Suga, U.S. Marine head oppose China's assertiveness in Indo-Pacific

If ever there will be another armed conflict, it will be with china, and the way they are draining the planet of whatever they can get their hands on, it could happen ANYWHERE.

Hong Kongers refer to mainland tourists as "locusts" who strip the shelves of Hong Kong stores bare, often to re-sell the merchandise in the mainland.

If ever there will be another armed conflict, it will be with china, and the way they are draining the planet of whatever they can get their hands on, it could happen ANYWHERE.

Playing both ends from the middle, signed the trading agreement RCEP a week ago that included China and now this. They built the Islands for exactly for the express purpose of controlling the area and patrolling warning sea and air this theirs. Never had said Taiwan and Hong Kong were countries, always Chinese. Japanese government is committed only in words that are always subject to change.

Don't think for a second China would not invade Japan if they thought they could get away with it.

Little history lesson for you.

Technically, Manchukuo wasn’t a legitimate country but still, China has made claims of all of its territory. China invaded Manchukuo during the ruling of ROC and before the formation of the People’s Republic of China. Russia was instrumental in facilitating the airlifting of the Chinese Communist units into Manchukuo which was in preparation for the second round of Chinese Civil War.

INVASION OF TIBET IN 1950

Tibet is not a country either; it is a recognized nation’s state. However, Tibet has always been considered to be part of the Qing Dynasty. China took control of this sovereign territory in their POV although again, it wasn’t considered to be a real occupation by both the UN and China.

INVASION OF SOUTH AND NORTH KOREA IN 1950

Perhaps it would be better to describe the events, not as an invasion, but an intervention. It occurred when the UN armies got too close for comfort up to the Chinese border (something the US has always denied) when there were various talks with the US forces to keep occupying Manchuria, so as to help the Republic of China’s government regain control of the mainland of China. The efforts were proved futile and costly regarding lives lost, but nothing much changed.

INVASION OF INDIA IN 1962

China has always claimed the Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh and the invasion of China into India was to take control of their sovereign territory. They couldn’t and still can’t recognize the MacMahon Line. The conflict ensued after Chairman Mao grew impatient of Nehru’s promises of solving the issues diplomatically through negotiations. That was the most surprising invasion because India and China enjoyed a good relationship before that point. Later on, China and India would agree to respect the demarcated line of control found in Aksai Chin and gave it to China since it was more strategically important to China. But Arunachal Pradesh also known as Southern Tibet in China, it remains unresolved.

INVASION OF THE SOVIET UNION IN 1969

On the second of March 1969, there was a group of Chinese troops that ambushed the Russian border guards on the Zhenbao Island. This land, war and invasion of China into the Soviet Union’s territory was because Russia failed to keep their end of the bargain when they agreed that they would hand over the Zhenbao Island if they wanted to keep all the 1858-1860 stolen land. One could class this as a warmongering act, but there is a strong argument that the land China attacked was their own and was wrongfully being held by Russian forces.

INVASION OF VIETNAM IN 1979.

On the 6th of March, 1979, Chinese troops entered into the northern part of Vietnam and occupied some of its bordering cities. This was China’s demonstration that Russia could not protect its down south ally. Also, Deng Xiaopeng wanted to show that he was the master of geopolitical brinkmanship and the undisputed new emperor of China. China then declared that its punitive mission had been achieved, since the gate to Hunoi had been opened, and the Chinese forces were retreating into China across Vietnamese borders. Both Vietnam and China claimed victory.

China has a history of pushing its borders into other countries’ and the territories mentioned are the main countries China has invaded. China’s invasions have mostly been as a result of some provocation or to prove that it is a great power that deserves respect.

China’s currently invasion of the South China Sea demonstrates a clear analogy of history repeating itself.

China wants world dominance. This is the clear and present initiative from Beijing

In this case I find good that the defensive and strategic defense ties between Japan and the US get further,China is everything but a peaceful country.

It needs deterrents to stop bullying the neighborhood countries.

With a strong Japan-US and I hope more countries ties China will think twice before threatening and stealing water from others.

The above picture looks like something from Madame Tussaud's.

"We would like to deepen our coordination with the United States by enhancing our response and deterrence capabilities through our bilateral alliance and achieving a free and open Indo-Pacific," Suga told Berger in the meeting, part of which was open to the media. = "We would like to continue to increase our military budget in order to buy more weapons that we never use so that we can take in even more money from Japanese tax payers."

The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty states only the Army, Air Force and the Navy can be stationed in Japan and use bases here. Are the Marine Corps and Space Force considered to be part of the Navy and Air Force, that is, subsidiary to both services 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps reports to the Secretary of the Navy. There is no stand along Department of the Marine Corps nor is there a Secretary of the Marine Corps. The Marines are part of the US Navy and always have been. The Commandant of the Marines was not even a full time member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until the passage of the Goldwater Nichols Act in 1986. From 1955 to Goldwater Nichols the Commandant of the Marines was invited to discussions of the JCS that involved matters concerning the Marine Corps but they had no full time voice on the JCS. There are many in both the US military and Congress who want to see Goldwater Nichols repealed btw. Marine pilots are designated as Naval Aviators. All of their medical staff are US Navy corpsmen, nurses and physicians. The Marines do not have their own medical staff. They rely on NAVSUP for their logistics and their weapons are developed and procured through the Navy's procurement organization and their test programs conducted through the Navy's RDTE establishment.

Last if you look at the Marines new strategy it is to eliminate heavy armor, replace much of their long gun artillery with rockets and missiles, including medium and long range anti-ship missiles and their strategy will be to occupy small islands and set up anti-ship missile batteries in coordination with the Navy. This can make passage through the first island chain extremely perilous, and allow Marines to be quickly dropped onto an island in anticipation of a nearby naval action so the enemy is caught between naval forces on one side and Marines on the other.

vanityofvanitiesToday  07:10 am JST

China says they are their territories. Who can correct China and in what way?

No one can "correct" China. They can only correct themselves. If the nations of the region and world show that they are not going to stand by and let China do what it is doing, China will recognize that the cost will be far too great and find better ways to solve their problems.

."Who can correct China and in what way?"

Japan can and a kick butt Navy that is who can correct China.

RCEP only empowers ccp so form another trading block including India m US Aussi NZ n even russia then peace will prevail

Tibet is not a country either; it is a recognized nation’s state. However, Tibet has always been considered to be part of the Qing Dynasty. 

Tibet was an independent nation when the PRC invaded in 1950. The Qing were not Chinese. They were Mongolian invaders, a source of considerable resentment against their hegemony over the Han. When the Mongolians were finally thrown out the Tibetans gained their independence.

Anyone who thinks the Marine Corps command structure is ambiguous, please learn the history of the Marine Corps. Or better yet, find a Marine (bonus points if it’s a Corpsman) and tell him/her they aren’t part of the Navy.

Yes Beerman!

I am with you. My checks said Department of Navy on them. My first one hangs in frame uncashed to this day on my home office wall! Like I said. Sometimes here facts equate to -'s here.

Ooorah!

Remove the bases and China would not need to invade.

Well you do not think the way the Chinese do. First of all China's desire to invade Okinawa is independent of the presence of US forces there. US forces deter them from their ulitmate goal of taking Okinawa from Japan for much older historical reasons.

China sees Okinawa as a land that was once a subsidiary tributary state to China. The Qing annointed Ryukyu Kings and kept emissaries there to keep the Ryukyu royalty in line. China provided the Ryukyu Kingdom with ships and regulated who the Ryukyuans could trade with. In the view of many Chinese, especially those in power and in academia, the Ryukyus are occupied not by the Americans but by the Japanese. Remember the Ryukyu kings had to keep their relations with pre-Meiji Japan a dark secret from the Chinese. It would have been the end for them to allow the Chinese to know they were sort of double dealing them behind their backs. Thus many Chinese consider Japan's subsequent annexation of the Ryukyus illegal and likewise maintain that Japan's defeat in WWII should result in Japan's loss of of the Ryukyus.

China wants the Ryukyus for themselves or at the very least as a subservient vassal state like North Korea. If the Chinese ever begin to think Okinawa would be easy to take, they will. The CCP are like animals that seek out the weakest members of the herd to attack while avoiding the teeth and claws of the alpha male. With US forces stationed on Okinawa, attacking Okinawa guarantees the US will be involved in the resulting war and that is something China does not want. However China would gleefully destroy Japanese cities in revenge for WWII while taking Okinawa were it not for the threat of destruction at the hands of the US.

@Yubaru a treaty is only as good as the people who sign it. Recently the US has broken a lot of treaties. How can Japan be sure the US will honor it? Trump has been spouting off about how unfair the treaty is to the USA. It is the first step before he breaks the treaty.

Mr. Trump's opportunities to break treaties are rapidly drawing to a close. What I find interesting is that since the Equivalency Clause of the US Constitution makes signed and ratified treaties the equivalent of a Federal statute, why haven't members of Congress challenged the unilateral revocation of treaties by the Executive Branch in court? Presidents in the US do not have the authority to unilaterally suspend eliminate laws passed by Congress.

The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty states only the Army, Air Force and the Navy can be stationed in Japan and use bases here. Are the Marine Corps and Space Force considered to be part of the Navy and Air Force, that is, subsidiary to both services 

The seal of the Marine Corps very clearly says “Department of the Navy” on the top half in bold letters, with “United States Marine Corps” in smaller letters on the bottom half. I’m pretty sure that makes it clear who is in charge.

It’s a joint task force. The army soldiers on the ships are not under command of the navy.

@Slickdrifter

i don’t see what was so hard to understand. All Marines understand that they are part of the Navy. Their frickin paycheck says “Navy” on it.

By some people’s reasoning, riding a taxi would make you an employee of the taxi company.

"Esprit de Corps" Semper Fi!

Back at ya! Ra d-dog!

The navy does not have command of the mission the soldiers are to execute, nor are the soldiers considered part of the fleet.

Be careful. The four star admiral in Pearl Harbor, USPACOM or US Pacific Area Command, has operational control of all US military forces in his area. That includes Army and Air Force units along with the Marines. Lower ranking Generals in his area of command regardless of their service report to him and carry out his orders. That Admiral is likewise fully responsible for resourcing the units under his command, the conduct of their operations and any exercises they participate in. USPACOM is traditionally a Navy four star. There was a proposal a few years ago to appoint a new USPACOM from the Air Force but that didn't go anywhere. In Europe, the comparable area commander is always US Army. Any Navy and Air Force units in that area report to the Army General. That is how it works. There was even a period where our US Navy ship was under operational command of a JMSDF Admiral as our ship was attached to a Japanese surface action group as their supply ship. Fun too, the JMSDF are pros and working with them was interesting.

Good, now reverting your decision on RCEP.

Sorry, I mean the how should not discussed online in a thread.

China is tired of getting its but kicked in micro invasions.

Hence the massive military build up of its Land Air and Sea forces and abilities? China wants respect as a major world power and a player at the global big boy nuclear table right? Wrong.

China is habitual line stepper. They are not building the most dangerous war fighting machine on the planet for (just because). They will use it. And they will win if not stopped or reverse direction.

 A naval force can include the Army infantrymen, as well, because in actual combat scenes of invasion, they may compose the integral part of a naval force.

Army soldiers on a transport ship do not make a “naval force.” They are army troops being transported by the navy as part of a joint operation.

The Marine Corps is and always has been part of the Navy.

The SDF amphibious troops are not called “marines” for that very reason. They are not part of the MSDF ship-to-shore combat teams, but the “Rapid Deployment Amphibious Brigade” of the GSDF. By function, they are marines, but they are under command of the GSDF.

China is not a communism country. It's a one party fascist state.

Walking the silver lining are we?

China is absolutely strictly criminal and communist!

I have a question for you Zichi.

Who was the General secretary for the C.C.P? From 2002 to 2012?

Here is the answer.

Xi Jinping  who has served as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) since 2012,

Who is now the dear leader and President of the People's Republic of China?

Xi Jinping.

Yeah not communist at all. Right only spent a lifetime dedicating himself to communism. Only the most communist leader since Mao Zedong, running the country and driving the biggest military buildup in Chinese history. Oh! You think they are building up the military to compete with America? China wants the world.

Chairman Mao, was a Chinese communist revolutionary who was the founder of the People's Republic of China as we know it today, Xi Jinping idolizes Mao. Mao id a God to him. That just the fact!

Under Mao, Tens of millions of people were persecuted during the Revolution, while the estimated number of deaths ranges from hundreds of thousands to millions. Millions!

I don’t want to argue semantics. The army will never be under command of the navy. Which is why the navy has Marines, to fill the role of a land force under command of the Department of the Navy.

Marines are managed and are part of the Navy.

Army is army.

The Army have their own command structure no matter who is giving them a ride in what or by what.

Like the Coast Guard. Like the Airforce. (Separate by division is what it used to be called in my day)

They are separate branches of our armed forces. It is not uncommon for Marines to take orders from Naval officers and vise versa. Marines and Navy work together daily. Its a great relationship. I think the the department of Navy has the largest budget as well. And the Corps are integrated in said budget I think. I never looked, but only makes sense.

The globe and anchor Marines hold so dear prove what others are saying to be true.

Thanks for the rides Navy!

Why does the U.S. Marines have the most bases and take up so much land on Okinawa when they contribute the least to the defense of Japan than any other Military Force on Okinawa?

Apart from the USAF, the USMC provides the most powerful deterrent from aggression against Japan.

Army troops stationed in the Pacific would lack the amphibious and rapid deployment capabilities of the Marine Corps.

@Slickdrifter

From Montezuma to Tripoli!

zichiToday  12:54 pm JST

OssanAmerica

China won't invade Okinawa with the American troop based there.

And who do you know in the Chinese PLA that you know this as a fact?

If the ship they are on becomes a casualty and is sunk, they are considered casualties of the fleet.

And they would die as soldiers not as sailors. Even history notes that fact as well.

You all are talking semantics here, and all started by a poster who really doesnt care, he just wants SOMEONE to agree with him. But to agree with him, would be agreeing to a lie, not a fact.

As I mentioned in another article, the residents of Kayo and Henoko see the protestors as a nuisance (to put it lightly) and generally welcome the influx of tourist economy and local employment.

zichiToday  08:12 pm JST

OssanAmerica

And who do you know in the Chinese PLA that you know this as a fact?

So you believe China will invade Japan and start a war against Japan and America which would become World War 3 and would bring in other western powers. You also think China could win that war.

China does not have the military strength to defeat America.

Nope. I never said anything of the sort.

BeerDeliveryGuy,

Thank you and same to you. No disrespect if you are an ex-Marine. I have worked on all of the Marine Bases on Okinawa at one time or another and have met many good Marines and their families. Just because people are willing to do business with you doesn't mean they like you. Just on Nov. 8, a 20 year old Marine from Camp Hansen was arrested for choking and robbing a taxi driver in Chatan.

My main complaint with the Japanese Govt. and U.S. Military is that they are not really serious in their talk of reducing the burden of U.S. Bases on Okinawa. Let me give you an example. Why do the Navy Seabees need their own base on Okinawa with housing, a gym, a club etc.? Since they are a part of the Navy and they are not that many of them, couldn't they be easily moved on to White Beach or even one of the many Marine Bases and the land taken up by the Base known as Camp Shields be returned to Okinawa? There are things like this that could be done to reduce the burden on Okinawa but neither the Japanese Govt. or U.S. Military have the will or desire to do them.

Like I always say, Living somewhere doesn’t make you the VOICE of it, especially when you show such obvious bias against one particular military branch.

the US AND JAPAN are looking for confrontation! As japan is a US base proxy, Japanese population will take the collateral burden.

@Moonbloom.

Spoken like someone completely out of the chain of command and oblivious to what is in play to give the Japanese people and the P.M. what he has asked for. Japan has way more Sea assets to fend off Maritime aggression of the Chinese then American Navy in Japan waters. Has nothing to do with weapons sales what so ever. Marines do not broker weapons' sales to the Japanese. The  Commandant is there to listen and share ideas with the P.M. because he is an extremely level headed individual and is extremely smart.

One the Japanese side of this.

We would like to deepen our coordination with the United States by enhancing our response and deterrence capabilities through our bilateral alliance and achieving a free and open Indo-Pacific," Suga requested.

Deepen coordination an enhanced response and deterrence capability can be achieved here in Japan without having to bring in any new weapons' or military assets what so ever. How can be in to a forum. If I may just simply say. Or reiterate a quote from someone I deeply admire and respect.

"In a special operations mission, the concept of speed is simple. Get to your objective as fast as possible. Any delay will expand your area of vulnerability."

William H. McRaven

Speed will pay a huge factor in what Suga has asked for. The young and growing Chinese Navy is becoming a formattable force month by month.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-army-navy/

China is biggest threat to the free world.

For decades I watched U.S. politicians and analysts telling us economic growth in China would spur liberalism.

How wrong we were. Every President since Regan has been wrong on China.

zichiToday  12:39 pm JST

China will try to take control of the South China Sea and the atolls but won't invade Japan.

Last I checked Okinawa was one of Japan's Prefectures.

".. the Global Times newspaper urged Beijing to consider challenging Japan’s control over its southern prefecture of Okinawa – an island chain with a population of 1.4m people that bristles with US military bases. “China should not be afraid of engaging with Japan in a mutual undermining of territorial integrity,” the Communist party-run paper declared."

https://www.ft.com/content/9692e93a-d3b5-11e1-b554-00144feabdc0

@joey stalin

The posture of the U.S. Military and its contactors on Japanese soil and sea and air. Is not an occupation what so ever. Japan can ask us to leave at anytime they want. And we would leave.

Nonsense.

[ SlickdrifterToday  01:09 pm JST

The posture of the U.S. Military and its contactors on Japanese soil and sea and air. Is not an occupation what so ever. Japan can ask us to leave at anytime they want. And we would leave. ]

I am afraid you are really uninformed.

Are you familiar with the huge demonstrations by Japanese citizens in the 1960's (Abe's grandfather Kishi Nobusuke was forced to resign) which demanded the US leave?

The fact is Japan cannot ask the US to leave, because it was the US who created the LDP- https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-to-support-japanese-right-in-50-s-and-60-s.html

Are you familiar with the huge demonstrations by Japanese citizens in the 1960's

US forces still occupied Okinawa until 1972 and Iwo Jima until 1968, so protests by disgruntled citizens would have been pointless. Even today protests will not change the US presence unless or until the Japanese Government wants that to happen. The Japanese government wants US forces in Japan. The US government wants a forward base in Japan for strategic reasons. As long as it is wanted by both, it will not change. Some citizens will always object and for varying reasons. Other citizens will support it for Japans defense.

his line in English is very ambiguous because a "naval force" may include not only the original Navy but also the Marines, as you imply. A naval force can include the Army infantrymen, as well, because in actual combat scenes of invasion, they may compose the integral part of a naval force.

No mention of Army, no mention of Navy, no mention of Marines, no mention of Air Force, anywhere in the treaty! You keep on attempting to say something that is blatantly false. I gave you FACTS.

No facts from you, only your suppositions.

If the naval force is a tactical term, then the forces composing it must be disbanded as soon as their tactical mission is over.

This is just plain ignorance of anything to do with the military talking here!

n order to disambiguate the terminology, the Japanese version, which has an equal legal force to the English version, states the land, air and naval forces in the English version as the Army (陸軍）, Air Force　（空軍） and Navy　（海軍）, three major services in the U.S. military.

Nice try, but again, no reference directly, in Japanese either to:

アメリカ合衆国海軍省 (Amerikagasshūkoku kaigun-shō) Or the Department of the Navy or any of the other branches of the services which you keep on insisting are listed in the treaty and they are not, in English OR Japanese. And by the way, the treaty is legally recognized in both English and Japanese, neither takes precedence.

So for it to be as YOU keep on misguidedly say, those Departments of the Services MUST be included in the treaty, but as even you can see, are not. If they were service specific they would have been noted as such, they are not. Again you are wrong, game over!

Check and mate!

Everything is based off your "feelings" not facts. Time to let it go.

Yep, And you did so eloquently Yubaru in factual delivery of solid and concrete facts.

Yubaru, Do not wait too long. Those do not know. They simply do not know.

BeerDeliveryGuyToday 07:15 pm JST

I don’t want to argue semantics. The army will never be under command of the navy. Which is why the navy has Marines, to fill the role of a land force under command of the Department of the Navy.

All army soldiers being transported on navy vessels are compelled to obey any lawful order given by ranking navy personnel for the safety of all personnel onboard and the safety of the ship. There is only one Captain on board a navy Vessel and Army Captains are granted the temporary title of Major while onboard.

All army soldiers being transported on navy vessels are compelled to obey any lawful order given by ranking navy personnel for the safety of all personnel onboard and the safety of the ship. 

Yes, in the same way that you are required to keep your arms and face inside the vehicle and not smoke while riding public transport.

The navy does not have command of the mission the soldiers are to execute, nor are the soldiers considered part of the fleet.

The navy does not have command of the mission the soldiers are to execute, nor are the soldiers considered part of the fleet.

They are a part of the fleet until they are not. Ie until they disembark.

If the ship they are on becomes a casualty and is sunk, they are considered casualties of the fleet.

True, they will be mentioned in the navy’s casualty report, then accounted as army casualties.

As in, “sorry, Army. We lost some of your boys.”

If all of the U.S. Marines left Okinawa tomorrow, not one member of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy or Okinawan would miss them. The Marines have never been liked on Okinawa and never will be!

You dont even see how ignorant you sound when you write something like this.

Thank you for your service, vet. But times, and public opinion have changed. The Marine Corps presence is now an integral part of the Okinawa economy, and an integral part of certain industries; such as taxis and off-base real estate.

It is not suitable for him to comment.

You’re getting way over my paygrade...

The relationship with MCIPAC and the locals is love and hate at best.

The locals love the influx of money, but don’t like the noise.

So we move Futenma to Schwab, then the rich Naha landowners create protests because they’re gonna lose their lease money.

As you say, "[t]he method of transportation doesn't change the service of the passengers!" But if you insist a "naval force" as stipulated in Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty can also be the Marine Corps, you're saying the Marines are the Navy contrary to what you just said.

Other than to say, the Marines are Navy and they are Army, and they are Air Force as well, let's throw in Special OPs too So they fit all branches of the services, by YOUR definition, and it doesnt matter one bit, as they are covered under the treaty by the words, "granted use by it's land, air, and naval forces"

Welcome to the United States Marine Corps......all three!

First line of 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. 

Please stop with the "What if's", you have no argument, there are no "What if's" or "How about".

It's all moot!~

@Desert Tortoise

You got me there. I didn’t think about regional or theater commanders. I was more or less just thinking of operational joint task forces like D-Day Normandy, for example.

And your experience with a MSDF admiral taking command of a USN ship is interesting. It actually happens in real life.

I thought that was unrealistic in the movie “Battleship.” And this is a movie with aliens, firing ASROCs at tsunami sensor buoys, and retired battleships with live ordnance and firing up the engine in less than 30 minutes .

Thus, the expression “land, air and naval forces” as used in the English version of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is very inappropriate for an official document. 

Now you are just arguing for arguments sake, nothing else. This and the rest of everything you wrote in that post is 100% garbage and meaningless.

You got a problem with the "wording" take it up with Suga, the document has been a mainstay in the relations between Japan and the US for nearly 70 years.

There’s no ambiguity of interpretation in the Japanese version because the English expression, “land, air and naval forces”, in Article 6 is stated clearly as “the Army, Air Force and the Navy”.

FYI, now you are far off the mark, the treaty itself has no mention of Army, Navy, nor Air Force. You are wrong again. Give it up, your arguments hold no water, and no court in any country, anywhere on this planet will agree with you.

Your case is over! Done!

the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan.

Yubaru,

FYI, now you are far off the mark, the treaty itself has no mention of Army, Navy, nor Air Force. You are wrong again. Give it up, your arguments hold no water, and no court in any country, anywhere on this planet will agree with you.

Sorry to ask, but can you read Japanese? Let me recap the first sentence in Article 7 of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and The United States of America, a.k.a. the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, both in Japanese and English for comparison.

Japanese:

* 第六条　日本国の安全に寄与し、並びに極東における国際の平和及び安全の維持に寄与するため、アメリカ合衆国は、その陸軍、空軍及び海軍が日本国において施設及び区域を使用することを許される。*

English:

*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*.

As you see, English "land, air and naval forces" are termed unambiguously as 陸軍 (Army), 空 軍(Air Force) and 海軍 (Navy).

Can you still blame me by saying my comment is far off the mark? Lol.

You got me there. I didn’t think about regional or theater commanders. I was more or less just thinking of operational joint task forces like D-Day Normandy, for example.

During the invasion of Afghanistan General Mattis commanded Task Force 58, a naval task force in the North Arabian Sea from which he launched the longest ranged amphibious assault in history. The Navy Admiral in command of the ships of that task force was his subordinate in the chain of command, though they had a fantastic relationship and together came up with the idea of taking an unused airfield south of Kandahar they called Rhino with an over 400 mile air assault from the ships of Task Force 58. They used helicopters refueled by Marine Corps KC-130s. No MV-22s at that point. Mattis left his artillery behind and relied on air support for the fire support normally provided by artillery. Here was a case of a Marine Corps General commanding a naval force, probably the first such instance in US military history. In Desert Storm the Marines on the ground in Iraq were subordinate to the Army General in overall command of the operation.

Also once his forces were in Afghanistan Mattis and his Marines fell under Army control, to his great frustration. After taking Rhino he was ready to move on Kandahar and Tora Bora but the Army would not let him.

Lot of people say do something about it. Like what? Armed conflict over a small group of islands? I'm afraid China is playing this hand the best, not that I agree with them but they are playing it better and no one is going to call their bluff and risk an armed conflict, certainly not Japan, and that includes the U.S. Japan has to re-think its China policy, and not work at it piecemeal. Maybe the new RCEP will provide a new forum to openly discuss, who knows?

(The first paragraph of my post above is revised.)

Their meeting can be characterized as international. If the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff met with the prime minister of Japan, it would be diplomatically acceptable in this vein. But Berger is not qualified as such. Chief of Space Operations Gen John W. Raymond also paid a courtesy call to the Prime Minister's Office when he visited Japan in August.

Funny, last time I checked, it was the US military that was occupying Japan, not China. Maybe Suga should spend less time trying to comb over his bald spot, and get out more often.

Yubaru ( Today 01:51 pm JST):

This line in English is very ambiguous because a "naval force" may include not only the original Navy but also the Marines, as you imply. A naval force can include the Army infantrymen, as well, because in actual combat scenes of invasion, they may compose the integral part of a naval force.

If the naval force is a tactical term, then the forces composing it must be disbanded as soon as their tactical mission is over.

In order to disambiguate the terminology, the Japanese version, which has an equal legal force to the English version, states the land, air and naval forces in the English version as the Army (陸軍）, Air Force　（空軍） and Navy　（海軍）, three major services in the U.S. military.

BeerDeliveryGuy,

Army infantrymen being transported by Navy ships may not be a naval force by themselves. But the fleet of ships -- cruisers, destroyers and transporters carrying either Marines or Army soldiers for the purpose of invasion of an enemy land is a naval force, isn’t it?

Army infantrymen being transported by Navy ships may not be a naval force by themselves. But the fleet of ships -- cruisers, destroyers and transporters carrying either Marines or Army soldiers for the purpose of invasion of an enemy land is a naval force, isn’t it?

What's the point? The method of transportation doesnt change the service of the passengers!

If they were carried by a fleet of fishing boats, does that make them fishermen too? Seems to me, that's the point you are trying to make!

You can not connect two parallel lines, but you insist on trying!

Please stop the BS of wanting to reduce the burden on Okinawa when all you do is take the burden from one part of Okinawa and place it on another part of Okinawa.

Population in the area of nearly 250,000 "burden" as you call it, MCAS Futenma and surrounding area vs population of MAYBE 5,000 Camp Schwab.

Not to mention the, up to now, stagnant economy and no real economic future, Camp Schwab, increase in employment, and all the money the national government is going to, and currently is as well, pouring into the area for infrastructure and other improvements.

Yup...huge burden hey! Please stop the whining, just because you are retired AF, and cant stand Marines, doesnt mean they dont matter!

Yubaru,

Never was in the AF, but was in the U.S. Army Special Forces.

Hallelujah, everybody in Nago and Henoko are going to be driving a Rolls-Royce  and a Bentley because of all of the govt. spending! And when the govt. spending dries up but you are still left with that monstrosity sitting permanently in Oura Wan Bay, what then? Are private companies with good paying jobs re-locating to Nago and Henoko?

Didn't say that the Marines don't matter, I just don't think that that they matter on Okinawa. When I first came to Okinawa in 1967, the Marines were disliked by all of the other branches of the Military and the people of Okinawa and they are stilled disliked today. Some things never change.

Yubaru (Nov. 19 | 05:07 pm JST),

And by the way, the treaty is legally recognized in both English and Japanese, neither takes precedence.

The English and Japanese versions of the treaty are both equally authentic, that is, both have equal legal force.

However, if an expression in the English version is very ambiguous as regards the status of services, which the Japanese version is not but is very clear-cut and incisive, which one should be taken as a primary basis for legal interpretation?

Yubaru (Nov. 19 | 07:08 pm JST),

As you say, "[t]he method of transportation doesn't change the service of the passengers!" But if you insist a "naval force" as stipulated in Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty can also be the Marine Corps, you're saying the Marines are the Navy contrary to what you just said.

Yet there are not enough American forces on Okinawa to prevent a Chinese invasion. The presence of these bases is a danger since the US would use them if Taiwan was invaded by China. Remove the bases and China would not need to invade.

Yubaru,

A "naval force" of troops are combat-ready troops on the Navy’s transport ships that are preparing to land on enemy shore for invasion. Once on land, they are no longer "naval force". They become a land force like a shot. 

You seem to say the Marines are the Navy because they can be categorized as a naval force, whereby they can maintain bases in Okinawa. But such bases cannot be permanent because an invading naval force can't be a naval force permanently per se. Will they maintain bases as a land force then?  But if so, they become no different from the Army.

Thus, the expression “land, air and naval forces” as used in the English version of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is very inappropriate for an official document. You cannot use it as a basis for the Marines to be able to maintain permanent bases in Okinawa.

There’s no ambiguity of interpretation in the Japanese version because the English expression, “land, air and naval forces”, in Article 6 is stated clearly as “the Army, Air Force and the Navy”.

So the point at issue here should be whether the Marine Corps is the Navy or not. And I have argued on many occasions that they are not. The Marines are a separate service independent of the Navy today in name and reality. Otherwise, Marine generals can’t be chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff superseding Navy admirals.

Sorry, hit the post bar to fast as I always do. J.T can deleted the un-finished comment above.

*My apologies. *** **

"Japanese government is committed only in words that are always subject to change."

ROLF...

Again, another way out their comment and someone who has absolutely no Idea how committed Japan is to preserving the Japanese way of life and what she stands for. A bit slow yes. But finally a major shift in the entire country and her stance and thinking. I commend P.M. Suga and he is real old school Samurai. In the true sense a real Japanese old school soul! I think is upbringing and his refection of his upbringing greatly affect his decision making. For him to accurately see China and the Chinese for what they are. Straight up aggressors.

I commend him for wanting to shield Japan from Chinese aggression.

Words only. I think not.

The Pacific Ocean is a treasure trove loaded with natural resources such as oil and natural gas. If Japan loses more islands to rising water levels or cannot take back control of disputed islands in play, it can no longer explore and exploit resources unilaterally under the EEZ. Vital to the countries survival and economy.

The best thing that could have ever happened and was a major wake up for Japan. Was this particular incident.

Tokyo became increasing worried about Chinese aggression in the region when Chinese survey vessels were spotted in Japanese waters. Both countries have a different way of advancing claims with Japan taking the diplomatic route (maybe no longer in the neat future) and China. The aggressive route.

Tokyo, was really furious after a Chinese survey vessels were discovered around Okinotorishima atoll. This has created a long lasting shift and a major shift in the Diet, that still is felt today. The Japanese do not forget or are fair weathered. We are witnessing a major change and a shift in Japan. A major change in government and from her citizens. Like it or not. Japanese are finally starting to see the Chinese and the world for what it is.

Or at least the Japanese folks I know.

I am not saying the Japanese are going to go out and precure nuclear deterrents but it would stop Chinese aggression a great deal if the had such weapons.

Japan is really considering matching China proportionality to protect herself adequality.

Again. China is the worlds largest and greatest threat to Democracy and a Democratic way of life. China is set on one thing and one thing only.

World dominance through "right in your face" Communism.

That's my opinion on China. Mine alone.

@ Yubaru: So the Prime Minister meets with the head of the Marine Corp, and there was no discussion about the "legality" of whether or not they belong here in Japan or not?

Japan and the US signed an agreement to end the post-war occupation that allowed the US to keep military forces in Japan. Given the limitations of the Japanese Constitution, which Abe was unable to amend, the US military is an essential part of Japan’s defense strategy. Japan is a sitting duck for the Chinese without America.

Japan is just as capable, as say the Philippines, of throwing out the US military. Japan has never even considered doing that even during the brief period the LDP was not in power. I too believe that the US may want to reconsider its obligations to Japan given it’s huge national debt. But it’s impossible to mount much of an argument that US forces in Japan is illegal.

@Desert Tortoise

Ah cool. I love history. Very interesting. One day I would like to visit Tibet and Nepal.

joey stalinToday 12:55 pm JST

Funny, last time I checked, it was the US military that was occupying Japan,

Ok so you have not checked since 1972. Let me help you out.

At the end of World War II, Japan was occupied by the Allied Powers, led by the United States with contributions from Australia, India, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This foreign presence marked the first time in its history that the island nation had been occupied by a foreign power. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and subsequent to its coming into force on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent country, (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968).

So in conclusion, Okinawa has not been occupied since 1972, Iwo Jima since 1968 and the rest of Japan since 1952. The US forces are in Japan today at Japans pleasure and if asked to leave would be required to do so at the end of any current agreements.

Talk of Japan or Okinawa being occupied today by American forces is total BS. But some like to pretend or complain about US forces that are there for US need of a forward base and as a pillar of Japans defense policy. A symbiotic relationship based on both nations needs.

China says they are their territories. Who can correct China and in what way?

China is wrong, they are not Chinese territories. I can correct China right here. Hey China? Those territories you claim in the South China seas are not yours! Pack up, apologize and go home.

The majority of the world can correct China and is in the process of doing so, some in print and others with FON exercises.

Army General Simon Buckner, Jr. together with a Marine general, commanded an invading U.S. naval force when it invaded and occupied Okinawa in 1945. The tactical terms “naval force” of course dissipated the moment they landed and occupied an enemy land that was Okinawa.

I must say that it was inconsiderate of U.S. policy makers to use such ephemeral tactical terms in diplomatic document, the Japan-U.S. Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. But this ambiguity in wording is completely removed from the Japanese version of the treaty.

@voice...

I have given you ample chances, on numerous posts, to recant, tell everyone you were mistaken, share with people that it was your opinion, and not based on any fact or reality.

I have waited patiently over all this time, for you to realize that even the Japanese language copy of the US Security treaty states nothing, regarding any branch of service. Nothing is indicated, as I have shown you with facts and links to the pertinent information regarding the treaty and how you have been mistaken all this time.

Yet you continue to harp on the "legality" of the Marine Corps in Okinawa, when there is nothing that states anything anywhere in English nor Japanese, the treaties (English and Japanese) that would support your idea even 0.00000001%, the reality and facts are that none exists.

Everything is based off your "feelings" not facts. Time to let it go.

The English and Japanese versions of the treaty are both equally authentic, that is, both have equal legal force.

Thank you for repeating what I said! Well done!

However, if an expression in the English version is very ambiguous as regards the status of services, which the Japanese version is not but is very clear-cut and incisive, which one should be taken as a primary basis for legal interpretation?

There is no ambiguity, so this is not a part of the discussion. It's a moot point. You lost, you have no grounds for your argument.

Stop beating the dead horse!

@Yubaru a treaty is only as good as the people who sign it. Recently the US has broken a lot of treaties. How can Japan be sure the US will honor it? Trump has been spouting off about how unfair the treaty is to the USA. It is the first step before he breaks the treaty.

Please lock this thread!

"Japanese government is committed only in words that are always subject to change."

ROLF...

Again, another way out their comment and someone who has absolutely no Idea how committed Japan is to preserving the Japanese way of life and what she stands for. A bit slow yes. But finally a major shift in the entire country and her stance and thinking. I commend P.M. Suga and he is real old school Samurai. In the true sense a real Japanese old school soul! I think is upbringing and his refection of his upbringing greatly affect his decision making. For him to accurately see China and the Chinese for what they are. Straight up aggressors.

I commend him for wanting to shield Japan from Chinese aggression.

Words only. I think not.

The Pacific Ocean is a treasure trove loaded with natural resources such as oil and natural gas. If Japan loses more islands to rising water levels or cannot take back control of disputed islands in play, it can no longer explore and exploit resources unilaterally under the EEZ. Vital to the countries survival and economy.

The bet thing that could have ever happened and was a majoir wake up for Japan was this particular incident.

Tokyo became increasing worried about Chinese aggression in the region when Chinses surevey vessels were spotted in Japanese waters.. Both countries have a different way of advancing claims with Japan taking the diplomatic route(maybe no longer) and China the aggressive route.

Tokyo was really furious after a Chinese survey vessels were discovered around Okinotorishima atoll.

This created a major shift in the diet that still is felt today. The Japanese do not forget or are fair weathered.

We are witnessing a major change in Japan. A major in government and from her citizens. Like it or not. Japanese are finally starting to see the Chinese and the world for what it is.

Again. China is the worlds largest and greatest threat to Democracy and a Democratic way of life. China is set on one thing and one thing only.

World dominance through "right in your face" Communism.

Their meeting can be characterized as international. If a U.S. Joint Chief of Staff met with the prime minister of Japan, it would be diplomatically acceptable in this vein. But Berger is not qualified as such.  Chief of Space Operations Gen John W. Raymond also paid a courtesy call to the Prime Minister's Office when he visited Japan in August.

The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty states only the Army, Air Force and the Navy can be stationed in Japan and use bases here. Are the Marine Corps and Space Force considered to be part of the Navy and Air Force, that is, subsidiary to both services respectively? And yet the tops of these services could meet Prime Ministers in the capacity of representing these services. Isn't there something wrong here?

If Suga and Berger "reaffirmed the importance of reducing the burden on Okinawa", the Henoko relocation plan should be scrapped first and foremost. Otherwise, their confirmation to reduce Okinawa's burden is only a lip service and shenanigans.

The Marine Corps is not a poor, dead horse at all. It’s alive and kicking around, inflicting so much damage and destruction to Okinawa and Okinawan society.

Why does the U.S. Marines have the most bases and take up so much land on Okinawa when they contribute the least to the defense of Japan than any other Military Force on Okinawa?

Please stop the BS of wanting to reduce the burden on Okinawa when all you do is take the burden from one part of Okinawa and place it on another part of Okinawa.

If all of the U.S. Marines left Okinawa tomorrow, not one member of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy or Okinawan would miss them. The Marines have never been liked on Okinawa and never will be!

For those that doubt China is not a threat and harmless and has no plan for an invasion down the road.

Then watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGHXDmRxiG8

Have a look at the threat for yourself. Up and close. If you were Japanese looking at this headed to your shores. Sailing in your seas. While Chinese flood your country at ever tourist destination (Pre-Covid) and try taking over your industry little by little. I would say as a Japanese いい加減にしろ!

So "saving" Okinawa may result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Okinawa people. Have history repeat itself again?

China says they are their territories. Who can correct China and in what way?

Oh and the treaty that preceded this one here, stated the very same thing!

There is NO reference, anywhere, in these treaties that specifically state and individual service!

Hence my continuing comment about "stop beating a dead horse!"

expatToday  11:52 am JST

So they agreed to agree on what they already agree on, and did not agree on doing anything to counter the rise of China in the region?

We're only aware of what they discussed in the part that was open to the media, which is just for show. Far more important is what they talked about behind closed doors, and I'd hazard a agues that those talks were a tad more detailed about the China threat.

The Marine Corps is not a poor, dead horse at all. It’s alive and kicking around, inflicting so much damage and destruction to Okinawa and Okinawan society.

Once again, missing the point entirely,

The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty states only the Army, Air Force and the Navy can be stationed in Japan

THIS is the dead horse!

To everyone following along here, please read the following, and understand too that the person who is posting the information regarding about which services are authorized or otherwise, has never actually READ the treaty or agreement, as NEITHER specifically states ANYTHING about any specific branch of service.

TREATY OF MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SECURITY BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Article 5 of the Treaty:

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.

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

FACT not fiction, there is no mention anywhere in the treaty about the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, nor Space Force!

Quote: "granted the use by it's (US) land, air, and naval forces!

Please, someone, stop beating that poor dead horse!

So the Prime Minister meets with the head of the Marine Corp, and there was no discussion about the "legality" of whether or not they belong here in Japan or not?

Just goes to show that it's NOT an issue! THAT subject should be closed for eternity!