politics

Japan extends construction period for U.S. base in Okinawa to 10 years

17 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

An Okinawa prefectural referendum held in February showed more than 70 percent of residents oppose the transfer plan.

Misleading propaganda! 70% of those who voted, there are over 1.1 million registered voters in the prefecture and only a little over 52% of them voted, in this supposedly important election! And only about 430,000 of them voted against the measure.

Proved once again the apathy the far too many people here are towards the bases.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Well if they hadn't spent so much time blocking the relocation, we would already be well into it and could've finished sooner.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Well if they hadn't spent so much time blocking the relocation, we would already be well into it and could've finished sooner.

There is really more to it than just the protesters, the prefectural government and national government both carry equal blame.

The construction is moving along fine, and it will take longer than expected, but it will be completed, it's too far along to even consider going back.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Based on the updated estimate, the government is expected to seek approval for changes in its construction plan from the Okinawa prefectural government.

But Okinawa Gov Denny Tamaki, a vocal opponent of the base's relocation, has no plans to approve the government's application.

This is expected, and while the construction moves along, we will again be inundated with reports about lawsuits and what not, that all will end up with the same result.

Tamaki will lose the cases and tax money will again be wasted, and more importantly Futenma will remain open and operational until it is finished.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The return of the Futenma air station in 5 to 7 years was promised sensationally in 1996, saying that the base posed danger and hazards to Ginowan citizens to an extreme degree.

Now, the initial 5 to 7 year period has been extended to 27 years or longer and so the area residents will be exposed to Futenma's danger way longer than assured.

In the first place, was the elimination of danger the reason why Washington wanted Futenma to be relocated to Henoko? I doubt it. As Richard Lawless, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs, mentioned in a recent interview with NHK, the U.S. had Henoko in mind from the very beginning because, I think, the area offered the best geography for concentrating bases. 

The area is relatively less crowded compared with Ginowan City where Futenma is now located. Nearby, there's Camp Hansen, Central Training Area, Northern Training Area, and Camp Schwab with nuclear arsenal storable ammunition depots. A military port can be built at Oura Bay to berth amphibious assault ships like USS Wasp.

So the elimination of danger was only an excuse to field people's consent to the Henoko relocation, without any doubt. That's why they don't mind if the Ginowan citizens are exposed to danger and noise pollution however long the construction of the new base in Henoko might take.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

In the referendum held in February this year asking about the relocation, 114,933 eligible voters cast nays (79%) to it while 434,278 cast ayes (21%). 

True, the voter turnout was not as many as expected. Nonetheless, statistically speaking, one can say with certainty that 79% of Okinawa residents are opposed to the current Henoko relocation plan.

I know at least one Ginowan citizen who abstained from voting because he said that if he cast a yes vote, people in Nago will suffer the same agony as the Ginowan citizens and that if he cast a no vote it would be the Ginowan citizens who will continue to suffer for long. Among abstainers there must have been many such people as him.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Maybe, he should have been explained anti-Henoko also means Futenma must be moved outside Okinawa immediately. But there was no such choice to mark with that oondition attached in the reerrendum.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

debts will skyrocket for Japanese who say NO via vote to the base relocation.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Maybe, he should have been explained anti-Henoko also means Futenma must be moved outside Okinawa immediately. But there was no such choice to mark with that oondition attached in the reerrendum.

The referendum was forced upon the prefecture by a petition campaign started by people from OUTSIDE the prefecture.

They gained enough signatures to force it, even though Denny nor any of the people who are against the base wanted the referendum, there was a number of municipalities 5 in fact that opposed the referendum as it originally was planned, and forced the 3rd option of neither for nor against.

The referendum was in fact meaningless as it was a NON-binding vote, and nothing has nor will change due to it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

True, the voter turnout was not as many as expected. Nonetheless, statistically speaking, one can say with certainty that 79% of Okinawa residents are opposed to the current Henoko relocation plan.

Hmm, your "certainty" is 100% wrong again!

1/3 of eligible voters participated and voted no, the other 2/3rd s either said yes or did not participate. The total number of eligible voters is over 1.4 million.

Do the math, one can say with 100% certainty that 2/3rd s of Okinawa are for it!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Tamaki will lose the cases and tax money will again be wasted

This compared to the “ballooning” of necessary costs that taxpayers will eventually be responsible for anyway. If part of your argument is for saving taxpayer funds, instead of reclaiming land off Okinawa, would’ve been less expensive just to build a new base, or expand an existing one, in mainland.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

ndigo,

debts will skyrocket for Japanese who say NO via vote to the base relocation.

On what basis do you say that? How much do you think the new Marine base to be constructed in Henoko will contribute to the security of Japan when: (1) the most active elements of Okinawa-based Marines will move to Guam, leaving logistics and command units only in Okinawa; (2) Tokyo and Washington agreed recently that primary responsibility to defend outlying territories rests with Japan's Self Defense Forces and not with U.S. Forces Japan?

In my opinion, the Henoko new base is a sheer white elephant unworthy of squandering so much tax money (350 billion yen or $3.2 billion).  If there's any meaning in it, it's only that the U.S. wants to retain all rights to bases in Okinawa, gripping them firmly and permanently.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yubaru,

1/3 of eligible voters participated and voted no, the other 2/3rd s either said yes or did not participate. The total number of eligible voters is over 1.4 million.

Do the math, one can say with 100% certainty that 2/3rd s of Okinawa are for it!

Okinawa's current population is 1.45 million, of whom eligible voters account for 562,042, of whom 281,205 went to polls to vote, of whom pro-Henoko voters were 114,933 whereas anti-Henoko voters were 434,273. These figures are from the statistics compiled by the Okinawa Prefectural Government.

So I will repay the same question as you asked, "Do the math", and you will never be able to say "that 2/3 of Okinawa are for.it".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Okinawa's current population is 1.45 million, of whom eligible voters account for 562,042, of whom 281,205 went to polls to vote

Once again, misinformation, there are 当日有権者数:1,153,591人 there are 1,1153,591 eligible voters, NOT the 562,042 you claim here! You cut the number in half to support your unsupportable idea!

605,385 voted! not the 281,205 you claim below here!

Okinawa's current population is 1.45 million, of whom eligible voters account for 562,042, of whom 281,205 went to polls to vote, of whom pro-Henoko voters were 114,933 whereas anti-Henoko voters were 434,273. These figures are from the statistics compiled by the Okinawa Prefectural Government.

So I will repay the same question as you asked, "Do the math", and you will never be able to say "that 2/3 of Okinawa are for.it".

2/3rds of Okinawa support the landfill or dont care enough to vote!

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

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru and voiceofokinawa, please do not address each other any further ton this thread since you just bickering and going around in circles (as usual).

This whole fiasco of base construction extension is 100% the responsibility of the LDP.

Regardless of the base movement argument - yes, no, if, when, where, why - the decision to move to Henoko should have necessitated extensive environmental surveys, obviously far beyond what was undertaken.

Seeing the extremely controversial nature of the whole project, one can only imagine it was "business as usual" for the J. Inc machinations, with little respect given to detailed scientific investigation.

Now we have a situation where they have "found" that large areas of Oura Bay have a much deeper layer of soft material below the seabed. Initial analysis determined the layer to be 70 metres deep, but now confirmed to be at least 90 metres. This will require an unprecedented engineering effort of installing 60,000 compressed sand pillars to 90 meters to stabilize the region. Failure to adequately do so, will result in significant subsidence.

This will add on $billions in costs (good ol' taxpayers), years of extra time and result in more anguish and suffering for the residents of both Ginowan and Nago.

Nice one LDP - all under your watch. what a joke.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Inept Japanese Bureaucrats and Inept Japanese Politicians along with a sham Environmental Impact Survey and a sham Pre-Construction Survey equals the Disaster known as the MCAS Futenma to Henoko Relocation Plan. So the same Japanese Govt. who was screaming that MCAS Futenma is the most dangerous base in the world and has to be closed right away to protect the safety of the people of Ginowan is now saying that closing MCAS Futenma after 2030 is no problem! Neither the Japanese Govt. or the U.S. Military care anything about the safety of the people of Ginowan because if they did they would have started negotiating the closure of MCAS Futenma on May 15, 1972 which is the date of Reversion. In 2030, the necessity of the Marines on Okinawa for the security of Japan will be even less than it is in 2019. This Henoko Relocation Project is more about enriching Mainland Japanese Construction Companies who are huge donors to the LDP than it is about the Security of Japan. Any money spent on the U.S. Marines on Okinawa is a waste of money that would be better spent on upgrading the JSDF. Get the Marines completely out of Okinawa and return all of that wasted land back to Okinawa. Keep Kadena Air Base, U.S. Army Bases and the U.S. Navy Base at White Beach and those forces along with the JSDF can defend Okinawa and Japan without any problem.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites