Problems in Okinawa

Through the cooperation of the American and Japanese governments, which are aiming to relocate the Futenma American military air base to Henoko in Nago, a written report stating how the base will be built and positioned in its new location has been completed.

In a joint declaration made in May, when the two governments confirmed that they would be relocating to Henoko, they assumed that by using experts, they would have completed a full examination of whether this relocation was possible by the end of August. They are trying to get it over and done within the time allowed, and from the look of things, the two governments are sticking to what they said.

However, I don’t think we can definitely say the report is totally complete. Although land reclamation will be carried out in the construction, the runway issue — which is the deciding factor in the relocation plan — is stalled between Japan’s proposal of an I-shaped runway and the American’s V-shaped plan which is the present choice. The American government disapproves of the I-shaped runway.

On top of that, the Americans are requesting additional markings along the V-shaped runway so pilots can clearly see where they are going, but there is a feeling that this will only widen the gap between America and Japan.

Planes on the new route will land closer to onshore areas than the existing government had said they would; this will increase the noise pollution in the affected areas and hamper the premise of the original relocation plan. Re-assessing the environmental impact cannot be avoided either. The report shows that prolonged consultations have been had on this matter, but if such a significant change should come to happen at this time, the only thing it will do is heighten the distrust the locals already have.

In the end, the reality of things is that rather than the summary report moving things a step forward, it points out the American’s acceptance of the dawdling of the Naoto Kan administration — an administration concerned about the effect this will have on the Okinawa prefectural governor elections in November.

At the moment, the biggest unresolved problem between America and Japan is Futenma. Even with all the difficulties between the two countries that have been suspended, if we maintain an outlook that the current situation will change, then it still can. However, the reality is that not only are things not moving forward, but moreover, the path forward has become a steep one.

Deputy Governor of Okinawa Yoshiyuki Uehara, who accepted the explanation offered in the government’s written report, stated, “I will always accept that the relocation to Henoko is a matter of extreme difficulty.” Even from these words, you can read between the lines and see Okinawa’s strong resistance to the (central) government going ahead with plans without consulting the prefectural government.

In these circumstances, can we really say that the relocation to Henoko is a realistic plan? It doesn’t look as though the American and Japanese governments are going to be able to get the sympathy of the Okinawa locals, so regardless of how much progress is made in formulating procedures that both governments agree to, it is just not going to come to fruition.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who stated he would follow through with what was said in the joint declaration, has repeatedly spoken about reducing the burden on Okinawa, but there are no signs that he will be a strong leader and make that happen. Even if he postpones any action until after the prefectural elections, how successful will he be? At the end of all his stalling, if he retreats in desperation to the elections as an excuse, he is bound to stray again after them.

Moreover, elections for the representatives of the Democratic Party are even more unclear. Former Chief Secretary Ichiro Ozawa, who is running against Kan, has indicated intentions of a reconsultation between America and Okinawa, since this relationship is imperative to the harmony of America and Japan. However, whether this is a breakthrough or not is still unclear.

It has been hinted at that they might make revisions to their report. If they can’t come to an agreement to at least take another look at the joint declaration, will there be a way to break out of this impasse?