65,000 Okinawan protestors tell the U.S. GTFO.

[DireWolfSpirit]

A huge uproar and protests calling for the ouster of American military bases from Japan. A former Marine was recently arrested , charged with abandoning the body(?) of the victim, a local Okinawan woman, who was raped and murdered. Okinawans have some outrage over this in the past as well. In 1995 3 American serviceman raped  a 12 year old girl in Okinawa. 

Here's the article- https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-okinawa-demand-u-military-134436187.html

For some perspective to the scale and size of this protest, 65,000 people is larger than we've had for any single crowd at any of the Presidential race rallies this campaign season, it is more than twice as many people that will attend tonights NBA finals game, it's large and they are demanding some action from Japanese politicians. The perp is in custody of local authorities.

Very sad story. If they got the right guy, (I think he confessed, but not sure where I read that?) I hope he never gets out of his cage again.

[JGP]

 

40 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Okinawans have some outrage over this in the past as well. In 1995 3 American serviceman raped  a 12 year old girl in Okinawa. 

Ugh.

 

41 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Here's the article- https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-okinawa-demand-u-military-134436187.html

For some perspective to the scale and size of this protest, 65,000 people is larger than we've had for any single crowd at any of the Presidential race rallies this campaign season, it is more than twice as many people that will attend tonights NBA finals game, it's large and they are demanding some action from Japanese politicians. The perp is in custody of local authorities.

Very sad story. If they got the right guy, (I think he confessed, but not sure where I read that?) I hope he never gets out of his cage again.

Whenever I read US contractor coupled with former military all I see is private security, i.e. Blackwater/XE/Academi.

Anyway, an attendance of 65,000 is quite the protest. Curious as to whether or not it will have any effect. 

[zelticgar]

I know nothing about Okinawa other than the only time I ever hear about it is when some US soldier stationed there kills somebody, rapes somebody or gets into a violent confrontation after drinking too much.

Maybe its time to get out or at least consolidate bases to an area where the soldiers are not so intermingled with the residents? 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Just under 20,000 ended up attending tonights finals so they actually better than tripled that for the protest.

[sperry]

Is crime by servicemen against residents an issue?

[sologdin]

sperry, traditionally the problem has been the refusal of the US to extradite.

[JGP]

3 minutes ago, sologdin said:

sperry, traditionally the problem has been the refusal of the US to extradite.

Do you think the brass could extend that protection to a contractor though, without damaging regional perception further?

[Shryke]

A few things to keep in mind here (and this is all afaik on the situation):

1) Issues with these kind of bases are pretty common. The Korean bases have similar problems. 

2) While the locals dislike the base quite a bit, the base is there because the Japanese government wants it there. Specifically, in part, because it's nice and far away from the main islands. 

[Which Tyler]

Define "wants it there"

Is this, as opposed to having it somewhere else? or as opposed to not have having a foreign military presence on its land?

[sologdin]

basing has a strategic component for both the host and the guest, as well as an economic component.  it may well be that the state of japan 'dislikes' (that's a nasty prosopopeia as well as a silly conceptual collectivism) military bases within its territory, but the treaty of mutual cooperation of 1952 asserts the will of the state of japan well enough.  normally in international law we assume state sovereign equality, so the notion that this was signed under duress will be a hard row to hoe.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

6 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Define "wants it there"

Is this, as opposed to having it somewhere else? or as opposed to not have having a foreign military presence on its land?

The Japanese government has been consistently supportive of a continued US presence in Japan. There are legal and cultural hurdles to the Japanese having an effective military and the presence of the US is seen as a hedge against potential Chinese aggression. According to Wikipedia, there's a poll that says something like 73% of Japanese citizens approve of the presence of the US military in Japan, although the link is in Japanese and is apparently broken. I've tried to google some polling but haven't found terribly much. The US and Japan have agreed to reduce the total number of US troops in the country and relocate some to other parts of the Pacific. 

Part of the problem is that the island of Okinawa is less than 1% of the land mass of Japan but contains the majority of the US bases, and so they are bearing a disproportionate burden of the US military presence. So the opposition to the continued US presence there is very intense and very localized. 

[Which Tyler]

12 minutes ago, sologdin said:

basing has a strategic component for both the host and the guest, as well as an economic component.  it may well be that the state of japan 'dislikes' (that's a nasty prosopopeia as well as a silly conceptual collectivism) military bases within its territory, but the treaty of mutual cooperation of 1952 asserts the will of the state of japan well enough.  normally in international law we assume state sovereign equality, so the notion that this was signed under duress will be a hard row to hoe.

I dunno, and claim no expertise (hence phrasing my question as a question, rather than statement or opinion) - how long do these treaties last for. Decisions made in 1952 may not be the same as a decision made 68 years later.

I'd also think that dropping a couple of atomic bombs on the country all of 7 years previously; beggaring the country might possibly count as duress.

 

 

ETA: NM - thank you. I'm not surprised it's in favour; but a little that it's quite so clear cut. The final paragraph raises a few questions (that I don't expect anyone to answer) is it just NIMBYism? or is that those who don't have to deal with the American military are fine with them; whilst those who have daily contact are desperate to get rid?

[sologdin]

i hear you, regarding the fact that the empire of japan was bombed and nuked and under military occupation when the constitution creating the state of japan was confected, and perhaps that continued occupation might be thought of as a significant influence on the decision to 'host' an indefinite US military presence within its territory; similarly, the fact  that general macarthur's staff wrote the 1947 constitution might be considered something of an occupant's imposition.  but:  state sovereign equality will override these objections, i think.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

I dunno, and claim no expertise (hence phrasing my question as a question, rather than statement or opinion) - how long do these treaties last for. Decisions made in 1952 may not be the same as a decision made 68 years later.

I'd also think that dropping a couple of atomic bombs on the country all of 7 years previously; beggaring the country might possibly count as duress.

ETA: NM - thank you. I'm not surprised it's in favour; but a little that it's quite so clear cut. The final paragraph raises a few questions (that I don't expect anyone to answer) is it just NIMBYism? or is that those who don't have to deal with the American military are fine with them; whilst those who have daily contact are desperate to get rid?

Bit of both perhaps. I was trying to point out that a big part of this issue is a conflict between local Okinawan residents and their national government, who don't necessarily see eye to eye on the base's location.