voiceofokinawa's past comments

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru,

    Nope, because the island was under US control, not a part of Japan, the land taken for the creation of the base was the right of the government of the Ryukyu's at that time. That simple.

    Okinawa was under U.S. control at the time (1947) and so the U.S. could do whatever it wanted to do? Justice and humanity had no room to play in an occupied area? That's why U.S. forces encroached upon private land with impunity while area residents were herded in camps?

    Different subject as you conveniently choose to ignore again. The land was kept as a part of the SOFA and return agreement with Japan. The Japanese government agreed to the situation. It's Japanese land, get your head out of the sand.

    Read my comment carefully. Here, I'm simply recapitulating what you said and refuting it. Your response to it is this gibberish with a parting shot: "... get your head out of the sand." Why on earth does SOFA have to come into play here?

    Posted in: Gov't files new suit against Okinawa over base relocation

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru,

    You don't have to be an academic, or an international law expert, to carry on this discussion. All you have to do is simply admit that MCAS Futenma sits on the land illegally confiscated from local residents while they were herded in camps for two years after the war had ended. You say it's OK for U.S. forces to do so because the U.S. won the war and can keep the confiscated land as spoils of war. Contrary to what you say, the issue is quite relevant to even today, 71 years after the war ended.

    Posted in: Gov't files new suit against Okinawa over base relocation

  • 1

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru,

    Isn't it you who brought up the topic of "spoils of war" in the discussion, defining U.S. bases in Okinawa as such? Now you say, "Stop beating a dead horse." LOL.

    Posted in: Gov't files new suit against Okinawa over base relocation

  • 1

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru,

    Almost all U.S. bases in mainland Japan, say Yokota Air Base and MCAS Iwakuni, were formerly the Imperial Japanese Army facilities. You may call them spoils of war. But bases in Okinawa have quite different stories like I wrote in my post above.

    The land on which Futenma Air Station sits can never be spoils of war as you claim but it’s stolen property without a doubt because most lands there were privately owned. U.S. occupation forces usurped the lands from private citizens while they were herded in camps.

    But granting what you say is correct, doesn't it turn out that U.S. forces in Japan, particularly those in Okinawa, are nothing but occupation forces, that is, a carry-over from the Occupation period? It becomes more apparent, then, that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which formally guarantees the U.S. military presence, is a mere façade to hide this cold fact.

    Your argument boils down to this conclusion.

    Posted in: Gov't files new suit against Okinawa over base relocation

  • 4

    voiceofokinawa

    The 1996 final report of SACO (Special Actions Committee on Okinawa) set out a plan that the 39,870,000 ㎡ portion of the Northern Training Area (total area: 78,242,000㎡) would be returned with a target year as 2002. The following year, a condition was added to the SACO agreement of the previous year to the effect that the replacement of helipads in the area subject to return be built in the remaining area. 

    The 39,870,000㎡ section of 78,2452,000㎡ is quite an area, more than a half. But are we happy with this arrangement?

    Note the area promised for return has been fallow, never used for jungle warfare or combat training. The helipads there are for conventional helicopters like HH-60's whereas 6 replacement "helipads" in the remaining portion where the Marines' Jungle Warfare Center (JWTC) is planted are for Ospreys to transport troops and trainees, with a diameter of 75 meters each. At least one "helipad", which is only 400 meters from the Takae village and being built 20 meters off from the Pref. Rd. No. 70, has a rectangular shape with one side measuring about two hundred meters. Takae is surrounded by 6 such facilities for Ospreys to land and take off.

    If training with Ospreys goes into a full swing, Takae's pristine natural environment would certainly be destroyed where rare, precious species of fauna and flora abound. Not only that. Takae villagers will also suffer from intolerable noise pollution caused by low-flying Ospreys without a doubt. Takae villagers' human rights would thus be trampled to the nail

    Anyone on this thread, please explain why there's no place other than Okinawa where the Marines’ core elements, who come to Okinawa on a regular basis just for training, can train their combat skills and therefore that the construction of these landing and take-off facilities for Ospreys is of the utmost importance and necessity.

    Posted in: Construction of U.S. helipads resumes in Okinawa amid protests

  • 2

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru Jul. 22, 2016 - 08:01PM JST

    Wow, just about the entire US of A sits on "stolen" property, and here in Japan, just about every public building, base, airport and public facility does as well. You have a very selective memory and selective view about Okinawa.

    If you want to deny my argument that the Futenma Air Station sits on the stolen property that U.S. occupation forces usurped from local residents in violation of international law (Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land), state your case clearly that it doesn't.

    Your analogies don't work here.

    Posted in: Gov't files new suit against Okinawa over base relocation

  • 2

    voiceofokinawa

    smithinjapan (Jul. 22, 2016 - 09:11AM JST),

    At least they are working legally here, whereas Onaga is not. Shame on HIM for that.

    If you want to take issue with legal matters, then the U.S. is the most blatant violator of justice and humanity.

    Look, Futenma sits on stolen property because U.S. occupation forces encroached upon private lands with impunity while area residents were herded into camps for two years after the war had ended. When they were permitted to go home in 1947, what they found was a vast air base gobbling up all their villages with farms, schools, cemeteries and what not all included.

    Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land clearly states: "Family 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."

    So, if the central government has any guts at all, it can say "No" to Washington's demand that Futenma be relocated to Henoko. As I argued elsewhere, Marine units may not necessarily be stationed in Okinawa.

    Posted in: Gov't files new suit against Okinawa over base relocation

  • 7

    voiceofokinawa

    No sooner had the central government and Okinawa Prefecture agreed to settle the relocation issue out of court than Washington expressed its concern about the possible delay of construction of the new base. To which, Tokyo responded by citing a proverb, "More haste, less speed."

    So it's apparent that a poor, sycophantic Tokyo is merely acting at Washington's behest. Shame on P.M. Shinzo Abe, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga and other mainstream politicians in Tokyo, who don't want to admit the reality that Japan is nothing but a U.S. vassal. They are marionettes of Washington.

    Posted in: Gov't files new suit against Okinawa over base relocation

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    The new measure will only limit legal protections and benefits to U.S. civilian employees working on base in Japan. In other words, U.S. personnel who commit crimes off base continue to be protected by the SOFA the same as before. How to "protect" its military personnel from arbitrary prosecution under the Japanese legal system is more important for Washington than victims' suffering and trampled human rights.

    Does anyone on this thread know about the William Board rape incident that occurred on June 12, 1884? Board was a sailor boarding one of the ships in the fleet commanded by Commodore Matthew C. Perry, who made port calls to Ryukyu Kingdom three times before and after he had forced the reclusive Japan to open its doors.

    On that day, the drunken Board raped a local woman. Finding out the incident, angry neighbors chased Board, pelting stones, to a cliff by the seashore. He slipped and fell off the cliff and was drowned.

    Perry was very angry about the shipmate's death and demanded the Ryukyu authorities to punish a perpetrator severely, with which the Ryukyu authorities complied, sentencing the man to banishment to a remote island (equal to life imprisonment at the time, I think).

    Did Perry, who represented the U.S. government pay any compensation, or express any sympathy, to the victim? Not that I know of. Perry's concern was only with the death of the shipmate and never did he care about the victim's predicament.

    SOFA is imbued with this high-handed spirit of a colonial master.

    Posted in: U.S. military to limit legal protection to some contractors in Japan

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    Hideo Watanabe,

    Thanks for sharing the same view with me. Thanks also for the link.

    Article Unavailable

  • 2

    voiceofokinawa

    Ronald Hassem,

    Japan's occupation after World War II officially ended in 1951 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed, by dint of which Japan was supposed to have restored its full independence and sovereignty. But did the occupation literally end along with it and was Japan's sovereignty really restored?

    On the very same day when the Peace Treaty was signed, Japan had to sign a separate treaty called the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty with the U.S., the predecessor of today's Japan-U.S. Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, which guaranteed the continued U.S. military presence with almost all bases remaining intact. John Foster Dulles, a chief negotiator of the treaty for the U.S., ordered his negotiating staff to hammer out as many provisions as possible favorable to the U.S. to maintain the status quo. Thus, it's safe to say that the current U.S. military presence is a mere carry-over of the erstwhile Occupation. Okinawa was incorporated into this system in 1972 when its administration was reverted to Japan. No wonder, then, there are so many bases and facilities in Japan: 55 in mainland Japan and 33 in Okinawa.

    The Sunagawa case and the Supreme Court's decision not to judge the constitutionality of the U.S. presence should be considered under such circumstances. Something is fundamentally wrong this regime, that is, as regards the bilateral relations. This must be corrected first and for all before anyone speaks of "China threat" or "North Korea threat."

    Article Unavailable

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru,

    Isn't what I say very clear?

    Judges must not contact concerned parties or outside sources before he gives a verdict, right? But Chief Judge was in close contact with then U.S. Ambassador Douglas MacArthur Jr. as well as then Chief U.S. Envoy William Reinhardt, who pressed the Japanese judiciary to skip deliberation by intermediate courts but go directly to the Supreme Court for quicker judgement. Wikipedia (Japanese) is a dependable source here.

    Correction: The terms "legislative branch" in my post above should be "executive/legislative branches".

    Article Unavailable

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    The 1959 judgement of the Supreme Court regarding the Date lower court ruling that the U.S. military presence was unconstitutional in the light of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution was: "quashed and remanded" for two reasons: (1) What Article 9 refers to as "land, sea and air forces" are those inherent only to Japan, and not foreign military; (2) It's not fit for judiciary to judge whether foreign military presence is constitutional or not.

    Even to an amateur, this judgement appears very strange and queer. Can a person be innocent if he didn’t actually commit manslaughter but asked some agent to do it for him? And isn't it the Supreme Court's task to judge if the legislative branch's action, regardless of domestic or international issues, constitutional or not?

    It's been revealed that Kotaro Tanaka, the Supreme Court’s then chief judge, had been in close contact with the U.S. side before he ruled the final verdict. What a sovereign, "beautiful" nation Japan is!

    Article Unavailable

  • 4

    voiceofokinawa

    The return of the land tract was promised in 1996 along with the return of Futenma Air Station. The return of Naha military port facilities had already been promised in 1973, which was re-confirmed also in 1996. If the return of land were to be done true and sincere to the real meaning of the word, who would not rejoice at it?

    But the fact is that the returns are all string-attached because the Japanese side must provide their replacement within Okinawa. In the case of Northern Training Area, the Japanese side must build 6 landing and take-off facilities for Ospreys in the remaining tract surrounding Takae village. One of the facilities is being built a few hundred meters from the village itself. The area is rich in flora and fauna with lush forests. The land promised for return has been fallow and unused anyway.

    So can we be thankful to the U.S.'s generous and beneficial treatment and let go the strengthening and perpetuation of its military footprint?

    Posted in: U.S. dangles large land return as anti-base resentment surges in Okinawa

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru,

    It also costs a hell of a lot less as well. It is easier.....let's see you and all those others who support moving bases to mainland, put your money where your mouths are. Pay for it. Put it in your backyard. You host them. Otherwise please STFU"

    There's an unmistakable premise in your argument as well as Washington's. Futenma's function must remain in Okinawa, or if not in Okinawa, somewhere in Japan.

    Now, my stance is close the Marine base unconditionally. Move it to Guam, Hawaii or U.S. mainland, if you like, with your own money. Its ex post facto has nothing to do with us. Tenants must be held responsible for what to do when asked to move out.

    If you disagree, give concrete reasons why the Marine base must remain in Okinawa.

    Article Unavailable

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    Why have Washington and Tokyo agreed that the Henoko relocation is the best and only solution? For Washington, military capability can be strengthened by integrating all of the bases by concentrating them in one place, with Futenma's replacement being added with new functions which Futenma doesn't have. Futenma Air Station currently sits on private land illegally requisitioned while area residents were herded in camps, whereby the U.S. can be exonerated from its past misdoing if the baset is relocated to Henoko. This is why I say the building Futenma’s replacement at Henoko is tantamount to "base laundering."

    For Tokyo, it's rather easier o force Okinawa to host more bases than persuade other prefectures to host one. There's no prefecture or region in mainland Japan that is willing to have Futenma’s function built and relocated in its backyard.

    So Tokyo keeps making clumsy justifications that Henoko is the only solution, saying the relocation eliminates potential hazards posed by the current base used mainly for flight training. But note that that doesn't make any sense because Yokota Air Base and Atsugi Naval Air Base in Metropolitan Tokyo are no less dangerous than Futenma. All three are located in densely populated residential areas.

    Suga also says Japan doesn't want to undermine "the Japan-U.S. defense alliance" by not relocating Futenma to Henoko. The gist of it is that, unless Futenma is relocated to Henoko as wished by Washington, bilateral relations would be impaired considerably because of Washington’s infuriation.

    Article Unavailable

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    CyburneticTiger,

    These units and equipments are not relocating to Guam because it doesn't make sense strategically to create logistical space and time from the (potential) battlefield.

    Who disputes the importance of logistics in warfare? The catch is that in your view logistic units can be forward-deployed while the most active core elements can be deployed in the rear, far from "the potential battlefield." Does such troop deployment require the virtual military colonization of Okinawa? And what’s that to do with Okinawa’s superior strategic location? Explain.

    Posted in: Anti-U.S. base demonstrators march in Tokyo

  • -1

    voiceofokinawa

    CyburneticTiger,

    Questions that has been answered a thousand times by various posters on this board that YOU choose to ignore because YOU choose to listen to anything outside your preconceived opinion. Okinawa is key terrain and terrain is and will be forever the most important thing in strategic advantages.

    Yes, I've occasionally seen some posters say the reason why the U.S. military is stationed in Okinawa is because of Okinawa’ superior strategic location. But that doesn’t justify the U.S. position to keep occupying Okinawa indefinitely, saying "We won the war." Can you colonize other countries, justifying your action by saying “We want to colonize your country because it is rich in precious natural resources” ? Are we living in the age of 20th century law of the jungle? It is noteworthy, then, that the official line in which the U.S. military presence must be maintained in Japan is the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, not the fact that Japan was defeated in World War II.

    If the Marines are stationed here because of Okinawa's superior strategic location, then you must explain why the 4,900 combat-ready, most active elements of them are moving to Guam, leaving only support units behind in Okinawa (Marine Corps Times: Oct. 1, 2015). That this is possible means the Marines are stationed here not because Okinawa has a superior strategic location but simply because the U.S. wants the status quo (=virtual military occupation) to keep on going.

    New times and new threats.

    Certainly, times change. Along with it, “new threats” come and go. In the mid-20th century, it was a communist threat. Following it, the "arc of terror" (global terrorism) and then today's "China threat" and "North Korea threat." But all these threats will surely disappear sooner or later as things go in this world. Then, what would the U.S. come up with to justify its indefinite military presence here?

    Posted in: Anti-U.S. base demonstrators march in Tokyo

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    WilliB (Jun. 14, 2016 - 10:50PM JST),

    The questions I posed are not straw man question as you say. They are down-to-earth questions very relevant to Okinawa's fate and future.

    Until 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, I had believed in what the U.S. military authorities preached: As long as there existed a communist threat, the U.S. military presence would remain here. So when the Soviet Union collapsed, I felt a ray of hope that Okinawa's miserable plight as a U.S. military colony might finally come to an end. But did it? Evidence tells to the contrary: The U.S. wants to maintain the status quo, that is, to keep Okinawa as its military colony, forever. The Futenma issue embodies this U.S. scheme most typically.

    The Tokyo demonstrators or Okinawa's anti-base activists in Henoko, Kadena and Futenma are thus sending a message that such unjust schemes cannot be tolerated forever. Do you still call them "clowns"?

    Posted in: Anti-U.S. base demonstrators march in Tokyo

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    IWillliB,

    I strongly support those Tokyo demonstrators. So I may be one of them who you call "clowns." If so, then you could answer the questions that I posed to Stephen Jez in my post above (Jun. 14, 2016 - 07:27AM JST ). Could you?

    Posted in: Anti-U.S. base demonstrators march in Tokyo

Work
in
Japan

Search the Largest English Job Board in Japan.

Find a Job Now!

View all

Time
to Buy
in Japan

Find the perfect home today!

Search