voiceofokinawa comments

TaiwanIsNotChina,

 Washington floated an idea to the effect that Futenma could be relocated anywhere in Japan, and so the then Hatoyama government tried to locate a most suitable site for the relocation site all over Japan. Then Osaka Governor Toru Hashimoto even suggested that Osaka could take it in. Finally, the Tokunoshima island in Kagoshima Prefecture came up as a possible target site. 

All these proposals, however, turned out to be nonstarters when the Marines Okinawa announced that the new facilities must be within a given radius from the locations where the active elements of the U.S. Marines are stationed.

Washington seems to be thinking that new facilities now under construction in Henoko will not be completed after all, so that they start saying that they will continue to use Futenma as is or as renovated. Is that Washington's feeler, too, to urge Tokyo to facilitate the construction work?

Washington's recalcitrant insistence that the target site for Futenma's relocation must be Henoko, Nago city, Okinawa, to which subservient Tokyo reluctantly agreed but later proactively tried to implement the plan itself, could be understood within this context.

The integration of Japan and U.S. forces seem well in progress. They vow by dint of this integration that they can effectively deter the assertiveness of China in this region, particularly in the Senkaku waters. For this reason, they say, Futenma must be relocated to Henoko, Nago City, Okinawa, so that Futenma's function may remain in Okinawa intact. But what kind a role Futenma's replacement will play, in a war in which a missile exchanging will dominate the warfare? No explanation has been given us on that by both Tokyo and Washington.

Aren't U.S. bases in Okinawa ultimately for deterrence against the resurgence of pre-war Japanese militarism?

When a Southeast Asian country's leader expressed his concerns over Okinawa's reversion to Japan, a visiting high ranking U.S. diplomat replied: "Don't worry. We've already taken the measure for that."

Well, historically speaking, anything concerned with state-of-the-art technology came to Japan sometime directly and some other time via Korean Peninsula, that was refined furthermore here. Is this the repeat of that history?

Yubaru,

Sure you can, you are very welcome! You should be thanking the very American's you despise so much, for giving you the right and chance to lodge a complaint, it you so wish.

Your interpretation of the word "claims" is quite different from mine. The reason why there is so much discrepancy in opinion between you and me.

You are interpreting the word "claims" in an ordinary sense. The word "claims" as used in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement is claims to damages that had incurred during the occupation period. It says you cannot sue the U.S. Government, USCAR, a local U.S. governing body administering Okinawa, or any U.S. citizens that had caused damages during the occupation period.

Suppose someone praised Aso but said he was ‘not very handsome,’ and called him ‘Ah, so.' How would he respond?

Yubaru,

You acknowledged that the confiscation by occupation forces of private property is prohibited by international law (Article 46 of the Hague Convention). If so, the Futenma air station is an illegal property because it sits on confiscated private land.

You then continue to say that the illegality involved in the Futenma air station was exempted and settled by Article IV of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement, part of which says that Japan and its nationals wave all claims against the U.S. government, USCAR and its citizens.

The word "claims" here is a technical word used in litigation, not a commonly used word which also has the meaning of "a complaint."

In your opinion, then, I cannot lodge any complaint to the U. S. about its heavy military presence here, Futenma included.

Yubaru,

 Substantiate your theory with hard evidence or proof to support it and not some babbling about settled agreements!

OK. My claim is that the land on which Futenma sits was illegally confiscated from private owners; the confiscation was illegal in light of Article 46 of the Hague Convention, which clearly states in simple, plain English that private property cannot be confiscated. Doesn't this provision substantiate my claim that Futenma is an illegal property which the Marine Corps Okinawa occupy and are using like illegal squatters? Nowhere in Article 4 of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement is there a mention that the illegality involved in the land confiscation has been pardoned.                                 

Or if there was, do you think any bilateral agreement could exonerate such illegal activities committed by U.S. occupation forces? Can you pretend such illegality didn't exist at all from the very beginning?

Futenma's illegality remains the same however hard you may try to deny it.

Yubaru,

Agreements between fences over stolen goods are binding only to the two parties. Under a nation's criminal law, such agreements are illegal and have no legal force. Therefore, bilateral agreements, if there are any, between Tokyo and Washington to exempt the illegality involved in the forceful confiscation of the private land on which the Futenma air station sits is void and nothing meaningful under a nation's criminal law.

Yubaru,

You ask me to substantiate what I claim.

But what else do I have to say when Article 46 of the Hague Convention states in a plain language that private property cannot be confiscated and yet the U.S. occupation forces in fact encroached upon private property with impunity to build an airfield while the residents of the areas were herded in camps like POWs?  

Let me repeat my claim time and time again. The misdemeanor on the part of the U.S. occupation forces cannot be pardoned by a mere bilateral agreement. Is an agreement between two fences over stolen goods legally effective and binding under a nation's criminal law?

You could not act as if nothing had happened.

The central government is still trying to convince us that Henoko is the only option for Futenma's relocation? As far as U.S. bases in Okinawa are concerned, Tokyo and Washington work in collusion with each other closely, trying to keep them intact.  

In 1996 when the Okinawa public was in an uproar with anger over the gang rape of a school girl by three U.S. Marines, which was about to inflame a large-scale anti-U.S. base movement, the national broadcaster NHK conducted a survey with residents living near and around USMC Air Station Futenma, asking if they preferred the base to be removed somewhere else. The answer was of course a knee-jerk "Yes".  

Soon after, then Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto and then U.S. Ambassador to Japan Walter Mondale announced during a joint news conference that Japan and the U.S. had agreed Futenma would be returned to Okinawa in five to seven years.

It should be pointed out, though, that, too overwhelmed with a joy, the Okinawa public had forgotten there was a string attached to it. A replacement must be provided in exchange for its return.  

 Futenma is an illegal property per se because the base sits on the private property which the U.S. occupation forces confiscated with impunity in blatant violation of international law (Article 46 of the Hague Convention).  

Mr. Hayashi, please respond to this if you were following this thread.

First, there was a civil war in China between the Chinese Nationalist Party headed by Chang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong’s CCP.  In this war, CCP overwhelmed Chang led CNP, chasing Chang's government to Taiwan. CNP became KMT in Taiwan.

We must take this fact into consideration when discussing the Taiwan issue.

The government on Thursday said damage to infrastructure from the earthquake that rocked central Japan on New Year's Day may reach as high as 2.6 trillion yen.

It's said that the 2011 East Japan Earthquake caused damage in the amount of 16.9 trillion yen; the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in the amount of 16 to 25 trillion; the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake 9000 billion. This time, the damage is estimated to amount to 2.6 trillion yen. 

And how much is the Kishida government planning to pay the U.S government for the purchase of 400 Tomahawks? 400 x 1,000,000,000 = 400,000,000,000 or 400 billion yen.

(Amelioration)

If so, the construction of Futenma's replacement in Henoko, Nago City, Okinawa with the budget entirely borne by Japanese taxpayers is nothing but shenanigans and stupidity from Japan's perspective but very significant and meaningful from the U.S.'s perspective.

A socking scene, indeed. Japan should be more prepared against natural disasters like this, than threatening attacks on its cities by China, North Korea, or Russia.

It's no concern of mine whether Raytheon acquired another company and renamed itself as RTX.

Donald Trump, an alleged instigator of the Capitol riot and intrusion, said the U.S. president should be exempted from indictments against him or her, citing Harry S. Truman, who sanctioned the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki towards the end of WWII, as an example.

A very interesting viewpoint for a possible Republican presidential nominee.

nik,

When a Southeast Asian country leader expressed his concerns about the revival of pre-war militarism of Japan if Okinawa was to be returned to Japan, a visiting U.S. diplomat replied: "Don't worry. We've already taken the measures for that.

So, in your opinion, this excessive military presence in Okinawa is not for deterrence against China, Russia and North Korea, but for not letting the genie out of the bottle. In other words, the U.S. maintains bases here to target Japan ultimately. 

If so, the construction of Futenma's replacement in Henoko, Nago City, Okinawa with the budget entirely borne by Japanese taxpayers is nothing but shenanigans and stupidity from our perspective.

So, it's out of the fear of the U.S. reaction that Japan's foreign policy has been decided on since the end of WWII. To anyone's eye, Japan's not ratifying Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT）is very strange and queer. To anyone's eye, Japan's fortification of itself by buying 400 Tomahawk missiles from the U.S. is very strange and queer. 

To my regret, surmising or speculating how the U.S. would react has been Japan's post-war foreign policy vis-a-vis the U.S. The base issues in Okinawa are no exceptions.

The man signing the paper shown in the relevant picture may be director of the defense equipment procurement agency, Japan Defense Ministry, while Japan Defense Minister Minoru Kihara and U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel, etc. are overlooking.  

Desert Tortoise says the 400 Tomahawks Japan buys will be deducted from the U.S. forces' existing stockpile and the money will go directly to the U.S. coffers, eventually to U.S. taxpayers.

Won't the U.S. government make up the deducted number of 400 Tomahawks and pay the Raytheon 10 trillion yen or about $68 billion earned from Japan?

Desert Tortoise,

It's turned out that Raytheon is the company that manufactures Tomahawks with many a subcontractor supplying components. Raytheon assembles them and produces finished products.

The man standing on the right of Ambassador Emanuel may not be Raytheon CEO, but he could be there.

Concerning the photo. I wonder who's the guy who stands on the right of Rahm Emanuel. Is he the CEO of the Tomahawk manufacturing company?

peter14,

I've just wanted to point out that this is quite a lucrative business dealing for the U.S. military-industrial complex. Is it out of this lowly business motive that the U.S. has been urging Japan to up its defense budget twice as much?

Here are some of the figures, etc., that should be taken into consideration in relation to the Tomahawk purchase.                                                              

The estimated total amount of damages caused by the Noto earthquake: 8,163 billion Yen.

How much has the U.S. promised Japan for a disaster relief? For 100 thousand dollars or about 14.５million Yen.

How much is the Tomahawk deal? 250 billion Yen.

What does Article 9 of the Japanese constitution say?

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rham Emanuel’s contended look seems to me to tell everything.

Suppose this was the combined forces of Chinese, Russian and North Korean navies. How would the South Koreans, Japanese and Americans feel about it? One must see things not only from one's own perspectives but also from the other's perspectives.

 At any rate, who started this chicken-and-egg race of arms buildup?

Shame on the Chinese Coast Guard ships. On what historical facts and on what legal basis can they lay claim to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands? Dialog must come first before cheap saber rattling.

China's Xi Jinping government is said to have exerted all its efforts to influence voters in Taiwan's presidential election. Notwithstanding, Taiwan's voters elected pro-independence candidate Lai Ching-te to be their next leader. Beijing's effort seems to have gone inadvertently in spite of themselves.

Hope high winds and high waves surrounding Taiwan will calm down.

Yubaru,

Alas! How dare you say the Hague Convention is not an international law that no warring country should observe? You say it's a treaty that is inferior in legal force to a bilateral treaty such as the 1971 Japan-U.S. Okinawa Reversion Agreement. Lol.

Is an agreement over stolen goods between fences legal or not under a nation's criminal law?  Don't try to call black white.

Yubaru,

You aren't responding to my question directly and succinctly. Don't obfuscate the matter, by brazenly asserting that I have "ZERO facts to back" my opinion up.

My question was: do you think nonce bilateral agreements such as the Okinawa Reversion Agreement would transcend international law and exempt the U.S. from the illegality its armed forces had committed in an occupied zone?