politics

Campaigning starts for Nago assembly election; U.S. base in focus

20 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

Should read moving USA base to Guam.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Talk about biased reporting.....Like so many other recent elections that the anti-base folks have lost, is the FACT that there is more going on than just the base issues, and the people are sick and tired of the politicians only focusing on one issue and not ones that affect their daily lives.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Let's hope it's concluded without the LDP strong arm tactics they used last time!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Let's hope it's concluded without the LDP strong arm tactics they used last time!

There were no strong arm tactics, the election was won fairly. You just didnt like the results so you have to lie to feel better!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Yes people of Nago vote for the LDP for prosperity!! Just look at what all the LDP has done for the people of Okinawa since reversion. Look at all of the big companies with high paying jobs that the LDP has brought to Okinawa. Look how rich and prosperous the people of Okinawa have become under the LDP.

The LDP places more priority on the U.S. Military bases and the quality of life for U.S. Military Personnel than they do for the livelihoods and quality of life for the people of Okinawa. Look at all of those nice air conditioned schools they have built for Military Children, how many schools on Okinawa are air conditioned?

The lives for the average person on Okinawa will never change no matter who wins until the central government makes the livelihoods and quality of life of the people of Okinawa more important than the U.S. military Bases! All a LDP friendly local administration is going to do is get a bigger budget from the central govt. that will have strings attached and make mainland Japanese Companies richer with very little benefit to the average person on Okinawa! The deck of cards is always stacked against Okinawa and Mainland Japan always wins!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Yes, bases, welcomed and yes to the LDP. I have many contracts to last the next 50 yrs all because of both. I have air conditioning, my employees have air conditioning off base living on the Japanese economy, their children some have even completed the finer schools and others attending the finer schools in Okinawa or mainland, either the way it is putting food on their table, money in the grocery's hands, homes being bought and the money still back in the Okinawa economy. Yes please LDP keep up the good work and the US military too. These greedy land owners and anti's are just angry because they can't get the piece of the pie they want.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Far too many people have no idea the reality of life on Okinawa. The overwhelming majority of people who live in the prefecture have ZERO contact with the US Military. That is a fact!

Are these same people aware of their presence, sure, only someone who has their head buried in the sand wouldn't know, particularly with how the left-press harps on the issue on both TV and in the newspapers.

There is also probably no one here, myself included, that would deny the fact that it would be nice for all the bases to disappear. Yeah it would be. But only a fool would think that in today's world. Yes, only a fool would think that without any bases here Okinawa and Japan would be "safe".

Even if those US bases were suddenly emptied of US military and their families, they would soon be replaced by Japanese SDF forces. Okinawa will never be free of a "military" presence as long as it sits in the strategic location it does. That is a fact as well, again, only an ignorant fool would think otherwise.

This article overly simplifies, and in an almost childish manner, takes the side of the anti-base candidates, and makes the mayor seem like a simpleton, which he most definitely is not!

Mayor Toguchi, who beat the incumbent mayor opposed to the relocation plan in the election with support from the central government, has decided to offer school lunches and childcare services free of charge using a "U.S. base realignment subsidy" from the central government.

The author obviously is unaware of the fact that this mayor won, because he made it clear to the people that there is more going on here than just the base issue. He is concerned about improving the lives of ALL the people in the city, which well over 95% of the population have ZERO contact with said base. It's on the other side of the mountain for cripes sake! (People need to see the map of the city and understand just how far Henoko is from "Nago". It's part of the city in name only!")

I personally have plenty of family who live in Nago, and they are split on the issue as well, but typically it's the younger one's who are pushing for the supporters of the current mayor, and the old folks, who are against the bases. If the younger folks vote, the anti-base candidates will lose!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

At stake is whether assembly members opposed to the relocation can continue to hold a majority following Nago's mayoral election in February that was won by a rookie who effectively tolerates the controversial plan. (The 3rd paragraph in the article)

Tolerating the relocation plan is no different from allowing Okinawa to keep shouldering the burden of hosting so many U.S. military bases forever. It's tantamount to selling the nation's sovereignty to a foreign power so cheap.

Nago citizens shouldn't be duped by an immediate profit promised by the central government in exchange for a long-term profit for their posterity, for Okinawa and ultimately for Japan. So who are traitors here, government-supported candidates who are for the relocation plan or candidates who are against it?  And how about posters here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tolerating the relocation plan is no different from allowing Okinawa to keep shouldering the burden of hosting so many U.S. military bases forever. It's tantamount to selling the nation's sovereignty to a foreign power so cheap.

Ahh, then to you, allowing Futenma to stay in place is fine, just as long as it eventually gets moved somewhere outside the prefecture. It's not "tolerating" either, it's moving forward by getting rid of Futenma and the other bases south of Kadena.

You always conveniently leave that part out as well. There are some major benefits by closing Futenma and moving it to Henoko, and that's the one thing you can't accept. It's all or nothing, and that is why you and all the other anti-base folks will again lose.

Learn to negotiate. Remember, a truly good politician is one that can negotiate the best deals, even in a lousy situation. You obviously can't.

Oh and Futenma has been waiting for over 20 years, you would have them wait longer, just to get your agenda across, screw them, you come first? That's why the government went ahead, because folks like "you" are in the way of the better good!

Oh and don't reply with some comment like, "it must be moved" or whatever, because it's just rhetoric and meaningless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

I've been arguing Futenma must be returned to Okinawa's control with no strings attached. Why?  Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private lands and so the U.S. has no inherent right to demand a replacement be built in exchange for its return. You cannot say unless Futenma’s function is moved to Henoko, the land won’t be returned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The central government provides the subsidy to municipalities hosting U.S. bases. 

eople in Tohoku mentioned the same to me when the government wanted to install an atomic energy plan in their community. The city approved because the citizens were told the plant would bring prosperity to the community and neglected to mention about the dangers.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Who pays fees for the private land on which bases are built? The Japanese or U.S. taxpayers?  Who shoulders maintenance costs for these bases? And labor costs, too?

If Toyota U.S.A. had such perquisites, that is, if U.S. taxpayers had to shoulder land fees, maintenance and labor costs for the company, do you think U.S. citizens would be satisfied and say nothing about it because it was a bilateral arrangement agreed to by the two governments?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Toyota U.S.A. had such perquisites, that is, if U.S. taxpayers had to shoulder land fees, maintenance and labor costs for the company, do you think U.S. citizens would be satisfied and say nothing about it because it was a bilateral arrangement agreed to by the two governments?

Apples and oranges argument. Toyota is not the Japanese government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Apples and oranges argument. Toyota is not the Japanese government.

Indeed. But if a foreign military were stationed on U.S. soil, occupying 15% of the land mass of the continental U.S.A. and enjoying similar perquisites to those enjoyed by the USFJ, would U.S. citizens be satisfied and lodge no complaint about it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Indeed. But if a foreign military were stationed on U.S. soil, occupying 15% of the land mass of the continental U.S.A. and enjoying similar perquisites to those enjoyed by the USFJ, would U.S. citizens be satisfied and lodge no complaint about it?

But it's not, so once again, moot point. Nothing to compare nor discuss either. Not to mention that the US does not occupy 15% of Japan, so once again, moot point, no comparison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Maybe, I should have said, "If a foreign military were stationed on U.S. soil, occupying 15% of the land mass of Oahu Island, Hawaii and enjoying perquisites similar to those enjoyed by the USFJ, would U.S. citizens be satisfied and lodge no complaint about it?

I don't quite understand what you mean by the expression "moot point". Please explain it rather concretely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

send em packing

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe, I should have said, "If a foreign military were stationed on U.S. soil, occupying 15% of the land mass of Oahu Island, Hawaii and enjoying perquisites similar to those enjoyed by the USFJ, would U.S. citizens be satisfied and lodge no complaint about it?

You said what you said, knowingly fully well what you wrote, you just didnt expect to get called out for it. You can change the situation all you want, but it's still apples and oranges.

I don't quite understand what you mean by the expression "moot point". 

I highly doubt this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Tell me why you and people of your ilk here are so eager and intent for this excessive U.S. military footprint to be maintained the same as ever and for good when many of these Marine bases have turned out to be nothing but white elephants for the defense and security of Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A pundit like Satoshi Morimoto, former Defense Minister and a former professor at the National Defense Academy of Japan, says there's no strategic reason but a political one why Futenma's function must be relocated within Okinawa. He doesn't elaborate any further, but it's apparent the Marine base can be moved anywhere, either to mainland Japan or to U.S. soil. 

The reason why the Japanese government says Henoko in Okinawa Prefecture is the best and only option for a relocation site is because they themselves don't like the base to be moved to the mainland, saying no prefecture would accept it in its backyard. 

On the part of the U.S. government, it's of no concern of theirs whether Futenma moves to Henoko or to some prefecture on mainland. As far as Japan agrees to the U.S.-proposed Henoko plan, that'll be fine for the U.S. because all the costs for the relocation are supposedly borne by Japanese taxpayers anyway without affecting the U.S. coffers at all.

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