Japan's Prime Minister's Pearl Harbour Visit

    Prime Minister Abe Shinzo made a visit to the American naval base Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, on 27 December, local time.  It was this base that the Japanese naval air force attacked on 7 December 1941, where 2,400 Americans died, thus bringing America into a war.  In Japan the war is usually thought to have started on 8 December.

   After making a visit to the memorial built on the sunken battleship Arizona, Abe made a speech. It was essentially a speech of condolences meant for the Americans.  There were no words of regret, let alone of apology.  The visit itself was described as the return visit to Mr. Obama's Hiroshima visit earlier this year.

   The speech is bound to raise several questions.  First, he talked of Japan sticking to the principle of peace.  He said nothing of the sort in concrete terms, however.  Rather he talked of the episode of a Japanese Zero pilot who died there on that day and was later buried by the Americans with appropriate military honour.  He said the brave respect the brave.  He likes to talk on these topics more.

   More seriously, he talked of the firm Japan-US alliance, and called it the alliance of hope.  But it is a military alliance.  If it is not against China it is against whom?  In the meeting with Mr. Obama prior to the speech, Abe nodded on the ongoing construction of the huge and permanent US base in Okinawa. This is a dreadful scenario.

   Above all, he said nothing on the nature of the war Japan forced on the US on that day.  Why did we have to fight the US, or for that matter with Britain and the Netherland also, when we were already fighting China?  It was because we were not winning in China, and desperately tried to do so by defeating the US.  It was a hopeless war from the beginning.  It was the Asian nations that really suffered.  In fact the Japanese landed on British Malaya(Malaysia) one hour before attacking Pearl Harbour.  Abe's speech will not go far in convincing the Asian nations.          

Toward Banning Nuclear Weapons

     On 23 December the UN General Assembly voted to convene a conference at the UN to negotiate a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.  It will be convened for 15 days during 27 to 31 March and 15 June to 7 July, 2017. All the member countries are invited to participate. The next General Assembly, 72nd, beginning in September 2017, will be hearing the results of the negotiation.  Not only the Governments but those representing the civil society will also be participating.

     What a fine Christmas present it was!  The proposal was based on an earlier one which had been voted in the First Committee of the General Assembly on 27 October.  Further, it had been based on the enthusiastic hopes and wishes of the innumerable number of people all over the world who sincerely wanted to see a nuclear-free world.  Biological weapons were already banned in 1975, and the chemical weapons in 1997. Now is the time for the nuclear weapons.

     Predictably the voting was not without some disappointment.  There were 113 for and 35 against, with 13 abstentions. All the Permanent Members of the Security Council, except China who abstained, voted against it.

     Probably more startling was the fact that Japan, the only country victimized by the nuclear weapons in a war, voted against it.  It did so also on the previous October proposal.  The Government is saying that it is because the proposal will make the distance between the nuclear powers and others wider.  It is an ill-concealed excuse for following the US policy, and is bound to intensify the political divide in Japan.
     

State of Scientific Research in Japan

    A few days ago, Prof.Kajita Takaaki of the University of Tokyo, who got the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2015, gave an interview to a newspaper in which he warned against the ongoing tendencies in fundamental research in this country.

    First of all he said that the number of published articles in the field from Japan used to be the second in the world, but it has come down to the 5th.  The articles coming from China are fast increasing.

    Then he said that the budget has been shrinking, and as the result the number of the posts for the professors and associate professors is decreasing.  Even more alarming is that the number of research assistants is decreasing more fast.  If you look at the teaching staff below the mid-40s in his University, those without tenure are occupying more than half.  This is a condition absolutely unfavourable for the basic research.

    There are two aspects to the fundamental research.  One is it will be useful to the life of the people in the long run.  The second is it will help construct the intellectual property of the whole of the mankind.  Therefore one cannot expect it to be of immediate use.

     Prof.Kajita also referred to what Prof.Oosumi Yoshinori, from the Tokyo Institute of Technology, who had just got the Nobel Prize for Physics or Medicine for 2016, said on the importance of fundamental research.  I had an opportunity of hearing Prof.Oosumi's 50-minute acceptance speech the previous night, 10 December.  May I add a few things from the speech.

     The speaker talked about such things as 'protein synthesis', 'vacuole', 'autophagy', 'genes', or 'degradation'.  At the same time he mentioned, with gratitude', the names of a number of his collaborators, including some women, his wife among them.  He talked about the relation of cooperation in research and the division of labour.  He discussed the relevance of 'autophasy', and concluded by saying 'the research is continuing'.  The whole speech was an encouragement of the fundamental research by Oosumi, who called himself, with apparent pride, as 'a basic scientist'.         

Indo-Japanese Nuclear Cooperation

     There was a significant development in the Indo-Japanese relations earlier this month.  On 11 November the Prime Ministers of the two countries, in their third meeting, signed an agreement enabling Japan to export nuclear power plants to India.  This was when the serious accidents at Fukushima are not able, and are unlikely to do so, to see the light of the day, India is still outside the NPT system, and is steadily developing her nuclear arsenal.  This was also when the environmentalists and other citizens of India are up against the ongoing construction of some new nuclear plants here and there in their country.  It is apparent that it was with the interests of the plant manufacturers of Japan in view.  Many hibakusha(radioactivity-affected people), together with others, prominent among them the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are raising their voices against the agreement.

     Looked at from a different angle, there is no doubt that the agreement is a part of, if not exactly a joint encirclement of China, but then at least of a politico-strategic arrangement with China in view.  As such it must have satisfied the ruling elites of both the countries.

     The joint statement by the two PMs, made public on the same night, also said that the military cooperation between the two countries would be closer.  At the same time it said that Japan would help India to have Shinkansen-type bullet trains in different parts of India.  As the first step Japan would build it in Western India, in the 500 km distance between Mumbai and Ahmedabad.  This is one of the busiest sectors of transport in India today.  Also the latter is where the Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi comes from.  The next day, 12 November, Mr. Abe took Mr. Modi as far as to Kobe to take a look at such a bullet train workshop there.

     Would the Shinkansen solve the transport problem in India?  On 20 November there was the worst-ever train accident in the Indian history in Northern India, killing more than 150 people.  In my view what is really needed is to make the infrastructure, railway and road both, much more solid, resilient, and accident-free.  The bullet trains may serve the business people better, but will hardly help the commuters and other common people who make up the congestion.   

The US Presidential Elections 2016

     In several hours' time the Americans will start voting for the new US President.  The writer is not able to predict which of the main contenders will win, let alone by roughly what margin.  He, however, wonders if, whichever of the two may win and by whatever margin, he/she may leave a very large group of American people un-accommodated into the new regime that he/she is going to construct.  In that sense the US will be seen more sharply split than in the present Obama era. And this is after an enormous amount of energy and money are spent, or rather wasted.

     In fact what is it that has been going on for more than several months until today? Have we heard any serious debate on the policies?  We cannot call policies such hollow words like, for example, 'Together let us make history', or 'Let us make America great again'.  Hopefully the voters will not be misled by those words designed to hide the contenders' real programmes.

     Take, for example, the issue of security in our part of the world, the Far East.  One of the two said that the existing security arrangements should be adhered to, and strengthened.  I would say, by all means no. That kind of policy has not helped to ease tension here in the least. Moreover, look at what is going on in Okinawa in Japan at this moment.  They are building a huge permanent military base.  The whole country is being Okinawanized in various ways.

     The other contender is of the opinion that the US allies like Germany and Japan are not paying toward the maintenance of the US military, and the US should stop defending them.  You are very much welcome to do so.  It will mean a lot towards the cause of peace in and around those countries.

     Unfortunately what this contender says is not correct.  Japan is paying several billions per annum for the maintenance of the US forces.  This is a huge amount which could have been spent on more constructive purposes.  Moreover this is the money Japan need not pay according to the terms of the treaties and other arrangements between the US and Japan.  So they are begging, and we are hopelessly subservient.

     For those and many other such reasons, none of the main contenders is desirable for the most important post in the world.  Whoever wins, he/she must take the interests of the vast and growing under-privileged masses and middle classes into serious consideration.  That is all I can say at this late hour, though hopefully it is not too late.                

The Month of Atomic Bombs

     It was in the month of August, 1945, that the two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on 6 and 9, respectively.  This is the last day of August, so I feel obliged to write a few things on the subject to pay my tribute to the dead.

     On these days this year, the commemoration ceremonies were performed as usual in these cities.  The mayors, some hibakusha(radioactivity-affected persons), some guests of honour including the Prime Minister, addressed the audience, and the list of the names who had passed away during the past year was dedicated to the Tomb of the dead.  In Hiroshima the number of those newly dead was 5,511, making the total 300, 3195.  In Nagasaki the number was 3, 487, bringing the total to 172, 230.  One may say, therefore, that the number of the nuclear victims is approaching half a million.  The surviving hibakusha, on the other hand, has naturally been on the decline, at present numbering about 174,000.  Their average age is 81.

     Among the addresses those by the two Mayors are far more important.  They are known as the Proclamation for Peace.  Naturally there are some overlapping points in their speeches.  Both referred to the Constitution of Japan, which is under attack by some conservatives in the country, as embodying the ideal of peace.  Both have highly evaluated the visit of President Obama to Hiroshima earlier this year, and have invited others to come and visit their cities.  Both have stressed the need for the legal framework for prohibiting the nuclear weapons.  And both have expressed their apprehension on the dwindling number of hibakusha who are still able to tell their experience to the coming generations.

     Besides, three points put forward by the Mayor of Hiroshima are worth noting.  First, he said that there were Koreans, Chinese, Southeast Asians and even American POWs among the victims.  Second, he referred to the discrimination the survivors had to go through from their radioactive injuries. Third, he demanded that the 'black-rain region' as recognized by the Government should be expanded so that more people might be certified as victims.  In Hiroshima, shortly after the explosion, heavy black rain fell over a wide area and thereby contaminated many persons.  So far the Government has recognized a fairly narrow region as such to help certify the hibakusha.  Recent researches have shown, however, that the actual region may well be three to four times as wide.      

     It was, however, the Mayor of Nagasaki who emphasized much more strongly what should be done by Japan and other countries to move forward to the abolition of nuclear weapons.  He not only stressed the need for an international legal framework for such an action.  (By the way, on 19 August a UN working group voted by a majority a recommendation to the UN General Assembly that a discussion on such a framework should commence in 2017.  All the African, Latin American-Caribbean and Southeast Asian countries voted for it. Japan, I am ashamed to say, abstained.  All the nuclear powers, including DPRK, did not participate.  The DPRK acted in the same way as the 'imperialists' that she criticized.  The NATO countries opposed.  The voting also shows the unequal character of the NPT, and the futility of the military alliances like NATO and Japan-US alliance.)

     The Mayor of Nagasaki also criticized the nuclear powers which are trying to replace the existing weapons with more capable ones.  He further said that the Japanese Government is contradicting itself by following the policy of nuclear deterrence, and stressed that the idea of the 'Nuclear-free Northeast Asia' be seriously considered.    

Some Electoral Issues in Japan

     On 10 July, this coming Sunday, we in Japan are going to elect half of the members of our Upper House for a term of six years.  They are elected either Prefecture-based electoral district wise, or in accordance to the proportion of the votes the various political parties get.  Each voter has got two votes, one for the district-wise voting and one for the party-wise voting.  A great characteristic this time is that the voting age has been lowered from 20 to 18.

     Our Upper House is not as powerful as the Lower House.  It means that as long as the majority of the Lower House is in the hands of the LDP-Komei Party coalition as it is at present, the electoral result this week-end will not bring about a change in the Government no matter what the result is going to be.  Still, it is much more powerful than in the British system, and it is possible that the result will greatly influence the political situation.

     The biggest electoral issue is economic, or rather the Government parties are trying to make it that way.  They are making the best of what they call the success of 'Abenomics'.  But has it been a success?  Are the fruits of it trickling down to the less privileged people from the hands of the well-to-do?  Are not the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

     The Prime Minister is boasting that the tax revenue has increased tremendously(by Yen 21,000 billion) over the past four years, showing the upward trend of the economy.  As has been pointed out by the critics, however, the condition of our economy was at its worst four years ago because of the world-wide depression and the great earthquake in Eastern Japan, and naturally the tax revenue was at a low level.  Moreover there has been a 3 % rise in consumption tax accounting nearly 40 % of the above tax increase.

     There are a few significant indices which Abe would not like to talk about.  He talks, for example, about achieving an increase in employment.  But most of them belong to unstable, low-paid, irregular work force.  They are called, and call themselves, "working poor".  This is persistently bringing down the wage-level for several years by now.  Simultaneously the level of personal consumption has gone down for the first time for two consecutive years for 2014-5.

       Under the circumstances the Government had to postpone the 2 % more rise in consumption tax planned for the next year.  But together they are going to introduce cut here and there in the social service sector.  They have also lowered the corporation tax, and the income tax on the rich.

     What is being fought in the electoral battle at present is not only the "Abenomics".  There are the questions of collective self-defence, the construction of the new US base at Okinawa, Constitutional Amendment centred around the Article 9, nuclear energy, TPP, and so on.  They are closely interrelated.  Put together they are likely to break, and are to a large measure already breaking, the opinion in this country into two halves.  We have somehow to go through this fire.   

Did Obama Give A Message for Nuclear Disarmament at Hiroshima?

     There is a large Peace Park, as we call it, at the centre of Hiroshima city.  Mr. Obama spent about 50 minutes in its compound in the evening of 27 May 2016.  He saw the Museum, laid a wreath at the tomb of the deceased by the Bomb, talked to a couple of hibakusha (survivors), watched what is known as the Atomic Dome at some distance.  Above all he made a speech, said to be 17-minute long, which was no doubt broadcast all over the world.  What did he say then?

 

     He said, 'We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans and a dozen Americans held prisoner.'  And also, '...the memory of the morning of August 6, 1945 must never fade.'   So far very good.

     He talked about two hibakusha in high esteem.  '...the woman who forgave the pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized what she really hated was war itself; the man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own.'  Very moving words.

     About the nuclear disarmament, he said, and this is what we wanted to hear, that 'Among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.'  Very encouraging.  

     But he continued that 'We may not realize this goal in my lifetime'  This is exactly what he said at Praha seven years ago.  It is as if there has been no progress on his part.  Why is it so?

     I think we may find the reason in a different portion of his speech, where he said that 'And since that fateful day we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan forged not only an alliance...'.  This is a military alliance and both Japan and the US are committed to the doctrine, of cold-war origin and long outdated, of nuclear deterrence.  As long as you stick to that theory how could you be expected to move ahead toward the nuclear-free society?  

     In another part also Obama said that 'We may not be able to eliminate man's capacity to do evil, so nations and the alliances that we formed must possess the means to protect ourselves'.  Here he speaks of the alliances in a plural form, which suggests that all the alliances are based on the above-mentioned theory.

     Thus, regrettably, we may have to conclude that Mr. Obama has given no clear desire, let alone a plan, for nuclear disarmament.  This goes against the high hopes and expectations of millions of people who watched him speak at no other place than Hiroshima the day before yesterday evening. 

  

 

A Murder again in Okinawa

     Just on the eve of Mr. Obama's visit to Japan, a horrible thing has been found in connection with the US military stationed in Okinawa Prefecture.  A 20-year old Japanese girl, working and living in Okinawa with her fiance, has been missing since 28 April.  On 19 May the police apprehended a 32-year old American male, who followed her, raped her, stabbed her, seized her by the throat, and finally left her body in the forest.  He was an ex-Marine stationed in Okinawa, and was working at a US base as an  engineer.

     The Coordinator of the four US services in Okinawa, together with the US Consul-General, called on the Deputy Governor of the Prefecture to offer their apologies.  Japan's Foreign Minister called the US Ambassador, Madame Kennedy, to his office to protest.  Again a word was given for observing stricter discipline in and out of the US Bases.  But those words have never been kept.  The heinous crimes by the US soldiers or ex-soldiers in Okinawa, such as murder, rape, burglary and arson, have been continuing to occur at the rate of more than a dozen a year.

     Why is it so?  It is because those Americans are not there to defend Japan, but to be deployed in whatever wars and operations the US may start in wherever part of the world.  In other words they are being trained there to kill, not to live and let live, with scarcely any concern with such a thing as the human rights.  Therefore as long as they are there the residents are in danger.  They are not wanted.

     The funeral of the girl was held, and was attended by hundreds of people, among them the Governor of Okinawa, Mr. Onaga.  Many of her former high school-mates were seen in tears. Japan's Prime Minister, Mr. Abe is going to accompany Mr. Obama to Hiroshima.  This would otherwise have added his prestige.  But if he does not put a strong protest now, which he is not very likely to do, his reputation will be greatly damaged.      

Obama's Hiroshima Visit

     President Obama, who made a famous speech at Praha, hoping for a nuclear-free world shortly after his inauguration in April 2009, is coming to Hiroshima on 27 May, on his way home from the Summit meeting at a different part of Japan, it was announced on 10.  This is going to be the first as an incumbent US President.  That should by itself be meaningful.  First an American Ambassador to Japan, followed by other high officials, and finally Secretary John Kelly earlier this year, visited the city so far.  The US must have admitted that now the ground has been prepared for the Presidential one.

     Everyone in Japan would hope that he would visit Nagasaki city also. What is more important is what he is coming for even if it is only Hiroshima.  Is it only symbolic in some sense, as a State Department spokesperson said?  Of course some may think that the visit itself is an expression of an apology.  But I would not deem a visit itself as an apology.  I strongly feel that if Obama comes empty-handed, so to speak, if his visit simply contributes to the status quo of the global nuclear weapons situation, it will make more harm than no visit at all.

     If Obama wants to be true to his Praha speech, made in the full view of the whole world, he must say something at Hiroshima which is reflective on the past, or would make the humanity more hopeful for the future.  For one thing he may well express regret on the dropping of the bombs.  After all the US has been the only user of these weapons so far.  Many Americans also, mostly at the numerous experiments, have suffered.  Gandhi of India expressed the opinion that not only the soul of the Japanese was destroyed, but of those who dropped the bombs could be brought into question.  Only if and when Obama expresses his regret on the past, he may show himself to be negative on the further use of these weapons.  Only then he can give a message for the future.

     For another, his message should be such that it will contribute to nuclear disarmament in the world.  As far as Japan-US relations are concerned, there is a secret agreement that in case of emergency the US can bring nuclear weapons into Okinawa.  It has been in place since 1969 when it was signed by the US President and the Japanese Prime Minister.  Obama can cancel it in his discretion.  By doing so he may disown the theory of nuclear deterrence which provides a theoretical ground for all the nuclear powers for their nuclear armament.

     At the same time, we in Japan must be aware that Obama's Hiroshima visit will also be an opportunity to think why that war was started.  If we had not done so, or even if we had ended the war a little earlier, the bombs would not have been used at all.  We should watch how the Asian peoples would react to Obama's message.

     Finally let us look at DPRK(North Korea).  By the 7th Labour Party Congress which ended on 9 May, they have put up a slogan of "parallel development" of nuclearization and industrialization. Is there no room for a dialogue any more?  I do not think so.  But the preparation for nuclear disarmament on the part of the US is a vital precondition.  It will greatly ease the tension in the Northeastern Asia.               

"The Comfort Women of the Empire"

     I regret, once again, that there has been a considerable interval since my last blog in these columns.  This is due to my two-week visit to India in February to March, 2016 and other works.

     Here I am going to introduce to the readers a book entitled "The Comfort Women of the (Japanese) Empire", written by Park Yuha.  She is a Korean in her late 50's, a Professor at a University in Korea, but has a complete mastery over the Japanese language, and has written this book in both Korean and Japanese.  The Korean version came out first in 2013, followed by the Japanese edition, with some supplements, in 2014.  The book contradicts both of the major streams of existing thinking on the Korean comfort women, the view that they had been young girls, in many cases infants, abducted by force by the Japanese military, and the view that they were simply prostitutes who accompanied the Japanese military on their own will.  She says both are far from the truth.

       She says that those Korean women were the followers of the Japanese women, who went wherever Japan's colonial empire or the sphere of influence expanded, to give anchorage to the Japanese men, military or otherwise.  They were prostitutes, but were not there on their free will but were under the supervision by the consular police.  In that sense they were the collaborators of the Japanese overseas empire.  So were the Korean comfort women in later ages, irrespective of how they themselves intended to.

     There is no doubt that those Korean women were under the overall supervision of the Japanese military.  It was the military who wanted those women to be with them.  But it is wrong to say that they were collected by the military by force from wherever they lived or worked.  In most cases it was the Japanese or Korean agents who collected them, often by advertising in the newspapers.  In that limited sense they were voluntary, although it is true that many had been cheated as to the type and place of work and pay.

     Even after those women were placed with the military, their relationship was not always oppressive.  The Japanese in a way trusted the Koreans, viewing them as their fellow-Japanese, although of a second rank, speaking Japanese, and distinguished them from other comfort women who were from the hostile nations not to be trusted.  Here the Taiwanese women were in the same category as the Koreans.  Their conditions were of course horrendous.  Even then, a feeling of love sometimes developed between the soldiers and the women, and in the extreme cases they got married.  Some of the women came to feel that they and the soldiers had been both called upon by the Emperor to dedicate their lives to the country, and were therefore in the same boat.  What the author wants to say is that the existing stereotype does not apply to many cases.  But all these were dropped from the public memory in Korea, which consisted only of resistance against the Japanese, and there is little room to accept and examine the different varieties of the women's experiences.  Similarly, the common notion is that the Japanese military slaughtered or abandoned most of the women when Japan surrendered, but the fact is that most of them somehow returned home.

     She goes on to say that the major supporting body in Korea, 'teitaikyo' in abbreviated Japanese, had played a great role in establishing and maintaining for the past two decades and more the above stereotype.  They built a small girl's statue in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul on the occasion of 1,000th Wednesday protest meeting in December 2011. Judging from her age, clothes, and expression, the statue, however, is that of a resistance fighter and not that of a comfort woman.  The teitaikyo on the other hand refused to commemorate those Korean soldiers who were drafted by the Japanese toward the end of the war.  They stuck to a single kind of memory, so that they were not able to arrive at a common understanding with the Japanese.  They have succeeded in internationalizing the movement, but it was only by incorporating a feminist element into it, and in the process heavily depending on the Western countries, which were former colonial empires themselves and are still in control of overseas military bases, with their own comfort women.

     Prof. Park says that on the Japanese sympathizers, too, a great mistake has been committed by not accepting the idea of distributing compensation to the comfort women under the initiative of the 'Asian Peace National Fund for Women' during the decade from the mid-1990's.  They have criticized it too harshly, which has stimulated the sympathizers in Korea, on one hand, and the right-wing in Japan, on the other, thus helping to consolidate the two diametrically opposing camps mentioned in the beginning.

     She concludes with those warm words.  'It is necessary to tell the ex-comfort women that you have done nothing wrong'.

            

Failure of "Abenomics"

     'Has Abenomics failed?'  Asked the BBC World News Singapore office yesterday morning(15 February), referring to the economic policies of PM Abe Shinzo.  It had just been announced that Japan's GDP registered 0.4% decrease during 4th Quarter of October to December, 2015.

     Without denying that it has failed,  their Tokyo correspondent said that the domestic consumption did not pick up as Abe had expected, and the export did not go up.  That is to say, the economy went into a blind alley both ways.  He added further that the demographics was also a major contributor, as the population is aging, and it would decrease by 600, 000 a year by 2020.

     Broadly he is right.  But I would have thought why is it that the domestic consumption, the most important sector of GDP, has come down? Is it the direct result of the demographics?  No. It is because in the past two decades or so the economy has become very skew and the disparities have become wider.  The big business is shouldering less and less of income tax, thus earning more and more profit.  But are they investing, thereby creating permanent, instead of low-paid part-time, jobs?  Not at all.  Their profit has just been accumulating, as if in a tax-haven. Thus the real wages have gone down, the social benefit has been cut, education and health have become costly, leaving no silver lining conducive to the consumers buying more in the market.

     Even then the PM talks of the economic fundamentals being firm and the general economic situation slowly improving.  This was after the release of the GDP figures.  He just doesn't see things.  A dangerous dreamer!      

Governor Onaga's Statement

     It has become a serious political battle in the country whether the Government will succeed in building a new military base at Henoko, Okinawa Prefecture, over strong opposition.  A new battle field has been opened at the Fukuoka High Court where the Government and Okinawa Prefecture are indicting each other on the issue.  Yesterday, on 29 January 2016, the Court has admitted, over the opposition of the Government, Mr. Onaga Takeshi, Governor of Okinawa, and Mr. Inamine Susumu, Mayor of Nago city where Henoko is located, to appear as witnesses in the Court next month.  Here let me summarize what Mr. Onaga stated at the Court when it met the first time on 2 December 2015.

     In the beginning Onaga gave a short history of the Prefecture.  According to him, it was annexed by Japan by force in 1879.  In the Second World War it became a cruel battleground where about 100,000 civilians lost their lives.  After the War most of the residents were housed in the camps when their land and property were confiscated by the occupation army.  Even after that land was forcibly appropriated with 'sword and bulldozer'.

     The Peace Treaty of 1951 cut off the Prefecture from Japan and continued to place it under the American rule.  The Okinawans were neither Japanese nor American.  The new Japanese Constitution was not applied there.  It was almost under the extraterritoriality.  During the Vietnam War it became the American base for bombing Vietnam with its heavy bombers.  But Okinawa never surrendered its land on her own.

     And now, the US and the Japanese Governments are going to build a new base which will be durable into 22nd Century.  It is under the pretext that the existing Hutemma air base is a most dangerous one and should be transferred and Henoko is a suitable cite.  But it is not correct, as the planned base will also be used as a naval port, being on the coast unlike Hutemma.  A new magazine will be added.  It will take at least ten years to build, during which time the Hutemma base will be left in as dangerous a condition as at present.  The present Japan-US security regime is very unfair in that it forces heavy burden only on Okinawa.

     Onaga spent quite some time to stress that the use of land for military purposes does not pay economically at all, and concluded that Okinawa would like to be a bridge between Japan and Asia, and a zone of peace in the Asia-Pacific.