Written on May 13, 2019, this essay examines the return of the U.S. Northern Training Area, the Supreme Court ruling on the Henoko relocation, and the responses of Governor Onaga and the Okinawan media, criticizing a political stance bound by anti-base ideology and questioning the need for the principles of the rule of law and realistic security policy.

2019-05-13
Governor Onaga should have drawn a clear line between newspapers and politics, and once the Supreme Court ruling had been handed down, he should have cooperated with the government even at the risk of his office, and sought an amicable resolution of the Henoko relocation issue.
The following is a continuation of the March 2017 issue of the monthly magazine Seiron… Front Line Against China: A Report from the Border Islands… Open Hostility Toward the U.S. Military… The Abnormality of Osprey Criticism…
Even Regarding the Return of the U.S. Military Training Area…
On December 22, approximately 4,000 hectares of land, constituting more than half of the U.S. Northern Training Area, were returned to Okinawa.
It was the largest return of U.S. military land since Okinawa’s reversion, and the concentration of U.S.-exclusive facilities in Okinawa fell from about 74 percent to about 70 percent.
At the return ceremony, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga emphasized that it would “greatly contribute to reducing the base burden,” but the prefectural newspapers showed a stance of not evaluating the return at all, writing things such as, “It is absolutely unacceptable to conceal the increased burden on Okinawa caused by the strengthening of the functions of U.S. bases in Okinawa, and disguise it as ‘burden reduction’ by pointing to the large returned area” (Ryukyu Shimpo, December 23).
Governor Onaga, who had once said to Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga during his visit to Okinawa, “I welcome the return,” but then, after immediately being battered by the Okinawan media and others, hastily withdrew the remark, was again asked by reporters at year’s end how he evaluated the return, and only replied coldly, “The proportion of U.S. bases has gone from 74 percent to 70 percent, so in a sense nothing has changed.”
Whenever I hear anti-base comments saying that the return of the U.S. Northern Training Area “does not reduce the burden,” I feel like asking, “Is there some magic by which U.S. bases can suddenly disappear from Okinawa all at once?”—though it might be a different story if President Trump, who took office in January, were to decide so.
China is further intensifying its offensive toward the Senkaku Islands, and the importance of U.S. military bases in Okinawa is rather increasing.
Under such international circumstances, it takes political and technical virtuosity to reconcile burden reduction with deterrence.
There is no choice but to proceed with base reduction in a planned, step-by-step manner.
In that sense, what the anti-base camp shouts—“the unconditional and immediate removal of Futenma Air Station”—is impossible.
A mere 4 percent, and yet still 4 percent.
Although conditional on the relocation of the helipad, the Abe administration did, in its own way, succeed in reducing the bases.
Even though it had already been agreed upon between Japan and the United States, one can evaluate it as having boldly pushed forward an issue that previous administrations had left untouched.
What is important is that this becomes the first step.
If one does not take the first step, there will be no hundred steps or thousand steps in the future.
If he was the governor of Okinawa, he should have properly attended the return ceremony, conveyed his gratitude to both the Japanese and U.S. governments, and then appealed for further burden reduction, but Governor Onaga, bound by anti-base ideology, turned his back openly on the largest return of U.S. military land since reversion.
I can hardly think this is the proper attitude of a head of government responsible for the lives and property of the prefecture’s residents.
Regarding the approval by the previous governor for the reclamation of the Henoko coastal area, the Supreme Court on December 20 handed down a ruling declaring Governor Onaga’s revocation of that approval illegal.
In response, Governor Onaga withdrew the revocation, but harshly criticized the ruling, saying, “A ruling was handed down that showed no understanding of the spirit of the 1999 revision of the Local Autonomy Law, which established that the national and local governments stand in an equal cooperative relationship.”
He also indicated his intention to continue working to block the relocation work by using his authority as governor.

Even after the Supreme Court ruling had been handed down, the figure of a governor continuing political struggle shows disregard for Japan’s nature as a state governed by the rule of law.
The prefectural newspapers reporting the Supreme Court ruling, as usual, filled their pages with voices of protest calling it an “unjust ruling,” but this is not China or South Korea, where “anti-Japan innocence” prevails, and there is no reason why popular anti-base sentiment should ever take precedence over a Supreme Court ruling.
Governor Onaga should have drawn a clear line between newspapers and politics, and once the Supreme Court ruling had been handed down, he should have cooperated with the government even at the risk of his office, and sought an amicable resolution of the Henoko relocation issue.
But in the end, here too, he was ensnared by the anti-base ideology advocated by the Okinawan media.
This essay will continue.