politics

U.S. military to return some Okinawa land to Japan

93 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

93 Comments
Login to comment

Right, Smithinjapan.

An awful lot can happen in 16 years.

Both Japan and the U.S.A. are heading for - if not bankruptcy - some very hard times indeed.

Japan won't be able to afford the "sympathy money" to the U.S.A. and the U.S.A. will be forced to cut down on its vastly overextended military.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

2022 according to the article. Which is a still a LONG time.

That is just for Futenma according to the article!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yubaru I reflect the views of the majority of the Okinawa people

Hardly, there is a very great chance that I have been living on this island longer than you ever have or ever will. Maybe that gives me the right to speak for the majority of Okinawan people......NO. it's arrogant to even THINK that way.

You have lost touch with reality in all the years you been living in the states.

Leave the people of Okinawa alone and stop the harassment of Okinawa people by American MPs!

Like I said, lost touch with reality.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There are too many bases in Okinawa so returning some would make sense. But moving too many personnel will mean a significant decrease in their local economy. I guess they will have to find other ways to make profit.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Just have to wait and see when it happens.

2022 according to the article. Which is a still a LONG time.

Then there is this:

Tokyo and Washington originally agreed to move the base in 2006.

So don't count on anything happening.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ron Barnes,

With 47,000 US Servicemen Spending their American dollars in Okinawa.

They don't.

They shop on base.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Tokyo and Washington originally agreed to move the base in 2006. Tokyo and Washington also agreed they will return land currently occupied by the controversial Futenma airbase “in fiscal 2022 or later” the joint statement said.

So we have gone from 2006 --> 2022 or later and now it will only be some land. --> That is a screw-job deal if I ever saw one. If they are going to go this route then it should be a 2-3% reduction in base land every year.

The people of Okinawa should be suing as a class-action, explain their damages and ask for compensation. (I forgot they did 3 times)

http://www.city.ginowan.okinawa.jp/DAT/LIB/WEB/1/mfnp_e.asx (video of noise) http://www.city.ginowan.okinawa.jp/DAT/LIB/WEB/1/mftg_e.asx

More than 22,000 plaintiffs, including about one-third of the population of a town that borders the air base, are suing the Japanese government for a nighttime ban on military flights and are asking for $544 million in compensation for physical and mental damages they argue were caused by the roar of fighter jets and other aircraft flying from Kadena.

It is the third time Okinawans have sued over aircraft noise at the Air Force base, the largest in the region. In the past two cases, Japan’s Supreme Court refused to restrict air operations at night but gave compensation payments to the residents, noting that the noise was beyond permissible levels in some cases.

During school, “classes are suspended each time [a U.S. aircraft flies over] and we just wait until the jet goes away. It happens at least three to four times during a class,”said Himeka Matayoshi, 17, a high school student who lives in Kadena Town, which borders the air base. “It is very stressful for both teachers and students. And I now know that it is not normal.”

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Enough already. The war ended 70 odd years ago. High time to pull out all together and let Japan defend itself from China et al. It's what normal countries do, spend the money and defend themselves.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan needs to change its constitution and accept the responsibility to defend itself, and if necessary, be prepared to attack a country when it is attacked. NK is not kidding when it says Okinawa is a target. Hokkaido might be an easier target because according to "military intelligence," NK would have to have good luck to hit a specific target. Of course, "military intelligence" told the UN that WMD were in Iraq. The USA needs to completely leave Okinawa and at least half of the military installation in Japan. 2046 is approaching; 100 years of occupation?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The U.S. should only give back the land between the north, south, east, and west boundaries. No more than that!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Keep in mind that not everyone "wins" in a situation like this, there are those that will lose, but you'll never hear their stories.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It is a fact Okinawa hosts more bases per citizen than any other prefecture. Why not just actually address that issue?

What do you think the politicians and people protesting the bases have been saying all these years?

Everyone, meaning the local politicians pretty much throughout Japan all feel sorry for Okinawa (publicly) but nary a one is willing to take the burden into their own back yard and are all happy to let Okinawa have to deal with it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So years and years after the relocation was agreed upon (twice), the relocation is set to occur 16 years after the date decided on. Wow. How much does anyone want to bet that'll change again after an election or so? Anyway, once they get the land back, which I do think is a good thing, what will they do with it, I wonder? I know a good lot of the people will lament they've lost their livelihoods and move to the new base area then start complaining again, but besides that?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Does anyone know how much land is being considered?

2022 is so far away... it'd be in the second term of the next POTUS, or the first term of the third from the current one - that's like, hardly saying anything...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I agree with Badsey3. The United States should do a withdrawal starting immediately. 2-3% per year sounds great. Give back little by little so the locals will gain little by little. In the meantime, move from their current location (in the middle of the city) to an outlying area...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sP7lVIleYSY/TUxGSIh71zI/AAAAAAAAB4Q/B4U6BnFl0mo/s1600/okinawa_us_bases_464.gif

=It is more than 1 base.

The problem is Bertie is just tee'd off that he can't personally do anything to get the US military out of Okinawa as if the Island was his own personal possession.

I find that view fascinating =What have the people of Okinawa not done (protests, lawsuits, complain)? Do you want succession. --> At what point will the Gov listen to the people?

People forget the protests in 60's/70's Japan.

http://closethebase.org/ (people can do alot =sign the petition)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It has becomes nearly impossible for people in Okinawa to reach a middle ground or look at the issues and solutions open mindedly.

Okinawa put itself in this position and holds a large portion of the blame. One should learn to pick your battles wisely and they havent and put themselves into a corner with no room to maneuver.

People are missing the fine print on this announcement here too...all these returns are contingent on Futenma moving to Henoko too. It's pretty much regurgitation of things talked about before, just this time with more details on locations and potential time of return.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What i would like to know is how did Abe get this done so quickly? Hatoyama staked his career on being able to move the bases, and wasn't able to get anything done. Now Abe comes in and quickly has an agreement to get things moving. of course Hatoyama wanted the bases moved off Okinawa, so is there some kind of deal here, where the US decided to give back land that they really didn't need, just to placate the Okinawans, knowing only too well that they could keep most of their other bases, and even have a nice new one built for them?

Nothing has gotten done. Dont give Abe undue credit. These locations were on the table for years, and still hinge on Futenma being moved.

It's all a PR ploy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru, It wouldn't matter if their were bars in them areas and who owned them.. they are irrelivent and a drag on society anyway.

YOU are the one that brought it up, I am telling you that they are irrelevant. The rest of what you wrote means nothing in the land return discussion so whats your point?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But moving too many personnel will mean a significant decrease in their local economy.

Yes it will. What Bertie fails to take into account with her blinders on, is what you actually wrote here, "local" economy, not prefectural economy, there is a major difference involved.

The prefectural economy as a whole is not all that dependent upon the military bases and between 5% to 7% of the total prefectural economy is derived from military expenditures, both Japanese government funded and direct US military personnel money.

However local communities, like Ginowan, Kadena, Okinawa City, Chatan, Kin, Ginoza, etc etc get to varying degrees a huge portion of their operating budgets from the national government because they host the military bases. Those areas however will not be effected to any extent by this move with the exception of Ginowan, and they don't want Futenma anyway so no big deal.

Urasoe can more than handle the loss of Kinser as it is a vibrant city with other interests.

The other recommended areas of return have little or no impact on the local economy, other than rent money to land owners. However the troops movements and families that would leave is another different story.

Depending upon where they live, on base or off, and just how many numbers wise, local economies, as mentioned above could feel a serious pinch due to their leaving.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A lot of expats don't want to return to the states because they have a good job in Okinawa.

Still doesn't explain your point about the land return though. Expats are not a part of the discussion and there should be no need to bring them up anyway. Who cares what they want. They made a choice now live with it, and their wives picked a meal ticket with an expiration date.

Now they can get off their high horses and either stay or go.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The land must be returned to Okinawa with no strings attached, and with apologies even. But instead the U.S. side takes a patronizing attitude as if their action were philanthropic. What are the strings? Replacements for the to-be-returned bases must all be built within Okinawa and before a new base for Futenma is constructed in Henoko! That's LOL indeed.

The apologies if any should be given by the national government to the Okinawan people, but we all know how their apologies work so better off to skip that one.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is a fact Okinawa hosts more bases per citizen than any other prefecture. Why not just actually address that issue? In 2009, Toru Hashimoto, then Gov. of Osaka, suggested using financially failing Kansai airport as an Air Force base to take some of the burden off of Okinawa. It was Hashimoto's good side at play, accurately perceiving the problem and coming up with a practical solution. That idea never got very far; I wonder why.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

1 ( +1 / -0 )

For a base to be closed a replacement base has to be built in Okinawa at the expense of the national government. What they will do is take the land required by force? Will the Americans use their troops? They did that in the past.

This is BS. Plain and simple, thankfully 99.99% of the people reading here understand that too. If you had done a little research you would know WHERE the facilities are being moved to, and you would also know that no new land needs to be appropriated either.

I am surprised that the moderators here dont delete these kinds of posts of yours, seriously, they serve no purpose other than to elicit an emotional response that gets censored anyway.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru the bases are being relocated and not removed. They will still affect Okinawa. It just shifts the burden north. You know the Futenma replacement will NEVER be built?

Ding, ding, ding....they are not being moved to any "new" appropriated land, they will move to already existent bases, There is no additional "burden" at all, in fact Kin and Ginoza are pretty happy to have those bases there as they supply the area with much needed jobs and income.

There is no way the money could be replaced that the bases provide to those communities and people who think otherwise have absolutely no idea of the economics nor reality of Okinawa.

Look at Puerto Rico the Americans closed the firing range when demanded.

Apples and oranges, wait more like apples and onions maybe, not even close and totally different situations and realities!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru have you checked out the dates? Any significant land return is a long way in the future. As for Kin lived there when a 50 cal bullet hit someones car. The Americans do nothing for the town of Kin.

It's childish to think that the facilities can be just up and moved in no time at all. I read the agreement and construction and moving takes time. That's just life.

Personally I take anything you say about living here with a grain of salt, you've flip-flopped on so many issues too many times to believe what you write here, inconsistent to say the least.

The Americans do nothing for the town of Kin.

Tell that to the people there who count on the base for their livelihoods! Oh and lower taxes there because of the money the government pumps into the town.

Kin gets a HUGE amount of money from the National government here BECAUSE it hosts the bases. The town and it's people would dry up and run away if there was no base there. The base is the largest employer in the area and direct and indirect money that comes from the base keeps it alive.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It actually easier to understand by checking the link and seeing the actual land areas for return. People need to see the actual bases than numbers....

http://www.defense.gov/news/Okinawa%20Consolidation%20Plan.pdf

1 ( +1 / -0 )

To all those saying the US should leave because it's not our fight. Have you thought about what a war involving the world's second and third largest economies would do to the US and world economies? Face it. In this globalized world, were all tied at the hip. There can be no war in east Asia that would not have drastic effects in the US. Stability in east Asia is of vital importance to the US and the world.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yabaru, look at the dates the Americans promised the return of Camp Lester in 1995. 18 years latter and now the date is 2025 or latter. Even if we agree it will be 9 years or latter. This is unacceptable then again the new airfield will not be built. So much of what was promised was never done. The Americans will keep stalling and I will not be alive when my families land is returned. If it is returned it will be stolen by Japanese. This is all the Americans fault!

Unacceptable? Like who died and made you King? There is protocol and procedures that were set down by BOTH the US and Japanese Governments pertaining to the return of land. Don't like it, suffer, or get the JAPANESE government to change it, or request changes.

Oh and Lester.....blame the Okinawan government too, there are other reasons it hasn't been finalized or finished and it's Japan's fault on that one.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Is it just a few Okinawans that are benefiting? Perhaps a few wealthy land owners and shop owners?

It's not so black and white, and quite a bit more involved. First off there are literally thousands of people who are landowners are received rent from the national government for it's use. Some with small plots to others with much larger tracts of land, spread all over the island. There are few wealthy land owners in the sense that I believe you are attributing to the issue here. (If I am wrong please tell me)

Wealthy shop owners? Not many, not one's that cater strictly to American military types or their families, they wouldn't survive in the current businesses environment in Okinawa.

There is a huge indirect benefit that literally thousands of people benefit from, and here are a few examples. The Town of Kadena; people with school aged children, compulsory education is elementary school and junior high school 9 years, get free school lunches. Just about nowhere else does that happen. School lunches typically cost families between 4,500 to 5,000 yen per month, that is a huge benefit and that is paid for out of the town budget, it can afford to do so BECAUSE the town receives a huge subsidy for hosting Kadena Air Base.

I believe it is Kin Town that has no town residence tax because of the budget money they get for hosting Camp Hansen. There are other examples as well. But the point is the military accounts for roughly 5% to 8% of the entire prefectures GDP, yet that number is deceiving because some of these smaller towns and villages receive more than 50% of their operating budgets from the national government because of hosting the bases.

Also towns like Kadena, Chatan, Yomitan, Ginoza, Kin, and to a lesser degree Okinawa City, Urasoe City,Uruma City and Ginowan City, are greatly affected by hosting the bases and could be in serious financial trouble if the bases left.

There is a huge benefit to the housing and real estate owners who rent to American military and related folks. There is NO WAY an average Japanese person could afford the housing that many of these American's live in, it's unbelievable. I have friends who work for the military who have housing allowances of over 400,000 to 1,000,000 yen per month, and the people who rent them their homes know exactly how much they get in housing allowance based upon their rank and milk them for as close to the total amount as they can. They have gotten plenty rich. You should see some of them houses too....unbelievable for here in Japan.

These are just some of the benefits that the Okinawan's have, not to mention too the thousands of them who work on base and are considered komuin or Japanese government employees and make a hell of a lot more money than the average Japanese worker off base. There is more, so there are benefits that CAN NOT be easily replaced by just returning the land.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru I go home all of the time. Yes it might be news to you that there are daily flights.

From the states, and here I thought you swam. Sorry but what ever, your comments are so inconsistent that it boggles any thinking persons mind.

Most people that own those big homes are Japanese from the mainland. They have the money to make such things. Have you ever been in an house or aparto most Okinawa people live?

You really have no idea what you are talking about here. The discussion was about military folks and their families and the apartments and homes THEY live in. Read the posts you might learn something BEFORE you comment.

Have you ever been in an house or aparto most Okinawa people live?

This just goes to show that you dont read what other people write here.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

(1) Okinawa is occupied by the U.S. army and Thomas Anderson's posting hits the point in almost all respects. (1) Okinawa is occupied by the U.S. army and Japan lets this happen. (2) Japan is not an independent nation (Read: Japan is also virtually occupied by the U.S. army, deprived of genuine sovereignty.) (3) The U.S. bases here are staging posts for the troops to be deployed somewhere else, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US Army is a tiny portion, a couple of thousand troops and families at the most in Okinawa. So no the US Army does not occupy Okinawa.

(3) The U.S. bases here are staging posts for the troops to be deployed somewhere else, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Partially true, but the same said bases were here before those wars occurred and the folks here got deployed elsewhere then too for training purposes. That's one of the main purposes of the bases in Okinawa, for training! You should know that, and you should know better than to try to obfuscate the truth with a mixture of lies.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

-4 Good Bad

Ron BarnesApr. 05, 2013 - 08:25PM JST

With 47,000 US Servicemen Spending their American dollars in Okinawa. I would Definitely Keep them there Just For the $ spent.

-They spend the money on prostitution and booze.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Details were on the news here last night. Just have to wait and see when it happens.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@ Ms. Alexander: ...But moving too many personnel will mean a significant decrease in their local economy...

I don't think that it will make a significant effect in Okinawan economy. The base of Okinawan economy (tax) is tourism and all the big supermarkets. I don't think US military do shopping at those malls or stay at those resorts. BUT I do agree that some specific restaurants & bar (near bases) will be out of business (which will be again negligible wrt total number of shops/restaurants ). If you say well most of the military stays outside in apartments (remember there is a deal between Japanese govt and US govt :D). So be clear that after removing bases Okinawa will be venerable security wise not economy wise. Okinawa population = 1,4000,000 - 50,000 (2011)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The population of Okinawa is increasing, and tourism is growing strongly, with new hotels going up here and there. Basically, Okinawa loses money by having to host the bases. Using the land used by the US military for new residential areas and tourism would make much more money than it currently does.

You have a very shallow knowledge of the economy of Okinawa if you think tourism is growing strongly. First off, the bases are not about making money they are about the defense of Japan.

Next the hotels that you claim that are going up are not owned nor run by Okinawan based businesses they are either foreign or mainland affiliated and the only jobs that the locals get are low hourly wage positions.

Next the due to government pressure more hotels were built and guess what happened LESS people made money, real money. The pie is the same but the slices got tinier. Same thing with taxis too but thats a different story.

Bertie your ignorance is a detriment to your ability to learn about this island, it's economy, and it's people.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Japan is more than ready to be on their own. Remove all US personnel from Japan, and Okinawa...Let Japan fend off for itself...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@bertie

Locals want the base moved off Okinawa altogether, arguing that the island bears an unequal burden hosting the lion’s share of the 47,000 US service personnel stationed in Japan.

Not ALL the locals want the bases removed, in particular the businesses that cater to many of the service men and are dependent on their patronage, please don't make it seem as if the entire population wants them out. Yes, there is a segment of the population that want it. But they don't answer for the masses.

Yes.

That's one reason.

The population of Okinawa is increasing, and tourism is growing strongly, with new hotels going up here and there. Basically, Okinawa loses money by having to host the bases. Using the land used by the US military for new residential areas and tourism would make much more money than it currently does.

Lame argument, so because tourism is expanding we have to leave Japan, forget about the constitution, leave a strong strategic position, aka-sitting ducks.

Having the bases here also makes Okinawa a target. They create a danger that wouldn't be here without the bases.

Either way Japan is already a target, you got China, NK, SK that have grudges going back hundreds of years, therefore it's not going to make THAT much of a difference even if the US military leave.

The central government says the U.S. military presence in the strategic island is a key for maintaining security at a time of increasing self-assertiveness from China and an unpredictable North Korea.

More so, all the reason for keeping the basses there.

To play the devil's advocate here, China and NK would not be so feisty without the American pressure and Abe's right wing nationalism. In particular, NK seems to be incensed at the US rather than Japan/Okinawa.

You actually believe that??

Tokyo and Washington originally agreed to move the base in 2006.

The saber rattling from NK and China makes it more than enough reason for the troops

That wasn't the first broken promise either, was it?

It happens to every country and it won't be the last either.

US bases should be on US soil.

That is YOUR personal opinion. If Japan wouldn't have done what it did, there wouldn't be any US bases in Japan most likely.

Okinawa is not US soil.

Nope, but they want US money and protection from the NK and China.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

At least their easing the load on the Okinawa. They have deal with so much stuff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe the solution is to bring Puerto Rico and Japan into the United States. 52 stars on the flag. Japan can be like Hawaii, independent, several island, but it does whatever it wants. Puerto Rico people already do not pay US federal income tax, yet have the protection and a vote. What a deal. Then, there would be no occupation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

People, take the negative blatantly false postings here with a grain of salt. Yes there are problems with the military in Okinawa, yes MCAS Futenma needs to be moved.

Yes the Okinawan government and Okinawan people are stubborn and are just as much a part of the problem as the solution as well. And never forget Okinawa is a part of Japan, they are Japanese. (And anyone that comments otherwise doesnt understand the differences between ethnicity and citizenship)

Yes the national government should have done something about this years ago and there is a feeling down here that Okinawa is being discriminated against, but that's not just the base issues either, it's part of the history here too.

Okinawan people are pragmatic about the bases for the most part and apathetic as well. (Dont be fooled by those demonstrations you often see or hear about, that's part of their ties with friends. Heck the town I live in had an election and it's no where even close to any base and no military folks show up here, but candidates for the TOWN council mind you, were carrying "No Osprey" flags as a part of their campaign. Doh? But that's life here, people get on the bandwagon whether they agree or not.)

This time, the locations being considered for return really are not going to be a economic burden on the local communities as they are in areas or in cities that can easily absorb them and do not depend or rely on the bases to exists, unlike other areas where it would make a bigger difference.

One housing area that could be returned as soon as next year according to local news, the housing was falling apart and the military already moved the people living there out years ago, and the space was being considered for return anyway. Camp Kuwae, that's already on schedule for return once the hospital is finished so why that was included I don't know.

The biggest area is Camp Kinser, which is the 3rd FSSG's maintenance, repair, and warehousing base, that is in the middle of Urasoe city on prime real estate (another Aeon I guarantee it!) That should be returned.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The problem is Bertie is just tee'd off that he can't personally do anything to get the US military out of Okinawa as if the Island was he own personal possession. One day, if and when the Japanese change their constitution then one can have a conversation about If and where to possibly relocate the bases on Okinawa, but until that day, the bases (Thank God) will stay put where they are.

Bertie is a she as I recall hence the high pitched whining that one hears when reading her posts.

Moderator: If you post rubbish like this again, you will be leaving us. Please learn some manners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, most of the bar owners will loose business, about 90% of whom are ex pats that don't want to move to the states or have a wife that won't follow them there so they are stuck on Okinawa trying to make a living. They need the beer drinking GIs running loos

My previous comment had nothing to do with the bar owners,there are practically zero bars run by foreigners in the areas being discussed for return, outside of Futenma. they are infinitesimal in the bigger picture and are hardly worth commenting on.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The following excerpt from the March 24 Japan Times' Reader Mail may suffice to explain why there are so many U.S. bases in Okinawa alone:

"No sooner had the San Francisco Peace Treaty been signed between the relevant nations than the Japanese delegation headed by Shigeru Yoshida was furtively whisked away to the U.S. Army Presidio in San Francisco, where they signed the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, the predecessor of the current Japan-U.S. Treaty of Mutual Security and Cooperation.

... John Foster Dulles, then U.S. Secretary of State, ordered his staff negotiating the treaty terms to keep hammering away at the U.S. objective of gaining unrestrained rights to bases anywhere in Japan for as long and to the extent desired. Dulles’ conditions survive to this day, permeating every nook and cranny of Japan-U.S. security relations..."

Dulles' hard-line policy to keep as many bases as possible survives to this day and stands out most conspicuously in Okinawa, where 74 percent of the U.S. bases in Japan are concentrated.

As CraigHicks (Apr. 06, 2013 - 05:58PM JST) says, yes, then Osaka Governor (now Osaka City Mayor) Toru Hashimoto suggested Osaka was ready to accept Futenma's facilities to Kansai Airport, saying the nation must equally share the burden of shouldering U.S. bases. He flip-flopped in his stand, though, and now co-heads a political party called Ishin-no-Kai together with Former Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara, an ultra rightist, saying the Henoko relocation plan agreed between Tokyo and Washington was the best alternative.

Neither the so-called China threat nor the North Korea threat has nothing to do with the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

" “in fiscal 2022 or later”" Too damn late!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China is good alliance for Asian people to establish Asia Union (AU) it isn't like any union in the world with Asia Union Asian people can change the world by stronger army, economy and politic.

That'll never happen at least in the near foreseeable future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Badsey3...first thank you for posting the updated plan with your link there!

Everyone is giddy with the idea that these areas are set for return, but they forget that there are conditions that have to be met before those areas actually return to Japanese control.

This is just another PR ploy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BertieWooser, serviceman, their dependents and civilians working for the military do shop off base.

Does the land still get returned to Okinawans if the Okinawans don't agree to give up land for the reclamation project moving Futenma to Henoko? NO. The agreement is the functions have to be relocated to a place where the functions can be performed.

There are some "lands" that the US wants to return but the "owners" do not want it back. They need the rent.

In_Japan; do you think the Okinawa Homeowners Association would be happy and take tourist if the military and civilian workers leave Okinawa?

Badsey3; Tokyo and Washington originally agreed to return Futenma in 1996. So, with the way Okinawa politics go, 2022 any be achievable. If you look back, Naha Port relocation was agreed upon more than thirty years ago and environmental survey is just starting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.defense.gov/news/Okinawa%20Consolidation%20Plan.pdf

If you had done a little research you would know WHERE the facilities are being moved to, and you would also know that no new land needs to be appropriated either.

With each (but not every) piece of land there are conditions/timelines that are needing to be met. Generally they are not moving until a new replacement is built and ready. =You really need to look at every case, because each is unique and different.

The Futenma issue is the biggest issue. Large population and the base really needed to be moved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" I am surprised that the moderators here dont delete these kinds of posts of yours, seriously, they serve no purpose other than to elicit an emotional response that gets censored anyway."

Yubaru, you may not agree with the comment, but it's a discussion board. Yuri's comment on the politics of the base closure issue is relevant. I also think ALL US bases in Japan should go, and Japan should defend herself. That's an opinion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

you may not agree with the comment, but it's a discussion board. Yuri's comment on the politics of the base closure issue is relevant. I also think ALL US bases in Japan should go, and Japan should defend herself. That's an opinion.

Look I know it better than most, if you can state an opinion without the slander or without blatant lies, you have my respect and understanding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To badsey3.

Thank you for posting the document of the Japan-U.S. agreement on the returns of bases south of Kadena Air Base, which was announced April 5 with such a fanfare. For general readers, I recapped it in a more readable form. The total areas for return will be 3.94 square km, disregarding Naha Port and MCAS Futenma because their returns are countermanded by newly constructed facilities elsewhere in Okinawa. Percentage-wise, the areas for return will be approximately 35 percent of the total land area south of Kadena or no more than 2 percent of the whole U.S. bases planted in Okinawa.

The real picture of land returns announced with such a fanfare

Camp Foster (Camp Zukeran) Total land area: 6.4 square km / Areas for return: 1.51 square km

Camp Kinser (Makiminato Service area) Total area: 2.74 square km / Areas for return: 1.59 square km

Camp Lester Total area: 0.99 square km / Areas for return: 0.68 square km

Naha (Military) Port Total area: 0.56 square km / Area for return: 0.56 square km Condition: "Function of Naha (Military) Port will be relocated to the relocation facility (approximately 49 ha. (= 0.49 square km)), including additional staging area, which is to be constructed at Urasoe Pier Area."

Army Tank Farm No. 1 Total area: 1.28 square km / Area for return; 0.16 square km

MCAS Futenma Total area: 4.81 square km / Area for return: 4.81 square km Conditions (1) Marine Corps airfield related facilities, etc. will be relocated to Camp Schwab. (2) Marine Corps aviation unit and command function, and related facilities will be relocated to Camp Schwab. : (3) Others
0 ( +0 / -0 )

What the US and Japanese governments have done is give the governor of Okinawa, Nakaima, an out. They have made it possible for him to back out of his stance of being against the move of Futenma to Henoko, and made it easier for him to agree to the move and save face in saying that by agreeing to this, we get that. (Meaning the return of a whole hell of a lot of land in populated areas that has HUGE commercial value vs areas where no one lives and the land is worth relatively nothing and the people depend upon the bases and the national government to exist.)

In a manner of speaking it's a fairly astute move by both the US and Japanese governments in dealing with Okinawa. It marginalizes the anti-base folks who are taking an all or nothing position, vs the pragmatic folks who think a portion of the pie is better than nothing at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@darknuts

100% correct!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not ALL the locals want the bases removed, in particular the businesses that cater to many of the service men and are dependent on their patronage, please don't make it seem as if the entire population wants them out. Yes, there is a segment of the population that want it. But they don't answer for the masses. (Bass4funk)

Yubaru I reflect the views of the majority of the Okinawa people. The Americans treat Okinawa like their territory and are as a rule RUDE! If a vote was taken the Americans would have to leave. The American bases protect Taiwan and South Korea. They do not protect Okinawa as North Korea is a joke and China has made no threats against us. Leave the people of Okinawa alone and stop the harassment of Okinawa people by American MPs! (YuriOtani)

Two views. It would be interesting to see a real survey. Is it just a few Okinawans that are benefiting? Perhaps a few wealthy land owners and shop owners?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The April 5 Japan Times runs the same Kyodo News article as above, titled "Okinawa U.S. land return plan inked," but with economic effects being added that this land return might bring about to the island economy. Posters and readers who care about Okinawan economy and who criticize Okinawa's negative reaction to the bilateral accord should read it. The article is posted at: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/05/national/okinawa-u-s-land-return-plan-inked/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But Nomura Research Institute estimated in 2007 that the reversion of all of those sites, as well as the Futenma base, would eventually bring economic benefits worth more than ¥900 billion a year, he said.

This is only if the plan goes according to their estimate. However one problem that exists is cooperation is needed from the land owners themselves. There are some that just want to be farmers, and if that happens, there is no way these rosy economic theories could become reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its return is thus not called "return" because it is countermanded by the Henoko relocation.

You are trying to play with words here, semantics it's called, but you are wrong. The land which MCAS Futenma is sitting on currently WILL be returned. The land for the heliport doesnt exist yet, but the rest of the base, Camp Schwab does, so, no matter how you try to twist words to make them fit your point, you still end up 100% wrong.

Camp Kinser (area: 274 ha.). is also one of the bases south of Kadena, which we thought would be returned as a whole. But only half of it will be returned. The other half facing the East China Sea won't be returned.

Again 100% wrong, quit spreading lies! Read pages 14 &15 and 21 &22, Camp Kinser in it's entirety will be returned when the applicable replacement facilities are built at Torii Station and Camp Hansen.

http://www.defense.gov/news/Okinawa%20Consolidation%20Plan.pdf

Futenma is stolen goods, anyway. Maybe, we can appeal to American conscience patiently and incessantly.

You already have been complaining and whining incessantly to the American people and it's conscience and it's not listening to closely because you can't keep to agreements, seeing as how Okinawa is a part of Japan, security issues are decided upon by the national government.

Take your whining to them. Deal with your own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

*1,400,000 LOL for extra 0

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ms Alexander,

But moving too many personnel will mean a significant decrease in their local economy.

Why does this line persist?

It's not true.

Okinawa is LOSING money by having to host US bases.

The US bases provide only 5% of Okinawa's income. Mostly it's from tourism. In 2011, 5,520,000 tourists visited Okinawa. Income from tourism this year was 378,200,000,000 yen.

Shintoshin - an area in Naha that used to be military housing - now makes 15 times more money than it did when it was part of the US military and Hamby town makes 20 times!

Okinawans don't want their land back because "it's unfair that Okinawa has to host the lion's share of the US military." It's a) simple economy and b) as realdoll says, Okinawa is only in danger because the US bases are here.

Take away the bases and there is nothing to attack!

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Yubaru Apr. 06, 2013 - 07:02AM JSTOkinawan people are pragmatic about the bases for the most part and apathetic as well. (Dont be fooled by those demonstrations you often see or hear about, that's part of their ties with friends.

Maybe average people are pragmatic but Okinawa has problems with perception of media bias toward U.S. military and indecisive governor/mayor that has no solutions other than complain openly. The U.S. willingness to work with the Japanese government to relocate Futenma has been restated many times in the past 15 years, but there has been no concrete movement by the Japanese government in the meantime. Okinawa and Tokyo have been on odds trying to find a political solution to an operational problem, one which they choose not to understand. It is up to the central government and prefectural and local governments to make it happen. The inability to follow through on the relocation of Futenma compounds the other issues and perceptions of those problems. This then causes the discussion about Okinawa to become more contentious and emotional, and turn into a vicious and endless cycle that is lacking of objectivity and reason. It has becomes nearly impossible for people in Okinawa to reach a middle ground or look at the issues and solutions open mindedly.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What i would like to know is how did Abe get this done so quickly? Hatoyama staked his career on being able to move the bases, and wasn't able to get anything done. Now Abe comes in and quickly has an agreement to get things moving. of course Hatoyama wanted the bases moved off Okinawa, so is there some kind of deal here, where the US decided to give back land that they really didn't need, just to placate the Okinawans, knowing only too well that they could keep most of their other bases, and even have a nice new one built for them?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru: Keep in mind that not everyone "wins" in a situation like this, there are those that will lose, but you'll never hear their stories.

Yeah, most of the bar owners will loose business, about 90% of whom are ex pats that don't want to move to the states or have a wife that won't follow them there so they are stuck on Okinawa trying to make a living. They need the beer drinking GIs running loose. Another group cashing in on the beer drinking GI's is mainland screwballs that come to Okinawa to open a bar to excape the quick life of mainland Japan. In reality, who really cares about them outsiders? It is the locals who I care about. Futenma can be merged on the s/w side of Kadena AB if it is soo important, plenty of room for 5-6 hangars but the Air Force doens't want to move the road into the golf course it seems.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru, It wouldn't matter if their were bars in them areas and who owned them.. they are irrelivent and a drag on society anyway. As far as other expats that are "stuck" on Okinawa and have a job on base, they are stray dogs and married a wife that is lazy and won't learn the language so they are stuck on Island if they want to be with their kids because the wife isn't moving to the states.. he is a prisoner to the Island (even if he likes things about it) and wants the bases to remain so he can continue to support his family. There are two or three thousand retirees and others who fit that boat and will say anything on these discussions to stretch the truth (rather than tell the truth about their life) about the importance of the bases for the local economy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It is a PR ploy.. you're right Yubaru and looking at the Okinawa times this morning the timeline is exaggerated.. they could shave up to five years off each "return date" if they wanted to and if they merged Futenma with Kadena.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru, The rest of what you wrote means nothing in the land return discussion so whats your point?

Why people feel as they do has a lot to do with the discussion. A lot of expats don't want to return to the states because they have a good job in Okinawa. Many can't return if they want to keep the family together as they married out of lonliness and now realized the f'd up because the wife is lazy and won't learn english. She wants to stay here in Okinawa near her family, having BX privileges having the best of both worlds. He on the other hand is stuck and feels if the bases leave he will loose his civilian job on base. A bad situation.

The local economy is no expats business, they are a foreigner and do not exactly belong here anyway and should really shut up as bases don't exist for the good of the economy or for their ego's.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

haha... you're right but I was saying this because expats are the ones on this discussion. I think the timeline is exaggerated and is a PR stunt to get the Okinawans to "feel good" about getting something if they agree to the Henoko land reclamation. I wouldn't trust them however because promises have been broken before, the most the Okinawans should do is agree to a Kadena merger.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Does the land still get returned to Okinawans if the Okinawans don't agree to give up land for the reclamation project moving Futenma to Henoko? OKinawa is only in danger because the US bases are on Okinawa..

Japan is in danger if the US leave entirely. Especially with North Korea at Japan's back door...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Any American base on Okinawa will be useless in a war. The Chinese have enough missiles to take them out. Then land a force to take them. These are support bases and really a few aircraft carrier groups are more effective. To Abe please grow a spine sir! /////The American bases are mostly to defend South Korea and Taiwan. Neither of these are friendly to Japan. Their conflicts with North Korea and China are not Japan's fight. History tells us we got in trouble by involving ourselves in their affair

You sort of have a pro-war mentality that is dangerous and self-destructive and then you sort of got it spot on right. =Please do not get sucked into the evil of these wars, war-mongering, saber-rattling ---> Nothing ever good will come out of it and it is a waste of one's life and a beautiful world.

The absolute worst thing for Japan right now would be to build up a military to fight foreign wars. If anything they should reduce their military spending. The Korean people are smart enough to work out their own issues and Taiwan is an island of CNC machinery that could build anything in a matter of months. With China you have ~100,000 riots a year and massive/massive water/pollution issues.

Okinawa actually has it pretty good and I am sure they can make it better and continue the fight to expunge these colonialist military bases and try to make good on existing agreements. With the bases gone Okinawa will pretty much be the same except for less noise and pollution. Maybe they will need to find something else to complain about, but like a thorn/sliver in the skin -once you pull it out you generally forget about it and all is well.

I personally think it is a political screw job considering the past agreements. A screw-job with a long time-line maybe done on purpose to split the people of Okinawa. Futenma is a ++ =has to be moved. Trust me in that people are mulling over this agreement.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As an American I agree with most of the comments about the US getting out of Okinawa. I also believe we don't need a defense treaty with Japan since they can take care of themselves. There's nothing in it for us anyways. We should break ties with both Japan and South Korea, and they could start their own alliance and leave us out of it. We have no reason to be over there. But of course the stupid American politicians...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The real question here is if the new agreement is satisfactory to the people of Okinawa. If they accept this agreement/contract then to me it looks like they are accepting colonialism (the bases) forever and all old agreements will be null and void. =There needs to be a long talk about this and possibly Okinawa needs to make their own agreement/contract.

The only other option maybe temporary succession/separation (Independence) from Japan. That way they can politically/lawfully force the colonialists out. What do you do as a people when you cannot get your Gov and other Gov entities to listen to the people?

Agreements/contracts are meant to be broken and they have in the past. -Why accept this one? Once you are sucked into the evil it is really hard to break away. Rare in history also: American Revolution is one example where they were able to break away from the tyranny and filth of the British Empire -but then they get sucked back in by the private Federal Reserve bank scam.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To Yubaru (Apr. 09, 2013 - 06:55PM JST): The Battle of Okinawa started on March 26 in 1945 with the U.S. army's invasion and occupation of the Kerama Islands about 40 km west of Okinawa Island. Invasion of the main island of Okinawa took place on April 1, 1945, with 176,491 men committed on the U.S side. The battle ended on June 23 with the invading army occupying the island with its overwhelming fire power. The formal occupation of Japan and Okinawa ended in 1951 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed, but occupation continued in Okinawa for another 20 years until 1972 when its administrative rights were restored to Japan. Major bases remained intact even after the reversion, occupying 18% of the land mass of Okinawa Island. In addition, vast areas and spaces in surrounding waters and skies were reserved for exclusive use by the U.S. forces.

Thus, a virtual occupation has continued even though the formal one ended in 1951.

To Yubaru (Apr. 10, 2013 - 07:31AM JST): According to the agreed-upon time line for the return of bases south of Kadena, implementation of base return will be carried out in 3 installments: (1) Category 1 (my terminology) areas can be returned immediately when necessary procedures are finished; (2) Category 2 areas will be returned when replacements for facilities are relocated to other areas within Okinawa; (3) Category 3 areas will be returned when the Marine contingents stationed in Okinawa move out from Okinawa completely.

In the case of Camp Kinser (area: 274 ha.), the area around Gate 1 (2 ha.) is the Category 1 area that will be returned immediately. A Category 2 area is the section along National Highway No. 58 where warehouses are concentrated (area: 129 ha.). An attached condition for its return: Replacements for the warehouses must be built at Torii Station in Yomitan. The scheduled year for its return is 2017 or later. The remaining area (143 ha.) falls within Category 3 and therefore will not be returned in the foreseeable future because nobody knows when the Marine contingents will completely withdraw from Okinawa.

Yubaru, I'm using the figures from the DoD-released document, "Consolidation Plan for Facilities and Areas in Okinawa," which you referred to me. Original base-area figures are from a document published by the Base Affairs Section of Okinawa Prefectural Government. Now, can you dare say I am 100% wrong and you are 100% correct?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I guess the key will be what facilities are to be turned over. If it's just some communications relay buildings taking up less than an acre each, then the return would be purely token. If they turn over actual bases, then the return will be more significant.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Fadamor (Apr. 11, 2013 - 04:31AM JST):

The most hyped attraction item in this base return accord is MCAS Futenma with an area of 481 ha. Next comes Naha Port with an area of 56 ha. Their combined areas amount to 537 ha. So you want to say their return is not mere token but very, very significant.

But the story would be different if their replacements must be provided in whole and even with refurbished high-end facilities attached. How much money would be requied and how much environmental destruction would be inflicted upon the pristine nature around Henoko, the planned relocation site?

Can you accept such deal in your own country, a foreign army demanding a new base in exchange for the return of an old one that requires refurbishment? You are taking too much for granted.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Addenda:

In announcing the bilateral agreement, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed satisfaction with it, saying the return of the bases would reduce burdens on Okinawa significantly. Okinawa is obliged to host 73.8 % of all U.S. bases planted in Japan. But it's turned out during talks between visiting Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera and Okinawa Governor Hirokazu Nakaima that the reduction would be a mere 0.7% from 73.8% to 73.1%.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Does the land still get returned to Okinawans if the Okinawans don't agree to give up land for the reclamation project moving Futenma to Henoko? OKinawa is only in danger because the US bases are on Okinawa..

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

realdoll,

Does the land still get returned to Okinawans if the Okinawans don't agree to give up land for the reclamation project moving Futenma to Henoko?

Good question!

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

From what I remember, it was the local Okinawan government that blocked the 2006 move to move the land, not Washington.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yubaru the bases are being relocated and not removed. They will still affect Okinawa. It just shifts the burden north. You know the Futenma replacement will NEVER be built?

-2 ( +0 / -3 )

Yubaru I reflect the views of the majority of the Okinawa people. The Americans treat Okinawa like their territory and are as a rule RUDE! If a vote was taken the Americans would have to leave. The American bases protect Taiwan and South Korea. They do not protect Okinawa as North Korea is a joke and China has made no threats against us. Leave the people of Okinawa alone and stop the harassment of Okinawa people by American MPs!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yubaru I go home all of the time. Yes it might be news to you that there are daily flights.

Most people that own those big homes are Japanese from the mainland. They have the money to make such things. Have you ever been in an house or aparto most Okinawa people live?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Thomas Anderson's posting hits the point in almost all respects. (1) Okinawa is occupied by the U.S. army and Thomas Anderson's posting hits the point in almost all respects. (1) Okinawa is occupied by the U.S. army and Japan lets this happen. (2) Japan is not an independent nation (Read: Japan is also virtually occupied by the U.S. army, deprived of genuine sovereignty.) (3) The U.S. bases here are staging posts for the troops to be deployed somewhere else, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The irony is that most Japanese people from prime ministers down to men in the street believe what Washington says: U.S. troops are deployed here to defend Japan, ready to give their life, as the USFJ brass keep telling the Japanese people. Buying the brass's words at face value, Japan loans bases (entire Japan: 3,089 ha.; Okinawa alone: 2,281 ha. (73.8%)) to the U.S. Forces free of charge and pays an average annual sum of $2,274 million for maintaining the U.S. military presence.

What else can one call this except history's most laughable tragicomedy?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The return of MCAS Futenma is an attraction item in the announced time line for base returns. But as known well the world over now, its replacement must be built in Henoko in northern Okinawa. Its return is thus not called "return" because it is countermanded by the Henoko relocation.

The same with Naha Military Port Facilities (Naha Port). Naha Port (area: 56 ha.) is one of those U.S. bases south of Kadena Air Base that are subject to return. Its total return was promised 39 years ago, in 1974, on condition that new port facilities were built at the coastal area of Urasoe City.

Camp Kinser (area: 274 ha.). is also one of the bases south of Kadena, which we thought would be returned as a whole. But only half of it will be returned. The other half facing the East China Sea won't be returned.

A new military port to be built at Urasoe will be equipped with a staging area with almost the same size as Naha Port and adjacent to Camp Kinser. The announced time line says Naha Port will be returned in 2017 or later, a good 43 years after its return was promised!

Will Naha Port be returned? And will Futenma, too? I doubt it. But they must be returned by all means. If they were not to be returned, should they be removed by force? That's the question. Futenma is stolen goods, anyway. Maybe, we can appeal to American conscience patiently and incessantly.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The problem is Bertie is just tee'd off that he can't personally do anything to get the US military out of Okinawa as if the Island was he own personal possession. One day, if and when the Japanese change their constitution then one can have a conversation about If and where to possibly relocate the bases on Okinawa, but until that day, the bases (Thank God) will stay put where they are.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

All those bases in Okinawa are loaned to the U.S. military by bilateral agreements. So when they are asked to be returned, the U.S. side attaches strings to their return. For Futenma, its replacement must be built in the coastal area of Henoko in Nago, administratively classified as a northern Okinawa district historically called Yanbaru.

But the bilateral agreements are only facades. As I have repeatedly written elsewhere, the lands where those bases sit were usurped by the occupation army in blatant violation of Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Article 46 of which clearly states that "[f]amily honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated." There are over 30,000 landholders for the land those bases sit, which tells everything about the true nature of U.S. bases in Okinawa.

The land must be returned to Okinawa with no strings attached, and with apologies even. But instead the U.S. side takes a patronizing attitude as if their action were philanthropic. What are the strings? Replacements for the to-be-returned bases must all be built within Okinawa and before a new base for Futenma is constructed in Henoko! That's LOL indeed.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Yubaru it is more lies as usual. For a base to be closed a replacement base has to be built in Okinawa at the expense of the national government. What they will do is take the land required by force? Will the Americans use their troops? They did that in the past. You understand none of this is going to be approved by the Okinawa government, zero zip none and fat chance. I think ALL of the American bases need to be closed. Japan will have to defend Okinawa. Also the Americans still have to help defend using their Navy. Any American base on Okinawa will be useless in a war. The Chinese have enough missiles to take them out. Then land a force to take them. These are support bases and really a few aircraft carrier groups are more effective. To Abe please grow a spine sir! The American bases are mostly to defend South Korea and Taiwan. Neither of these are friendly to Japan. Their conflicts with North Korea and China are not Japan's fight. History tells us we got in trouble by involving ourselves in their affairs.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

badsey3 Futenma will not be returned until the replacement airfield is built in the least time 9 years. My guess is the Okinawa people will prevent the construction of it. The days Japan can dictate things to the people of Okinawa is over. As for Americans they would never operate bases where Americans do not want them. If the people of a state wanted bases closed they would be closed. Look at Puerto Rico the Americans closed the firing range when demanded.

-3 ( +0 / -4 )

Okinawa is still practically occupied by US and Japan lets this happen. Japan does not have any military therefore it is not an independent sovereign nation so it does not have any say in this. The US bases are NOT there to protect Japan, they are there for the troops to be deployed to the Middle East and Central Asia. They don't have anything to do with defending Japanese interests.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

With 47,000 US Servicemen Spending their American dollars in Okinawa. I would Definitely Keep them there Just For the $ spent.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Locals want the base moved off Okinawa altogether, arguing that the island bears an unequal burden hosting the lion’s share of the 47,000 US service personnel stationed in Japan.

Yes.

That's one reason.

The population of Okinawa is increasing, and tourism is growing strongly, with new hotels going up here and there. Basically, Okinawa loses money by having to host the bases. Using the land used by the US military for new residential areas and tourism would make much more money than it currently does.

Having the bases here also makes Okinawa a target. They create a danger that wouldn't be here without the bases.

The central government says the U.S. military presence in the strategic island is a key for maintaining security at a time of increasing self-assertiveness from China and an unpredictable North Korea.

To play the devil's advocate here, China and NK would not be so feisty without the American pressure and Abe's right wing nationalism. In particular, NK seems to be incensed at the US rather than Japan/Okinawa.

Tokyo and Washington originally agreed to move the base in 2006.

That wasn't the first broken promise either, was it?

US bases should be on US soil.

Okinawa is not US soil.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Yubaru have you checked out the dates? Any significant land return is a long way in the future. As for Kin lived there when a 50 cal bullet hit someones car. The Americans do nothing for the town of Kin.

-5 ( +0 / -6 )

Yabaru, look at the dates the Americans promised the return of Camp Lester in 1995. 18 years latter and now the date is 2025 or latter. Even if we agree it will be 9 years or latter. This is unacceptable then again the new airfield will not be built. So much of what was promised was never done. The Americans will keep stalling and I will not be alive when my families land is returned. If it is returned it will be stolen by Japanese. This is all the Americans fault!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites