Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
politics

Gov't mulls meeting with Okinawa on U.S. base transfer plan

46 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments

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

From the kanji(Chinese characters) written behind them, we can understand the resentment of Japanese characters and the central government. Both US and Japan were occupation forces of Okinawa. A larger one and a smaller one. Denny has visited China and the independent history of Okinawa was discussed and recognised. We can feel your pains and support your struggling of dignity!

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

Just reading the above article, I feel like this could get ugly. It does seem rational that, if we assume the military bas has to be somewhere in Okinawa, a less-populated location would be safer. But I guess it's the assumption itself that is causing the backlash.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Apart from wrecking one of the most beautiful spots in these islands, Henoko is a useless site for a base. Can't build on mud. Okinawans want less, not more US military presence. So why on Earth build it here? Why can't the US military build on their own land?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

But during his talks with Hayashi in Naha, Okinawa Gov Denny Tamaki urged Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's government to consider public opinion and abandon the relocation plan for U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, now located in the densely-populated city of Ginowan.

Right, and leave Futenma right where it is! Can't have your cake and eat it too Denny-chan! It's time to wake up and smell the coffee!

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Apart from wrecking one of the most beautiful spots in these islands, Henoko is a useless site for a base. Can't build on mud.

Right, you have never set foot anywhere near the area in question. Not to mention your hypocrisy in complaining about this one location, but nary a peep in all the other landfills all over the island, that have destroyed a 100 times, if not more, the nature that surrounds the island.

All the people who talk about the "damage" to the environment are hypocrites!

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Okinawa is definitely not Japan, there was a Ryukyu kingdom. It was decimated by imperial Japan in 1879. Ancient Chinese documents has official contact between China and Okinawa.

That damned and useless Manchurian empire(China:1644-1911) paid no attention to Japanese aggression of Ryukyu kingdom. Those Manchurians were naive to realise the strategic importance of Ryukyu and Taiwan. Let those lands stolen away by Meiji Japan was the root cause of American presence in western Pacific. As the Han Chinese awakening up, the modern China: PRC has a duty to bring that wrongful history events back to a right one!

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Let those lands stolen away by Meiji Japan was the root cause of American presence in western Pacific. As the Han Chinese awakening up, the modern China: PRC has a duty to bring that wrongful history events back to a right one!

What?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Okinawa is definitely not Japan, there was a Ryukyu kingdom. It was decimated by imperial Japan in 1879. Ancient Chinese documents has official contact between China and Okinawa.

Right, then Manhattan is not part of New York or the United States and belongs to the indigenous people who once lived there! Or Hawaii, or how about Tibet and the regions in China that have native populations than are under the thumb of the Chinese government?

This is ancient history and means nothing today!

No one in Okinawa, even Denny, is looking to make Okinawa independent.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Okinawa is definitely not Japan, there was a Ryukyu kingdom. It was decimated by imperial Japan in 1879. 

Do Okinawans think they are occupied like Ukraine is? Are you equating Russia with Japan?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

elephant200Today 08:15 am JST

Okinawa is definitely not Japan, there was a Ryukyu kingdom. It was decimated by imperial Japan in 1879. Ancient Chinese documents has official contact between China and Okinawa.

That damned and useless Manchurian empire(China:1644-1911) paid no attention to Japanese aggression of Ryukyu kingdom. Those Manchurians were naive to realise the strategic importance of Ryukyu and Taiwan. Let those lands stolen away by Meiji Japan was the root cause of American presence in western Pacific. As the Han Chinese awakening up, the modern China: PRC has a duty to bring that wrongful history events back to a right one!

Yes, we know the CCP has designs on Okinawa. Thank you for reminding us.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Do Okinawans think they are occupied like Ukraine is?

NO! Also please understand that the island's people are all Japanese citizens. None want to revert to being independent.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

How about moving US bases to somewhere in the US?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The wishes of the local people, in this case Okinawans, should always be given serious consideration by governments. It's bad enough that they have had to have not just a one-time conquering power, but a now peacetime friendly power, on their territory. But to move its base around using more Okinawan land against the wishes of the people, that is very bad.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

How about moving US bases to somewhere in the US?

Tell someone you dont know anything about the issues, without actually saying so!

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The wishes of the local people, in this case Okinawans, should always be given serious consideration by governments. It's bad enough that they have had to have not just a one-time conquering power, but a now peacetime friendly power, on their territory. But to move its base around using more Okinawan land against the wishes of the people, that is very bad.

First, please tell me how you are going to differentiate between local "Okinawans" and the "Japanese" who live on Okinawa?

Your comment here shows true ignorance about the actual situation

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

From what I've heard on these matters it sometimes comes down to the amount of money needed to sway opinions of politicians, the well-connected and landowners who are the main benefactors of these types of deals. Feel sorry for the average Okinawan. Been trodden all over since they ancient times.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

" Denny has visited China and the independent history of Okinawa was discussed and recognised. We can feel your pains and support your struggling of dignity!"

If Okinawa were China, this bloody base would been completed ages ago.

There would be NO talks whatsoever, with The central Government "begging" for a Prefecture@s understanding!!!

Who are you trying to kid?!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Tell someone you dont know anything about the issues, without actually saying so!

Tell someone you support US imperialism without doing so...

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Tell someone you support US imperialism without doing so..

Really now? Lessening the footprint of the US in Okinawa and Japan is supporting US imperialism.

First time I have ever heard anyone equaling "less" as being more.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

From what I've heard on these matters it sometimes comes down to the amount of money needed to sway opinions of politicians, the well-connected and landowners who are the main benefactors of these types of deals.

Money is and has ALWAYS been the issue. Countless numbers of politicians scream bloody murder about the bases, all along having their hand out begging for more money because they are hosting them.

Municipalities without bases are crying, because they get less, but because it's political suicide to go against the "flow" everything stays the same.

Feel sorry for the average Okinawan. Been trodden all over since they ancient times.

Average Okinawan.... Again, I ask, define just WHO is an "average" Okinawan? Does it include the "Japanese" from mainland that have been living here for generations? Or do those people have no say and only those who can "prove" having "Ryukyuan" blood have a say?

Folks here dont want anyone's pity!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Tell someone you support US imperialism without doing so...

Japan agreeing to host bases isn’t imperialism

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

how about they send governor of Okinawa going Senkaku and stay there for let say, 3 days? so that he can experience first hand how despicable commies bullying, annoying the JDF and how they intrude the Japan territories? it is always not about Okinawa, it is about national security!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Behind the two is a big folding screen full of kanji (chinese characters). I am a Japanese but I cannot read and understand any of it. Okinawa is half China.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@vanity: Those are very ancient Chinese literature, modern people doesn't understand at all. That was the evidence that Ryukyu was influenced by China and has nothing to do with Japanese.

Denny wants to demonstrate Okinawa belonging to China not Japan or US. Ryukyu hates foreign occupying as of today. That's why the Chinese character writings was hanging in the background.An attempt to ashame Mr.Hayashi!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

elephant is saying that the Okinawa governor's background is text written in Classical Chinese (古文) which was the lingua franca of East Asia for 2,000+ years. The setting certainly could be symbolic or simply accidental.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Just stop giving money to the US army for "protection".

Japan can and must take care of themselves.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Just stop giving money to the US army for "protection".

Tell someone they dont know anything about the security agreement and how things work in relationship to the bases in Japan, without actually saying so!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

send US boys,ladies and others home.

they are needed at least in Texas now to protect US south border with Mexico.

Japan have JSDF-will do just fine without them...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan have JSDF-will do just fine without them...

By the time the JSDF responds to any threats, it will be too late. For Japan to be "fine", it needs to have the JSDF be formally changed to a military, that can attack as well as defend itself, and to do that needs a change to the constitution. SOmething easier said than done!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The central government is still trying to convince us that Henoko is the only option for Futenma's relocation? As far as U.S. bases in Okinawa are concerned, Tokyo and Washington work in collusion with each other closely, trying to keep them intact.  

In 1996 when the Okinawa public was in an uproar with anger over the gang rape of a school girl by three U.S. Marines, which was about to inflame a large-scale anti-U.S. base movement, the national broadcaster NHK conducted a survey with residents living near and around USMC Air Station Futenma, asking if they preferred the base to be removed somewhere else. The answer was of course a knee-jerk "Yes".  

Soon after, then Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto and then U.S. Ambassador to Japan Walter Mondale announced during a joint news conference that Japan and the U.S. had agreed Futenma would be returned to Okinawa in five to seven years.

It should be pointed out, though, that, too overwhelmed with a joy, the Okinawa public had forgotten there was a string attached to it. A replacement must be provided in exchange for its return.  

 Futenma is an illegal property per se because the base sits on the private property which the U.S. occupation forces confiscated with impunity in blatant violation of international law (Article 46 of the Hague Convention).  

Mr. Hayashi, please respond to this if you were following this thread.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The central government is still trying to convince us that Henoko is the only option for Futenma's relocation? As far as U.S. bases in Okinawa are concerned, Tokyo and Washington work in collusion with each other closely, trying to keep them intact.  

Right, hence Cp Kinser, Naha Port, Futenma, and large swaths of land in other locations all being returned or scheduled for return, when Futenma closes.

Looks like someone doesnt understand the meaning of the word "intact".

 Futenma is an illegal property per se because the base sits on the private property which the U.S. occupation forces confiscated with impunity in blatant violation of international law (Article 46 of the Hague Convention).  

All settled! No need to keep regurgitating the same worn out theory that was put to rest back in 1972 at the time of the reversion.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

 Futenma is an illegal property per se because the base sits on the private property which the U.S. occupation forces confiscated with impunity in blatant violation of international law (Article 46 of the Hague Convention).  

On a separate note, it would be nice for you to supply any information that substantiates your "theories" about legalities, when the treaties and agreements between Japan and the US take precedence over any half-cocked idea that the two sovereign nations are supposed to be "ruled" by some fuzzy international treaty.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

You ask me to substantiate what I claim.

But what else do I have to say when Article 46 of the Hague Convention states in a plain language that private property cannot be confiscated and yet the U.S. occupation forces in fact encroached upon private property with impunity to build an airfield while the residents of the areas were herded in camps like POWs?  

Let me repeat my claim time and time again. The misdemeanor on the part of the U.S. occupation forces cannot be pardoned by a mere bilateral agreement. Is an agreement between two fences over stolen goods legally effective and binding under a nation's criminal law?

You could not act as if nothing had happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Transfer the base to US soil..

Leave the world in Peace..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But what else do I have to say when Article 46 of the Hague Convention states in a plain language that private property cannot be confiscated and yet the U.S. occupation forces in fact encroached upon private property with impunity to build an airfield while the residents of the areas were herded in camps like POWs?  

This is the problem, it's all moot due to the reversion agreement.

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.

Provide something, anything, post reversion agreement that supports or substantiates your theories.

The treaty negates any claims, even an child can read and understand that. It's in plain simple English. If you can not, then you must stop.

Post reversion agreement.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Agreements between fences over stolen goods are binding only to the two parties. Under a nation's criminal law, such agreements are illegal and have no legal force. Therefore, bilateral agreements, if there are any, between Tokyo and Washington to exempt the illegality involved in the forceful confiscation of the private land on which the Futenma air station sits is void and nothing meaningful under a nation's criminal law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agreements between fences over stolen goods are binding only to the two parties. Under a nation's criminal law, such agreements are illegal and have no legal force. Therefore, bilateral agreements, if there are any, between Tokyo and Washington to exempt the illegality involved in the forceful confiscation of the private land on which the Futenma air station sits is void and nothing meaningful under a nation's criminal law.

This is an emotional response, nothing more, nothing less, and meaningless.

Again, respond to the following, or stop, everyone knows the US took the land during the war and after during the occupation, and everyone ese knows it's not a point of contention.

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.

Provide something, anything, post reversion agreement that supports or substantiates your theories.

The treaty negates any claims, even an child can read and understand that. It's in plain simple English. If you can not, then you must stop.

Post reversion agreement. Substantiate your theory with hard evidence or proof to support it and not some babbling about settled agreements!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Futenma's illegality remains the same however hard you may try to deny it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Futenma's illegality remains the same however hard you may try to deny it.

I deny nothing

The treaties are a fact and settles all issues related to legality. You can not substantiate anything other than the fact that it's an emotional issue that you can not let go.

You are wrong

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.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

 Substantiate your theory with hard evidence or proof to support it and not some babbling about settled agreements!

OK. My claim is that the land on which Futenma sits was illegally confiscated from private owners; the confiscation was illegal in light of Article 46 of the Hague Convention, which clearly states in simple, plain English that private property cannot be confiscated. Doesn't this provision substantiate my claim that Futenma is an illegal property which the Marine Corps Okinawa occupy and are using like illegal squatters? Nowhere in Article 4 of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement is there a mention that the illegality involved in the land confiscation has been pardoned.                                 

Or if there was, do you think any bilateral agreement could exonerate such illegal activities committed by U.S. occupation forces? Can you pretend such illegality didn't exist at all from the very beginning?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK. My claim is that the land on which Futenma sits was illegally confiscated from private owners; the confiscation was illegal in light of Article 46 of the Hague Convention,

Booo, wrong answer! I clearly stated post revision, and post treaty. Meaning Post 1972. This is prior and is nullified 100% by the treaty.

 Doesn't this provision substantiate my claim that Futenma is an illegal property which the Marine Corps Okinawa occupy and are using like illegal squatters? Nowhere in Article 4 of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement is there a mention that the illegality involved in the land confiscation has been pardoned.     

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.

Japan waived ALL claims! Hence, your theory being a moot point. "Pardoned?" that is a childish stance to take in an international agreement. If you are looking for absolution, better go talk to a priest.

It's done and over with.

Once again! POST REVISION TREATY. You are just beating around the bush and have nothing to support your theory. Even the Japanese language version of the document states the same, and you know it!

The facts I stated dismiss your comments

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK. My claim is that the land on which Futenma sits was illegally confiscated from private owners;

It has been pointed out to you factually, ad nauseum. Just stop please, it getting rather embarrassing seeing the same worn out and false narrative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

You acknowledged that the confiscation by occupation forces of private property is prohibited by international law (Article 46 of the Hague Convention). If so, the Futenma air station is an illegal property because it sits on confiscated private land.

You then continue to say that the illegality involved in the Futenma air station was exempted and settled by Article IV of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement, part of which says that Japan and its nationals wave all claims against the U.S. government, USCAR and its citizens.

The word "claims" here is a technical word used in litigation, not a commonly used word which also has the meaning of "a complaint."

In your opinion, then, I cannot lodge any complaint to the U. S. about its heavy military presence here, Futenma included.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The word "claims" here is a technical word used in litigation, not a commonly used word which also has the meaning of "a complaint."

Nope, you are wrong.

Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nations against the United States of America

Read the following;

 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, 

And most importantly this;

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.

Technically speaking this means from FOREVER before the agreement came into place, but in reality, it is regarding the actions taken during and following the war.

Yeah the US military took the land for ALL the bases, took the land to build infrastructure and a host of other things. Yet in your myopic view of history, you only can focus on Futenma, which also states unequivocally that ALL the other land taken, is free from any claims, and just your precious Fu-tea-ma deserves special consideration

Quite ludicrous

 I cannot lodge any complaint to the U. S. about its heavy military presence here, Futenma included.

Sure you can, you are very welcome! You should be thanking the very American's you despise so much, for giving you the right and chance to lodge a complaint, it you so wish.

Whether someone listens or not is another thing. Totally different subject too!

Take your complaints to the Japanese government, as I have always stated.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Sure you can, you are very welcome! You should be thanking the very American's you despise so much, for giving you the right and chance to lodge a complaint, it you so wish.

Your interpretation of the word "claims" is quite different from mine. The reason why there is so much discrepancy in opinion between you and me.

You are interpreting the word "claims" in an ordinary sense. The word "claims" as used in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement is claims to damages that had incurred during the occupation period. It says you cannot sue the U.S. Government, USCAR, a local U.S. governing body administering Okinawa, or any U.S. citizens that had caused damages during the occupation period.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites