Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

Landfill work resumes at new U.S. military site on Okinawa despite local opposition

66 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

66 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The timing couldn’t be worse for opponents of this.

Everyone is militarizing and arming and threatening each other. Scary times in my opinon.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

In Japan any opposition doesn't matter, it just little noise.

-9 ( +11 / -20 )

Once they are in you'll never get rid of the US...!

-12 ( +9 / -21 )

At first, it was to move Futenma to other place since it is located amid the populated area. Somehow, It changed to get rid of U.S. base from Okinawa. I understand the feelings of Okinawan people who have to live with arrogant Americans though.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Progress is inexorable. Good to see.

3 ( +13 / -10 )

spineless government, not far off from becoming a us territory if this continues

-10 ( +7 / -17 )

Progress is inexorable. Good to see.

What progress?

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Hundreds of scholars, film directors and ordinary citizens who have advocated for Okinawans’ autonomy, signed a global petition demanding the island cease to be “a de facto military colony of the United States and Japan ever since the end of the World War II."

Boom

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Warmongering

What progress?

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

The construction takes ten years, they say. The Japanese government may be thinking the time will come Henoko be used by JSDF in the future. It is humiliation a sovereign country has to depend its defense on foreign military for so long.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Little known fact is that former DoD secretary William Perry agreed with Governor Ota that the base relocation did not have to be within Okinawa prefecture. The antagonist in this tragicomedy has always been Tokyo and to some extent the people of Okinawa themselves. Had Ota stayed in office the scenario could have changed dramatically, but Ota lost the next election to Inamine who was with the LDP. He concentrated only on the econonmy and kissed up to Tokyo and the military only to be called a "wimp" by III MEF CG in a leaked email. This cause quite a storm and it was only then that Inamine tried to revert back to the course that Ota had created. Too late though.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The Ryukyu kingdom had to deal with the might of the Tokugawa Shogunate abd was absorbed into Japan. Many protests occurred back then.

Now the Okinawan people et al. have to deal with the might of the US as a prefecture of Japan.

As they say - location is everything

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Good. About time. This time don’t let idiots build houses next door to an air base and then complain about il!

3 ( +9 / -6 )

They’d better fortify Okinawa before China tries to.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

New site, finally they stopped saying:

”New Base” it’s a start .

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I recently saw a YouTube video where a young Japanese man walked around the streets in Okinawa interviewing young people about all of this. Nearly all of them said that they support the bases, and they said only elderly people oppose it.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Failure to build and defend Okinawa would be suicide for Japan.

Communist China has been licking their lips, eyeing off the Okinawan Islands for decades, as they expand their territory.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Nearly all of them said that they support the bases, and they said only elderly people oppose it.

And of those elderly Okinawans, many are Communist sympathisers. Ignore them.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Okinawa is the poorest prefecture in Japan and if the base moves out, it will drag the economy more down. Even if you build new shopping malls and apartments instead of the base, what will be the jobs? Purchasing power of the people doesn’t go up.

That said, there is no reason except climate to have the base in Okinawa. It could be moved to Kyushu without any change in the geopolitical landscape.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Relocation of the base has never been in question, although the Govt plays it up as "We must stop the suffering of the citizens of Futenma and move to Henoko".

Problem with that line of thinking / plan / action is Henoko was never a suitable site due to a number of negative geological aspects.

At the current rate it will take another 12+ years to complete and involve the sinking of 70,000+ long, large pillars into the seabed to stabilize the soft sand and to support the above structures.

The final real cost will be way over A$15 Billion..

There were other options available at the time - in Okinawa and out of - and the US military at the time didn't disapprove of such options.

But we have to remember these decisions were made in the 1990s when the LDP Machine was still in full power and glory, and nobody as in nobody, was telling the govt what to do.

Fast forward and we have this ongoing debacle. A Bubble era bulldozer that just couldn't change directions.

Meanwhile Futenma still has not been closed as initially promised way back.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Let's be honest guys, the opposition to American military prescense in Okinawa is not solely limited to Okinawans. Much of it is coming from Japanese people on the four main islands. They often cite the environmental impact even though this country is very much far from environmentally friendly. You can point to the endless plastic waste, the killing of whales, or the chopping down of urban trees... even the releasing of the Fukushima wastewater, which I mostly agree with, seems to contradict their own history of environmental positions. For a culture that often stresses the importance of "reading the air", this society definitely engages in it's fair share of hypocritical virtue signaling. They need to stop whining and be self-aware of the fact that they are totally dependent on other countries for survival. Period.

Nonetheless... if you care about Japan's national security and its future, Okinawa is just about the most strategically important location of them all. The new base absolutely must proceed, regardless of any naysaying.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

without Okinawa base, the whole Eastern region will be under the threat from commies. Wake up! commies are real! they are just good at disguise as peaceful shepherd, today US marines withdraw from the base in Okinawa, the good shepherd will suddenly turn into python and engulf everything on its path. I cant believe there are people trust that commies are far away and they wont take over Senkaku or Okinawa. you just never deal with chinese and you never know how aggressive they are toward Japan

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Bruce PennyworthToday 08:34 am JST

spineless government, not far off from becoming a us territory if this continues

The relocation was agreed to by the GOJ and the US. This was not exactly unilateral. If Japan wants to rearm their military and take on all adversaries on their own then so be it. Until then, they made an agreement and should stick to it. And the base is in a difficult spot where an accident would be devastating. At least with Kadena, the approach does not go over dense housing and urban sprawl.

Even Tamaki, and all governors before him, love to stand up and shout "Yankee go home", but they then turn around and tell Tokyo, "moto omiyori, kudasai"....

1 ( +4 / -3 )

This time don’t let idiots build houses next door to an air base and then complain about il!

Yes, now forbid Japanese to build home in Japan, bravo.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

despite protests by the island's residents that the move tramples on their rights and raises environmental concerns.

Protests by SOME island residents. Oh and the "raises environmental concerns" is pure BS.

Anyone who protests on that issues is a hypocrite! 100% hypocrite! None complained once about the landfill, much like the one at Camp Schwab, that was done for the new runway at Naha Airport! None complained once about the red soil runoff that killed a large portion of the reef that once surrounded Okinawa. None complained about the numerous landfill projects all around the island!

3 ( +7 / -4 )

This time don’t let idiots build houses next door to an air base and then complain about il!

Next time please do a teeny, tiny, bit of research into the topic you are commenting about BEFORE you make a comment like this. It's not the same, not even close.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Even Tamaki, and all governors before him, love to stand up and shout "Yankee go home", but they then turn around and tell Tokyo, "moto omiyori, kudasai"....

Wrong! Not a single governor said "Yankee go home" Not one! And not "all" the governors were against the landfill, Nakaima agreed to it, hence the construction starting!

Yes they all want more money, hence the extended delay in deciding the location. But that is literally water under the bridge.

Not finishing it would be worse now than completing it!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Those Chinese keep building those airfields on man made islands in the South China Sea, and so we have the pretext to screw the Okinawans.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This is very undemocratic behavior with ignoring Okinawa's popular will by election or referendum. 

Nobody knows even military base on the soft ground completed or not and US will use it or not.

Necessity of deterrent against neighbouring countries and "necessity" of this unreal plans that will waste tril yen for mere run-way are different issues.

Military facilities concentration at Okinawa is now strategic risk.

Construction cost of Henoko runway will be far beyond aircraft-carrier that is movable.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I would house the military base on either Taiwan or South Korea, because those are actually countries that are at war. But otherwise surely it is better to put the military base on one of those islands nearer to Taiwan?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Alas, there seem to be many people not only inside the U.S government but outside it who think demanding for a replacement for Futenma is the U.S.’s vested interests because the U.S. won WW II and Japan lost. 

It’s true that Japan lost the war and that the U.S. won it, but that doesn’t necessarily guarantee the winner can do whatever it may want to do in the occupied zone.

Futenma was built toward the end of and after the Battle of Okinawa by freely encroaching on the private property while area residents were herded in camps like POWs. That’s a blatant violation of Article 46 of the Hague Convention that clearly states that “private property cannot be confiscated.”

Or does it say U.S. forces are exempted from this prohibition provision?

I say Futenma is an illegal property per se, whereby the U.S. has no legitimate right at all to demand for its replacement be provided in exchange of its superficial “return”. Futenma must be returned right then and there with no strings attached. Period.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Alas, there seem to be many people not only inside the U.S government but outside it who think demanding for a replacement for Futenma

FACT: The US has not "demanded" anything!

Futenma was built toward the end of and after the Battle of Okinawa by freely encroaching on the private property while area residents were herded in camps like POWs. 

FACT: Already settled! Read below!

ARTICLE lV

Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nations against the United States of America and its nationals and against the local authorities of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

I say Futenma is an illegal property

FACT: Settled, no argument, nothing.

Just because you "say" it, does not make it true. You have nothing to back it up with, nothing to support it.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

There’s that annoying screeching again, I can hear it all the way over here at Araha Beach

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The US war machine gets its way.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Fighto!

Communist China has been licking their lips, eyeing off the Okinawan Islands for decades, as they expand their territory.

Nonsense. The CCP has no interest in a bloody military conflict. Their way is slow and steady trickery and economic pressure. China is just a pretext to keep the US military complex here.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Nonsense. The CCP has no interest in a bloody military conflict. 

Huh? Guess you dont read the papers or watch the news.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Oliver Stone along with other petitioners against the U.S. military presence is an example of the freedom of speech not afforded in a majority of nations.

Having a Birdseye view of the greater purpose of the U.S. being in Okinawa; the people in Japan remain free to express their personal ideas without reaping threats against them. There are benefits to having the U.S. government as a partner with the nation of Japan which Oliver Stone may not have experienced. I know the U.S. presence allows the Japanese people to be able to express their thoughts, free speech, and provide access to whatever one’s heart desires. There is a freedom of religion, something many surrounding nations prohibit. Try imagining life if Japan was under the occupation of someone like the young leader over North Korea.

The U.S. military consists of people from every aspect of the American culture. The same holds true for the Japanese culture. I’ve been a witness to progressive changes and modernization that has taken place in Japan the U.S. has helped initiate. In the mid 60’s the U.S. military families were only permitted to rent housing that had living standards common to U.S. citizens.

Our family lived in the “patties” on Okinawa a year before we were transferred to an Air Force base. I had to adjust my expectations when it came to relieving myself while away from home. Squatting over a public “watering” hole was not known in the U.S. This is not meant to condemn the Japanese culture; but witness the spiritual awakening that has come to the wonderful land of Japan.

Japanese grand temples and shrines speak of the faithfulness and devotion of many people. The most important thing the U.S. military does that can not be replicated is to display their faith towards God. There may only be a very small number of faithful believers in The Son of God sent to serve in Japan. Those who obey God bring an example of the Garden of Eden among the people in Okinawa. There is a heavenly calling upon certain believers who are able to bring miracles within the culture. Instead of seeing the U.S. military as a problem, see how the God of creation has sent righteous people who want good for the nation of Japan.

Individuals who display faith towards the God of creation prayerfully desire individuals like Oliver Stone learn and understand the will of God in his personal life. Believers who are willing to embrace the people of Japan desire God's love be known. Our Heavenly Father uses his people to direct peace in the nation of Japan. These things I express from my Birdseye view.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

ITS NOT A NEW BASE!!!! Quit making this false statement! It’s an expansion to a based that has existed since the end of WWII!!! Camp Schwab is a base that was originally two separate bases (Camp Henoko (that area that is now home to ammunition storage for the USMC) & Camp Schwab) that combined after the 1972 handover. The proposed flight line is nothing more than an extension into Oura Wan bay. A bay that hasn’t seen any significant growth of live coral since the 1980’s.

I have no quarrel with the protests and frankly feel for the Okinawans override of rights, but please for heavens sake don’t fight it with misinformation with the intent of manipulating those that don’t know all the facts. Responsible journalism please!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This Facility is being built because three U.S. Marines kidnapped and gang raped a child. Three Marines kidnapped and gang raped a child and the U.S. Marines got rewarded with a brand new state of the art facility paid for by the Japanese people and the people of Okinawa got punished by having a beautiful ocean spot destroyed forever. MCAS Futenma has never been an important base on Okinawa and should have been closed without any replacement being built as a gesture of gratitude to the people of Okinawa for all of the crap they have put up with all of the years from both the U.S. Military and the Japanese Government. The U.S. Marines on Okinawa are not a deterrent to an attack on Okinawa. They have nothing on Okinawa that would deter China, N.K. or Russia from attacking. The main deterrents are Kadena Air Base, Naha Air Base and the JSDF Missile sites. The U.S. Army communication sites are also critical. If the U.S. Marines were to leave Okinawa tomorrow, it would not affect the ability of the U.S. or Japan to defend Okinawa.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

japan4lifeToday 12:03 am JST

This Facility is being built because three U.S. Marines kidnapped and gang raped a child.

And tried, convicted, and punished in Japan. Hoping for Futenma to be closed without a replacements is not a strategy for success.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It has been revealed that those who oppose the base relocation are left-wing Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans influenced by the Chinese Communist Party.

They display placards in Chinese and Korean and shout discriminatory words "Yankee go home," but the left-wing Japanese media never criticizes them.

Additionally, the U.S. military bases are essential to Okinawa's economy, and the economy cannot survive without them. Even though they receive $3 billion in government aid every year, Okinawan politicians always say it's not enough.

In the past, there was nothing around Futenma Air Base, but as Okinawans seeking subsidies gathered there, the area became extremely crowded with housing.

The relocation to Henoko also means the resolution of these issues, and the land will be returned to the residents who complain that their land has been unfairly occupied. It's not particularly bad at all.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Indeed! The U.S.A. is colonizing Okinawa and Japan occupationally. They are provoking China: preparing for war.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Stephen ChinToday 03:14 am JST

Indeed! The U.S.A. is colonizing Okinawa and Japan occupationally. They are provoking China: preparing for war.

China has no say in what goes on in Japan. You could argue they think they have a say in what goes on in Taiwan, but they can stuff it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Responsible journalism please!

Would be nice, never gonna happen though! Because then they would have to share the good side of what the military and the SOFA status folks bring to Okinawa too.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Indeed! The U.S.A. is colonizing Okinawa and Japan occupationally. They are provoking China: preparing for war.

One of the more ludicrous statements I have seen here in a while. Obviously a "China" fan, who doesnt know the reality.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yubaru,

FACT:The US has not "demanded" anything.

Wow, that's a mind-boggling assertion on your part! If so, there has not been so much fuss about it. Or do you want to say the U.S. side considers the Henoko relocation is impossible now and so it will continue to use Futenma, upgrading its function and facilities? Is that the reason why Tokyo is more proactive for the relocation than Washington now?

FACT: Already settled! Read below!

Article IV of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement is an indemnity clause. It says Japan and its nationals wave all claims to damages incurred during the U.S. occupation of these islands. It doesn't say U.S. occupation forces' illegal confiscation of private property is condoned or pardoned.

If you persist to say these legal matters concerning the forceful confiscation of private property have been solved by the bilateral agreement, do you think that agreement transcends or supersede international law?

Futenma remains an illegal property in every respect, whereby the U.S. has no right to demand a replacement be provided in exchange of its return. Period.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Wow, that's a mind-boggling assertion on your part! If so, there has not been so much fuss about it. Or do you want to say the U.S. side considers the Henoko relocation is impossible now and so it will continue to use Futenma, upgrading its function and facilities? Is that the reason why Tokyo is more proactive for the relocation than Washington now?

FACT: You haven't said one word here that supports your theory that the US has demanded anything.

Article IV of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement is an indemnity clause. It says Japan and its nationals wave all claims to damages incurred during the U.S. occupation of these islands. It doesn't say U.S. occupation forces' illegal confiscation of private property is condoned or pardoned.

FACT: Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. No mention of "indemnity clause" just you attempting to obfuscate and deflect. Read and understand the follow "arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces" which means any land taken, for what ever purposes, is included as well.

Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nations against the United States of America and its nationals and against the local authorities of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

If you persist to say these legal matters concerning the forceful confiscation of private property have been solved by the bilateral agreement, do you think that agreement transcends or supersede international law?

FACT: EVERYONE with the exception of you say these issues are settled.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Futenma remains an illegal property in every respect, whereby the U.S. has no right to demand a replacement be provided in exchange of its return. Period.

FACT: The US has demanded nothing! PERIOD!

FACT: Oh and you very well know, the sooner the landfill at Schwab is completed, the sooner MCAS Futenma WILL be closed! PERIOD!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

FACT: Oh and you very well know, the sooner the landfill at Schwab is completed, the sooner MCAS Futenma WILL be closed! PERIOD!

I actually like Futenma. Maybe it's nostalgia.

Hate to see what will happen to all that land there.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hate to see what will happen to all that land there.

Well, have no fear of an AEON being built, as Rycomm is too close, but I wouldnt count out another SanEi, like San Ei Futenma City, and then a huge number of houses and apartments.

Doesnt really matter what though, it's their land and while they made tons of money off of it, through the leases, it's their choice to decide how to use it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yubaru,

FACT: EVERYONE with the exception of you say(s) these issues are settled. 

I may be the only one that disputes the illegal nature of Futenma remains the same however minutely the Japanese and U.S. governments may have worded the agreement in 1971. Futenma is an illegal property without any doubt, for the land it sits on is private property that was confiscated illegally in blatant violation of international law. No bilateral agreement can exonerate that violation.

It is you that obfuscate the issue all the time.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I may be the only one that disputes the illegal nature of Futenma 

FACT: You are the only one, and since it has been proven countless times to you that you are wrong, most normal people would stop making the same comments.

No bilateral agreement can exonerate that violation.

FACT: The agreement make absolves all guilty parties of any wrongdoing that may have occurred prior to the signing of the treaty. It's in plain English and Japanese too!

It is you that obfuscate the issue all the time.

FACT: You MUST accept the FACTS, the treaties and agreements are legally binding documents agreed upon by both Japan and the US. Sorry you weren't included in the discussions, but the Japanese government is NOT going to demand the US return Futenma base the misguided feelings of one person.

FACT: YOU clearly have no proverbial leg to stand on. It's clearly noted in both English and Japanese

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://riis.skr.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/images/ddc_20200213-11.pdf

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan's LDP Govt intend to use earth and sand containing remains of war casualties to landfill.

War casualties are not only people of Okinawa or Japan.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yubaru

Huh? Guess you dont read the papers or watch the news.

To the contrary, you might want to look deepr than sensationalist news headlines.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To the contrary, you might want to look deepr than sensationalist news headlines.

Read this: (Which is what I was replying to by the way)

The U.S.A. is colonizing Okinawa and Japan occupationally.

The US is hardly "colonizing" Okinawa and Japan. And I have no idea what the hell "occupationally" is supposed to mean!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan's LDP Govt intend to use earth and sand containing remains of war casualties to landfill.

You are joking right? Just how many people died in Motobu during the war? Not to mention, if your idea is even 0.00001% correct, that means that the Okinawan government is guilty for doing the same to build Naha Airports new runway. Kind of hypocritical dont you think?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Let me recapitulate the point at issue. 

Toward the end of and after the Battle of Okinawa, U.S. occupation forces encroached with impunity upon private property and built a base while area residents were herded in camps like POWs. That's a sheer violence of Article 46 of the Hague Convention, part of which stipulates that "private property cannot be confiscated."

On the basis of this provision, I say the land where the Futenma air base sits is an illegal property because the U.S. Marins are occupying and using it like illegal squatters.

To this you counter that all these legal matters have been settled because of Article IV of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement, citing "Japan and its nationals wave all claims.". 

You seem to interpret the expression "all claims" to be equal to "all complaints" whereas interpret it to mean that Japan and its nationals cannot ask for compensations for the damages incurred during the occupation period.

How do you respond?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Toward the end of and after the Battle of Okinawa, U.S. occupation forces encroached with impunity upon private property and built a base while area residents were herded in camps like POWs. That's a sheer violence of Article 46 of the Hague Convention, part of which stipulates that "private property cannot be confiscated."

FACT: No one has ever argued otherwise.

To this you counter that all these legal matters have been settled because of Article IV of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement, citing "Japan and its nationals wave all claims.". 

FACT: Yup!

You seem to interpret the expression "all claims" to be equal to "all complaints" whereas interpret it to mean that Japan and its nationals cannot ask for compensations for the damages incurred during the occupation period.

FACT: You still have a problem with comprehending the meaning of this article;

Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nations against the United States of America and its nationals and against the local authorities of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

FACT: Japan waives ALL claims. Not some, not a little, ALL claims, meaning 100%. "the presence, operations (taking land is included) or actions (taking land is included again!) and noted not once but TWICE in the same article!

You dont get to pick and choose , and there is no need to specifically point out one or another, or 100, or 1,000,000 "actions", and the word ALL covers it ALL.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yubaru,

To yield a step and admit that you were on the right track, do you think bilateral agreements such as the Okinawa Reversion Agreement would exempt the U.S. from the illegal actions its armed forces had committed? In other words, does a mere bilateral agreement transcend international law? I don't think so. 

Hence, Futenma remains an illegal property, whatever you may say and justify. It must be closed right away and the land returned with no strings attached. Period.

.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hence, Futenma remains an illegal property, whatever you may say and justify. It must be closed right away and the land returned with no strings attached. Period.

Reality is, the facts prove otherwise. It's not what I say, it's what the reversion agreement states. Not my opinion, just facts!

Funny thing is, you have ZERO facts to back your opinions up. Huh? Go figure.

Oh and it won't be returned either, not until the landfill is completed, that's a stone-cold FACT. There is absolutely nothing you say or do that will change it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes, he said that. The agreement does indeed settle that issue. And you seem to be under the illusion it was for nothing at all, but there is clearly at least one explicit trade here - the reversion of jurisdiction to Japan (reversing the 1952 San Francisco Treaty).

In terms of implied trades, if Japan wants to leave it unsettled, the US can simply not revert jurisdiction. It can also cease to defend Japan, and though the deal does bring advantages to the US Japan as the frontline country clearly has a more critical need for the help than America has in providing it. The US might also start pushing back on the provision of economic concessions to Japan (such as the deliberately cheap Japanese yen which makes it easier for them to export) - in essence they can do what they did in the 80s in the 70s.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

You aren't responding to my question directly and succinctly. Don't obfuscate the matter, by brazenly asserting that I have "ZERO facts to back" my opinion up.

My question was: do you think nonce bilateral agreements such as the Okinawa Reversion Agreement would transcend international law and exempt the U.S. from the illegality its armed forces had committed in an occupied zone?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You aren't responding to my question directly and succinctly. Don't obfuscate the matter, by brazenly asserting that I have "ZERO facts to back" my opinion up.

FACT: You have zero facts to back anything you state. The reversion treaty deals with all issues related to any activities by the US military on Okinawa, previous to the date signed.

Supply something to support your unfounded claims that come AFTER the reversion agreement. You keep beating a dead horse talking about one issue, Futenma and the Hague convention, which is 100% CANCELLED out because of the Japanese government signing the agreement.

If you have a problem with it, take it up with your government.

My question was: do you think nonce bilateral agreements such as the Okinawa Reversion Agreement would transcend international law and exempt the U.S. from the illegality its armed forces had committed in an occupied zone?

Does not matter one iota what I "think" because it is a settled issue, and I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here on your use of the word "nonce".

But just for discussions sake, yes, the reversion agreement made by the Japanese government with the US government puts all claims and issues to bed AND it transcends international agreements as well

Now is the time for all this to stop.... I can not believe as well that you keep on referring to whatever as a "law", it's not a "law", it's an international treaty that provides legal guidelines.

SO please stop referring to it as a "law", it's not, and it also puts all the rest of your theories to bed!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

FYI the 1954 Hague conventions are NOT legally binding as they have no standards under the law, it's just a treaty.

So, once again, YES the reversion agreement between Japan and the US takes precedence over it!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Alas! How dare you say the Hague Convention is not an international law that no warring country should observe? You say it's a treaty that is inferior in legal force to a bilateral treaty such as the 1971 Japan-U.S. Okinawa Reversion Agreement. Lol.

Is an agreement over stolen goods between fences legal or not under a nation's criminal law?  Don't try to call black white.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites