Plan unpopular - Congress voted down two Afghan withdrawal proposals
Speakers Lobby 7/1/10 (Chad Pergram, staff writer, “House Passes War Funding Bill, Votes Against Withdrawal from Afghanistan, Striking $$,” July 1, The Speakers Lobby - http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/01/house-passes-war-funding-bill-votes-against-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-striking/)
The House of Representatives okayed a $60 billion bill Thursday to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and fund a variety of other programs like education, Pell Grants, natural disaster relief and relief efforts following the earthquake in Haiti.
Many Democrats opposed the bill, concerned about the length of the conflict in Afghanistan. And President Obama even threatened to veto the package if House liberals tried to tie his hands with an amendment to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.“If the final bill presented to the president contains provisions that would undermine his ability as commander in chief to conduct military operations in Afghanistan, the president’s senior advisers would recommend a veto,” said a statement issued by the White House Thursday evening. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Congress needed to pass the bill by July 4. But the entire package isn’t complete. The Senate approved its version of the bill in May. And the House legislation is different. That means the issue must return to the Senate. And the Senate isn’t going to take up the bill any time soon. The Senate is out of session Friday so lawmakers may travel to West Virginia for the funeral of the late-Sen. Robert Byrd,D-W.Va. The Senate next meets July 12. The House voted down a proposal to strike all funding for the war, 376-26. Twenty-two lawmakers voted "present." The House also voted against a plan authored by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., to order a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. That idea failed 321-100. In addition, the House defeated an amendment to require the president to present a withdrawal strategy to Congress next year. The tally there was 260 nays to 162.
Japan --- Plan Unpopular
Plan unpopular – US wants sustained presence in Japan to ensure good relations
Xinhua 7/10 (“U.S. military presence to remain thorn in relations with Japan: experts,” July 10, Xinhua - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-07/10/c_13393108.htm) Luke
Ichiro Fujisaki, Japanese Ambassador to the United States, said in a speech from Washington on Thursday that "we have to lessen the burden" on the people of Okinawa, but that the U.S.-Japan alliance "will be honored." Richard Bush, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Japan's leadership deemed the former prime minister's approach a political loser. "They needed to cut their losses, they did so and that brought about an immediate improvement in U.S.-Japan relations," he said. While the party will continue to deal with expectations raised by former Prime Minister Hatoyama, Kan is deflating those expectations, he said. While Kan will feel Washington's pull on one side and Okinawa's tug on the other, he will respond more to the former, Bush said. For now, both Washington and Tokyo are downplaying the military issue and Japan's leadership is focusing on the economy in the face of an ongoing global recession. Baker said Japan understands its inability to provide fully for its defense, and a number of what Washington perceives as regional security concerns will cause the United States to keep a sharp eye on the region, he said. The occasional need for humanitarian intervention and the threat of piracy are also reasons the United States wants to maintain a presence in Japan, he said.
Plan unpopular – US sees Japan as dependent on US presence for protection – foreign minister agrees
NPR 6/21/10 (Mike Shuster, staff writer, “Japan's PM Faces Test Over U.S. Base On Okinawa,” NPR -
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127932447) Luke
Last month, 17,000 Okinawans formed a human chain around the base in protest. Part of the problem is the feeling on Okinawa that its people bear a disproportionate burden of the continued American military presence in Japan. The small island represents less than 1 percent of Japan's population, but it maintains some three-quarters of the U.S. military forces in Japan. Last year the Democratic Party of Japan overturned decades of political control by the Liberal Democratic Party, in part by pledging to seek a new, more equal relationship with the United States. But when Hatoyama became prime minister, the U.S. treated him arrogantly, Nakano says. "Initially, the American government came across as very high-handed and, in fact, even contemptuous of the change of government that took place in Japan, the historical alternation in power," he says. "So it came across as if it [the US] was neglecting the democratic will of the Japanese, and treating it as basically a dependency of the United States." The U.S. has maintained bases on Okinawa since the World War II battle there in the spring of 1945. It was the bloodiest land battle of the war in the Pacific. The U.S. kept military control of Okinawa until 1972, 20 years after the rest of Japan regained its sovereignty. That history has a lot to do with the sensitivity of all sides in the current controversy. The Futenma affair has sparked a debate in Japan about the ongoing presence of U.S. forces.
In a recent interview with the BBC, the current Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada, speaking through an interpreter, pointed out that Japan's constitution limits how its self-defense forces can be used, and how the continued presence of U.S. forces acts as a deterrent to potential conflicts with North Korea or China. "For Japan's own security and to maintain peace and stability in Asia as well, we do need U.S. forces in Japan, and that position is not going to change, even with the change in government," Okada said.
Share with your friends: |