The Japanese Government (and the US Government)
 |
| Henoko construction started: TV clip from QAB Asahi |
On July 1, 2014, the Okinawa Defense Bureau started its first phase of the base construction work in Henoko and Oura Bay (see this Ryukyu Shimpo article). It involves tearing down of factory buildings, barracks, and clinic office on Camp Schwab to make a way to create a work yard. According to news reports (see this Ryukyu Shimpo article), drilling surveys on the sea floor, which would destroy corals, are set to start by the end of July. Actual land reclamation work could start right after the governor’s election on November 16, 2014.
The starting of the construction amid Okinawa people’s strong opposition and concern over environmental destruction indicates the Japanese government’s willingness to do whatever it takes to push the construction plan forward. The US government appears to go along with the Japanese government.
Many people in Okinawa saw this coming.
In December 2013, the Japanese government was able to get Okinawa Governor Hirokazu Nakaima to change his previous position of "No to the construction in Henoko" to approve the Okinawa Defense Bureau’s application for land reclamation, a prerequisite for the base construction.
In January 2014, then, the Okinawa Defense Bureau moved swiftly to begin contracting with survey and construction companies. This was done against the background that the Okinawa Prefectural Assembly passed a resolution on January 10, calling for the resignation of Governor Nakaima for his approval of the reclamation work (see this Japan Update article in English) as well as that Susumu Ianmene, anti-base construction cadidate, decisively won the Nago Mayor’s election on Januyary 17 (Henoko and Oura Bay is in Nago City), securing his second term and Nago City’s anti-construction position (see this Japan Times article in English).
The Japanese government is now menacing those who oppose the construction. It has indicated that the government will not hesitate to apply the Keitoku hou, a special criminal act, to those who enter the construction area (see this Sankei Shinbun article). This special criminal act was established in 1952 to enforce the agreement under Article 6 of the Treaty of Mutual Corporation and Security between Japan and the U.S.
In line with this, on June 20, the Japanese and US governments agreed to expand Camp Schwab’s present off limit water area from 50 m to 2 km off the coast of Henoko (see this transcrip of Defense Minster Onodera's Press Conference in English). The expansion became effective on July 2 (see this Ryukyu Shimpo article). Now, almost half of Oura Bay is an off-limit area. If anyone enters this newly expand off-limit water area, to protest, fish, or just to sightsee, he or she could be arrested for breaching the special criminal act.
You get the picture.
Opposition movements
 |
| Gathering before Peace Parade on Feb. 11, 2014 |
The vast majority of people in Okinawa continues to oppose the construction plan. According to the latest telephone polls conducted by the Ryukyu Shimpo on May 7, 2014 (see this Ryukyu Shimpo article), 74% of the people in Okinawa oppose the construction plan. Only 16% support the construction. These numbers have remained constant for the last 18 years. And as we mentioned above, the Okinawa Prefectural Assembly passed a resolution on January 10 calling for the resignation of Governor Nakaima for his approval of the reclamation work.
Many individuals have also taken or are willing to take whatever steps to stop the construction. The sit-in protest at Henoko Tent village continues, with more people visiting the village. People have started practiceing “sit-in on the water” protest with canoes and small boats. Rallies and gatherings have been held in different parts of Okinawa against the construction (see this Ryukyu Shimpo article for the latest protest rally at Henoko Tent village on June 28).
People have filled a lawsuit against Governor Nakaima claiming that the governor’s approval for reclamation breaches the public land reclamation law. They demand that Governor Nakaima retract his approval (see this Ryukyu Shimpo article).
Nago City, headed by Mayor Inamine, continues to oppose the construction plan in its capacity. The City Office has been sending letters of inquiry and question to the Okinawa Prefecture Government as well as to the Okinawa Defense Bureau, demanding explanation for details of the construction plan and refusing to issue permits to the Bureau (see this Ryukyu Shimpo article). Also, Mayor Inamine recently visited NY and Washington D.C., lobbying US policy makers for the withdrawal of the construction plan (see this New York Times article in Engish).
On the environmental front, NGOs are asking the international community to examine and voice against the impacts of the base construction/operation on the environment.
 |
| NGOs and Nago Mayor Inamine at US MMC on May 20, 2014 |
NGOs have submitted a request letter to the US Marine Mammal Commission regarding the possible impacts of the base on the Okinawa dugong, an endangered marine mammal species inhabiting the area of Henoko and Oura Bay (see the request letter and the appendix MEMO in English). NGOs have also contacted the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) regarding the possible introduction and spread of alien species from transportation of large amount of rock and soil from other parts of the Japan (see the request letter in English). The NGOs await responses from these organizations.
Things that are unclear and need to be explored
There are things that are still not clear, many people are not aware of, and media outlets do not report in detail. But some of them could change the dynamics of this 18 year old Okinawan saga. We are able to provide the following information because we meet and discuss (fight) with government officials and engage in various projects to help stop the construction.
First, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment, supposedly a national guardian of the nation's environment, remains silent over the issue of the military base construction in Henoko and Oura Bay. Despite that the area of Henoko and Oura Bay is considered as one of the most biodiversity rich areas in Japan, the Environment Ministry has not gone beyond stating the obvious that the Okinawa Defense Bureau needs follow whatever it required to follow in terms of environmental conservation. In private, however, ministry officials have expressed concern for possible environmental impacts and disappointment regarding the Governor’s approval for reclamation.
Interestingly, the Ministry of the Environment is pushing its bid to get Okinawa (Ryukyu) and Amami Islands registered as UNESCO’s World Natural Heritage (see this Japan Times article in English). The forest of Yanbaru, which is just 20 km away from Henoko and Oura Bay, is considered as a candidate site (see this Ryukyu Shimpo article). One must wonder what this is all about. But, one can also see, this has opened up possibilities that could be explored to challenge the construction plan. We will discuss this in another article.
Secondly, while Governor Nakaima insists that his decision to approve the reclamation work was an “administrative decision,” all in accordance with the public water reclamation law (see this Ryukyu Shimpo article), emerging evidence suggests otherwise. The law stipulates that Governor cannot issue a permit unless the project takes sufficient consideration for environmental conservation and disaster prevention (Article 4-1-2). We are extremely concerned that his approval was a mere political decision, lacking scientific backing and validity, breaching the law, thereby putting at great risk our environment and our life.
Through NGOs’ fact-finding meetings with the Okinawa prefectural government and the Okinawa prefectural assembly’s special investigation committee hearings (see these hearings video clips), we know that the following took place, leading to Governor Nakaima’s approval (that is, assuming that Governor Nakaima and the officials told the truth).
 |
| Fact finding meeting between NGOs and Okinawa Prefectural Government on Jun. 6, 2014 Can you tell who are NGO members and Who are officials? In Okinawa, we dress alike. |
When Governor Nakaima had to make his decision, there were two different sets of information on his table. One was provided by the head of the Department of Environment and Social Affairs of the Okinawa prefectural government as well as by Mayor Inamine of Nago City. This set of information discussed various concerns on environmental conservation. The other set was provided by the head of the Department of Civil Engineering and Construction of the Okinawa prefectural government. This information declared that the Okinawa Defense Bureau’s reclamation application was in accordance with the law. Governor Nakaima went along with the latter information because the Department of Civil Engineering and Construction is the department responsible for making decisions regarding reclamation of public waters.
We see two problems here. The first concerns the validity of the information Governor Nakaima accepted and adopted in his approval. The information from the Department of Environment and Social Affairs and from Nago Mayor, which could have led Nakaima to disapprove reclamation, was compiled in consultation with experts and scientists (see this Okinawa BD report). Many of the experts and scientists are in fact appointed by the Okinawa prefectural government itself. Governor Nakaima ignored or dismissed this information.
The latter information, which Nakaima adopted, was complied by three middle ranked officials from the Department of Civil Engineering and Construction. And these officials have admitted that they have no expert knowledge and experience of environmental conservation regarding the dugong, corals, seagrass, and alien species issues as well as military operation (see this Okinawa BD report). They have also admitted that they did not consult with any scientists and experts in compiling the information. Where is scientific backing and validity in Governor’s approval?
The second problem concerns the validity (or fishiness) of this whole process (or scenario) presented by Governor Nakaima and his officials. Was it really possible that these middle ranked officials could make such an important decision by themselves, without consulting experts and scientists, and then, only then, the governor went along with it? Or was the case really that these three officials were told to produce information that would favor Governor’s approval and to become sort of scapegoats? As long as Governor Nakaima and his high ranked officials stick to their stories they provided in the Special Investigation Committee’s hearings, these questions remain only as speculative questions. But we need to keep asking these questions.
And finally, we need to pay close attention to the role of the US military in this start of the military base construction in Henoko and Oura Bay. We already know that the US military (and the US government) has agreed with the Japanese government on the expansion of the off-limit water area in Henoko and Oura Bay. But, how about the “dugong lawsuit” (Dugong vs. Rumsfeld)? Does anyone remember it?
 |
| Dugong vs. Rumsfeld: Asia Times |
In January 2008, the US Distric Court for the District of Northern California ordered the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to comply with Section 402 of the U.S. National Historical Preservation Act before it could engage in any federal “undertaking” (see this Japan Focus article in English). The DoD was ordered to conduct its own analysis of or to “take into account” the impacts of the construction and operation of the base on the Okinawa dugong. This case has been held in abeyance by the Court for the uncertainty of the base construction plan since the time of February 2012 (see Center for Biological Diversity, et al., Plaintiff(s), vs. Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, et el., Defendant(s). Case3:03-cv-04350-MHP Document147).
The very fact that the Okinawa Defense Bureau started the first phase of the construction means that the Bureau was able to get permits from the DoD to enter Camp Schwab for the purpose of carrying out the construction. (Issuing work entry permits is required for construction works on US bases). This in turn means that the DoD must have completed its “take into account” process, ordered by the Court because issuing entry permits is a form of “federal undertaking.”
Our problem is this: we, including the Okinawan plaintiffs of the lawsuit, do not know how and when the DoD conducted its take into account process. Nor have we seen any statements and documents coming out of the process. Did the DoD conduct the entire process and hold all the documents in secrecy while issuing entry permits to the Japanese government to start the construction? If so, was this really allowed under the US legal system? We will be certainly asking the DoD and the US government these questions.
That’s all for now!
 |
| Dugong Origami on the Fence of Camp Schwab on Jan. 1, 2014 |
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿