Okinawa urges dropping base transfer plan ahead of 50th return anniversary

In the prefecture's first referendum conducted in 2019 on the plan to move the Futenma base, more than 70 percent of voters rejected the plan.

Here we go again, the wording here is VERY important, as the casual reader will take this as fact, when it is 100% not so, as written.

Roughly 72% of the people who actually voted, rejected the plan. Not 70% of voters. Big difference as

Only a bit over 52% of all eligible voters actually voted.

This is one way media plays with the facts to gain an opinion supporting their agenda.

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

Go for it. It's now or never.

As the proposals released in 1971 called for creating a peaceful island without military bases, "I want to abide by the principle that residents hoped for 50 years ago," Tamaki said.

Proposals not agreements, nor decided upon. There were a proverbial "ton" of proposals, if I recall correctly, even one's for independence as well!

Another agenda being put forward by the politician who still is a singer/comedian!

Moving the base to the proposed new site will destroy a unique marine habitat. While the U.S. could care less what it destroys either at home or in other people's homes, the people who live on Okinawa DO care although that is rarely mentioned in otherwise pro-military publications who report. If America and the Japanese government believes "the relocation is "the only solution" for removing the dangers posed by the Futenma base without undermining the deterrence provided by the Japan-U.S. security alliance", does either Japan or the U.S. or both LACK the engineering capabilities that the Chinese possess in handily using an uninhabited island as the foundation for a base in the 'China Sea' onto which we could relocate these risky future targets in a 'hot exchange' should America overstep its evermore confrontative policies? At the moment "hiding amongst the people" would be an appropriate description. And if the base does move, it will be interesting to learn what manner and extent of poisons will be found contaminating the former site as seems the case with ALL U.S. military installations.

YubaruToday 06:48 am JST

"As the proposals released in 1971 called for creating a peaceful island without military bases, "I want to abide by the principle that residents hoped for 50 years ago," Tamaki said."

Proposals not agreements, nor decided upon. There were a proverbial "ton" of proposals, if I recall correctly, even one's for independence as well!

Another agenda being put forward by the politician who still is a singer/comedian!

Do you mean zelenskyy?

The huge presence of US military more or less guarantees that Okinawa will once more be a theatre of war. In an act of aggression, this is going to be the first place to hit.

But if Japanese politicians would get off their rear ends and use diplomacy, really communicate with the neighbours, this wouldn't happen.

And if the US military absolutely HAS to be here, they should be paying rent - at the same rates that we would have to pay if we rented it. Kadena alone would be a major boost to the Japanese economy.

 While the U.S. could care less what it destroys either at home or in other people's homes, the people who live on Okinawa DO care 

And you think that it's the US Military that is building the landfill at Camp Schwab? You are 100% wrong there.

Some on Okinawa care, but far from a majority of the voting population. MOST are apathetic, and proof of that is their NOT participating in the referendum. If one wants to extrapolate the results, and include those who did not vote and include them as saying "yes", then an overwhelming majority of the electorate on Okinawa are FOR the landfill at Camp Schwab.

Read the treaties and agreements between Japan and the US regarding the facilities in Japan, including Okinawa. Japan could very well request amendments regarding the replacement facilities, but it hasn't.

Even when the Awase golf course was returned, an alternate facility was procured by the Japanese government as a replacement, as per the agreement.

The Japanese government is where EVERYONE here in Japan should be making their complaints.

But if Japanese politicians would get off their rear ends and use diplomacy, really communicate with the neighbours, this wouldn't happen.

Lol! Japanese politicians use diplomacy.... tell that to Abe and the LDP when they visit Yasukuni. You and others, who keep their heads buried in the sand, are living in lala-land and need to grow up.

And if the US military absolutely HAS to be here, they should be paying rent - at the same rates that we would have to pay if we rented it. Kadena alone would be a major boost to the Japanese economy.

And it would help a heck of a lot, if you would actually read the treaties and agreements between Japan and the US, instead of sounding like you are howling at the moon in ignorance of reality.

Just because you "wish" for something, doesnt make it reality.

Fine, then the base stays where it is. Period. Hope that suffices. Oh, and if there is a reduction in hosting, there is a reduction in handouts to the people who just want them for nothing.

Denny Tamaki, the broken record with one song.

If the central government had any intention to listen to what Okinawa wants about the base it would have scrapped the plans since a long time ago. As time passes it is more and more difficult to avoid seeing Okinawans as a sacrifice for the benefit of Japan as Tokyo's plans. In this there should be some kind of middle ground with both parts sacrificing something, not just one side.

Governor Denny Tamaki's announced kengisho (a proposal) is almost the same as that made by then Chief Executive of the Ryukyu Islands Chobyo Yara 50 years ago in that the return of Okinawa to Japan will bring about a peaceful Okinawa free of U.S. military bases.

Has Okinawa's wish been realized, freeing it from the hard grip of the U.S. military presence and bases? To our chagrin, the state of affairs involving U.S. bases has remained the same as ever before for the past half century.

Which is more important? Damaging the ecosystem or not having an Air Base smack in the middle of a city? Which poses a greater risk to the inhabitants of Okinawa?

Japan will remain occupied until the end of time.

The good people of Okinawa voted based on the platform Tamaki ran on, the removal of US of Terror's bases, in a fair and democratic election.

Let Tokyo put up with them as well as the cost to keep them and the criminals within.

Has Okinawa's wish been realized, freeing it from the hard grip of the U.S. military presence and bases? To our chagrin, the state of affairs involving U.S. bases has remained the same as ever before for the past half century.

Things have not "remained the same", and everyone knows it. Literally thousands of hectares of land have been returned, and more will be as well.

Folks need to get with things today in 2022 and stop living like we live in the 1960's!

Do away with that base totally.

The reality is, most of the residents in Okinawa benefit greatly from the presence of the US bases. Competition to get employment on-base is fierce.

And the locals do not mind intermingling with US military personnel and their dependents.

It is really a vocal minority that complains, and this voice is getting weaker every year.

painkillerToday  10:17 pm JST

The reality is, most of the residents in Okinawa benefit greatly from the presence of the US bases

Yes, residents have benefited greatly from the dioxin contamination in water and 25,000 rusting, leaking barrels of Agent Orange that did not exist, according to the official US government claims.

Peter NeilMay 8  10:28 pm JST

Yes, residents have benefited greatly from the dioxin contamination in water and 25,000 rusting, leaking barrels of Agent Orange that did not exist, according to the official US government claims.

Much more benefit than when 100,000 residents were killed by the Japanese military.

They died by the hands of both sides, including artillery, air strikes with napalm and crossfire, not all by the Japanese military.

Thats like saying the 674,000 civilians killed by Allied air strikes benefited from the US military.

Seventy percent (70%) of all U.S. military bases planted in Japan concentrate in Okinawa, that is mere 0.6 percent of the total land area of Japan. For starters, let's USMC Air Station Futenma be closed and returned with no strings attached. No condition to build its replacement.  No Henoko relocation!

The U.S. has no innate right to demand for Futenma’s replacement. Futenma is an illegal property per se where the U.S. Marines are squatting in violation of international law and justice.

I understand the desires of the Okinawans in regard to our bases. Why the concentration on Okinawa I don’t understand. You would think scattering them over the rest of Japan would make better sense. Part of the problem relates to lack of foresight by the US after WWII. Many Americans died taking Iwo Jima and then Okinawa. After the war civilians on both islands should have been removed to one of the other main Japanese islands. The US should have kept both islands as permanent military installations and part of the US. Had that happened this conversation would not be occurring. Total lack of foresight and planning.

For starters, let's USMC Air Station Futenma be closed and returned with no strings attached. No condition to build its replacement. No Henoko relocation!

Dont look to the US for this, Japan and the US signed treaties and agreements that state otherwise. If you have a problem, take it up with the Japanese government. The landfill at Camp Schwab is and will be completed, and MCAS Futenma will finally be closed and returned.

It's taken this long because the politicians in Okinawa and the national government could come to an agreement, and it took literally 2 decades for SOMETHING to happen. Now that it has, people are crawling out of the woodwork to complain now that it finally got started, and is nearly what 50% plus completed.

The U.S. has no innate right to demand for Futenma’s replacement. Futenma is an illegal property per se where the U.S. Marines are squatting in violation of international law and justice.

Yes it does, as per the agreements between the two countries. Futenma is not on "illegal" property, and it has been pointed out to you countless numbers of times.

Get this straight here; no matter how you state it, (lol "per say" or otherwise) no matter how may ways you twist the words, no matter how much you dont like it, or may even hate it, you are wrong. There is nothing "illegal" about Futenma, but that's not the point really.

No one can "negotiate" when their emotions cloud their views!

Yubaru,

you blather:

The landfill at Camp Schwab is and will be completed, and MCAS Futenma will finally be closed and returned.

Probably so. But the fact will remain that the construction of the base, a relocation of Futenma, was forged ahead illegally and undemocratically against people's sincere voice and wish. The illegal, unjust and undemocratic nature of the base relocation will never be rescinded by whatever you may say. Futenma is an illegal property and so will be its replacement in Henoko. 

You also say:

There is nothing "illegal" about Futenma, but that's not the point really.

Let me recap the facts about Futenma -- how it came to be. Right after the Battle of Okinawa was over, the U.S. occupation forces began constructing many air fields all over occupied Okinawa including Iejima Island in preparation for the invasion of mainland Japan. Kadena Air Base was expanded on an already existing IJA base. How were these air fields built and expanded? Take Futenma Air Station, for example. The U.S. occupation army encroached upon a large swath of private lands with impunity, swallowing up five villages, while the area residents were herded in camps like POWs for safety reasons.

The U.S. occupation forces' action was a blatant violation of Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which states: “Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.”

Can agreements and treaties in later years between Japan and the U.S. rescind or exonerate the illegality of the occupation army's freewheeling action? Can the illegality of dealing in stolen goods dissipate if two concerned parties come to an agreement in dealing?

Can agreements and treaties in later years between Japan and the U.S. rescind or exonerate the illegality of the occupation army's freewheeling action? 

Simple and straight answer.... YES! All the issues have been settled

You dont like it, but it's fact and you know it as well!

You are 100% wrong, you know it, but you just can accept it, that is on you.

The proposals also request a drastic review of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement, as Okinawa hosts the bulk of U.S. military installations in Japan, and a spate of crimes and accidents involving U.S. soldiers and base personnel have angered residents. 

Are the residents angered at the crime and accidents involving locals, which occur at a higher rate than those involving US military and base personnel, according to the NPA?

The U.S. occupation forces' action was a blatant violation of Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which states: “Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.”

Maybe someone can sue the US.

Yubaru,

YES! All the issues have been settled

LOL! Is dealing in stolen goods between fences legal if they decided their dealing was fair and legitimate?

painkiller,

Maybe someone can sue the US.

You are like saying, after committing homicides, "Maybe, someone can sue me. I really don't know if this killing spree is a crime or not."　What a nonchalant, indifferent and unsavory attitude!

LOL! Is dealing in stolen goods between fences legal if they decided their dealing was fair and legitimate?

Pray tell, why hasn't anyone else brought this issue up, besides you? If you are so smart, and you have a valid argument, pray tell, why haven't you found anyone to listen?

You know the answer, but you just cant accept it.

Yubaru,

Please answer curtly.

Is dealing in stolen goods between fences legal if they decided their dealing was fair and legitimate? Your post suggests that it is. For you said all the issues, i.e., all legal matters, have been settled (through agreements and negotiations).

Is dealing in stolen goods between fences legal if they decided their dealing was fair and legitimate? Your post suggests that it is. For you said all the issues, i.e., all legal matters, have been settled (through agreements and negotiations).

Pray tell, why hasn't anyone else brought this issue up, besides you? If you are so smart, and you have a valid argument, pray tell, why haven't you found anyone to listen?

Answer directly.