national

Protest held in Okinawa against landfill for U.S. base transfer

94 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

94 Comments
Login to comment

Troublemakers at it again. They don't get it that the US are there for their protection? Bored "protesters" Just out to make a scene.

Take away the bases and what is rightfully US property and watch what happens.

2 ( +17 / -15 )

Hey if they're going to start protesting the new location might as well stay where you are and save the money

4 ( +10 / -6 )

wish I had that much time on my hands on a Monday...

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Dango bong, its money collected as land owners and nothing else to do with it. Also that statement about bulk of US facilities is farce and outdated. It is no longer the case as other pre use land was returned back to their government.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Protection from what? Please leave... and go pollute your own land.

-9 ( +9 / -18 )

It is a known fact MOST of the people doing this a PAID.

Some guy I know where I used to live along Araha Beach said to me one day:

"I should go get a job doing this protesting up at Schwab; it PAYS well. I saw an ad".

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Political protest barring the National Government from doing something, and it actually refraining from doing it (at least momentarily), i.e. something ONLY citizens can do.

And we had just the other day some experts lecturing that Okinawans are NOT Japanese!!!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

All people who participate in these protests should also sign a paper promising to enlist if Chinese aggression makes it necessary for Japan to defend itself forcefully if the Americans leave. If they're too old then their children are drafted instead. Wonder how many of them would still be so interested in the proposal!

0 ( +9 / -9 )

The blue Kangi characters slogan said: The whole base must GO!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Okinawa protests they are forced to undertake 75% of U.S. bases in Japan. It is not true. The Japanese government did not force them to accept the 75% of U.S. bases there. It happened when Okinawa was under U.S. administration until 1972. It is U.S. government that moved Marines in mainland Japan to Okinawa. It was at the time of the cold war. U.S. Forces intended to equip nukes in mainland Japan and the Japanese government under the prime minister Kishi thought the same way the nukes were necessary to be in Japan to protect the country from communist Russia. However, a strong anti nuclear movement happened following a Japanese tuna fishing boat No. 5 Fukuryu-maru had showers of nuclear ashes near the Bikini atoll where U.S. held a H-bomb test in 1954 and a crew member Aikichi Kuboyama died. U.S. Forces had to change their plan of assigning nukes in the mainland Japan and moved the Marines in the mainland Japan to Okinawa with nukes. So, once U.S. Marines were equipped with nukes before.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Nah they just dont want drunk and dangerous occupying force on their land....

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Protection? Sure.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga has said he will retract the approval given to the state's landfill plan by his predecessor, a move that is certain to reignite the legal battle between the state and the local government over the project.

This is bs, as Onaga has lost every challenge that he has made with the courts, broken numerous promises to abide by the court decisions and has no other options available.

He has lost the support of the majority of the business community, has had far too many candidates that HE personally backed lose in local elections, and lets not forget he recently just got out of the hospital after having cancer (prostate I believe it was) surgery, he should just keep his mouth shut, let his term run out and retire peacefully.

He will be remembered as fighting a good fight, but losing, and him along with Ota Masahide as governors who failed the people of Okinawa, ALL Okinawa, as one issue governors.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Onaga uses any Anti-American thing he can get his hands on. He is probably thrilled when their is a crime or drunk driving incident as it can help him to further his own political agenda.

I do feel for Okinawa and at the same time acknowledge that the US bases are here.

But if you think China and Russia would behave the same around here if the USA weren’t around, you’d be gravely wrong.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Japan was more hardcore nationalist than NK. America, for all the bad, also did some good, and I mean good for the people and their children’s children.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

drunk and dangerous occupying force on their land.

As opposed to the drunk and dangerous indigenous population, who has a crime rate and drunk driving rate higher than the US forces that serve in Okinawa.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

When the cost of US global hegemony becomes to much to bear, it will eventually have to retreat from its bases worldwide and return home, ceding territory to the next rising power. Thus has it always been with overextended empires. If US allies were really friends, they'd tell you to pack up and go before it's too late.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

"Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga has said he will retract the approval given to the state's landfill plan by his predecessor, a move that is certain to reignite the legal battle between the state and the local government over the project."

Onaga's going to commit illegalities again, so arrest him, too.

In any case, what these people seem to want is the base to continue to be at Futenma. Do they realize what they are asking? The delays are on them.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Yes, there was a war that ended 73 years ago. Yes, Okinawa was returned to Japan in 1972. But imagine if it was your neighborhood and there was still a foreign army on your doorstep, 46 years on. No one can claim that they would like that.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I would like someone to tell me what the U.S. Marines have on Okinawa that would deter someone like China or N.K. from attacking Okinawa. My opinion is that even though the U.S. Marines have the most bases on Okinawa, they are the least effective military force on Okinawa when it comes to the defense of Japan.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Why does the Japanese Coast Guard look like a covert SWAT team?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Japan4life

What a well thought out statement. Your opinion is that the US marines are the least effective military force on Okinawa?

Look at the constitution and know that they are the ONLY actual military force on Okinawa.

What do they have to deter? They have weapons!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I don’t remember such protests when they filled the bay in Osaka to build Kansai airport. And, there were definitely no protests when they created the world’s largest garbage island in Tokyo bay, which is now known as O’daiba. Why are they protesting this construction? Could it be that it is just because it is an American military base? Could it be that they don’t really give a fat rat’s about the sea life and are only interested in protesting America's continued occupation of Okinawa? Is that possible? (sarcasm intended)

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I would like someone to tell me what the U.S. Marines have on Okinawa that would deter someone like China or N.K. from attacking Okinawa. My opinion is that even though the U.S. Marines have the most bases on Okinawa, they are the least effective military force on Okinawa when it comes to the defense of Japan.

You following in the footsteps of your mentor? Folks like you like to pick on one point, but leave out the bigger picture!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I don’t remember such protests when they filled the bay in Osaka to build Kansai airport. And, there were definitely no protests when they created the world’s largest garbage island in Tokyo bay, which is now known as O’daiba. Why are they protesting this construction? Could it be that it is just because it is an American military base? Could it be that they don’t really give a fat rat’s about the sea life and are only interested in protesting America's continued occupation of Okinawa? Is that possible? (sarcasm intended)

One Okinawa is NOT occupied contrary to what some people here continually spout out about, and two, the protests are minor, just over played in the JT media!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

thepersoniamnow,

The U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army , U.S. Navy and the JSDF are all on Okinawa and are all considered Military Forces. Please tell me what weapons the Marines have on Okinawa that would stop China or N.K. from attacking Okinawa.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

"many residents are against the plan as they want the base moved out of the prefecture."

Yeah, and the farmers in Chiba wanted Narita Airport not to be built in the prefecture but they didn't get what they wanted either being as how the airport being built was good for most people.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Time for the hard truth. These protesters might as well be calling for the closure of pachinko parlors in Japan because the US Military bases aren't going anywhere in their lifetime. Bitter pill to swallow, but 100% truth.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I would like someone to tell me what the U.S. Marines have on Okinawa that would deter someone like China or N.K. from attacking Okinawa.

The determent the Marines have on Okinawa is that logistical and material support that can maintain extended operations. The Marine Corps strength is that they already have the most difficult and complex part of conducting defense contingencies in place and are able to pull infantry elements from anywhere in the matter of hours. It doesn't only help in the defense of Japan but in the assistance of any ally in East and South East Asia. The DPRK, China, and Russia aren't intimidate by combat strength as much as they are intimidated by the US's ability to sustain operations 9,000 miles from the continental US. 

My opinion is that even though the U.S. Marines have the most bases on Okinawa, they are the least effective military force on Okinawa when it comes to the defense of Japan.

You willing to take bets?

The U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army , U.S. Navy and the JSDF are all on Okinawa and are all considered Military Forces. Please tell me what weapons the Marines have on Okinawa that would stop China or N.K. from attacking Okinawa.

Well, a Chinese sailor standing on a ship passes gas and a US spy satellite would know about it. Any non covert operations by the Chinese to take the islands would be detected before they left their ports. The Air Force and the Navy would probably degrade them below combat effectiveness before they even got close and there is always at least a battalion of Marines on Okinawa hontou that would be supporting JSDF in defending their country... Logically looking at this; you're really stretching things to fight a dead argument. The Marines are set up strategically to defend allies in the region and are fully capable.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I think what the protesters are saying is that they prefer Chinese bases.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I think what the protesters are saying is that they prefer Chinese bases.

That's not it at all. Japan doesn't need any foreign bases on its soil. Period.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

haha, someone commented that they have weapons... the weapons that keep crashing all over...

seriously, nobody want you here.

please pack up and leave

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That's not it at all. Japan doesn't need any foreign bases on its soil. Period.

That is for the people to decide through their elected representatives. Maybe the people of Okinawa might want to think about protesting against all those other Japanese that want the US military to help protect them. The rest of Japan doesn’t seem to mind that the people of Okinawa have to deal with the problems associated with a heavy foreign military presence there as opposed to say, in Shibuya.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

That's not it at all. Japan doesn't need any foreign bases on its soil. Period.

Sure, once Japan changes it's constitution and is allowed to beef up the SDF to be able to be self sufficient.. Until then, yes, they actually do. Seeing as how everyone here seems to think Japan is going to go all invasion-crazy if they are allowed to have a full military, I don't see that happening any time soon.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I wonder how many of these people actually do something other than protest? Do they go and petition their local governments to listen to their grievances? do they stand outside of train stations, bus stations, and other mass commuter means and collect names? Do they actually talk to people, telling them why they think that the bases in Okinawa are bad, using sources and facts and data from research and analysis? Do they talk with the business owners who benefit from the bases, trying to persuade them to see how bad the bases really are, and that their businesses would thrive just as well, or even better, if the bases were to be relocated? Do they seek to engage in civil discourse, with a free exchange of ideas, and both listening as well as speaking?

Or do they just protest at the drop of a hat, trying their best to get before a camera or a journalist and scram and shout and chant at the top of their lungs?

I think I know the answer to these questions already, especially having lived in Japan for quite some time in the past...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Okinawa residents held a protest demonstration at sea Monday 

I think that it is possible that most of these so called Okinawan residents protesting do not actually come from Okinawa.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

CyburneticTiger,

I would be willing to bet that the U.S. Marines are the least effective force on Okinawa when it comes to defending Japan and their limited capabilities on Okinawa does not justify the amount of land that they occupy on Okinawa. The Air Force are the most effective force on Okinawa followed by the JSDF with their Air Base and Missile Sites. The Army with their communication sites and the special forces would be ahead of the Marines and the Navy with White Beach, their Kadena Air Base operations and communication sites would also be ahead of the Marines. An initial attack on Okinawa would be missile attacks for which the U.S. Marines have no answer for. The main question is could the island of Okinawa be properly defended without the U.S. Marines and I believe the U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy along with the JSDF are fully capable of defending Okinawa without the U.S. Marines.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Mine the waters.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Same old story — catch 22. Professional Japanese activist must earn their daily bread (¥) too. It’s the same at all the U.S. installations throughout Japan. GOJ holds true to SOFA agreements in place.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Oh! The comments today contain a lot of emotionally inaccurate information. It would be good if the press gave some understanding of the issues rather than just report the events. The human issues with Okinawa and this protest seem similar to the issues of reconciliation actions going on in North America right now. Is it the colonizers that have a right to decide what happens on aboriginal land? Or should it the first peoples also have a say over their land?

Historically Okinawans are very different from the ethnicity of the Yamato people of mainland Japan. At the time of the 1971 agreement to had over Okinawa from the US to Japan, there were many in Okinawa that called for Independence. Okinawans just want to have a say on their land.

Okinawa is a strategic place in Asia for the US/Japan Alliance however there are alternatives to filling in the land and these are not being discussed but bulldozed without local discussion. That is the basis of the protests from my talks with them.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Vince Black, the USA does not own the land which hosts the US bases. The USA took this land this land by violence. There was no need for the US invasion but to steal land for bases. The US killed 200000 Okinawa by their invasion. Even today the US has a lot of control of Okinawa. It was not long ago the US gassed Okinawa civilians and intent does not matter. This happened on gate 2 street in Koza. Now Americans are badmouthing Okinawa people for exercising their right to protest. The Japanese government can not say no to their American masters. Note Japan did not retaliate against American tariffs.

Osaka_Doug the alternate to filling in land for US bases is to close the US bases. China would not risk war that would happen if they invaded Okinawa.

Again and again, Okinawa does not belong to the American military but to the people of Okinawa!!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

"Historically Okinawans are very different from the ethnicity of the Yamato people of mainland Japan. At the time of the 1971 agreement to had over Okinawa from the US to Japan, there were many in Okinawa that called for Independence. "

Give it a rest, will you!

That's the way the countries were formed; ALL COUNTRIES without exception are the result of integration of peoples/territories that once upon a time belonged to another entity. Nobody but a few fantasists/lunatics think about an independent Ryukyu.

A pro-independence candidate who ran for governor in 2006 received only 6,220 votes.

As late as 2017 the Okinawa Times, Asahi Shimbun and Ryukyusu Asahi Broadcasting Corporation (QAB) jointly conducted prefectural public opinion surveys for voters in the prefecture. 82% of Okinawa citizens chose "I'm glad that Okinawa has returned as a Japanese prefecture". It was 90% for respondents of the ages of 18 to 29, 86% for those in their 30s, 84% for those aged 40-59, whereas in the generation related to the return movement, the response was 72% for respondents in their 60s, 74% for those over the age of 70.

http://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/articles/-/97097

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I totally get why it would be a bad idea to relocate. After staying in Ginowan for 4 months, every day I saw accidents caused by Americans, as well as poor habits brought from America to Japan. Their base is use as is, and takes away a lot from the beauty of the island. Moving to another location doesn't seen to benefit in anyway. There is only so much land in Okinawa as is.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@YuriOtani: The USA took this land this land by violence. There was no need for the US invasion but to steal land for bases.

Wow! I’m guessing that if Japan didn’t start the war by attacking US military bases on the islands of Hawaii that Japan wouldn’t have ended up having their bases on the Okinawan islands invaded and conquered by the US. Japan made the mistake of starting something they couldn’t finish. It takes an astounding ignorance of history to make a statement implying that the existence of the US bases happened for no reason or occurred in a vacuum.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

After staying in Ginowan for 4 months, every day I saw accidents caused by Americans, 

No you did not. There haven't been that many accidents involving American military in Okinawa, even in a year, there aren't 4 months worth of accidents.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yubaru (June 25 | 07:04 pm JST),

Contrary to your bs comment, I consider Gov. Onaga should retract "the approval given to the state's landfill plan by his predecessor" as soon as possible

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga once intimidated Onaga by saying he has to personally pay the indemnity incurred from the delay of construction work.

Why is this government so subservient to Washington, colluding with it to perpetuate the pseudo-occupation of Okinawa? Yes, Okinawa is still under occupation by U.S. forces with so many bases forced upon to host. This may be because the government doesn't consider Okinawa as an integral part of the country.

Otherwise, Suga and his mentor Shinzo Abe can be dubbed as real traitors selling part of its soil to foreign military forces. How vexing!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The US killed 200000 Okinawa by their invasion. Even today the US has a lot of control of Okinawa. It was not long ago the US gassed Okinawa civilians and intent does not matter. This happened on gate 2 street in Koza. Now Americans are badmouthing Okinawa people for exercising their right to protest. The Japanese government can not say no to their American masters. Note Japan did not retaliate against American tariffs.

One get your facts straight, if not for at least the memory of those who died here during the war, !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

Two, the "gassing" you refer to was tear gas used to quell a riot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koza_riot

And with the "bad-mouthing", you yourself are married to an American, live in America, are American, and THAT gives you the right to "bad-mouth" as well. Funny how things turned out for you.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We got “peace lovers” who don’t want Japan to rearm who also want the US military out.

They also are alarmed by China and Russia.

Make sense please.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Anyone complaining about those big bad Americans taking over Okinawa for no reason should visit the Okinawa peace park and himeyuri museum, going there made me realize that Japan couldn't care less about the people of Okinawa, they encouraged them to commit suicide instead of surrendering, would poison their wounded men, and often mainland soldiers would kill the civilians for dubious reasons. Japan sacrificed the people of Okinawa needlessly!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Yubaru - One Okinawa is NOT occupied contrary to what some people here continually spout out about, 

The US military presence in Japan is the result of the treaty signed by Japan at the end of WW2. The agreement was to have a significant US military presence in Japan to monitor future military actions in Japan. This equals, occupation. Of course, we all know that, these days it is just so the US has a strong military presence in the Asian Pacific.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Can’t we have a few more bases on Honshu and give the Okinawans a break?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

 they encouraged them to commit suicide instead of surrendering, would poison their wounded men, and often mainland soldiers would kill the civilians for dubious reasons. Japan sacrificed the people of Okinawa needlessly!

Yeah and American's slaughtered the natives too, so you going to keep on using this as an argument to justify today?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

For those more interested in DNA scientific evidence than emotions:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929708004874

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

As for Genotypes:

Thus, the Ryukyu cluster is more distant from the Han-Chinese clusters than the Hondo cluster is, given that the average FST between the Hondo and the Han-Chinese clusters is 0.00641 (95% CI: 0.00637–0.00647).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929708004874

That's why China lost badly when the Okinawa "issue" as submitted to Arbitration.

Only wished people researched more prior to releasing hot air.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Ministry of Defense is said to estimate the total cost of Futenma's relocation to Henoko will amount to more than 350 billion yen or about 3.2 million dollars (The Ryukyu Shimpo: March 14, 2014).  

Is it worth squandering such enormous amount of tax money for the U.S. Marines, the most active elements of whom are to move to Guam and who have no primary responsibility to defend Japan's offshore territories.

The sea kayak protestors seem no match for professional coastguardsmen as for equipment and budget. Despite such a handicap, they will keep sitting in.  Cheer for them!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The US military presence in Japan is the result of the treaty signed by Japan at the end of WW2. The agreement was to have a significant US military presence in Japan to monitor future military actions in Japan. This equals, occupation.

No, it really doesn't.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/military%20occupation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No, it really doesn't.

I know, you know, and literally the other roughly 1.1 million people who actually live on Okinawa know too.

It's the people here who consider the presence of even ONE US military person as an occupation. They are incapable, either by choice, incompetence or self-inflicted ignorance, of looking at the strategic location of the island of Okinawa and realizing it's importance, purely by IT's location the importance it plays in this part of the world.

They choose to keep wearing blinders, and keep their heads buried in the sand.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No doubt the protesters are paid "professionals" and represents the views of a fringe political faction. Whether that faction represents the views of the majority of Okinawans is debatable. Why not a island wide referendum to settle the entire American military presence issue once and for all and let the chips fall where they may?

All people who participate in these protests should also sign a paper promising to enlist if Chinese aggression makes it necessary for Japan to defend itself

I think what the protesters are saying is that they prefer Chinese bases.

*That's not it at all. Japan doesn't need any foreign bases on its soil. Period.*

But Onaga and his anti-US supporters would welcome China and its "One Belt One Road" program if not for Okinawa being a Japanese prefecture. What is not widely advertised is that China military follows the One Belt One Road to protect China's investment and keep the country in line.

Of course Onaga wouldn't view the Chinese as "occupiers" but as "guests". But if Okinawans want the U.S. out of Okinawa and Chinese "guests" to move in, occupy and control the island, so be it.

 .....the USA does not own the land which hosts the US bases. The USA took this land this land by violence. There was no need for the US invasion but to steal land for bases. 

In their zeal to criticize the "evil US", Yuri and other anti-US posters here, conveniently overlook Japan's forceful annexation of Okinawa and treatment of Okinawan people during its 1879-1945 occupation.

Japan forcibly invaded and annexed the Ryukyu Kingdom, deposed the King, and forced Okinawa to be an Japanese prefecture in 1879. Then it systematically set about suppressing and nearly destroying the Ryukyu/Okinawan culture and language and brutally forced its people to assimilate to Japanese customs. During the early years of the Asia-Pacific War, land and farms were forcibly expropriated throughout Okinawa and the Imperial Japanese Army began the construction of airbases, fortifying the island to use Okinawa as a frontline defense buffer for mainland Japan. Then Japan ultimately sacrificed Okinawa in a prolonged battle to buy time for the anticipated (but never happened) U.S. invasion of mainland Japan.

After World War II and during the 27 years under U.S. administration, the U.S. rebuilt the infrastructure, introduced democracy and and granted a certain degree of self-autonomy to the residents of Okinawa until reversion in 1972. Never did the U.S. treat Okinawans as brutally as the Japanese did during their occupation from 1879 to 1945.  Apparently many anti-US Japanese/Okinawans seemed to have forgotten this.

Of course, we all know that, these days it is just so the US has a strong military presence in the Asian Pacific.

If you bother looking at a map of the region, you'll see the strategic proximity of Okinawa to the China Seas and Taiwan. Japan understands the strategic importance of Okinawa, especially to their national security and wants U.S. presence there. Otherwise, they'll have to change their constitution to allow a strengthened Japanese military to take up the slack when the U.S. leaves......which is the reason for their reluctance.

China is only beginning to exercise its military strength in that region and it has many countries, including Japan Government concerned. There will be a time when China comes knocking on the Ryukyu Island's doorstep in the near future. How will Okinawans feel about that? I hope they remember what happened to them in 1879.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

extanker,

The official occupation of mainland Japan ended in May 1952 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect and Japan recovered its sovereignty. Okinawa, on the other hand, went under occupation until May 1972 when its administrative rights were returned to Japan.

So, formally, one can say both regions are not occupied in the light of the definitions you referenced.

The catch is the erstwhile occupation army still remains with all their bases and activities as intact and unrestrained as before. What makes this possible is the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty Japan had to sign concurrently with the peace treaty in 1951 and the Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands Japan had to sign in 1971 to recover Okinawa’s administrative rights.

Formal occupation may have ended in both regions, yes, but one can definitely say that virtual occupation is still continuing. Okinawa exemplifies this state of affairs in the most conspicuous form.  Come to Okinawa, live even for a short while  and see for yourself how it's like to be in occupation, virtual or not.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@voiceofokinawa

please read the actual definition of military occupation that I posted above and educate yourself to what it actually means. I’m sure you will still want to believe otherwise, but at least I can say I did what I could to help you see the truth.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

extanker,

Please read my post rather carefully. I say formal occupation as defined in your reference certainly ended in 1952 in the case of mainland Japan and in 1972 in the case of Okinawa. But I say virtual occupation or pseudo-occupation is still continuing. Can you deny it?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Deny what? There's no such thing as a pseudo-occupation. Japan is a sovereign nation and as a sovereign nation chooses to maintain the current Mutual Cooperation and Security treaty. Okinawa = Japan and Japan = Okinawa.

People can stick thing fingers in their ears and scream "I can't hear you" all they want but it doesn't change reality.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger,

Deny what?

Deny that Japan in general or Okinawa in particular is not under virtual occupation when in fact the U.S. has maintained a seamless military presence in Japan (Okinawa) since the Occupation era.

The Japan as a sovereign state is a myth or nothing but a farce as far as the U.S. invariably maintains its military presence of this magnitude. Other Allies withdrew their troops as soon as Japan regained its independence in 1952, but the hegemonic U.S. was different. When mainlanders realized the country was still under a virtual occupation even after the San Francisco Peace Treaty with so many U.S. bases remaining the same as before, they demonstrated against the U.S., oftentimes resorting to physical violence. As a result, some Marine units had to move to Okinawa, that was still under actual U.S. occupation.   

Note that the Security Treaty, which the U.S. obliged Japan to sign on the same day the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed, was not signed on an equal footing to the U.S. It or its concomitant document, later called SOFA, was a one-sided agreement extremely favorable to the U.S. side, thus allowing the U.S. military to enjoy the same perquisites as they did during the Occupation days.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

but one can definitely say that virtual occupation is still continuing.

People can pull at all the virtual straws they want, it does not change the fact that Okinawa is not "occupied"

see for yourself how it's like to be in occupation, virtual or not.

This is funny, sad, but funny none the less. I go months without seeing any "military" around where I live, and the families I do see in Naha, are very polite, friendly, and in no way any problem.

I have more problems with the punk Japanese kids who ride their rice-rockets on 58, disturbing the peace at all hours of the night, particularly on weekends. Especially now that summer has arrived.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and offer some true documented proof that Japan isn't a sovereign nation.. stop spouting the anecdotal conspiracy theory based off of how you as an individually view events.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

voiceofokinawa, I don't really need to say anything more that hasn't already been said by others with common sense. There is no such thing as a 'virtual occupation'. Okinawa isn't under military rule, there is no occupation, 'virtual' or otherwise. If Japan says leave, they'll go. That's not occupation. Play with words however you want, it doesn't make what you say any less false.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

called SOFA, was a one-sided agreement extremely favorable to the U.S. side, thus allowing the U.S. military to enjoy the same perquisites as they did during the Occupation days.

All a SOFA is is a set of rules on how the military operates in a host country. Most countries use SOFAs when they have personnel in other countries. I wish you could listen to how clueless you sound when you spew this nonsense.

Oh by the way, international law disagrees with you too. Having a SOFA in place pretty much negates any claim you have of an occupation, real or virtual...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement

"Under international law a status of forces agreement differs from military occupation."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

extanker (Today 01:08 am JST) ,

You sound as if there were no U.S. military presence in Okinawa -- no U.S. base, no noise pollution, no U.S.

troop and no base-derived problems at  all.

I've been saying the current U.S. military presence in Japan, particularly in Okinawa, is a seamless carry-over from the Occupation era. I call this manipulation a "virtual occupation," which you may not like.

True Okinawa isn't under direct U.S. military occupation today, but only "the U.S. military presence hosted by Japan," you want to say. And you suggest that the U.S. military presence is only temporary subject to termination anytime Japan says so.  Do you really believe that "if Japan says leave, they'll leave"? 

You must fully know, and so does the U.S. government, that Japan is nothing but a U.S. vassal or a satellite state, with its government functioning only as an executing agency for the U.S. as far as U.S. base issues are concerned.

Otherwise, Futenma's relocation issue could have been solved years ago because Washington is fully aware that the plan is a non-starter after all motivated only by egotism on its he part and that Okinawa  would oppose t it. Common sense tells the whole plan is a white elephant.

Since you volunteered to give helping hands to Yubaru, let me ask you the same question I asked  him.   

Why do you think it necessary for the U.S. Marines to maintain training bases such as Futenma or its replacement at Henoko, Iejima Auxiliary Air Field on Ie Island and Jungle Warfare Training Center in northern Okinawa?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

True Okinawa isn't under direct U.S. military occupation today, 

Funny how the truth gets to everyone in the end!

Otherwise, Futenma's relocation issue could have been solved years ago 

Yes, it could have, but it's not the US government's fault, the blame is squarely on the shoulders of the Japanese national and Okinawan prefectural governments for playing games for nearly 2 decades in trying to decide what to do.

No one should ever forget that fact! Over 20 years have been wasted, and the people of Futenma forgotten in this bs.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Funny how the truth gets to everyone in the end!

I said Japan, Okinawa in particular, is not under direct occupation today but, no doubt, under

virtual occupation. That's a moot point here. And you want to say we are in agreement in that point?

But answer the question I posed to you:

Why do you think it necessary for the U.S. Marines to maintain training bases such as Futenma or its replacement at Henoko, Iejima Auxiliary Air Field on Ie Island, and Jungle Warfare Training Center in northern Okinawa?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I said Japan, Okinawa in particular, is not under direct occupation today but, no doubt, under virtual occupation. That's a moot point here. 

No we are not in agreement, there is no "virtual" occupation either. Your insistence on attempting to back out of your previous statements, by now disingenuously trying to calling it something else, do not change that fact either.

Proverbial black and white here, no occupation, none, "virtual" or otherwise.

Also it's the first time you have acknowledged the fact that there is no occupation of Okinawa. Thank you.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

> Otherwise, Futenma's relocation issue could have been solved years ago 

Pretty solid counter to your opinion and shows there is no literal or “virtual” occupation by the US. If there was the US would have built the base 15 years ago. Also serves as proof that Japan is a sovereign nation and not a vassal to anyone. You really need to stop insulting Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yubaru,

No we are not in agreement, there is no "virtual" occupation either. Your insistence on attempting to back out of your previous statements, by now disingenuously trying to calling it something else, do not change that fact either.

I've been arguing the "formal occupation" of Japan ended in 1951 as a result of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and that of Okinawa in 1972 as a result of Okinawa's reversion to Japan. I've been also arguing that despite the formal ending of the occupation, the U.S. military continued to exist, retaining unrestrained rights to using all these bases and areas just the same as before. You may euphemistically refer to this situation as "U.S. military presence hosted by Japan" but I call it "virtual occupation" of Japan, Okinawa in particular.

But this is not a venue in which to judge who describes the situation more fittingly and true to the hard fact. But before playing on the words, you must first answer the question I posed to you.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Ive been arguing the "formal occupation" of Japan ended in 1951 as a result of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and that of Okinawa in 1972 as a result of Okinawa's reversion to Japan. I've been also arguing that despite the formal ending of the occupation, the U.S. military continued to exist, retaining unrestrained rights to using all these bases and areas just the same as before. You may euphemistically refer to this situation as "U.S. military presence hosted by Japan" but I call it "virtual occupation" of Japan, Okinawa in particular.

And your argument is wrong, so there is no argument. And you continue to dig a deeper hole trying to get out from the fact that you have stated that there is no occupation of Okinawa.

No matter how much other useless information you throw out, you can not back away from your statement that there is no occupation of Okinawa. That simple.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yubaru,

I've been saying actual occupation ended in 1952 in mainland Japan when the San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect and in 1972 in Okinawa when it was returned to Japan. 

If the U.S. had withdrawn all its occupying forces from Japan as other Allied forces did, I would say, yes, occupation ended in name and substance. But U.S. forces remained, renaming themselves as USFJ, justifying their presence for the defense of Japan, thus continually occupying so much land, air and sea space just the same as before.

What else can one call such a situation except "virtual occupation" or "pseudo-occupation"? You may not like the terms but they describe the situation quite aptly.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Yubaru,

As for the question I asked, you seem to be intentionally ignoring it.  But I know you can't answer it even if you asked for help from Japan hands at the U.S. government. In other words, this Henoko relocation plan is nothing but shenanigans whereby the whole plan can be scrapped outright.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

voiceofokinawa,

I admire your tenacity but you are never going to win an argument with the pro-base people by using the terms Military Occupation. They will always counter with the J-Govt. can tell the U.S. to leave at any time but we all know that the J-Govt. especially the LDP will never tell the U.S. Military to leave even if there was an accident that killed 10,000 Okinawans. The best way to fight the U.S. bases on Okinawa is to point out all of the wasted land taken up by the excessive number of Military Dependents on Okinawa. Most of the land used by the U.S. Military on Okinawa is taken up by Military Family Housing, Dependent Schools and Leisure Facilities for Military Dependents. Okinawa should be an Unaccompanied Tour of Duty without dependents. No dependents on Okinawa would mean that over 50% of the land currently used by the U.S. Military on Okinawa could be returned without any affect on the Military Mission. The number of Military Troops on Okinawa is not the problem, the number of Military Dependents on Okinawa is the reason so much land is needed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@voiceofokinawa

You saying 'virtual occupation' is just your way of saying Okinawa is still under military occupation, which it is not. That's all there is to it. The rest of your nonsense is irrelevant and an attempt to divert the conversation away from your failed attempt at proving a military occupation where there is none. Period.

@japan4life

So you don't have a problem with the military there to defend you, but the soldiers don't deserve to be with their families while they do it. Got it. I'll keep what I think of that attitude to myself.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

extanker:

Keep my attitude wherever you want. I was stationed on Okinawa in the U.S. Army from 1967 to 1968 and I worked inside the bases on Okinawa from 1971 until 2013 as a civilian so I am authorized to have whatever attitude I want about the U.S. Bases on Okinawa. The truth is there are too many Military Dependents on Okinawa and they take up too much of the land on this small island. Most of the land used by the U.S. Military on Okinawa is taken up by Military Family Housing, Dependent Schools and Leisure Facilities that would not be needed if Okinawa was an unaccompanied tour. If you cannot stand to be without your family for one or two years then you should not be in the U.S. Military. Make Okinawa an Unaccompanied Tour of Duty and return all excess land to the people of Okinawa so they can improve their quality of life.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Having spent time on more than one unaccompanied tour, I can speak about it too. Unaccompanied tours are out of necessity. It is not a necessity on Okinawa.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

extanker:

I believe that an unaccompanied tour is a necessity on Okinawa because this is a small island with limited resources and the local population keeps increasing and the number of tourists keep increasing. I don't know how much you actually know about the bases on Okinawa, but I would ask you to take a close look at them and just see how much land the Military Dependents take up. If you were talking about Mainland Japan then I would agree that an unaccompanied tour is not a necessity but for the small island of Okinawa, I believe it is. I know that it might sound cruel but U.S. Military personnel come to Okinawa to perform a mission and that mission can be performed without Military Dependents.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

All military missions can be performed without dependents, but when they don't have to be, they shouldn't be.

I know first hand about being unaccompanied because there is no space for families. The facilities and space for dependents exist on Okinawa and the Okinawans aren't crammed into overcrowded cities because of them. You and I both know there would be protests if they were, but it's never even mentioned. Even voiceofokinawa never brings it up in any of his rants and he reaches for anything.

This is something we won't agree on.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

return all excess land to the people of Okinawa so they can improve their quality of life

It's not the military bases that degrade their quality of life, it's the dysfunction and laziness of the OPG. They've done nothing to improve the economic opportunities outside of boost tourism. Tourism increases may look good but it only provides low paying service industry jobs. Rather than focus on base issues the OPG could focus on bringing in higher paying industries (tech, pharma, transport) that would higher skilled/educated people. Those companies aren't staying away because of the bases and educated Okinawans aren't moving to the mainland because of the bases.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As for the question I asked, you seem to be intentionally ignoring it. But I know you can't answer it even if you asked for help from Japan hands at the U.S. government. In other words, this Henoko relocation plan is nothing but shenanigans whereby the whole plan can be scrapped outright.

Ahh, when will you learn to read? I have answered your question here, and am not personally not going to be goaded, least wise by you, to repeat myself again.

Others have well have answered your question, and just because you do not like the numerous responses myself and others gave you, you choose to ignore them, so I will leave it to you to attempt to figure out why you are being brushed aside here.

Okinawa should be an Unaccompanied Tour of Duty without dependents.Dependent Schools and Leisure Facilities that would not be needed if Okinawa was an unaccompanied tour. If you cannot stand to be without your family for one or two years then you should not be in the U.S. Military. Make Okinawa an Unaccompanied Tour of Duty and return all excess land to the people of Okinawa so they can improve their quality of life.

You obviously are unaware of what Okinawa was like when it was an unaccompanied tour in the past.

I'll give you some free advice here, don't wish for something you have no idea about, as it's been done, and if you knew what it was like, you would NOT be making a comment like this.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Make Okinawa an Unaccompanied Tour of Duty and return all excess land to the people of Okinawa so they can improve their quality of life.

If in fact you truly DID live here for all those years you are talking about, you have kept your head in the "virtual" sand the whole time if you think that returning excess land alone is going to "improve" the quality of life here.

Even the people of Okinawa are coming to realize that they don't "need" another AEON, or San Ei, or another mammoth resort or shopping center, as the money generated from those businesses flows, for the most part, out of the prefecture.

They don't "improve" things here, they actually make things worse for many,

Naha Aeon, Haebaru Aeon, Gushikawa Aeon, Mihama Aeon, Nago Aeon, Aeon Rycomm Mall, San Ei, Main Place, San Ei Hanby, Tomigusuku WIng City San Ei, Gushikawa Main Place San Ei, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on......

Think about that, all these "shopping centers" all low paying entry level jobs, all being supported by a local population of roughly 1.1 million people on the main island of Okinawa,

Oh wait, it's the roughly 10,000,000 tourists that come here yearly, nearly 20,000,000 total that fly in and out of here yearly.

That ain't quality, believe me!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You are repeating the same old babble here again

Oh the irony... :-D

2 ( +2 / -0 )

extanker,

Can you answer the question for Yubaru and prove that the Henoko relocation is worth forging ahead with? He says he has given the answer already but he hasn't, repeatedly saying he can't be forced to answer.

Or do you think his comment just above is the answer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Addendum:

Not only Yubaru but also all those for the relocation, let alone U.S. government policy makers, sound to me like crying babies for a big, free candy (Henoko relocation) for no particular reason!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I know I’ve given you that answer... But I’ll bite mostly because it continues to demonstrate to the casual readers that you just ignore everything that you don’t agree with and repeat the same question.

A simple google search will show you the layout of will show you that the majority of MCAS Futenma’s aircraft are transport and not attack aircraft. Not only that but they’re all helicopters and the Osprey are their only the only long distance capable. The majority of the Marine Corps assets needed to conduct defense and humanitarian contingencies are in Okinawa. Building a replacement air station anywhere other than on Camp Schwab, Okinawa is like building a garage for your car an hours drive away from you house. There’s no logic behind it. Next look up how the Marine Corps Air Ground Task Force works and it further demonstrates why Japan and the US agree that Okinawa is the best Japanese prefecture for the air station.

“I don’t like it” and “it’s not fair” are not logical arguments. That’s all you and the minority of Okinawans say.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Will show you the layout of aircraft in MCAS Futenma*

Furthermore, the costs of flying aircraft down to Okinawa from external bases would be expensive for both Japan and the US. Not only that but the aircraft would be in Okinawa at the same frequency they are now to support the same training and operations requirements they have in defense of japan and regional allies.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

CyburnweticTiger,

For your sake, let me remind you that the two governments agreed that Henoko relocation was the only viable solution for the Futenma issue because (1) it reduces potential danger posed by the current location and (2) Futenma's function must be maintained in Okinawa for deterrence purposes.

Under such circumstances, then, what does your mentioning of the types of Futenma-based aircraft have to do with the explanation given by the two governments? Or do you want to say all these aircraft, helicopters and Ospreys, have inherent mechanical defect, so that they must be moved to a less populated area like Henoko in Nago City?

Your mention of "defense and humanitarian contingencies" has nothing to do with why Futenma must be relocated within Okinawa. It's been bilaterally agreed that Japan's SDF have to deal with any emergencies deriving from territorial disputes and that the Marines' responsibility is only secondary, never primary.

As for humanitarian emergencies, like in natural disasters, that may occur in Japan do you think Japan's SDF can't deal with them alone and urgently, but they always need the U.S. Marines' help with this much base land and tax money provided and squandered for them?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

D= M/V

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CyburneticTigar,

Sorry, I can't make out what you mean by the equation D = M/V (Density equals mass divided by mass).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Futenma must returned with no strings attached.  Period.

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