voiceofokinawa's past comments

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    I've sent a copy of my post dated 26, 2016 - 07:12AM JST to the Defense Ministry to make sure they read and respond it. So far, no response.

    Regardless, will they repeat the worn-out mantra that the construction of Osprey facilities in both Henoko and Takae is absolutely necessary for the security of Japan and so forge ahead with the construction? Maybe, the U.S. DoD can help them to answer.

    Posted in: Inada seeks support from Okinawa governor over U.S. base relocation

  • 1

    voiceofokinawa

    NATO countries such as Netherland, Denmark and Belgium are U.S. allies. Will the U.S. come to their aid and defense in case of war. Of course, it will.

    Hillary Clinton says the U.S. will defend Japan because it's essential that "America's word be good." In other words, the U.S. will defend Japan in accordance with provisions stipulated in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, she says.

    On the surface, the NATO countries, on one hand, and Japan, on the other, look very similar in that they both make an alliance with the U.S. The similarity stops here, though. How many U.S. bases do these countries host and how much do they pay to the U.S. coffers for host-nation support?

    There are 88 U.S. bases and facilities in Japan, of which 33 are planted in Okinawa. The bases are offered to the U.S. military on the house. Since the base land is mostly private land, Japanese taxpayers must bear land rents to landholders for the U.S.. They are also obliged to bear indemnity for the damage derived from the U.S. military.

    Under such circumstances, is it necessary for Clinton to reassert that America's word is good? And isn't it preposterous for Trump to demand that Japan pay more?

    Posted in: Clinton, Trump clash over defense of U.S. allies

  • -2

    voiceofokinawa

    Steven C. Schulz,

    You may be right in saying that the U.S. may have the status quo to keep going on forever for no other reason than it simply wants to do so. But if you say so, then the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty will become garbage or a facade to hide the fact that the U.F. Forces Japan are mere carry-overs from the post-war Occupation Forces to keep Japan under subjugation (or occupation) forever.

    So you believe, as I do, that Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which stipulates the U.S. military presence in Japan is for the defense of Japan, is a sham and shenanigans.

    Posted in: Okinawa appeals high court ruling supporting U.S. base transfer plan

  • 1

    voiceofokinawa

    Steven C. Schutz,

    About all these U.S. bases in Okinawa are constructed on stolen property the U.S. occupation forces freely encroached upon areas in towns and villages while residents were herded in camps for two to three years after the Battle of Okinawa had ended. So the base lands are simply not spoils of war but blatantly-stolen property.

    The U.S. can't have the status quo to keep going on forever. The matter is not negotiable whatsoever. As such, there's no "least worse option" as far as Okinawa is concerned.

    Posted in: Okinawa appeals high court ruling supporting U.S. base transfer plan

  • 2

    voiceofokinawa

    smithinjapan,

    By golly, this has nothing to do with money. You must understand the defective nature of Japanese judiciary system. Separation of the three powers of administration, legislation and judiciary hasn't taken root fully in Japan. But has it in the U.S.? Supreme court judges are appointed by a partisan President, aren't they?

    Posted in: Okinawa appeals high court ruling supporting U.S. base transfer plan

  • 2

    voiceofokinawa

    Why do I say in the post above that the treacherous Japanese defense bureaucrats don't care about selling Okinawa to the U.S. as a permanent military colony or offering it as a sacrifice for the misconceived "security" the U.S. marines are supposed to provide? There are three reasons:

    First, jungle warfare training conducted in the northern highlands has nothing to do with the defense of Japan in general and the Senkakus in particular, so that helipad construction there to strengthen its function is nothing but the height of folly..

    Second, the guidelines for Japan-U.S. defense cooperation signed in April last year stipulate that primary responsibility for defending outlying islands rests with the SDF, with U.S. Forces Japan performing only a supporting role.

    Third, the 2006 Road Map for Realignment Implementation also stipulates that about 8,000 core elements of the marines will relocate to Guam, leaving mostly their support elements in Okinawa. This is a strange troop deployment to anyone’s eyes because it says combat-ready active units are deployed in the safer hinterland while their support units are deployed near a more dangerous war zone.

    Under such circumstances, can one say the construction of the marine facilities, both in Takae and in Henoko, is absolutely necessary for checking and repelling enemy invasions of the Senkakus and Japan as a whole?

    Had defense bureaucrats a chance to read this, please comment on this.

    Posted in: Inada seeks support from Okinawa governor over U.S. base relocation

  • 6

    voiceofokinawa

    I hope Inada won't be a sitting doll on a tiered stand on Hinamatsuri, a girls' day, being manipulated by the treacherous defense bureaucrats, who don't care about selling Okinawa to the U.S. as a permanent military colony or offering it as a sacrifice for the misconceived "safety" of Japan.

    Posted in: Inada seeks support from Okinawa governor over U.S. base relocation

  • 8

    voiceofokinawa

    Since Chief Justice Kotaro Tanaka's repealing in 1963 of the Date judgement, it's been customary for justices to stick to the line laid down by Tanaka and, therefore, that any lawsuit by residents against damages caused by the U.S. military, such as noise pollutions, has almost always been lost.

    We often hear that judges who rule against this line are demoted to courts in the boondocks. We also know that Tanaka was in close contact with the executive branch as well as the U.S. side before he gave that Supreme Court Judgement. Japan is not an independent sovereignty as yet --. a sycophantic vassal of the great U.S.A. judicially as well as politically.

    So how much can we expect from this appeal?

    Posted in: Okinawa appeals high court ruling supporting U.S. base transfer plan

  • -1

    voiceofokinawa

    It was fortunate that the pilot could eject out safely and was rescued.

    There's a serious issue involved here, though, that must be clarified. The article says the Harrier jump jet has been assigned to Okinawa but, according to The Ryukyu Shimpo, Okinawa's local newspaper, it is based in the U.S. mainland and flew to Kadena Air Base by way of Iwakuni to train in Okinawa. It's often the case that U.S. mainland-based fighter jets fly to Okinawa to train. Last year, for example, 10 Vermont-based National Guards F-16 fighter jets flew to Kadena for training purposes.

    The question is: Does such training by U.S. mainland-based aircraft legitimate in the light of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which stipulates Japan provide bases for U.S. forces in return for the protection they provide? Would U.S. mainland-based aircraft come to Japan's aid in case of emergencies and conflicts?

    All this shows that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is a mere facade to hide the undeniable fact that Okinawa is none other than a U.S. military colony.

    Posted in: U.S. Marine jet crashes off Okinawa; pilot ejects safely

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    On the side lines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Abe met with the U.S. Democrat's presidential hopeful Hillary R. Clinton at her request and told her that the Henoko relocation was going on as scheduled as if she was already U.S. President, according to a front-page article of The Okinawa Times, which obtained the information directly from Clinton's campaign office. Abe apparently had the Naha Branch of Fukuoka High Court's ruling that the central government had a legal upper hand for the relocation issue.

    Abe's servile behavior betrays the fact that Japan is no other than a sycophantic vassal of the great U.S.A.

    Article Unavailable

  • 1

    voiceofokinawa

    smithinjapan (Sep. 17, 2016 - 12:05PM JST):

    You argue the reason why there are so many U.S. bases in Okinawa is because of its strategic location. Sounds rational, but does it apply to Marine bases as well? What is the merit of maintaining Futenma's function in Henoko and the Northern Training Area, a.k.a. Jungle Warfare Center, in Yanbaru, Okinawa's northern highlands?

    Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security stipulates the U.S. military presence in Japan is for the defense and security of Japan and its vicinity, the Far East. The treaty clearly defines the scope and range of action of the U.S. military stationed in Japan (Okinawa). Under such circumstance, how will Okinawa's strategic location come into play for the security and defense of Japan and its vicinity?

    The Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation states primary responsibility for Japan's sovereign territory rests with the Self Defense Forces. The U.S. Forces Japan, the Marines included, play only a supporting role for the JSDF and come to their aid only when necessary.

    The 2006 Roadmap for Realignment Implementation also stipulates that about 8,000 core elements of the Marines will relocate to Guam, leaving mostly their support units behind in Okinawa. This is a strange troop deployment to anyone's eyes because it says combat-ready active units are deployed in safer hinterland while their support units, quartermaster corps, are deployed near a more dangerous war zone.

    Are Marine bases absolutely necessary to be maintained in Okinawa? Does Okinawa's strategic location have any meaning to defend Japan and its vicinity under such circumstances?

    Explain your view about the relationship between Marine bases and Okinawa’s strategic location convincingly enough.

    Article Unavailable

  • 1

    voiceofokinawa

    A series of elections and polls undoubtedly show that Onaga has the mandate to act as he does. His predecessor, Hirokazu Nakaima, was elected to his second-term governorship on the platform that he would do his best to oppose the Henoko relocation. He kept reassuring the constituents that the Henoko relocation was an impossible undertaking to realize but betrayed them blatantly when the central government suggested to lavishly pour money to his administration.

    The court ruled: “There was no overstepping of discretionary power when the former governor issued the landfill approval.” But the former governor violated democratic principles by betraying voters' trust and mandate. Can he be exonerated from this act of treachery and treason?

    I sincerely hope that the ruling was carried out in no collusion with the executive branch against the principle of the separation of three branches because we know how the Date judgement on the Sunagawa case was rescinded by the Supreme Court judge Kotaro Tanaka, who was in close contact with Foreign Affairs Minister Aiichiro Fujiyama and then U.S. Ambassador to Japan Douglas MacArthur Jr. (Click open "Sunagawa Incident" on the Internet or "Sunagawa Struggle" on Wikipedia)

    Besides, there's no justification nor any strategic reason why the U.S. must maintain the Marines' training bases, a vast jungle warfare training area included particularly in Okinawa.

    Article Unavailable

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    Please explain how returning half of the NTA area, equaling over 15 square miles of land, to the local prefecture while placing several concrete pads in the remaining half is “creating a megabase”?

    Here's my explanation:

    We initially welcomed the unconditional return of the said tract which both Tokyo and Washington agreed to in 1996. We knew the land promised for return had served no purpose for the Marines to engage in jungle warfare training, the raison d’etre of the base. But, to our chagrin, a condition was added the following year that replacements for the helipads in the land promised for return be constructed in the remaining area near and around Takae village.

    It soon turned out that these new "helipads," 6 in all, are simply not replacements for the old, small helipads but landing and take-off facilities for Ospreys and also reportedly Harrier jump jets. The new "helipads" have each 75 meters in diameter with about 100-meter approaches on both sides.

    At least two facilities at the site called N4 are a stone's throw from Takae village and so Takae villagers' daily life would be destroyed to the nail if training by low-flying Ospreys and Harriers started in full swing.

    Can Okinawa welcome the return of the tract whole-heartedly?

    Article Unavailable

  • 1

    voiceofokinawa

    Yubaru,

    As I surmised on another thread, there's enough reason to believe that all post-war bilateral agreements have always been pushed ahead by the U.S. side while Tokyo accepts them meekly and reluctantly.

    At issue here is on what legal basis the U.S. could demand Japan to pay operating costs of USFJ and on what legal basis Japan agreed to it.

    When questioned at a Dietary session in 1978 why Japan had to shoulder the costs, then Director General of Defense Agency Shin Kanemaru answered, "We do it out of sympathy (for the financially troubled U.S. government," hence the term "sympathy budget in Japan.

    Article Unavailable

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    I have posted above that Article 24 (2) of SOFA tops among absurdities in the Japan-U.S. security relation. But the so-called "sympathy budged," which the U.S. side euphemistically calls "host-nation support", doesn't pale at all as to the degree of absurdity.

    Japan started paying an annual \188 billion or \940.5 billion for the next 5-year period for this purpose. But what purpose? There's no legal basis why Japanese taxpayers must shoulder this budged except that haphazardly (or stupidly, should I say?) stipulated in Article 24 (2) of SOFA.

    Article Unavailable

  • 2

    voiceofokinawa

    There's no strategic reasons why Marine units must be stationed in Okinawa. It was agreed in 1996 that the most active elements of Marine units, reportedly 8,000 to 9,000, would move to Guam, leaving only support elements behind in Okinawa. Is it a rational military strategy to deploy active combat units far in safe hinterland while their support units, quartermaster corps, are deployed near a dangerous war zone?

    If such troop deployment is considered aberrant, then it's completely meaningless for the U.S. to demand Futenma's replacement be built in Honoko in northern Okinawa and that, unless its demand is met, Futenma will remain at the current site forever. Demanding to repair dilapidated facilities is totally out of the question.

    This bilateral relation is fraught with absurdities piled upon the top of the other. Article 24 (2) of Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) typifies this most. Why in the world could a tenant (Washington) demand a householder (Japanese taxpayers) to pay bills for gas, water and electricity, and repairs, when he is privileged to rent the room on the house?

    Article Unavailable

  • 0

    voiceofokinawa

    wtfjapan Jul. 30, 2016 - 05:27PM JST,

    Futenma, Kadena, Naha Port and Makiminato were all surrounded by the jungles and Okinawans moved in around them as they pleased to complain about noise pollution, base-related crimes, etc. and etc.? The U.S. military, that is, the Marines in your mind, is deployed here in Futenma "at the invitation of J government"? And they won't move out from there until a new base is built in Henoko? Make no mistake the U.S. military will be here forever?

    Of 33 U.S. bases in Okinawa, the only base surrounded by the jungles is Camp Gonsalves, also known as Northern Training Area or Jungle Warfare Training Center. The area has been covered with lush forests since ancient times. Do you say other bases were the same, that is, surrounded by nothing but forests and wilderness? LOL.

    Take Futenma, for instance. It sits on an area called Ginowan. The old Ginowan Village was a municipality composed of a dozen villages. The U.S. occupation forces encroached upon five of these villages together with houses, farms, schools, cemeteries and what not while area residents were herded in camps. Of course, all had been destroyed by war. If you want to know how the area was like before the war, visit Ginowan City Museum in Makishi, Ginowan for confirmation(E-mail: kyoiku02@city.ginowan.okinawa.jp).

    You say the U.S. military is stationed here at the invitation of the Japanese government. That may be so at the facade. But the truth is the U.S. forces are seamless carry-overs from the WW II Occupation Forces. John Foster Dulles, the U.S. chief negotiator of the Japan-U.S. security treaty, urged his staff to heed to hammering out as many conditions as possible so that the U.S. could keep unrestrained rights to use and maintain the bases. So virtual occupation continued despite Japan's recovery of sovereignty, being guaranteed by the Japan-U.S. Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. Okinawa was incorporated into this regime in 1972 where the reality of continued occupation reveals itself most conspicuously.

    The Futenma relocation issue and Takae "helipad" construction issue are the telltale revelations of the still-continuing occupation.

    Posted in: U.S. military prepares for biggest Okinawa land return since 1972

  • 4

    voiceofokinawa

    The return of the relevant tract in Northern Training Area, also known as Jungle Warfare Training Center, was agreed to in 1996 and stipulated in that year's final report. It was good news to hear a considerable portion of the base be returned without any strings attached.

    To our chagrin, however, a condition was added to the SACO agreement the following year that replacements for 6 helipads in the area promised for return be built in the remaining areas straddling between HIgashi Village and Kunigami Village.

    What an abnormality that an already agreed-on diplomatic accord should be so easily altered and added with a condition post diem! That such manipulation is possible betrays the fact that all post-war bilateral agreements are always pushed ahead by the U.S. side which Japan only accepts meekly.

    The 6 replacement facilities have 75 meters in diameter each with about 100-meter strips attached on both sides. Thus, these are simply not replacements for old helipads but completely new facilities for Ospreys to land and take off. It's reported that the Harrier Jump Jets will also train here for V/STOL operations.

    If training with these aircraft goes into a full swing, Takae's pristine natural environment would certainly be destroyed where endangered, precious species of fauna and flora make it there their habitation. Not only that. Takae villagers will also suffer from inhumane noise pollution caused by low-flying Ospreys and Harriers, thus trampling Takae villagers' human rights to the nail, the nearest N4 facilities being only 400 meters from the village.

    Close to the Ospreys' new base in Henoko, the Jungle Warfare Center will be functionally integrated with it and strengthened effectively while at the same Okinawa's feeling of excessive burden sharing may be abated as the result of returning the relevant tract, the U.S. side must have thought.

    I want to ask, however: Is it absolutely necessary for the defense and security of Japan for the U.S. Marines to retain these bases and train jungle warfare skills in Okinawa?

    Anyone, affiliated with Washington, please answer the question.

    Posted in: U.S. military prepares for biggest Okinawa land return since 1972

  • 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?

    Article Unavailable

  • 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.

    Article Unavailable

Work
in
Japan

Search the Largest English Job Board in Japan.

Find a Job Now!

View all

Japan Investment
Properties

Listings Updated Daily

Search