By Valerie Cha

In an attempt to reduce military activity and please the locals of Okinawa, the American and Japanese government developed a relocation plan. The project relocates Futenma Air base from a heavily populated area to a smaller region known as Henoko Bay. Although the plan was designed as a solution to Okinawa’s complaints on noise pollution and crimes, it expanded the controversial issue of the large American presence and the harm they bring to the island.

In reference to my previous blog, there is both a high volume of supporters and protesters of the project. Okinawans argue that relocating the base from Futenma to Henoko, based on the volume of the population, does not make logical sense. They believed that Americans are the root to the rising problems and they would only carry their dangerous habits to a new region. Another reason why Okinawans oppose the plan is that Henoko Bay is home to many marine wildlife. The project instructs construction workers to fill in the bay to create more land for the development. Marine wildlife plays a significant role in the island’s lifestyle, so destroying it causes great dispute.

Despite the residences’ opinion on the issue, the American and Japanese government argue to move forward with the plan in belief that the new location holds strategic value. They believe it would reduce American presence as it gives opportunity for American troops and their dependents to move off the island and allow more economic possibilities for locals in Henoko.

Moving forward, I will address how Okinawan millennial, who are beginning to understand the American-Japanese alliance, feel about the relocation project. I will also discuss the current political positions on the issue and the alternative plans that continue to place a hold on the project.

Charles Morrison, The Japan Times contributing author, conducted a research that centered the attitudes of 20 to 45-year-old Okinawans on the issue of American presence on the island. Morrison and his colleague administered dozens of interviews and online surveys to about 200 “millennial plus” Okinawans. He states, “It showed a broad consensus around the beliefs that Okinawa hosts more than its fair share of foreign military bases and that Tokyo does not give due regard to Okinawan views.” The study illustrated a wide support for increased access to the bases, better relations between American-service personnel and local communities, and “more dialogue on Okinawa base-related issues.” In general, Okinawans just want to be heard. They have been fighting and enduring the consequences of the U.S.-Japanese alliance for years. What the locals yearn for is not at all an extreme gesture by the U.S. and Japanese governments, but more of simple rights as hosts to the American-Japanese alliance.

In addition, Jiji Kyodo, another author to The Japan Times, states that the central government believes the relocation plan is the “only solution” to stopping the dangers that occurred at Futenma without interrupting the U.S.-Japan alliance. However, Morrison’s study found that a majority of the participants expressed disagreement to the idea that Henoko should be accepted as a means to close Futenma. The participants argue that “with tourism booming, the bases may no longer be as economically critical to Okinawa as they once were.” A government official who took part of the surveys and interviews says that Okinawans are not denying the great contributions of American bases but expressing their attitudes toward the large amount. He states, “It’s just that we have too many of them.”

Concluding the survey were thoughts on possible improvements for the relocation plan and its rising issues. The study suggests that “the current mode of defensively reacting to problems rather than proactively seeking to lessen impacts can be changed.” The participants argued that Okinawan voices on the issues that are affecting them should be heard and be as valuable as any other U.S.-allied country. The study suggests that Tokyo should acknowledge and be sensitive to Okinawan feelings and make efforts to honor the Okinawan culture. So how can the two governments create an appropriate channel for Okinawan voices to be heard?

According to Daniel Hurst, The Diplomat‘s freelance journalist based in Tokyo, Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki called for a meeting with the Japanese central government and the United States earlier this year in March. During the meeting Tamaki proposed an idea that would allow the Okinawa government to have more control over their island through the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO). SACO is a process that was established in 1995 by the U.S. and Japanese governments to develop plans of base realignment and reduce the burden that the bases have on the island (Hurst, 2019). Tamaki insisted that the Okinawan prefectural government be involved in a relaunched SACO because it is now time for Tokyo and Washington to set up a “SACO plus Okinawa” dialogue “to verify the progress regarding the SACO agreement as well as to study the return of the base” (Hurst, 2019).

Furthermore, the meeting resulted in the success of the governments’ commitment to continue dialogue with the Okinawan locals but a failure to postpone the project. During a press conference that followed the meeting, Japanese Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya stated that Tokyo would continue to explain its stance “carefully and persistently to the people of Okinawa” and hoped to be able to “gain their understanding.”

It seems as though the issue at hand stand is still as controversial as it was decades ago with all governments refusing to give in to the other. Based on my research for opposing and supporting perspectives, I can suggest that there is no middle line that exists between the issue. Okinawans are fighting to close the base completely, meanwhile the American and Japanese governments are fighting to relocate the base instead. In my opinion, if the U.S. and Japanese governments are willing to relocate the base to a smaller location and reduce the amount of military personnel and their dependence by sending them to surrounding countries, doesn’t that mean Okinawa and the U.S.-Japanese alliance can afford to reduce the American presence on the island altogether? As stated above, tourism in Okinawa is a great contribution to the economy and the number of bases on the island, if Futenma was to close off completely without the relocation, would still be high with a large American presence remaining.

I believe that the people of Okinawa and their government understand that they play a small authoritative role in the decision making of their home. It appears that their demand for change may be impossible against the two larger governments, but Okinawans are resilient and pushing for a greater voice to take back their island. Since the Battle of Okinawa during WWII, locals have been fighting for one thing: for their voices to be heard. It is known that Okinawa has long suffered the U.S.-Japan alliance for decades. But I believe it’s time we highlight the perspectives and cries of Okinawa protestors. As Jinshiro Motoyama, an Okinawa activist, says, “The central government should not trample on the Okinawan people’s will. We hope democracy is still alive in this country” (Hurst, 2019).

By Valerie Cha

“Okinawans will not give up! Okinawans will not give up!” These are the voices of Okinawan locals who are actively protesting an American-Japanese political project: the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. Tim Shorrock, an author focused on US military policies in Asia, states that the project began in 1995 when three U.S. Marines kidnapped and raped an Okinawan schoolgirl. Since the incident, Okinawans have been protesting and demanding that the base be closed.

To resolve the issue, the American and Japanese government decided that Futenma Air Base should relocate to Henoko Bay. According to Yuri Kageyama, a Marine Corps Times author, the idea is it to remove the large American base located in a heavily populated area to a less dense region. Henoko would house less military personnel and place some American troops off the island in nearby countries. Although the plan removes Futenma Air Base away from a greater population, Okinawans are fighting to remove the base entirely off the island in fear that the relocation will destroy Henoko’s environment. They also fear that the U.S. Military will carry over their dangerous behaviors to the new region.

As an American who first stepped foot on the island last summer, I unknowingly contributed to the increase in a population that some locals wish to reduce. The protesting of the base caught me by surprise and encouraged me to unravel the relocation controversy. Let’s begin by weighing the options.

As mentioned, both governments hoped that by relocating the American base from a crowded region to a less populated area, it would potentially affect less people. However, Okinawans believe that harm done, is still harm done. In reference to Kageyama, locals argue that “military have been described as noisy and dangerous since they arrived on the island and continued their development in 1945.” Similarly, Futenma has been long criticized as noisy and dangerous. I can see why Okinawans question the difference in behavior if the base was relocated rather than dismissed altogether. This poses the question of whether Henoko’s smaller population matters if Americans give rise to the issues.

Of course it is not the only reason why men and women of all ages continue marching and chanting along the gates of Futenma. Relocating the base to Henoko meant “filling in Oura Bay with earth, sand, cement, gravel, and large rocks” (Shorrock, 2018). In 2018, the Marine Corps Times’ Associated Press wrote an online article that addressed concerns about the endangered marine mammal in the area: the Okinawa dugong. The Okinawa dugong is a manatee-like animal that signifies the “traditional creation myths” of Japan. The article states that critical feeding grounds and habitat for the dugong are in danger if the plan continues. In addition, Okinawan Prefectural Government says, “over 5,800 species of creatures, including 262 endangered species, are confirmed to exist in the waters of Henoko and Oura Bay.” Marine wildlife is a significant part of the island and lifestyle of its residence. Harming it is equivalent to harming locals and interfering with their way of living.

Another perspective opposing the relocation project focuses on cost and duration. Annmaria M. Shimabuku, the author of a new book on Okinawa, mentions that the latest study by the Okinawa Prefectural Government on Henoko indicated that the total cost of tearing down Futenma and constructing a new base in Henoko could exceed $22.5 billion, which is 10 times the original estimated cost. The plans for relocating Futenma dates back over five decades with local oppositions hindering efforts to actually begin construction. To me, it seems as though all parties have consumed a great amount of time and money arguing over a plan that has not yet been acted upon. This proves that the controversy over the project is extremely valuable and worth analyzing. The question left to ask is, despite protestors opinions, what are possible benefits that encourages both governments and some locals to fight in favor of the new construction?

On the report of “The U.S. Military Presence in Okinawa and Futenma Base Controversy,” Emma Chanlett-Avery, a specialist in Asian Affairs, and Ian E. Rinehart, an analyst in Asian Affairs, mention that both governments agreed a handful of the 9,000 marines (and their dependents) would relocate from Okinawa to surrounding locations such as Guam, Australia and Hawaii. By doing so, it reduces the amount of military presence on the island and addresses the concerns of locals. Although it is a start to put forth some effort in hearing out protestors, is relocating a small portion from the thousands that colonize the island enough?

In efforts to continue the plan, the U.S. and Japanese governments believe that the new base is placed in a strategic location for political reasons. Chanlett-Avery and Rinehart says that in the event of defending and/or retaking uninhabited islands from a hypothetical invasion force, the operational capabilities of the Okinawa-based Marines are needed. This leads us to believe that American presence on the island is beneficial in preparation for possible disputes.

Although many locals oppose the plan, I found perspectives of some who are in favor of the new construction. In the PBS Newshour report, “On Okinawa, many locals want U.S. troops to leave”, Amy Guttman states that Japan contributes about $1.7 billion a year to the cost of U.S. deployment, in addition to providing Okinawa funds for hosting a portion of American troops. She continues to say that the troops provide economic security by increasing jobs for Okinawans and supporting local businesses. Likewise, Steve Rabson, from the Institute for Policy Studies, writes that the poor village’s desire for a modern, urban life with electricity and sanitary water would be provided by the new base. Some locals in Henoko are in favor of the plan as it opens economic possibilities in the area.

The disagreement between Okinawa, the U.S. and Japan over the relocation of Futenma Air Base is an ongoing dispute as locals are still fighting to push the base completely off the island. After analyzing the issue based on positive and negative perspectives, we can suggest that there is much more effort needed for a resolution that would benefit Okinawa and the U.S.-Japanese alliance. Although many Okinawans argue that the presence of so many U.S. troops is burdensome already and they would rather have the base entirely off than relocating the problem to a different region, the dispute continues and the project remains as is until all governments come to a compromise.

By Valerie Cha

Okinawa, the “Hawaii of Japan”, remains the most beautiful, touristy islands of all Japan with breathtaking coral reefs and marine wildlife. Although it has become a top travel location for many American tourists, tourists today would find themselves stumbling upon local protesters fighting to end a U.S. Military project: the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. Local Okinawans believe that the location will destroy part of the island’s beauty and become a stressor to many.  

As an American tourist in Okinawa this past summer, I witnessed how the relocation of one of the largest American bases on the island united the local citizens against the foreigners who are colonizing their island. After diving into research, I found that the issue dated back to World War II, when the islands of Okinawa became a major location that the U.S. military used to mobilize their troops towards mainland Japan. The Battle of Okinawa resulted in the sacrifice and murder of roughly 160,000 Okinawa citizens which led to a distrustful relationship between the U.S. Military and Okinawa (Sarantakes, 2000). Since the war, the U.S. government continued to develop a number of military bases across the island as it became a valuable location. However, the increase of American presence greatly affected the local Okinawans.

Sarah Bird, a novelist and daughter of military personnel who was stationed in Okinawa, states that the increase of American troops led to a spike in the economy as Okinawa’s tourist industries developed and troops supported local businesses. However, Okinawans made numerous complaints about crime, noise, misconduct under the influence, environmental degradation, economic stagnation and the fact that “we’ve made their homeland an inevitable military target.” Similarly, Tokyo Bureau Chief for The Washington Post, Anna Fifield, claims that many Okinawans believe they unfairly shoulder the burden of the U.S. alliance with Japan. After years of alliance and voicing their complaints, how did all three governments compromise?

Let’s trace it back to 1995 when Okinawa would experience one of the greatest burdens of the U.S. and Japanese alliance: the kidnapping and rape of an Okinawan schoolgirl by three U.S. Marines. Matthew M. Burke and Aya Ichihashi, staff writers for the U.S. military Stars and Stripes News, states that a “furor erupted” over the incident and that local Okinawans demanded that the base be closed. As a result, the relocation project was developed by the American and Japanese governments in an attempt to resolve the issue and avoid continued use of Futenma.

Futenma is located in a heavily populated urban area in central Okinawa and pose safety risks to many of the locals. According to Tim Shorrock, an author focused on US military policies in Asia, the plan is to move the base over to Henoko, in northern Okinawa, by “filling in Oura Bay with earth, sand, cement, gravel, and large rocks.” Having been to the island and exploring the marine wildlife, I can see how Okinawans view this plan as unethical as it would destroy a part of the island’s beauty and harm the existing wildlife. While the relocation plan removes a bulk of American troops from the heavily populated area, the creation of new land and presence of many American troops in a new part of the island are still provoking local citizens. Burke and Ichihashi mentions that the issue ignited a “small but vigorous protest movement” that has been and still are, working to stop the project of relocation and move the operations completely off the island.

In the attempt to resolve an ongoing dispute that was set off decades ago, all parties remain active in the pursuit of relocating the air base and its military families. Given the significance of the issue and the history of it, I plan to illustrate the consequences, benefits and alternative solutions to the relocation project while voicing the opinions of Americans, Japanese, and American Japanese locals.

By Valerie Cha

“One in every 50 babies born in Japan is a hāfu—having one parent from a foreign country—amounting to 20,000 children every year” (Yoshitaka, 2018). Those who are labeled by others or identify themselves as hāfu often find it challenging to understand what it means to be a hāfu and what it means to be Japanese. According to Tamaki Denny, governor of Okinawa Prefecture, there is a fundamental problem with the term. He states, “it carries a sense of condescension and discrimination from the people using words to categorize toward those being categorized.”

I’ve recently shed light on both American and Okinawan perspectives about the issue of American troops in Okinawa. However, what about those who are stuck in between? Citizens, who were not considered citizens by either country in the beginning, surely have their own views on the issue. For starters, the number of people living in Okinawa with mixed Japanese and American roots was a result of the Battle of Okinawa.

After a long search for the history of American Japanese, I found a scholarly article published by a modern history Ph.D. student from UC Santa Barbara, Lily Anne Yumi Welty. Welty states that immediately after the war, many of the members of the U.S. military left their children behind in the care of their Japanese mothers and the Japanese government. During my stay in Okinawa, I met a local who was a hāfu. As I asked about his story, he told me that his father was a U.S. military personnel who left him and his mother on the island. Although we did not specifically discuss the status of his citizenship, he mentioned that he has access to the American bases on the island, but he’s never actually been to the United States.

Majority of the time, both the Japanese government and American government rejected the citizenship for these multiracial children, leaving them “legally stateless”. If not all, thousands of these American Japanese children experienced intense discrimination and physical abuse due to their American features that locals symbolized Japan’s defeat (Welty, 2012). Welty mentions, “In short, they were Americans left overseas without U.S. governmental support, and often without the support of their biological parents.”

With the increase of development on the island leading to the increase in foreigner presence, the number of hāfus and number of children who are discriminated against is increasing. As they are becoming a larger portion of the population on the island, how do they feel about the presence of American troops?

Let’s examine a hāfu who has made his way to a high political leadership position, Tamaki Denny. Tamaki is the governor of Okinawa prefecture who is a son to an American Marine father and Japanese mother. Tamaki ran in the election, believing that his American heritage could help him negotiate with the U.S. government over the relocation of Futenma Air Base. He wanted the base removed from Okinawa altogether. However, as an American-Japanese, there were debates about which country, or part of himself, he was fighting to protect. “It’s not possible that the democracy of the country of my father will reject me,” Tamaki said. Although this is Tamaki’s perspective, I think it is safe to say that his thoughts resembles thoughts of other American Japanese locals as well (which is reflected in his victory). There is much confusion in terms of identity, citizenship, cultural beliefs and which side of them they should be rooting for. However, the decisions made by Tamaki and many other locals who wishes to reduce American troops, are based on ethics and made for the good of the Okinawan and American Japanese locals and the environment of the island.

By Valerie Cha

A 50-year old grandmother, native to the islands of Okinawa, wakes up at the peak of dawn and rushes down to the housing base where an empty coffee pot is waiting to be filled. She spends her morning cleaning common areas and preparing new linens for 60 rooms that require service every day. Meanwhile, her brother is driving a bus filled with young marines across the island to another base for training and her daughter is bagging groceries at the Commissary (base grocery store) on the other side. Let’s not forget her grandson, who is still recovering in the hospital after turning a wrong corner and encountering a drunk marine behind the wheel. Some say it’s work and some say it’s life, but is it necessary? The war ended in 1945, yet, Okinawans are still suffering from the presence of Americans. As I mentioned in my first blog, this ongoing battle continues to exist while the grandmother and her family silently live through the decisions of politicians who sip Da-Hong Pao Tea from their suite balconies beyond the island.

This is how I, and a few Americans as described in my previous blog, saw it to be. The relationship between each Okinawan in the story above may not be true, but the idea that the Okinawans are still working their way through the aftermath of war, is true. Although American military bases remain on the island to defend Japan and the region, many islanders wish “the bases would close and their 50,000 soldiers and families would go home” (American Experience).

Considering that the opinions of Americans on the issue have already been discussed, I wanted to explore the voices of islanders and locals on Okinawa. From my own experiences on the island and bases, I did not encounter any negative behaviors or comments towards me as an American. Honestly, I did not think much of how I was contributing to the issue of being an American in Okinawa. It was not until I witnessed protesting against the relocation of bases and dove deep into research about the issue, that I came to realize how badly Okinawans wanted us out.

“Opposition to the overpowering American presence crystallized nearly two decades ago after the rape of a teenage girl by U.S. military personnel. The bases remain because no one else in Japan wants to host American military forces.” – Doug B., Senior at Cato Institute, Specialist in foreign policy and civil liberties.

The incident, in particular, may have occurred two decades ago, but there have been a growth in conflicts ever since. NPR’s Elise Hu talks with Anna Fifield, Tokyo Bureau Chief for The Washington Post about the locals’ opposition to the growth in American presence. Three days prior to their conversation, a U.S. Marine stationed in Okinawa drunkenly crashed his truck into another vehicle, killing the 61-year-old Japanese driver. This type of collision involving U.S. personnel on the island, along with helicopter crashes, rape, and murder, has been occurring over the years (NPR, 2017). The U.S. Military tries to prevent these incidents by banning consumption of alcohol, setting stricter curfews, and restricting military personnel from leaving their housing for a period of time. Once the period is over, military personnel engage in the same activities as if their impulsive decisions did not cause harm. As described by Fifield, short term solution plans are executed and an apology from the head of U.S. forces is given to the governor of Okinawa. However, the governor speaks for his people when he says, “we’re sick of hearing these excuses time and time again… we feel like you are not good neighbors anymore” (NPR, 2017).

Fifield states that many Okinawans believe they unfairly shoulder the burden of the U.S. alliance with Japan. Although Okinawa makes up only one percent of Japanese land, it houses 64 percent of the American bases in Japan (NPR, 2017). The saying, “enough is enough,” is one that has been continuously repeated by Okinawans for the past few decades. The remaining question is: when will the U.S. and Japanese government hear them out and see that their decisions have done enough?

Hopefully with the current fight against the relocation of Futenma Air Base, both governments will finally make a decision that benefits the locals and the island.

By Valerie Cha

The Battle of Okinawa continues as the island, locals, and U.S. military suffers the repercussions of war. As I discussed in my previous blog, “The Ongoing Battle of Okinawa,” there is a hindered relationship that exists between Okinawans and Americans due to the large number of military personnel and bases on the island. Though the benefits and consequences have been explored, I wanted to elaborate on the effects it has on military families and island locals. This post will voice the opinions of military personnel on the topic of their presence in Okinawa.

As the United States and Japanese governments are the determining factors of the development of military bases, military families are stuck to live those decisions made. During my 10 weeks internship on Camp Foster, Camp Courtney, and Camp McTureous this past summer, I spent quite some time getting to know some of the military families I worked with. At the time, I was unfamiliar with the existing issue. However, towards the last few weeks of my trip, I noticed the protestors and grew curious of how military families felt about being on the island. I wanted to know if they knew their impact on the island and the lives of locals, but I didn’t have the courage to ask.

Morton H. Halperin, an ex-U.S. official, stated in an article posted on Kyodo News that “Okinawa is a military base.” He mentioned that the phrase was delivered to him early in his career by a senior naval officer, and he grew to understand the meaning of it. During the war, the entire island was treated as one big base (Haplerin, 2018). As the development continues today, Okinawa remains the same: a single, large military base. This opens the discussion to believe that American troops understood the impact of the number of developing bases on the island. But how do they feel about it?

After a long search of an opinion from an American’s point of view, I found the voice of a novelist and daughter of military personnel who was stationed in Okinawa: Sarah Bird. As mentioned before, military families are living the decisions made. However, do they know why it was made or why they are on the island? Many of the children had vague ideas about the outcomes of war. Even when I was there, I questioned how the United States received so much land for the military bases and why the yard workers, bus drivers, and cleaning personnels were all elderly Okinawan locals. “Because we won the war, knucklehead,” was a common response for children who questioned it (Bird, 2014). Some military children, such as Bird, saw themselves to be part of an “occupying force,” and asked themselves how it would feel to lose one-fifth of their home state to a foreign force for decades (Bird, 2014).

It’s obvious that American families are aware of the impact they have on the island. We know that Okinawans have protested U.S. military presence for decades. We also know that the locals have complained about crime, environmental degradation, economic stagnation, and the fact that “we’ve made their homeland an inevitable military target” (Bird, 2014). Although the matter is beyond our reach, some military families, including American citizens like me, believe that relocating a bulk of our bases should be an obligation we must discharge before the development of more bases on the small island expands further. As Bird stated, “We must undo the grave injustice committed in 1951.”

References:

Bird, Sarah (2014). “A Military Brat on Okinawa.” The New York Times, The New York Times.

Halperin, Morton H. (2018). “OPINION: Ex-U.S. Official Urges Japan to Convey Okinawa’s Voice on Base Issue.” Kyodo News.

By Valerie Cha

Okinawa is a collection of Japanese islands that is known to consist of the world’s most beautiful coral reefs and marine wildlife. Before Okinawa became a top travel location for American tourists, it was a combat zone during World War II when American troops invaded the islands. Okinawa was a major location that the U.S. military used to mobilize their troops towards mainland Japan. During the Battle of Okinawa, roughly 160,000 Okinawa citizens were sacrificed by the Japanese army or killed by American troops in case they were spies for Japan (Sarantakes, 2000). This led to a distrustful relationship between the U.S. military and Okinawa after WWII. Since the war, the United States has built multiple military bases across the island and has stationed several thousands of US military members and their families on those bases.

In the article, “Okinawa and the U.S. military, post 1945,” Lane Johnston discusses the hindered relationship between the two groups who now, share the island. The first half of the article describes Okinawa as a valuable location to the U.S. due to its strategic position. Okinawa was viewed as a “stepping-stone” into Asia for the U.S., especially during times of assistance for South Korean allies and communist movements occurring in surrounding enemy countries. This encouraged the expansion of military bases on the island (Johnston, 2013).

As the expansion continued, the number of Americans increased which greatly affected Okinawans. Many of the military bases were used for testing and storing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (Johnston, 2013). This negatively impacted the locals because the failed tests often caused harm to the prefectures (Japanese cities), the environment, and the locals themselves. However, the increase of American troops was also beneficial because it led to a spike in the economy as Okinawa’s tourist industry began to market the island and the troops supported local businesses (Johnston, 2013).

Based on personal experiences of living on and interning for a US military base in Okinawa for 10 weeks, I know there is still existing tension and rising political and social controversial issues between the two cultures that affects the lives of locals, US military families, the islands environment and wildlife, and potentially citizens in the United States and the Japanese population on mainland Japan. Although Johnston mentions some effects of U.S. troops in Okinawa and fundamental issues that underlie the U.S.-Japan alliance, Doug Bandow, author of “What Should the U.S. Do in Okinawa? Bring America’s Troops Home from Japan,” states that it would be better to decrease America’s military presence on the island.

Bandow states that one third of the troops in Japan are scattered across the island. He further describes that the bases are closing off beaches, housing, cemeteries, and other land that are important and valuable to Okinawans (Bandow, 2016). He also mentions ongoing discussions concerning complaints from locals to the Japanese and American government regarding crimes, noise, and misconduct under the influence. However, the complaints were often dismissed and the locals were left to suffer the outcome (Bandow, 2016).

I understand the logic and importance of having American troops stationed in Okinawa; however, is the large number of troops necessary if their presence brings about conflict and distress to the island’s locals? As I explored the bases during my stay, I saw headstones that belonged to Japanese families who could not gain access to the military bases. This sparked another question of how much of a voice local Okinawans have when considering the development of U.S. military bases on their homeland. I have also experienced the night-life of young marines and can understand why locals take caution around military under the influence. From Johnston’s view on economic benefits, I can agree that the U.S. presence does in fact contribute largely to the economy because of the many attractions and delicious restaurants owned by locals. On the other hand, Bandow has me questioning our presence as well, when he highlights the risks and dangers that the military has on locals and valuable features of the island. I believe that although there may be good political purpose for military locations, the host country (in this case, island) should have control over safety regulations and development, especially when it benefits the locals who are more likely to spend their whole lives on the island.

References:

Bandow, Doug (2016). “What Should The U.S. Do In Okinawa? Bring America’s Troops Home From Japan.” Forbes Magazine.

Haw, Jim (2013). “Okinawa and the U.S. Military, Post 1945.” Scientific American Blog Network.

Sarantakes, N (2000). Keystone: the American occupation of Okinawa and U.S. – Japanese relations. Texas A&M University Press.