politics

Governor says he was told Okinawa's U.S. Marines can move to Guam from 2024

34 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

It's about time! Like 20 years after the fact! And Denny had better remember that it's because of the relocation to Camp Schwab that this is happening!

Oh and note to Denny; do you job as a politician and stop using prefectural money for trips to go play your guitar at the Fuji Rock Festival!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I would like to see Denny spend more time actually governing and bettering the day-to-day lives of Okinawans instead of trying to work out "Daddy issues" on the taxpayers dime!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

the burden on Okinawa

Ah, yes, the burden of having U.S. Forces keeping Japan out of trouble since 1945.

Just too much to bear.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The greater burden of the the U.S forces protecting Japan does not mean the majority need to be based in Okinawa when there's no land on the mainland.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The greater burden of the the U.S forces protecting Japan does not mean the majority need to be based in Okinawa when there's no land on the mainland.

Dont let the propaganda fool you. The amount of land used and number of military stationed here in Okinawa has been steadily decreasing over the years.

Some will have you believe otherwise, but it is not so. Even in 30 plus years I have been here, there have been major changes, and more are coming.

Okinawa has a responsibility as a prefecture of Japan to assist in the defense of the country, and as it's southern door, there will always, ALWAYS , be a military presence here, whether it be the US or JSDF.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Now that Denny fulfilled the promise of getting the Marines out of Okinawa, next will be getting the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy out too.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Now that Denny fulfilled the promise of getting the Marines out of Okinawa, next will be getting the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy out too.

Denny hasn't fulfilled anything.

His "promise" was to stop the construction at Camp Schwab and that is not going to happen.

The Marines will still be here, just less in number, so will the Army, Navy, and Air Force as well.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The plan also includes the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma located in a crowded residential area to a less densely populated coastal site within Okinawa.

This means that if the base relocation to Nago is on-hold, then the plan to move troops to Guam is also on-hold

There's no troop movement if there's no base relocation - they come bundled together

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This means that if the base relocation to Nago is on-hold, then the plan to move troops to Guam is also on-hold

Get it right, it's to Camp Schwab, in Henoko. If you know anything about the geography of Okinawa, no one calls that area, and I mean no one, calls it Nago.

The move is not on hold, as the construction is going on quite well, hence the scheduling of the move being made as well!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Big mistake if US did that... If not US servicemen in Japanese territory, then US has no need to defend Japan other than by agreement. It is men on the ground that any defense starts.

But the new base in Okinawa is needed not just for the US forces but also for Japan. Strategically one base there in Okinawa, if disabled makes it almost impossible to defend it. Militarily speaking there is a need for 3 bases and 3 harbors to defend Okinawa, one North, one West and one South.

Even Hawaii's Oahu has Hickam, Kaneohe and Schofield airbases and Pearl Harbor, and Kaneohe with the third now closed Barber's Point.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Denny hasn't fulfilled anything.

His "promise" was to stop the construction at Camp Schwab and that is not going to happen.

The Marines will still be here, just less in number, so will the Army, Navy, and Air Force as well.

I don't disagree with you. I hope the U.S. and Japan maintains a military presence there; Okinawa is too important in the military strategic sense, given the proximity to Senkaku Islands, Taiwan and the China Seas.....which will soon turn into a hot crisis.

However, Tamaki stated “I can clearly state we no longer want in Okinawa the U.S. bases that destroy our peace and destroy our nature,” during his campaign.

Of course that's all rhetoric but I'm still betting Gov. Tamaki and leftist supporters will eventually get all the U.S. military forces out of Okinawa. Then I wonder if Okinawa will accept the JSDF presence when they occupy some of the vacated U.S. military bases or will they protest just as vigorously.

In the meantime, onward, upward and forward with the Camp Schwab expansion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

But the new base in Okinawa is needed not just for the US forces but also for Japan. Strategically one base there in Okinawa, if disabled makes it almost impossible to defend it. Militarily speaking there is a need for 3 bases and 3 harbors to defend Okinawa, one North, one West and one South.

Don't disagree with you either. Okinawa is vital for maintaining stability of the region and to keep China in check. Without U.S. and JSDF military presence on Okinawa, China will expand unchallenged and attempt to claim the region as their own.

However, the leftists believe that the U.S. bases in the north, west and southern parts of Okinawa destroys peace, destroys nature and it makes all Okinawa a military target.. They believe when ALL bases are removed, Okinawa will no longer be a target and Okinawa will enjoy peace forever.

This is wishful thinking but that's their goal.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

 Militarily speaking there is a need for 3 bases and 3 harbors to defend Okinawa, one North, one West and one South.

Naha Air Base, Kadena Air Base, Camp Schwab, /White Beach, Tengan, Naha Port(in the near future Urasoe Port)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The bulk of the marines to be transferred to Guam are the most active, combat-ready personnel. The marines to remain in Okinawa will be command units and logistics groups. The vehicles or vessels that will transport the Guam-based marines to a potential battle ground, Futenma's 14 Ospreys to be transferred to the Henoko new base in Nago, probably as well as the USS Wasp, that is now based in Sasebo, Kyushu, will be in Okinawa..

Under these circumstances, what's the use of building a new base for the marines by reclaiming pristine waters off Henoko? The raison d'etre of the marines to station in Okinawa is gone completely and so they, all of them, should pack up and go home.

Is there anyone who can answer this question?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is there anyone who can answer this question?

Sure! It's easy! So MCAS Futenma will be closed and returned to Japanese control, thereby further reducing the footprint of the US military in Okinawa.

Under these circumstances, what's the use of building a new base for the marines by reclaiming pristine waters off Henoko?

Once again, regurgitating propaganda here, it's not a new base, its a landfill connecting to an existing facility.

(Example; Naha Airport is not suddenly going to become a "new" airport with the addition of it's new runway, scheduled to open next March. The landfill there is all finished, but the anti-base hypocrites who complain about the damage to the environment refuse to acknowledge their own hypocrisy by not protesting the EXACT same type of damage to the environment. Anytime anyone talks about a new base at Camp Schwab and they refuse to protest the damage at Naha Airport, they and their comments about protecting the environment of Okinawa are outright BS and should be ignored! )

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

You're simply stroking the surface of the problem. The real question here is:

The bulk of the marines to be transferred to Guam are the most active, combat-ready personnel. The marines to remain in Okinawa will be command units and logistics groups. The vehicles or vessels that will transport the Guam-based marines to a potential battle ground, Futenma's 14 Ospreys to be transferred to the Henoko new base in Nago, probably as well as the USS Wasp, that is now based in Sasebo, Kyushu, will be in Okinawa..

Simply saying Futenma will be closed and returned to Japanese control won't answer the question raised here.

Besides, isn't Futenma an illegal property sitting on illegally confiscated private land? Can an illegal squatter demand for a replacement for the land and hut he squats to be provided for at another place?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why can't people face facts?

Henoko is a new base! PR won't change that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simply saying Futenma will be closed and returned to Japanese control won't answer the question raised here

It is that simple, you just refuse to accept that fact, and no matter how hard you try to play word games, it wont change it.

Besides, isn't Futenma an illegal property sitting on illegally confiscated private land?

Again simple answer; no!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why can't people face facts? Henoko is a new base! PR won't change that!

Funny, it's you and everyone else that keeps repeating the same thing about new base that are repeating the propaganda that came from the mouths of the anti-base protesters! There has never been any PR as you say, stating it was anything other than a landfill at Camp Schwab.

The left-wing media in Okinawa took up the same chant, and repeated it over and over again, until people started believing it. Just goes to show further proof that if you repeat a lie enough times all the sheep who follow will believe it! It's easier to believe a lie than to understand the truth.

As I wrote previously, NO ONE calls Naha Airport's brand new runway a new airport, it's just a landfill project connected to the existing facility, same thing at Camp Schwab, a land fill to an existing facility.

You and others just cant accept that fact and keep on calling it (repeating what you heard in the media) a new base, You have repeated the lie so many times that you have to keep repeating it, you cant accept the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

It is that simple, you just refuse to accept that fact, and no matter how hard you try to play word games, it wont change it.

Your logic is no different from a hooligan's. The hooligan may say, "Accept the reality that we're a dominant force, that can do whatever we want to do. No logicality nor rationality is here to play."  

Again simple answer; no!

 OK, then, what's your reasoning to claim that the land Futenma sits on wasn't confiscated illegally.’

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your logic is no different from a hooligan's. The hooligan may say, "Accept the reality that we're a dominant force, that can do whatever we want to do. No logicality nor rationality is here to play."  

OK, then, what's your reasoning to claim that the land Futenma sits on wasn't confiscated illegally.’

I am not going to jump on the merry-go-round and play your games again. All these comments that you have made here, have been replied to countless numbers of times, by myself and numerous others.

You know you have no case, there is no argument, there is no discussion, and you just refuse to accept that you have no position.

It's that simple, so please do us all a favor and stop regurgitating the same over and over again!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

All these comments that you have made here, have been replied to countless numbers of times, by myself and numerous others.

I've argued occasionally that Futenma is an illegal facility because it sits on private land illegally confiscated in violation of Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, that 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." 

Nobody has given any reasonable counterargument to this. You once said the incidence occurred many years ago, so that the U.S. occupation forces' irregular action is exonerated by now. One poster said Japan had waved all claims under the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement whereby there's no such thing as the illegality of a base. Another poster urged me to take the case to the International Court of Justice if I thought I was right.

Your argument that time vindicates the irregularities the U.S. forces committed doesn't hold water at all. Is this what you think you have answered my question many times? In the U.S. is there the statute of limitation for a murder case?

The 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement doesn't vindicate the case. Why? A contract between a thief and a fence dealing with stolen goods is absolutely void under criminal law, however explicitly the contract may be written. A bilateral agreement doesn't transcend an international law.

I believe when the time ripens, yes, the case must be appealed to the International Court of Justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have asked one question here, numerous times, and the few posters that continually try, to make the point that Futenma is "illegal" etc etc etc, about why no one has never taken this angle of approach, in any legal setting, to a court in Japan, or the International Court, or even bring it up in any meeting, discussion, or conference?

Why is that? Why haven't any the lawyers or legal experts that work for or are associated with the anti-base movement here in Okinawa, in Japan, or where ever they may be in the world, bring up this angle of approach to protest the bases? None of Onaga's staff, nor Denny's, nor anyone else. Even the people from mainland who FORCED the prefectural referendum onto the people here, against their will, have taken this approach. And they seem willing to do anything to get their way!

Don't say because it would be futile, which it is, but not for the excuses they would give. They would argue it's futile because possession is 9/10 of the law or some other excuse. These lawyers have already taken FUTILE cases to the courts here in Japan, and LOST them all, as their arguments were based on technicalities of how the government applied for the landfill permits, in reality, nothing more, nothing less.

Yet the reality is, there is no case, no argument, no position that any court would actually listen to, it would get tossed the minute any judge looked at the case.

Their entire arguments are based upon emotions. nothing more, nothing less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

True, no one except me has argued against Futenma's relocation from this perspective. If Futenma can be judged as an illegal facility as I think it is, then the complexity surrounding the relocation issue disappears instantly. That is, since the U.S. side has no legal right to demand for Futenma's replacement for starters, Futenma will be returned to us without any condition attached.

I must admit this opinion of mine isn't shared by many, including the Prefectural Government. 

So I publish my opinion here and there both in Japanese and English newspapers, trying to expand the circle of people who will share this opinion of mine. It's kind of hard to break an already established preconception or misconception, though, just as the Marines-are-the-Navy misconception.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's kind of hard to break an already established preconception or misconception

However you have to take a very long look in the mirror yourself, on this and consider that it's you who has the preconceived notions and misconception, as your opinions have always been biased against the Marine Corps here in Okinawa. Only the MC and no other service that is stationed here.

You never make any mention of any other facility other than Futenma being obtained illegally, not once. And yet all the bases in Okinawa were obtained in a similar fashion, or worse, during the occupation. Yet even in those cases no one has brought up the argument nor idea of their legality.

Even if you publish these ideas, and the local media/newspapers are leftist and will publish just about ANYTHING that shows negativity to the bases, no one has taken up your call!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

just as the Marines-are-the-Navy misconception.

And btw, dont try and tell those here who are actually in the Marine Corp or Navy what service they are in, or who they belong to. it just makes anything you write look really, really bad, as like you have no idea in the world what you are talking about!

No one here has stated the Marines are the Navy, nor vice-versa, no one. Only you attempt to make the argument as well that they are here illegally because they arent specifically identified in the treaty.

Another misconception and mistake on your part. Seems to me like you have quite a few about these two services.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

And btw, dont try and tell those here who are actually in the Marine Corp or Navy what service they are in, or who they belong to. it just makes anything you write look really, really bad, as like you have no idea in the world what you are talking about!

The Japanese words " kaigun(海軍)" and "kaiheitai (海兵隊)" are semantically very closely related. Both expressions start with "kai", meaning "sea", and correspond to English "navy" and "marine corps" in that order. The English words also have a semantic element related with "sea". For this reason, many people are apt to conceive of the Marines as the Navy.

But, as I pointed out many times, the Navy and the Marine Corps are defined by the U.S. Code 10 Section 5001 as different entities (services). It is because of this, two marine generals can participate in the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with a Navy admiral. If the Marine Corps is subsumed under the Navy, how is this possible? A Marine general even chairs that body, surpassing a Navy admiral.

It's true that the Marine Corps is currently attached to the Department of the Navy. But the Department of the Navy isn't a service; it's an administrative body headed by a civilian secretary. 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps doesn't report to the Navy's Chief of Naval Operations. If the Marine Corps is subsumed under the Navy, he must, but he doesn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese words " kaigun(海軍)" and "kaiheitai (海兵隊)" are semantically very closely related. Both expressions start with "kai", meaning "sea", and correspond to English "navy" and "marine corps" in that order. The English words also have a semantic element related with "sea". For this reason, many people are apt to conceive of the Marines as the Navy.

You know what, the Japanese doesnt matter here. So no matter how hard you try to obfuscate the subject, it doesnt change the fact that you are wrong.

It's true that the Marine Corps is currently attached to the Department of the Navy. But the Department of the Navy isn't a service; it's an administrative body headed by a civilian secretary. 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps doesn't report to the Navy's Chief of Naval Operations. If the Marine Corps is subsumed under the Navy, he must, but he doesn't.

Here we go again, you have had it explained to you numerous times, and no matter, again how hard you try to twist the wording, you refuse to accept the fact that you just dont understand how the US military works!

I said it before, and to repeat myself here, if the JSDF were a military, PM Abe would be the head of it, as Commander In Chief. Just as Trump is to the US Military.

You are obliged to understand this first, then the rest falls into place.

The Department of the Navy is at the top, along with the Departments of the Air Force and Army, they are led by civilians and the armed services fall under their purview and they ALL fall under the Department of Defense, which is headed by the Secretary of Defense, who oversees all of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

I said it before, and to repeat myself here, if the JSDF were a military, PM Abe would be the head of it, as Commander In Chief. Just as Trump is to the US Military. … You are obliged to understand this first, then the rest falls into place.

If I understood what you wrote here right, would it follow that the Marines were part of the Navy?

The Pentagon explains the difference between the Navy and the Marine Corps as "sister services", both of which are attached to the Department of the Navy. The Marines are attached to the Department of the Navy for historical reasons as well as for the sake of convenience. It can be attached to the Department of the Army because they fight a land war like the Army once setting foot on land.  Anyway, the Navy and the Marine Corps are not in a vertical relationship as they are to the Department of the Navy. The Commandant of the Marine Corps is not subservient to the Chief of Naval Operations of the Navy.

You haven't explained the reason why two Marine generals can participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff on equal terms with generals from other branches of the U.S. Armed Forces if you think the Marine Corps is subsumed under the Navy. 

You haven’t touched on the U.S. Code 10 Section 5001, either, which stipulates the Marine Corps and the Navy are different entities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are obliged to accept this, before anything else

However you have to take a very long look in the mirror yourself, on this and consider that it's you who has the preconceived notions and misconception, as your opinions have always been biased against the Marine Corps here in Okinawa. Only the MC and no other service that is stationed here.

You never make any mention of any other facility other than Futenma being obtained illegally, not once. And yet all the bases in Okinawa were obtained in a similar fashion, or worse, during the occupation. Yet even in those cases no one has brought up the argument nor idea of their legality.

Even if you publish these ideas, and the local media/newspapers are leftist and will publish just about ANYTHING that shows negativity to the bases, no one has taken up your cal

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

I'm saying the Marines are not the Navy on the basis of data at hand: U.S. Code 10 Section 5001, the fact that Marine generals participate in the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with a Navy admiral, as well as the Pentagon's home page. If you say my opinion is biased for it's based on a misconception on my part, you have to explain why it is wrong to use these data.

Only Futenma is at issue here. If you say other bases have a more or less similar history, it means you have admitted illegality inherent in all these bases, not only Futenma.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are obliged to accept this, before anything else

However you have to take a very long look in the mirror yourself, on this and consider that it's you who has the preconceived notions and misconception, as your opinions have always been biased against the Marine Corps here in Okinawa. Only the MC and no other service that is stationed here.

You never make any mention of any other facility other than Futenma being obtained illegally, not once. And yet all the bases in Okinawa were obtained in a similar fashion, or worse, during the occupation. Yet even in those cases no one has brought up the argument nor idea of their legality.

Even if you publish these ideas, and the local media/newspapers are leftist and will publish just about ANYTHING that shows negativity to the bases, no one has taken up your cal

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only Futenma is at issue here. If you say other bases have a more or less similar history, it means you have admitted illegality inherent in all these bases, not only Futenma.

You dont even know the history of Okinawa if you are stuck on Futenma alone. THAT should embarrass you.

It's not just about Futenma!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

A pressing issue right now is Futenma.But do you want me to rekindle or regurgitate the land issues that shook Okinawan society during the occupation, such as in Isahama District in Ginowan and Maja District on Ie Island? 

You seem to know the fact that the land was confiscated illegally and blatantly by force, that is, by bulldozer and at bayonet point before the eyes of protesting farmers and wailing mothers.

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