Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Red and Black
Sep 5, 2011

Yes, I know theres a Japan politics thread, but I feel that this issue is reaching a point where it's large enough to warrant it's own place for discussion.

What is Okinawa?

If you're looking to get into the minute details of Okinawa's past, here's a good resource. However, in a nutshell...
Okinawa is a small island to the southwest of Japan. The historical location of the old Ryukyu kingdom. It was invaded and colonized by the Japanese mainland in the 1600s during Japan's unification. If you're American you've probably heard of the Battle of Okinawa, a particularly bloody battle near the end of the US-Japanese war which killed about a quarter of the island's population. Immediately after the end of the second world war the former islands of the Ryukyu kingdom were separated from Japan, and put under US occupation.

The US originally intended to establish a democracy on the island but the newly elected government officials were going to implement a plan to re-unite with Japan and expel the US military. Thus, the US decided democracy wasn't so great after all, promptly deposed the newly elected leaders, and established a pseudo democracy that was really just US military rule. In the words of the previously cited historical work:

quote:

Okinawa was to be a showcase for democracy in Asia. In October 1949, Major General Josef R. Sheetz, the military governor, launched a two-pronged policy for Okinawa: economic recovery and democratization of government. The former was to be achieved by the construction of massive military complexes, the expenditue for which was to help the local economy. The latter was to be achieved by allowing Okinawans limited autonomy by popular election of the legislature and leaders in four island groups, Amami, Okinawa, Miyako, and Yaeyama.

However, implementation of the policy immediately ran into serious problems. Vast military complexes required the expropriation of land on a long-term basis. USCAR (the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyus), which replaced the U.S. military government, tried to purchase the land in fee simply with a single lump sum payment-- at a price it unilaterally determined. The proposal was rejected by the landowners at once, whereupon USCAR expropriated the land without the landowners' consent. When the landowners protested, they were met with rifles and tanks, and they ended up in jail while their homes were bulldozed.

[...]

In 1950, as part of the democratization plan, governors were elected in each of the four island groups. Taira Tatsuo, who won the most important gubernatorial election-- that of Okinawa-- advocated "reversion [to Japanese territory] now," a proposition adamantly opposed by USCAR. The newly-elected legislatures also followed suit. In April 1951, barely a year after their creation, the four regional governments were replaced by the Provisional Central Government of the Ryukyus, whose chief executive was now appointed by USCAR. A year later, in April 1952, it was made permanent as the GRI (Government of the Ryukyu Islands).

This state of affairs more or less continued until the 70's when the US was forced to allow Okinawa to re-unite with Japan under tremendous public pressure.

Despite the re-unification with Japan however, Okinawa was never able to rid itself of the US bases its population so vehemently opposed.

Eh, well a few US bases can't be that bad, right?

Take a look at this map from the Economist:



The US military holds approximately 20% of Okinawa's land. Despite constituting a small fraction of the population and land area of Japan as a whole, Okinawa hosts about half of the US soldiers in Japan, and about 75% of its military bases. US held areas include luxury facilities such as golf courses. A number of idiots below will try to claim this is about the Okinawans being woken up by jets at night. In reality however, the Okinawans oppose the military facilities for a number of reasons, including:

After one such incident of rape, the US agreed to move one of its bases (Futenma) to a new location. Unfortunately the US is trying to move the new base to Henoko bay, another location within Okinawa. Naturally the construction of the new base is being opposed.

Well if the Okinawans hate the US bases so much, why don't they vote the US off the Island?

They've certainly tried to some extent. Election after election has seen anti-base candidates thrust into power. But one way or another the US has tenaciously held its territory in Okinawa. In one instance, a Japanese Prime Minister (Yukio Hatoyama) who was elected on a promise to move the unpopular US base at Futenma out of Okinawa, was eventually made to go back on that promise under US pressure. Such stories are common in the post war history of Okinawa. It would seem the United States holds a tremendous amount of influence over the Japanese government. This is unsurprising given that the post-war government of Japan was literally built by the US.

What other horrible things have the US military/Japanese Government been up to?

I'm glad you asked because I wasn't sure where to put this. The Japanese government for its part has been cracking down on the Okinawans rather violently. Some protesters have ended up in the hospital as a result. The coast guard also seems to have developed a habit for taking protesting canoers and dumping them off shore, which is of course potentially lethal.

Several members of the US military have come forward to make statements on the issue. One Caleb D. Eames, a public affairs officer for the Marine Corps called the injuries suffered by the protesters "laughable". Robert Eldridge, deputy assistant chief of staff of government and external affairs for the U.S. Marine Corps accused to protestors of "hate speech" in an appearance on the far right news channel Sakura TV.

That's pretty interesting. Where can I find out more?

  • The Asahi Shimbun, which is sometimes called the "New York Times of Japan", provides excellent English language coverage of all issues related to Japan. Including the crisis in Okinawa.
  • The Japan Times, a prominent English newspaper in Japan. Look out for articles by Jon Mitchell, a Welsh journalist with a reputation for excellent reporting on Okinawa (Mitchell, was in fact the first journalist to uncover the US military's illegal dumping of the toxic chemical Agent Orange in Okinawa)
  • Ryukyu Shimpo: the local newspaper of Okinawa prefecture. Provides English language news.
  • Japan Focus: a political journal with articles written by experts in Japanese politics and international relations.
  • What's Happening in Okinawa? An activist blog which provides translations for Japanese language only articles on the situation in Okinawa.

What's happening right now?

Things are reaching a boiling point with the new base at Henoko. The recent elections brought a new anti-base governor Takeshi Onaga to power. In response to Onaga's election Shinzo Abe's government in Tokyo cut Okinawa's prefectural budget, and has refused to meet with the governor in person. The central government is currently constructing the base at Henoko under permission given by the former governor Hirokazu Nakaima, who was elected on a promise to oppose the base but changed his mind under pressure from Tokyo later on.

On March 23 Onaga ordered a halt to construction of the Henoko base on the grounds that the central government has broken provisions of the agreement it made with Nakaima. The central government quickly moved to invalidate Onaga's order on psuedo-legal grounds. It looks like Onaga will be going to Tokyo soon to discuss a solution with State Minister Shinichi Yamaguchi.

I'll update this post in the coming days as the situation continues to develop.

Update Apr 4th 2015: Chief Cabinet secretary arrives in Okinawa for Futenma base talks with governor

Red and Black fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Apr 5, 2015

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

GhostofJohnMuir
Aug 14, 2014

anime is not good
I see why they hate the current setup, but if the US does end up pulling out from all or most of the bases, doesn't their already poor population just get poorer? I mean ideally they develop the vacant land and this boosts their economy, but isn't the most likely scenario that things just get worse without soldiers blowing all their cash on stupid poo poo?

Red and Black
Sep 5, 2011

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I believe it's a question of long-term vs short-term economic prosperity. It would hurt the Okinawans economically in the short term. However, it's believed that in the long term, the benefits of expansion and development would outweigh the losses. Of course, the land use issue is just one of many reasons the Okinawans oppose the US bases, and not even particularly the most important one.

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich
It's worth noting that U.S. military bases are in Japan and supported by the Japanese government because Japan is constitutionally barred from creating a military force significant enough to hedge against China and Russia. Japan likely preferred the bases be located in Okinawa because during the cold war they were a primary nuclear target, among other factors.

Rent-A-Cop
Oct 15, 2004

I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

JeffersonClay posted:

It's worth noting that U.S. military bases are in Japan and supported by the Japanese government because Japan is constitutionally barred from creating a military force significant enough to hedge against China and Russia.
That's not really true. Japan can have a "self-defense force" which is a military in all but name. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is one of the more powerful navies in the world and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force can give anyone in Asia a run for their money. Both rock top of the line US hardware along with some impressive domestic systems.

Frankly the government in Tokyo cares more about having a bunch of American whoopass around to wave in China's face than it does about Okinawans getting woken up by jets.

Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Apr 1, 2015

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Frankly the government in Tokyo cares more about having a bunch of American whoopass around to wave in China's face than it does about Okinawans getting woken up by jets.

Bingo. The only battle for Okinawa was won by America, paid for in sweat and blood. Those bases are as American as apple pie and Guam, so boo hoo about locals getting woken up by our kickass military hardware. They don't like it? They can move or purchase the bases for, say, a few trillion. Enough to construct those facilities elsewhere.

There are far more important things in this world than an island of NIMBY-ism, such as containing any potential Chinese aggression towards Taiwan, and being able to provide disaster relief to tens of millions within days. Okinawans lost the war, and have to accept that land is forever American.

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

I see why they hate the current setup, but if the US does end up pulling out from all or most of the bases, doesn't their already poor population just get poorer? I mean ideally they develop the vacant land and this boosts their economy, but isn't the most likely scenario that things just get worse without soldiers blowing all their cash on stupid poo poo?

Chomskyan posted:

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I believe it's a question of long-term vs short-term economic prosperity. It would hurt the Okinawans economically in the short term. However, it's believed that in the long term, the benefits of expansion and development would outweigh the losses. Of course, the land use issue is just one of many reasons the Okinawans oppose the US bases, and not even particularly the most important one.
The idea is to turn Okinawa into a big trade hub. Tourism. Also IT call centers from shore to shore. :japan: From what I understand.

I think there's an argument to be made (although I'd have to look into it more) that the U.S. bases might actually contribute to poverty.

One way to think of it is like a college town. Big universities can be good for economic development -- it's not nothing. But they can also create slumming effects by taking up lots of land, and filling in the surrounding areas with poor and noisy students who rent and trash their properties. This is especially acute in smaller college towns in the U.S. (that have big state schools), as capital flows into the university and supporting businesses: pizza buffets, bars, tattoo parlors, tanning salons, etc. (Okay, small local businesses, but kind of dumpy ones.) Lots of young people in them (but watch out for young males in particular.) Housing prices stay low. Yeah, there are economic benefits, but it also artificially(?) distorts the market and pretty much turns the town into a slum.

You know what has a lot in common with college towns? Military towns. And that's kind of like Okinawa from what I understand, though I've never been there. But a lot of the economy is just centered around servicing the military base rather than something else that could be more productive.

Think of it like Sim City where you get a special building like a casino or military base, and you get some benefits from it, but it also drives the poverty and crime rate up near wherever you put it. Hey, that's not a bad comparison now that I think of it...

Rent-A-Cop posted:

That's not really true. Japan can have a "self-defense force" which is a military in all but name. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is one of the more powerful navies in the world and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force can give anyone in Asia a run for their money. Both rock top of the line US hardware along with some impressive domestic systems.

Frankly the government in Tokyo cares more about having a bunch of American whoopass around to wave in China's face than it does about Okinawans getting woken up by jets.
Well-integrated with the U.S., too. They use the same codes (which is like a separate military language both sides speak), train together all the time, etc. Since it's all U.S. hardware it links with the U.S. equipment from the airborne surveillance gizmos all the way down to the ships.

I think in terms of interoperability with the U.S., Japan is #1. Even ahead of U.S. allies like Britain in places like Afghanistan.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Apr 1, 2015

GhostofJohnMuir
Aug 14, 2014

anime is not good

Omi-Polari posted:

You know what has a lot in common with college towns? Military towns. And that's kind of like Okinawa from what I understand, though I've never been there. But a lot of the economy is just centered around servicing the military base rather than something else that could be more productive.

That may be true, but I have a hard time thinking of any small military towns I've heard of in which the base was shut down and then everyone nearby saw their local economy improve. Though they may very well exists and I just don't here about them because there isn't a problem to talk about.

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich

Rent-A-Cop posted:

That's not really true. Japan can have a "self-defense force" which is a military in all but name. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is one of the more powerful navies in the world and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force can give anyone in Asia a run for their money. Both rock top of the line US hardware along with some impressive domestic systems.

They are both a supplement to the U.S. military presence in Japan and lack the ability to project credible force against Say, China in the south China sea. Suggestions that the Self Defense Force should develop offensive capacity like fleet aircraft carriers that could credibly project force are considered pretty radical.

on the left
Nov 2, 2013
I Am A Gigantic Piece Of Shit

Literally poo from a diseased human butt

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

That may be true, but I have a hard time thinking of any small military towns I've heard of in which the base was shut down and then everyone nearby saw their local economy improve. Though they may very well exists and I just don't here about them because there isn't a problem to talk about.

Also, it's not exactly like the Okinawans are beloved by the Japanese people or politicians. Probably not much chance of major stimulus spending by the central government.

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

That may be true, but I have a hard time thinking of any small military towns I've heard of in which the base was shut down and then everyone nearby saw their local economy improve. Though they may very well exists and I just don't here about them because there isn't a problem to talk about.
Well, I don't want to generalize too much. And like I said, it's better than nothing. There's a lot of college towns that if the college went out of business, a lot of the businesses in the town would go under. It really depends on whether there are other more productive industries the area could engage in, but can't, because the college/military base is soaking up the land, capital, etc. A positive example I'm thinking of is demilitarizing the Presidio in San Francisco in the 1980s.

Now, to your point, Okinawa might just get poorer if the bases leave. (Apparently it has one of the highest poverty rates in Japan.) I couldn't imagine the Hawaiian economy improving if the U.S. military withdrew - that is one of the most military heavy places I've ever been. Okinawa is more of mystery to me since I don't know a lot about the peculiarities of the place. But just for sake of argument, it might not necessarily worsen the economy.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Apr 1, 2015

ninotoreS
Aug 20, 2009

Thanks for the input, Jeff!

Rent-A-Cop posted:

[The Japanese SDF] rock top of the line US hardware

Agreed on all parts of your post, but also keep in mind exactly why the above quoted is true... and how it would certainly cease to be true if the US and Japanese militaries ceased being so chummy, the intrusive presence on Okinawa definitely being part of that.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Frankly the government in Tokyo cares more about having a bunch of American whoopass around to wave in China's face than it does about Okinawans getting woken up by jets.

Exactly.



Some history insight: Japan allied with Nazi Germany in 1935 specifically because they feared Russia, and had designs on China. On their own and with a much larger military than what they have today, they did not feel secure against these potential enemies in their part of the world.

Fast forward to the present, and China is far more intimidating than ever before, and Russia under Putin has become brazenly imperialistic... all the while Japan also has on-going tensions with Russia over the Kuril Islands.

Or in other words, right now, especially, Japan has zero interest in weakening their ties with the US government and military.

ninotoreS fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Apr 2, 2015

7c Nickel
Apr 27, 2008
For all that the more nativist sections of Japan like to play it up, the crime rate for all foreigners in Japan (including military) is lower than the average Japanese.

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

That may be true, but I have a hard time thinking of any small military towns I've heard of in which the base was shut down and then everyone nearby saw their local economy improve. Though they may very well exists and I just don't here about them because there isn't a problem to talk about.

Even cities can get hosed over when military bases shut down. Look at what's happened to Vallejo after Mare Island Navy Yard closed.

Or Hunter's Point in San Francisco.

Homura and Sickle
Apr 21, 2013

Rent-A-Cop posted:

That's not really true. Japan can have a "self-defense force" which is a military in all but name. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is one of the more powerful navies in the world and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force can give anyone in Asia a run for their money. Both rock top of the line US hardware along with some impressive domestic systems.

Frankly the government in Tokyo cares more about having a bunch of American whoopass around to wave in China's face than it does about Okinawans getting woken up by jets.

While Japanese courts have repeatedly held that the constitutional restriction on establishing a military places no meaningful formal constraints on the Japanese military, it seems to have had the political effect of Japan limiting its military spending to 1% of its GDP pretty consistently. Since Japan is rich this still means that it has a fairly powerful military of course.

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"
Okinawans are also not considered to be Japanese by many Japanese, which complicates this.

David Corbett
Feb 6, 2008

Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world.

Jagchosis posted:

While Japanese courts have repeatedly held that the constitutional restriction on establishing a military places no meaningful formal constraints on the Japanese military, it seems to have had the political effect of Japan limiting its military spending to 1% of its GDP pretty consistently. Since Japan is rich this still means that it has a fairly powerful military of course.

Well, that's just it. Whether Japan can legally build itself a military, there is the issue of cost. The price of an effective military deterrent sufficient to replace the American presence in Okinawa is, presumably, vastly greater than the price of keeping the Americans there. So long as the calculus works out that way, I expect the base will stay.

Bolow
Feb 27, 2007

For clarification in case it wasn't obvious

MCAS Henoko is replacing MCAS Futenma because Futenma is in a rather built up area and Henoko is off in the middle of nowhere next to Camp Schwab.

Obdicut posted:

Okinawans are also not considered to be Japanese by many Japanese, which complicates this.

Okinawans don't consider them self Japanese either...

Red and Black
Sep 5, 2011

Whether the removal of Futenma from Okinawa would hurt the Okinawan economy, or the Japanese national defense are interesting questions. But they don't really change the underlying fact that the Okinawans should have the final say in whether a base is established on their island or not. Japan can find another place for the base outside the island if it really needs it, or if it can't find a place then maybe it should consider a more diplomatic approach to China. But at this point in time, nobody with any serious commitment to democratic principles can support the new base at Henoko. Okinawa has unambiguously demonstrated it's opposition to it.

Red and Black fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Apr 2, 2015

ugh its Troika
May 2, 2009

by FactsAreUseless
The Okinawans can complain about the US bases when they win the next world war. :smug:

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

-Troika- posted:

The Okinawans can complain about the US bases when they win the next world war. :smug:

Why the :smug: ? Its a valid view, and the correct one.

Bolow
Feb 27, 2007

Chomskyan posted:

Whether the removal of Futenma from Okinawa would hurt the Okinawan economy, or the Japanese national defense are interesting questions. But they don't really change the underlying fact that the Okinawans should have the final say in whether a base is established on their island or not. Japan can find another place for the base outside the island if it really needs it, or if it can't find a place then maybe it should consider a more diplomatic approach to China. But at this point in time, nobody with any serious commitment to democratic principles can support the new base at Henoko. Okinawa has unambiguously demonstrated it's opposition to it.

National Defense supersedes Democratic Principles in nearly every single circumstance. You're naive to think otherwise

Red and Black
Sep 5, 2011

Bolow posted:

National Defense supersedes Democratic Principles in nearly every single circumstance. You're naive to think otherwise

Nah, democratic principles, civil liberties, human rights, etc supercede "national defense" in virtually every circumstance.

Rent-A-Cop
Oct 15, 2004

I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Chomskyan posted:

Whether the removal of Futenma from Okinawa would hurt the Okinawan economy, or the Japanese national defense are interesting questions. But they don't really change the underlying fact that the Okinawans should have the final say in whether a base is established on their island or not. Japan can find another place for the base outside the island if it really needs it, or if it can't find a place then maybe it should consider a more diplomatic approach to China. But at this point in time, nobody with any serious commitment to democratic principles can support the new base at Henoko. Okinawa has unambiguously demonstrated it's opposition to it.
This is just NIMBYism in the language of democratic idealism. Part of being part of a larger democratic society is accepting that sometimes everyone else outvotes you on what is going to happen in your town.

Red and Black
Sep 5, 2011

Having just looked up NIMBYism, I disagree with that characterization of local sovereignty. That said, even if we grant to some extent that local development can and should be determined by a larger majority, it's clear that the situation in Okinawa is rooted in a more complex history than say, residents of a rural American town opposing a fracking operation.

For one, the U.S. military can't claim to have obtained the land hosting its bases on any reasonable legal grounds. They were literally taken at gunpoint. Also there's an element of proportionality to consider. Is it fair for Okinawa to host 75% of the USs bases in Japan given its small size? And on top of all that, is it really clear that this is what the majority of Japan wants? As mentioned in the OP, National politicians, including a prime minister, have been elected on promises to remove Futenma. Yes, they buckled under pressure from the U.S., but that doesn't change the way the public voted.

There's even more than that, but the above alone demonstrates enough nuance to make screaming "NIMBYism" an unsubstantial argument.

Killer-of-Lawyers
Apr 22, 2008

THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020
Lots of things get taken during a war at gunpoint and are upheld legally. Reparations, land, terms of surrender. I think it's a stretch to call it lawless.

suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!
"75% of bases" is not necessarily a good argument. If the US closed all bases except one on Okinawa, 100% of bases would be there. Anyway, why would it be better to sprinkle US bases all over the place instead of into one area in the first place :v:


btw nippon did nothing wrong in ww2

Red and Black
Sep 5, 2011

In terms of the actual amount of space that the bases occupy on the Island. Check out the map in the OP.

blowfish posted:

btw nippon did nothing wrong in ww2

The actions of Japan's military government during World War II completely justifies crimes and ongoing injustices committed against Japanese civilians.

Bro Dad
Mar 26, 2010


Chomskyan posted:

The actions of Japan's military government during World War II completely justifies crimes and ongoing injustices committed against Japanese civilians.

Yeah pretty much.

suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!
In the grim darkness of Realpolitik, there can only be V-22 Ospreys.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO
May 8, 2006
gently caress those sanctimonious Russians, thinking they can just hold onto their military bases in Crimea and boss around the rest of Eastern Europe, just for winning World War 2. The United States at least only sets up military bases when they're welcome, and is perfectly willing to leave when they're not.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

blowfish posted:

In the grim darkness of Realpolitik, there can only be V-22 Ospreys.

The future of first strike nuclear war demands them.

Red and Black
Sep 5, 2011

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

gently caress those sanctimonious Russians, thinking they can just hold onto their military bases in Crimea and boss around the rest of Eastern Europe, just for winning World War 2.

Maybe Ukraine should have thought about that before they did an unrelated bad thing in the past :smuggo:

semper wifi
Oct 31, 2007
:goonsay: WWII is irrelevant, literally tens of Okinawans are woken up by jets every day!

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro
If the ultimate point is the sovereignty of the Okinawans, then isn't the real issue here the Japanese colonization? While the US does exert extreme pressure about strategic concerns as I understand it, as described in the OP, it's not true that the US is ultimately behind keeping Okinawa poor from my understanding. Of course with the bases there and various strategic concerns, I have no doubt the US is using full pressure to keep them open, especially with the loss of Subic and the Philippines basing a decade or so back. Still, the argument always seems to be entirely, 100%, Japanese-people-have-no-agency about the US when, if my brief reading of articles after a Japan goon told me about Okinawa is correct, Japan took over Okinawa sometime during their post-Meiji Imperial phase, colonized it, displaced the peoples and have treated the Okinawans as a vassal nation in a vassal state ever since, keeping them poor through purposeful economic policies and, in concert with the US, ensuring unwanted problems like US basing landed squarely on the Okinawans and never on true Japanese territory.

If the Japanese granted them sovereignty and reversed their colonization then it stands to reason the Okinawans could make this sovereign choice. So, if we have the discussion in that context about Native Americans, First Nations peoples and Aboriginals, it seems only fair to give the Japanese the same level of respect they're due as a sovereign state run by Japanese citizens, since the colonization predates the American conquering and administration post-WWII by 3/4 of a century. At the same time, I'm guessing the Japanese aren't any keener to give Okinawa back to the Okinawans than they are to give Ainu homelands back to the Ainu and let them have a sovereign state of their own - or than Americans or Australians or Chinese or Russians or others are to return sovereignty to the indigenous groups they've colonized and either assimilated, exterminated or segregated into impoverished regions.

For what it's worth, I don't doubt the US continued manipulation of the Japanese government by any means necessary and I'd be happy to see a number of US bases there close assuming Japan's subtle push toward militarization continues. America's footprint there is a constant thorn for the local people, the Japanese and Americans. Fancy new aircraft carrier they just rolled out in Japan, by the way! I dig how they're slowly sneaking up on a full size supercarrier, heh. I just hate to see people treat other countries as if they don't have any control over their own affairs. I don't live in Japan, but I live in one such country and have spent extensive time in others and have learned first hand that anytime Westerners assume that the West is behind every single bad thing that happens it's because they're being ethnocentric. As with Madea, people around the world can do bad all by themselves.

p.s. - Just had Okinawan food last weekend and spam features prominently. USA! USA! USA! Reminds me of modern Pinoy food in that regard.

Bolow
Feb 27, 2007

Chomskyan posted:

The actions of Japan's military government during World War II completely justifies crimes and ongoing injustices committed against Japanese civilians.

Absolutely it does. The actions of that government prevent Japan from expanding its military. Or do you honestly think Korea, Vietnam, China or the Philippines are going to be totally ok with Japan ramping up its military presence in the region? There's an even lesser chance of China and Japan agreeing to something diplomatically.

Venom Snake
Feb 19, 2014

by Nyc_Tattoo
Well for one, the bases are never going to go away and thinking they ever will is insanity. The only real hope the people of the Island have in regards to not getting hosed by the U.S. military is the marines getting not-retarded leadership and or a change in the way we conduct discipline over seas.


Bolow posted:

Absolutely it does. The actions of that government prevent Japan from expanding its military. Or do you honestly think Korea, Vietnam, China or the Philippines are going to be totally ok with Japan ramping up its military presence in the region? There's an even lesser chance of China and Japan agreeing to something diplomatically.

Japan has already begun expanding it's military in the face of China's recent aggression, honestly the Japanese do not give a flying gently caress what any of the previously mentioned countries think and they probably never will. The Philippines and S Korea will tolerate it as long as the U.S. tells them to.

Pinch Me Im Meming
Jun 26, 2005
A two-state solution based on the 1945 borders. Except if the japanese start kamikazeing again?!

Bolow
Feb 27, 2007

Venom Snake posted:

Well for one, the bases are never going to go away and thinking they ever will is insanity. The only real hope the people of the Island have in regards to not getting hosed by the U.S. military is the marines getting not-retarded leadership and or a change in the way we conduct discipline over seas.

Is there anything specific discipline wise you have in mind? In my admittedly limited experience as a LCpl in Japan (Mainland not Okinawa), the SOFA agreement the US has with Japan is rather generous. If you hosed up enough out in town that the Japanese police had to get involved the base would basically go "He's all yours" and let the Japanese judicial system handle you. The biggest issue I saw is the whole college/military town thing. Except in a military town instead of having a bunch of nearly broke 18-20'somethings you have a bunch of 18-20'somethings that have next to no financial obligations and a source of steady decent income. Short of locking everyone down on base which poses severe morale problems there's nothing the leadership can do to enforce stricter discipline. The punishment for loving up out in town is as severe as the UCMJ allows, and nearly every single enlisted person that hosed up was made an example of. I've even had a friend who did everything by the book the instant he lost track of his liberty buddy and he still got loving hammered by our command because "THOU SHALT NOT BE IN TOWN BY THY SELF" *unless you're an E-4 or higher

Now obviously none of this matters for Officers but that's an endemic problem in the military as whole and not unique to Japan

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

ReindeerF posted:

If the ultimate point is the sovereignty of the Okinawans, then isn't the real issue here the Japanese colonization? While the US does exert extreme pressure about strategic concerns as I understand it, as described in the OP, it's not true that the US is ultimately behind keeping Okinawa poor from my understanding. Of course with the bases there and various strategic concerns, I have no doubt the US is using full pressure to keep them open, especially with the loss of Subic and the Philippines basing a decade or so back. Still, the argument always seems to be entirely, 100%, Japanese-people-have-no-agency about the US when, if my brief reading of articles after a Japan goon told me about Okinawa is correct, Japan took over Okinawa sometime during their post-Meiji Imperial phase, colonized it, displaced the peoples and have treated the Okinawans as a vassal nation in a vassal state ever since, keeping them poor through purposeful economic policies and, in concert with the US, ensuring unwanted problems like US basing landed squarely on the Okinawans and never on true Japanese territory.

If the Japanese granted them sovereignty and reversed their colonization then it stands to reason the Okinawans could make this sovereign choice. So, if we have the discussion in that context about Native Americans, First Nations peoples and Aboriginals, it seems only fair to give the Japanese the same level of respect they're due as a sovereign state run by Japanese citizens, since the colonization predates the American conquering and administration post-WWII by 3/4 of a century. At the same time, I'm guessing the Japanese aren't any keener to give Okinawa back to the Okinawans than they are to give Ainu homelands back to the Ainu and let them have a sovereign state of their own - or than Americans or Australians or Chinese or Russians or others are to return sovereignty to the indigenous groups they've colonized and either assimilated, exterminated or segregated into impoverished regions.

Is balkanization the goon solution to every problem? Give every ethnicity and/or geopolitical subdivision self-government?

  • Locked thread