A recent report from the Atlantic Council, a prominent foreign-policy think tank, recommends that the 5,000 U.S. Marines and 1,300 dependents currently stationed in Okinawa remain in the region rather than relocating to Guam. The report, published on February 2, argues that moving the Marines to Guam would distance them from potential conflict zones, specifically regarding tensions with China over Taiwan.
The report suggests that the newly constructed Marine facilities on Guam, which cost approximately $6.2 billion, may be better utilized by the Army. According to the authors, including a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps, the strategic position of Marines in Okinawa is critical for deterring conflict in the Western Pacific, particularly in light of China’s increasing assertiveness.
The findings echo previous statements by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith, who indicated that relocating Marines from Okinawa to Guam would counteract U.S. defense strategies. The Atlantic Council’s report underscores the urgency of maintaining a military presence in Okinawa, especially as the geopolitical landscape shifts.
Renegotiation of Defense Policies
The Atlantic Council’s report also calls for a reevaluation of the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI), which initiated the ongoing Marine relocation from Okinawa to Guam. This agreement, established in 2006, was aimed at reducing the number of U.S. service members in Okinawa due to longstanding local tensions. The report highlights that the relocation process has faced significant delays, coinciding with an uptick in Chinese military activity and its claims over Taiwan.
Authors of the report assert that moving Marines from Okinawa “undermines” U.S. deterrence capabilities. They emphasize that fast-response Marine units are better positioned in Japan, within the “First Island Chain,” which is vital for U.S. military strategy against potential conflicts in the region.
The report also alludes to the broader implications of the DPRI, warning that its full implementation could benefit Chinese military planners by removing U.S. forces from strategically essential locations.
In discussions about the relocation, Under Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao acknowledged in October that the military is “constantly reevaluating” its positioning in the Pacific.
Challenges Ahead
The Atlantic Council report indicates that renegotiating the Marine relocation will be challenging. It suggests that increased economic incentives for the people of Okinawa, such as exemptions from tariffs imposed during the Trump administration, could facilitate discussions. Moreover, the report points to the need for renewed U.S. security commitments to Japan, particularly regarding nuclear defense, to strengthen negotiations.
The report also addresses the contentious issue surrounding Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa. The authors argue that the base should remain operational, allowing both U.S. and Japanese Self-Defense Force troops to utilize it. They contend that the decision to close Futenma, influenced by past incidents and community concerns, should be reconsidered, especially as crime rates among U.S. military personnel in Okinawa have significantly decreased.
A historical incident in 1995, where three U.S. service members were convicted of raping a Japanese elementary school girl, intensified calls for the closure of Futenma. The Atlantic Council’s report highlights that “U.S. military crime rates on Okinawa are now far lower than in decades past,” which contradicts some of the original arguments for relocating U.S. forces.
Army Presence on Guam
With regards to facilities already established on Guam, the report proposes that the Army could take advantage of this infrastructure. The Army’s increasing presence in the Pacific is emphasized, and the report suggests that positioning larger Army units in proximity to the Marianas could enhance U.S. military capabilities, especially as these areas are less vulnerable to many Chinese missile systems.
Last May, the Pentagon dismissed reports claiming that the Trump administration intended to relocate 4,500 soldiers from South Korea to Guam and other Indo-Pacific locations. While there are already Army troops stationed at Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz, they are not part of the South Korea relocation plan. The first group of 700 Army personnel has been deployed to operate a 360-degree missile defense system on Guam.
Local Perspectives
Robert Underwood, chairman of the Pacific Center for Island Security and a former delegate to Congress from Guam, expressed that the Atlantic Council’s report aligns with sentiments previously voiced by his think tank. He suggested that the Marines are not eager to relocate to Guam, indicating a serious consideration in Washington, D.C., to maintain the Marine presence in Okinawa.
Underwood acknowledged the complexities surrounding the potential cancellation of the military buildup on Guam. He highlighted the environmental and cultural significance of the land where Camp Blaz is located, mentioning that ancient artifacts and remains were uncovered during construction. He cautioned that the destruction of culturally significant sites for a military base raises concerns about the local community’s heritage.
While the Atlantic Council’s report considered economic incentives for Okinawa, Underwood noted that Guam was not part of that discussion. He urged local leaders to advocate for clearer information on the Marine relocation process, allowing the community to engage effectively with ongoing developments.
The future of U.S. military presence in the Pacific remains uncertain, and the implications of these decisions will undoubtedly affect both Okinawa and Guam in the years to come.
