Ongoing Political Battle of Okinawa, Japan

     Once again this author has to offer his apologies for the failure to write in these columns which has extended to almost six months this time.  The author would like to do so with his Season's Greetings for the Happy New Year 2019 to all of you.

     Probably the greatest development in the political field in Japan during this time concerned the new US gigantic Air Base at Henoko, Okinawa Prefecture, which the present Abe Shinzo Government of Japan wants to build there.  In fact the Government has begun to reclaim the adjoining sea by throwing in sand on 14 December last year, and the work has been going on for more than a month as of today.  They have brought 7103 truckloads of sand already with enormous amount of time and money.  The work has been on in spite of the strong expression of opposition against the construction by the residents of Okinawa including the newly elected Governor, other Japanese nationals, and even some people of other countries, and ignoring various laws, ordinances, and orders of the Okinawan Prefectural Administration.

     I have to stress here, however, that it would be impossible for the Abe Government  and their agencies to complete the work.  It takes 21 million cubic metres of sand to finish the entire reclamation covering 160 ha of sea.  During the first phase, which would take 20 months, in which they wish to reclaim 6.3 ha, about 4% of the total, they need 137,500 cubic metres, only 0.7% of the total needed.  If 20 months is only for the 4% of the total sea to be reclaimed, how long would it take to cover the entire area?  Moreover, a good deal of the land at the bottom is said to be extremely soft.

     It is obvious that the people of the country in general is waking up to the reality surrounding the construction.  Already at the poll survey conducted soon after the work began, in the middle of December, 60% of the respondents expressed their opposition to it, with only 26% supporting it.

     We will keep an eye on the ongoing development.       

Hiroshima Day and Nagasaki Day, 2018

     This year also, the newly dead were reported at the ceremonies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on 6 and 9 August, respectively.  In the case of the former, the number of confirmed dead because of the Atomic Bomb in the past year was 5, 393, bringing the total to 314, 118.  For Nagasaki, the figures were 3,511 and 179, 226.  We are again impressed that almost half a million have passed away because of just a couple of bombs.  The present number of survivors are 154, 859, and their average age is 82.

     In their speeches at the ceremonies, known as the Declaration for Peace, both the Mayors of the two cities have described the cruelties caused by the bombs.  At the same time both have called our attention to the year-old Non-nuclear weapons Treaty, and the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 having been conferred on the International Campaign for the Abolition of the Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).  Both have expressed their pleasure that the situation in the Korean Peninsula has been changing. 

     Mr. Matsui of Hiroshima said that the idea of nuclear deterrence and nuclear umbrella is to take pride in the destructive capabilities of the nuclear weapons and to maintain the status quo.  Mr. Taue from Nagasaki said that the leaders of the nuclear powers and those who depend on the umbrella should remember that the United Nations in its first General Assembly resolution decided to abolish nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  He must have been sorry that Mr. Onaga, Governor of Okinawa and a stalwart against the construction of the new US Airbase there had passed away the previous day.

     We are happy that Mr. Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, participated in the ceremony at Nagasaki last week.  Earlier he had sent a message to Hiroshima.  Also he had a very informal talk with some of the atomic bomb survivors at Nagasaki.  Several years ago his predecessor, Mr. Ban, had visited Hiroshima and participated in the ceremony.  Mr. Guterres also talked about the above mentioned Treaty.  He concluded his address by saying that let us make Nagasaki the last place of such terrible destruction.     

Japan and the DPRK

     We have reached our final question, for the moment, which is ; what is Japan going to do with the DPRK?

     This question has already been taken care of by the 2002 Declaration at Pyongyang of Japan's PM Koizumi and Korea's General Secretary Kim(the present Chairman's father), which aims at the normalization of the relations between the two.  But that has not been followed so far.

     The reasons are obvious and we do not have to repeat them here.  But, needless to say, the transformation of the Ceasefire into the Peace Treaty, coupled with a new politico-diplomatic superstructure will greatly change the atmosphere.  The remaining problem is the political will on the part of the Japanese.  We should at least start probing/sounding them as quickly as possible.  On what?  Investment in the grass-root basic infrastructure and public health plus compensation will take precedence.  For that, both sides should open a small diplomatic office in each other's capital city for intense negotiation and to set a timetable, say for two years.

      

Toward a Peaceful Far East

     As far as an Infantry Division and other US forces are in South Korea, and a Marines Division and other US forces are in Japan, both of these countries are bound to function as the US bases.  It is particularly so in the case of Japan, as the Peace Treaty together with the Security Treaty were signed during the Korean War itself, enabling the whole country to be used as the US bases to support the UN forces under the US command in the Korean Peninsula.  The legal framework has remained as it was.  Both of these Treaties with Japan were signed right in the middle of the Korean War and were meant for the anti-DPRK and anti-Chinese purposes.

     Suppose an ASEAN-like superstructure comes into sight in the East Asia.  What are the uses of the US Infantry or the Marines?  Is there any need for the US forces to defend South Korea or Japan, and against whom, let alone to move to other places to fight new enemies?  The main US objective when having a Peace Treaty with Japan in 1951 was to find ways and means of maintaining and freely using their military bases in Japan, thus to continue the situation of occupation of Japan.  That need has disappeared now, or is going to before long.  Where is the need, for example, for constructing the gigantic Henoko Air Base at Okinawa, which is said to serve for 200 years?

     It may sound idealistic, but this is no longer the time for the Security Treaties and the foreign bases.  These are the things which are blocking the countries like Japan and South Korea from becoming really independent ones.  It is many years now since the DPRK has been free from foreign troops and foreign bases and in that sense she is far ahead of others like Japan.

     For the Japanese the foremost question would be where is Japan going to place itself in the new Far East, particularly in connection with the DPRK.  We will talk about it tomorrow. 

       

From the Peace Treaty to What?

     Suppose the terms of the Peace Treaty are agreed to, who are going to sign it?  By definition the US and North Korea to begin with.  What about China?  It was not China as the state, that is the PRC, that signed the Ceasefire.  But China cannot be outside.  And Russia, and Japan.  And of course South Korea, even though it did not sign the Ceasefire either.  All the countries composing the Six-party Conference should be the participants.  Then what?  What sort of organization should be built upon the terms of the Treaty?  It would be desirable to describe them in the Treaty itself.  It should be something like, say, NATO?  Oh, no.  It should be, if we are to select something out of the existing ones at present, much more like ASEAN.

     But here opinions will get divided, and very sharply.  It will be on the US forces now in the Far East.  What will happen to them?  At the moment, 28,500 US troops are stationed in South Korea.  19,200 of them are the Army, mostly the Second Division.  They are usually not on move, but are stationed there to be ready to fight on the spot itself.  After the Treaty, are they still needed there, to fight the DPRK Army?

     Similarly 47,050 US troops are in Japan.  A great difference is that 20,700 of them are Marines, mostly the Third Marines Division.  They are not there to defend Okinawa, their major bases, or Japan as a whole.  They are there as a stepping stone, always ready to move elsewhere to fight whoever is the enemy.  After the Treaty are they still needed there, for jumping to somewhere else?  For my answer see tomorrow.