on tax grants from the central government for economic survival.The government has long used such grants to obtain acquiescence from local governments around Japan that host unpopular facilities, such as nuclear power plants and U.S. military bases.One of those governments was Minami-Soma, a city that has remained largely deserted since the accident at the nearby Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant last year.A 54-year-old evacuee from Minami-Soma joined a Sept. 30 protest in front of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, Okinawa Prefecture, one day before the Osprey transport aircraft was to be deployed there."While some people may have prospered after agreeing to host the Fukushima No. 1 plant, everyone suffered terribly when the nuclear accident occurred,” the man said. “The same can be said for Okinawa. Something has to be done before an accident occurs."About 700 Fukushima evacuees still live in Okinawa Prefecture.The candidate site for relocating Futenma is the Henoko district of Nago on the northern part of the main Okinawa island. A sit-in tent village has been erected next to Camp Schwab, where protesters gather to oppose the relocation.Signs and flags from around Japan have been hung on the wire fence that separates Camp Schwab from the outside world. One sign said, "Even if Okinawa and Fukushima may be separated in distance, the feelings are the same." Another said, "Fukushima will continue to fight against radiation."A 63-year-old woman from Sukagawa, Fukushima Prefecture, said: "The central government has argued that the economy would not survive without nuclear plants. It has also said U.S. military bases are necessary for Japan's national security. As a national policy, the central government has forced unwanted facilities on weak regions. I felt the connection between those two issues since coming to Okinawa."Many Fukushima evacuees now mistrust the central government, which had assured host communities that nuclear power plants were safe and doled out subsidies to keep their economies afloat.In line with the reorganization of U.S. bases in Japan, the Japanese government has also brought military facilities to isolated areas in exchange for economic benefits to the local governments that agree to play host.Points are allocated depending on the type of facility and land area of the base as well as the number of personnel stationed there. Each point is equivalent to 2.92 billion yen ($36.8 million) in tax grants.When a plan is approved, 10 percent of the total grant amount is paid out. Further payments are made as progress is made in relocating military bases to the local community.It is no coincidence that the setup is similar to the one used for communities that host nuclear power plants."We referred to a program used at the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy," a Defense Ministry official in charge of the program said.That agency distributes tax grants to nuclear plant localities.Another similarity is that local governments hosting military bases have wide leeway in deciding how the grants can be spent."The money can be used for items other than hardware, such as maintenance expenses of the facility, personnel costs and providing free medical care to local residents," the Defense Ministry official said.Okinawa has the most facilities in Japan for which such lucrative grants are distributed.The Kanna Thalasso Okinawa facility in Ginoza in central Okinawa opened in 2003 as a location for improved beauty and health through the use of seawater. The public corporation set up by Ginoza village to operate the facility has accumulated a mountain of losses. The grants paid to the village government are the only reason the facility continues to operate.Some local governments have cut off the grant payments.Nago city stopped receiving the grants after Susumu Inamine was elected mayor on a platform opposing the Futenma relocation to the community."The grants are only paid out over a 10-year period. If we accepted military bases on that condition, we would be stuck with the bases for 100 years,” Inamine said. “We would have gone down the same road as local governments that accepted nuclear plants and were forced to go along with the construction of additional reactors. The local residents are aware that military bases and nuclear plants are nothing more than a drag on local economies that are trying to become more independent."The city of Nago had planned 35 programs on expectations that the grant money would be distributed. However, half of those programs have been either suspended or scrapped."Necessary programs have been implemented using other subsidies, and this has provided an opportunity to review the fiscal condition of the city that had become bloated because of the grants," said Zenko Nakamura, a Nago city assembly member.In some cases, it is clear that rather than provide benefits, the military bases prove to be a larger obstacle for the economic independence of a community.For example, business is booming at a redevelopment project in Naha using land that had once hosted U.S. military housing. The shopping center and other facilities in the project have brought in total sales of 60.8 billion yen a year.In contrast, the site of the Futenma air station has almost double the land area of the redevelopment project. But the rent for the Futenma land is only 6.6 billion yen a year, or one-tenth of the sales."The central government has not changed its stance even though economic promotion through military bases and nuclear plants has reached its limit," Inamine said.The central government compiled its Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment that calls for ending operations at all nuclear plants by the 2030s. The idea is to change the structure of society that had enjoyed a convenient lifestyle by placing the dangers of nuclear plants in isolated regions.But the government has wavered on its nuclear policy. It seeks a continuation of the nuclear fuel recycling program to reuse spent nuclear fuel, and it has left open the possibility of a review of the nuclear-free policy by not having the Cabinet decide on such a course."While we were able to make a breakthrough in party discussions, we were unable to overcome the barriers posed by such real issues as 'Aomori' and 'the Japan-U.S. alliance,'" said Kiyomi Tsujimoto, a member of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan who pushed for the zero nuclear energy policy.The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan has, in fact, tied Japan’s energy policy to the Japan-U.S. alliance.In late August, the federation distributed a document titled "Issues related to no nuclear energy" to pro-nuclear energy lawmakers.The document pointed out the effects such a policy would have on Aomori Prefecture and international relations, especially Japan's close ties with the United States.The document said a zero nuclear energy policy would end the need for the nuclear fuel recycling program, which is considered a national policy. But that would also mean pulling the ladder out from under Aomori Prefecture, where the recycling program’s facilities are located.Ending nuclear power generation would also destabilize the nuclear nonproliferation regime and affect U.S. nuclear energy companies that have partnered with Japanese companies, the document said.Soon after the document was released, in what appeared to be a well-orchestrated campaign, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan experts in the United States as well as the Japanese business world voiced their opposition to the nuclear phaseout.Central government officials informally approached the Aomori prefectural government about scrapping the nuclear fuel recycling program, but they were rebuffed.If the program was scrapped, a location would have to be picked as the final processing site for burying and disposing of spent nuclear fuel."Aomori Prefecture was afraid of being forced to become the final disposal site, and other local governments also could not take a stance of simply being disinterested parties,” a central government source said. “We were unable to come up with an answer to this issue."Upper House member Tetsuro Fukuyama criticized the bureaucrats of central government ministries."Because those bureaucrats opposed the zero nuclear energy policy, they failed to come up with proposals for the final disposal site and regional economic promotion measures that might have replaced the nuclear fuel recycling program," Fukuyama said.The central government, citing opposition from Aomori Prefecture, has delayed a decision to stop the nuclear fuel recycling program, which would be an admission that the hugely expensive program was a mistake to begin with.There is also the desire to avoid creating problems with the United States. The industrial sector also cannot easily give up the rewards connected to constructing nuclear plants."I once again realized how thick was the bedrock of vested interests that had shared interests under the old policy measures," Tsujimoto said.With a government that is unable to make decisions, the idea of a "Japan that cannot change" has repeatedly emerged in different areas.Left holding the bag are residents forced to live near military bases and nuclear plants no matter how much opposition is voiced.