Okinawan/ Ryukyuan Politics
By Jerry F. Barnes
Menso-re Uchinau
Welcome
The Ota Masahide Testimony: Okinawa's Declaration of Independence?
The Ota Testimony: Okinawa's Declaration of Independence?
Okinawa's dilemma
Governor Ota's long-run objective is Okinawa's self-determination of its own future befitting its historical identity as a peaceful, unamled trade-oriented, international nation- state. This vision collides with the current status of Okinawa in every conceivable way.
In Okinawa today, there are huge United States military bases with a dense concentration of offensive war potential and troop strength. There are also bases of Japanese Self-Defense Forces, though on more modest scales. [In Japanese law, the
SDFs are not "military" (guntai), though certainly "armed" forces. They are "legal", but their constitutionality is suspect.]
Okinawa, seen from outside as a whole, is armed to the teeth, contrary to the new chances for peace in the post-Cold War world. Because its round-the-clock readiness for military action is no signal for peaceful co-existence with neighboring countries, Okinawa contributes to international tension in Asia.
The hypothetical "enemy" against which the U.S. and Japan maintain bases in Okinawa will in due course attain sufficient military capability to strike at these bases. This portends the destruction of vast areas of Okinawa. Governor Ota's top priority, therefore, is to rid Okinawa of all military bases and all instruments of war. Okinawa's determination not to cooperate with bellicose schemes of any country is the first step toward its own safety.
Not only do the bases contradict the global trends, but also they are a perfect antithesis of Okinawa's national character. Unfortunately, what Okinawa can and should be in
light of its history and cuhure is overridden by external forces that arbitrarily define and enforce the role of Okinawa as they see fit. Governor Ota, with his profound knowledge ofOkinawan history, explodes the myth that Okinawa is a keystone in the East Asian military security.
Tragedy of Okinawan history
The historical background noted by Governor Ota in his testimony begins with Okinawa Prefecture's previous incarnation, the RyukYU Kingdom, which was forcibly annexed by Meiji Japan by the process called Ryukyu shobun (punishment ofRyukYU). This clearly implies that the origin of Okinawa Prefecture within the Japanese State was a Japanese military aggression on another independent Asian State - the Ryukyu Kingdom.
According to Governor Ota, Okinawa's military base problem began with the Meiji government's dispatch and stationing ofan army unit in Okinawa at the time of the Ryukyu shobun. During the Second World War, the Japanese military expanded the bases by forcing the Okinawan landowners, most of them farmers, to cooperate for national defense.
1
During the period of infamous totalitarian militarism. non-cooperation with the military would have been an act of treason. However, the terms of the "cooperation"
were not fully explained to, nor well understood by, the landowners at the time. After the fact, it was clear that the cooperation meant a permanent expropriation of the lands by the state.
After the reversion of Okinawa to Japan, the former landowners initiated a lawsuit to recover their property rights, but the courts ruled, without evidence, that the landowners had voluntarily transferred their properties to the state. Today, the private land taken by the wartime Japanese military is an important part of the lands on which the American military bases in Okinawa are sited.
Thus, there is an astonishing degree of continuity in the history of violations by the state ofOkinawans' property rights between prewar Imperial Japan and the postwar U.S. administration of Okinawa. What particularly galls Okinawans is that the thoroughly reformed and redeemed postwar Japan was enjoying the benefits of the new democratic, pacifist Constitution while Okinawa was agonizing under a U.S. military dictatorship.
By admitting Okinawa to, or excluding it from. the jurisdiction of its Constitution under the dictates of political expediency, Japan is signaling, if ironically, its deep-seated implicit assumption that Okinawa is different from Japan proper - the "real" Japan. Promises are easily made and just as easily broken as the directions of political winds change as in the case of the Japanese Diet's resolution at the time of the reversion to substantially reduce and re-align the U.S. bases in Okinawa. The lies of the Japanese government put Okinawans on an emotional roller coaster oscillating between high expectations and deep disappointments. Japanese policy toward Okinawa amounts to a perpetual psychological torture.
Between 1945 and 1972, Japan placed Okinawa under the U.S. occupation and administration. [That Japan positively wanted a long-term U.S. occupation of Okinawa was even expressed by the Showa emperor in the fall of 1947, which although no one cared at the time, should have been a major scandal under the new Constitution that a few months earlier made the emperor a mere "symbol of the state."]
During the long period of American occupation, the U.S. military needs were paramount in Okinawa. The 1972 reversion did not affect the status of the U.S. bases. Japan easily conceded to the U.S. a continued free hand in the use of the bases. [The numerous memoranda on agreements on the use of the U.S. bases in Okinawa are still classified. Part of them are disclosed from time to time, suspiciously tailored to political needs.] The superficial difference between before and after the reversion is that the American military, instead of governing 100% of Okinawa, now occupy 20% of land and vast areas of the skies and waters. Activities of the military bases spillover into the civilian areas further restricting Okinawans' living space and disrupting their life schedules. De facto occupation still continues, despite the fact that Okinawa now is a part of "sovereign" Japan.
2
Nominally legal, substantively unconstitutional
Americans are generally unaware that a large part of the land used for the bases today comprises privately owned plots that the U.S. military seized without due process in peace time years after the hostilities ceased.
The treaties, agreements and secret memoranda exchanged between Japan and the
United States and the Japanese laws that implement them (which were enacted without
Okinawan representation) have created a fa~ade of legality for the continued occupation . of Okinawa's land by the United States despite its substantively unconstitutional origins. More than 50 years after the war, Okinawa's "postwar" has never come to an end. In the ever-lengthening shadow of the past, there is no future for Okinawa. [Compare this with the end of "postwar" in Japan proclaimed by the Japanese government in the late 1950s. What a contrast!]
Governor Ota frequently returns to the principles of government embodied in the
Japanese Constitution as standards by which the merits of treaties and laws should be judged. Prior to 1972, by detaching Okinawa from the jurisdiction of its own
Constitution, Japan allowed the circumstances to develop in which the human and civil rights of Okinawans were greatly undermined, and on occasion, clearly violated. Had the legal environment of Okinawa before 1972 been the same as the rest of Japan, the
processes that created the American military bases in Okinawa would have been clearly illegal.
As Okinawans see it, the most serious violation of the Constitution was Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that detached Okinawa Prefecture from Japan and gave unbridled powers to rule to the United States. While the effects of this article
disappeared with the reversion of Okinawa to Japan, the unconstitutional and illegitimate administration of Okinawa by the United States has left behind numerous anomalies that need to be repaired in the interest of , 'justice" to Okinawans. The Supreme Court could clear the air by examining the whole history of U.S. and Japanese actions in Okinawa in the light of the Constitution. Governor Ota hoped that the case he was appealing was an opportunity for the Supreme Court to come up with a judgment that might long stand the test of time and history as a proof of justice done to Okinawans. His hopes were dashed.
Back to politics
If the laws and courts of Japan cannot do justice to Okinawa, relief must of necessity come from politics. This means that nothing in the area of , 'rights" can be attained and
that Okinawa is once again thrown back on the arena of political horse-trading in which
rules and customs are already rigged against it. Politics debases aspirations to rights and justice by shifting the game to dealings in pork barrels and trade-offs. Throughout the court battles over two years, Governor Ota maintained that his struggle was not about
conditions of settlement (joken 1050), but about justice under the Constitution. Neither
3
judges nor politicians understand the anguished plea ofOkinawans. Okinawa is forever forced to cooperate with the unjust regime ofD.S. -Japan Mutual Security.
Toward self-determination
Given the political biases the Japanese state against Okinawa, Okinawans are amply justified to attempt an escape from captivity in such a state. Governor Ota' s Okinawa Prefectural Governments has recently taken a few major steps in this direction. In his testimony, he mentions two projects that Okinawa Prefecture has generated "of its own will". One is an "Action Program for the Return of the Bases." The other is a "Grand
Design of an International City, Okinawa."
The land and resources released from the bases will be fed into the grand design to transform Okinawa into an international city. Detailed land-use plans assign well- conceived roles and functions to areas now occupied by the bases. The proposed
schedule of base closures envisages the return to Okinawa of all the land under military occupation by 2015.
From Japan, Okinawa wants an enhanced home rule for self-determination of its own future. Okinawa wants to transform itself into an "international" city, not a "Japanese" city. Okinawa has legitimate claims to its distinct identity. All the "special" treatments (most of them "specially" bad) that Okinawa has historically received from Japan speak of how different Okinawa is from Japan. Okinawa now demands "special" treatments that are good for Okinawa and formulated on its terms.
The international status desired by Okinawa requires a whole host of exceptions to the Japanese system of center-local relations. "International Okinawa" must allow free movements of people, goods, money, information, etc. between Okinawa and the rest of the world. A plethora of regulations and border controls must go.
The vision: Foreigners enter or leave Okinawa freely without visas; foreign corporations and financial institutions operate in Okinawa as freely as in most liberal countries of the world; Okinawa is empowered to play an independent diplomacy over a wide range of economic and cultural exchanges; Okinawa functions as a hub for al sorts of transport and communications networks; and so on.
To make all this palatable to the Japanese, Okinawans have coopted the Chinese slogan, "One Country, Two Systems." The Japanese are generally receptive to international precedents. In recent years, even the most Japanocentric circles Qf
Japanese leadership such as the state bureaucracy and the conservative political wings recognize the desirability of restructuring as a new cure for the perceived ills of Japanese economy and society. "Okinawan independence" can be seen as part of these structural reforms for Japan. Ironically, for better or for worse, Okinawa ends up serving the interest of Japan!
4
Ota Masahide
Jerry F. Barnes
Started counting 02 December 2001
Last Update or revision: 02 December 2001
Nihe de Biru (Nifee dee bire)
Thank You
Return to Okinawa/Ryukyu Political Index
Okinawa/Ryukyuan Political Index
Return to Jerry's Memories of Okinawa Page
Memories of Okinawa