Prime Minister Revisits Okinawa to Enact Burden Reduction Measures

Prime Minister Naoto Kan visited Okinawa for the second time since he took office.

The prime minister held a conference with Prefectural Governor Hirokazu Nakaima concerning the relocation problem of the United States Marine Corps Futenma Air Station. Mr. Kan first apologized for the previous Hatoyama administration’s lack of focus, then turned to the topic of base relocation to Henoko in Nago City. He stated that, “When considering feasibility, it (the relocation) is the better option,” and sought sympathy for the administration’s plan to realize the Japan-America agreement. The prefectural governor replied, “I have a public promise to relocate the base outside the prefecture,” and the discussion ended with both sides as far apart as ever.

After the conference, the prefecture governor showed discomfort with the prime minister’s wording, saying that, “While it would be ‘good’ to get a relocation within the prefecture, that cannot be classified as the ‘best’ option. Okinawa feels it has been through a succession of ‘bad’ events.”

On the other hand, the prime minister had two ideas regarding the batch of subsidies for the region being introduced from next year’s budget. He conveyed the idea that Okinawa Prefecture be taken as a special case for the continuation of favorable measures, and also declared plans to enact new methods to replace the special pro-Okinawa measures that will end next year.

The prime minister may be stressing supportive measures for Okinawa because he has a desire to make this a breakthrough and open a path for a Henoko relocation for Futenma Air Station. This is an improvement toward an environment suited to fulfilling the Japan-America agreement.

But the techniques around since the age of the LDP administration of exchanging pro-Okinawa policies for the forcing of an “excessive burden” of American military bases on Okinawa are at their limit. Okinawa is presently full of doubt as to whether the prefecture can take the burden of the security guarantee for all of Japan. Some have called this “discrimination toward Okinawa.” If there are no efforts to bury the consciousness of a distinction between the mainland and Okinawa, we will not reach a solution to the relocation problem, regardless of the emphasis on positive measures.

Since the inauguration of the Kan administration, we have seen no real progress in the Futenma problem. In Nago City, following the appearance of the mayor who is putting up opposition to the acceptance of a January relocation, the mayor’s party won in the September city council elections. The prefectural assembly has also voted for a relocation outside of the prefecture. And now even Prefectural Governor Nakaima, who formerly approved of a conditional Henoko relocation, changed his policy to “relocation outside of the prefecture” after last month’s gubernatorial election. The gap between the Kan administration’s expectations and the reality in Okinawa just keeps getting bigger.

Nevertheless, the prime minister was yet again unable to present a course of action to the prefecture for a break in the deadlock over the Futenma problem. It is difficult to imagine Okinawa converting to an acceptance of “relocation within the prefecture” in the near future. What is left behind is the cementing of the danger to the residents of the areas surrounding Futenma Air Station.

If the situation remains as it is, questions may arise from both the U.S. and Okinawa as to whether the Kan administration has a serious interest in resolving the problem.

In the Japan-America agreement, concrete burden reduction plans are included with the Henoko relocation. It repeatedly requests burden reduction measures (such as the relocation of U.S. military training drills to outside of the prefecture or country) and serious consideration for the prior implementation of measures to be separate from the relocation problem.