Japan's top court orders Okinawa to allow divisive government plan to build U.S. military runways

Clearly more than 70% of the people of Okinawa oppose the construction of this new U.S. military facility destroying one of the most diverse and healthy corral reefs of the nation. Neither the central government in Tokyo nor the Supreme Court would dare to treat any other prefecture the way they treat Okinawa.

After the war 85% of US military bases were on the main islands of Japan (yes, “only” 25% were in Okinawa!) and because the population there was fighting the bases desperately the central government one by one moved those bases to tiny Okinawa, plainly ignoring the will of the people there. That’s a history of anti-democratic structural discrimination of a single prefecture.

The Supreme Court, not really an independent branch of the state in Japan, just reinforced this discriminatory structure and once again ignored the will of the people of Okinawa.

Neither the central government in Tokyo nor the Supreme Court would dare to treat any other prefecture the way they treat Okinawa.

Okinawa is the occupied territory of the Ryukyu kingdom in the same way that the US state of Hawaii is the occupied territory of the Hawaiian kingdom. In both cases, the indigenous people suffer under the jackboot of Japanese and US imperialism, and in the case of the Ryukyu people they suffer the occupation of both empires. Learn some history before you leap to disagree.

There are too many bases.

Should read "Japan's to rubber stamp court"!

@Strangland

Let us know if that ever happens.

No one would have to let you know when it happens.

Hey Japan, have some dignity !!!..

Don't bulid nothing...

Send them home, where they belong..

Y.G.H.

@Yubaru By the logic of your creative take on election and democracies Joe Biden only received 34% of the eligible voters of the US. What a sham democracy you must think it is.

Yubaru,

International law strictly prohibits the confiscation of private property in an occupied area.

But the U.S. occupation forces confiscated private lands on Okinawa and Iejima with impunity to build bases and facilities while local people were herded in camps like POWs. That's a blatant violation of international law and humanitarianism.

You say, however, that the U.S. actions are exonerated and legally rescinded because of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement. The catch is: Can a mere bilateral agreement transcend international law? 

How do you respond?

I mean Japan never cared about Okinawa or it’s people so not surprised. Honestly surprised they even bothered taking it back in the 50s just to make it their least funded prefecture by a wide margin

commanteerToday 04:02 pm JST

I am tired of the USA exporting its wars so that others can die and make profits for the US war machine. I would prefer that someone takes the war directly to the US soon so Americans can finally get a taste of what they spread around the world. I don't say that because I want innocent Americans to die, but I think that is the only thing that will wake them up to the death and destruction their policies spread.

Got it, you like war. I think the rest of us are tired of the complete pass that Russia gets for their invasions and stealing. The US presence in the Pacific has gone down in the past 80 years and NATO was very careful not to put alot of hardware on Russia's border before they screwed the pooch. It still is way less than Russia deserves.

The classic critical take on the US military occupation of Okinawa is Charlmers Johnson's "Okinawa: Asia's Last Colony" from his book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. I was privileged to take a course taught by Prof. Johnson a few decades ago.

Sadly he seems to have forgotten the 2+ decades when the US administered the islands and used them as bases for wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Dont know much about the history here do you?

Yubaru,

What kind of a strategic role does Futenma's replacement in Henoko, an Osprey base, play should an emergency or contingency ever occur? Isn't it Washington's new policy to detach itself from a future conflict with China as much as possible, letting JSDF deal with a China threat more positively? On this premise, Tokyo is fortifying Yonaguni, Ishigaki and Miyako Islands as forward missile bases despite this large U.S. miliary presence.

TrevorPeaceSep. 5  06:22 pm JST

One might think that all the Okinawan government needs to do is promote to its citizens the idea of turning their backs on American military personnel and refusing to acknowledge or serve them when they're off-base. But, of course, there's too much cash involved. And we certainly can't have the prostitutes going out of business.

Because it’s the average joes fault that they were given orders there. Seriously?

The cash brought in from the US is nothing compared to what the GOJ pays Okinawa to house the bases located there. In fact, China brings in more cash to Oki than the bases do. A quick trip down the western coastline will provide evidence of this.

Prostitution has long sense been off the table. If your going to play that card, you better check the locals down in Naha on that before throwing any Military under the bus.

I implore that you educate yourself with facts prior to posting blatantly fictitious and ignorant responses to the matter.

What kind of a strategic role does Futenma's replacement in Henoko, an Osprey base, play should an emergency or contingency ever occur? 

It is not just an Osprey base. The proposed runways are long enough for any aircraft the Marines operate. The Marines don't go anywhere without their air wing and Futenma will accommodate that. It's only shortcomings is that the runways are probably too short for aircraft like a B-1B or maybe a C-5 Galaxy. The aircraft that the Marines will bring with them on the Amphibious Ready Group, CH-53s, V-22s, F-35Bs and the supporting C-130s and KC-130s will have no problem using Futenma.

There are too many people telling the government what it needs to keep the chinese and North Korea at bay and not enough action to ensure the security of Japan.

Like it or not, you need the military in and around Okinawa or you’re going to need to learn another language.

One bomb from Russia or North Korea or China would change the locals minds in a millisecond.

Let us know if that ever happens.

Does the U.S. have any right then to ask the replacement for Futenma be built at Henoko by all means? The higher court must convince us by showing why the building of Futenma's replacement in Henoko is not illegal.

You are asking the wrong audience. The Status of Forces Agreement, as agreed upon by the Japanese government, states that the government of Japan will provide a replacement facility.

Dont like it, quite barking up the wrong tree and start bitching at the Japanese government. The US didnt ask, Japan agreed to supply it.

Japanese courts have shown time after time that Okinawa's complaints are going nowhere!

Clearly more than 70% of the people of Okinawa oppose the construction of this new U.S. military facility destroying one of the Clearly more than 70% of the people of Okinawa oppose the construction of this new U.S. military facility destroying one of the most diverse and healthy corral reefs of the nation.

I don't recall any angst when Naha Airport built its second runway on landfill in the ocean adjacent the original runway. The landfill and runway were completed only three years ago and are not terribly far from Camp Schwab. Where were the protests then about "destroying one of the most diverse and healthy corral reefs of the nation". Btw Naha AIrport is also a JASDF base and the JMSDF has a base at White Beach.

After the war 85% of US military bases were on the main islands of Japan (yes, “only” 25% were in Okinawa!) and because the population there was fighting the bases desperately the central government one by one moved those bases to tiny Okinawa, plainly ignoring the will of the people there. That’s a history of anti-democratic structural discrimination of a single prefecture.

In the immediate aftermath of WWII all of Japan and her former possessions were under Allied occupation. Being the most heavily populated region, it is natural that the most Allied / US military bases were on the Japanese mainland. But while the occupation of the four main islands of Japan ended in 1952 and most the lands Japan conquered returned to their people or placed under UN administration in the case of some Pacific Islands, Okinawa and the other islands in what would become Okinawa Prefecture remained US territory until 1972. That is why the US had so many bases there. There was in fact significant opposition in the US Congress to returning Okinawa due to the degree of bloodshed taking it from Japan. For the US it was the bloodiest and hardest fought battle of the Pacific. That political opposition was eventually overcome and the prefecture returned to Japanese control but by then Okinawa had become the lynch pin of Japanese and US military power in the region.

Okinawa doesn't want the bases, Japan doesn't need the bases. The US wants them and Japan as a loyal vassal state will go against the will of its people and ensure the US gets its bases. Probably even paying for them.

One might think that all the Okinawan government needs to do is promote to its citizens the idea of turning their backs on American military personnel and refusing to acknowledge or serve them when they're off-base. But, of course, there's too much cash involved. And we certainly can't have the prostitutes going out of business.

I can’t believe how much misinformation there is in the comments. I was going to quote, but the sheer mass of it would take forever.

So just a few points to address.

It is NOT A NEW base. Simply an addition to Camp Schwab, which has been in existence in some form or another since post WW2.

The live reefs of Oura Wan bay (where they are filling) have been dead since the late 80’s at least. I’ve swam and dove there.

While 1/3 of the entire population of Okinawa are against the relocation to Henoko, the results from Nago (where Henoko is), voted overwhelmingly in FAVOR of the plan. I know, I live here.

-Whoever referenced the 50’s needs to get a clue and do some reading before they post again. It’s not even worth correcting that timeline.

-It’s easy for those on the outside to look in and throw their two cents in, but for those of us that have been here since the 70’s & 80’s the concept of shifting baseline syndrome is a reality.

Yubaru:

You seem to say that there is no legality issue involved in the Futenma air station, and you said clearly that all legality problems were settled with the signing of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement.

Let me cite the Hague Convention time and time again, Article 46 of which states that "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."

You dare say the confiscation of private lands while local people were herded in camps like POWs didn't violate the stipulation in this Convention. After the war, and during the occupation period, the U.S. military paid a negligible land fee to each land holder which people pejoratively called "land fee worth a Coke per tsubo"

After the 1971 reversion, however, the Japanese government took the place of the U.S. government for paying the land fees. The total amount of land fees in 1972 was Y12,315 million, which has increased to Y86,662 million in 2017, about 7 times as much. Japanese taxpayers are shouldering this much for the U.S. in addition to U. S. base maintenance costs which accounts for 74% of all maintenance costs. Japanese taxpayers are shouldering it, firmly believing that USFJ is here for the defense and security of Japan.

Washington's defense policy seems to have shifted significantly recently: to let JSDF have more responsibility to militarily deal with China, thus making the Sakishima Islands (Miyako, Ishigaki and Yonaguni) JSDF's forward missile bases against China’s advancement. This despite huge U.S. military remaining the same. Futenma's relocation to Henoko is meaningless in this vein.

The Henoko relocation is meaningless, especially, in view of the fact that a future war will be an AI-led Drone and missile war without any doubt.

Yubaru,

The 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement is composed of 8 sections, of which Article 5 may be the most relevant to our discussion.  Article 5 says that Okinawa's claim to damages that had incurred during the occupation will become void.

Do You still insist that, because of this, all legal issues involved in U.S, bases in Okinawa have been settled?

@TaiwanIsNotChina

Me: I am tired of the USA exporting its wars

You: Got it, you like war.

With American logic like that, no wonder the world is in danger. Shocking.

The US presence is preventing a war. I don't think you realize how much the Chinese hate Japan and how they burn for revenge (never mind that coward Mao hid out throughout the war and even told Japanese forces were KMT units were so they would attack them). If US forces leave Japan, Taiwan will be destroyed and Japan will be speaking Mandarin with their youth being taught the CCP approved version of WWII. The only reason China doesn't attack Japan is they know the US will drop the hammer on them if they do. That threat keeps the peace, and maintains your right to whine about the very force that protects your precious freedoms.

Yubaru,

Japan waves all claims...... It's called a "slam dunk". You are finished, your theories are finished, your opinions are wrong, and you have no proverbial pot.

Japan waves all claims according to this agreement, and so Okinawa cannot demand compensations for the damages incurred during the occupation. Who ever disputes that? Everyone knows it.

What I'm arguing is, rather, whether the illegality of forceful confiscation of private property in Okinawa during the occupation period could be condoned under international law and whether U.S. forces could be acquitted from the crime it committed during the occupation. The criminality remains the same forever; it doesn't dissipate easily even if the two sides agreed it would.

it doesn't dissipate easily even if the two sides agreed it would.

This! This is why Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese, a few other countries, and a very few Okinawan's, politicians, ultra-right nationalists and a few other nutcases, can not get over the war, even when it is in their best interests to do so. They want to play the victim for their entire lives, and can't get over it! This thinking is the same as the people who think Japan was the victim, and not guilty of anything.

The war ended nearly 80 years ago! You were never a part of the war, no experience of it and yet there are still people, like you, who can not let it go, and continue to complain and feed the fires of distrust, through lies and whitewashing of the facts.

I have a lot of respect for those who actually experienced and lived through the war, whether I agree with their opinions or not, they get my utmost respect because of their experiences. I have zero respect for those who live vicariously through the experiences of others.

The "combatants" agreed to peace, but you can't. That says an awful lot, all by itself.

Yubaru,

arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

 OK, the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement says the two governments has agreed that the illegal confiscation of private property during the U.S. occupation of Okinawa will be condoned. But I have been arguing throughout this discussion if a mere agreement between two parties can transcend international law. I said agreements between fences as regards the purchase of stolen goods are void under any nation's criminal law.

But I have been arguing throughout this discussion if a mere agreement between two parties can transcend international law. I said agreements between fences as regards the purchase or selling of stolen goods would be void and illegal under any nation's criminal law.

Your arguments are invalid and meaningless! You shift gears with the topic at hand, and attempt to obfuscate the fact that it matters nothing. Now you are pulling at straws, as all your arguments have no meaning, there are no laws, nothing, to support anything you have to say.

Everything has been settled, just get over it!

OK, the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement says the two governments have agreed that the illegal confiscation of private property during the U.S. occupation of Okinawa will be condoned. 

No treaty states this. What you wrote here is wrong, and you know it. Quit playing games!

*Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nations against the United States of America and its nationals and against the local authorities of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

Read and comprehend the following here.

The war ended nearly 80 years ago! You were never a part of the war, no experience of it and yet there are still people, like you, who can not let it go, and continue to complain and feed the fires of distrust, through lies and whitewashing of the facts.

I have a lot of respect for those who actually experienced and lived through the war, whether I agree with their opinions or not, they get my utmost respect because of their experiences. I have zero respect for those who live vicariously through the experiences of others.

The "combatants" agreed to peace, but you can't. That says an awful lot, all by itself.

Even you know you have nothing to stand on in your opinions here. There is nothing but supposition and conjecture on your part.

The only way to "settle" this if for you to unequivocally state that you were wrong and there are no legality issues related to the Marine Corps, or any US Forces in Okinawa, with regards to how the property was obtained.

You can not separate Futenma from any other base in Okinawa, as they ALL were basically appropriated in the same manner. That MUST stop! It's both naïve and willfully ignorant to keep trying to push the idea that it's otherwise.

Even you MUST admit that it is all settled in law and reality.

You MUST admit that your ideas and opinions are purely academic discussions and have no basis in reality today.

When you unequivocally state these things, no obfuscation, state it plainly, that you were totally wrong. Then I give you an answer as to how I personally think and feel about the subject.

  repeat: Futenma is an illegal property, for it sits on private lands that were confiscated from private citizens in blatant violation of international law that prohibits such an act.

And once again, what you believe, and what is fact are two different things! What may have been illegally confiscated at the time, is not an issue today.

Japan and the US settled the issue, and people have been compensated for their property being used.

Sounds like you are jealous.

Another point I want to emphasize here is that the U.S. Marines are stationed in Japan (Okinawa) in sheer violation of Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. security treaty. The Japanese version of it, which has the same legal force as the English version says only the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are allowed to use bases and facilities in Japan. There is no mention of the Marine Corps, which is a bona fide military service independent of the Navy.

Another comment made from pure stubbornness. as the treaty states, the following, and of which you have been told numerous times in the past,

from Article VI of the treaty

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.

There is no mention of the Army, Navy, or Air Force, by name, either. So by what you are saying they ALL are here illegally. Lol!

Quit beating the dead horse, you are again proven wrong here!

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html

Funny thing, you have nothing to refute the facts and links I have shared that shows, in detail, the facts, and not your conjecture.

I have proved you wrong, once again, backed by cold hard facts.

The cold fact for me is that U.S. occupation forces confiscated private property with impunity, in blatant violation of international law. 

It is a well known fact that during the occupation of Okinawa the US forces forcibly removed people from their lands and confiscated them. I never denied that.

However, the LEGAL issues surrounding these events have all been laid to rest with the reversion treaty.

Dont be so childish and naive.

Can you deny that hard fact? But you BELIEVE that legal matters concerning the confiscation of private property by the U.S. occupation forces have been condoned and settled. That's your BELIEF and opinion, not a hard cold fact.

No I have shown you that I KNOW that the matters have been settled legally. The treaties covered it all, and that isnt an opinion, it's fact.

Enjoy the fact that Futenma will be returned.

Refute the treaties! Refute the responses I made regarding your posts about the MC. Refute the posts about the treaties covering all legal issues related to US actions prior to them being ratified.

Refute them with current laws and show links or information to support them.

If you are so sure that you are right, show actual proof, as I have shared with you, time and again.

If you can't, then you should just stop.

Can you deny that hard fact? But you BELIEVE that legal matters concerning the confiscation of private property by the U.S. occupation forces have been condoned and settled. That's your BELIEF and opinion, not a hard cold fact.

Where e are there any open court cases to support your ideas or theories? Heck Denny and his predecessor took the "government" to court numerous times in their fight against the landfill, but no one, not one person anywhere, including YOU, have ever brought a court case regarding the issue you seem to believe is still unsettled.

Here it is, it's the literal "put up or shut up" time. Show the proof that the issue is not settled. Show any lawsuits open now, show any court cases that support your ideas. Show any judgements against the treaties that state they are against the law.

I gave verifiable and more importantly legally binding proof.

All you gave was talk. I suppose you know the saying about that too.

Are there any projections on how many years/decades this will take after the new facility opens?

Once Futenma is closed, and it and Camp Kinser and Naha Port returned to Japanese control

Japanese or Okinawan control?

What kind of a strategic role does Futenma's replacement in Henoko, an Osprey base, play should an emergency or contingency ever occur? Isn't it Washington's new policy to detach itself from a future conflict with China as much as possible, letting JSDF deal with a China threat more positively? On this premise, Tokyo is fortifying Yonaguni, Ishigaki and Miyako Islands as forward missile bases despite this large U.S. miliary presence.

Just like you, neither my opinions, nor what I think or feel matter one bit. So what if the JSDF fortifies itself, it's more than long overdue.

Deal with China positively? You have a side job somewhere as a comedian?

Yubaru,

Just as your mere opinion means nothing in the larger picture of reality.

You want to say Futenma's function is absolutely necessary wherever it may be in Okinawa despite the fact that the land it now sits on was illegally confiscated from private citizens? Futenma's illegality is nothing wrong in the larger picture of reality? What is the larger picture you talk about here?

This is wrong on every level.

You seem to say that there is no legality issue involved in the Futenma air station, and you said clearly that all legality problems were settled with the signing of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement.

Yup, and all the extraneous and meaningless comments you write, in an attempt to bury the fact, that all issues are settled.

Hague convention carries no weight in the discussion. Once again, repeating here, Notice if you will the BOLD type.

Any and all legal issues regarding the bases were settled upon during the US and Japanese agreement to return Okinawa to Japanese control. Japan also agreed at the time to pay $320 Million, paid over 5 years, for the return as well.

The treaty also states that Japan would recognize actions taken by the United States administration in those areas, and that the administration would not be held liable for criminal activity during its time.

Complain all you want, it's officially settled, and there is absolutely nothing you can say or do to change it.

Just sit back and enjoy your time, and feel good that MCAS Futenma will be returned. You should be happy after all these years of complaining that it is finally happening.

The 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement is composed of 8 sections, of which Article 5 may be the most relevant to our discussion. Article 5 says that Okinawa's claim to damages that had incurred during the occupation will become void.

You got the treaty right, but you should look at Article IV,

ARTICLE lV

Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nations against the United States of America and its nationals and against the local authorities of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

And as I have always told you, over and over and over again, you should be complaining to Tokyo,

Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of the United States administration of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands under or in consequence of directives of the United States or local authorities, authorised by existing law during that period, and will take no action subjecting the United States nationals or the residents of these islands to civil or criminal liability arising out of such acts of omissions.

Article V matters too.

As it is an unsecure link, I copied the agreement here,

https://ryukyu-okinawa.net/pages/archive/rev71.html

Agreement Between the United States of America and Japan Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands

Washington and Tokyo (simultaneously),

17th June,1971

The United States of America and Japan

Noting that the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Japan reviewed together on November 19, 20, and 21, 1969 the status of the Ryukyu Islands the Daito Islands, referred to as "Okinawa" in the Joint Communique between the President and the Prime Minister issued on November 21, 1969, and agreed that the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan should enter immediately into consultations regarding the specific arrangements for accomplishing the early reversion of these islands to Japan;

Noting that the two Governments have conducted such consultations and have reaffirmed that the reversion of these islands to Japan be carried out on the basis of the said Joint Communique;

Considering the United States of America desires, with respect to the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, to relinquish in favour of Japan all rights and interests under Article III of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the City of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, and thereby to have relinquished all its rights and interests in all territories under the said Article; and Considering further that Japan is willing to assume full responsibility and authority for the exercise of all powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands;

Therefore, have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I

1. With respect to the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, as defined in paragraph 2 below, the United States of America relinquishes in favour of Japan all rights and interests under Article III of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the City of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, effective as of the date of entry into force of this Agreements. Japan, as of such date, assumes full responsibility and authority for the exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands.

2. For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands" means all the territories and their territorial waters with respect to which the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction was accorded to the United States of America under Article III of the Treaty of Peace with Japan other than those with respect to which such right has already been returned to Japan in accordance with the Agreement concerning the Amami Islands and the Agreement concerning Nanpo Shoto and Other Islands signed between the United States of America and Japan, respectively on December 24, 1953 and April 5, 1968.

ARTICLE II

It is confirmed that treaties, conventions and other agreements concluded between the United States of America and Japan, including, but without limitation, the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan signed at Washington on January 19, 1960, and its related arrangements and the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of American and Japan signed at Tokyo on April 2,1953, become applicable to the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

ARTICLE III

I. Japan will grant the United States of America on the date of entry into force of this Agreement the use of facilities and areas in the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands in accordance with the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan signed at Washington on January 19, 1960 and its related arrangements.

2. In the application of Article lV of the Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan, regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of the United States Armed Forces in Japan signed on January 19, 1960, to the facilities and areas the use of which will be granted in accordance with paragraph I above to the United States of America on the date of entry into force of this Agreement, it is understood that the phrase "the condition in which they were at the time they became available to the United States Armed Forces" in paragraph I of the said Article IV refers to the condition in which the facilities and areas first came into the use of the United States Armed Forces, and that the term "improvements" in paragraph 2 of the said Article includes those made prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

ARTICLE lV

1. Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nations against the United States of America and its nationals and against the local authorities of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

2. The waiver in paragraph 1 above does not, however, include claims of Japanese nationals specifically recognized in the laws of the United States of America or the local laws of these islands applicable during the period of United States administration of these islands. The Government of the United States of America is authorised to maintain its duly empowered officials in the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands in order to deal with and settle such claims on and after the date of entry into force of this Agreement in accordance with the procedures to be established in consultation with the Government of Japan.

3. The Government of the United States of America will make ex gratia contributions for restoration of lands to the nationals of Japan whose lands in the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands were damaged prior to July 1, 1950, while placed under the use of United States authorities, and were released from their use after June 30, 1961 and before the date of entry into force of this Agreement. Such contributions will be made in an equitable manner in relation under High Commissioner Ordinance Number 60 of 1967 to claims for damages done prior to July 1, 1950 to the lands released prior to July 1, 1961.

4. Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of the United States administration of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands under or in consequence of directives of the United States or local authorities, authorised by existing law during that period, and will take no action subjecting the United States nationals or the residents of these islands to civil or criminal liability arising out of such acts of omissions.

ARTICLE V

1. Japan recognizes the validity of, and will continue in full force and effect, final judgements in civil cases rendered by any court in the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement, provided that such recognition or continuation would not be contrary to public policy.

2. Without in any way adversely affecting the substantive rights and positions of the litigants concerned, Japan will assume jurisdiction over and continue judgement and execution of any civil case pending as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement in any court in the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands.

3. Without in any way adversely affecting the substantive rights of the accused or suspect concerned, Japan will assume jurisdiction over, and may continue or institute proceedings with respect to, any criminal cases with which any court in the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands is seized as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement or would have been seized had the proceedings been instituted prior to such date.

4. Japan may continue the execution of any final judgements rendered in criminal cases by any court in the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands.

ARTICLE VI

1. The properties of the Ryukyu Electric Power Corporation, the Ryukyu Domestic Water Corporation and the Ryukyu Development Loan Corporation shall be transferred to the Government of Japan on the date of entry into force of this Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the said Corporations shall be assumed by the Government of Japan on that date on conformity with the laws and regulations of Japan.

2. All other properties of the Government of the United States of America, existing in the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement and located outside the facilities and areas provided on that date in accordance with Article III of this Agreement, shall be transferred to the Government of Japan on that date, except for those that are located on the lands returned to the landowners concerned before the date of entry into force of this Agreement and for those the title to which will be retained by the Government of the United States of America after that date with the consent of the Government of Japan.

3. Such lands in the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands reclaimed by the Government of the United States of America and such other reclaimed lands acquired by it in these islands are held by the Government of the United States of America as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement become the property of the Government of Japan on that date.

4. The United States of America is not obliged to compensate Japan or its nationals for any alteration made prior to the date of entry into force of this agreement to the lands upon which the properties transferred to the Government of Japan under paragraphs I and 2 above are located.

ARTICLE VII

Considering, inter alia, that United States assets are being transferred to the Government of Japan under Article VI of this Agreement, that the Government of the United States of America is carrying out the return of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands to Japan in a manner consistent with the policy of the Government of Japan as specified in paragraph 8 of the Joint Communique of November 21,1969, and that the Government of the United States of America will bear extra costs, particularly in the area of employment after reversion, the Government of Japan will pay to the Government of the United States of America in United States dollars a total amount of three hundred and twenty million United States dollars (U.S. $320,000,000) over a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this Agreement. Of the said amount, the Government of Japan will pay one hundred million United States dollars (U.S. $100,000,000) within one week after the date of entry into force of this Agreement and the remainder in four equal annual instalments in June of each calendar year subsequent to the year in which this Agreement enters into force.

ARTICLE VIII

The Government of Japan consents to the continued operation by the Government of the United States of America of the Voice of America relay station on Okinawa island for a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this Agreement in accordance with the arrangements to be concluded between the two Governments. The two Governments shall enter into consultation two years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement on future operation of the Voice of America on Okinawa Island.

ARTICLE IX

This Agreement shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at Tokyo. This Agreement shall enter into force two months after the date of exchange of the instruments of ratification.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement.

DONE at Washington and Tokyo, this seventeenth day of June, 1971, in duplicate in the English and Japanese language, both equally authentic.

For the United States of America:

WILLIAM P. ROGERS

For Japan:

KIICHI AICHI

Yubaru,

This document only says that Okinawa waves claims to damages incurred during the occupation; never says the illegal confiscation of private property by the U.S. army is exonerated. The two issues are different by nature all across the board. 

Besides, even if it said the U.S. occupation forces' illegal actions could be exonerated, the illegality involved in Futenma remains the same, for a mere bilateral agreement cannot transcend international law.

Futenma can be said an illegal property from every respect, whereby the U.S. cannot demand its replacement be provided in exchange of its return. It must be returned right then and there with no string attached. Period.

Agreements between fences, however minutely stipulated they may be, are void under a nation's higher law.

Higher law? This is garbage and meaningless. There is no "higher" law in Japan that discusses or even touches on this topic.

Your post here is off topic. Also the following:

You cannot blame Russia over its invasion of Ukraine nor China over its handling of the Uighurs. You must learn wisdom by the follies of others.

Besides this being off topic and utterly meaningless to this discussion, you should take your own advice, and learn from the follies of your mistakes.

What I'm arguing is, rather, whether the illegality of forceful confiscation of private property in Okinawa during the occupation period could be condoned under international law and whether U.S. forces could be acquitted from the crime it committed during the occupation. The criminality remains the same forever; it doesn't dissipate easily even if the two sides agreed it would.

You have been arguing, 100% wrongly by the way, as proven once again by the treaty, that it still is illegal, and the MC should move, no questions asked.

You have been proven wrong again.

Condoned or otherwise, doesnt matter, it happened, and all issues dropped with the reversion treaty. Read this section again, and stop beating the dead horse.

arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

Quit being so naïve.

Japan waves all claims according to this agreement, and so Okinawa cannot demand compensations for the damages incurred during the occupation.

Once again, for what, the 1000th time at least? Take it up with Tokyo! Your government agreed to and signed the deal, and they paid the US $320 Million for the return too! You want a cut of that money, talk to Tokyo, there are ZERO legal issues! If you haven't figured it out, Okinawa is not a sovereign state, no matter how much you try to act otherwise.

Again, quit being so naïve, Tokyo wont listen to you either and you know it!

（Resubmission after correcting somw grammaticai errors.)

Yubaru,

arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

OK, the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement says the two governments have agreed that the illegal confiscation of private property during the U.S. occupation of Okinawa will be condoned. But I have been arguing throughout this discussion if a mere agreement between two parties can transcend international law. I said agreements between fences as regards the purchase or selling of stolen goods would be void and illegal under any nation's criminal law.

Yubaru,

The only way to "settle" this if (is) for you to unequivocally state that you were wrong and there are no legality issues related to the Marine Corps, or any US Forces in Okinawa, with regards to how the property was obtained.

I'll throw these words right back to your own tongue: You must state unequivocally that you were completely wrong.

I repeat: Futenma is an illegal property, for it sits on private lands that were confiscated from private citizens in blatant violation of international law that prohibits such an act.

Another point I want to emphasize here is that the U.S. Marines are stationed in Japan (Okinawa) in sheer violation of Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. security treaty. The Japanese version of it, which has the same legal force as the English version says only the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are allowed to use bases and facilities in Japan. There is no mention of the Marine Corps, which is a bona fide military service independent of the Navy.

Yubaru,

The cold fact for me is that U.S. occupation forces confiscated private property with impunity, in blatant violation of international law. Can you deny that hard fact? But you BELIEVE that legal matters concerning the confiscation of private property by the U.S. occupation forces have been condoned and settled. That's your BELIEF and opinion, not a hard cold fact.

Yubaru,

It is a well known fact that during the occupation of Okinawa the US forces forcibly removed people from their lands and confiscated them. I never denied that.

Now you have admitted that the U.S. occupation forces had confiscated private property in violation of international law in order to build bases and facilities. Futenma is a focal point here.

But you insist that legal matters involved in Futenma Air Station and others have been solved and settled by 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement. To this I countered that a mere bilateral agreement cannot rescind the illegality the U.S. forces had committed. The illegality and criminality the U.S. had committed remains as they are, forever.

But you insist that legal matters involved in Futenma Air Station and others have been solved and settled by 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement. To this I countered that a mere bilateral agreement cannot rescind the illegality the U.S. forces had committed. The illegality and criminality the U.S. had committed remains as they are, forever.

Once more,

Where are there any open court cases to support your ideas or theories? Heck Denny and his predecessor took the "government" to court numerous times in their fight against the landfill, but no one, not one person anywhere, including YOU, have ever brought a court case regarding the issue you seem to believe is still unsettled.

Here it is, it's the literal "put up or shut up" time. Show the proof that the issue is not settled. Show any lawsuits open now, show any court cases that support your ideas. Show any judgements against the treaties that state they are against the law.

I gave verifiable and more importantly legally binding proof.

Prove it! If you can! You can't can you! All issues settled.

Now you have admitted that the U.S. occupation forces had confiscated private property in violation of international law in order to build bases and facilities. Futenma is a focal point here.

What happened to you? Did the military choose to not take your family's property and leave you out of the money and compensation?

You know you OWE your very existence to the grace and goodness of the US

 Honestly surprised they even bothered taking it back in the 50s just to make it their least funded prefecture by a wide margin

Dont know much about the history here do you?

Can a mere bilateral agreement transcend international law? 

It does.... So again, moot point. Just as your mere opinion means nothing in the larger picture of reality.

You want to say Futenma's function is absolutely necessary wherever it may be in Okinawa despite the fact that the land it now sits on was illegally confiscated from private citizens?

Nope YOU want to say it, even though you know it's not. People have made a lot of money off of Futenma's property, and many of them dont want that money train to end either.

Nothing illegal, moot subject, ALL covered countless times.

 Futenma's illegality is nothing wrong in the larger picture of reality? What is the larger picture you talk about here?

Nothing illegal, so nothing to discuss on the legal issue.

Larger picture? That's easy, Futenma will be closed! Hooray! And you will just have to be happy with that fact!

One bomb from Russia or North Korea or China would change the locals minds in a millisecond.

Your wires are crossed. The only reason China or Russia would bomb Okinawa is because the US bases are there. More bases, more chance of being bombed.

I am tired of the USA exporting its wars so that others can die and make profits for the US war machine. I would prefer that someone takes the war directly to the US soon so Americans can finally get a taste of what they spread around the world. I don't say that because I want innocent Americans to die, but I think that is the only thing that will wake them up to the death and destruction their policies spread.

@TaiwanIsNotChina

Me: I am tired of the USA exporting its wars

You: Got it, you like war.

With American logic like that, no wonder the world is in danger. Shocking.

Agreements between fences, however minutely stipulated they may be, are void under a nation's higher law.

You cannot blame Russia over its invasion of Ukraine nor China over its handling of the Uighurs. You must learn wisdom by the follies of others.

This document only says that Okinawa waves claims to damages incurred during the occupation; never says the illegal confiscation of private property by t

Nowhere does it state what you are again attempting to push into the discussion!

Okinawa is not and never was, as "Okinawa" a sovereign state.

The country of Japan waived ALL CLAIMS, from the time the US invaded the islands, until this agreement came into place. The lines highlighted in bold face type, cover the confiscation of land, and actions of the military. Both the English language version and Japanese language version are legally binding,

Japan waves all claims...... It's called a "slam dunk". You are finished, your theories are finished, your opinions are wrong, and you have no proverbial pot.

Doesnt matter anyway, the end is in sight, and you will be happy, finally, after all the years of complaining, that the land of MCAS Futenma, and other Marine Corp facilities will be returned to Japanese control.

Now let's see something productive comes from it or not, it's only 1 tsubo of land for many to do with as they please.

Read Article IV

*Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nations against the United States of America and its nationals and against the local authorities of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands,* arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

Secondly, Futenma at the current site sits on illegally confiscated private lands. So, the Marines are using it like illegal squatters

As pointed out to you countless numbers of times, this is purely your opinion, and should be stated as such. There is no "legal" issue surrounding the lands that Futenma sits on, and you just can't let that fact go.

I find it amusing that for all the wailing you do about this, you come across as not wanting the base to be shut just so you can continue beating your head against the proverbial wall. One would think you would have learned to stop by now!

Any and all legal issues regarding the bases were settled upon during the US and Japanese agreement to return Okinawa to Japanese control. Japan also agreed at the time to pay $320 Million, paid over 5 years, for the return as well.

The treaty also states that Japan would recognize actions taken by the United States administration in those areas, and that the administration would not be held liable for criminal activity during its time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Okinawa_Reversion_Agreement

The agreement between the governments take precedence. Your opinion is a moot point, and something for the backrooms of academia type folks to talk about over a glass of awamori and your cigarettes!

Clearly more than 70% of the people of Okinawa oppose the construction of this new U.S. military facility

There is a very large but important difference, you are 100% wrong in what you wrote here, and I am just sharing facts. The 2019 referendum regarding the landfill at Camp Schwab says something totally different as a fact, rather than your conjecture.

72% of the people that voted, voted against the landfill and base being moved out of Futenma.72% out of 605, 385 that voted.

But that is NOT more than 70% of all the voters or people in Okinawa, not even close!

Of the 1,153,591 registered voters in the prefecture only 52.48%actually voted, yet you lie and state over 70% of all the people here oppose it. Do the math 434,237 people actually voted against the landfill and base extension, which if you do the math, is only about 1/3 of the people of Okinawa

So again, as I stated before, perception and now actual facts. 2/3rds of the people of Okinawa are either FOR the landfill and base, or dont care enough to vote.

I am sharing facts, not conjecture or lies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Okinawan_referendum

The US presence is preventing a war.

The only reason China has had such a military build up over the last couple decades is the U.S. presence around China and its constant provocations. The U.S. place is on the OTHER side of the Pacific.

The U.S. is only here for hegemony, dominance and power. It is an occupation force masquerading as a protection force. They will abandon Japan just as quickly as they abandoned the Philippines in WWII if things go wrong.

All the bases do is paint a target on Japanese esp. Okinawan backs. Okinawa is being treated as the vassal of a vassal. There could be more bases in Kyushu, but nobody wants them there either. But Okinawa is at the bottom of the totem pole so they get stuck with the American goons.

If US forces leave Japan, Taiwan will be destroyed

That's nuts. China will gain nothing by destroying Taiwan. And Taiwan can defend itself besides. Also, Japan has quite a military of its own and can also protect itself AND assist Taiwan if they choose. U.S. imperial forces are not needed here. They can all go home now.

One bomb from Russia or North Korea or China would change the locals minds in a millisecond.

Japanese or Okinawan control?

One and the same. How about this, returned to their "owners" control, who have been well compensated over all the years, some to the point of literally millions of dollars, in rent money, for the use of the land.

Now ALL the owners are Japanese, but how many are Okinawan, would take quite a bit of research to answer.

No one would have to let you know when it happens.

Oh, did you think I was holding my breath?

The Supreme Court, not really an independent branch of the state in Japan, just reinforced this discriminatory structure and once again ignored the will of the people of Okinawa.

So in your "democracy" only a portion of the "will" of the people is needed or necessary to rule the overwhelming majority!

I dont know where you studied math, but there is no way 1/3rd is greater than 2/3rd's!

Okinawa is a prefecture of the country of Japan, and as such, has a responsibility to play it's part in the defense of the country.

Of that there should be ZERO argument by anyone! The "state", in this case the prefecture, does not dictate the needs of the country as a whole.

@Yubaru By the logic of your creative take on election and democracies

Ahh but you cherry pick what you want, to make a needless comparison that is off topic here. Reread what I was replying to and just what I was replying to.

All Deny and his predecessor have done is delay the finishing of the landfill at Camp Schwab and the closing of MCAS Futenma in Ginowan.

This was another waste of taxpayers money and a slap in the face to the people of Ginowan who have been waiting over a generation now, for the promised return to actually happen.

Okinawa, which accounts for only 0.6% of Japanese land, is burdened with the majority of the 50,000 American troops based in the country under a bilateral security pact, and 70% of U.S. military facilities are in Okinawa.

Okinawa Prefecture hosts 32 U.S. military facilities including one USFJ-JSDF Joint Use Facility, there are something like 85 total facilities in Japan, and a total of about 26,000 military in Okinawa

Perception is important.

Once Futenma is closed, and it and Camp Kinser and Naha Port returned to Japanese control, the overwhelming burden and congestion in Okinawa, due to the location of these bases, will be greatly reduced.

Perception people, and an understanding of the island of Okinawa.

Japan's top court orders Okinawa to allow ... government plan to build U.S. military runways

Good.

We must conclude that the locals did not want Futenma relocated based on their actions. Thankfully the court removed the obstruction.