Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

Gov't overrides Okinawa objection to OK U.S. base transfer work

78 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

78 Comments
Login to comment

Japanese govt. Is just a puppet made the nation a vassal state. Japanese even don't control of their airspace,

-17 ( +15 / -32 )

Sorry Okinawa, your master has ordered this, Japan must obey.

-20 ( +12 / -32 )

Slow news day!

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Oh and that sign in the middle, the one saying basically that there should be no bases for their children's future?

Better wake up, there will ALWAYS be bases in Okinawa, ya'll conveniently forget about all the JSDF bases!

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

No US bases? Sorry, they”ll simply change to chinese ones.

-8 ( +10 / -18 )

Obeying order's of the RS of the USA is exactly what Japan has done for over 80 years. A small handful of elderly demonstrators won't change a thing.

-14 ( +5 / -19 )

There are no such democratic principles as the separation of powers, in Japan. The executive and judiciary branches are all part of the same gang. The Okinawa prefecture has lost in every case of litigation against the central government over the Futenma relocation issue. Thus, this time as well, there is no hope for Okinawa Prefecture to win in its appeal of the case to high court.

And so, I always wonder why they won't change their legal strategy. Futenma is an illegal property per se which U.S. Marines are using like illegal squatters. If so, then the U.S. side has no legitimate right to demand a replacement be provided in exchange for its return. 

Nay, it shouldn't be return; it should be evacuation, for illegal squatters must evacuate the land they illegally occupy. This is universally true that no one can deny.

Can court deny and reject that argument?

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

disobey and make Okinawa an independent country from tomorrow.

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

"For our children's future", well said. Okinawans should have the right to chart a more peaceful path forward as they have indicated in multiple recent votes.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

And so, I always wonder why they won't change their legal strategy. Futenma is an illegal property per se which U.S. Marines are using like illegal squatters. If so, then the U.S. side has no legitimate right to demand a replacement be provided in exchange for its return. 

Why you ask? The answer is and has been right in front of you for at least a generation now. The legality issue was settled when Japan and the US approved the treaty to return Okinawa to Japanese control.

Japan WAIVED ALL CLAIMS, not just the one's you think matter! Hence never "changing" a strategy as this is one that the courts wouldnt even listen to! Even you should be intelligent enough to see this. It's plain for all to see, no ambiguity, nothing.

Again, you also make a gigantic error in stating the US side is "demanding" a replacement. The US is demanding nothing, and you know it, you just try to obfuscate and deflect from the issue, and try to confuse those that dont know.

You have NEVER once provided any evidence to refute the treaties that are in place. Not once! You only keep regurgitating the same worn out and wrong idea about legality. There is nothing there.

This is universally true that no one can deny.

Can court deny and reject that argument?

You are again sadly wrong, "universally wrong". It's easy for any court to reject, and odds are they wouldnt even accept it, as it is a settled issue.

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.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Ok, then the US pulls out 100% and then NOT ONE DROP of American should ever be spilled defending this archipelago. Period.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

I recently watched a YouTube interview of numerous young Okinawans conducted on the street, and nearly all of them supported the bases as it made them safe in a dangerous neighborhood. Nearly each one of them mentioned that the opposition is mainly from the elderly.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

These people are delusional.

If the bases and or the US left, there'd be Chinese ships on the horizon tomorrow.

As much as we'd love to live in a world where militaries aren't needed, we don't live in that world. Better to have a few bases armed to the teeth looking strong and prevent war than get weak kneed and invite one.

10 ( +17 / -7 )

okinawa base, especially Futenma base is super important to make china lose its ball and dare not move even an inch. If anything happen to Futenma, in 24-hours time 1000% for sure you can see china army standing in Taiwan and Senkaku, NK army in Seoul or maybe even Russia in Hokkaido. simple, you want to see how important it is? everytime you notice there is a news about Okinawa, all the china-sponsored keyboard army will rush here trying to spread fake info about it. You need not me to mention which particular account it were, just observe some peculiar weird account above, you can tell it

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Ok, then the US pulls out 100% and then NOT ONE DROP of American should ever be spilled defending this archipelago. Period.

a drop of american? No thank you

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Japan should stop paying for the US army to be in their country.

Japan must use this money to develop their army and be responsible for their protection.

Japan must grow up and be independent.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

All those anti-bases on Okinawa are likely to be Chinese-funded - or at the very least Communist sympathisers. They cannot be seen as Japanese patriots.

The moment the US moved out of Okinawa, China would be in. They are expansionist and are constantly seeking more territory for their population.

So those opposed to the US bases - stick a sock in it. Traitors.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

And in other news...your friendly neighborhood madman Little Kim is ramping up war preparations. That story is on the main page of JT, right next to the picture of these protestors. How appropriate.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

From what I can see of that top photo all the protesters are old people, do they not realise how much business USA bases bring to their island.......or maybe they just do not care, and have no regard for what the young people feel about it.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

US army are just a guest in Japan! They should act like it and pay for the privilege.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

"This execution by proxy is unacceptable as it robs the prefectural government of its administrative authority and means they are trying to construct a new base by infringing on our autonomy and independence."

Perhaps you should ask yourself whether you should be giving out permits based on whether you like projects or not, or even if they are popular with the population. You should only be thinking of whether it meets legal requirements.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I went to Okinawa last year, going again in a fortnight, whoopee!

Stayed in Naha but went further north to the areas where most bases are. OMG, it was horrid, the Americans were loud, uncouth and it was like another planet to me. Never again going round there, no wonder the locals want them out, I would too.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

US army are just a guest in Japan! They should act like it and pay for the privilege.

There are very few US "Army" in Japan. Japan pays well for the privilege of hosting them.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Ophelia; if you look on Craig’s List, you can find ADVERTISEMENTS paying ¥1000+ to go “Protest” my neighbor informed me of the fact…he was considering doing it.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Stayed in Naha but went further north to the areas where most bases are. OMG, it was horrid, the Americans were loud, uncouth and it was like another planet to me. Never again going round there, no wonder the locals want them out, I would too.

You sure they weren't tourists from China? The only way you saw any loud or uncouth America military folks would have been in a bar or club that they frequent, which means you were there too.

Tourists on Okinawa are 100 times worse than the military!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Yubara

Yes, I’m sure, very sure.

When I went tourists hadn’t come back yet, so let’s see.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Ophelia; if you look on Craig’s List, you can find ADVERTISEMENTS paying ¥1000+ to go “Protest” my neighbor informed me of the fact…he was considering doing it.

No link ?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

There are very few US "Army" in Japan. Japan pays well for the privilege of hosting them.

Would you want the Japan army in your country? And of course, you should pay for the "privilege"!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

"UchujinToday 02:22 pm JST: US army are just a guest in Japan! They should act like it and pay for the privilege."

Another one who knows nothing of the situation. The US Army is a very small part of US forces in Japan. On the entire Japanese islands incl Okinawa, 90% are US Navy (sailors) and US Marine Corps (Marines). US Army (soldiers) are 3% and Air Force (airmen) 7%.

The US Military are not "guests"; by treaty they are stationed to enforce the treaty ending WWII, protective force for Japan, aid in training JSDF, and as a complimentary force to aid in rescue and recovery after natural disasters. Again by treaty. Now you know.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

When I went tourists hadn’t come back yet, so let’s see.

Right, ancient history, and totally refutes your own statement as if there were no tourists, the "American's" werent off base being noisy either.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Would you want the Japan army in your country? And of course, you should pay for the "privilege"!

The Japanese army IS in my country and I pay for it and the US military too, with my taxes.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

For the future generations, don't let these parasites sat in kicking around and bullying. Japan has lost her dignity for a very long time.

Some lame arguments claimed the Chinese will move in, absolutely false and ridiculous, why would China feel interest with that poverty islands ?

Don't let the Yankees fooling you, they are your enemies!

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Yubaru,

My contention is that U.S. occupation forces freely encroached upon private land to build USMC Air Station Futenma while area residents were herded in camps like prisoners of war. There had been five villages that were completely swallowed up into the base. Some others were partially affected. The confiscation of private land was a blatant violation of Article 46 of the Hague Convention. The U.S. was one of the earliest states that ratified it, you know.

Now, Yubaru says such a violation as committed by the U.S. military has been pardoned by the Okinawa Reversion Agreement of 1971, citing Article IV of that Agreement. But nowhere in Article IV of that Agreement can one find any mention that the violation of international law on the part of the U.S. military is pardoned. It merely says Japan and its nationals wave all the claims to damages that had incurred during the occupation period.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

elephant200Today 04:59 pm JST

For the future generations, don't let these parasites sat in kicking around and bullying. Japan has lost her dignity for a very long time.

Some lame arguments claimed the Chinese will move in, absolutely false and ridiculous, why would China feel interest with that poverty islands ?

Don't let the Yankees fooling you, they are your enemies!

For future generations, don't let the Criminal Communist Party grab one inch of territory.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The only Okinawans who want the US bases out are a ragtag handful of the elderly. Communist sympathisers.

The young Japanese are supportive of the bases.

Some lame arguments claimed the Chinese will move in, absolutely false and ridiculous, why would China feel interest with that poverty islands ?

What part of Chinese expansionism don't you understand? They are endlessly building artificial islands in the area for more land. They are desperate to take Taiwan. Why wouldn't they be eyeing Okinawa?

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Japan's LDP regime who intend to waste tril yen of taxpayers money for mere runway where even complete will be doubtful.

Plural member of governmental technical committees who approved construction have been bribed millions yen from construction company.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

As an American I don't like the way the military-industrial complex plays such a gigantic role in our economy and that of the world plus all the military commitments and the mistakes these commitments have made.

However, like it or not the realities of the 21st century are clear - the People's Republic of China was permitted to become an economic superpower by the US and other western countries closing down their own industries to outsource them to China, and have favorable trading deals that facilitated its growth and the west's over-dependence on its manufacturing and other industries. Lots of this money went on military development way beyond what China could have done on its own and Chinese hot money flooded every kind of market in the west.

Now developed democracies are having to confront the end product of this devil's bargain and Japan is included in that. I like Japan's pacifist constitution but apart from the huge threat China poses to Okinawa which has always been close to Taiwan geographically and ethnically, there is also the fundamental fact that Japan and Okinawa must take responsibility for their own military sooner rather than later. Western powers shouldn't be expected to send their own troops to fight on behalf of the Japanese - time for Japan to re-arm responsibly and increase its responsibilities in Okinawa.

The Governor there conveniently forgets that the American military presence is so big there precisely because Japan doesn't yet shoulder all the military responsibilities it should. And you can't have your gyoza and eat it too - refuse to co-operate with the national government on the American military arrangements but then demand to be protected if China does turn its threats and incursions into something stronger.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Concentrating military facilities at Okinawa is equal to only victimize citizen of Okinawa as shield for mainland, as same as WW2.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Now, Yubaru says such a violation as committed by the U.S. military has been pardoned by the Okinawa Reversion Agreement of 1971, citing Article IV of that Agreement. But nowhere in Article IV of that Agreement can one find any mention that the violation of international law on the part of the U.S. military is pardoned. It merely says Japan and its nationals wave all the claims to damages that had incurred during the occupation period.

Did I write pardoned? No, you assume, obfuscate, deflect, lie and say all sorts of things in an attempt to push a dead agenda.

Between the war and the treaty being signed, did anyone ever make any complaints to the Hague about the legalities of the bases? Were there any decisions made by the court? Wait...... silence...... no there werent.

Now I wonder if you actually read the article in question because the following here is also incorrect

It merely says Japan and its nationals wave all the claims to damages that had incurred during the occupation period.

Note, there is no timeframe for the treat other than the end point, being the date of enforcement of the treaty. Which means it covers all events leading up to the war and inclusive of the Battle of Okinawa. NOT just the occupation. (Meaning land issues are covered!)

Oh also read the line after the words 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.

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.

Your "contentions" are cherry picking.

My contention is that U.S. occupation forces freely encroached upon private land to build USMC Air Station Futenma while area residents were herded in camps like prisoners of war.

Yup they did! Japan and the US were at war, Japan lost, Okinawa was a part of Japan, so the enemy at the time. No one then cared, and yeah it was a sad part of history.

But that has nothing to do with today.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

"Aoi AzuuriToday 05:35 pm JST: Concentrating military facilities at Okinawa is equal to only victimize citizen of Okinawa as shield for mainland, as same as WW2."

Wrong. China says their plan is when the CCP's PLA has the ability, first invade Taiwan then Okinawa to join them as one province. Again, the CCP has been saying this since the 50's. We are smart to take the CCP at their word. That is why, Super Brain, the forces are concentrated there.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Arrogant LDP government of Japan ignored even local autonomy.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

> falseflagsteveToday 03:34 pm JST

I went to Okinawa last year, going again in a fortnight, whoopee!

> Stayed in Naha but went further north to the areas where most bases are. OMG, it was horrid, the Americans were loud, uncouth and it was like another planet to me. Never again going round there, no wonder the locals want them out, I would too

They told you they were Americans? Maybe you just knew because only Americans speak English? Seems to me you were just looking for any reason to hate on people you consider to be Americans, whether they are or not.

To all you anti-Americans, American military haters, etc: The bases and personnel aren't going anywhere and no one is listening to you because you have zero influence and your opinion means absolutely nothing.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

They told you they were Americans? 

Yup! He went up to all of them and asked!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Even if Okinawa is important militaristically, it never mean necessity of costly but fragile Henoko base.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Japan lost the last big war, and together, any right to have its own military.

People quickly forgot about those things...

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

It appears that the Japanese people of Okinawa are concerned for the sake of their children . . . .

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Opposition of Okinawa is already clear by referendum or governor elections. Labeling it "agent of China""communist" is mere typical reaction of Japanese far-rightists or unification church believers.

Only Japanese government side still cling to this unrealistic US base project on soft ground. National security is just pretext, that wasting vast tax money during decades for never realization plan, and benefiting construction companies and will get political contribution seems to be goal, it's same corrupted "business" to nuclear fuel cycle project or present fundraising scandals.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In Okinawa, the only people shouting "Yankee go home!!" are old discriminatory communists.

They use children to make it seem like they are doing something peaceful, but when there are no cameras, they obstruct construction vehicles, block the passage of emergency vehicles, and commit terrorist-like acts. I am doing this because I think it is justice.

Okinawa's economy derives a large amount of income from the U.S. military, and if the U.S. military leaves, Okinawa's welfare recipient rate, which currently ranks third in the nation, will likely rise even further. Moreover, in addition to that, Okinawa receives $300,000 in local allocation tax every year. The reason that the lives of Okinawans are not improving is because Okinawan politicians who are dyed in red are not using the funds appropriately for the sake of Okinawans.

In the first place, where should the US military base in Okinawa be moved?

There is no point in moving it to Hokkaido.

The countries that are concerned about the presence of a US military base in Okinawa are China, South Korea, North Korea, and Russia, and it is well known that Chinese and South Koreans are mixed in with the opposition movement.

Japan's separation of powers is functioning well, and it is completely different from a backward country like South Korea, where courts can rule that international treaties between countries are illegal.

No matter how much some Okinawans scream, the bases will not disappear, and the majority of Japanese people do not want the bases to disappear from Okinawa.

Looking at postwar history, it is clear that Okinawa returned to Japan democratically after World War II through an election by the prefectural residents.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In Okinawa, the only people shouting "Yankee go home!!" are old discriminatory communists.

No one in Okinawa is yelling "Yankee go home!" , that's BS.

They use children to make it seem like they are doing something peaceful, but when there are no cameras, they obstruct construction vehicles, block the passage of emergency vehicles, and commit terrorist-like acts. I am doing this because I think it is justice.

No, again, BS, there are no "children" being used to block the trucks and even when there are no cameras, which is never, as everyone has one now, they never used children.

Okinawa's economy derives a large amount of income from the U.S. military, and if the U.S. military leaves, Okinawa's welfare recipient rate, which currently ranks third in the nation, will likely rise even further

These two issues are not mutually connected, the latter is not the cause of the former, and the first one is wrong, as Okinawa only derives roughly 3.8% to 4% of it's GDP from the bases. The areas around the bases are higher, but overall it's not a "large amount!"

The welfare recipient rate is mostly due to the poor economy (Denny and the one issue politicians) is due to a plethora of reasons of which a tiny part is due to the military bases.

Moreover, in addition to that, Okinawa receives $300,000 in local allocation tax every year. 

Where in the heck did you pull this number from? You are way off, and you should put links to support you ideas, otherwise, like the rest here, it's BS.

It varies year to year and it's well over $80,000,000(US) roughly, as it's 10,000,000,000円 about, for the last fiscal year

https://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/articles/-/883963

My point, there is no need to lie, embellish, or tell stories about reality here on this issue. The facts stand on their own!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yubaru (Dec. 28 05:36 pm JST),

You persist to say that Article IV of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement exempts Futenma's illegality because it says Japan and its nationals wave all claims against the U.S. and USCAR (a local administrative body during the occupation period) for damages arising from the presence, operations or actions of U.S. forces.

I understand this part of the Agreement is concerned only with indemnity, but your interpretation is different. Japan and its nationals not only wave claims to damages incurred during the occupation period, but also sanction illegality involved in the confiscation of private property, which U.S. occupation forces did in violation of international law.

Can agreements between fences over stolen goods be legitimate because they agreed? Am I one hundred percent wrong as you like to say?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Are people still talking about this absolutely done deal? Move on already. It's almost 2024.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I understand this part of the Agreement is concerned only with indemnity, but your interpretation is different. Japan and its nationals not only wave claims to damages incurred during the occupation period, but also sanction illegality involved in the confiscation of private property, which U.S. occupation forces did in violation of international law.

Again you obfuscate and refuse to comprehend what you are reading. This means from anything, ANYTHING prior to the date of entry of the agreement. Not from June 23rd, the accepted date of the end of the Battle of Okinawa, not from August 15th, the accepted date as the end of the Pacific War with Japan.

It goes back further! My "interpretation" is the legal interpretation and accepted one by EVERYONE with the exception of you. And FYI, your opinion doesnt matter any more, but I keep on replying because far too many people reading along here get the wrong idea from your posts!

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.

Can agreements between fences over stolen goods be legitimate because they agreed? Am I one hundred percent wrong as you like to say?

Dont be so naive, This comment is nonsense! As you and the people are not the ones who negotiated the agreements nor treaties. The rightfully elected government of the people of Okinawa at the time, negotiated in goodwill and faith with the Japanese government regarding the terms of the return of Okinawa.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

but also sanction illegality involved in the confiscation of private property, which U.S. occupation forces did in violation of international law.

FYI, YOUR government did do this! Not the American government, your Japanese government negotiated the terms of the return in doing so SANCTIONED the land taken from the private landholders.

Your government authorized, pardoned, let it go, gave up, decided it wasnt an issue, and put it to rest.

as you should also, because it's not anything but beating a dead horse, again, and again and again.

I have ALWAYS noted that the land was, taken by force, and during the occupation, illegally. No one has argued differently.

BUT it all became a moot point at the time the treaties were signed and ratified. All done! Finished!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Morheake.

Are people still talking about this absolutely done deal?

U.S. occupation forces' illegal confiscation of private property took place in 1945, 78 years ago. And so, you say it's a thing of the past. Is it really? 

If the land had been returned right when its mission to win the war against Imperial Japan was accomplished, I wouldn't say anything. But the air base has remained to this day as it was, sitting on illegally confiscated private property.

So, the issue is a current one, live and vivid, never a thing of the past.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

U.S. occupation forces' illegal confiscation of private property took place in 1945, 78 years ago. And so, you say it's a thing of the past. Is it really? 

> If the land had been returned right when its mission to win the war against Imperial Japan was accomplished, I wouldn't say anything. But the air base has remained to this day as it was, sitting on illegally confiscated private property.

You have no idea how ludicrous your statements have become. You wear blinders, like a horse on a race track, when it comes to cherry picking the land that the US occupied and never returned to Okinawa's control until the reversion.

The US military took 100% of ALL the land, of ALL the people, not just the land needed The land for Futenma was taken DURING WW2 and the airfield was initially built DURING WW2, and it became a MC base around 1960. To the winner goes the spoils. Japan lost.

Now then, where are your complaints about land not returned for the other bases? Huh? Silence is golden, those you give a pass to, and let go. Funny, comes across as hypocritical.

How about complaining about not returning the land appropriated to build infrastructure ALL over the island, roads, buildings, structures to house US military, the camps built? Some returned, HWY 1, now HWY 58, that land never returned, but nary a peep about "legalities".

The US took land into the 1950's as well, if memory serves me right, to build more infrastructure and bases up north too. No comments, no complaints. Only Futenma.

So you have pardoned the US government for all the other land being taken and not returned, but can't forgive Futenma. Guess what, that sounds hypocritical too!

The treaty pardons ALL of it! You know it, but after all this time you just can't admit it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Does anyone know what legal justification Denny had claimed not to sign the approval for the construction?

Basically the governor can't just deny approval without some kind of legal justification or the governor would be himself snagged for dereliction of duty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does anyone know what legal justification Denny had claimed not to sign the approval for the construction?

Here's the thing, there is ZERO legal justification. It is ALL based upon his feelings, and opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Basically the governor can't just deny approval without some kind of legal justification or the governor would be himself snagged for dereliction of duty.

Yes they can, it's happened all along here, and no, he wont get "snagged" for dereliction of duty, as he ran on being an anti-landfill candidate.

It's ALL about politics, and Denny is a one issue Governor who is loosing support throughout the prefecture because of it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru(Today  02:59 pm JST),

 To the winner goes the spoils. Japan lost.

You say the U.S. took not only Futenma but also Okinawa as a whole.as the result of World War Two. So, what's wrong with encroaching upon private land with impunity and build bases on it. To the winner goes the spoils, you say.

 If that were indeed the case, what would become the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, under which the U.S. is supposed to maintain bases and facilities in sovereignty-recovered Japan? Is that Treaty a mere paperwork, making it nothing but a farce and shenanigans?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You say the U.S. took not only Futenma but also Okinawa as a whole.as the result of World War Two.

Ahh, yes. Let me guess, were you absent from your history class when the teacher taught you about WW2?

I am shocked that you would make such a comment like you didnt know.

To the winner goes the spoils, you say.

I say? It's a fact It happened.

If that were indeed the case, what would become the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, under which the U.S. is supposed to maintain bases and facilities in sovereignty-recovered Japan? Is that Treaty a mere paperwork, making it nothing but a farce and shenanigans?

Wow, you really come up with some comedy here! Also it makes no sense either, sounds like trolling to me!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You say the U.S. took not only Futenma but also Okinawa as a whole.as the result of World War Two. So, what's wrong with encroaching upon private land with impunity and build bases on it. To the winner goes the spoils, you say.

 If that were indeed the case, what would become the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, under which the U.S. is supposed to maintain bases and facilities in sovereignty-recovered Japan? Is that Treaty a mere paperwork, making it nothing but a farce and shenanigans?

Until I read this post here, and I guess I have been overly generous in the amount of time and energy given to discussing this issue with this poster, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, as actually knowing the facts surrounding the history of the war.

I also came to know an realize their emotional attachment to the issue, and their inability to let go from their hatred of the United States Marine Corp and their seemingly brainwashed way of thinking. Like someone drilled into them something that never allowed them to let it go, even after so many years, and even though they themselves never experienced the war.

I can respect and understand the elderly protesters outside Camp Schwab, they LIVED through and experienced the war, and are fighting for what they believe in, misguided or otherwise, I respect that, and their right.

I can not respect the one's that "protest" because they were brainwashed, I feel sorry for them but never respect them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Further comment on your bombshell view on U.S. bases in Japan. You say: 

To the winner goes the spoils. Japan lost.

If so, what's the meaning of the Hague Convention, Article 46 of which states that "Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated"? Also, what's the meaning of Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, according to which the U.S. is allowed to use bases and facilities in Japan.

In your view, these documents are nonsensical and shenanigans. The U.S. is the winner of the war, so that it can use land in Japan for whatever purpose it may suit. The bases are spoils for the U.S. that won the war.  

In other words, U.S. forces are stationed in Japan as winners of that war; Japan is still being occupied by U.S. forces.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In 1945 when the Futenma Air Station was built, the surrounding community of Ginowan Village had fewer than 13,000 people. Today Ginowan City has over 93,000. In other words, the population grew up around the base. How is it that the Japanese government doesn't expect the same result in the new "less populated" location for the base.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Further comment on your bombshell view on U.S. bases in Japan. You say: 

I guess you just dont know your own history. Truly sad.

You know very well that based upon various treaties and the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Japan that JAPAN REQUESTED that the US keep it's military and the bases here.

Another fact that you conveniently overlook, among the many others too!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

In 1945 when the Futenma Air Station was built, the surrounding community of Ginowan Village had fewer than 13,000 people. Today Ginowan City has over 93,000. In other words, the population grew up around the base. How is it that the Japanese government doesn't expect the same result in the new "less populated" location for the base.

Let me guess, you have never actually been in Okinawa? If you had, you would understand the differences between the two locations, not just geographically but economically as well.

The area around the base didnt grow and gain population because of the base.

The same will not happen at Camp Schwab.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

 You know very well that based upon various treaties and the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Japan that JAPAN REQUESTED that the US keep it's military and the bases here.

The bulk of U.S. Marine bases on Okinawa were originally on mainland Japan, but they had to be closed before a vehement anti-U.S. base movements that stormed in mainland Japan in the early 1950s. 

Where did all these bases go? To the U.S. mainland? Never, at all

The Japanese government helped them relocate to Okinawa by building large training bases such as Camp Schwab in Henoko and Northern Training Center in the northern part of Okinawa Island. Apparently, the U.S. side must have demanded a quid pro quo be given in exchange for the return of the mainland bases. 

As for Futenma's relocation, the U.S. side floated the idea that its relocation site could be anywhere in Japan. I doubt if the U.S. was truly serious about it. Soon after, the Japanese government started saying that Henoko was the only option for the solution of the Futenma relocation issue.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Again, your opinion carries no weight. Bring some facts to the table to support your "theory" please! And as you know the idea was taken up and some areas other than Okinawa were suggested but due to local opposition all rejected.

Do you ever say that only your opinion carries weight? LOL.

The U.S. side floated the idea that Futenma could be relocated anywhere in Japan. You say I am wrong and asked me to prove that the U.S. did float the idea. I have many cases of circumstantial evidence to prove it.

Toru Hashimoto, former Governor of Osaka, suggested Osaka would accept Futenma's facilities to Osaka. And former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's government minutely searched for and examined every possible relocation site in all over Japan, but to no avail because of NINBY mentality of the nation. Finally, they had their eyes on Tokunoshima in Kagoshima Prefecture. But the islanders, together with big shot politicians like former Defense Minister Yuriko Koike, vehemently opposed to it.

The Hatoyama government fell accordingly, with Hatoyama leaving a say that the government concluded that Henoko was the only option for the relocation site.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It seems that it's not just Okinawa who doesn't want US bases:

https://prismreports.org/2021/06/04/guam-wont-give-up-more-land-to-the-u-s-military-without-a-fight/

https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/03/how-hawaii-activists-helped-force-the-militarys-hand-on-red-hill/

Tokunoshima certainly didn't want them:

https://www.japan-press.co.jp/s/news/index.php?id=231

In fact, there is a strong call to move the US bases to US territory:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/16/military-defense-overseas-bases-united-states-force-posture/

Think of the effect that could be caused if the money wasted on the military were put to peaceful causes that benefited people.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

BertieWoosterToday 02:01 pm JST

Think of the effect that could be caused if the money wasted on the military were put to peaceful causes that benefited people.

Yeah, we could get rid of the Navy once Japan is eliminated as an independent country.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Think of the effect that could be caused if the money wasted on the military were put to peaceful causes that benefited people

as long as China exists in its current form, you can expect us in military to remain here, and even if the people complain and say, they don’t want it, in the end, they really do want it, they really do.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Marine headquarters in Okinawa lodged an opposition to the Tokunoshima option, saying it's too far from the Okinawa base where many of the active elements of the Marines are stationed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Marine headquarters in Okinawa lodged an opposition to the Tokunoshima option, saying it's too far from the Okinawa base where many of the active elements of the Marines are stationed.

And rightfully so, now if Tokushima had been willing to accept the ground units as well, it MAY have been a different story. But that would have never happened because Tokushima doesnt have the space to host both the air and ground elements.

And my comments carry more weight as I back them with fact vs conjecture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

I said the U.S. government floated the idea that Futenma's relocation site could be anywhere in Japan. To this you countered by saying that I was wrong and asking me to prove what I conjecture. I wasn't wrong at all because I proved it logically with firm evidence.

I also said the U.S. government might be just floating the idea that the relocation site could be anywhere in Japan. This surmise of mine is proven to be correct, for the Marines Okinawa said the relocation site must be within a certain radius from Okinawa-deployed Marines.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I also said the U.S. government might be just floating the idea that the relocation site could be anywhere in Japan.

Ancient history, and nothing that matters today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites