Would Japan Pay For The US To Use Subic Airport?

Comment from a reader on "Subic Chamber Responds to Airport Issue"

In a Post entitled "Subic Chamber Responds to Airport Issue", Chamber President Danny Piano raised several objections to the U.S. Navy conducting Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) at Subic Airport. First, he states that the conduct of FCLPs would not result in a source of revenue for the Airport, stating, "the airport itself will most likely not benefit financially since Article VIII (Movements of Vessels and Aircraft) par. 3 of the VFA states that 'Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces shall not be subject to the payment of landing or port fees, navigation or overflight charges, or tolls or other use charges, including light and harbor dues, while in the Philippines'"

President Piano missed the import of the earlier post suggesting that FCLPs be conducted at SBIA. Because the Government of Japan is obliged by treaty to provide a site for the conduct of FCLPs, it is the Government of Japan, not the United States Government, that could be expected to pay for the privilege of the U.S. Navy conducting FCLPs at SBIA.

This obligation to provide a site for the U.S. Navy to conduct FCLPs was reiterated in a document entitled, "Security Consultative Committee Document, U.S.-Japan Alliance, Transformation and Realignment for the Future," dated October 29, 2005, in which the following sentence appeared:"The Government of Japan reiterates its commitment to provide an acceptable permanent FCLP facility or U.S. naval aviation forces"
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/news/youjin/2005/10/1029_2plus2/29_e.htm

Because the Government of Japan was not a party to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the United States and Philippine Governments, the language Article VIII, par. 3 of the VFA quoted by President Piano would not constrain the Governments of the Philippines and Japan from reaching an agreement whereby Japan would compensate the Philippines for the use of SBIA for by the U.S. Navy for FCLPs.

President Piano also questions whether logistical support could be provided FCLPs at SBIA under the rubric of the annual RP-U.S. Balikatan exercises. However, there is nothing preventing the RP and the US from fashioning logistical arrangements separate from the Balikatan exercises for FCLPs, under Article VIII, par 1 of the VFA, which states:

Aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces may enter the Philippines upon approval of the Government of the Philippines in accordance with procedures stipulated in implementing arrangements.

Finally, President Piano states: "It will require a lot of research and legwork to check the possibility of this [FCLP] option. The Chamber itself lacks the manpower and resources to deal with all the issues in and around the Subic Freeport. It only has three salaried employees." Again President Piano fails to appreciate the exigencies of the current situation. Iwo Jima, the site at which FCLPs have been conducted on a temporary basis for many years, is unsuitable for FCLPs because the changeablity of the weather and the lack of other divert airfields within 600 miles. Go to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKE/is_11_47/ai_97388793/?tag=content;col1

For this reason, a "Roadmap" for implementation of the "Security Consultative Committee Document, U.S.-Japan Alliance, Transformation and Realignment for the Future," provides that a permanent site for Field Carrier Landing Practice shall be selected by July 1, 2009, or "as soon thereafter as possible".
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/doc0605.html, at paragraph 4, see also
http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/pdf/2006/4-2-3.pdf at p 236.

Therefore, it will not require a lot of research and legwork to get the ball rolling on the FCLP option for Subic Airport.

All it would take is drafting a letter suggesting the idea to the Japanese Ambassador, and hopefully a brief meeting with the Japanese Ambassador at which the letter could be delivered. In light of Japan's treaty obligations to provide a site for FCLPs, and the pending deadlines, the Japanese Government could be relied upon to carry the ball from that point forward.