By David Axe
Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has been left to decide what to do about a controversial US air base. The choice is clear.
A gray US Air Force tanker banks sharply toward the runway, its four turbofans screaming as it flares for landing. As its tires hit the runway they give off a bluish smoke through which the outline of a US Navy maritime patrol plane taxiing on the tarmac becomes visible.
It’s the patrol plane’s turn now, and it accelerates, its propellers grinding the air, to take its place in a long line of aircraft waiting to take off from the Kadena Air Base, the largest part of what is arguably the most vital military complex in the Pacific for the United States and its closest regional allies.
An explosive political drama that reached its climax earlier this month underscored the importance of Kadena and the surrounding bases. On June 2, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama stepped down after weeks of tumbling public support for his administration. The reason—the ongoing uncertainty over the future of US forces in Japan.
During the general election campaign last year, Hatoyama had vowed to reconsider a 2006 deal over the relocation of US Marines from the Futenma Air Station, a smaller base just south of Kadena. After strongly hinting that he would abandon the 2006 deal, Hatoyama announced in late May his continued support for the existing agreement reached under the previous Liberal Democratic Party administration.
Under this agreement, the Marines would eventually relocate their airstrip to a less-populated part of the island prefecture. But many Okinawans oppose any US military presence there at all. US bases—and Futenma, especially—have generally been unpopular among the now largely pacifist Japanese public, particularly Okinawans. In 1995, three US servicemen from Futenma abducted and raped a local schoolgirl, further stoking opposition to the base. And aircraft crashes are another safety concern, especially as Kadena and Futenma have between them several hundred US military aircraft permanently based at facilities surrounded by densely populated residential neighbourhoods.
The decision to stick with the 2006 deal represented the belated recognition on Hatoyama’s part that ‘there was no other good option’ for the strategically-vital Marine presence and for the US-Japanese alliance in general, according to Michael Auslin, an Asia expert with the American Enterprise Institute. In that context, the prime minister’s vague election promise to Okinawan base-detractors was a ‘miscalculation.’
So, will the Futenma dispute also prove the undoing of Hatoyama’s successor, Naoto Kan, who has so far stayed quiet on the base issue? If anything, the crisis over Futenma underscored the lasting, even growing, importance of US military facilities in Okinawa—not only for the United States, but also for Japan and other US allies. As China’s economic and military rise continues and tensions mount over North Korea’s nuclear programme and its alleged sinking of a South Korean warship, the US and its Asian allies need Okinawa more than ever.
‘The US, South Korea and Australia have been very vocal to Japan, saying, “Hey, be careful what you’re doing,”’ Sheila Smith, an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, says. ‘This isn’t a good moment to be taking large numbers of US forces out of Japan.’
Photo Credit: David Axe
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
cliff
the US may act like idiots but we treated the japanese and koreans with love and respect.i hope we can help you.
Johnny needs some lovuin.
S. Shelton
Following the closer of the Futenma Marine Air Base the Japanese government will, in one week’s time effectively reallocate the land to the people and businesses of Okinawa. The people of Japan and their businesses will be able to lead regular lives and everyday commerce on the land located on the closed Air base. This will relive the exasperated problem of overcrowding in Japan as a country as well as specifically in Okinawa. Thus the removal and closer of the Futenma Air base will effectively diminish/abolish the negative support and connotations of the US military forces in Japan.
S Shelton
Following the closer of the Futenma Marine Air Station the Japanese government will, in one week’s time effectively relocate the land to the people and businesses of Okinawa. The people of Japan and their businesses will be able to lead regular lives and everyday commerce on the land of the closed Air base. This will relive the exasperated problem of overcrowding in Japan as a country specifically in Okinawa. Thus the removal and closer of the Futenma Air base will effectively diminish/abolish the negative support and connotations of the US military forces in Japan.
Daniel
I don’t understand how you account for a few American marines to take the blame for 15,000 serviceman. As an okinawan citizen….Has the US Military done nothing but negative on your island? I think not, you are making a political case for all the negatives, but none of the positives. I was in Okinawa Camp hansen 2006, and when we had festivals, or community service for free we had nothing but THANK YOU from the people. In fact a single job at the Exchange that has a opening will have 15+ applicants within the first day. Go up to any US serviceman and ask them. “do you want to hurt, rape, or destroy our way of living.” They will say, “oh my lord no!”
shuhei
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for your response.
You said the following:
“I don’t understand how you account for a few American marines to take the blame for 15,000 serviceman. As an okinawan citizen….Has the US Military done nothing but negative on your island? I think not, you are making a political case for all the negatives, but none of the positives. I was in Okinawa Camp hansen 2006, and when we had festivals, or community service for free we had nothing but THANK YOU from the people. In fact a single job at the Exchange that has a opening will have 15+ applicants within the first day. Go up to any US serviceman and ask them. “do you want to hurt, rape, or destroy our way of living.” They will say, “oh my lord no!””
My response: It is not just me it’s my whole island that doesn’t like the military. I mean you expect us to be grateful for festivals and community services that my taxes paid for? My taxes paid for your free lunch on base, we pay for your military benefits including your retirement money. You said you did festivals and community service for free? I paid for it with my TAXES.
Your lack of consideration is exactly the reason why the Okinawans don’t like the military. You waste my taxes and expect us to be happy. Well, we are not.
This is why, you should read this: THIS IS REALITY.
http://www.dispatchjapan.com/blog/2010/09/nago-vote-dims-prospects-for-futenma-replacement-facility-on-okinawa.html
Nago vote dims prospects for Futenma replacement facility on Okinawa
The already-slim prospects for construction in Okinawa of a replacement for the US Marine Air Station Futenma grew significantly dimmer on Sunday, when voters in Nago City elected a majority of candidates to its municipal assembly opposed to the project.
Nago has jurisdiction over Henoko Bay, where the planned facility would be built.
The vote means that after 15 years of wrangling and negotiations, the US and Japan remain no closer than when they started on finding a replacement for the Futenma base, which virtually everyone involved believes should be closed. Unless the US and Japan agree to shelve the issue for a while to give time for more quiet consideration, or unless top leaders from the two sides become directly involved, Washington and Tokyo could be looking at another round of very severe bilateral tension over what many argue is a relatively small issue in a very important alliance.
A total of 37 candidates vied for spots in the 27-seat Nago assembly, which previously had been deadlocked between pro- and anti-base members. Heavy lobbying by the Ministry of Defense, and State Minister for Okinawa Seiji Maehara, dangling the promise of local development projects, had previously convinced some incumbent assembly members to back the base project, resulting in the current assembly split. But the lobbying proved insufficient at voting time, as 16 anti-base candidates won seats. Two others, according to PanOrient News, lean toward opposition, which would give opponents a convincing 18-9 majority.
Sunday’s vote followed the election last January of anti-base Susumu Inamine as Nago City mayor.
With both the city’s mayor and assembly opposed to the project, it becomes quite difficult for base proponents to argue that the area’s true sentiments remain unknown.
It seems even more likely now that opposition to construction of a Futenma replacement at Henoko will prevail in Okinawa prefecture’s November 28 vote for governor. One candidate, Yoichi Iha, has been mayor of Ginowan, location of the US Marine Futenma air station. Iha is a firm opponent of the Henoko project, while insisting that the current plan to close Futenma remain. Running against Iha will be the incumbent, Hirokazu Nakaima, who has been forced by public opinion to shift his pro-base stance toward a “maybe” position. The Nago vote will likely push him more toward opposition.
In any case, the November 28 gubernatorial race will not have a candidate who strongly favors building at Henoko a replacement for the Futenma base.
To make matters more ominous for the pro-base advocates, November 28 will also see elections for a replacement of Iha as mayor of Ginowan. The early leader is current vice mayor Takeshi Asato, who is pledged not only to push for closure of Futenma, but to oppose construction of a replacement at Henoko, and even to push for abrogation of the US-Japan security treaty.
Looking ahead to November 28, Okinawa will have a governor moderately or strongly opposed to the Henoko project, a mayor and city assembly in Nago City opposed to the planned Henoko facility, and most-likely a mayor in Ginowan pushing hard for closure of Futenma.
Virtually across the board, analysts agree that no government in Tokyo could forge ahead with the Henoko project in the face of such intense local opposition on Okinawa.
As typified by Ginowan’s Asato, the real danger facing Washington and Tokyo is that the completely-avoidable inflaming of passions by the Futenma-Henoko controversy could escalate into broader antipathy to the presence of US bases overall. Already, activists in the vicinity of the US Marine Station Iwakuni are agitating against construction of new housing for the US military personnel recently shifted there for the manning of the air wing attached to the USS George Washington air craft carrier.
The US naval base at Yokosuka, and the US air base at Kadena, are the keys to the US military presence in East Asia, dwarfing the Futenma air base in importance. Before the Futenma-Henoko controversy, the prospects seemed remote that Yokosuka and Kadena would face any kind of serious opposition. The more the Futenma-Henoko dispute carries on, the more that danger rises.
Upon taking office in January 2009, the Obama administration chose to stick with the policy approach toward Okinawa forged largely by the Bush administration. This meant pushing ahead for construction of the Futenma replacement at Henoko, despite the looming prospect that the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which openly opposed the Futenma-Henoko plan, would soon win national elections and take over the government. In the process, the administration ignored suggestions to shelve the Futenma-Henoko plan, and instead focus on eliciting from the DPJ firm support for the US military presence at Yokosuka and Kadena, and DPJ cooperation on shared broader security concerns.
Michael
Why couldn’t the base be moved to some part of Japan that DOES want it? After 20 years of economic stagnation, there’s probably plenty of places in the Japanese mainland who would be happy to host the Americans.
shuhei
Dear Michael,
Thank you for the question.
“Why couldn’t the base be moved to some part of Japan that DOES want it? After 20 years of economic stagnation, there’s probably plenty of places in the Japanese mainland who would be happy to host the Americans.”
Unfortunately, many people would rather be poverty stricken than accept the US military bases.
Here are some articles on this exact issue:
Japan Tokunoshima islanders reject US Marines base
http://rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/japan-tokunoshima-islanders-reject-us-marines-base/
Japan Kagoshima governor rejects US Marines base
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=122310§ionid=351020406
http://watchingamerica.com/News/56794/the-curse-of-deterrence-theory/
The article above says the following:
Tokyo Shimbun, Japan
The Curse of Deterrence Theory
To release ourselves from this spell, we must relieve Okinawa’s unequal burden.__Translated By Ryo Kato__16 May 2010_
Edited by Celeste Hansen
Japan – Tokyo Shimbun – Original Article (Japanese)
Yesterday was the anniversary of Okinawa’s return to Japan from the United States. Though it has been 38 years since the administrative reversion, 75 percent of U.S. bases in Japan are still concentrated in Okinawa, which prompts consideration about the state of Japan-U.S. relations.
The Democratic Party of Japan boasted a 70 percent Cabinet approval rating at the inauguration of its government. However, after only eight months the party is in deep distress as the Cabinet approval rating has plummeted to 20 percent. One major reason is the growing doubt regarding the relocation of the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station.
At first, Prime Minister Hatoyama promised to reduce the burden of hosting bases on Okinawa residents. He also promised that at very least the replacement facility would be outside the Okinawa prefecture. Now, he raises a red flag to express that moving the base outside of the prefecture will be “difficult.”
Excuses for Inability to Keep Public Promise
The Prime Minister explains that moving the base outside of the country or prefecture is difficult because “U.S. forces in Okinawa are logistically linked, and the deterrence offered by their presence could be better maintained if they are together.” This reasoning is not convincing. Rather, he has introduced the concept of deterrence into his excuse for failing to commit to his public promises.
It seems that the self-imposed decision deadline at the end of May will be pushed back. The government must first admit its clumsy handling of the issue and apologize to its citizens, starting with the Okinawa constituents.
The 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force, the only permanent foreign deployment of the U.S. Marine Corps, is stationed in Okinawa. Likewise, the Futenma Air Station houses Aircraft Group 36, which provides helicopters and re-fueling aircraft. The Prime Minister claims that moving this air unit to the coastal area of Camp Schwab, located near the Henoko district of Nago, would not affect the deterrence capability of the U.S. presence. He has yet to substantiate this claim.
The U.S. has deployed the Marines stationed in Okinawa to Iraq and Afghanistan. They frequently take part in training and exercises conducted in the Pacific region. Despite this deployment, no one says that the U.S. ability to provide deterrence in the Far East has diminished.
Even If Not in the Okinawa Prefecture
It is natural to see the stability of this region as based on the deterrence provided by the entirety of U.S. forces stationed in Korea and Japan, the U.S. Seventh Fleet, the South Korean military and the Japanese Self-Defense force. However, if there is an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. Marine Corps’ role would be to evacuate U.S. citizens and secure North Korean weapons of mass destruction. This is rapid mobility, not deterrence.
If the Chinese military and American military were to confront each other, the outcome would be a competition over air superiority and naval control of the region. In this instance, the U.S. naval air capabilities would be more important than the Marine Corps. The defense of the Senkaku Islands is the responsibility of the Japanese Self-Defense Force, and whether the Marine Corps would intervene is uncertain.
In an emergency, additional Marine reinforcements would come from the United States, which contradicts the notion that regional deterrence is impossible without the Marine Corps presence in Okinawa. Why, then, is the U.S. administration unable to speak of relocation outside of the country or the prefecture? It is because there are issues that the U.S. does not want to raise, even after a change in administration.
The U.S. military bases, the burden of expenses and the inequality that marks the Japan Status of Forces Agreement are remnants of the U.S. occupation. The Prime Minister claims a “close and equal U.S. alliance,” but he needs to clarify the political problems caused by current plans to relocate the base within the prefecture. He should regroup and begin candid discussions with the U.S about the appropriate relocation of the military station.
The Prime Minister keeps flip-flopping on his position and the Japan-U.S. alliance is in a state of crisis. These problems are not necessarily all bad for Japanese citizens. Regardless of intent, the issues of American deterrence and the feelings of the Okinawa constituents have brought the entirety of Japan together. In Okinawa, people openly refer to the heavy burden of hosting the Marines as discrimination at the hands of the Japanese mainland.
Originally, the Marines in Okinawa were based in the Gifu and Yamanashi prefectures. In 1956, due to the Sunagawa incident and other anti-base movements on the Japanese mainland, U.S. bases on the mainland moved to Okinawa, which at the time was still under U.S. military governance.
If the U.S. presence in Japan is indispensable for the stability of the East Asian region, all Japanese citizens should pay proportionately for these expenses. Forcing U.S. bases on Okinawa in the name of maintaining the Japan-U.S. mutual security structure is an empty argument. With the reduction of the burden on Okinawa in mind, the Hatoyama Cabinet is currently talking to all the governors of Japan. The Governor of the Osaka Prefecture, Hashimoto Toru, has expressed a positive attitude.
Sharing the Burden
Of course, the majority of residents must accept the idea, but if the maintenance of security policy is important, then the nation as a whole should shoulder the burden that Okinawa citizens bear. If Prime Minister Hatoyama believes this is too difficult, then he should seek to relocate the base outside of Japan. Deterrence theory is just an excuse to keep the U.S. bases in Okinawa. To release ourselves from this spell, we must relieve Okinawa’s unequal burden.
To summarize all this:
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama asked prefectural governors to share the burden of hosting U.S. forces in Japan with Okinawa Prefecture, which currently accepts a large part of the military installations and drills.
‘‘I would like to somehow lessen the burden on people in Okinawa,’’ Hatoyama said at a meeting of the National Governors’ Association.
‘‘I’m asking you all to consider the possibility’’ of accepting some of the drills currently conducted on the island prefecture. Many of the governors clearly showing their reluctance. At the meeting which was open to the media, ‘I want all of you to consider (the issue) as a problem for all the Japanese people,’’ Hatoyama said.
Okinawa Gov Hirokazu Nakaima called for assistance from his colleagues, saying that people in Okinawa ‘‘have been forced to bear more burdens than they could carry.’‘
Other participants in the meeting included Tokyo Gov Shintaro Ishihara and Osaka Gov Toru Hashimoto. Yuichiro Ito, the governor of Kagoshima Prefecture, whose Tokunoshima Island had been named as a possible relocation site for Futenma’s helicopter unit, was clearly reluctant to accept Hatoyama’s request.
‘‘All the people on the island oppose (the relocation). We are in an extremely difficult situation,’’ Ito said.
Thus as you may see,
The Osaka Governor Toru Hashimoto, was the only mayor who had the willingness to host the US Marines, a strong doubt and opposition has already been expressed from the governor of the neighboring prefecture, Toshizo Ido who is on the side of the conservatives and will do everything to block Governor Hashimoto’s plan.
This is the answer to your question.
No body wants the US bases on their land. Believe me, you don’t want them breathing down your daughter’s neck either. Living with thousands of 18 year pheromone ridden with lack of morals, lack of education, trigger happy baby killing jarheaded youth is just not a good idea. They are a burden to everyone. Germany doesn’t like them either.
I’ve heard there have been conservative jokes( that democrats hate) about putting the US marines on Takeshima Island. An island in between Korea and Japan. No one lives there. Fantastic location. Strategically comprehensible. But it would cause international problems because this Takeshima Island ownership is in dispute. The two countries in dispute are Korea and Japan. Korea says Japan stole it in WWII and Japan says the US agrees that it belongs to Japan. As you can see, this idea will cause more problems. Yes, the US government is the cause of all the problems. The easiest way to resolve the problem would be if the US government would just talk with Korea and Japan and make a treaty to protect both countries by putting the US bases on Takeshima Island would end the dispute. And make many people happy. Who knows maybe the President might get another peace award?
Or
(This idea would definitely not work)
Tori Island, the island where the US marines had bombed depleted uranium to the point that the island is about to disappear and go puff!!
No one lives there. Tori Island has long been used as an American military aircraft shooting range, Torishima Firing Range. It gained some notoriety in the 1990’s after it was discovered that U.S. Marine Corps Harriers had fired some 1,520 armor piercing incendiary shells made from depleted uranium during exercises from December 1995 to January 1996.
The US said that the island is safe. Well prove it by putting the US bases on Tori Island. It would make everyone incognito nonchalantly happy. Like the quote in the movie, Apocolypse Now, “There is nothing like the smell of napalm (uranium) in the morning”. Sorry sick joke and I watch too many great American movies. The actors were great in performance, though. It is a good movie.
Both islands are uninhabited islands. But Tori Island is an Okinawan Island near other islands thus the people would oppose. I would snicker but a oppose. Since I do consider American soldier health important even though I don’t like them and it would be way to cruel. I would feel sorry for the American mothers who are innocent. Okinawans believe in world peace.
So, how about Takeshima Island. It’s near Tokyo! Great place. Great location. American military would love it!! Near Korea and Tokyo! Just 30 minutes away!! The American military can show their deterrence and growl at North Korea to get back the abductees and everyone would be happy.
shuhei
Good News! I saw this on YouTube. And thought it would be good to share.
Ron Paul (Libertarian Republican Texas Congressman ) and Democrat Senator Barney Frank: Cut Military Spending videos: Larry King CNN
Ron Paul And Barney Frank Agree On Something! (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YigwzxKA_qE&feature=related
Ron Paul And Barney Frank Agree On Something! (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMHqSpMqPLw
Ron Paul and Barney Frank agree that
They said (US) don’t need 15,000 Marines in Okinawa and fifteen thousand Marines in Okinawa are irrelevant to what the US wants to do with China. They said, they want U.S. troops out of Germany, out of Okinawa, out of Germany, and out of South Korea, to eliminate some expensive military systems, they say they can save $1 trillion in U.S. tax-payer money over the next 10 years.
They also said, NATO was a wonderful accomplishment in 1949. In the years since, Western Europe has gotten strong, the military threat to Western Europe, the Soviet Union, has disappeared. The US continue to subsidize the budgets of Western Europe.
here is the exact quotes:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128434888&sc=tw
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-we-must-reduce-milita_b_636051.html
One target in Frank’s sights: the U.S. military base in Okinawa. “We don’t need 15,000 marines in Okinawa – they’re a hangover from a war that ended 65 years ago. And Japan now ought to be able to defend itself.”
Frank says U.S. sea and air power can deal with any threats from China, so having troops stationed nearby is unnecessary. “No one thinks you’re going to land 15,000 Marines on the Chinese mainland to confront millions of Chinese military.”
Same goes for Europe. “NATO was a great accomplishment 61 years ago,” Frank points out. “I don’t see why we need troops in Okinawa or why we need troops in Germany, why we need troops in Italy.”
Some have argued that it’s normal to position troops in ally countries. “Well, if that’s the case, where are the Belgian troops in Arizona? Where are the French troops in South Dakota?”
Besides closing bases, Frank sees another place for major cost savings. “During the Cold War, we had three ways of destroying the Soviet Union with thermonuclear weapons,” he says. “We had nuclear submarines; we had the intercontinental ballistic missile and the strategic air command.”
These days, Russia’s not the threat it used to be. Frank’s proposal to the Pentagon is simple: “You know these three ways you have of destroying what’s now Russia? Why don’t you keep two and give up one? And save us tens of billions a year.”
I just thought this info should be shared.
Shuhei
Dear Daniel
You should read American authors more often. It seems that your bookshelf is lacking.
That part about you being prompted by this part in my writing:
“Do you know why?
The reason is when Okinawa used to be an independent country called Ryukyu back 300 years ago. We had our own Kingdom. We were happy. A Ryukyuan delegate, Makishi Chouchu, heard that the Japanese were going to take over our kingdom, and he went to China to ask for military help. The Chinese were good people and had a great dynasty and King who agreed to help us. The Chinese sent 3000 troops over the sea of China and Ryukyu to help us fight back the Japanese. Unfortunately, a huge typhoon killed the Chinese troops and Ryukyu (which means the Dragon’s sphere) was taken over by the Japanese who changed our country name to Okinawa (which means thrown away rope.) The irony is, China was the only country that really tried to save us in history. To this day, Okinawans like China.Isn’t this ironic, don’t you think.”
Well, this part was written in George H. Kerr’s book called “Okinawa: The History of an Island People (paperback)”. This is why this historical fact is written in all of our highschool textbooks throughout Okinawa. In Okinawa this book is common knowledge. You can buy it on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Okinawa-History-Island-George-Kerr/dp/0804820872/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279089746&sr=1-9
By the way, George H. Kerr was an American diplomat during WWII. He is famous for his excellent account of historical facts. He was also a US Naval Reserve and worked for the US Navy. You gotta like the guy. He’s a good intelligent well -educated moral navy person unlike jarheads who lack education and morals.
Daniel, your book shelf is quite lacking, I’m sure you are very seriously embarrassed by your ignorance, prejudice, and preassumptions. But please, do read this book . It would do good for you to read a good American book instead of reading a Cultural Revolution text from a Red Guard that Daniel, himself, claims to have read.
George Kerr is an excellent AMERICAN author. He is definitely worth reading. He is also a great representation of democracy.
As for Daniel’s statement on his preassumptions about Okinawans considering US military as Allies:
Please read this:
http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/storyid-152756-storytopic-3.html
“Be democratic and respect human rights Remove U.S. Marine out of Okinawa
2009 The root of friction in the US-Japan relationship
Seigen Miyazato Head of the Okinawa international issues
study group
On president Obama’s visit to Japan, I am writing this letter to reaffirm that the Futenma relocation plan is against many Okinawan people’s will, and the U.S. and Japanese governments made the plan without consulting Okinawans. I would like to ask for the review of this undemocratic plan to remove the U.S. marines out of Okinawa.
According to the recent poll conducted by the Ryukyu Shimpo and Mainichi Shinbun, 70% of Okinawan demand the Japanese government to relocate Futenma outside Okinawa or the country. 83.5% support for the reduction of U.S. forces, 70% disapprove to move Futenma to Henoko or Kadena airbase. People’s will is represented by the rally held on 8th of this month. In the previous election for the Lower House, all candidates of Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito lost in Okinawa. Also, opposition parties hold a majority in the prefectural assembly.
Under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Okinawa was placed under the sole control of U.S. administration. Okinawa was reverted to Japan in 1972, but most of t hebases were left untouched. Okinawa was left out of scheme in both Peace Treaty and reversion. And todayÅfs realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, the U.S. and Japanese government, again, decided the plan without consulting Okinawans.
Both governments have stated that the understanding of Okinawan people is absolutely necessary, but in fact, they have used both “carrots and sticks” to force Okinawans to accept base construction.
I believe the president who respects human rights will understand Okinawa’s anger. It is aberration and injustice U.S. bases have been in Okinawa for 64 years after the end of WWII. Okinawa’s anger has reached the end of patience. The presence of the U.S. Marine bases will surely be a root of friction in the U.S.-Japan relationship. Now is the time for “change”, to have a stable relationship between the two countries. It is my sincere wish that the president will make a bold decision.”
and read this.
http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/storyid-152755-storytopic-3.html
“-Please listen to the voices of Okinawa- To Mr. Barack Obama, President of Unit
2009
Kunitoshi Sakurai President Okinawa University
I show my sincere respect to Your Excellency as the democratically elected president of a democratic country, U.S.A., and as the distinguished world leader advocating nuclear disarmament. In the last election of the House of Representatives, Okinawan people elected democratically, in all constituencies, candidates who are against the relocation of the U.S. Marine Futenma Air Station to Henoko. I am convinced that Your Excellency will respect the will of Okinawan people shown in this election.
Okinawa, which is only 0.6% of Japan’s area, contains 75% of U.S. bases in Japan. It is already beyond the capacity. Futenma Air Station is so dangerous that Donald Rumsfeld, when Secretary of Defense, visited this area and had no other choice but to recognize the imminent danger. It should be closed immediately. On the other hand, the sea of Henoko, which has been proposed as the candidate site for relocation, is extremely rich in biodiversity with many endangered species including dugongs. Okinawa is often referred to as the “Galapagos of the East”. Henko is outstanding in Okinawa in terms of biodiversity.
In the 21st century, which is called as the century of environment, U.S.A. and Japan are strongly requested to take leadership in the protection of biodiversity. The handling of biodiversity rich sea of Henoko by two governments is the center of world attention. New base construction which damages biodiversity will not win the support of the U.S. public.
There has been a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court of San Francisco about the protection of the dugong in Okinawa, arising out of the fear that they might become extinct as a result of construction of a new base at Henoko. The court ordered the Pentagon to evaluate how the construction and use of the new base in the Henoko area would affect the endangered dugong in Okinawa, and take the result of the evaluation into account as they actually execute the construction plan and operate the base. The Pentagon responded by saying that Japanese Government’s environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures would do this task for them. However, the EIA conducted by Japanese Government is far from being satisfactory. It is so ill-made that there is an ongoing lawsuit demanding Japanese Government to redo EIA from the beginning.
If the poor quality of Henoko EIA becomes open to the U.S. public, their confidence in Japanese and U.S. Governments will hit bottom because of their special feeling of affinity to manatees, the relatives of dugongs.
I hope wholeheartedly that Your Excellency would listen to the voices of Okinawan people and dugongs.”
please read this. http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/storyid-152754-storytopic-3.html
“Keystones and Linchpins: contradictory views on base relocation
2009
Douglas Lummis Political Scientist
Okinawa has been called “the keystone of the Pacific.” A keystone is what keeps an arch from collapsing. In an arch, the left side wants to fall right, and the right side wants to fall left. The keystone transforms these opposing motions from the forces that would destroy the arch into the forces that keep it in place.
The arch to which Okinawa is the keystone is not military but political. Politically, the US maintains its system of bases in Japan by balancing many contradictory social forces. Okinawa is the keystone that transforms these forces from something that could destroy the balance into the very forces that maintain the arch.
Consider the average mainland Japanese citizen: Yamato Taro. He favors the status quo, which means he supports both the Peace Constitution and the Japan-US Security Treaty (AMPO).
How is it possible to maintain such contradictory ideas in the mind of one person?
The answer is, Okinawa. By keeping 75% of those bases on faraway Okinawa, Mr. Yamato can both imagine he is a pacifist, and imagine that the US military is here to protect him.
Thus, the thing Mr. Yamato most hates to hear from Okinawa (because it destroys the balance) is that this radically unequal distribution of bases should be rectified, for example by moving the USMC Futenma Air Station not to Henoko, but to the mainland. But he has two answers to this, which used to work.
The first: No peace-loving person should be satisfied by merely moving bases from one location to another. The Okinawa bases, like all military bases everywhere in the world, should be abolished, not relocated.
A splendid sentiment. But in this context it means: until peace is established throughout all the world, the bases must stay in Okinawa.
Thus Japan’s pacifist sentiment is transformed into a force holding the arch in place.
The second: ÅgThere is no place in the Japanese mainland where a new base can be put.Åh
Thus the keystone is squeezed even harder from both sides, and the arch remains rigid.
But, as to, no place, this is a political, not a geographical fact. It means, wherever you try to put a new base in the mainland, people will protest. In other words, where people object, bases cannot be put. But if that’s true, then Okinawa is absolutely the last place where a new base can be built.
Mr. Yamato objects still: Well then, where should the bases go?
But that’s a problem created by the contradictions in Mr. Yamato’s thinking. Okinawa has no obligation to solve it for him. Perhaps, realizing that will help Mr. Yamato to begin rethinking the whole matter.
When US Secretary of Defense Gates was in Tokyo, he called Henoko the “linchpin to America” system of bases. Indeed. So the “keystone” also has a “linchpin?”
Well, the residents of Henoko have long since pulled that linchpin out. It will be interesting to see what happens next.”
Daniel, you should also read “Justice: A Reader” by Michael J. Sandel. Professor Sandel is famous in Japan since he is a Harvard University Professor. He is also a good intelligent American. NHK recently showed his Harvard Seminar on TV for about a month. I saw it and it was really interesting since he also thinks that slavery and colonization is wrong.