voiceofokinawa's past comments

  • 2

    voiceofokinawa

    Constructing a replacement facility for the Futenma Air Station in Henoko is nothing but an act of selling one's sovereign soil to a foreign power. The U.S. side says that, unless Futenma is relocated to Henoko, it will remain at the current site forever. As I have repeatedly said, Futenma sits on stolen property, because the lands it sits on were confiscated illegally from private landholders.

    Washington knows this well enough and wants the base to be relocated to Henoko, thus vindicating themselves across the board. This is why one can call the Henoko relocation plan "base laundry."

    If the Henoko relocation should come true, the new base will certainly remain there forever, let alone many other bases. The dealing is thus tantamount to selling part of sovereign soil to a foreign country.

    So I can't understand why the Abe government, instead of guarding its own people and sovereignty, is so eager to press ahead with the relocation plan. Is it because the Abe government and the sycophantic bureaucrats are fearful of Washington's wrath by not following its dictation and order? Don't they know their action is no different from an act of betrayal against not only Okinawa but also the nation as a whole?

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • 2

    voiceofokinawa

    Akura(Jun. 10, 2015 - 03:56AM JST):

    Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know? The Japanese wisdom similarly says "Better a familiar demon than an unfamiliar god."

    No, neither is better than the other, I should say. Both must be rejected, especially if the devil you don't know is as fearful as Washington touts. But Okinawa, as a sovereignty, has had a very cordial relationship with the devil you say you don't know for 400 years and so knows better. So, for heaven's sake, please don't try to teach us.

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • 1

    voiceofokinawa

    The Okinawa Times is still running a series of verifiable articles about the Onaga visit. According to the June 9 edition, the people Onaga and his entourage met while visiting the U.S. were 15 in all.

    In Hawaii, they met Governor David Ige, 2 Senators and 1 Congressman. In Washington, they met 3 Senators, 2 Congressmen, 4 think-tank researchers;. They met Joseph Young, Director, Office of Japanese Affairs, U.S. Department of State, and Cara Abercrombie, acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. Senior officials above their ranks were not available for they were on tour to attend The 14th Asia Security Summit (29-31 May 2015) in Singapore.

    In Hawaii, they held a news conference with reporters from 6 local newspapers attending. In Washington, they had a chance to talk with Washington Post Publisher Frederick Rian and were also interviewed by members of the U.S. Congressional Research Service. On the final day of the visit, reporters from 5 international media took part in a news conference. Onaga was also interviewed alone by a U.S. radio network.

    A fringe group may criticize him by saying he spent too much taxpayers' money but came home almost empty-handed. I don't think so. Washington is closely listening to him by way of the officials who met him and carefully watching the trend of Okinawa's public opinion, though trying to appear to be nonchalant.

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru,

    We are talking about Gov. Onaga's visit to Washington. Okinawans were eager to see what would come of this visit as regards the Futenma issue. The two local papers, The Ryukyu Shimpo and The Okinawa Times, have been reporting the story from this local viewpoint.

    Which of the major media in Tokyo was doing so? Let alone U.S. media? And you keep swiping at the two papers, saying "'news' is not being reported accurately."

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • -1

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru (un. 08, 2015 - 07:41AM JST):

    I have never defamed Okinawa, quite the contrary

    Really? But your support of the U.S. government's urging Tokyo to press ahead with the Henoko relocation plan, regardless of Okinawa's wishes and feelings, is nothing but the defamation of Okinawans. Why do you think it better for Okinawans to be subjugated to the U.S. as its permanent military colony, unable to decide what to do about this excessive U.S. military footprint?

    There may be "tens of thousands of Okinawans and Japanese that rush to go on" to see "annual festivals held on major installations" such as in Futenma as well as in Yokosuka in Kanagawa Prefecture. But you can't cite these nonchalant Okinawans and Japanese mainlanders as evidence for your claim that the majority of Okinawans and Japanese mainlanders are in support of the Henoko relocation plan. "Tens of thousands" of people who go to see the Futenma festival are a fringe group compared with the whole population of 1.42 million.

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • -2

    voiceofokinawa

    wtfjapan (un. 08, 2015 - 12:43AM JST),

    this idiot can crow all he likes, the base will be built, like it or not. dont like it move to a different prefecture.

    You should give your reasons, rather rationally, and not being dictated by emotions, why you think "the base will be built" in Henoko against the wishes of Okinawans. Unless you do, your post is like a dog barking behind someone's back.

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • 1

    voiceofokinawa

    Wc626 (Jun. 07, 2015 - 06:11PM JST ):

    I'm discontent at the fact japanese protest the US presence on okinawa, relocation, yet they expect the US to be at the forefront for their defence. Why? Cause they pay billions to DC?

    You are putting the cart before the horse. It was the U.S. government that obliged other nations, including Japan, to pay the so-called "host nation support" to the U.S. coffers for the U.S. to effectively maintain bases in "host nations." In Japan that is called the "sympathy budget," sounding as if Japan were voluntarily doling out money out of sympathy for U.S. service members who are deployed here far from their home.

    The U.S. government once thoroughly investigated why history's great empires declined and collapsed. They found the cause was almost always the expansion of territory and along with it the over-expenditure of defense budgets. I suspect that was the motivation behind starting the host nation support scheme to make host nations to partially shoulder the operating costs of U.S. bases planted there.

    Among nations, Japan stands out most conspicuously as a very generous contributor.

    For ten years from 2001 through 2010, Japan shouldered an average annual sum of $2,274 million, totaling $30 billion since the payment started in 1977. On March 31, 2011, only 20 days after the Great Disasters hit Northeast Japan, the Lower House Committee on Foreign Affairs had to approve a bill to pay $23.5 million for a five-year period from fiscal year 2011, totaling $117.5 million to the U.S. coffers for the upkeep U.S. bases in Japan.

    Both governments have started talks on how much Japan can pay for the next 5 years because the last 5-year period expires very shortly

    So, Wc626, I hope you can understand now why I say you are putting the cart before the horse.

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • -2

    voiceofokinawa

    The U.S. government officials Okinawa Governor Takeshi Onaga was able to meet during his visit to Washington were: Joseph Young, Director, Office of Japanese Affairs, U.S. Department of State, and Cara Abercrombie, acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.

    The meeting took place behind the closed doors with the media all shut out at the request of the U.S. side. So we don't know what was discussed there. Shortly after the meeting, however, the U.S. side suddenly released to departing reporters, even calling to some to stop, an already prepared government statement saying "The United States’ troop presence in Okinawa is fundamental to our treaty commitment to the defense of Japan.” Do they want to say in that statement that "the U.S. troop presence" in Okinawa is necessary because they promised it to Japan?

    The language in the statement is befuddling people intentionally. Why don't they say straight that the U.S. Marines are necessary for the defense of Japan? They may not be able to explain why the presence of the U.S. Marines in Okinawa is "fundamental" to the U.S. government's "treaty commitment to the defense of Japan." And that may be the reason why the meeting was asked to be held behind the closed doors. U.S. government officials were apparently afraid of how the discussion might develop to their disadvantage.

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • -2

    voiceofokinawa

    Posters,

    There's a parallel debate taking place on The Washington Times. Read Robert Eldridge's commentary, "The other side to the Okinawa story" (March 31) and a reader's rebuttal of it, "Not many Okinawans want U.S. base" (June 4) and readers' comments that follow.

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • -3

    voiceofokinawa

    Serrano (Jun. 05, 2015 - 09:34PM JST):

    They should associate U,S.bases with their freedom.

    The boss of a gang could say that: "Turf residents should associate our presence with their freedom because we are protecting them from attacks by rival gangs."

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • -2

    voiceofokinawa

    SenseNotSoCommon,

    Rome has spoken? Whose oracle is that? Caesar's of Roman Empire or its modern equivalent? Can the U.S. citizens claim that their country is a role model of exercising democracy, freedom and human rights which other countries must emulate?

    During the Cold War ear, the U.S. military authorities in Okinawa used to say bases would be withdrawn or at least reduced when the threat of communism was no more.

    Now, it's become more than apparent that the U.S. doesn't want to reduce its colossal military footprint in Okinawa by closing even one Marine base, betraying its true, wicket intention to use Okinawa as its permanent military colony.

    Posted in: U.S. tells Okinawa governor new base 'fundamental' to security

  • -1

    voiceofokinawa

    tinawatanabe,

    I may have misunderstood you when you said "the Futenma issue" would never have occurred "if the U.S. had kept Okinawa.

    Does it mean there would have been no raw over Futenma's relocation to Henoko if Okinawa remained in the hands of the U.S. because the U.S. could do whatever it wanted to do during the occupation period; or does it mean something else?

    Posted in: Thousands surround Diet to protest U.S. base relocation plan

  • -1

    voiceofokinawa

    tinawatanabe,

    Why not?

    Well, doesn't the answer lye in what I posted above? The U.S. returned Okinawa to calm down grudges and prevent riots frim ocurring against bases. They succeeded in that endeaver to a certain degree but not quite. Grudges would always remain high unless the U.S. demonstrated her sincerety to reduce this excessive military footprint substantially. The Henoko relocation is closing of one base but forcing us to construct a new one, functionally strengthened at that, in its place.

    Posted in: Thousands surround Diet to protest U.S. base relocation plan

  • -1

    voiceofokinawa

    It's JapanGal who said on her May 25 post that the U.S. should not have returned Okinawa to Japan. If the U.S. had kept Okinawa, no such cantankerous problem as the Henoko issue would have been ever occurred, she suggests there.

    JapanGal, do you know why the U.S. decided to return Okinawa? There had been strong anti-American (base) sentiments among Okinawans ever since 1951 when it was severed from mainland Japan by the San Francisco Peace Treaty and put under an ongoing harsh military occupation. The U.S. authorities were aware that they could not operate bases effectively in such a hostile environment. So when Tokyo hinted Okinawa's administrative right had better be returned to Japan, they didn't object to it across the board. The Koza Riot of 1970 occurred under such circumstances. In a sense, it was the last straw.

    Okinawa was returned to Japanese sovereignty in 1972, as you know. It was returned all right, but on a strict condition that the U.S. military would be guaranteed of its unrestricted, freewheeling use of the bases. In other words, Okinawa was returned to Japan for the U.S. to effectively operate the bases.

    So your mentioning that America should have kept Okinawa is based on a gross misunderstanding on your part. America still keeps Okinawa.

    Posted in: Thousands surround Diet to protest U.S. base relocation plan

  • -1

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru,

    You say you "see things with a wider view." I think I know what your wider view is, but could you explain it for precaution's sake?

    Posted in: Thousands surround Diet to protest U.S. base relocation plan

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru (May. 27, 2015 - 07:54AM JST):

    Key word here "nations" not states, not prefectures, Okinawa and Tokyo have a long way to go and it doesn't help Okinawa one bit, in building trust with Tokyo, by having it's governor go over their heads to Washington.

    There's no need for me to respond to your post dated May. 27, 2015 - 07:54AM JST. I was talking about international relations and not about domestic relations such as those between a central government and a locality -- the topic was about how to reduce tensions among nations.

    You say in another post (May. 27, 2015 - 01:35PM JST) that, just as an apple and an orange are different, so are the U.S. and Japan, arguing what applies to the U.S. doesn't apply to Japan. But an apple and an orange are the same in that both are fruit, and so are the U.S. and Japan in that they are both nations with elected heads (governments) and governed peoples. Both nations claim they are democracies.

    Because you live in Okinawa and pay taxes as a naturalized Japanese citizen, it doesn't mean you know Okinawa better than someone living abroad who is compassionately involved in the Okinawa issue.

    Every society has a few black sheep in the flock. Your opinion doesn't represent Okinawa's consensus.

    Posted in: Thousands surround Diet to protest U.S. base relocation plan

  • -4

    voiceofokinawa

    Kazuaki Shimazaki May. 26, 2015 - 11:20PM JST:

    As you say, "smiles" only won't solve an international problem, but genuine mutual trust will. So it's important to work for establishing genuine mutual trust between and among nations however remote the goal may seem. You cannot frustrate the budding of such efforts, saying hard power should be all there is to it.

    Posted in: Thousands surround Diet to protest U.S. base relocation plan

  • -2

    voiceofokinawa

    Flyfalcon May. 26, 2015 - 11:01AM JST

    Whether they are for independence or not, Okinawa's struggles will be like Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent civil disobedience. Didn't India recover their dignity through such measures as nonviolent civil disobedience?

    Posted in: Thousands surround Diet to protest U.S. base relocation plan

  • -1

    voiceofokinawa

    Wc626 May. 26, 2015 - 09:16AM JST

    The struggles now sweeping across Okinawa are not for independence but for democracy, justice and equality. The Futenma relocation plan that was agreed on between Tokyo and Washington over our heads runs counter to all these principles.

    It's pitiful of both governments that they wouldn't listen to local people's pressing voice unless they resorted to violence and terrorism.

    Posted in: Thousands surround Diet to protest U.S. base relocation plan

  • 3

    voiceofokinawa

    Wc626 Wc626May. 26, 2015 - 01:30AM JST

    Yeah. And those same residents got drunk with joy and celebrated the successful 1941 surprise attack @Pearl. Just like every other major city on the mainland. War is hell. Win some lose some-

    That war you talk about was over 70 years ago. The Occupation on mainland Japan ended in 1952 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect while Okinawa was severed from Japan and kept under ongoing U.S. occupation. The occupation of Okinawa was supposed to come to an end when it was reverted to Japan in 1972.

    But you say: "War is hell. Win some lose some," thus justifying this excessive U.S. military presence in Okinawa. So the U.S. forces are stationed here as occupation forces and not as the "defenders of Japan" as stipulated in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. I think you are telling the truth and nothing but the whole truth The security treaty is then nothing but a farce, a facade to hide the reality.

    Posted in: Thousands surround Diet to protest U.S. base relocation plan

View all