politics

U.S. committed to defense of Japan over N Korean threat: Pentagon

55 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

North Korea would end up as a nuclear wasteland.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The USA will support Japan as long as Japan fire the first shot.

The USA will say we did not fire the first shot. Trump is bullying other nations to commit first.

Trump is as shallow as a dried up swamp.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

That is nice. But one of the main motivations for revising the constitution to allow a realy military is that the US has not won a war since they beat us in WWII. Can they really protect us? Yes, I know we actually have a military, but it is under the police department.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Zenji - I do not like Trump but I do not think he is trying to get other countries to commit first. @Gokai - As an American living in Japan I believe the constitutional revision should be put to a vote of the Japanese people and if the people of Japan want the constitution revised by all means it should happen. Many foreigners (like me) are on this site saying what they think Japan should or should not do (vis a vis Article 9). I am a Permanent Resident of Japan but I believe this is an issue for Japanese citizens to decide.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Tokyo-Engr.

Agree it is up the Japanese, hence why a referendum is required to get final approval thus the populace gets the final say.

Myself not involving myself in that issue, nor US politics, etc as I have no say in them.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

USA owes too Japan more than to China, so Trump. has been mean to China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Does Mattis have to reassure Onodera that the U.S. is committed to defend Japan with all its deterrence capability when Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates and guarantees it? Doesn't Mattis' daring to mention it mean there's a room to doubt about the integrity of the said treaty?

Under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, the range of U.S. forces in Japan's military action is limited to the Far East. Why does the Pentagon statement say that Mattis and Onodera affirmed that Japan ;and the U.S. must cooperate to not only "address the growing threat posed by North Korea" but also "maintain stability throughout the Indo-Pacific region."

The second part in the quoted extract violates the Japanese constitution on the part of Japan and Article 6 of the Security Treaty for both countries.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

voiceofokinawaDec. 3 10:38 pm JST Does Mattis have to reassure Onodera that the U.S. is committed to defend Japan with all its deterrence capability when Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates and guarantees it? Doesn't Mattis' daring to mention it mean there's a room to doubt about the integrity of the said treaty?

You got that backwards. It is normal for parties to reaffirm their commitment to a security treaty. For example, this year Trump failed to reaffirm our commitment to NATO, something that previous US Presidents have always done. Coming after his remarks about NATO members needing to contribute more funds, this lack of comment raised eyebrows.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty says the U.S. is guaranteed to use facilities and areas in Japan by "its land, air and naval forces." The Japanese version of the treaty is more specific about these forces as the "Army, Air Force and Navy." 

Since English and Japanese versions have the same and equal force, the U.S. cannot station Marines and Coast Guards regiments in Japan. Some may say Marines and Coast Guards are included in "naval forces" but note that the terms "land, air and naval forces" are strategic terminology used only in an actual war. 

The U.S. is apparently violating provisions stipulated in the Security Treaty but it's no big deal for the U.S. anyway because the treaty is a camouflage to continue the post-war regime of occupation even after Japan recovered its independence in 1951.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I think you're being ridiculously nitpicky. By your reasoning the JSDF shouldn't exist either.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

OssanAmerica,

Am I too nitpicky? Never. 

Under this dubious nature of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, Okinawa is subjected to being a U.S. military colony forever, thus taking the brunt of the most negative part of it. This abominable state of affairs may go on the longer, the more the U.S. government confirms its commitment to the perfunctory treaty.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Okinawa has it's problems. But it is not a US colony, The US does not have "colonies". Removing the US military presence will entail Japan having to completely re-write their constitution and build an offensive/defensive military capability. Something that the majority of Japanese people do not appear to want. Or are you suggesting that Okinawa should become a Chinese colony?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

America has never won a war since ww2. Afghanistan 16 years against a nation where many can’t even read or write. Georgia War...America ran away after guaranteeing protect. After Russia won, they offered to sell weapons to Georgia.

I don’t want to sound negative towards America, to their credit, they are very good at starting wars. Maybe after Tokyo and Seoul are destroyed, these countries can have a reconstruction bubble and boost our economies.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Since English and Japanese versions have the same and equal force, the U.S. cannot station Marines and Coast Guards regiments in Japan. Some may say Marines and Coast Guards are included in "naval forces" but note that the terms "land, air and naval forces" are strategic terminology used only in an actual war. 

As defined by the National Security Act of 1947; the Marine Corps is within the Department of the Navy.

"The United States Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall include land combat and service forces and such aviation as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall he organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign [..]" It's primary purpose is to support the Navy and naval operations. It's 100% lawful under Article 6 for the Marine Corps to be in Japan. SMDH

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Removing the US military presence will entail Japan having to completely re-write their constitution and build an offensive/defensive military capability. Something that the majority of Japanese people do not appear to want. Or are you suggesting that Okinawa should become a Chinese colony

Okinawa Gov Onaga, "voiceofokinawa", and left-wingers, et al., do not consider China as a "colonizer". They would welcome Chinese assistance be an independent country once again   After Okinawa becomes independent, they would welcome Chinese assistance to oust U.S. and Japanese military forces and welcome Chinese trade and infrastructure investment in Okinawa via its "One Belt, One Road" program.

(China will expand its "Silk Belt Road" program wherever the U.S. retreats.)

Wherever China invests in other countries via its "One Belt, One Road" program, the Chinese military will be there to protect Chinese assets and investments and enforce its policies. And with Chinese investment in Okinawa, no doubt the Chinese military will build military bases near the island, if not on the island.  

China is not a benevolent investor without strings; they will expect things in return, i.e., to further China's economic interests and political powers globally.

With all the Chinese financial and infrastructure investments in Okinawa, Okinawa will unwittingly be a vassal and/or colony of China. 

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Halwick,

You are not refuting my argument logically but simply ranting like a member of a crime syndicate threatening people on your turf, saying, "Look. If we evacuate from here our vicious rival syndicate will take over and you become their turf. Do you like it?”

The U.S. military government in Okinawa during the occupation era used to say that U.S. forces would withdraw from Okinawa outright as soon as threat from communism ceased to exist. So when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, we naturally thought that that was the time Okinawa's wish would come true. It offered a rare chance when the East and the West could truly reconcile and genuine international peace would be realized once and for all. But what did the U.S. government do? Now a single super power, the U.S. made its utmost effort to expand its sphere of influence all over the world, even in the old Soviet bloc.

Old antagonism is born of it once again, and the U.S. slyly uses a resultant insecure and muddled world situation to justify its overwhelming military presence in Okinawa.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

voiceofokinawa: "The U.S. military government in Okinawa during the occupation era used to say that U.S. forces would withdraw from Okinawa outright as soon as threat from communism ceased to exist."

Never heard of China? North Korea?

"Now a single super power, the U.S. made its utmost effort to expand its sphere of influence all over the world, even in the old Soviet bloc."

So, China an North Korea are the US' fault. I guess you forget they were only made the way they are because of Japanese occupation, and Okinawa is part of Japan. That makes it partly your fault (Okinawa). The US is there for YOUR protection. You can thank them for it, especially with NK ready to nuke Japan, and Russia and China getting ready to sweep in and take over as much of NK as they can in the inevitable wake.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

voiceofokinawa: "Am I too nitpicky? Never. "

Actually, you are absolutely being nitpicky, and hypocritical to boot. But you guys always are. You cry about the US being there and making a new base, saying it'll hurt the environment, then support Onaga on wrecking the local environment to build a new airport on Ishigaki Island. You cry about how it's not safe when a US chopper goes down in an empty field, with no one hurt, but when an SDF chopper goes down and people die you're suddenly silent. And most importantly, you claim to be a voice of the entire island chain but are the voice of a minority alone, and still want the money handouts for housing bases when it's inhabitants get the boot.

Oh, and you guys should look up the word "colony", because Okinawa is not one.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

voiceofokinawaDec. 4 07:30 am JST

Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty says the U.S. is guaranteed to use facilities and areas in Japan by "its land, air and naval forces." The Japanese version of the treaty is more specific about these forces as the "Army, Air Force and Navy." 

Since English and Japanese versions have the same and equal force, the U.S. cannot station Marines and Coast Guards regiments in Japan. Some may say Marines and Coast Guards are included in "naval forces" but note that the terms "land, air and naval forces" are strategic terminology used only in an actual war. 

The U.S. is apparently violating provisions stipulated in the Security Treaty but it's no big deal for the U.S. anyway because the treaty is a camouflage to continue the post-war regime of occupation even after Japan recovered its independence in 1951.

Once again, you go on one of your conspiratorial rants without even a basic understanding of the subject at hand. Right off the bat, you show that have no actual knowledge of the make-up of the branches of the US military. If you did, then you would know that the US Marines are not actually their own branch, but are part of the Department of the Navy (that big anchor as part of their emblem is a big giveaway...). Which means, even in your tin-foil hat world, that the Marines are still perfectly acceptable 'naval' forces. That's just the beginning of your argument falling apart.

Your continued arguments are laughable nonsense, but by all means, please do go on, as I'm sure you will.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As a bonus, here is the legal definition of military occupation from West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

Strangely enough, this is not at all what the US military is doing in Japan. No military administration, no martial law, no forcing the population to work on their behalf (no, paying Japanese contractors doesn't count, sorry). Japan governs itself = no occupation. I'm sure you are disappointed, voiceofokinawa. Not that you will accept it.

Military Occupation

Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily. While hostilities continue, the occupying state is prohibited by International Law from annexing the territory or creating another state out of it, but the occupying state may establish some form of military administration over the territory and the population. Under the Martial Law imposed by this regime, residents are required to obey the occupying authorities and may be punished for not doing so. Civilians may also be compelled to perform a variety of nonmilitary tasks for the occupying authorities, such as the repair of roads and buildings, provided such work does not contribute directly to the enemy war effort.

Although the power of the occupying army is broad, the military authorities are obligated under international law to maintain public order, respect private property, and honor individual liberties. Civilians may not be deported to the occupant's territory to perform forced labor nor impressed into military service on behalf of the occupying army. Although measures may be imposed to protect and maintain the occupying forces, existing laws and administrative rules are not to be changed. Regulations of the Hague Conventions of 1907 and, more importantly, the 1949 geneva convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War have attempted to codify and expand the protection afforded the local population during periods of military occupation.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

CrusialS:  Dec. 4 | 01:05 pm JST

As defined by the National Security Act of 1947; the Marine Corps is within the Department of the Navy.

There's no doubt that marines work closely together with the Navy in an actual war scene. In that sense, the marines and the navy constitute an entity called naval forces. The Marine Corps also acts as if it were a subsidiary of the Navy when dealing with the U.S. Congress regarding its budget.

But the Marine Corps is an independent military branch, constituting the Joint Chiefs of Staff together with other branches, the Army, Air Force and Navy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

There's no doubt that marines work closely together with the Navy in an actual war scene. In that sense, the marines and the navy constitute an entity called naval forces. The Marine Corps also acts as if it were a subsidiary of the Navy when dealing with the U.S. Congress regarding its budget.

But the Marine Corps is an independent military branch, constituting the Joint Chiefs of Staff together with other branches, the Army, Air Force and Navy.

Wrong. The Department of the Navy oversees both the Navy and Marine Corps. The highest ranking Marine is the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy. Just get over your silly conspiracies.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I have to admit I worded my original post poorly as they are considered their own 'branch', but operationally and for all intents and purposes, legally and otherwise, they are under the jurisdiction and part of the US Navy and still covered by the phrase 'army, navy and air force'.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The highest ranking Marine is the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy.

This is absolute public knowledge and it's indisputable fact. Literally every aspect of the Marine Corps daily operation is dictated by the Department of the Navy.

So in response to Voice.

The Marine Corps has it's own in administrative control of personnel and operational control of assets it uses to support the Naval Campaign. The Marine Corps however relies on the Navy for medical, religious, and legal services and the Navy owns and funds all Marine Corps aviation assets. TL/DR the Marines' are a component of the Department of the Navy and their presence in Japan is perfectly legal.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sorry I am re-posting something posted as a comment to another article. I think this post is relevant to both and important.

I read this interesting article last night, which is quite relevant to what Abe is saying.

Is it hype? Who knows. The gist is that Lindsey Graham, a Senator and member of the Armed Service Committee, also an ex Air Force officer wants the U.S. to stop sending dependents to South Korea to accompany service members.

I am not necessarily a fan of Mr. Graham, however his words do have some meaning and they are quite concerning. I think everyone should read the article and make their own judgments. From the article (link below)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/887671/North-korea-nuclear-weapon-kim-jong-un-donald-trump-urged-evacuate-military-bases-ww3

0 ( +0 / -0 )

voiceofokinawaDec. 4 11:21 pm JST

You are not refuting my argument logically but simply ranting like a member of a crime syndicate threatening people on your turf, saying, "Look. If we evacuate from here our vicious rival syndicate will take over and you become their turf. Do you like it?”

And again you ignore my previous comments and respond with deflective arguments instead. 

This indicates you do not consider China to be a threat and would welcome China as a "guest" (not "occupier") in Okinawa after U.S. military presence is removed.

Don't be foolded for a moment that China will benevolently and generously investment in Okinawa and arrange trade agreements without strings.  China will protect its assets and investments by moving in their military forces near Okinawa if not on the bases vacated by the U.S., and expect Okinawa to support China's global agenda.

And do you prefer Okinawa as a vassal of China instead of the U.S. as you claim?  I think you would like it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

extender: "Wrong. The Department of the Navy oversees both the Navy and Marine Corps. The highest ranking Marine is the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy. Just get over your silly conspiracies."

Ouch! Notice he's stopped replying?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

extanker, CrucialS & smithinjapan,

The U.S. Coast Guard maintains a LORAN facility in Kesaji, Okinawa.  On what legal basis are they entitled to maintain a base in Okinawa? Are they regarded as part of the Navy just like the Marines are? Dubious legal status for both, indeed.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

extanker, CrucialS & smithinjapan,

The U.S. Coast Guard maintains a LORAN facility in Kesaji, Okinawa. On what legal basis are they entitled to maintain a base in Okinawa? Are they regarded as part of the Navy just like the Marines are? Dubious legal status for both, indeed.

First off, just stop with the 'dubious legal status' crap about the Marines. I already proved that you are wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. Marines equals Navy. Period.

Second, do you even realize that LORAN was an ocean navigation system? I mean, it literally stands for 'LOng RAnge Navigation'. It was used by commercial shipping and aircraft in the region and even worked with Russian counterparts to provide more coverage. Oh and by the way, the US Coast Guard ceased all LORAN operations in 2010. The only thing the US Coast Guard does now in Japan is inspect cargo ships heading to the US. They're basically a glorified Customs office. Do you even look this stuff up before adding it to your conspiracy?

And do you know what their legal status to be in Japan is? Because the Japanese government gave them permission. Beyond all your security treaty paranoia, you fail to realize that not everything even relates to it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Oh and FYI, that LORAN base in Okinawa is long abandoned. It was handed over to the Japan Coast Guard in 1977 and Japan shut it down in 1997. It was actually run by Japan since 1977.

That is, unless you believe that YouTube video I found that claims it is being used as a secret base for the US military to house aliens from outer space...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

extanker,

When I say "dubious legal status for the Marines and Coast Guard', I say it vis-a-vis the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Since legal document, let alone international treaties, must be worded clear-cut, leaving no ambiguity for interpretation, the English version of the said treaty is defective in that it uses a sloppy phrase like "land, air and naval forces." Is the Japanese version then better because in it is used "the Army, Air Force and Navy" for the same passage? 

Historically, the U.S. Marines may have functioned as part of the Navy, positioned under the latter's arm. But common sense tells today that the Marines are not the Navy. The U.S. military consists of four branches: the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff are composed of generals from the four branches, the current chairman being a Marine general, not a Navy general nor an Army general nor an Air Force general.

I've never heard the LORAN Station Gesashi (should be read Kesashi) had stopped its operation and returned to Japan. You may be mixing things up.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The current Secdef being a former Marine has no bearing on where the Marine Corps falls under. Which is the Navy. I find it funny that you only think the English version of the treaty is 'defective', but the Japanese language version is correct because it fits your crackpot narrative.

Here are some useful links you should have read before trying to convince us of your looney conspiracy.

First, here is the history of the Loran station in Okinawa. You are the one mixing things up (or should I say ignoring facts).

http://www.loran-history.info/gesashi/gesashi.htm

Next, here is an article about all LORAN operations being shut down in 2010, which if the previous link didn't already do it, completely shoots down your theory.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/08/loran.navigation.shutdown/index.html

And finally, here is the US Coast Guards actual role in Japan. Located at Yokota Airbase. In Tokyo. Not Okinawa.

http://www.pacificarea.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/District-14/D14-Units/Activities-Far-East-FEACT/

All of this info took minutes to find. I suggest educating yourself, it might prove enlightening.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Oh, my apologies (since I am actually able to admit a mistake), the LORAN A station was transfered to Japanese control in 1977, while the LORAN C station was not transferred to Japan until 1993. But both LORAN A and C were still decommissioned in 1997 as I said before. There is no LORAN operations in Okinawa.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

extanker,

The current Secdef being a former Marine has no bearing on where the Marine Corps falls under. Which is the Navy. I find it funny that you only think the English version of the treaty is 'defective', but the Japanese language version is correct because it fits your crackpot narrative.

Here's a grave misunderstanding on your part of my statement. I'm not saying that, since the current Secretary of DoD is a former Marine general, the Marines are an organization independent of the Navy. I'm saying the compositiont of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tells a lot about where the Marine Corps stands in the U.S. military. The Marine Corps is one of the four branches of the U.S. Forces, whereby they must be excluded from the list of U.S. forces to be able to station in Japan according to the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

The LORAN system at the Gesashi Station was dismantled all right, but the station site remains with the old system having been replaced by a new system, that is, the light-fiber system.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

im don’t arguing with you about the Marines. You are wrong and that’s that. You have no argument so I’m not even going to respond.

As for the LORAN station, there was no ‘new system’. GPS made LORAN obsolete so it was finally scrapped. Obviously you did not even read the links I posted as it was clearly explained in them. Also, I have seen videos as recent as 2015 that show the US installation clearly abandoned. If Japan has repurposed the site for something else in the last couple years, please provide a link to prove it as I have done for you over and over.

But regardless, the US Coast Guard is NOT in Okinawa.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

extanker,

I said, "The LORAN system at the Gesashi Station was dismantled all right, but the station (site) remains with the old system having been replaced by a new system..." Whether that new system uses a light-fiver or GPS system doesn't matter here nor does whether the control of the system was transferred to the Army or not, either. But that the facility still exists counts very much and so the fact that it was operated by the Coast Guard until 1995, 23 years after Okinawa was returned to Japan in 1972 when U.S. bases and facilities in Okinawa were functionally integrated with those in mainland Japan under the Japan-U/S. Security Treaty.

You say you don’t want to argue about the Marines. I said above that  historically the Marines may have been under the arm of the Navy. There’re some remnants of that relationship between the Marine Corps and the Navy still today. But I pointed out the composition of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, where a Marine general joins the body representing the Marine Corps and not the Navy. Apparently, the Marines and the Navy are different bodies and separate branches of the U.S. Forces. If so, the Marines are not entitled to station in Okinawa under Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. How do you respond?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

 If so, the Marines are not entitled to station in Okinawa under Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. How do you respond?

I respond that you are wrong, your argument is based off of opinion and anecdotal evidence. The arguments presented against you and demonstrating the legality of the Marines presence in Japan are based on fact and policy. (but you won't even listen to reason in logic on the reason why they're based in Okinawa anyways)

After all, if the Marine's presence was in violation of Article 6 then the amount of law suits on this subject would be through the roof. It is probably not even a stretch to say that if there was a legitimate argument that the gov't from 2008-2012 would have reviewed and possibly removed the Marines.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

CrucialS covered it. You won't listen to factual evidence. There's no point in arguing. You are wrong. That is how I respond.

As for the LORAN station, it is ABANDONED. It has been for 20 years. It is also irrelevant. (GPS is in space, by the way, and most definitely not in Okinawa) The US Coast Guard is in Japan at the permission of the Japanese government. Not every US presence in Japan has to be covered under the 1952 treaty, which you are stuck on misunderstanding.

Now, I understand you want the US out of Okinawa. And you know what? I don't have a problem with that. I'm not even trying to change your mind about that, you have a right to your opinion just as I have a right to disagree with it. Just come out and say 'I want the US out of Okinawa'.

My problem with you, is that you continue to spout blatantly false information about the US military as some kind of insane justification that the US is illegally occupying Japan (while you have no real idea of what an occupation is). My advice to you is to drop the false conspiracy narrative and just stick to what the truth is, that you just want the US to leave. Because as far as that goes, I really don't care what you think of it.

But as long as you continue to yell 'the sky is falling' you're going to continue to come off as a crackpot.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

CrucialS,

I respond that you are wrong, your argument is based off of opinion and anecdotal evidence. The arguments presented against you and demonstrating the legality of the Marines presence in Japan are based on fact and policy.

You appear to be arguing that the Marines' stationing in Okinawa is legitimate because of he fact that they are deployed here according to policy. That's a ridiculous argument. It is the very fact that they are deployed in Japan (Okinawa) that is at issue here. And you are simply saying their presence is legal because they are deployed here according to policy?

According to the Security Treaty, U.S. Forces are granted to stay in Japan in order to maintain peace and security in Japan and its vicinity (the Far East). But in what kind of training are the marines engaged at the Jungle Warfare Training Center in northern Okinawa? Or at the urban-type warfare training facility in Camp Hansen? To fight wars in Southeast Asia or in the Middle East?

extanker,

 Now, I understand you want the US out of Okinawa. ... Just come out and say 'I want the US out of Okinawa.

OK. Let me clarify my position. 

Okinawa is a U.S. military colony with a large chunk of its land mass still being occupied just as it was during actual Occupation era. This state of affairs cannot go on forever and must come to an end eventually. So I suggest the U.S. set the specific end day of this virtual occupation. The year 2044 would be most appropriate for that That's the year marking 99 years after the end of World War Two. Living 99 years under actual and virtual occupation is more than enough..

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You appear to be arguing that the Marines' stationing in Okinawa is legitimate because of he fact that they are deployed here according to policy. That's a ridiculous argument. It is the very fact that they are deployed in Japan (Okinawa) that is at issue here. And you are simply saying their presence is legal because they are deployed here according to policy?

You are ridiculous. No, the Marines are 'legally' deployed in Japan because the mutual security treaty allows for US naval forces which legally includes the US Marines. There is no argument here. Your argument about phrasing in a translation is laughable and your misunderstanding (or willful ignorance) of the makeup of the US military does not change reality.

Okinawa is a U.S. military colony

No, it isn't.

So I suggest the U.S. set the specific end day of this virtual occupation... Living 99 years under actual and virtual occupation is more than enough..

Again, I provided you with legal proof that your claim of 'occupation' by the US military in Okinawa is a joke, but you continue with this nonsense. Is there martial law? No. Military administration over Okinawan civilians? No again. So, not an occupation. Just a military base, legally located on an island, that a handful of very vocal individuals, such as yourself, don't want there.

Whether you like it or not, Okinawa is part of Japan and Japan does not want the US to leave. There is no time-frame for the end of the treaty, nor does there need to be. If or when Japan asks us to leave, then the US will oblige, just like we did in the Philippines.

If that time comes someday in the future and the US refuses to leave (which I guarantee would not happen), then that would be an occupation, and you can come back here and say** **'I told you so' all day long, but until that happens (it wont), you are still 100% wrong.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

According to the Security Treaty, U.S. Forces are granted to stay in Japan in order to maintain peace and security in Japan and its vicinity (the Far East). But in what kind of training are the marines engaged at the Jungle Warfare Training Center in northern Okinawa? Or at the urban-type warfare training facility in Camp Hansen? To fight wars in Southeast Asia or in the Middle East?

By the way, here's a list of countries included in the definition of the 'Far East':

China, Hong Kong, Macau, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, Siberia, Taiwan, Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Malaysia, Laos, Indonesia, Myanmar, Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam

In case you don't see it, that's a big list and it includes a lot of jungle, so the Jungle Warfare Training Center makes perfect sense and still falls under the treaty.

As for an urban warfare training, what kind of question is that? So in defense of Japan, you think there won't be any fighting in a city? Or you don't think any of those other countries considered to be in the Far East have cities, it's just all forest? Come on man.

Your arguments just get worse and worse.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You appear to be arguing that the Marines' stationing in Okinawa is legitimate because of he fact that they are deployed here according to policy. That's

How can you miss the obvious so easily? There's a signed treaty between to governments that establishes the legality, the that several people have presented to you demonstrate that it is legal and covered in the treaty, the treaty was built around the shared security policies between Japan and the US.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

the facts that several people*

1 ( +1 / -0 )

extanker,

An anonymous author writes in Wikipedia that, for the convenience of his or her writing, "Far East shall represent East Asia" that includes Japan, Korean Peninsula, China and Taiwan, "South Asia" that includes India, "Southeast Asia" that includes the Philippines and Vietnam. You cannot engage in your argument on the basis of this anonymous author's nonce definition of the term "Far East".

The area called Far East as envisaged in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is an area north of the Philippines and the vicinity of Japan according to the Japanese government's official line of interpretation of it. Certainly, it doesn't include Southeast Asia (the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, et. al), South Asia (India), Middle East (Iraq, Pakistan, et. al), as you are confident enough to assert.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

CrucialS:

How can you miss the obvious so easily? There's a signed treaty between to governments that establishes the legality, the that several people have presented to you demonstrate that it is legal and covered in the treaty, the treaty was built around the shared security policies between Japan and the US.

FYI let me quote part of Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty once again. It stipulates:

"For the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan. "

In a nut shell, it says U.S. forces can maintain bases in Japan in exchange for the security (defense) of Japan and its vicinity, the Far East. The question at issue here is whether the U.S. forces in Japan, above all the Marines, are abiding by that provision. I say they are not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It says Naval Forces. The Marine Corps is Naval Forces. It couldn’t be any more clear. Provisions met and abided by.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

CrucialS: extanker and smithinjapan,

Needless to say, another question at issue here is whether the U.S. Marines can be granted the use of facilities and areas in Japan. The Japanese version of the Security Treaty specifies "land, air and naval forces" mentioned in the English version as "the Army, Air Force and Navy". The moot question then is whether the Marine Corps is considered Navy. 

Administratively and executively, the Marines are subsumed under the Department of Navy at the Pentagon, but militarily they are their own force, separate from the Navy, Army and Air Force. That's why a Marine general can take part in the Joint Chiefs of Staff with equal capacity to other generals from the Navy, Army and Air Force. In passing, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a Marine general. He doesn’t represent the Navy but the Marine Corps.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

An anonymous author writes in Wikipedia that, for the convenience of his or her writing, "Far East shall represent East Asia" that includes Japan, Korean Peninsula, China and Taiwan, "South Asia" that includes India, "Southeast Asia" that includes the Philippines and Vietnam. You cannot engage in your argument on the basis of this anonymous author's nonce definition of the term "Far East".

The area called Far East as envisaged in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is an area north of the Philippines and the vicinity of Japan according to the Japanese government's official line of interpretation of it. Certainly, it doesn't include Southeast Asia (the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, et. al), South Asia (India), Middle East (Iraq, Pakistan, et. al), as you are confident enough to assert.

Who said anything about Wikipedia? I actually do research before posting my arguments. You don't get to decide what countries are considered the Far East. Here's some links to some sites that have a lot more credibility than you do.

http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/fealist.html

https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/list-of-countries-in-the-far-east-region/

https://www.loc.gov/item/2006635250/

https://www.reference.com/geography/countries-far-east-d47086edcb0eb869

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-are-the-countries-of-the-far-east.html

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Needless to say, another question at issue here is whether the U.S. Marines can be granted the use of facilities and areas in Japan. The Japanese version of the Security Treaty specifies "land, air and naval forces" mentioned in the English version as "the Army, Air Force and Navy". The moot question then is whether the Marine Corps is considered Navy. 

Administratively and executively, the Marines are subsumed under the Department of Navy at the Pentagon, but militarily they are their own force, separate from the Navy, Army and Air Force. That's why a Marine general can take part in the Joint Chiefs of Staff with equal capacity to other generals from the Navy, Army and Air Force. In passing, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a Marine general. He doesn’t represent the Navy but the Marine Corps.

You can repeat the same BS arguments all day long, that doesn't make them true.

Administratively and executively, the Marines are subsumed under the Department of Navy at the Pentagon

You destroy your own argument all by yourself with this sentence. People a lot more important than you get to decide where the Marines stand.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

extanker,

The "naval forces" as used in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty (English version) is broader in meaning than the "Navy" used in the Japanese version. "Naval forces" means a military formation at sea in an actual battle that includes the core Navy plus alpha. Why did the drafters of the said treaty (English version) use this ambiguous expression? Why didn't they use "the Navy" from the beginning just as in the Japanese version? Was it intentional?

The expression "Far East" is another ambiguous geo-political concept that must also be clarified. The Japanese version uses "Kyokuto" (極東) for "Far East", which literally means "Ultimate East". The Japanese government's official line of the interpretation of "Far East" is an area north of the Philippines and the vicinity of the Japanese archipelago.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Nah, I'm done here. We've proven our point and there's no further reason to continue to go around in circles with you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

extanker,

You haven't proven your point as much as you think; neither have you disproven my point. The illegitimacy of the Marines using bases in Okinawa will thus go on, furtively violating the treaty’s relevant provision. The Futenma relocation exemplifies all this absurdity most typically.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Let me repeat once again that, administratively, the Navy and the Marine Corps are subsumed under and administered by the Department of the Navy, and so when dealing with U.S. Congress in matters of budgets, for example, the Marines must submit their bills through the SECNAV. Militarily, however, the Navy and the Marine Corps are two distinctly different branches comprising the United States Armed Forces together with the Army, Air Force and Coast Guard. The Commander in Chief commanding these five service branches is the President of the United States.

So the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty must specifically state that the U.S. is granted the use of land in Japan by the Navy and Marine Corps in addition to the Army and Air Force. But the Marines are excluded from the provision and so their maintaining 13 bases and facilities in Okinawa (12,944 ha) is in violation of the Security Treaty.

Not to mention the relocation of USMC Air Station Futenma to Henoko! The requisition of private land to build Futenma was illegal in itself for starters. The relocation is thus tantamount  to adding a violation of agreement to another.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The relocation is thus tantamount to adding a violation of agreement to another of international law.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

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