On Nov. 18, the Gangjeong village association, Jeju Pan-Island Committee for the Stop of Military Base and for the Realization of Peace Island, and National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to the Naval Base in Jeju Island officially demanded the National Assembly to cut the 2015 Jeju naval base budget of 298 billion won (about $290 million USD) filed by the Government. In their opinion statement, the groups claimed that the Government has habitually ignored National Assembly decisions and promises with the Island people (See the below sources)
The seven reasons to the cut the 2015 Jeju naval base budget
(* Only big titles were translated here. Each details are currently available only in Korean in the below sources)
_Violation of the 2014 budget collateral conditions given by the National Assembly
_Need to reexamine the safety matter of 150,000 ton cruise navigation
_Military housing building project that amplifies conflicts
_Harbor construction without the measures on environment contamination
_Stagnation on the executive results and annual transfer possibility
_Invalid Jeju naval base project
_Continued human rights infringement and government negligence on conflicts
Proposals by the Gangjeong village association and civic society
There should be an inquiry on the responsibility of the Ministry and navy’s habitual violation of National Assembly collateral conditions.
There should be the prompt stop of military housing building that amplifies conflicts. There should be the whole cut of 9,819,000,000 KRW (about $ 9 million USD) construction budget; of 347,000,000 KRW (about $300,000 USD) supervision cost; and of 36,442,000,000 KRW (about 30 million USD) purchase cost for military apartment.
In relation to entry & exit of the military-related vehicles, the construction budget for 19.5 billion KRW (about $ 18 million USD) for the entry road of which its building has not been agreed with villagers should be frozen until measures for noise and environment matters are prepared for.
Also there should be the cut of harbor & bay facility construction cost of 96.4 billion won (about $ 90 million USD); of land facility construction cost of 112 billion KRW (about $110 million USD); of harbor & bay supervision cost of 2.3 billion won (about $2 million USD); and land supervision cost of 2.3 billion won(about $2 million USD), with an inquiry on the responsibility of the supervising committee’s poor management, as well as a demand that the execution of construction budget should not be done unless there is preparation for the measures on the protection of ecology system and soft corals.
In the project promotion budget, there should be the whole cut of about 11 million KRW (about $10,000 USD) for the events such as local residents-invitation events, visitor-welcome events, conflict-management activities. And in the indirect cost, there should be the cut of about 36.5 million KRW (about $ 30,000 USD) for the public relation material production (booklets, leaflets & other materials) and newspaper advertisement. Those budgets bring concern that they could stir up conflicts as the navy makes unilateral public relation, justifying the Jeju naval base project.
The problem of location selection was proved again. Following the destruction of seven caissons – huge concrete structures for the breakwater installed on the maritime of the Jeju naval base construction site- by the typhoon Bolaven in 2012, three caissons were also pushed or slanted down by the typhoon Neoguri ( with the maximum wind speed 19.5 m/s ) in 2014. Fundamental examination on the matter is necessary.
To resolve the conflict on the Jeju civilian-military complex port, the should-be–clearly-examined in the truth investigation raised by the current Won Hee-Ryong Island government (See the Oct. newsletter, Page 1) are the propriety matter of the village general meeting (* which was manipulated by the navy) at the time of the invitation of the Jeju naval base project; validity matter of environment impact assessment; propriety matter of annulment of absolute preservation area not to mention validity matter of location selection; layout errors in relation to the safety matter of 150,000 ton cruise navigation; and suspicion on the data manipulation raised in the process of simulation and the substance of external pressure. To resolve those matters, the Government and National Assembly should be responsible to act.
Before more construction progress, there should be through verification on the reason of the postponement of layout change on the west side jetty and safety matter of 150,000 ton cruise navigation. Also there should be a prompt environment and legal examination whether the planned sea route (changed) can properly work as the Jeju naval base sea route.
Further, there should be total reexamination on the location and military validity as there is a big concern that the Jeju naval base is fundamentally to be used as an outpost for the ROK-US-Japan trilateral military missile defense and naval cooperation targeting China and is to aggregate nuclear arms cost and military confrontation in the Northeast Asia.