Okinawa..... Okie, leave now ahh!

National security can conflict with the security of sub-groups within a nation.

The people of Okinawa have been jeopardized by Japan in order to keep U.S. forces within the nation.  The Japanese government, for a number of reasons, has decided to maintain relations with the U.S. and keep many forces and bases within their land.  However, mainland Japan has decided to keep most of the U.S. presence in the small islands of Okinawa.  This is a classic example of how the interests of one ethic group can conflict with the interests of another and thus cause marginalization of the former.  Okinawa has been discounted as a lesser population than other Japanese people.

This shows us that security can no longer be played out between national actors only.  The leaders of a nation can threaten the security of social groups within their scope.  Since the author of the speech we read this week, Governor Ota, defines the security of Okinawa as the stability of industry, low rate of crime, freedom of land, and other non-military issues, it is clear the security of Okinawans is threatened to preserve the security of mainland Japan.

Why the Marginalization of Okinawa?

Okinawa used to be its own kingdom centuries ago.  Mainland Japan, in an act of imperialism, annexed the kingdom and established its own rulers and the islands' rulers.  Thus, the people were placed in a position of oppression and social demotion.  When Japan signed a peace treaty with the U.S. requiring the nation to host U.S. forces for a number of years, they naturally appointed Okinawa as the host site to be built on and used for such exploitative purposes.  

And this, the Governor points out, is the reason why the U.S. presence cannot be reduced on the island: it would threaten the military protection the U.S. provides for the rest of Japan.  But what about the Okinawans???

Other Reasons for No Military Reduction in Okinawa

Okinawa is the perfect geographical location for a military base (near mainland Japan, China, Taiwan, and the whole of Asia).  This is too perfect of a position to launch defensives or even offensives for any military body. Thus, the U.S. is hesitant to reduce or reallocate its military to other areas of further north mainland Japan.

Troop and Base Maintenance: What's In It for Okinawans?

Not a whole lot.  As of right now, the economy is suffering under troop presence because the Okinawans have no land to build industry on.  The military bases don't employ many native Okinawans.  The military hurts their personal, daily life quality.  If the troop presence is reduced, security for these people may increase.  However, it does leave the island and U.S. military more vulnerable to invasion and loss of power (respectively).  So, we must weigh the costs versus the benefits in the context of current politics, economy, and social norms.  Do Japan and the U.S. really need to have as many bases in Okinawa as they have right now or can the Okinawans finally have the chance to advance themselves and have the peace they've craved for hundreds of years?

Forget and Then You Don't Need to Forgive: Why this philosophy just doesn't work

Historical Memory of Japanese, Germans, and U.S.

The author brings up a great point in saying that each of the three nations remember and forget their own wartime atrocities very differently.  The U.S. does portray it's own crimes as those carried out by a select set of blood-thirsty military black sheep and then has gone on to say the war crimes of Japan and Germany were because they sanctioned unfair and inhumane war practices and are savage people.  This is a double-standard the U.S. uses for sure.  But, then again, don't we all think Japan and Germany do the same thing?  It's called nationalism and it's found in public speech, text books, research papers.  It's what any people naturally do when it comes to history, you never want to be the wrong party.  However, at least in this case, the atrocity is not forgotten completely.

I cannot believe that Germany has completely admitted it's responsibility for the Nazi Era.  Just recently, I believe, the chancellor before Merkel said they were not sure it ever happened and many American political analysts we come to call "quack jobs" even still deny its existence to this day.  It's hard to believe but it happens and so we cannot say that Germany has even come clean.  They have done a good job owning up to it but still place all blame on one man and his highly brainwashed posse.

The nation's historical memory that struck me the most was Japan, by far.  The fact that the government is attempting to take the massacres and bombings and Chinese slaughters out of their text books is not only a free speech violation and crazy thought straight out of 1984, it's impossible to believe the Japanese, Chinese, or Korean people would be that gullible.  Forgetting an entire segment of history would be detrimental to the healing process of the Chinese and Koreans and even a detriment to Japan learning from it's past mistakes.  The article 9, as the author rightly connects, seems to show that Japan has reconciled to an extent.  However, as the author suggests, they want to forget but skip the part of realization because maybe they believe they can never be forgiven.  I think that an open admittance and apology would do wonders for Asian relations between Japan and all other nations.

Not only that, this sort of concession and act of repentance of a traditionally stubborn and proud nation would send a ripple effect throughout the entire world.  China might apologize for its mistakes with Tibet, Mongolia, and Taiwan (in the distant future to be sure, but eventually) and, more importantly, equally stubborn U.S. would admit it's historical need to be the world police and keeper of all things democratic and just has kept it from admitting to its mistakes.  The U.S. may apologize to Japan for massive bombings, Iraq for today's situations, war prisoners for their suffering, and other groups much like it apologized to the war camp inhabitants of WWII.  We admitted to stupidity then and received nothing but praise for coming clean.  I understand that the U.S. is afraid it might show weakness on our part to apologize, but, let's face it, what threat do we really have to be scared of nowadays?