national

Protest rally marks one year since start of seawall work for U.S. base

49 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

49 Comments
Login to comment

. (information on) the marines are a “Department of the Navy.” See. So they’re not there illegally.

Remember...the person you are replying to is using a very typical and annoying Japanese type response to issues they can not win, obfuscate and change the discussion to a totally different and irrelevant point of discussion.

It matters ZERO about the MC, and he switches tactics when one is worn out and no longer relevant. Done it too many times in the past, and now the favorite, "flavor of the day" is the goofy and ignorant opinion about the legality of the MC in the treaty.

While conveniently overlooking the actual history of when the treaty was signed, the make up of the armed forces at the time, and the changes that occurred decades afterwards.

No one that matters even blinked an eyelid....

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Look, one poster here continues to beat a dead horse, ignore him, it's the same irrelevant tune. Consider it their point had ANY validity at all, folks a hell of a lot smarter would have grasped upon it and used it as a tool to stop the base extension. But no one has...why? it's totally irrelevant and only discussed by one person here, enough said.

Onaga has lost a ton of support, the "All Okinawa" campaign has been a failure, even the head of the largest hotel chain on Okinawa, and a very powerful business leader here, the head of the Karuyushi Hotels group, withdrew his support for Onaga, because he has refused to hold a referendum on the topic, and because he has lied about his intentions.

Onaga has lost support, lost elections, and faces losing his own this coming November.

These protesters are getting little press outside of Okinawa, (or JT for that matter) and are just paid trouble-makers who have little if anything else to do!

This too will pass, just ignore the BGM

5 ( +9 / -4 )

The current mayor of NAGO not Henoko, either way the people who will be most effected by the military presence didnt vote against the relocation , they see the economic benefits will out weight the disadvantages, and they voted accordingly

5 ( +6 / -1 )

who are trouble makers?

Henoko residents recently voted for a pro-base mayor and against an antibase movement. Henoko people have spoken and the protesters should respect their decision. New Henoko base will have takeoff and landings over the ocean so the risk to lives in the area will be tiny. Okinawan residents commit more crimes per capita than the marines do in Okinawa so the false flag of increased crime is also debunked.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Marines have by long standing tradition always been a specialist unit recognised in most militaries as being part of the Navy.

clue is in the name...marine.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Marine Corps Air Station Futenma should have been moved a long time ago to Kadena Air Base where there are two large long runways seldom used, with lots of room on the backside where the Navy is located for additional buildings or moved to the backside of Camp Hansen where there is ample room for a runway such as Futenma has. Hansen is where the troops are.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@voice of Okinawa...... (information on) the marines are a “Department of the Navy.”

See. So they’re not there illegally.

but I do agree something needs to be done about the military burden Okinawa faces.

Perhaps mainland Japan can host those bases. Looks like The Okinawans had enough.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The Okinawan's have always had it hard from Japan - particularly in the 2nd World War. Perhaps they should declare independent and welcome the US forces as a major source of income.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Trouble makers.

Okinawa needs the US military and their bases. Just a handful of bored troublemakers, nothing to see here move along. The base and the fighting men and women of the US army are staying, accept it.

1 ( +13 / -12 )

Good for them for standing up against the relocation.

The bases should be moved completely out of Okinawa, and Japan.

Should there be a war against the US, those bases will also be targeted and sadly, many innocent Japanese lives will be lost. This nothing but just modern colonization using the military.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

Old core Okinawan Japanese Have no love loss for USMC since WWII. It has nothing to do with a base shifting. SOPA will dictate the final outcome of this tit 4 tat and in the long run — the security of Japan will win out.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Mia Tanaka,

You list all these 'infractions' by the US towards Okinawa, when statistics and pure numbers show the facts: US forces on Okinawa commit crimes and have accidents at a lower rate (not pure numbers, but incidents per 1,000 people) than Japanese in Okinawa.

The fact that every incident by a US servicemember in Okinawa is blown up to be a huge deal is not only creating a false dichotomy in your mind, but also doing nothing but blurring the facts.

The statistics don't lie, Japanese in Okinawa drive drunk, have accidents, fight, rape, and murder at higher rates than US military in Okinawa.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

But "land, air and naval forces" are general-purpose expressions referring to military formation in an actual combat scene, subject to dismantlement as soon as the war is over.

Well, that doesn't make sense. Why would they use "expressions referring to military formation in an actual combat scene, subject to dismantlement as soon as the war is over" in a treaty written after the war was over?

Also, at least until space forces exists, all military groups have to be either land, air or naval no matter what names you give them or how many groups you split them up into.

So you must prove

No, I don't have to prove anything. You would have to prove that your reading of the treaty is correct, while the government of Japan (who signed the treaty) are obviously of the opinion that the Marines are covered by the treaty.

we welcomed it enthusiastically,

So, in 1996 you didn't believe the treaty or the Hague Convention prohibited Marines. Why not?

Unless you disprove my claim or if you just ignore it, the Marines in Okinawa will be dubbed as illegal squatters . You simply can't "let it go."

You have said you welcomed them 'enthusiastically' in 1996. That pretty much disproves your current claim.

Also, I notice you haven't responded to my rebuttal of your Hague Convention claims.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Unless you disprove my claim or if you just ignore it, the Marines in Okinawa will be dubbed as illegal squatters . You simply can't "let it go."

You’re literally the only one who says this so it’s no skin off of the logical thinkers back. If you really think this is true you should put your money where your mouth is and file a lawsuit over and it instead if repeating it in a comment section.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The confiscation of land by the US military in Okinawa clearly was against the Hague treaties and beyond that inhumane and unjust in every respect.

Then cite the article that it violates.

Mike....really, into the vortex you go!

> I give you tons of credit for the attempt, but you are going to get a headache banging your head against the wall.

> Just keeps repeating (regurgitating) the same responses over and over. Gilded guano is still guano underneath.

And you completely miss the point of opposing the false arguments. I know he will never change his mind and I don't expect to have any effect on his inane beliefs. But others who aren't well versed in the laws, treaties and situation may believe that there is some truth to his arguments. If no one posts opposing views and facts then all the uninformed readers will get is the extremist view and with only that one view presented the uninformed may be (even unconsciously) swayed toward believing that the silly argument actually has some validity.

So, it is to the casual reader with no knowledge of the situation that I post the opposing factual points and that I challenge him to support his claims with actual facts and citation. So everyone with an open mind can see how his arguments and citations fail.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.

Fair enough, I and others, have been down that road, and I give you credit for doing what you are doing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Anyone who continues to bring up the Hague convention in any discussion here is being purposely ignorant of reality.

It's that simple, it has no bearing on today and is purely an esoteric academic conversation that will end up with the same conclusion, it doesn't matter now.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The following article gives a good overview of the inhumane history and the facts around Futenma and the US military in Okinawa: 

Right...totally biased, just like the media in Okinawa, only willing to put out one side of a story, and then over exaggerating the information, and not to mention that it's 7 years old, and the information being stated as fact "then" no longer holds true today.

Just like your Hague arguments, you and others continue to live in the past.

You lost, the extension is being built, will be built, Futenma will finally be closed, and you will have to find a new soap box to stand on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Henoko residents recently voted for a pro-base mayor 

Now you are going overboard, the residents of Henoko did not vote a pro-base mayor. It was the entire city of Nago that voted in a mayor that is pragmatic about the situation and not a one-issue mayor as his predecessor was.

The current mayor of NAGO not Henoko, which is just a district of Nago (other side of the island too) is NOT pro-base, but realizes that for the economy of Nago to thrive, needs the government funding that was stopped totally due to his predecessors obstinate stance against everything. Huge difference.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Assuming that they cant move the US present off the island, then surely relocating all the US bases to just one that's on the coast, is a lot better than having it landlocked and continually having issues with bits of whatever falling upon schools.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

voiceofokinawa,

The Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land Article 46 is part of Section III titled "Section III - Military authority over the territory of the hostile State". It applies to military forces occupying another countries lands. The US military is not occupying Okinawa as made clear by your mention of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, as the name implies is a treaty between Japan and the U.S. and thus any violation of the treaty is not a violation of international law since the treaty isn't international law. Also the version I have found says "use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan" and the Marines would fall under naval forces, or land forces or even air forces; so either way the Marines are allowed and not excluded. If there is a newer version with different wording I would be more than willing to follow any link you provide.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Protestors included those from outside Okinawa. Moriko Kawasaki, a 71-year-old resident of Kawasaki city, near Tokyo...

It's been always questionable who the protesters are because of outsiders like her - a political activist.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

They are not paid trouble-makers but overwhelmingly normal Okinawan citizens who care about peace and the Okinawan environment.

Over-whelming Okinawan's dont have the time nor money to spend their days sitting in protest, but wait, it's common knowledge that "regulars" and even some "part-timers" are in fact paid between 5,000 to 10,000 yen per day.

So..oh and the base is going to get built, better find a regular job!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Steven Fennel,

Since its start in April 2004, the Henoko sit-in has been going on for 5,118 days (about 14 years).

The Henoko relocation violates international law in two ways. First, USMC Air Station Futenma sits on the private lands forcefully requisitioned in violation of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Article 46), 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."

Second, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty allows only the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force to be able to be stationed in Japan, excluding the Marines. The Marines are stationed in Okinawa like illegal squatters occupying the bulk of U.S. military base land in Okinawa.

The government’s explanation that Henoko is "the only solution" to addressing the noise pollution and the risk of accidents while maintaining deterrence is shenanigans. I've argued against this on various occasions on JT.

So, Steven Fennel, who are trouble makers?

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

been snorkelling there. it was amazing. now stuffed up by an occupying for intent on worldwide wars. a shame and i am so sad. truly beautiful place. but on the positive side, at least people are prepared to be brutalised by police for their believe that nature is beautiful.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

There’s a lot of people who simply want the USA out without thinking of the consequences. Quite silly and narrow minded if you ask me.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

So, Steven Fennel, who are trouble makers

The protesters, as I said.

Ones who likely voted for the pro-base mayor? and ones who will likely come begging for protection from US forces in the event of a serious military dispute against their neighbors? Yeah... thought so

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The Pentagon's Organizational Structure shows there're 4 distinct services in the U.S. Armed Forces: the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, that are commanded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The fact that two Marine generals participates in this highest military body independent of the Navy tells the Marines aren't an arm subsumed under the Navy.

The marines are under the navy, period. Stop trying to make this more complicated than it is. Why on earth would US deliberately leave out the marines from the security treaty when they had every intention of stationing the marines in Japan? Obviously the US and Japan recognized the marines as being under the navy. Unlike the army and airforce, The marines cannot function without the navy. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Put this tired argument to rest.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Okinawan Japanese

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Darknuts  (Apr. 23 11:12 pm JST),

The marines are under the navy, period. Stop trying to make this more complicated than it is.

So in you view, the U.S. Marines are not an independent military service. Individual Marine thinks he is a sailor per se, you want to say? This may have been true when the Marines were created as an arm of the Navy after the British Marines, which they still are.

Mind you. The U.S. Marines are under the Department of the Navy for administrative reasons but never under the Navy for a military organization. They are one of the four services in the U.S. Armed Forces.  It is because of this that two Marine generals participate in the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with the Army, Navy and Air Force. A Marine general even heads this highest military organization currently.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Mike O'brien,

As you say, yes, the English version of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates the U.S. is granted "the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan (Article 6)." But "land, air and naval forces" are general-purpose expressions referring to military formation in an actual combat scene, subject to dismantlement as soon as the war is over.

In the Japanese version, the expressions in question are clearly stated as "the Army, Air Force and Navy." So you must prove that the Marines are the Navy or part of it in order to justify the Marines' stationing in Okinawa.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

When the return of USMC Air Station Futenma was announced by then Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto on April 12, 1996, with its function to be moved to Kadena Air Base, we welcomed it enthusiastically, paying little attention to the condition attached to it. 

The next day, Kadena residents voiced their opposition to the plan saying they are already burdened with too much noise pollution.  The Kadena-based 18th Wing of the U.S. Air Force also strongly expressed their disagreement of joint use of runways with the Marine Air Wing even though Navy aircraft have been based there and jointly using it for a long time. 

This was the start of  turmoil about this relocation issue. Does the U.S. side have any right to demanding Futenma's replacement be built within Okinawa? Close it right then and there, if Kadena is of no use, and return the land unconditionally.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Mike O'brien...Like the song says..."Let it go, let it go...."

The arguments are PURELY semantics, you are getting into a discussion where your words will be twisted, and your comments dismissed out of hand, because you refuse to 100% blindly agree with the person you are replying to...."let it go, let it go...."

Don't fall for the "demands" "You must ...." this or "you must that"....it's childish at best.

In one ear, out the other.....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Unless you disprove my claim or if you just ignore it, the Marines in Okinawa will be dubbed as illegal squatters . You simply can't "let it go."

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Mike O'brien...Like the song says..."Let it go, let it go...."

The arguments are PURELY semantics, you are getting into a discussion where your words will be twisted, and your comments dismissed out of hand, because you refuse to 100% blindly agree with the person you are replying to...."let it go, let it go...."

Don't fall for the "demands" "You must ...." this or "you must that"....it's childish at best.

In one ear, out the other.....

Yubaru knows what's up. Listen to him.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Mike....really, into the vortex you go!

I give you tons of credit for the attempt, but you are going to get a headache banging your head against the wall.

Just keeps repeating (regurgitating) the same responses over and over.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/23/national/politics-diplomacy/ruling-bloc-backed-incumbent-wins-okinawa-mayoral-election/#.Wt43QhZlCEc

So that means every city excluding Naha and Nanjo have pro ruling block mayors who will execute the relocation. If it doesn’t make it clear that the relocation is not a focal point of Okinawa politics the you’re just being delusional. This issue is done, the dead horse has been beaten to pulp. Let’s move on with our lives.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Correction:

The acronym "DoD" in the last paragraph should be: DoN.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@ Mike O'Brien

The confiscation of land by the US military in Okinawa clearly was against the Hague treaties and beyond that inhumane and unjust in every respect.

Without this lawless action of the US there would be no Futenma Military Base and also many other US military facilities in Okinawa built on land forcefully taken away from its rightful owners would exist.

Just because this is a reality since more than 70 doesn't make it right and the strong opposition in Okinawa against the Futenma relocation (more then 70% of the prefectures citizens oppose it) within the prefecture is based on this experience if injustice.

@ Yubaru

Over-whelming Okinawan's dont have the time nor money to spend their days sitting in protest,

True.

but wait, it's common knowledge that "regulars" and even some "part-timers" are in fact paid between 5,000 to 10,000 yen per day.

Where is that common knowledge? In the Japanese right-wing "Net-uyo" circles?

Except maybe for some undercover agents from Tokyo the protestors are genuinely fighting for their citizens rights and the effort they undertake to stop the construction of a new military facility is so immense that no money could compensate.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@ Mike O'Brien

Then cite the article that it violates.

Just as voiceofokinawa has already pointed out article 46 of The Hague Convention, which states: “Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.”

You tried to obfuscate the violation of the Hague Convention here: 

It applies to military forces occupying another countries lands. The US military is not occupying Okinawa as made clear by your mention of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

The time when the land was forcefully taken the US military was in fact occupying Okinawa and therefor the act was a violation of an international treaty the US had ratified. 

FYI:

"After World War II, the judges of the military tribunal of the Trial of German Major War Criminals at Nuremberg Trials found that by 1939, the rules laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention were recognised by all civilised nations and were regarded as declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague Convention in order to be bound by them." (Wikipedia)

The following article gives a good overview of the inhumane history and the facts around Futenma and the US military in Okinawa: 

https://apjjf.org/2011/9/43/Yoshio-SHIMOJI/3622/article.html

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Mike O'brien (Apr. 25 | 07:36 pm JST),

I know he will never change his mind and I don't expect to have any effect on his inane beliefs.

Do you want to say yours are sublime beliefs and mine inane ones? You believe Futenma was built legitimately whereby the demand by the U.S. side of its relocation to Henoko is legitimate enough? You believe the Marine Corps is a cog of the Navy whereby their presence in Okinawa, occupying so much areas on land, in the air and at the sea, is nothing wrong in view of Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

Futenma was built on private lands that were confiscated in blatant violation of international law.  Also, the Marines definitely aren't under the Navy. One can say this because their generals join the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with Army, Navy and Air Force generals. In fact, a Marine general currently serves as the chairman of this highest U.S. military echelon. The fact that the Marines are attached to the Department of the Navy, a body responsible for the administrative affairs of both the Navy and the Marine Corps, doesn't tell the Marines are under the Navy. You mustn't confuse an administrative body (the Department of the Navy) with a military organization or service (the Navy).

There're four independent military services in the U.S. Armed Forces: the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps. And Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates that the "U.S.is granted use by its Army, Navy and Air Force of bases and areas in Japan."

Refute these arguments of mine one by one logically and convincingly. Don't simply say they are my inane beliefs.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

China has invested money into this as well. It’s been proven that they meddled in Australian and NZ politics.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

wtfjapan (Today 06:17 pm JST),

I think you are talking about Taketoyo Toguchi, a candidate who was backed frantically by Shinzo Abe and the party he heads, the LDP, with lavish election funds poured in. During the campaign, however, Toguchi cleverly avoided making Henoko an election issue. He hasn't clarified his position as yet as regards the Henoko relocation issue.

Toguchi won the mayoral election all right, but that doesn't mean Futenma's illegality has been exonerated nor has the illegality of the Marines' stationing in Okinawa.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

These protesters are getting little press outside of Okinawa, (or JT for that matter) and are just paid trouble-makers who have little if anything else to do!

Yubaru, you are spreading debunked rumors of right-wing propaganda channels. They are not paid trouble-makers but overwhelmingly normal Okinawan citizens who care about peace and the Okinawan environment.

They are making full use of their rights as citizens of a constitutional democracy, while the Japanese government tries to scare, intimidate and even jail them based on far-fetched reasons for month at a time to destroy their opposition.

Now you are going overboard, the residents of Henoko did not vote a pro-base mayor. It was the entire city of Nago that voted in a mayor that is pragmatic about the situation and not a one-issue mayor as his predecessor was.

True here, he's not a pro base mayor, but he's less "pragmatic" than "submissive" as he bases his policies largely on dirty money directly form the central government. Dirty because the central government should not get involved in local elections, but it did so shamelessly in Nago.

Remember...the person you are replying to is using a very typical and annoying Japanese type response to issues they can not win, obfuscate and change the discussion to a totally different and irrelevant point of discussion.

And the way you write in a thoroughly disrespectful way about other posters here speaks for itself.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

As I have said before, Japan needs to regain its sovereignty. For the last 70 years Japan has been occupied by the US and given the chance the US will effectively annex Japan, as they have many other islands. The Japanese vote for a Japanese prim minister but get American president. Vote for someone who is prepared to stand up to the US and tell them to remove all there bases. Forget all the US propaganda about security. Japan needs security from US domination and dictatorship.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

This is the sight of freedom. The people of Okinawa want their home to be free of foreign troops.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Yubaru, darknuts, Steven Fennel, Mike O'brien, extanker, CrucialS:

I assume you are all Marines, or ex-Marines, proud of yourselves as being real soldiers. Or do you think you are sailors or ex-sailors?

The fact that the Marine Corps is attached in the U.S. government to the Department of the Navy, a body responsible for dealing with the administrative affairs of the Navy and Marine Corps, is only incidental or for the sake of administrative convenience. Until recently, the Coast Guard was also attached to the DoN. Since they share more features of warfare with the Army than with the Navy, the Marine could have been attached to the Department of the Army. But do you like it?

The fact that the Marines are attached to the DoD doesn't mean the Marine Corps is an arm subsumed under the Navy. It is a service independent of the Navy and on a par with the Navy. How do explain two Marine generals are members of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff with their capacity on a par with Army, Air Force and Navy generals?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

who will support the execution*

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Wc62six,

Thank you for the comment, but there's a catch in it. 

Certainly, the Marines are attached to the Department of the Navy at the Pentagon. But the Department of the Navy is a bureaucratic body headed by a civilian secretary that administers the affairs of the Navy and the Marines. The Department is not a military organization. One must distinguish the difference between a bureaucratic organization and a military organization (service) clearly.

The Pentagon's Organizational Structure shows there're 4 distinct services in the U.S. Armed Forces: the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, that are commanded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The fact that two Marine generals participates in this highest military body independent of the Navy tells the Marines aren't an arm subsumed under the Navy.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

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