politics

Okinawa Gov Tamaki announces re-election bid

44 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

44 Comments

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

If I could vote, he’s da man.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The central point of contention in this gubernatorial election will of course be the Futenma relocation issue. Tamaki will be sure to appeal the base must be closed rather than relocated to another site in Okinawa. The LDP-backed Sakima, on the other hand, will emphasize the danger the base poses to area residents at the current site whereby it must be relocated immediately. But where?

The two candidates are in agreement in that Futenma must be closed right then and there to eliminate the danger it poses to Ginowan citizens. They merely disagree as to where it should be relocated.

The key to solve this problem is in the hand of the U.S. government first and foremost and a subservient Tokyo. The problem dissipates instantly the moment they say Futenma will be closed now unconditionally.

The central government hasn't convinced us as to why Henoko is the best and only solution for the Futenma relocation issue. There's no strategic reason why the Marine air base is absolutely necessary for the defense and security of Japan and so must be planted in Okinawa.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Okinawa is burdened with US bases because the Japanese government is too weak to say no to the US. Several bases were moved to Okinawa that had been originally located in the Mainland because so many complained. Okinawa is as far from Mainland Japan as it's possible to go. And even if there are daily demonstrations, it has a very small voting populace and is not going to have much of an effect on overall voting.

The US is also here because they are too cheap to build their own bases on their own land. Also, they couldn't afford it. Japan pays huge money to support the US military, the largest of all contributing nations by far.

This whole situation is so similar to the "protection racket" run by organised crime. "Give me $100 sir, and I'll look after your car!"

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

because the Japanese government is too weak to say no to the US.

Not weak, and with China and North Korea looming and giving angst to the Japanese, Tokyo will not even think of pushing the US out, not going to happen, they know it and we know it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The election has been all about the opposition to the presence of the US bases. What about UNEMPLOYMENT? HYPERINFLATION? CHILD POVERTY? ECONOMIC CRISIS? JOBS? EDUCATION? HEALTH? That is why Okinawa is doomed!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bass4funk,

 Not weak, and with China and North Korea looming and giving angst to the Japanese

China's rise and assertiveness, and North Korea's repeated missile launchings, may be Godsends for Japan to rearm itself to the teeth despite the war-renouncing constitution. The U.S. has been cajoling Japan into an arms buildup for long.  Hence, both Tokyo and Washington must be very thankful to China and North Korea at heart.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BertieWooster

The vast majority of us Japanese support and see the need for US troops in Okinawa, actually now more than ever.

If the whole thing feels like a conspiracy to you, then you should read modern history, but yes, the US is protecting Japan for a fee and strategic placement ( to say the least). If we were poor and not worth defending, Japan would be in a totally different scenario now.

Its good to have a powerful air force and navy on Okinawan land

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

thepersoniamnow,

Its good to have a powerful air force and navy on Okinawan land

Tell me why Futenma's replacement could contribute to "a powerful air force and navy on Okinawan land". I've been arguing on various occasions that Futenma's replacement, a new Marine base, is a white elephant in terms of finance and a military strategy that can't deal with recent security developments in this part of the Pacific, for two reasons:

First, the new base is nothing but training facilities for Ospreys to transport foot soldiers, the Marines, to battle grounds. But the most active elements of the Marines, according to a bilateral agreement, are to be on Guam. 

Second, it's been bilaterally agreed that primary responsibility to defend outlying islands rests with JSDF and not with USFJ.

How do you respond?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

voiceofokinawa

How do I respond?

Dude, did you just assume that everything you said was factual, and that I am suppossed to answer in that way? You think a training facility is a bad idea, but yeah I like it.

And no, I would prefer Japans self defense forces and the US military here in Japan, not Guam, and as a citizen I will support that regardless of foreign opinions lol.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The key to solve this problem is in the hand of the U.S. government first and foremost and a subservient Tokyo. The problem dissipates instantly the moment they say Futenma will be closed now unconditionally.

Idiocy at best, wanting a foreign entity to influence a local election. People get tossed in jail or worse for doing this, or even suggesting it!

It's a Japanese problem, let the Japanese deal with it!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

First, the new base is nothing but training facilities for Ospreys to transport foot soldiers, the Marines, to battle grounds. But the most active elements of the Marines, according to a bilateral agreement, are to be on Guam. 

Once again fake news. It is definitely not a new base! Only those who have been brainwashed by the local propaganda committee think this way.

Facts are different, and it's facts that scare them!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

thepersoniamnow

You think a training facility is a bad idea, but yeah I like it.

The military needs training, of course. But if they train for a meaningless purpose, what's the use of it?

There's a vast training facility in the northern part of Okinawa Island, which seems functionally integrated with the new base in Henoko. The training facility is called Jungle Warfare Training Center, where the Marines train for a rookie's game and survival in a jungle war. The terrain and weather are like those of tropical islands in Southeast Asia. 

Is such training necessary for the defense of Japan in this age of hi-tech warfare and so Japan must provide the U.S. Marines with so vast swaths of land for free?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Is such training necessary for the defense of Japan in this age of hi-tech warfare and so Japan must provide the U.S. Marines with so vast swaths of land for free?

So now you try to come across as an expert in military training and tactics? What a joke.

You also have a problem with understanding and comprehending the meaning of the word "free".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

thepersoniamnow,

Dude, did you just assume that everything you said was factual

If what you say is true, the two governments must have rescinded their agreements already. Could you tell me specifically why what I said was not factual?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is such training necessary for the defense of Japan in this age of hi-tech warfare and so Japan must provide the U.S. Marines with so vast swaths of land for free?

No, but it is necessary for training in

those of tropical islands in Southeast Asia.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Could you tell me specifically why what I said was not factual?

There is no "new base" being built at Camp Schwab.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Is such training necessary for the defense of Japan in this age of hi-tech warfare and so Japan must provide the U.S. Marines with so vast swaths of land for free?

You do realize there is a war going on right now, and people are killing each other with low-tech weapons, and innocents are being slaughtered with the very same as well.

Be thankful the Marines are training. It's thanks to them, in a large part, that you have the life you do today.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

voiceofokinawa

Who says its not needed???

Just you!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

painkiller,

You may think that jungle warfare training is necessary for the Marines to defend tropical islands in Southeast Asia, OK, but do you think such training is necessary for the Marines to also defend Japan? Are Okinawans and Japanese taxpayers required to shoulder so much burden (enormous sympathy budget, environmental destruction, noise pollution and, recently, PFAS pollution, etc.) in return for the U.S. Marines' commitment to defend Southeast Asian countries?

Yubaru,

There is no "new base" being built at Camp Schwab. 

But there is no touted replacement for Futenma being built in Henoko, either. If that is the case, then one can say it is completely a new base with many innovative facilities that Futenma doesn't have at the current site.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But there is no touted replacement for Futenma being built in Henoko, either. If that is the case, then one can say it is completely a new base with many innovative facilities that Futenma doesn't have at the current site.

No one can't, Naha airport built a new runway, a new tower, and "upgraded" a number of it's facilities, so by using your logic, Naha Airport is now a 100% brand new "facility".

A landfill does not make it a new base at Camp Schwab, just a new addition to an existing base. One can not say with a straight face that Camp Schwab is a "new" base.

So, once again, I am pointing out to you that you have NOT been factual, and in fact are wrong.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Are Okinawans and Japanese taxpayers required to shoulder so much burden 

Guess you conveniently forgot something here, Okinawan's are Japanese citizens, the tax money being used is Japanese tax money, not "Okinawan" tax money, their is no difference.

Also please pray tell, how does one separate "Okinawan" taxes from "Japanese" taxes. Another example of:

Could you tell me specifically why what I said was not factual?

Here is another example of your comments being "not factual".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Naha Air Port has become a new facility after refurbishment with another runway newly added. The refurbishment and expansion were necessitated due to an increasing number of tourists. Certainly, it's not a replacement for the old facility.

I say the so-called replacement for Futenma now under construction in Henoko is not a simple replacement for Futenma but a fortified brand-new base with many innovative facilities and functions that the original doesn't have, such as port facilities to harbor Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, etc.

The Marine authorities in Okinawa brazenly demanded the service life of the new base be more than two hundred years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

voiceofokinawaToday  12:34 pm JST

painkiller,

You may think that jungle warfare training is necessary for the Marines to defend tropical islands in Southeast Asia, OK, but do you think such training is necessary for the Marines to also defend Japan? 

Yes, because of the proximity to Southeast Asia.

And Japanese taxpayers should pay more for the security provided by US forces.

I don't think Okinawa needs a T Galleria by DFS in Naha though.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Full support, Tamaki is a great man!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

painkiller,

Yes, because of the proximity to Southeast Asia.

Guam is much nearer to Southeast Asia than Okinawa. Why don't all Marine contingents and their facilities relocate to Guam then? Because it's way cheaper for the Marines to be stationed in Okinawa than in U.S. territory? Because a sycophantic Tokyo doesn't mind spending money profusely for the U.S. forces Japan?

Don't tell us U.S. forces are in Japan to protect Japan and on this pretext try to pilfer protection money like a crime syndicate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

voiceofokinawaToday  06:16 pm JST

Guam is much nearer to Southeast Asia than Okinawa. Why don't all Marine contingents and their facilities relocate to Guam then? Because it's way cheaper for the Marines to be stationed in Okinawa than in U.S. territory? Because a sycophantic Tokyo doesn't mind spending money profusely for the U.S. forces Japan? 

Don't tell us U.S. forces are in Japan to protect Japan and on this pretext try to pilfer protection money like a crime syndicate.

Guam is closer to Thailand, Vietnam . . . than Okinawa is?

US bases in Okinawa are here to stay. Limiting their pollution is something they could work on but at the same time, all those mainland owned hotels on Okinawa's coast aren't contributing much to the environment.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

painkiller,

Even if Okinawa is closer to Southeast Asia than Guam, as you correctly point out, there is no reason why we Okinawans must sacrifice so much to defend Southeast Asian countries like Thailand and Vietnam. Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates that the purpose for U.S. forces to use facilities and areas in Japan is to maintain peace and security of Japan and its vicinity, the Far East. Does the expression Far East include Thailand and Vietnam in your definition?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But there is no touted replacement for Futenma being built in Henoko, either. If that is the case, then one can say it is completely a new base with many innovative facilities that Futenma doesn't have at the current site.

Once again, no facts. There is a replacement facility being built on Camp Schwab, and existing facility/base that has been around for decades.

No matter how many different ways to attempt to say it, the fact remains, it is not a "new" base.

Oh and just upgrading or "remodeling" something doesnt make it new! I recently remodeled my house, so according to your "logic", I now have a new house! Thank god the government doesnt agree with you, as if it was "new" house, my taxes would have skyrocketed!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

voiceofokinawaJune 15  10:54 pm JST

 Does the expression Far East include Thailand and Vietnam in your definition?

Absolutely, which is why most US units that train in Thailand are based in Okinawa.

 I say the so-called replacement for Futenma now under construction in Henoko is not a simple replacement for Futenma but a fortified brand-new base with many innovative facilities and functions that the original doesn't have, such as port facilities to harbor Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, etc.

Just leave Futenma as it is, or revamp it, and stop building at Henoko. People forget the reason why there was a potential move anyway.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

People forget the reason why there was a potential move anyway.

Not the people of Ginowan! They have been forgotten about in all the noise about the landfill at Camp Schwab.

It has been a generation now that has been waiting for the move. And politicians like Deny and others, who run on anti-base platforms, overlook the fact that Okinawa, purely because of it's location, plays a strategic role in the defense of all Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru (Today  08:05 am JST),

Japanese and U.S. governments agreed in 1996 on the return of USMC Air Station Futenma if its replacement was provided in Okinawa.  So, the air station and the many new facilities attached to it now under construction in Henoko is none other than Futenma's replacement. The U.S. government says the Futenma air station at the current site will be closed and returned immediately when its replacement is completed and provided to the U.S..

Now, poster Yubaru says the facility now under construction in Henoko is an extension of Camp Schwab, not a new base. If it's merely an extension of Camp Schwab, as Yubaru persists to say, will the extended land fill area accommodate only barracks for Marine personnel and a recreation center: gyms, swimming pools, eateries and a movie theater, without V-shaped air strips and a pier to berth amphibious assault ships being built?

 

painkiller (Today  08:19 am JST),

I didn't know Okinawa-based Marines were regularly engaged in joint military exercises with the Thai army until you mentioned it in your post.

If the expression "Far East" includes Thailand and Vietnam, as you say, the U.S. military may be stationed in Okinawa legitimately. But if not, their overseas activity and use of bases and areas in Japan, in Okinawa in particular, may be in blatant violation of Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Now, poster Yubaru says the facility now under construction in Henoko is an extension of Camp Schwab, not a new base. If it's merely an extension of Camp Schwab, as Yubaru persists to say, will the extended land fill area accommodate only barracks for Marine personnel and a recreation center: gyms, swimming pools, eateries and a movie theater, without V-shaped air strips and a pier to berth amphibious assault ships being built?

Do you even understand the meaning of the word "replacement?" You dont replace a WIndows 95 computer with a Windows 98, leastwise not in 2022, maybe you do, which explains your recalcitrance in accepting reality of 2022 vs 1965. I use that as an example to show the ludicrous comment you made above here.

Oh and what I wrote is FACT , the landfill IS an extension of Camp Schwab. There is zero argument about that, however it's never been reported that way, because the anti-base coalition that controls the media in Okinawa is afraid to state the facts!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japanese and U.S. governments agreed in 1996 on the return of USMC Air Station Futenma if its replacement was provided in Okinawa.  So, the air station and the many new facilities attached to it now under construction in Henoko is none other than Futenma's replacement. The U.S. government says the Futenma air station at the current site will be closed and returned immediately when its replacement is completed and provided to the U.S..

I know, I was here, and I know the reasons why as well.

Dont forget it took years to finally come about, the landfill at Camp Schwab that is, because politicians in Japan and Okinawa couldn't come to a conclusion on where to build the treaty agreed upon replacement facility.

Lay the blame for the delay where it belongs, on the Japanese and Okinawan politicians.

It will be closed, but you dont want it to be closed, But the people of Ginowan and the rest of Okinawa will be happy!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

The new base is being constructed straddling the Henoko point where Camp Schwab is. So, physically, it looks like Camp Schwab is being expanded by reclaiming waters on both sides of Camp Schwab.

But note that I'm not talking about things physically but metaphysically. Functionally as well as metaphysically speaking, the facility now under construction in Henoko isn't Futenma's mere replacement at all but it’s a brand-new base, with cutting edge facilities plus port facilities added that the original doesn't have.

After all, the Marines are illegally stationed in Japan. So, why in the world should Japanese taxpayers construct a new base for them to use?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But note that I'm not talking about things physically but metaphysically.

This is just pure nonsense and garbage. We live in a real "physical" world.

You asked about what you post is not factual? Everything I quoted here.....

The new base is being constructed straddling the Henoko point where Camp Schwab is. So, physically, it looks like Camp Schwab is being expanded by reclaiming waters on both sides of Camp Schwab.

But note that I'm not talking about things physically but metaphysically. Functionally as well as metaphysically speaking, the facility now under construction in Henoko isn't Futenma's mere replacement at all but it’s a brand-new base, with cutting edge facilities plus port facilities added that the original doesn't have.

After all, the Marines are illegally stationed in Japan. So, why in the world should Japanese taxpayers construct a new base for them to use?

It's not a new base, as I have pointed out to you countless times. No matter how much you attempt to play word games regarding the upgrades and new facilities, it does not change the fact that it's just a landfill to an adjoining existing base, Camp Schwab.

Saying it looks "physically" like Camp Schwab is as illogical as saying Mihama likes physically like Chatan. Anyone and everyone who knows anything about Okinawa would be laughing their butts off at that!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The central government touts Futenma’s relocation to Henoko as the best and only solution for the Futenma relocation issue. That is to say, it thinks Futenma’s replacement must be built in Henoko by all means. 

You and I are in complete agreement in that the ongoing landfill work in coastal waters to build Henoko facilities aren’t a one-to-one replacement for Futenma.  

You say it’s an extension work to expand Camp Schwab.  I, on the other hand, think it is a new base with a lot of innovative facilities that the original doesn’t have. 

The most conspicuous is the port facilities that can harbor Wasp-class amphibious assault ships. And ramps, too, for amphibious vehicles to move into and out of the sea quite easily. Ammunition depots will also be built.

Thus, one can say the relocation is tantamount to building a new base in the name of return.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I have come to the conclusion here that the only replacement facility that he would find acceptable would be to actually physically remove each and every building, road, infrastructure, facility, runway and EVERYTHING as is from MCAS Futenma to the landfill at Camp Schwab to acknowledge that it isn't a "new" base.

I mean really now, but it's the only explanation!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The relocation is not what you try to say: to remove all infrastructure from the current site and move it to the land fill in Henoko as it is. It's the function that we must be talking about. Will Futenma's function be relocated to Henoko directly without any change?

The answer is No. Therefore, it's not relocation in the usual sense of the word. It's the construction of a new base.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As I argued elsewhere, the Marine air wing is using Futenma like illegal squatters. If so, isn't it something irrational and unreasonable for us to have to build a new base for them to relocate to?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As I argued elsewhere, the Marine air wing is using Futenma like illegal squatters. If so, isn't it something irrational and unreasonable for us to have to build a new base for them to relocate to?

You "argue" to no avail because your opinions and ideas are false narrative couched in language to mislead people into believing what you state is a fact, when as shown to you countless times, is wrong.

There is nothing about the US military, including the Marines, being stationed here in Okinawa or anywhere in Japan for that matter, as being "illegal". It's all settled, and was over 50 years ago.

When the landfill is completed, it all becomes moot, as Futenma will close, and the people of Ginowan will finally see their dream come true!.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty states the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy are allowed to use bases and areas in Japan. There is no mention of the Marine Corps nor Coast Guard. But the Marines are stationed in Japan as if they were the Navy. The Marines aren't the Navy even though they may be closely associated with the Navy administratively and when they are engaged in expeditionary operations to invade enemy land. The Marines aren't an arm of the Navy as it used to be. They are a bona fide military service independent of the Navy just as the Coast Guard is.

Once on enemy land, the Marines are no different from the Army’s foot soldiers. That’s the reason why at the time of the invasion of Okinawa during World War II they operated hand in hand with Army infantrymen.

You seem to think all legal matters involving the U.S. Marines were settled through negotiations and agreements.   If so, tell me specifically how the U.S. government convinced the Japanese government to take the Marines to be the Navy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. SecuritTreaty states the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy are allowed to use bases and areas in Japan. There is no mention of the Marine Corps nor Coast Guard. But the Marines are stationed in Japan as if they were the Navy. 

Once again, non-factual information being stated as "truth", There is no where in Article 6 of the Japan-US Security treaty that states, as you wrote here, and countless other places the following:

Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. SecuritTreaty states the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy There is no mention of the Marine Corps nor Coast Guard. But the Marines are stationed in Japan as if they were the Navy. 

Here is the treaty language, in English, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.: None of the branches of the US Military are directly stated as you always attempt to pass off as fact.

ARTICLE VI

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. The use of these facilities and areas as well as the status of United States armed forces in Japan shall be governed by a separate agreement, replacing the Administrative Agreement under Article III of the Security Treaty between Japan and the United States of America, signed at Tokyo on February 28, 1952, as amended, and by such other arrangements as may be agreed upon.

Please note, there is NO mention of any branch of service mentioned anywhere in the Article you are using to base your argument against the Marines. Myself and others have pointed this out to you numerous times, so please stop with the false information that you attempt to pass off as fact! It isnt!

Please, stop with passing off false information as fact!

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

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Oh dont state it's "quasi this" or "virtual that" or "in the usual sense" or some other garbage.

I have once again pointed out the facts to you, The treaty is proof, not your interpretation of it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And lastly, once and for all, you MUST stop stating that the Marines are here illegally, based up the treaty, they are not! The land the bases ALL the bases in Okinawa, and throughout Japan, are in fact legal.

You can not keep repeating the same false information.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites