Mayor-Election in Nago says NO to US military Base

Most people around the world might have no interest in such news, but it is a big and serious issue to the people in Nago, which is a rural area in Okinawa, an American military-base occupied island in the southern part of Japan. It seems that the result of the election might have an effect on Japanese and the US relation, and a lot of people in Okinawa are anxious for a change.



Of course, the result was given top priority in the local newspapers in Okinawa, and it was reported as a short article in The New York Times.



According to the article, mayor-election took place in a small city on 25th January, last Sunday and people chose 'a candidate who opposes the relocation of an American air base on Okinawa.' The result puts pressure on the new Japanese Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, because the agreement has already been made between Japanese government, before Hatoyama, and the US in disregard for the people there. The former Japanese government accepted to relocate and build a new air base along the shore in Nago, even though this would cause of destroying coral reefs, exposing ocean wild life, such as dugongs inhabit there to a danger of extinction.



There are about 50,000 US military personnel in Japan and almost half of them are now in Okinawa. People complain about an 'unfair burden' such as noises, accidents, crime and destruction of nature.



Hatoyama promised to move the US military base out of Okinawa during his election campaign last September, and he won. It seems, however, that Barack Obama is indifferent to him and might not concede a change of the plan to construct a new base. In the article of The Wall Street Journal, the writers say, 'Sundy's election doesn't necessarily kill the plan', but Okinawan people are expecting Hatoyama to keep his word and make a right decision that would be made in May.

Copenhagen Climate Summit

I was too busy to follow developments in the Copenhagen Climate Summit as they happened, so I tried to catch up by reading "China Blamed as Anger Mounts over Climate Deal" in last Sunday's Observer.

According to the article, written by Jonathon Watts, John Vidal, Robin McKie, and Toby Helm, politicians and delegates at the summit were divided on a wide range of issues, and the outcome was a formally recognised accord, rather than the commitment to global cuts in carbon emissions which had been the target for many European states.

The writers claim that Ed Milliband, the British climate and energy secretary, was responsible for saving the talks from complete collapse, returning to the summit at 4am on the 19th of December after several countries threatened to veto the signing of an agreement on targets. The Observer seems to give Milliband a great deal of credit for his intervention, but aims at China for its lack of co-operation with those most concerned about climate change. I would be very interested to know how this summit has been reported in other countries, where I suspect the role of Britain might be praised less.

Dances with Wolves

Vaclav is going to read Dances With Wolves. It's set in America in the 19th century and it's about John Dunbar, who is sent to manage a base on a Native-American-owned tract of land. Dunbar becomes friends with the Native Americans and he realises that their lives are better than his. He marries a white woman who had been kidnapped by the locals and has adapted to their ways. The book is about his life and the relationships he develops.