national

Okinawa retracts approval of landfill work for U.S. base transfer

13 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

13 Comments
Login to comment

The deal was made and the money has already been allocated, 300 billion yen if I am not mistaken was given to one of those anti-base politicians who quickly changed his stance so I guess this is just a cry for more funds so the new guy can pretend like he is anti-base while filling up His pockets.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Congratulations, Okinawans! You now get to keep Futenma for that much longer. Not a single person who wanted to halt this construction and take away approval of landfill can complain about the presence of Futenma. Not one. You have given up the right to do so by insisting no relocation occur, which was thrice agreed upon by your government and held up illegally by Onaga. It's going to happen, but now you will just deal with Futenma and fly-overs for another few more years as a result of these actions. Good job!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Certainly, this will lead to a legal battle between the prefectural and central governments. In the 2015 trial, the revoking by the late governor of his predecessor's sanction of the Henoko construction was ruled illegal by court. The bone of contention this time around would be whether the prefecture could recant an already-sanctioned water reclamation plan on the ground that hitherto unknown problems involving the reclamation have been found.

I personally believe the prefecture has an edge over the central government, but note that the judiciary is under the executive in Japan and that the court almost always rules in favor of the government (executive) in such a lawsuit.

As I've argued on various threads on JT, Futenma is built on illegally confiscated private lands (Cf. Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which states: "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.") and so the U.S. Marines are like unlawful squatters occupying the' property of others. 

On the premise of this the U.S. side would have no inherent legal right to demand a replacement of Futenma be built at Henoko, saying the Japanese government agreed to it. It's obvious dealings in fences are void and illegal. Period.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

It's obvious dealings in fences are void and illegal. Period.

Okinawa is governed by J laws and when this go to court again and fails again the base will continue. Your views of void and illegal dont make it so.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

wtfjapan,

Probably you want to say this:

Both governments agreed that Henoko was the only solution for a relocation site for Futenma for two reasons: (1) it can remove the dangers posed by the Futenma base to a densely populated city district; (2) maintaining Futenma's function in Okinawa will give U.S. forces in Okinawa invariable deterrence capability.

OK, then, how do you answer the following questions?

First: U.S. Yokota Base in Metropolitan Tokyo is located in a far more densely populated area than Futenma. Should it be relocated somewhere else? Second: If Futenma's function must be maintained in Okinawa for deterrence reasons, why will the most active elements of Okinawa-deployed Marines be moved to Guam, a safer hinterland, while their support units remain in Okinawa? The two governments also agreed that primary responsibility to deal with contingencies involving outlying islands rests with Japan's SDF. How does the deterrence theory about Futenma explain these facts?

The U.S. Marines are stationed in Okinawa for their own sake. Training bases for them to hone their combat skills in jungle and urban warfare are amply provided for by the Japanese government free of charge.  Even recreation centers. Okinawa is a very cozy place for the Marines to be deployed to. They’re not here for deterrence but for their own sake.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The back side of Camp Hansen is a good location for the base. That's were the troops are.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

“Voice of Okinawa”; LMAO.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Certainly, this will lead to a legal battle between the prefectural and central governments.

Do you actually pay any attention to the local news? I guess not, there wont be much of a legal battle if any at all.

One the court may throw the case out without even hearing it. Two it will be expedited so within the month there should be a decision shortly, and three, Onaga lost every battle as his opinions were based, just like this one, on shaky ground.

Can't blame Onaga any more for lying about abiding by the courts decisions. But either way the prefecture is going to lose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S. Marines are stationed in Okinawa for their own sake. Training bases for them to hone their combat skills in jungle and urban warfare are amply provided for by the Japanese government free of charge. Even recreation centers. Okinawa is a very cozy place for the Marines to be deployed to. They’re not here for deterrence but for their own sake.

You don't know the meaning of the words ":free of charge". Also so what if the Marines are here for their own sake, it's an agreement between the Japanese government and US government.

You don't make the laws, you don't make the agreements, your opinions on the matter obviously fall on deaf ears as nothing changes. You have lost all your arguments on the subject, and you continue to beat your head against the wall, which probably explains everything.

Oh and don't go an start on again about the security agreement only being for the AF, Army, and Navy...that argument should have been laid to rest a generation ago, but then again, it's the damage from wall I believe!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WA4TKG,

Explain convincingly why my post is subject to LMOA.  Otherwise, chikens will come home to you to roost..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

You don't know the meaning of the words ":free of charge". Also so what if the Marines are here for their own sake, it's an agreement between the Japanese government and US government.

On your part, do you really know the meaning of the words "free of charge"? The bulk of U.S. bases in Okinawa are Marine bases. U.S. bases occupies about 15% of the land mass of Okinawa Island, that is, 181.05 square km.

Do the U.S. pay fees for the land on which bases are built, much of which is private property? It's the Japanese government that pays land fees to private land owners and provide the U.S. military with these bases FREE OF CHARGE. The Japanese government, i.e. the Japanese taxpayers that include Okinawa residents, even pays more than 70% of the base maintenance costs such as water, electricity, repairs and what not.

You say this is the result of a bilateral agreement, suggesting there's nothing wrong about it. This is a bilateral agreement alright, but such agreement must be scrapped right then and there if there's unfairness in it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bulk of U.S. bases in Okinawa are Marine bases. U.S. bases occupies about 15% of the land mass of Okinawa Island, that is, 181.05 square km.

I see you are adept at using Google Sensei, congratulations, in the future ensure that you stop cherry picking information to attempt to make your points.

So what if the majority are Marine bases, that is nothing for you to worry about, nor decide either, it's between the US and Japanese governments.

Do the U.S. pay fees for the land on which bases are built, much of which is private property? It's the Japanese government that pays land fees to private land owners and provide the U.S. military with these bases FREE OF CHARGE.

No it's not, you cherry pick information for your own purposes, but the US pays for a portion of stationing the troops here.

You say this is the result of a bilateral agreement, suggesting there's nothing wrong about it. This is a bilateral agreement alright, but such agreement must be scrapped right then and there if there's unfairness in it.

I say? No it's a fact, something you do not seem to understand.

Once again, stop your posting this nonsense here, and if you think it's so important, do something about it. But wait you can't, because just like with Onaga and his flying all over the world, no one will listen to you, this is the ONLY forum you have, and you know what's even funnier....you don't get it!

Just because YOU say it, doesn't make it so. Get used to that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

So what if the majority are Marine bases, that is nothing for you to worry about, nor decide either, it's between the US and Japanese governments.

If the Marine bases are white elephants, contributing nothing worthwhile to deterrence nor for the defense of Japan, you can't say "that is nothing for you to worry about." No, it isn't simply "between the U.S. and Japanese governments." Their mistake must be pointed out and corrected right on.

1 ( +1 / -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