

America's security treaty with Japan

The new battle of Okinawa

Wrangling over an American base puts Japan’s new government in a bind

See article

Readers' comments


Bottom Line

Given that the eventual decline of American hegemony will necessitate a remilitarized Japan, which Japanese companies will benefit from the National Defense Force conversion to a Department of Defense? /s/ Bottom Line


Your article states that three US Marines raped a 12 year old girl. You are incorrect. It was two Marines and a member of the US Navy.


American military responded with harsh sentances for the three criminals and made changes in their structure to avoid any further problems.

At about the same time, two Japanese men raped a 13 year old Okinawan girl. They received shorter sentances than the US Military members did. You never hear about that incident or many other similar rapes. http://www.japanupdate.com/?id=3885 Every rape is a tragedy. The 1995 rape is unfortunately, also a political tool. Your chances of being raped by an Okinawan in Okinawa are four times higher than your chances of being raped by a US military member.


Also, how do you justify saying that the US colonized Japan? Japan attacked the US. The US responded and once the war was won at enormous cost, America helped Japan create a new constituion and government, then gave Japan back to its citizens.

As for your "cork in the bottle" analogy, Japanese are overwhelmingly proud of article 9 of their constitution, which prohibits the use of war as a means of resolving conflict. Nationwide discussions on occassion are held in an effort to change this article, but it still stands.

The majority of Okinawans benefit from and support the US Military presence in Okinawa, mainly due to its economic beneift, and much of the effort to portray the US Military in a negative light are actually calculated efforts to raise the amount of money Okinawans receive from the National Government for hosting the American Military.

When Okinawa learned that their efforts to "negotiate" more money from the National government in this way had lead to the possiblity of US Marines leaving Okinawa for Guam, the government of Okinawa reached out to Guam and suggested that the two island nations learn from and support each other. Okinawa's then Governor offered to teach Guam what they had learned about getting more money from the Japanese National Government.

Okinawan evironmental activists have been fighting to keep the US Military from building a base on Henoko's coral reef. They ought to compare what reefs look like near Okinawan development to the ones under US Military control. Okinawa should clean up their own mess before assuming that the US would destroy a reef the same way they have.


GAIJIN in Japan is right, the base was located in a remote area not a populated city. The residents chose to locate there in order to have access to the financial benefits of association with the U.S. base.

This situation is a repeat of clark A.F.B. and Subic Bay in the phillipines. The goverment and the locals all wanted the Americans and their bases gone but wanted to be subsidised by handouts afterwards to make up for their loss of income from the bases. The people of Okinawa have exactly the same attitude "please leave but continue to send the money".

japan apparently is attempting to become the France of the far east.
Beating the drum of unity when it stands to benefit but allways ready to stab anyone in the back if it can gain any slight advantage from doing so.

the realflamestar

How New Yorkers living around Central Park would feel, were it an air base bristling with marines belonging to a country that once colonised them.

The statement proves that the writer is incapable of thinking and makes all decisions based on emotions. If the reporter knew that New York has three major airports and one within the city limits the reporter wouldn't work for the Economist because all they hire are pretty air heads. Asking how someone feels is a question that intelligent people only ask of children and lovers. Feelings have no place in serious discourse, As a psychologist I know that most bad decisions are the result of following emotions rather than thinking. How do I feel about the fact that the Economist seeks to undermine serious discourse and is the enemy of reason and truth, angry enough to write this?

Dr Kick

Dear Economist,

Your author compares the former US control of Okinawa with colonisation. This distorts the truth. The US was in Okinawa as part of its occupation-by-a-victorious-power responsibilities. That occupation resulted from Japan's invasion and occupation of many other countries, including the US. The US occupation was not colonisation. Once a peace treaty was signed, the occupying power's tenure was scheduled to end and (except for the remaining bases) did end.

Dr. Kick
Honiara, Solomon Islands


I live on Guam, but that seems inconsequential to the Department of Defense and Japan. On November 20, 2009, they gave residents and the government a mere 90 days and four short public hearings to read an 11,000 page Draft Environmental Impact Statement that will forever change Guam. Okinawa is a case study for how the marine relocation will destroy our island environmentally and socioeconomically. Pearl Harbor is another case study for the toxic dump that Apra Harbor will become after they dredge 26 acres of pristine coral and reef to pave way for massive aircraft carriers. Furthermore, the relocation of the marines blatantly reminds residents of how the marines abandoned them when the Japanese invaded and a reminder of war crimes committed by the Japanese against residents during WW2. When the marines returned like D-Day gods, they bombed the island thereby destroying our fuana and flora while doing minimal damage to the Japanese dug into caves. Most egregious is that the USA forgave Japan for its war crimes. Reading the article is a reminder that Guam is merely a small territory with no stake in its future except what is determined by its dubious benefactor, the USA.

Francisco Park

At a time when China is expanding its military might as a countervailing force against the United States, the relocation of a U.S. military base in Okinawa merits its reconsideration between the parties concerned. Needless to say that the sentiment of the locals regarding the U.S. military presence on the island should be respected. Be that as it may, policymakers on both sides are advised to inform the general public first of what the relocation truly entails and to avoid any myopic approach in dealing with global security issues with far-reaching consequences.

gradely lad

Surely it would be possible to replace the US bases on Okinawa with one or more of its aircraft carriers posted offshore on a rotating basis. To be sure, it would reduce the number of USAF, their support and security personnel and the cost burden on the American people, but it would free the Okinawan people from the perennial Pentagon occupation and the pollution and crime that accompany it.


As a Japanese, I have to say that it's unwise to misplace policy with emotion. While the people of Okinawa may be suffering from noise and crime, it would be nothing compared to what would happen if conflict with China were to break out. And as Listening Hill pointed out, being a strategic location, the departure of US forces would only be (and must be) reinforced by the JSDF, and would not reduce the noise in any shape or form.
As China's own defense whitepaper mentioned, they intend to expand their sphere of influence all the way toward guam by pushing out US forces from the Pacific. And I don't need to explain what it's like to be occupied by China (see Tibet). It is in Japan's interest to keep US forces anchored in the Pacific (for its own safety and the safety of Taiwan, N. Korea, and East Asia in general).
While the suffering of Okinawans are maybe real, and although there is much to be desired from some (but not all) of the US military personnel stationed at Okinawa, we must not ignore the geopolitical reality that, despite the noise and crime, things are much better (for all, including Okinawans) with US forces stationed in Futenma.


American colonization or Japanese colonization, is there an active independence movement by the Ryukyuan people?

Listening Hill

Facing a growing and more assertive Chinese navy, no responsible government in Tokyo can afford a base-free Okinawa. Just look at its location, sitting right on the vital sea lanes of communication between China-Taiwan-Japan. If, the Japanese government really kicked the US troops out of Okinawa, the likely consequence will be that the Japanese Self Defense Force would move in. And when this happens, the locals will not get any compensation. The locals should think twice.


The history of the American colonization of Okinawa is a sad but forgotten tale of injustice, committed by the victorious brand new imperial superpower with the complicity of the vanquished regime against the innocent civilian population of Japan's backwater.

For 27 years (1945-1972), Okinawa was the Pentagon's colony, ruled by an American General. The island was closed to the world, with air bases, submarines, nuclear weapons deposits and CIA facilities scattered all around its territory. This presence had meant the dispossession of tens of thousands islanders, frequently at a point of rifle and bulldozer. Some were expelled to other islands, where many died of malaria. It was a forced emigration, rather than a deportation, strictly talking. Between 20000 and 30000 expropriated owners were sent as settlers to inhospitable areas of Bolivia, whose military dictatorship received in exchange of American funds. Those who opposed where labeled as "communists". The inhabitants were not allowed to leave Okinawa, not even to go to mainland Japan, without documents and special permits issued by the American authorities.

The US currently holds SOFA agreements with 93 countries around the world where it keeps troops or military facilities. Japan pays for most of the foreign military presence in the country. In 2007 it committed over 1.5 billion USD to the expenses of that presence. According to the SOFA with Japan, the places used by the bases don't have to be returned at the end of the contract in the same conditions as they were at its beginning. There is no compensation for damages, which means a blank check to pollute, which is specially grave in the cases where radioactive and dioxin pollution occurred, as in some places in Okinawa. US soldiers don't require visa, their US driving licenses are valid and are tax-exempt, but none of those conditions is subject to reciprocity, which is the norm in all SOFAs except for the ones signed with European NATO members, which is a gross discrimination against Asian allies. But the objective of SOFAs is precisely to put US military men above local law, that is, an update of the concept of "extraterritoriality" invented by colonial powers in the 19th century. This circumstance has given way to all kind of abuses, including chronical cases of child and women rape at the hands of the soldiery.

It is a shame that a sovereign country has to put up with accepting such a humiliating and abusive military presence from an imperial power. Even more humiliating is having to pay for it. To justify this colonial behavior based on Cold War era scaremongering excuses is just the summit of hypocrisy and absurdity. Japan needs to learn to stop being the US gendarme in the region and integrate with its neighbors without external meddling.

Gaijin in Japan

Futema photograph 1945 shows about 15 houses around it ex Japanese base.He in Japan the complaint is the base is in the middle of the city but its the other way around the city is around the base REASON $$$$ Money.
SOFA causes around 5% of total crimes in Okinawa
SOFA contributes over 5% of the economy

Impact on the Prefectural Economy (In relation with the base economy)
The existence of vast U.S. military bases in Okinawa has a huge impact on the local economy.
We cannot deny the fact that base-related revenues, such as salary paid to Japanese employees who
work on the bases, lease fees for landowners, and consumption activities by military personnel, civilian employees
and their dependents, do support our prefectural economy.
However, because of the expansion of the prefectural economy, the percentage of prefectural gross income
(previously called prefectural gross expenditure) represented by base-related revenue has declined over
the years from about 15.6% at reversion in 1972 to 4.9% in 2000.
Bases salary is as high as a Tkyo salary the highest in Okinawa a dream job there.
data obtained from Okinawa Prefectural 2001 data
Expenditure of SOFA status people $5.9 Billion
Salary of Japanese base employees$5.2 Billion
Rental fee for land lease $8.5 Billion
Total revenue from military-related $19.6 Billion
Economic dependency on bases (ratio of military-related 5.1％
WHO will replace this revenue Japanese Govt. Not likely its underdeveloped as it is Japans Stepchild (They are not really Japaneses)
A REFERENDUM ask all the people of OKINAWA what they really want.Not only a few.Japanese Govt will sacrifice them again as in 1945

gradely lad

If there is any reason for the United States to maintain an armed presence in this area of the Pacific, let them deploy one or more of their obscenely-expensive aircraft carriers there on a rotating basis and halt the government-protected depredations of its land-based occupation forces.


Your article fails to explain what I feel a lot of readers would like to know which is why can't Futenma be re-located to another already existing American base in Japan. Why the need to build yet another ? There are numerous other American bases in Japan both on the mainland and in Okinawa.
Why after 50 years does the US need so many large spacious bases in Japan ?


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43
Airlines and hotels: Room at the top
Gulliver March 14th, 15:42


Products & events