Perspectives
Public quick to criticize Hatoyama over Futenma fiasco, but won't take responsibility themselves
Newspapers and television stations are reporting the government's confusion over the relocation of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa Prefecture on a daily basis. Experts and members of the general public are criticizing Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama for his "irresponsibility" and his "lightness" as the head of government.
The entire general public -- not just residents of Okinawa and Tokunoshima who have been asked to host U.S. Marines -- are venting their anger at Hatoyama, and are hoping that he will step down as soon as possible.
However, one cannot help but wonder whether the problem can be solved merely by pointing out the prime minister's poor handling of the issue and confusion. If the next prime minister takes over the issue and handles it in an appropriate manner, will it lead to a solution?
Based in Hokkaido, I analyze problems in areas along national borders both in Japan and abroad. When I saw the TV news on the Futenma relocation issue, I could not help but remember the dispute between Japan and Russia over the Northern Territories.
The two issues have something in common, though people living outside Hokkaido might be surprised to hear that.
Firstly, most members of the general public are staying on the sidelines of both issues, simply saying, "Both Nemuro (eastern Hokkaido close to the Northern Territories) and Okinawa are in difficult situations." They not only know almost nothing about the real situation of these areas but are not even interested in these matters unless they emerge as outstanding issues.
Secondly, both Okinawa and the Northern Territories were sacrificed during the process of Japan's defeat in World War II, and were placed under the occupation of foreign countries.
But there are also differences between these issues. After the war, the Soviet Union expelled residents of the Northern Territories and Russia still occupies the islands. The United States subsequently returned Okinawa to Japan's sovereignty while retaining its bases in the area.
The sole focal point in the territorial dispute in the north is whether Moscow will comply with Tokyo's demand that the islands be returned to Japan's sovereignty. The government characterizes it as a major issue for the country, but it is getting more difficult for ordinary Japanese people, apart from Hokkaido residents and former islanders, to maintain interest in the issue.
In sharp contrast, Okinawa, which is a border area in the south, has been forced to bear most of the burden of the Japan-U.S. alliance, as the bilateral security arrangement has deepened. Even though outsiders barely care about the burden on Okinawa, news organizations based on mainland Japan have no choice but to pay close attention to the issue once a dispute over U.S. bases in the island prefecture intensifies.
While the islands cannot be moved, it is possible to move the bases and people. U.S. Marines, which had been stationed in Gifu and Yamanashi prefectures in anticipation of a possible armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula, were relocated to Okinawa in 1956. Behind the relocation was rising anti-U.S. base sentiment symbolized by an incident in Sunagawa, western Tokyo. The United States moved its troops to Okinawa because it was easy to control the islands which were then under its occupation, with total disregard for the will of local residents.
I'm now beginning to realize that the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) cleverly avoided the option of relocating bases in Okinawa to mainland Japan while it was in government for decades.
In the mid-1990s, the relocation of Futenma base emerged as a major political issue, and the LDP-led administration decided to force it into the Henoko district of Nago, Okinawa Prefecture.
The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) that called for the relocation of the base out of the prefecture won the general election last year, exposing to the public the issue, which had been regarded as a taboo for many years. For the people of mainland Japan, the issue is no longer a fire on the other side of the river.
As journalist Tomohiro Yara points out in his book, "Alliance on the Sand," published by the Okinawa Times, few people including U.S. military personnel can explain why U.S. Marine Corps troops are stationed in Okinawa even though vessels that transport troops to battlefields or training areas are based in Sasebo, Nagasaki Prefecture.
Behind the so-called Hatoyama bashing appears to be the reluctance of mainland residents to host U.S. bases and hope that they will stay in Okinawa. Local bodies that may be required to host U.S. bases are apparently keeping quiet and waiting until the storm has passed. If Tokunoshima is forced to host part of the U.S. bases, local governments outside of the region would say, "We're glad we don't have to host any base. It's too bad for Tokunoshima."
All so-called "good citizens" hope that no military bases will exist in their neighborhoods. But what would happen if all citizens express their will to refuse to host any bases? If the government stops providing massive financial assistance to U.S. bases, I think U.S. forces would be far more willing to withdraw from Japan than is believed. If that happens, Japan would be left with two choices -- a defense build-up that could include nuclear armament or maintain its current light armament through cooperation with a neighboring country.
The hurdle for the former is quite high as it could require revisions to the war-renouncing Constitution. The latter choice would be ideal but unless China and North Korea change their adherence to their own military strength, peace for "good citizens" could be endangered. Members of the general public believe that the Japan-U.S. security arrangement should be maintained if either option is unacceptable to both countries. In that case, many citizens in mainland Japan want Okinawa to continue to shoulder the burden.
In such a way, members of the public are laughing at Hatoyama with total disregard for how Japan should confront the bilateral alliance and Okinawa's burden for that matter. It has called into question the flimsiness of Japan's post-war peace. (By Akihiro Iwashita, professor at Hokkaido University)
(Mainichi Japan) May 20, 2010