politics

Protest held in Okinawa 1 year after start of landfill for U.S base

58 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments

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

Troublemakers at it again. Nothing better to do than to protest something they can never ever change.

Okinawa needs the US bases and they’re staying. Find a new hobby

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

Not just Okinawa but the security of east Asia as a whole is riding on those bases. I feel for the people of Okinawa but the base needs to stay for now. I bet when it's all said and done, it won't be as bad as they are fearing.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

I think it is already now as it seems that it has more Americans than Japanese.

Calm down. There’s 1.5 million people on Okinawa and only 80 thousand Americans. Jeez you guys like to be dramatic.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Unfortunately Okinawa belongs to Japan in name but the military will never leave. If Tokyo wants to make the whole island a military base, it can.

Maybe the US should’ve held on to it in 1972 instead of giving the Japanese false hope. The island is still occupied and the occupation expanding.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

re article: "The relocation work shouldn't be carried out," said Setsuko Yara, 76, who took part in the protest. "If I think such a beautiful sea will be lost, I can't help but feel disappointment."

If Setsuko Yara was so concerned about the beautiful sea where was her voice and the others when the mountains on the Northern part of Nago were demolished with tons of runoff spilling into the sea changing the Ph and turbidity which in turn kills fish and stimulates new growth of a species and killing others. hmmm. NOT ONE WORD. The mountains are forever gone as new ones can't be made. The bases are going nowhere, highly recommend turn their energy in supporting something that produces income and better paying jobs than the measly pay at convenience stores and tourist shops. Many MLC's Japanese local base workers wages avg 3 to 500,000 yen per month and 2 annual bonuses plus housing and fuel allowance to name a few of the perks.

re: Comment: Maybe the US should’ve held on to it in 1972 instead of giving the Japanese false hope. The island is still occupied and the occupation expanding.

There was no need for the US to hold the islands. Keep in mind it was an Okinawan who had the majority of the voice that pushed for the lands to be returned to Japan. The option was there to be a free Kingdom as the US provided that option since Okinawa had long ago been occupied by Japan. So the question is where were you if your so concerned now about occupation.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Many MLC's Japanese local base workers wages avg 3 to 500,000 yen per month and 2 annual bonuses plus housing and fuel allowance to name a few of the perks.

FYI housing allowances are typical "perks" when one is the head of household in a Japanese company.

Not to mention the fuel allowance is as well, neither are anything special.

Their pay is above the average in Okinawa, as well as bonuses, twice a year, and typically as well a total of close to 4 months pay, paid out twice a year.

Also that is base pay before taxes too!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Unfortunately Okinawa belongs to Japan in name

You really know little about the reality of the bases in Japan. If Okinawa belongs to Japan in name only then ALL of Japan is too, as there are plenty of bases in mainland as well, just no all concentrated together

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Calm down. There’s 1.5 million people on Okinawa and only 80 thousand Americans. Jeez you guys like to be dramatic.

IN Okinawa, not on, Okinawa! The population of the prefecture is 1,452,000 or there abouts, with roughly 1.1 million on the main island.

But yes, you are right, too many folks have no idea what they are talking about!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The USA are not going anywhere. THANKS TRUMP. Dedicate theyre lives to defend Japanese lives 24/7, 365 days a year.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

The US is not going to defend Japan, it's in Japan to project itself in the Pacific to be global power. The US doesn't care about Japan.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

There’s 1.5 million people on Okinawa and only 80 thousand Americans. 

Not to be too picky but the number of SOFA-affiliated personnel on Okinawa (Military, civilian, family members, contractors) is a little over 50K - its stayed at that level for the past several years. I'm not sure how many non-SOFA Americans live on the island. The SOFA number will decrease by about 10K once the extension to Schwab is complete and facilities finished on Guam.

The people of Okinawa will benefit once the extension is finished and Futenma, Kinser and major portions of Foster are closed and returned to the local government. Businesses, schools/colleges, and community facilities can be constricted on that land that enhance the local Okinawans quality of life.

But the elites on Okinawa (the politicians, media, and academics) don't want that - they want the bases to remain while at the same time ranting against them. They know that any progress and reduction in the US military footprint leaves them without their most potent political issue to demagogue. And with that gone, the voters will expect them to tackle other problems - ones much more difficult to fix; jobs, alcohol abuse, affordable housing, etc.

Politicians are the same all over - re-election and remaining in power is Job #1...even if the voters have to suffer...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Why is the Abe government keep saying Henoko is "the only solution" for Futenma's relocation? Here's why.

When the initial phase of land reclamation began in March 2008 in the coastal waters off Henoko, canoeing protesters and activists resorted to force to stop the survey work for the construction. There was no floating barriers for protesters to be prevented from entering the construction sites at the time. That is how the initial Henoko plan was botched. After some lull and standstill, however, the U.S. government started saying they wouldn't stick to the Henoko plan and that the relocation site could be anywhere in Japan.

Tokyo must have been flustered at this.

When Tokunoshima in the Amami group surfaced as a candidate site, a large anti-relocation rally was held on the island with some political big shots from Tokyo participating in. Yuriko Koike (incumbent Governor of Tokyo), Defense Minister until just before, took part in the rally, loudly shouting an anti-Tokunoshima slogan, together with a large throng of the island's protesters. That clearly was the demonstration of the will that Tokyo's conservative establishment didn't want a new U.S. base to be built anywhere in Japan except Okinawa.

From this time around, the Japanese government seems to have entertained a unified view that Henoko was the only solution for the Futenma relocation issue.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

From this time around, the Japanese government seems to have entertained a unified view that Henoko was the only solution for the Futenma relocation issue.

Yup, and in not too long a time, it WILL be completed, and you will no longer have a soap box to stand on.

You can finally retire! It's over, Futenma will be closed, and you can rest in peace!

ANd you can thank Abe for it!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The Dec. 9 article, "U.S. approve plan for Rouhani visit to Japan", tells everything about the Japan-U.S. relations in regard to diplomacy, security and such. The U.S. dictates and Japan performs as is told. Or else, Tokyo must get approval from Washington as regards policies involving such matters as these.

For Washington, Henoko was the target site of Futenma's relocation from the very beginning when its return was promised in 1996. Richard P. Lawless, former Deputy Undersecretary for the Office of Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Defense Department, admitted inadvertently in a recently broadcast interview with NHK that the U.S. side had Henoko in mind from the very beginning. The U.S. Marines had already designed in the 1960s a blueprint to build a huge base complex at and around Henoko. 

So Tokyo and Washington are in complete agreement in that Henoko is the only solution for Futenma's relocation.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

If Japan takes its security more seriously U.S. Bases would not be necessary which would be good for the local Japanese dealing with this bases and I believe tensions with neighbors like China and North Korea could be reduced even more if we don't host U.S. Bases.

We can still have strong relations with the U.S. but this bases can do more harm then good.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Okinawa could try for independence in which case as a country of their own the people would decide their future and military needs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@lincolnman

Not to be too picky but the number of SOFA-affiliated personnel on Okinawa (Military, civilian, family members, contractors) is a little over 50K - its stayed at that level for the past several years. 

The 80k number included all Americans, not just SOFA personnel. It don’t know if it’s 100% accurate but it was the latest number I found online.

@yubaru

IN Okinawa, not on, Okinawa!

haha, sorry man. I stand corrected. It was early and I was still half asleep.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

haha, sorry man. I stand corrected. It was early and I was still half asleep.

Peace! You heart is always in the right place!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This relocation plan is being carried out unjustly and in undemocratic ways.

For starters, the U.S. has no inherent right to Futenma because it was constructed on private lands forcefully taken up during the occupation of Okinawa in violation of international law. A squatter cannot demand a new housing in return for the evacuation of the land he illegally occupies.

Second, the majority of people in Okinawa have voiced strong opposition to Futenma’s relocation to Henoko in successive elections and a referendum, saying Futenma should be moved outside Okinawa outright.

Third, there's no convincing reason why the new base must be constructed for the Okinawa-based Marines, the most active elements of whom are to move to Guam in the near future.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

then ALL of Japan is too, as there are plenty of bases in mainland as well, just no all concentrated together

Exactly. Okinawa is mentioned below cause of the article. Japan is still occupied and you know it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Exactly. Okinawa is mentioned below cause of the article. Japan is still occupied and you know it.

I suppose then, Germany, Italy, England, South Korea, and a bunch of other places are "occupied" in your book too?

If you attempt to make the claim that Japan is occupied, btw, Okinawa IS a part of Japan, then you MUST also say that any where else in the world that hosts a US military installation is occupied as well.

You can not have it both ways!

I think you have no idea what "occupied" means from a military point of view, nor do you know the circumstances in Japan, including Okinawa.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Second, the majority of people in Okinawa

Get it right (again with the lies) the majority of people who voted. Not the majority of people in Okinawa.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yubaru,

Get it right (again with the lies) the majority of people who voted. Not the majority of people in Okinawa.

I pointed out the Futenma relocation is being carried out in unjust and undemocratic ways, citing three reasons: (1) Futenma is built on illegally confiscated private lands; (2) in successive elections, local and national, anti-Henoko candidates won the seats and the result of referendums in Nago and at the prefectural level showed the majority of respondents opposed the Henoko relocation; (3) there's no convincing reason why the new base must be constructed in Henoko for the Okinawa-based Marines, the most active elements of whom are to move to Guam in the near future.

Of which you took issue only with (2), disregarding (1) and (3). What's your opinion on (1) and (3)?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Of which you took issue only with (2), disregarding (1) and (3)

Took issue? No pointed out your mistakes.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yubaru,

You say you only pointed out my mistake in (2) in my saying the majority of Okinawans are opposed to the Henoko relocation. Then, since you didn't point out any mistake in (1) and (3), I assume you agree with my comments in (1) and (3) 100%. That is, Futenma sits on illegally confiscated private lands whereby the U.S. has no inherent right to demand its replacement be built in Henoko for its return. A squatter cannot demand new housing be provided for him if he evacuates the land he illegally occupies.

You also agree with me when I say there's no strategic reason why the new Henoko base must be constructed, for the most active elements of the Okinawa-based Marines are to move to Guam in the near future, leaving only logistics and command units behind in Okinawa.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I suppose then, Germany, Italy, England, South Korea, and a bunch of other places are "occupied" in your book too?

There are 800 US military bases around the world. Your response then that would mean US occupies all those countries is meaningless.

Are you saying the situation in each of the countries of the some 800 bases (not saying there are 800 countries in the world just in case you might come back and tell me so) is the same? The same as that of Japan?

The word “occupied” doesn’t sit well with you, but the reality is the US never left Japan. The Japanese have few options. We all know why the US is in Japan.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Anyone that really has a clue knows these “Protestors” are paid...there’s ad’s on Craigs List.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

quercetumToday  03:33 pm JST

I suppose then, Germany, Italy, England, South Korea, and a bunch of other places are "occupied" in your book too?

The word “occupied” doesn’t sit well with you, but the reality is the US never left Japan. The Japanese have few options. We all know why the US is in Japan.

The term "occupied" is totally incorrect, and nothing more than an attempt to humilate the host country. That is the reality.

"ARTICLE X

"This Treaty shall remain in force until in the opinion of the Governments of Japan and the United States of America there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance of international peace and security in the Japan area. However, after the Treaty has been in force for ten years, either Party may give notice to the other Party of its intention to terminate the Treaty, in which case the Treaty shall terminate one year after such notice has been given."

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

And the TREATY OF MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SECURITY BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has been in force well over 10 years.

The Japanese have the option to terminate the agreement. Just as US bases in the Philippines were removed when that country terminated their agreement. Japan continues to keep the US presence in Japan for a number of reasons, but in particular, remaining under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and facilitating that capability is in Japan's best defense interests.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The term "occupied" is totally incorrect, and nothing more than an attempt to humilate the host country. That is the reality.

I know, just read the post I was replying to!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There are 800 US military bases around the world. Your response then that would mean US occupies all those countries is meaningless.

Nope, you wrote the following, and I remind you,

Okinawa is mentioned below cause of the article. Japan is still occupied and you know it.

If you think this, then you MUST also think that those countries are occupied as well. US never left Germany, Italy or GB either, so you can't say they arent occupied by your misplaced logic.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Ossan,

No, I am not trying to humiliate Japan. We are not connecting. You’re reading into it. My opinion and the way I choose to express it is a criticism of the US. The military in Okinawa and the main island is a vestige of colonialism in disguise formed in a period where colonialism was unpopular and ending. It is an affront to Japanese sovereignty.

You might disagree but enough number of Japanese have expressed that Article 9 itself is humiliating and that Japan should be able to have its own military as a sovereign nation (and the right to wage war.) I hold the same opinion.

I believe we have had an exchange of opinions on this in the past.

I am not referring to the letter but the spirit. Not the Tatemae but Honne. That is, the point of the Treaty is not to protect Japan despite what the treaty says and its termination clause.

There will surely be enough economic and political pressure that Japanese will not terminate. The difference is that “will not” does not equal “cannot” but that is where we will disagree.

The US is not going to defend Japan, it's in Japan to project itself in the Pacific to be global power. The US doesn't care about Japan.

I agree with the above opinion of Peter Neil. Protecting Japan is what they’re packaging and selling to the Japanese but we all know why they’re really here. The Japanese have a tendency to pay for that glittery packaging and have been sold for more than ten years.

Dignity and sovereignty.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

OssanAmerica,

The occupation of Japan formally ended when the San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect in 1952. So you are right in saying that Japan is not occupied. 

The catch is: Did the Allies withdraw their occupation forces from Japan completely, paying heed and respect to Japan's independence? Yes, they all did but the United States. The U.S. occupation forces maintained their bases intact even after the formal occupation ended in 1952  The military government, aka GHQ, was gone now.  But the U.S. has exercised its authority over Japan through the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which Japan was obliged to sign in order to gain independence.

This is the reason why we can say Japan is still under substantial and virtual occupation by the U.S. even today.

Okinawa was incorporated into this regime when it was returned to Japan in 1972. This state of affairs, or a pseudo-occupation, is observed in Okinawa in the most conspicuous form. About 18% of the prime land mass of Okinawa Island is occupied by the U.S. military, forcing Okinawa residents to live in congested areas surrounded by sprawling U.S. military bases that  form independent communities of their own with their own shopping malls and recreation centers plus 18-hole golf courses. Come to Okinawa and observe for yourself how a new type of "military occupation" is like.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The military in Okinawa and the main island is a vestige of colonialism in disguise formed in a period where colonialism was unpopular and ending. It is an affront to Japanese sovereignty.

Colonialism? So you see the US doing the same in Germany, Italy, and England as well?

If you continue on the path of insisting that Japan is "occupied" then you must also say the same about those countries and others!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

quercetumToday  05:17 pm JST

Ossan,

No, I am not trying to humiliate Japan. We are not connecting. You’re reading into it. My opinion and the way I choose to express it is a criticism of the US. The military in Okinawa and the main island is a vestige of colonialism in disguise formed in a period where colonialism was unpopular and ending. It is an affront to Japanese sovereignty.

You are certainly free to object to the US military presence in Okinawa, Japan or any country. But the occupation of Japan proper ended in 1952, and the occupation of Okinawa ended in 1972. Japan maintains sovereignty so calling the US presence an "occupatuion" is incorrect.

You might disagree but enough number of Japanese have expressed that Article 9 itself is humiliating and that Japan should be able to have its own military as a sovereign nation (and the right to wage war.) I hold the same opinion.

Yes but a greater manjority of Japanese have expressed a desire to maintain Article 9 as it is with no changes. I don;t happen to agreewith that view, but that appears to be the case.

I am not referring to the letter but the spirit. Not the Tatemae but Honne. That is, the point of the Treaty is not to protect Japan despite what the treaty says and its termination clause.There will surely be enough economic and political pressure that Japanese will not terminate. The difference is that “will not” does not equal “cannot” but that is where we will disagree.

Laws may invoke "the spirit vs the letter". However Treaties are interpreted by the letter. If both parties have the right of termination, neither is "forced" to continue. If Japan chooses not to terminate, it is only because it is in it;s own best interest not to. Nothing more, nothing less.

The US is not going to defend Japan, it's in Japan to project itself in the Pacific to be global power. The US doesn't care about Japan.

I agree with the above opinion of Peter Neil. Protecting Japan is what they’re packaging and selling to the Japanese but we all know why they’re really here. The Japanese have a tendency to pay for that glittery packaging and have been sold for more than ten years.

The US has far too much vested interest in Japan remaining free of adverserial control, to not abide by Article 5 of the Mutual Defense Treaty. Same with UK, or Western Europe. Japan serves as ther gateway to all US strategic operations in Asia. It issimply too valuable to US interests. Japan is already a regional power, but has no desire to be a global power. To do so requires a willingness to become a nuclear power, which Japan lacks, hence remaining a US ally protected by the US nuclear umbrella is in it's best interests.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes but a greater manjority of Japanese have expressed a desire to maintain Article 9 as it is with no changes. I don;t happen to agreewith that view, but that appears to be the case.

Even if Abe manages somehow to push through an amendment to the constitution through the Diet, it's the people who will have to get out and vote for it. A national referendum would be held, and it would be decided by a simple majority vote.

Abe is counting on the apathy of the people to have it pass!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The fact will not change that the land fill construction at Camp Schwab, will continue, will finish, and FINALLY MCAS Futenma will close.

The government is not going to throw away billions upon billions of yen and suddenly make a decision to stop. That is a hard fact, and the reality that people must accept, whether they like it or not. And dont forget that the people of Futenma are going to be joyous as well!

Complain all you want, but it wont change anything,

The esoteric academic discussions regarding the treaties between the US and Japan, have no place in the discussions of today. Those issues are for a history classroom, as there is current LEGAL basis to argue them now.

It's a broken record kind of thing.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

OssanAmerica,

Formal occupation ended in 1952, yes, but substantial occupation has continued with all U.A. bases remaining intact, or even strengthened, and all U.S. service members guaranteed by the SOFA, a document accompanying the Security Treaty., to enjoy the same perquisites as they enjoyed during the Occupation.  And you deny Japan is not occupied substantially?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Formal occupation ended in 1952, yes, but substantial occupation has continued with all U.A. bases remaining intact, or even strengthened, and all U.S. service members guaranteed by the SOFA, a document accompanying the Security Treaty., to enjoy the same perquisites as they enjoyed during the Occupation.

Nothing to do with the topic at hand! This is about the landfill project at Camp Schwab. Not to mention the SOFA has been changed a number of times, and the amount of land used by the military has dramatically been cut and will be less in the near future as well after the project is finished.

And you deny Japan is not occupied substantially?

FYI, the following is the definition of a military occupation;

 control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory

So is Japan still a hostile enemy? Are we under martial law?

Of course not, we live in a sovereign state that chooses to ally itself with the US, not to mention once again, the "state", (Japan) decides not the prefecture (Okinawa) regarding matters of national defense.

End of discussion!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

US military bases in Japan are in accordance with the US-JPN Mutual Defense Treaty and SOFA. A great many US military bases are shared with, or located adjacent to JSDF bases to faciliate joint operations. Both the US and Japan have the right to terminate the Treaty agreement. Neither are bound to it unwillingly or by force. The US bases are in Japan because both nations feel the arrangement is in their best interests, both mutually and individually. To call the US military presence in Japan under these circumstances an "occupation" is ridiculous. Occupation of Japan ended in 1952, and Okinawa in 1972. Please get over it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Occupation of Japan ended in 1952, and Okinawa in 1972. Please get over it.

The problem is certain protesters can't get over it. They still live in the 1960's and 70's.

To admit that things have gotten better and will get better moving forward as well is something they can not accept.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

OssanAmerica,

US military bases in Japan are in accordance with the US-JPN Mutual Defense Treaty and SOFA.

The formal U.S. occupation of Japan ended in 1952 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect.  Kindly enough, poster Yubaru volunteers to provide with the definition of "military occupation".

The point at issue here is, however, despite the ending of the formal occupation, U.S. occupation forces, renaming and disguising itself as defenders of Japan or USFJ, continued to be stationed in Japan retaining their bases and perquisites the same as before. This state of affairs may not be abon-a-fide military occupation but certainly it's quasi or disguised military occupation.

The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, together with the concomitant SOFA, makes all this possible. The said Security Treaty is thus a facade to camouflage the real picture that Japan is situated under: that is, quasi-U.S. military occupation.  How do you respond?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@voiceofokinawa

My response is that you have a serious fixation based on a misunderstanding of the term "occupation", even in the face of Yubaru giving you a clear definition. And after accepting the definition, you now introduce a tin hat concept of a "disguised occupation".

If you are against the presence of US bases in Okinawa or anywhere in Japan, that's fine. But I suggest you focus your arguments on the reasons why Japan has not, and shows no intention of terminating the Mutual Defense Treaty, thereby eliminating all US bases.

Otherwise, you are barking up the wrong tree.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The point at issue here is, however, despite the ending of the formal occupation, U.S. occupation forces, renaming and disguising itself as defenders of Japan or USFJ, continued to be stationed in Japan retaining their bases and perquisites the same as before. This state of affairs may not be abon-a-fide military occupation but certainly it's quasi or disguised military occupation.

No matter how many different adjectives you put before the word occupation, it does not change the fact that there is none. Not here in Okinawa, nor anywhere in Japan. You have been obstinate in using, occupation by itself, virtual occupation, quasi-occupation, disguised occupation, and lord only knows how many others, in your ATTEMPT to make an invalid and unsubstantiated point.

The US forces stayed, not just here in Okinawa, but in mainland as well, from past 1952, which you acknowledge as the END of the occupation of mainland Japan, but, the bases stayed there! However you dont acknowledge that the occupation ended in 1972 after Okinawa was returned?!?!?

Need you be reminded again that Okinawa is a prefecture of Japan? I guess you forgot that the bases are here too because of the security agreement with the US as well.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Being opposed to the move is one thing, and one might respect that opinion of yours, but you make it impossible to give you that respect because of your incessant repetition of the lies that you have come to believe as being true.

Being opposed to the US Military in Japan is another thing, yet again, your lies, and obfuscation make it impossible to respect your opinion.

Take some advice, accept the facts as they are today. It's not 1960 anymore, and things have evolved here in Okinawa and Japan much since then and will continue to do so as well.

No one can change the past, and no one can turn the clock back either, not you, not anyone!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

OssanAmerica,

My response is that you have a serious fixation based on a misunderstanding of the term "occupation", even in the face of Yubaru giving you a clear definition. And after accepting the definition, you now introduce a tin hat concept of a "disguised occupation".

 I keep saying Japan's occupation by the Allies formally ended when the San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect in 1952. The catch here is that, even though the hostilities ended with that treaty, and all other Allies withdrew their troops from an independent Japan completely, the U.S. alone maintained its hitherto occupation army the same as before, with the same perquisites as it enjoyed during the Occupation guaranteed by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the concomitant SOFA. 

I call this state of affairs "quasi-occupation" or occupation in disguise. Of course, you don't like it and instead want to call U.S. troops in Japan "invited guests", a rhetorical chicanery to camouflage the real state of affairs.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I call this state of affairs "quasi-occupation" or occupation in disguise. Of course, you don't like it and instead want to call U.S. troops in Japan "invited guests", a rhetorical chicanery to camouflage the real state of affairs.

Every time you use the word "occupation" to talk about the US in Japan, you are factually wrong. No matter what other word you precede it with, by definition, it is not a military occupation.

Japan can ask the US to leave at any time. Whether you want to claim otherwise is irrelevant, it is in the Security Agreement in no uncertain terms. What do you call someone who is in your home with your permission, whom you can tell to leave whenever you decide you don't want them there? 'Invited guest' seems accurate to me.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

 call this state of affairs "quasi-occupation" or occupation in disguise. Of course, you don't like it and instead want to call U.S. troops in Japan "invited guests", a rhetorical chicanery to camouflage the real state of affairs.

Oh come on, you called it a "virtual" occupation until you got called out on it like you are here and now you changed the adjective to "quasi". Running out of adjectives? Maybe you will stop, but somehow I doubt it, and you will continue to copy and paste the same material, long after Futenma is closed.

It's only "rhetorical chicanery" on your part. If in fact it was as you say, your passport would be Ryukyu and you would need one to travel to mainland, oh wait, that ended in 72 as well!

You are just being obstinate, and you continue to be factually wrong, as noted by extanker this time.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I call this state of affairs "quasi-occupation" or occupation in disguise. Of course, you don't like it and instead want to call U.S. troops in Japan "invited guests", a rhetorical chicanery to camouflage the real state of affairs.

By the way both the US government and Japanese government call them "invited".

The "real" state of affairs is the the presence of the US military in Japan has given you the life you lead today. You must be grateful to that fact, because I really dont think you would want to have grown up under a militaristic dictator like Tojo. People today, here in Japan, have Article 9 of the constitution to thank, along with the US military as well, for the lifestyle they lead, as Japan never had to be concerned about "protecting" itself.

Times have changed, and the situation in Okinawa is changing along with them as well.

I invite you to come join us all in the 21st Century, and hope you will stop living life as if it were the 1960's.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

extanker & Yubaru,

The U.S. military presence isn't "occupation" in the usual sense of the word. That's what I've been saying on this thread. The Supreme Commander of GHQ is gone. The High Commissioner of USCAR is gone. But the occupation troops remained. Their bases were kept intact or even strengthened. If they are to be stationed here temporarily like "guests", why do they demand a permanent base be buil,  in Henoko?

As occupation forces, they encroached upon private land with impunity in Okinawa to build huge bases. They say one of such bases will be returned, only on condition that its replacement, a permanent facility equipped with a military port and other stat-of-the-arts facilities. The Marines themselves said the service life of the new base must be 200 years or more.

What else can you call this state of affairs but "occupation" in disguise?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The U.S. military presence isn't "occupation" in the usual sense of the word.

It isnt an occupation in ANY sense of the word. No matter how hard you try to deflect and obfuscate it, the fact remains, there is no occupation, none.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

voiceofokinawaDec. 16  10:14 pm JST

OssanAmerica,

I call this state of affairs "quasi-occupation" or occupation in disguise. Of course, you don't like it and instead want to call U.S. troops in Japan "invited guests", a rhetorical chicanery to camouflage the real state of affairs.

Your use of the term "occupation" including the variations that you have now introduced, does not evoke any "like" or "dislike" on my part. It is simply factually wrong, period.

And no, I have never called the US troops "invited guests". Invited, yes because they can be removed by either Japan or the US if they so choose. I do not consider them "guests" but rather partners in accordance with an Agreement between two allied sovereign nations.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OssanAmerica,

 And no, I have never called the US troops "invited  guests".

No, you haven't. But the U.S. government has and does.  Didn't you say on another thread that the  U.S. military presence is at the behest of the Japanese government?  If so, you also think the U.S. troops in Japan are none other than "invited guests". 

This is indeed a chicanery, befuddling people's mind like hell. as usual

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No, you haven't. But the U.S. government has and does.

Stop reading things literally, and learn to understand the practical reasons why the US Military not the Us government uses the word "guests" when they talk about being stationed here in Japan.

The military uses "guests" for a specific reason, to attempt to instill in it's members that they are "guests" here and they should act accordingly when they are here.

This is indeed a chicanery, befuddling people's mind like hell. as usual

It is nothing as you say. Just because you misunderstand, and refuse to learn, its befuddling to you. If you learn the rationale behind the use of the word, you will understand as well.

Far too often in the past the US Military did in fact treat the local population poorly, to say the least, particularly back in the days of the occupation. However since the reversion of the SOFA and even before that, in an attempt to educate their members to why they are here, they refer to themselves as being guests here, for the purpose of instilling in their members to act accordingly.

Not all do, but the overwhelming majority do take it to heart.

Take the words "guests" figuratively here, and you will learn to understand better!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yubaru (Today 08:27 am JST),

No matter how hard you try to deflect and obfuscate it, the fact remains, …

Your chicken will certainly come home to roost in your backyard. You say, No matter how hard I try to deflect and obfuscate it, the fact remains. But that fact is: that the occupation forces-turned defenders of Japan, USFJ, remain in Japan continually, retaining all their bases and perquisites just the same as before.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

OssanAmerica,

And no, I have never called the US troops "invited guests". Invited, yes because they can be removed by either Japan or the US if they so choose. I do not consider them "guests" but rather partners in accordance with an Agreement between two allied sovereign nations.

Certainly, you haven't called the U.S. troops in Japan "invited guests". But your government has and does, befuddling people's mind as always. If you don't like the expression, lodge your complaint to your own government and ask them to use “partners” instead.

But “invited guests” or “partners”, the expressions are all part of the same chicanery, obfuscation and befuddlement.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

 But that fact is: that the occupation forces-turned defenders of Japan, USFJ, remain in Japan continually, retaining all their bases and perquisites just the same as before.

So you FINALLY admit, in your own way that there is no occupation of Japan today, thank you!

I am glad we can finally put this to rest.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Certainly, you haven't called the U.S. troops in Japan "invited guests". But your government has and does, befuddling people's mind as always. If you don't like the expression, lodge your complaint to your own government and ask them to use “partners” instead.

I gave you the reason why "guests" is used, dont go over thinking that there is more into it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The U.S. military presence isn't "occupation" in the usual sense of the word.

Then it's not an occupation.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites