politics

Okinawa governor asks Suga for dialogue on U.S. base transfer

56 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments

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

If U.S. Forces in Okinawa takes the same (do nothing) attitude against the threats of China on Senkaku. I support Tamaki asking for withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Okinawa. We do not need watch dogs that do not bark against intruders. Japanese government is spending a lot of money and doing hard to keep U.S. Forces in Okinawa suppressing opposition moves there.

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

The state has maintained that the current transfer plan is "the only solution"

Good to see Gov. Tamaki continue to raise these issues and protect taxpayers money. The state never explains why they feel spend huge amounts of tax money is justified. Without an explanation the issue is strictly irresponsible governance, as we have seen with the Sakura parties, the Moritomo Gakuen and......

Also agree with vanityofvanties posting - if the U.S. Forces in Okinawa do not bark against intruders along with the JSDF then what message is this signalling?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Denny is dreaming if he thinks "Uncle Reiwa" is going to be more co-operative than Abe.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

I totally agree with Gov.Tamaki! This U.S. Base is a nuisance.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

If U.S. Forces in Okinawa takes the same (do nothing) attitude against the threats of China on Senkaku. I support Tamaki asking for withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Okinawa. We do not need watch dogs that do not bark against intruders. Japanese government is spending a lot of money and doing hard to keep U.S. Forces in Okinawa suppressing opposition moves there.

Far from doing nothing, there is a wholesale change in how the US Navy and Marines plan to operate together and a very different force structure coming in the next few years and all of it is driven by the need to be able to keep the PLAN inside the first island chain. Lots of unmanned ships and submarines, fewer big deck carriers, more numerous smaller ships and a new class of small amphibious ships the Marines want to procure within the next three years. The Marines are eliminating tanks altogether, replacing cannons with rockets like MLRS and missiles like MGM-140 ATACMs and adding anti-ship cruise missiles to their arsenal. The new doctrine for the Marines is to land on uninhabited or very lightly populated islands, set up anti ship missile batteries and let the Navy drive the PLAN towards them, hammer and anvil style. Then depart as quickly as they arrived after the action and move to some other island. You will see anti-ship versions of Tomahawk fired from land as well as from ships and land based Kongsberg JSMs, both on unmanned launch vehicles. You will see IRBMs like the Pershing II but with conventional warheads (already being flight tested) and hypersonic glide vehicles (also already being flight tested in earnest). You will also see air breathing hypersonics. The USAF announced two weeks ago the F-22s replacement, what they call the Next Generation Air Dominance or NGAD fighter, has already flown (no images or data) and "broke some records". The Navy is right behind them with a next gen long range fighter to replace the F/A-18. Btw, the US Marines have a full scale copy of China's F-20 that has been photographed at an airport in North Carolina and out at Yuma.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

We do not need watch dogs that do not bark against intruders. 

There’s no oil in the Senkakus. The US objective is just to have a presence in Asia which has been achieved already. Expectations to do more will only disappoint.

It has almost been twenty years now in Afghanistan. It’s long past the time for the US to end this pastime and go home.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

There’s no oil in the Senkakus. The US objective is just to have a presence in Asia which has been achieved already. Expectations to do more will only disappoint.

The US wants to be able to keep Chinese forces east of the first island China, and that includes the Ryukyus and Senkaku Islands.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

**as Japan is a military proxy of US to control Asia, Suga will just give more sugar to US. politicians just pretend to protest to be reelected.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The US wants to be able to keep Chinese forces east of the first island China, and that includes the Ryukyus and Senkaku Islands.

D'oh, I meant keep Chinese forces west of the first island chain. It has been a long day with a kindergartener in distance learning. Apologies.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I wonder if Okinawa Gov Denny Tamaki understands the geo political situation that befuddles Japan and Asia.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

If they are intending to "relocate" Futenma to Henoko, why is a massive building project underway?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

resolve the issue of the controversial relocation of a U.S. military base

No issue just personal promises made by another dreamer. As for the "do-nothing" comment warded at the Marines, hardly worth even responding since China has not invaded Japan, otherwise if the "do-nothings" were not around, you'd be kissing the CCP and that is no doubt.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

On the side note, it would be and show a true force and unity of a strong alliance if US forces would respond in flight or ships along with the SDF. That much I would agree on and would very much like to see it occur.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When are folks going to wake up? Okinawa is a part of Japan, no one argues that. Okinawa is without a doubt the most important prefecture when it comes to providing protection/defense of Japan's southern border. With out Okinawa, the actual "size" of Japanese territory would be lessened by at least 1/3rd.

Japan has a security agreement with the US, there is no argument there either. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of people here are either apathetic to the base, approve the base construction, or didnt care enough to even vote, in a NON BINDING referendum on the issue.

Tamaki is a far weaker version of his predecessor, the chameleon Onaga. He can "talk" all he wants, but it isnt going to change anything.

If he wants help with the economy, quit bitching about the landfill at Schwab, and the yen would start rolling in!

It's really funny, (sad) Tamaki wants support from Suga and the national government, but he doesnt want to cooperate with the defense of Japan.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If they are intending to "relocate" Futenma to Henoko, why is a massive building project underway?

Again, why do you ask questions you already know the answers to?

MCAS Futenma, Marine Corp AIR STATION, means, you know it too, there is this rather long runway running down the middle of the base. Air station means aircraft, cant move an air station without including a runway.

Question answered here AGAIN. Please save everyone and stop with the same questions!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Tamaki is doing his job as a lap dog, make noise! Removal of the American military would tank the Okinawan economy, REGARDLESS of what people think Japan spends for the US military to stay there. Local Nationals also work on these American bases, closure would send THOUSANDS to the unemployment line + the economic impact from those missing paychecks not only from local nationals but Americans also would be massive. When the Americans were under lock down a few years ago, how many local businesses folded or began crying, because of a 3month lockdown? So do they really want the US military to pull out, or have they got nothing else to cry about?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If U.S. Forces in Okinawa takes the same (do nothing) attitude against the threats of China on Senkaku. 

So what do you want them to do? Fire warning shots across the bows of every Chinese Navy ship or fishing boats that goes near the islands? The leftists would be the first to loudly shout, "U.S. Imperialist Occupiers is a dangerous warmonger and trying to start World War III and should be ousted!!"

That's exactly the kind of provocation the Chinese are trying to cause.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Besides Orion beer and pig and sugar farms in Okinawa, what are the other industries that have good paying work? Hotels and tourism pays little better than 7/11. The protesters of the U.S. military have many base workers marching in them, many high paying jobs on the bases. Like China's tourism industry that was very good for years went down, so has Japan's attempts to make it into a big fun park for tourists. The Corona virus chaos has wiped out the idea and 1,000 yen fee for visiting. The Chinese tourist are the biggest spender's for Okinawa, along with Americans visiting military people. Who owns most of the hotels, land there? Mainland Japanese. All of the ladder are part of the issues that face Okinawa and the government. Pachinko parlors own by Mostly Koreans are as wide spread as mainland Japan, again for workers the pay is very low and wouldn't want to forget that industry.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Again, why do you ask questions you already know the answers to?

I think he may be referring to new construction at Futenma, not at Camp Schwab.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

That didn't take long.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Denny is a time waster. Just have this played to him when he rings the bell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll88XLDV-Yw

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There's nothing like a good war. Aerial is good. Battle of Britain II.

Wot?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Lapdog Tamaki - that about summarizes the entire situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This bases should be gone.

Build more aircraft carriers instead. At least their moving around the ocean and not sitting waiting to get hit.

The cost of this bases are in the billions, many crimes have been committed by this soldiers too. They don't answer to Tokyo either, we pay 80% of the cost, but they answer to Washington, follow their orders.

Japanese citizens living nearby would also be collateral damage in any attack on American bases.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Poor old Tamaki. He seems a bit confused by it all. The planned move of the US base went through five years ago despite a ‘local’ protest. He wants the government to help the prefectural economy but neglects the impact the thousands of US troops will have on the local economy. He has also neglected that every Japanese military and air force base are located in heavily populated areas. He really needs to get over it and move on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okinawa, which hosts the bulk of U.S. military facilities in Japan, has persistently sought to have the base removed from the prefecture altogether.

No U.S. Base - no sustainability. Do the math. Whatever locals invest in U.S., if that IS the - real - case, it is returned to their local communities by U.S. military personnel spending and then some. Enough with the bickering and compromise Okinawa. Your economy depends on it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes good move.

US base transfer from Okinawa to USA.

I am agree this have to be done asap.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

A new leader, A new government and another New request. Same Old, Same old !!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan was very stupid to dissolve its Military force after WWII defeat. They could have coexist with US military. One day US will move out, then what? Japan bears almost 30-35% of US military's Asia-pacific budget that's great help for DOD. The day US military moves out of Japan, it will be the day US will lose its power from the other half of the globe.

No U.S. Base - no sustainability. Do the math.

LOL. Tourism is Okinawa's main industries (at present). US military might contribute max of 5-7% to the local economy and it's very centralized maybe we can hand pick those businesses. Remember all those housing facilities, recreational facilities, base employees are paid by J-gov (JP's tax payer's money). You need to move more around Okinawa to understand this.

Relocating base inside main island means less likely to be a target by China. China will need hell of guts and precise plan to attack such place unlike Senkakus. So we already know the outcome of such meeting. Okinawan governors (past/present) will keep requesting Tokyo will keep denying. The only group enjoying will be those contractors, man they got money.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan was very stupid to dissolve its Military force after WWII defeat. 

Dont know much about the history huh? Japan never had a choice in the matter!

So I guess that makes the rest of your post meaningless.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I think he may be referring to new construction at Futenma, not at Camp Schwab.

If so, better to be specific, but either way that was covered here a LONG time ago, as there is regularly scheduled maintenance, and already scheduled work on Futenma, as well.

It's contracted work to maintain current facilities until the construction at Schwab is completed and the air station moves.

This was covered, as I said a long time ago too!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Matej  

Yes good move.

US base transfer from Okinawa to USA.

I am agree this have to be done asap.

You should run for office and make this your platform for campaigning, once the US is gone you would be a HERO! By the way do you speak Chinese? Asking for a friend:)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Dont know much about the history huh? Japan never had a choice in the matter!

So you're telling me Americans wrote article 9 of Japanese constitution?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Nintendo girl -

I totally agree with Gov.Tamaki! This U.S. Base is a nuisance.

I suspect a land invasion by Chinese commies would be much more of a "nuisance" to Okinawans than having US Forces dedicate their lives to protect them. The fact is, Communist China have been licking their lips, eyeing the chance for decades to get their hands on the Okinawan islands.

Denny is out of his depth in Tokyo with real politicians like Suga and Motegi.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yeah... they want "dialogue". Until they actually get it, then they admit they just want Tokyo to bow down to the demands of a disgruntled few (who still want the handouts after bases are gone).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I keep posting, USMC Air Station Okinawa sits on stolen property. The encroachment by a U.S. force of private land was a flagrant violation of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Article 46), which states: "Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated."

The confiscation of the land was carried out in the confusion of affairs right after the Battle of Okinawa and so one can connive at the occupation force’s mistake leniently. They built the air station as a forward base to bombard mainland Japan for a planned invasion. 

If Futenma had been closed and the land returned as soon as the war came to an end whereby its role as a staging post was over, no one would point a finger at the U.S. today. But you know the rest of the story.

They are demanding Futenma’s replacement be built at Henoko if we want it to be returned. Does the U.S. have innate right to demand that at all? Can a squatter demand a nice living quarter be built for him at another place in exchange for his vacating the illegal land?

Can any poster here answer this question?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Correction:

"USMC Air Station Okinawa" must be "USMC Air Station Futenma".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@voiceofokinawa

Its called spoils of war! Occupying triumphant force takes what they want! Does not matter what the losers think, need, want or desire!

As for the squatter they can ask all they want, there is no law saying they can't! But the answer will surely not be what they hoped for and the actions maybe something they had not thought about either.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

KORE NANI、

Its called spoils of war!

You betrayed your true self. U.S. forces are supposed to be stationed in Okinawa (Japan) according as provisions in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulate. But you say they are here as victors of a war, using the lands naturally as spoils of war.

So the bilateral treaty is a sham to you, and so is international law.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You betrayed your true self. U.S. forces are supposed to be stationed in Okinawa (Japan) according as provisions in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulate. But you say they are here as victors of a war, using the lands naturally as spoils of war.

You know as well as everyone else all the issues related to the bases and how the land was obtained at the time, was covered in the return agreement.

Just because you dont like the answer, doesnt dismiss that it is a fact.

They are demanding Futenma’s replacement be built at Henoko if we want it to be returned. 

Ding-dong....Anyone home? The US has demanded anything, the Japanese government, as you already know, decided upon Henoko. Again beating a dead horse.

Why do you insist on asking questions, no how many ways to work so hard to twist them, you already know the answers to?

Again, just because you dont like the answers, does not dismiss the fact you are again, wrong

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If Futenma had been closed and the land returned as soon as the war came to an end whereby its role as a staging post was over, no one would point a finger at the U.S. today. But you know the rest of the story.

If Naha Airport wasnt returned, if Naha port wasn't returned, if Camp Foster wasnt returned, if Fort Buckner wasnt returned.....

Broken record again, you know the answers, just dont like the facts of the history.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Can any poster here answer this question?

Sad, truly sad, At least the protesters up at Henoko are not hypocrites

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Japan was very stupid to dissolve its Military force after WWII defeat. They could have coexist with US military. One day US will move out, then what? Japan bears almost 30-35% of US military's Asia-pacific budget that's great help for DOD. 

Japan had no choice. Their military was defeated and the US occupied Japan. Japan's surviving wartime military leadership was mostly on trial for war crimes and headed for prison or the gallows. What little hardware survived the war was taken by the US military for detailed technical evaluation or in the cases of the few leftover IJN ships, used briefly to ferry Japanese citizens back to Japan from China and Korea then scrapped. Japan had no military left by the end of the occupation and the no nation in Asia had any desire to allow Japan to re-arm. The current constitution was more or less dictated to Japan by the US, including the inability to have a formal military in the manner of other nations. The reality is that until quite recently due to the greater threat presented by China combined with China's direct threats to Japanese territory, nobody in Asia trusted Japan with a large military force. Asia was more than happy to let the US assume the role of defending Japan and in this way eliminating any reason for Japan to return to its militaristic past and threaten her Asian neighbors again.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru,

As always, you are not answering my question squarely and seriously. Just barking at a wrong tree nonchalantly. Tell me, for instance, why you think Futenma doesn’t sit on stolen property. 

If you can’t prove Futenma doesn’t sit on stolen private land, that is, the confiscation of private land by the U.S. occupation army was done in no violation of international law, whatever you may say will be nonsensical and shenanigans. 

Note that a contract in dealing of stolen goods is void under criminal law in any country. Do you deny that? Let me hear your logical, convincing answer to this question.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The "PEOPLE" demand the removal of these "Invaders"

These aggressive "Invaders "are still considered an "Occupying Force" by the american invaders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you can’t prove Futenma doesn’t sit on stolen private land, that is, the confiscation of private land by the U.S. occupation army was done in no violation of international law, whatever you may say will be nonsensical and shenanigans. 

The land on which Futenma AB sits on is owned by the government of Japan and leased to the US. It is not US soil. I have not been to Futenma but have been to plenty of other overseas US bases and in every case they were considered to be the military bases of the host government on which US forces were permitted to operate. On the overseas bases I have served on or spent time on the host nation's flag flew next to that of the US and the host nation's national anthem played before or after that of the US (depended on the base). Overall command of the base was under a host nation officer. Their rules applied on base including their customs regulations, civil and criminal laws. It is a subtle difference but notices Kadena is not "Kadena AFB' but "Kadena AB". It means the base is foreign owned by used by the USAF.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

As always, you are not answering my question squarely and seriously. 

How many times have myself and countless others replied to your "questions"?

How many times have you been educated to the fact that you are totally off base, (pun intended)?

Myself and others have replied far too many times to count, and it's just annoying, (like the base protesters) and maybe flies that get stuck in your hair!

Give it up, you dont like the answers, so you twist words around, attempt with all your might to rephrase the same question, but the answers are always the same, the issue was dealt with during the return.

You dont like that fact, that's all, and there is NOTHING you can do to change it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Desert Tortoise,

The land on which Futenma AB sits on is owned by the government of Japan and leased to the US. It is not US soil.

The land on which Futenma sits is owned by more than 3,000 leaseholders. Why so many? It's because in the area were villages with residences, schools, cemeteries and all. The land was encroached upon by the occupation army with impunity while war-survived residents were herded in camps like POWs. When they were allowed to go home after two-to-three years' incarceration, they found their villages had all gone and the area turned to a vast air station.

The land is not owned by the Japanese government and leased to the U.S. as you say. The truth is lands are leased to the Japanese government, which pays rents to the leaseholders, and offered to the U.S. for free. That' the system warranted by the Security Treaty.

Indeed, the U.S. doesn't own a square inch of land in Okinawa, but free, unrestrained use of the land is wholly guaranteed by bilateral agreements. Such agreements are void because the land was illegally confiscated in violation of international law, for starters.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Here, again, you are repeating the same obfuscation that you have answered my question many times. Specifically, when and where did you and others answer to or refute my contention that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private property whereby the U.S. has no right to demand Futenma's replacement be built anywhere in Okinawa or mainland Japan.

Please state your opinion clearly and concretely once again because I do not remember your opinion about it at all. Oh, one poster said the U.S. had won the war and so had right to use the land as spoils of war.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Such agreements are void because the land was illegally confiscated in violation of international law, for starters.

Pray tell, why is that only you keep saying this, when you of all people, know for a fact it's not an issue?

Pray tell, why is it that NO ONE else, protesters, anti-base coalition types, NO ONE, brings this up in any discussions, never brought before any courts, domestically or internationally, never even a peep mentioned by the Gov, nor anyone else?

If your supposition was even 1% pertinent, it would be obvious to anyone with a brain, that it would have been discussed and used as an argument, along with all the other dubious one's given so far, BUT NO ONE has.

Only you. Go figure huh?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Here, again, you are repeating the same obfuscation that you have answered my question many times. Specifically, when and where did you and others answer to or refute my contention that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private property whereby the U.S. has no right to demand Futenma's replacement be built anywhere in Okinawa or mainland Japan.

Nice try!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please state your opinion clearly and concretely once again because I do not remember your opinion about it at all.

FYI, you know, it's truly rude, of any poster, on a web forum like this, to keep repeating the same questions over and over. It's the same as SPAM or trolling, just looking for anyone to "agree" with you.

You have been doing this ever since the issue of Futenma and it's move started, quite literally years now.

There was even a time, roughly two years ago, that I literally gave up on banging my head against a wall in showing you your points, one by one, carried no weight, meant nothing, and were discussions for academia, and not here.

Another poster pointed out to me, that if myself, and others, just gave up and quit answering you, the "newcomers" to this board, reading along here, would get a TOTALLY false impression about reality. They would only have your intelligent sounding, but false information.

And you know what ends up happening? Threads get locked because of it! Think about it!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Pray tell, why is it that NO ONE else, protesters, anti-base coalition types, NO ONE, brings this up in any discussions, never brought before any courts, domestically or internationally, never even a peep mentioned by the Gov, nor anyone else?

I asked you to answer why you think the U.S. occupation army's confiscation of private land didn't violate Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Even a complete amateur can tell it violates the provision for it clearly states that“private property cannot be confiscated.”

You say the confiscation was no violation of the no-confiscation provision of the Convention because no one takes issue with it. LOL.

FYI, you know, it's truly rude, of any poster, on a web forum like this, to keep repeating the same questions over and over. It's the same as SPAM or trolling, just looking for anyone to "agree" with you.

Isn't this a public forum to discuss an issue? Is it rude to ask another poster to clarify his position as regards the question at issue?  Rather than say it's rude to ask a question, thus obfuscating the whole problem, you should answer it to convince your challenger.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't this a public forum to discuss an issue? Is it rude to ask another poster to clarify his position as regards the question at issue?  Rather than say it's rude to ask a question, thus obfuscating the whole problem, you should answer it to convince your challenger.

Nice try, part two!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I asked you to answer why you think the U.S. occupation army's confiscation of private land didn't violate Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Even a complete amateur can tell it violates the provision for it clearly states that“private property cannot be confiscated.”

Again, asked previously (many times) answered previously (many times), now it's just trolling.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That's enough from both of you, thanks.

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites