|

Think tank gives Japan-U.S. diplomacy an Okinawan voice

by

In an interview with The Washington Post in November, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called the U.S.-Japan alliance “the cornerstone of Japanese diplomacy,” a stance supported by the U.S. State Department, whose website asserts, “Japan contributes irreplaceable political, financial and moral support to U.S.-Japan diplomatic efforts.”

However, such official comments on Tokyo-Washington ties are misleading, believes Sayo Saruta, the director of Japanese think tank New Diplomacy Initiative.

“In reality, the diplomatic channels between Japan and the U.S. are very narrow. The Japanese side is limited to a small number of conservatives who fail to reflect the variety of opinions held by the Japanese public,” explained Saruta in a recent interview at her Tokyo office. “On the U.S. side, there are only around a dozen people influencing the final decisions in the U.S.-Japan relationship.”

Saruta, a lawyer specializing in human rights who has worked closely with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, had numerous opportunities to witness the flawed realities of U.S.-Japan diplomacy while based in New York and Washington between 2007 and 2012. What particularly troubled her was American decision makers’ lack of knowledge or interest about Okinawa, the Japanese island where the U.S. maintains more than 30 military bases.

In 2009, Saruta met the chair of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the group overseeing relations with countries including Japan, to discuss military issues in Okinawa. According to Saruta, during the meeting, the chairman speculated that the population of Okinawa was probably around 2,000 (at the time the actual number was almost 1.4 million); then he wondered whether the island — a major international tourist destination — even possessed a civilian airport.

In December 2010, Saruta’s suspicions that those in control of U.S.-Japan relations might be poorly suited to the task were further heightened when she attended a meeting at which Kevin Maher, a State Department official in charge of Japanese affairs, reportedly criticized Okinawans for being “masters of manipulation and extortion” who were “too lazy to grow goya,” referring to the bitter fruit cultivated locally. The comments, which Maher later claimed were inaccurate, kicked up a storm of controversy and cost the diplomat his job.

Saruta says this indifference toward Okinawa was widespread among U.S. experts and the Japanese diplomatic community in Washington. Convinced that there needed to be alternative channels of communication between the U.S. and Japan, she searched for any diplomatic organizations that shared that belief. To her surprise, none existed, so she decided to found her own.

Launched in 2013, New Diplomacy Initiative is a think tank that, according to Saruta, aims to input fresh voices into debate between Japan, the U.S. and other East Asian countries. With Saruta at its helm, the current board of directors includes TV journalist Shuntaro Torigoe, former Defense Ministry official Kyoji Yanagisawa and George Washington University professor Mike Mochizuki.

In 2014, New Diplomacy Initiative organized 13 symposiums in Japan and four in the U.S. to discuss issues such as Sino-Japanese relations and Abe’s push to enable the Self-Defense Forces to come to the defense of an ally. However, New Diplomacy Initiative’s main concern remains the issue that spurred Saruta to create the think tank in the first place: Okinawa.

Last year was a tumultuous one for the island as the Japanese government stepped up long-stalled efforts to build a new U.S. military facility in Henoko Bay, Nago. At sea, peace campaigners who attempted to block survey work were assaulted by the Japanese Coast Guard, while on land, elderly demonstrators were injured in scuffles with the police. November saw the election of a new anti-base governor, Takeshi Onaga, and in last month’ election, all of Abe’s pro-base Lower House candidates were defeated in Okinawa’s four single-seat constituencies. But despite such overwhelming opposition, the Japanese government announced that construction on the new base would proceed as planned.

With the U.S. media largely failing to report Tokyo’s disregard for democracy and the violence being committed in the name of the U.S-Japan security alliance, New Diplomacy Initiative has been bringing Okinawan leaders to the U.S. to voice their anger.

In May, Saruta accompanied Nago Mayor Susumu Inamine to New York and Washington. During the 10-day visit, Inamine met U.S. civic groups to explain the Pentagon’s plans for his city, and attended a series of discussions with members of the House of Representatives and former National Security Advisor James L. Jones.

In September, Saruta arranged a visit to Okinawa by Morton Halperin, a former Pentagon official who was one of the key negotiators for the island’s reversion from U.S. to Japanese control in 1972. During the trip, Halperin was critical of the ongoing Pentagon presence in Okinawa, and he emphasized that the U.S. and Japanese governments ought to respect the democratic will of the island’s residents.

The 1972 reversion agreement Halperin helped broker was supposed to reduce the military presence on Okinawa to a similar level to that on mainland Japan (the so-called hondo nami pledge). But today, Okinawa hosts more than 70 percent of the nation’s U.S. bases on less than 1 percent of its land mass.

In the years since reversion, a long list of crimes, accidents and instances of environmental pollution have angered Okinawa residents. In November, for example, a drunk U.S. serviceman trespassed into an apartment in Chatan, central Okinawa; in December, a U.S. Marine major admitted seriously injuring a 67-year-old man in a hit-and-run accident and an army captain allegedly assaulted an Okinawan police officer; and on New Year’s Day, a U.S. Air Force staff sergeant was arrested, again for trespassing, in Okinawa City.

Since the mainland Japanese media rarely report such incidents, few Japanese people realize the extent of the problems caused by the U.S. military presence on Okinawa, Saruta believes.

“Geographically, Okinawa is so far from Tokyo that it is easy for mainland Japanese people to ignore what happens there,” she said. “Many people are indifferent to Okinawa’s problems. Or they think the U.S. bases on Okinawa are necessary to protect Japan.”

In August, New Diplomacy Initiative published a book titled “Kyozo no Yokushiryoku” (“The Pretense of Deterrence”) designed to dispel the myth, as they see it, that the U.S. Marine presence in Okinawa defends Japan and helps maintain stability in the region.

Journalist Tomohiro Yara, the author of one of the book’s chapters, cites a 2003 South Korean government white paper that estimates almost 700,000 troops would be needed to quell any conflict on the peninsula.

“On Okinawa, there are only 18,000 U.S. Marines, so they can’t deter any real contingency in Korea. For the Japanese government, the U.S. troops on Okinawa are like a sedative: They only make them feel calm,” he told The Japan Times.

Yara sees plans for the new mega-base at Henoko as symptomatic of a lack of imagination.

“The U.S. and Japanese governments have given up thinking of an alternative,” he said. “The public servants in both Tokyo and Washington don’t want to make work for themselves. It’s inertia — they just want to blindly follow what their predecessors decided.”

Last month, such skepticism about the deterrence value of Okinawa’s U.S. bases won unexpected support from Joseph Nye, who served as assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration. In an interview with the Asahi Shimbun, Nye urged the U.S. military to become a more mobile force and move away from an overdependence on fixed bases — including the new installation planned for Henoko. He also stressed that the opinions of Okinawan residents need to be considered in any plans to push forward with construction of the new base.

Think tank director Saruta encourages people to consider the problem from an economic perspective. With the Pentagon taking roughly 20 percent of the main Okinawa island’s land but contributing less than 5 percent to the prefecture’s overall economy, U.S. bases hobble economic growth, she says.

Moreover, Saruta believes that bringing U.S. troops back to the States would benefit its domestic economy. Relocated troops and their families could inject much-needed cash into U.S. base towns, many of which are suffering due to Pentagon budget cuts. With this in mind, Saruta is hoping to orchestrate meetings between Okinawan Gov. Onaga and U.S state leaders, including Hawaii’s recently elected governor, David Ige, who has Okinawan ancestry.

It looks like 2015 will be a busy year for New Diplomacy Initiative. Saruta plans to help Okinawa Prefecture establish an office in Washington that will give the island’s elected officials better access to the U.S. decision makers whose policies affect Okinawa’s future. New Diplomacy Initiative is also planning a major project comparing the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement with similar deals struck with other countries hosting Pentagon bases.

New Diplomacy Initiative website: www.nd-initiative.org. Your comments and story ideas: community@japantimes,co.jp

  • zer0_0zor0

    Interesting development. Japanese civil society needs more such groups. Educating US politicos can’t hurt.
    They should expand their scope to include China issues, of course. Reducing tensions is probably the most effective way to reduce the military footprint.

    • rossdorn

      Yes, and that is exactly why the americans have no interest in “reducing tensions” at all….

  • Firas Kraïem

    “The Japanese side is limited to a small number of conservatives who fail
    to reflect the variety of opinions held by the Japanese public,”

    This seems true of Japanese political life in general, but the problem is that “the Japanese public” keeps electing them (be it by default, by not voting against them).

    • rossdorn

      I had to look twice.

      I wanted to write precisely the same thing.

      I already copied the statement on my computer: “The Japanese side is limited to a small number of conservatives who fail
      to reflect the variety of opinions held by the Japanese public” and the problem is that “the Japanese public” keeps electing them.

      That sums all of Japan up!

      • Roronoa Zoro

        We are plagued with the same problem in Amerika as well. The smoke and mirrors seem to be in effect all over the world.

      • rossdorn

        Yes, and that is the truly sad story, it is indeed the same story everywhere.
        The problem is well known, it is a development that cannnot be avoided in democracies. By definition the majority cannot be but mediocre, so the results of elections will go that way more and more.
        The bad news, is that there is no solution for this, as every other system is even worse….
        Once people understand what the “Obamas” of the world really are, than all that happens is that less and less people will vote.

        It sjould be an interesting world in baout 50 years. Thank God I will not be around.

  • Chris

    Where did this author and Saruta pull “contribute to 5% of prefecture economy” number? If you include base jobs (revenue) given to residence, housing rental, base construction, local contracts, and energy consumption to list a few you will get much more than 5%. Yes, most of that is paid for by the govt of Japan, but it still generates revenue locally because of the US base presence. I believe there are valid points to not having so many bases in Okinawa, but the view here is very skewed. You might win people over with fake numbers at first, but you wont keep them when the economy starts to drop and jobs disappear. Pulling too much of the US bases quickly would gut a major portion of revenue on the island.

    • rossdorn

      Thank you, I had a great laugh…..

      • Chris

        I generally don’t comment on these forums. I agree that GDP increase can be made in some areas with removal of bases. Some talk about the great transitions like with American Village after Camp Hamby was returned. 1.) The area was returned in 1981 and profits weren’t seen until well after 2002. 2.) Not every place is guaranteed that success. I do agree that the decisions don’t seem very considered by US politicians, but also why is Japan listening to the Okinawa voters, elected officials and coming up with better solutions. IMO I think Futenma closure will increase GDP, help with congestion and space, and get rid of some noise pollution. As far as Henoko, I think this will increase the GDP of that area, as nothing is currently around there. However, if Okinawans are not concerned with increase money in that region, should it be pushed on them? The answer to this is.. How important is this location for

      • rossdorn

        „…why is Japan not listening to the Okinawa voters…“

        Simple… you must have missed some news this year. A former japanese prime minister confirmed, that after the war ended 1945, a few separate, secret agreements were signed by Japan, the loser of the war, and by USA, the winner.
        Japan has been a protectorat of the USA since!

        Just to give you an example what that means:

        When Hatoyama publicly stated, that he will try to do, what you suggest, the follwing happened.

        Ms Clinton, then secratary of state came
        within two weeks to Japan and within 4 weeks Hatoyama was no longer prime minister…

        Other than that you are of course correct. The removal of this bunch of professionally educated mass killers will have a huge negative impact on Okinawa. But it seems to me that the people of Okinawa are willing to prefer that…

        By the way, historically speaking Okinawa was not a part of Japan until 1879 and it shares this miserable fate with Hokkaido, where, just as the americans do worldwide today, the japanese brought the natives civilisation and culture, by using them as working slaves and refusing to consider them human.

        Try Kayano Shigeru’s: Our Land was a forest

        Also, nothing in Okinawa has anything to do with defense. In the US people consider Japan to be their greatest aircraft carrier, which just about sums it up. Should the US refuse to give up its No1 position in the world to China, which it lost long ago, where do you think this war will be fought.

        THAT is why the US will not give up Okinawa…

      • Chris

        Do you have sources for the secret documents? Don’t like reading conspiracy theories.
        As someone who lives on the island and a graduate of Okinawa history and culture I am familiar with its unfortunate past. Honestly the 1879 date you used was a formality as Satsuma had already been taxing and maintaining rule prior to that. The Meiji restoration just cleared up the hierarchy after the Sino Japanese war.

        I also think you answered the Defense question. According to the US and Japanese presidents the defense plan for the region is the same and both countries are unwavering. Having a pad as you call it seems important to both countries to maintain a balance in the Pacific. Why exactly Henoko? I find hard to believe its because of secret documents. More along the lines of budget and strategic function I think. The real question is with what both countries want is there an acceptable location other than Henoko?

      • rossdorn

        Look at the archives of the Japan Times. This newspaper reported it. If my memory serves me well, it was in 2014…

        Massmurdering lunatics are not really what I consider a “balance”. Iraq and Libya were simply average, but functioning muslim states.
        And what are they now?

        And No, you are wromng there, the real question is, why can’t the people of Japan and their governments see, that a peaceful future is only possible in an understanding with Korea and China.

    • kanazawa47

      The leadership of the think tank in question includes some very respected and thoughtful academics that speak to its seriousness. I would especially point to Mike Mochizuki and Jiro Yamaguchi.

  • nosnurbd

    One of the reasons, maybe the main reason for The War was, Japan wanted not to be a colony, but an Empire like the UK and US. But now it seems that in essence they are just that, especially Okinawa. When is the US going to give them their country back? Maybe in 10 or 100 years, maybe never. Now isn’t that a terrifying thought?
    Now, with Abe Hawk, the JASDF could just take over all of those facilities that they have already paid dearly for.

  • rossdorn

    Sorry… I speak 4 languages very well, and another two a little bit…. kindergarten is not one of them.

  • Robert Eldridge

    I had sent the below Letter to the Editor shortly after the above story came out. I followed up several times with the editor, but inexplicably the letter was not published. I am including it here below for everyone’s reference.

    “As a fellow reader commented online, the establishment of a new think tank in Japan (“Think tank gives Japan-U.S. diplomacy an Okinawan Voice”) is indeed a good thing for civil society here. The problem, however, is when the think tank in question is less about “thinking” and more about promoting an agenda. When that happens, it becomes another partisan actor in the cacophony of noise about Okinawa. For example, the stances on Okinawan issues of those on the board of directors are well known and unchanging over the past decades. Moreover, there is little bipartisanship among its leadership. As such, it seems little thinking or reflection is being done, and the one-sided and inflammatory title of the book cited in the article suggests this. The article, too, lacks balance or insight. Unclear is who is funding this think tank, as their travel around Japan and to and from the United States, as well as their hosting speakers from abroad, certainly involves quite a bit of money. Mr. Mitchell should have provided that information for transparency’s sake, as well as followed up on the assertions of the person he interviewed for veracity’s sake. Most of the contents of the article are second-hand. Furthermore, there are a number of often-repeated mistakes in the article, particularly about the number of bases (and their definitions) as well as the percentage of land use (exclusive use versus joint use), which makes the statement “Okinawa hosts more than 70 percent of the nation’s U.S. bases” incorrect. Indeed, as almost all facilities are either formally or informally co-use with the Self-Defense Forces or with the local communities, the percentage becomes nearly insignificant. Continued research is vital, but it must be done objectively and constructively with facts and not unsubstantiated hearsay, weighted opinions, or uncompromising agendas.”

  • Robert Eldridge

    “As a fellow reader commented online, the establishment of a new think tank in Japan (“Think tank gives Japan-U.S. diplomacy an Okinawan Voice”) is indeed a good thing for civil society here. The problem, however, is when the think tank in question is less about “thinking” and more about promoting an agenda. When that happens, it becomes another partisan actor in the cacophony of noise about Okinawa. For example, the stances on Okinawan issues of those on the board of directors are well known and unchanging over the past decades. Moreover, there is little bipartisanship among its leadership. As such, it seems little thinking or reflection is being done, and the one-sided and inflammatory title of the book cited in the article suggests this. The article, too, lacks balance or insight. Unclear is who is funding this think tank, as their travel around Japan and to and from the United States, as well as their hosting speakers from abroad, certainly involves quite a bit of money. Mr. Mitchell should have provided that information for transparency’s sake, as well as followed up on the assertions of the person he interviewed for veracity’s sake. Most of the contents of the article are second-hand. Furthermore, there are a number of often-repeated mistakes in the article, particularly about the number of bases (and their definitions) as well as the percentage of land use (exclusive use versus joint use), which makes the statement “Okinawa hosts more than 70 percent of the nation’s U.S. bases” incorrect. Indeed, as almost all facilities are either formally or informally co-use with the Self-Defense Forces or with the local communities, the percentage becomes nearly insignificant. Continued research is vital, but it must be done objectively and constructively with facts and not unsubstantiated hearsay, weighted opinions, or uncompromising agendas.”