One Year after Deployment: Call for UN Human Rights Relief and Total Withdrawal of Ospreys
Published in Ryukyu Shimpo
(Japan) on 1 October 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
(Japan) on 1 October 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Stephanie Sanders.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
As of Oct. 1, one year has passed since the mandatory deployment of the U.S. Marine Corps’ MV-22 Osprey vertical takeoff and landing transport aircraft. Residents have not been involved in serious accidents, but this past year many prefectural citizens have come to doubt the safety of the Osprey, with its endless major accidents in the U.S. and overseas, and tremble with fear of the Osprey’s risk of crashing.
The Japan-U.S. Okinawa policy has all but transformed into colonial policy, exposing prefectural citizens to the U.S. military’s incidents, accidents and harmful noise. If Japan and the U.S. are democratic nations, they should respect the will of the prefectural citizens and shift policy toward removal of all 24 deployed Ospreys and early closure and removal of Futenma air base.
Division Is Suicide
Prefectural governor Nakaima Hirokazu, the heads of all 41 municipalities and the entire parliament are opposed to the deployment of Ospreys. Even a public opinion poll in July of this year found that more than 80 percent of prefectural citizens were opposed to additional deployment. Opposition to relocation of Futenma within the prefecture rose to 74 percent.
The Japan-U.S. wall is thick, but there is no need to despair. At a symposium carried out by the Ryukyu Shimpo one year before the mandatory deployment, the mayor of Naha, chairman of the prefectural assembly and five representatives of the prefectural administration and parliament agreed on the continuation of bipartisan joint action toward the withdrawal of deployed Ospreys. As for the resolution of the Okinawa problem, the Okinawan public supports bipartisan unity, having learned from experience that division among the prefectural citizens is an act of suicide.
It is encouraging that, through pilgrimages to each prefecture and the U.N., assertive proposals have been made regarding the necessity of dispatching the burden of excess military bases. In particular, I want to put more pressure on the U.S. government and United Nations.
Since the 1996 Japan-U.S. Futenma air base restoration agreement, the bureaucracy and ruling party of this country, who cling to relocation within the prefecture and persist in following the rules without thinking, don’t have the backbone to reconsider and dispute the agreement with America.
The settlement of policy-making that threatens lives, human rights and property without regard for the wishes of prefectural citizens is an injustice that the Okinawan side can no longer overlook. There is little choice but to negotiate with the U.S. and seek the right to solve our own problems and carve out a better way of life.
Even after Okinawa’s reversion to Japan in ‘72, Japan and the U.S. imposed an excessive burden of military bases on Okinawa, trampling upon human rights. I want Governor Nakaima to represent 1.4 million prefectural citizens at the U.N. General Assembly’s Third Committee (human rights) in New York, complain of both countries’ unjust colonial policy-like maltreatment and call for human rights relief for prefectural citizens. If it’s possible to extract from the U.N. a recommendation for Japan and the United States to improve, it would be a great force for breaking through the Okinawa problem stalemate.
Caroline Kennedy’s appointment as the next U.S. ambassador to Japan is for the most part settled; her early visit to Okinawa, as well as pressure from a dispatch of the U.S. Congress and a government inquiry commission would be effective for exploring solutions.
Lessons from the Okinawa Reversion
In the 1960s, High Commissioner Paul W. Caraway, who was dismissive toward expansion of Okinawa’s autonomy, was no longer able to ignore the bipartisan movement to return Okinawa to Japan promoted by the Japanese and U.S. governments. Caraway suppressed the resistance of military authorities and changed the direction of Okinawa Reversion.
It has become clear through news reports and research regarding the Japan-U.S. relationship that U.S. Ambassador to Japan Edwin Reischauer strove to create a current within the U.S. government to return Okinawa’s administrative rights to Japan. Returning Futenma to Japanese control and withdrawing all Ospreys shouldn’t be impossible for Japan and the U.S., who accomplished the difficult undertaking of Okinawa Reversion.
Both governments offer “improvement of deterrence” as a reason for the deployment of Ospreys to Futenma. Benjamin Freeman, Ph.D. of the nonprofit organization Project on Government Oversight, however, points out that “The Osprey is not a supersonic fighter, but rather a mere transport aircraft. It has no ability to prevent an attack or invasion of Japan. Deterrence would be the responsibility of the already present air force.” He asserts that deploying Ospreys to Okinawa is “unnecessary.”*
Circumstances are changing. Japanese and U.S. security experts are increasingly skeptical about the military rationale for the Marine Corps presence in Okinawa and the relocation of Futenma within the prefecture. It is inhumane and sinful for both governments to avert their eyes from opinions that conflict with the Japan-U.S. agreement.
Japan and the U.S. should start fresh toward a fundamental resolution for the shutdown and removal of Futenma air base and Marine Corps withdrawal. Leaders of Japan and the U.S. mustn’t forget that democracy, rule of law and respect for basic human rights apply to Okinawa as well.
*Editor’s note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be sourced.
The Japan-U.S. Okinawa policy has all but transformed into colonial policy, exposing prefectural citizens to the U.S. military’s incidents, accidents and harmful noise. If Japan and the U.S. are democratic nations, they should respect the will of the prefectural citizens and shift policy toward removal of all 24 deployed Ospreys and early closure and removal of Futenma air base.
Division Is Suicide
Prefectural governor Nakaima Hirokazu, the heads of all 41 municipalities and the entire parliament are opposed to the deployment of Ospreys. Even a public opinion poll in July of this year found that more than 80 percent of prefectural citizens were opposed to additional deployment. Opposition to relocation of Futenma within the prefecture rose to 74 percent.
The Japan-U.S. wall is thick, but there is no need to despair. At a symposium carried out by the Ryukyu Shimpo one year before the mandatory deployment, the mayor of Naha, chairman of the prefectural assembly and five representatives of the prefectural administration and parliament agreed on the continuation of bipartisan joint action toward the withdrawal of deployed Ospreys. As for the resolution of the Okinawa problem, the Okinawan public supports bipartisan unity, having learned from experience that division among the prefectural citizens is an act of suicide.
It is encouraging that, through pilgrimages to each prefecture and the U.N., assertive proposals have been made regarding the necessity of dispatching the burden of excess military bases. In particular, I want to put more pressure on the U.S. government and United Nations.
Since the 1996 Japan-U.S. Futenma air base restoration agreement, the bureaucracy and ruling party of this country, who cling to relocation within the prefecture and persist in following the rules without thinking, don’t have the backbone to reconsider and dispute the agreement with America.
The settlement of policy-making that threatens lives, human rights and property without regard for the wishes of prefectural citizens is an injustice that the Okinawan side can no longer overlook. There is little choice but to negotiate with the U.S. and seek the right to solve our own problems and carve out a better way of life.
Even after Okinawa’s reversion to Japan in ‘72, Japan and the U.S. imposed an excessive burden of military bases on Okinawa, trampling upon human rights. I want Governor Nakaima to represent 1.4 million prefectural citizens at the U.N. General Assembly’s Third Committee (human rights) in New York, complain of both countries’ unjust colonial policy-like maltreatment and call for human rights relief for prefectural citizens. If it’s possible to extract from the U.N. a recommendation for Japan and the United States to improve, it would be a great force for breaking through the Okinawa problem stalemate.
Caroline Kennedy’s appointment as the next U.S. ambassador to Japan is for the most part settled; her early visit to Okinawa, as well as pressure from a dispatch of the U.S. Congress and a government inquiry commission would be effective for exploring solutions.
Lessons from the Okinawa Reversion
In the 1960s, High Commissioner Paul W. Caraway, who was dismissive toward expansion of Okinawa’s autonomy, was no longer able to ignore the bipartisan movement to return Okinawa to Japan promoted by the Japanese and U.S. governments. Caraway suppressed the resistance of military authorities and changed the direction of Okinawa Reversion.
It has become clear through news reports and research regarding the Japan-U.S. relationship that U.S. Ambassador to Japan Edwin Reischauer strove to create a current within the U.S. government to return Okinawa’s administrative rights to Japan. Returning Futenma to Japanese control and withdrawing all Ospreys shouldn’t be impossible for Japan and the U.S., who accomplished the difficult undertaking of Okinawa Reversion.
Both governments offer “improvement of deterrence” as a reason for the deployment of Ospreys to Futenma. Benjamin Freeman, Ph.D. of the nonprofit organization Project on Government Oversight, however, points out that “The Osprey is not a supersonic fighter, but rather a mere transport aircraft. It has no ability to prevent an attack or invasion of Japan. Deterrence would be the responsibility of the already present air force.” He asserts that deploying Ospreys to Okinawa is “unnecessary.”*
Circumstances are changing. Japanese and U.S. security experts are increasingly skeptical about the military rationale for the Marine Corps presence in Okinawa and the relocation of Futenma within the prefecture. It is inhumane and sinful for both governments to avert their eyes from opinions that conflict with the Japan-U.S. agreement.
Japan and the U.S. should start fresh toward a fundamental resolution for the shutdown and removal of Futenma air base and Marine Corps withdrawal. Leaders of Japan and the U.S. mustn’t forget that democracy, rule of law and respect for basic human rights apply to Okinawa as well.
*Editor’s note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be sourced.