politics

U.S. plans to move 4,000 Marines in Okinawa to Guam from 2024

54 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

These people do not know the history. It was not an easy thing Japan got Okinawa back from America. We lost the war and many Americans sacrificed their lives in the fight of Okinawa. America did not want to lose Okinawa for their strategic reasons. Think, how generous America was and is compared to Russia. They acquired Southern Sakhalin and the Northern Islands from Japan without bloodshed and never return the islands to Japan.

8 ( +15 / -7 )

moving them further away from NK because scared of L'il Kim?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Schopenhauer: "Think, how generous America was and is compared to Russia."

Precisely why Japan quickly surrendered to the US, knowing Russia was about to fully invade and take over. They chose the US knowing they would receive better treatment then under Russian control. Then people CHOSE to build around the US bases to live off them, and now are complaining about them but still want the money for housing them. Why isn't this guy holding the preprinted sign (that he was likely paid to hold in front of his face after not being told where the 1000 yen bus ride would take him) out working? At least the other people wasting their lives grumbling (and hiding their faces) are elderly and probably retired and have made this their full time job.

Anyway, these people don't care about other airports or what have you, just the US base and military. Probably half had never heard about Dugongs or cared one wit about the environment, either.

"Okinawa Gov Takeshi Onaga has demanded that the Futenma base be moved outside the prefecture instead of being moved to a replacement facility whose construction will lead to the partial landfill of waters off Henoko."

Not his choice. Not at all. Now that some troops are going to be relocated to Guam, these people can stop grumbling a little (or at least until Kim fires another rocket, when they'll demand protection again).

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

An Okinawan teenager who went to Futenma HS, Futenma JHS, and Futenma Dai 2 ES meaning she has lived her entire life in the shadow of MCAS Futenma, once made the comment, "What is it with Okinawan politicians, particularly the Governor, it's always 0 or 100, (all or nothing) why can't they learn what they teach us in school, that there is no all or nothing in life" "They teach us one thing, but then go and do the exact opposite themselves"

This, "girl" now a young woman, has her own business, in real estate, and is a daily example that more gets accomplished by learning to negotiate.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Schopenhauer、

Suppose Russia suggested they would return administrative right to the northern territory (southern Kuril islands) to Japan but with all their vested rights remaining intact, for example, free use of vast space on the land, at sea and in the air for military purposes (occupying areas amounting to about 20% of the total land mass) with extraterritorial rights completely guaranteed to their troops. Besides, Japan must shoulder 74% of the maintenance costs for the bases. Do you call this a genuine return and thank Russia for their generosity?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Hopefully Japan will replace them with 4000 military staff of their own.

A tough world we live in, but I appreciate our armed forces!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

4,000 out of 19,000 isn't bulk.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

just an observation from the private sector, we can and are currently downsizing on the scale of plus 20 per cent in a matter of months,,, taking it to 2028 as the above article mentions is interesting to compare the scale of change in private corporations and governments,,,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

voiceofokinawa

Japan accepted all the conditions requested by U.S. in getting back Okinawa to Japan. People knew it was a very, very difficult thing to get back the lost land in the war. So, the Japanese people thought It was a big step forward Okinawa returns to Japan whatever the conditions may be.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

If the military completely left Okinawa how many Okinawan's would lose their jobs? Their economy would crash.

Okinawa is too small and insignificant to the rest of Japan to make a difference.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

If the military completely left Okinawa how many Okinawan's would lose their jobs? Their economy would crash.

Where are you getting your brainwashed at? It bugs me just as much that people jump in here and make ignorant comments about what they "think" rather than what is a fact.

No the economy will not crash, the US military accounts for less than 5% of the total GDP of Okinawa, sure some towns will have to learn to find other ways to make money, and the politicians will have to find a new things to complain about to keep their jobs.

But Okinawa would be fine economically speaking, with or without the military here.

But it's all a moot point.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

This is not new news. 

Over 2 decades ago (1996 I believe?), then prime minister Hashimoto & US president Clinton discussed essentially the same, focussing on Futenma and the movement of forces to Guam.

So almost a generation later, the topic is brought up as "We've got this great plan to reduce the military's footprint in Okinawa by 2028".

All sounds about right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru

Okinawa is consistently one of the poorest prefectures.

They average amongst the lowest salaries in Japan.

5% can easily become close to 10% when you factor in other variables.

I'm not debating whether Okinawa can afford it, I'm just talking about what my Okinawan pals tell me.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

people jump in here and make ignorant comments 

my comments are ignorant? The US military is the 3rd largest contributor to the Okinawa economy and generates close to 30% more to the Okinawa economy than tourism.

My comments are based on facts how is that ignorant?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"The United States plans to transfer the bulk of 4,000 out of 19,000 Marines stationed in Okinawa"

It's a start. Just 15,000 more to go.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

It'll be interesting to see if the crime rate falls or not.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

It'll be interesting to see if the crime rate falls or not. actually statistic show that Okinawans comit more crimes per capita than the marines do in Okinawa. so if the marines left Okinawa the crime rate per capita would actually rise. and before you start sprouting statements like the marines are guests they should comit no crime. if that was the case then every Japanese national living abroad should comit no crimes also, which we know is false.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

my comments are ignorant? The US military is the 3rd largest contributor to the Okinawa economy and generates close to 30% more to the Okinawa economy than tourism.

They are ignorant and Yubaru is right. It's no where near 30% of the local economy it is indeed less than 5%. The number comes from the Okinawa prefectural government as well. That number is also including the money military members spend in the economy to inlcude housing and jobs provided to the locals that work on base.

If you look at the numbers the biggest contributor to the local Okinawa economy is tourism by a far margin. If they were to get the base land back they would develop it and it would earn even more tourist dollars. Just look at Shintoshin, Mihama, and along route 58 between Kadena AB and Camp Foster. All of that used to just be vacant land and since it's return has generated more money for the local economy thant he bases ever did.

Honestly the biggest impact to the local Okinawa economy if the bases left would come in the form of lost subsidies from the Japanese government that they currently recieve for hosting the bases on island.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

wtfjapan: "actually statistic show that Okinawans comit more crimes per capita than the marines do in Okinawa."

Yeah, but pointing that out to hysterical people with an agenda just gets the deer-in-headlights response, followed by the repeated "It'll be interesting to see if the crime rate falls or not". They just can't handle the truth and won't admit the hypocrisy.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I would love to have them ALL out of there by 2020, and out of Korea, too. Just bring them on home. Let Koreans and the Japanese, who are not weaklings or poor, take care of their own defense. They are capable.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Do you understand what "Per capita" means?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I met someone that sponges off the Japanese government, isn't a Japanese citizen, and mentioned to me:

"I found out I can get PAID to go up and sit at the gate at Schwab, for the "Protest" .

Anything for money, and if all you have to do it SIT around, what sponger wouldn't do THAT ?

Most of these people couldn't care LESS about any Issues...they're just there for free money.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I met someone that sponges off the Japanese government, isn't a Japanese citizen, and mentioned to me:

"I found out I can get PAID to go up and sit at the gate at Schwab, for the "Protest" .

You'll forgive me if I take that story with a pound of salt.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is a shame that the OPG had dragged their feet on the permit process to get construction going to relocate MCAS Futenma to Camp Schwab. They could have begun building as early as 2013 and been nearly finished within the next 24 months. If all those thing happened then the move to Guam would have been well before the 2024-2028 timeline.

It makes me wonder if they really want a "burden" relief at all...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Jeez, wtf-smith, can't I just be curious about how the removal of 4000 individuals from a community will affect life there? I did add the "or not." It could very well be that the crime rate increases...and that would also be an interesting observation. I have no idea what will happen. One would expect the overall number of crimes committed to fall (unless those 4000 are complete saints), which would be a good thing, but the hit to the economy might actually increase crime. Again, it will be interesting to see what happens. I'll be able to handle whatever statistical truth emerges, regardless.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Be my GUEST StrangerLand.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"At the time of Okinawa's Reversion to Japan in 1972, US Forces-related revenue was 15.5% of the gross prefectural income. In 2008, this ratio decreased to 5.3%. In contrast, the tourism revenue increased from 6.5% in 1972 to 10.9% in 2008, which is more than twice the US Forces-related revenue. Okinawa’s present economy is not as dependent on base-related revenue as before. The return of bases located in the central and southern regions of Okinawa Island has resulted in positive economic effects of approximately 10 - 200 times in comparison to pre-return, and has had great impacts on the prefecture’s economy and employment."

http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/site/chijiko/kichitai/documents/panf-1.pdf

1 ( +2 / -1 )

my comments are ignorant? The US military is the 3rd largest contributor to the Okinawa economy and generates close to 30% more to the Okinawa economy than tourism. My comments are based on facts how is that ignorant?

It makes them ignorant because they come from the 1970's and NOT today. Tourism in Okinawa accounts for over 1兆円。1,000,000,000,000, or over 1 TRILLION yen, or roughly 9 BILLION dollars US. and you are trying to tell me with a straight face that the US military accounts for roughly 30% MORE, our meaning about 11 to 12 BILLION on top of that?

Dude you owe me a new computer, I just spit coffee all over it! IF Okinawa received that much, that along with the tourism money would make Okinawa one of the richer prefectures in Japan

The US military accounts for 2000億円 or 1,7 billion or so., much less that 5%.

Okinawa's total GDP is 3.7兆円or roughly 30 billion dollars Also Okinawa's GDP is ranked 34 nation wide

http://www.region-labo.com/archives/prefecture/okinawa/?doing_wp_cron=1493329706.6492040157318115234375

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There are two studies out there regarding the US military impact on Okinawa's economy. One from 2008 by the Okinawa government, and one in 2006 by the US military. Obviously both have a possibility of being skewed in favor of their own, but the US military says that the US military is the third largest contributor to Okinawa's economy and 30% more than tourism as a whole in Okanawa:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a495009.pdf

If you do not want to take the report as genuine that is fine, I also am cautious believing the Okinawa govt study.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If you do not want to take the report as genuine that is fine, I also am cautious believing the Okinawa govt study.

Did you even read your own link there?

Taken from page 3 "According to Okinawa's 1999 data the United States Military Bases on Okinawa contribute 1.831 Billion yen or 5% of the gross Okinawa expenditure"

You just backed up my statement, with proof of your own. Thank you

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Schoupenhauer (April 27/07:44),

Japan accepted all the conditions requested by U.S. in getting back Okinawa to Japan.

Would Japan accept all these putative conditions I mentioned in my post above (April 27 | 07:04) in order to recover the northern territory?  Would Japan accept all these putative conditions I mentioned in my post above (April 27 | 07:04) in order to recover the northern territory? Would the U.S. condone such conditional return Japan might agree with Russia?  Wouldn’t the U.S. try to botch such an arrangement?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yubaru in my experience with the military bases on Kanto (Yokota, Zama, Atsugi, Yokosuka) there are no official figures but everyone agrees that the local workers are about the same number as the military personnel.

That would mean the military bases in Okinawa employ roughly 19,000 Okinawans. Can you name ONE company in Okinawa that employs 19,000 people? Are you really telling em the US military is 5% of Okinawa's economy with a straight face? I think you might have to buy ME a new laptop....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Can you name ONE company in Okinawa that employs 19,000 people? Are you really telling em the US military is 5% of Okinawa's economy with a straight face? I think you might have to buy ME a new laptop....

The US Military does not employ Japanese, the Japanese government is the employer. The salaries are paid by the Japanese Government and not by the US military. Oh and there are roughly 9,800 base employees.

And yeah I can tell you, with over 30 years of actually living here on Okinawa, that yeah it's less than 5%. It USED to be 100% after WWII and has steadily declined. You dont want to accept that, that's your choosing to face reality.

The 34 US military installations on Okinawa are financially supported by the U.S. and Japan.[76] The bases provide jobs for Okinawans, both directly and indirectly; In 2011, the U.S. military employed over 9,800 Japanese workers in Okinawa.[76] As of 2012 the bases accounted for 4 or 5% of the economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_Prefecture#Economy

You keep choosing to keep your head in the sand about this, that's on you.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The US Military presence makes a 5% direct contribution to the Okinawa Economy. Through things like going to restaurants, nightlife, transportation, and shopping.

What about the hidden aspects that aren't really tracked. Contracts with cleaning companies, construction/maintenance companies, and other services used daily by the Military? There has got to be tens of billions of yen and hundreds of jobs that contributes annually.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Tell the Okinawa people: Your protests for decades is working! 4000aliens(US marines) were out of your prefecture is a good thing and a safrer community there! keep up the heat of protesting, hofeully the rest 3/4 of aliens to be removed before 2099! It is a very long way of struggles!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What about the hidden aspects that aren't really tracked. Contracts with cleaning companies, construction/maintenance companies, and other services used daily by the Military? There has got to be tens of billions of yen and hundreds of jobs that contributes annually.

It's already included in the figures, What isn't tracked is the illegal businesses that flourish on the sidelines.

The rest are included, real estate agents, housing, utilities, etc etc etc....hence the figure of roughly 5%

2 ( +2 / -0 )

People just don't want to accept that the US military on Okinawa isn't as important, economically, as it once was,

Fact they aren't....it's that simple. Okinawa doesnt "need" the military here to survive, anyone who thinks otherwise is just choosing to keep their heads in the sand.

Japan on the other hand wants them here because it gives them a cushion and helps with the defense of the country, which then they dont have to supply themselves.

The US military gets training bases that it couldn't easily get elsewhere..and it's an agreement between Japan and the US, NOT Okinawa and the US...folks eventually will have to just accept that.

The repeated arguments made here about Okinawa this or that, are ALWAYS misplaced and based upon knee jerk emotions, and ignorance about the reality of the world we live in today!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Fact they aren't....it's that simple. Okinawa doesnt "need" the military here to survive, anyone who thinks otherwise is just choosing to keep their heads in the sand.

Oh no, Yubaru, I fully agree with you on that. Okinawa does not need the US Military presence to keep the economy afloat at all.  I do however believe the 5% number is a skewed for political dialogue (it's an OPG study) and I think it's more than a coincidence that the total military and dependent population is also just about 5% of the total population as well. I think there's a lot of other factors that contribute to the economy pushing up the percentages 5 or 10% that are neglected for the sake of an argument but still nothing that would collapse Okinawa's economy.

If they did leave the initial impact would be pretty tough for some construction and service industry establishments. Tourism could easily fill the gap left behind a few years down the road. I don't think that's a desired option though, a lot of people I know would take a US servicemen over a tourist any day though. I've even seen a lady say that when Anthony Bourdain interviewed her while eating Taco Rice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Those 4,000 marines to be moved to Guam are the most active elements of the Marine Corps, as reported by Marine Corps Times dated Oct. 1, 2015 ("Marines identify units that will move from Japan to Guam").

Or, more concretely, they are members of the 4th Marine Regiment together with the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade's command element.

That means Marine bases in Okinawa are mere training and recreation facilities, thus undermining the claim that the Marines are stationed in Okinawa for its strategic location or the "tyranny of distance" to quote the Marine authorities.

So the placard the man carries in the photo above, which reads "Move the Marines out", is quite legitimate and reasonable.  Close all the Marine bases.  No construction of a new base  in Henoko, please!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No construction of a new base in Henoko, please!

No new base is being constructed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

I call it "a new base" but you don't.  But that's not a point at issue. The moot question is whether the U.S. Marine Corps must retain these many bases and troops on Okinawa, expand and renovate already existing ones, saying Okinawa is strategically well situated. Can you give a reasonable answer to this question? I've asked you the same question many times before but you've simply ignored it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I call it "a new base" but you don't. But that's not a point at issue. 

Actually it is a very large point, and the press and media from Okinawa, constantly repeat the same error, over and over again.

People throughout Japan, who do not know the facts of the matter, regarding the base construction, are being fed misinformation to play on their emotions regarding the base issues here. You yourself are repeating and believing the same falsehood.

The rest has been answered time and again. Just because you dont like the answers, you keep repeating the same questions, hoping to get something else. But the facts dont change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Actually it is a very large point, and the press and media from Okinawa, constantly repeat the same error, over and over again.

The reason why it can be called a new base and not a simple replacement for Futenma is because it has many new features Futenma doesn't have, such as port facilities for troopships and amphibious assault ships like the USS Bonhomme Richard (Displacement: 40,500 tons), in addition to two V-shaped runways. This alone can justify the allegation that it's a new base. It will also be equipped with landing and launching facilities for LCACs and bomb loading areas. Of course, you are free to think that this is not new base construction. 

Now, the most important question:

What's the reason why the U.S. Marine Corps must retain these many bases and troops on Okinawa despite the fact that the most active core elements of them are to move to Guam? You say you've answered it time and time again, but I really don't remember when and where you did. So please refer me to where you answered it or otherwise please answer it here briefly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's the reason why the U.S. Marine Corps must retain these many bases and troops on Okinawa despite the fact that the most active core elements of them are to move to Guam?

I have on Jun. 15, 2016 08:42 pm JST Posted in: Anti-U.S. base demonstrators march in Tokyo

You should read some books on military strategy, the most complex, critical, and time consuming part of conducting warfare is not movement of infantry but it's logistical support elements. These units and equipment are not relocating to Guam because it doesn't make sense strategically to create logistical space and time from the (potential) battlefield.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger,

Read my post dated April 30/01:01 pm JST on this thread. I said:

Marine bases in Okinawa are mere training and recreation facilities, thus undermining the claim that the Marines are stationed in Okinawa for its strategic location...

But you are suggesting that Okinawa is strategically well situated, so that logistic units must remain here along with training bases while the most active elements of the marines can stay away from them and be stationed in a remote area like Guam. 

This doesn't explain at all why they must maintain so many bases in Okinawa and even build a new one in Henoko.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes it does, the majority of units and bases on Okinawa provide logistical/support functions because of its strategically positioned in the center of East Asia (i.e. it's ability to support past operations in Korea and Vietnam). Okinawa is the hub so the support/logistical footprint will always be larger than the combat forces which creates the need for the bases that are in Okinawa.

However, enhancing and expanding the capabilities of Camp Schwab (its not a new base) do open the door for shrinking and removing the bases south of Kadena. Once the construction is complete at Schwab it will allow the Marine Corps to consolidate several units from MCAS Futenma and Camp Kinser for closure of those bases and possibly Camp Foster as well.

That explanation is more than adequate and sound in reasoning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger,

Are Camp Hansen, Camp Schwab with its expanded function with V-shaped runways and port facilities, Northern Training Area (a.k.a. Jungle Warfare Center) with V/STOL facilities for Ospreys and probably for Harrier jump jets, Ie Jima Auxiliary Airfield, etc., needed because they "provide logistical/support functions" due to Okinawa's strategic position in the center of East Asia? That's nonsense.

They are all training bases not necessary to be positioned on the frontline. Even if they are logistical/support bases as you say, is it necessary to position them near a possible battle ground while the active elements that use them are deployed 2,400 km afar?

Don't ever consider Okinawa as spoils of war for the U.S. even today whereby the U.S. military footprint on Okinawa will never be withdrawn and Okinawa will remain a permanent U.S. military colony. There's always that taken-for-granted premise in your thinking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Point out where i ever referred to it as a "spoils of war" because it's not just like it's not a military colony.

Although Camp Hansen has the Central Training Area and Camp Schwab has the remaining portion Northern Training Area, they're still vital to support/logistical functions. All the additional capabilities being added to Camp Schwab are in particular meant to enhance those functions. Whether the main combat elements are on Guam or Okinawa is irrelevant. The Marines would still need those bases to train their Marines in supporting roles infantry tactics because every Marine is a rifleman.

The only reason why the military footprint has not been reduced is due to the Prefecture's government failing to play ball. The Marines and the central government have been trying to do it for years... don't worry though. Schwab's upgrades will be completed southern camps will close and everything will be alright.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger,

Point out where i ever referred to it as a "spoils of war" because it's not just like it's not a military colony.

Of course, you didn't say Okinawa was spoils of war nor did you say it was a military colony. But what you say here betrays what you really think. You're saying things as if Okinawa were spoils of war where the U.S. military footprint with so many bases and troops must be maintained the same as ever before, thus making Okinawa a permanent U.S. military colony.

Does the Okinawa prefectural government have to "play ball" with you according to the rules and conditions you, the U.S., set forth and dictated.? Only the occupation force can dictate such arbitrary rules and conditions to people in the region they regard as spoils of war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're saying things as if Okinawa were spoils of war where the U.S. military footprint with so many bases and troops must be maintained the same as ever before, thus making Okinawa a permanent U.S. military colony.

At no point did I ever infer that, you're desperately contorting what I'm saying to fit what you want to think. The footprint is what it is in Okinawa because of its strategic location and importance; it allows for the US to provide defense to Japan as well as meet other regional defense treaties and contingencies. This requested force lay out is approved by the central government. Your logic of calling it a Military Colony lacks validity because the United States does not have any control over prefectural or central government decisions. There is not a shred of evidence you can provide that without a doubt proves that the US directs local and national government decisions. The US makes requests and offers what they would like to see happen but ultimately those decisions are made by Japan.

Does the Okinawa prefectural government have to "play ball" with you according to the rules and conditions you, the U.S., set forth and dictated.? 

They should play ball with the central government because the central government is the lead on national security and is working to reduce/consolidate the presence in Okinawa. The prefecture's actions only counter those attempts.  

Anything else, Voice? You're like 0 for 4 in the discussion at this point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger,

The footprint is what it is in Okinawa because of its strategic location and importance; it allows for the US to provide defense to Japan as well as meet other regional defense treaties and contingencies. This requested force lay out is approved by the central government.

To recapitulate what you say, the U.S. military presence in Okinawa is a natural consequence of Okinawa being situated in a strategically important location and it is approved by the Japanese government. No abnormality nor illegitimacy then.

Really? Isn't this excessive U.S. military presence, to the extent that one may call occupation, the consequence of the war Japan is said to have started by attacking Pearl Harbor as many Americans assume and voice from time to time?

Your statement that this U.S. military presence in Japan in general and in Okinawa in particular "is approved by the central government" is whitewashing this reality and history. Yes, the U.S. military is stationed here under a treaty called the "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America," which was signed in 1951 and revised in 1960. Until then, the U.S. Forces in Japan were occupation forces but after that became protection forces -- a little game, isn't it?  Remember that Japan was obliged to sign the security treaty in order to recover its independence. But independence it was only in name. Okinawa was incorporated into this regime in 1972 when it was reverted to Japan.

So don’t ever say “(t)his requested force layout,” a.k.a. occupation, was “approved by the central government.”

 Never say deterrence capability must be maintained constantly and hence that the Henoko relocation is necessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never going to be seen in the local media....

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003662537

There is no precedent for a prefectural governor having revoked approval for reclamation work. Retracting such approval without unassailable legal grounds is tantamount to an abuse of power.

Under a court-mediated settlement reached in March last year, the national and prefectural governments pledged to “abide by a final [court] judgment and cooperate with each other to act sincerely.” What Onaga has said and done seems to run counter to this provision.

In the recent Uruma mayoral election, the conservative incumbent was reelected for a third term. This signifies a fourth consecutive defeat for candidates who ran for the mayorship in the prefecture with the backing of Onaga and opposed the Futenma relocation to Henoko, beginning with the Ginowan mayoral race in January last year.

The reason why it can be called a new base and not a simple replacement for Futenma is because it has many new features Futenma doesn't have, 

You still don't get it do you.....you lost, it's over. Find a new bone to pick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

You still don't get it do you.....you lost, it's over. Find a new bone to pick.

The Yomiuri Shimbun is a mouth-piece for the government, always supporting governmental policies as regards constitutional amendment, defense and USFJ re-alignment. Naturally they are the most ardent supporter of the Henoko relocation.

I've asked them the same question as I asked you on this thread (May 1: 04:48 pm post) regarding the need for the U.S. Marine Corps to retain these many bases and troops on Okinawa despite the fact that the most active core elements of them are to move to Guam. I’ve asked the question not once but many times. Giving short shrift to the question, they simply kept repeating the central government’s mantra that Henoko was the best solution. They can't answer the question as well as you and yet carry this article which you referred to, advocating for the government to forge ahead with the construction of the new base

Injustice may hold upper hand but Okinawa’s struggles for justice may never end.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If Okinawa allowed the Henoko relocation, it would mean Okinawa sanctioned the status quo as a U.S. military colony to continue forever. The Henoko relocation is thus an act of selling a sovereign territory to a foreign power. It's a tragi-comedy then that the Abe government is hectically colluding with Washington to realize this treacherous scheme.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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