Summary of the Appellant's Statement

July 10, 1996

I am Masahide Ota, Governor of Okinawa Prefecture.
I sincerely appreciate being given this opportunity to make a statement in front of the grand bench of the Supreme Court.

First, I would like to talk about the broad background that led to my refusal to sign the document for compulsory acquisition of land for the use of U.S. military bases, and the reason that I have brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The people of Okinawa have a strong desire for peace. We hope for peace not only because the lives of about one-third of the Okinawan people were lost in the Battle of Okinawa at the last stage of the Pacific War, but also because the cultural assets we inherited from our ancestors were demolished, and the greenery of the island was destroyed in the war.

Okinawa was an independent Ryukyu Kingdom until it was annexed by Japan in 1879. The Ryukyu Kingdom was known to foreign countries as an "island of courtesy," and as a land without weapons.

King Sho Shin ruled from the fifteenth to the sixteenth centuries and prohibited the ownership of weapons. He was also determined to preserve peace throughout the tiny Kingdom by maintaining friendly relations with foreign countries, which was the basic principle of the Kingdom.

Moreover, because the Satsuma clan, which invaded and brought the Ryukyus under its control in 1609, strictly prohibited the ownership of weapons in order to prevent the people from revolting, the people of the island came to be proudly known as "peace-loving people".

William Lebra, a scholar at the University of Hawaii, wrote in his book Okinawan Religion that Okinawan culture historically shows a basic dissimilitude from the Japanese culture. He explained that while the Okinawan culture is characterized by an absence of militarism, the Japanese culture is influenced by a warrior culture (bushi-no-bunka). Another scholar also describes the Okinawan culture as "women's culture," or "culture of generosity".

Mr. Zenchu Nakahara, known for his research on Okinawa, studied Omorososhi, the oldest collection of Okinawan songs, which contains 1554 songs from the twelfth to the seventeenth centuries. He found in the songs no words that meant massacre and concluded that the people of Okinawa had no concept of it.

Military bases exist in our prefecture, whose residents have traditionally abhorred armed conflicts. These bases have been used for the forward deployment of U.S. troops during the Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars, forcing the people of Okinawa against their will to be oppressors who kill and injure people in foreign countries. Okinawans deeply deplore this fact.

Military bases are heavily concentrated in Okinawa. As a famous American journalist once said, "It is not so much that there are military bases in Okinawa as it is that Okinawa is on a military base." Although Okinawa comprises only 0.6% of the total Japanese land area, it hosts about 75% of the facilities exclusively used by the U.S. Forces in Japan.

The U.S. Military bases occupy about 11% of the total prefectural land area, and the bases take up 20% of the main island of Okinawa. The bases are concentrated in Okinawa Island's southern and central parts which are the most densely populated areas in Japan with 2,198 people per square kilometer. In addition, based on the Status of Forces Agreement under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, the U.S. military controls 11 sea zones and 15 sectors of air space. As a result, we cannot freely use our own sea zones, air space as well as land area, making us question whether the prefecture is really a part of the sovereign state of Japan.

These conditions pose a great obstacle to urban development, not to mention the promotion of industry in Okinawa. Since the reversion, the Japanese government has enacted three ten-year Okinawan development projects with more than four trillion yen in investments, and has promoted the development of the infrastructure.

As a result, basic infrastructures such as roads and ports have been built, but unfortunately, economic gaps still exist between mainland Japan and Okinawa. The basis for independent economic development is not sufficient despite the goals of these development projects. In particular, industrial growth, which is critical for economic independence, has not been fully promoted. The per capita income in the prefecture is about 74% of that of the national average, less than half of Tokyo's, and the lowest in Japan. Furthermore, the unemployment rate in Okinawa is 6%, which is more than twice the national average. More seriously, the unemployment rate among young people in their teens and twenties is 12%.

Okinawans not only bear the heavy burden of the military presence, but we also face a great obstacle when planning the promotion of local industries and developing urban areas. The major cities in Okinawa such as Naha, the capital, Urasoe, Ginowan, and Okinawa City have been formed in a disorderly manner, sprawling out from the bases without proper zoning. Those urban areas are thus rendered vulnerable to natural disasters. Therefore, in order to protect the lives of the people of Okinawa, we need to carefully design and develop urban areas so that the works of the fire trucks and ambulances may be carried out readily.

To give an example, Kadena Town, which hosts a U.S. air base, is deprived of almost 83% of its land area for the installation, while its 14,000 people are squeezed into 17% of the town area. Under, these conditions, the people of Kadena can hardly live lives befitting human beings.

As explained above, it is no exaggeration to say that the base issue and the compulsory land acquisition issue are the most serious problems Okinawa has had since the end of World War II.

Okinawans experienced compulsory land acquisition, or forced expropriation of land for military use, during the war and even in the prewar era. Prior to the Haihanchiken of 1879, a proclamation which ordered the abolishment of han (feudal clans) and the establishment of ken (prefectures) in Japan, the Meiji government instructed the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1875 to cease dispatching delegations and envoys to China, to start using Meiji era names, and to follow various other reforms. One of the instructions given to the Kingdom was to station on its soil the Japanese garrison force drawn from the 6th Kumamoto Division. The Ryukyu Kingdom followed all instructions but for stationing the Japanese garrison, insisting that " the Ryukyu Island had never required garrisons before since it was an impoverished kingdom at great distance from any of the world's powers," and that " a military garrison, if established on the tiny island, might attract hostile intentions and threats from foreign powers." Therefore, they argued that "it was much wiser to rely upon friendly negotiations and courtesy to keep good relations with neighbors in order to maintain peace."

However, the Meiji government was undeterred and sent the Kumamoto Division to Naha, insisting that "it is the obligation of the government to protect the peace for its people, and only the government should decide where forces should be stationed, therefore, nobody could object to the decisions." Meiji officials chose an area of about 61,600 square kilometers in Kohagura, which lay between Shuri and Naha, and forced the sale of the land, which was necessary, they said, for barracks, firing ranges, and hospitals. Since the Kohagura area was fertile farmland, the Ryukyu Kingdom requested that the Japanese government reconsider, even offering a substitute land area without asking for compensation. The Meiji government, however, ignored the request and chose Kohagura to station the Japanese Garrison.

In this way, Okinawa, once known as a peaceful island, was forced to follow the militaristic polity of Japan. This event is said to be the start of the militarization of Okinawa. This event also shows that, against the will of the local people, the policies of the central government were given priority.

During World War II, farmlands were taken forcefully by the Japanese Army for use as airfields for the protection of Japan.

Even after the war, forced expropriation of land continued with proclamations and ordinances issued by the U.S. Military government as it had been done during the battle. The loss of residential records and land documents during the war made it difficult to confirm ownership of land, rendering arbitrary expropriations by the U.S. Military even easier. I cannot go into the details of the content and the legitimacy of those forced requisitions, but they were traumatic enough for native Okinawans who always spoke of "land being taken at the point of the bayonet, and people's homes being felled by bulldozers."

From 1953 to 1957, the people of Okinawa went through a "shimagurumi (island-wide) land dispute" over forced acquisition. During this period, the Ryukyu administration sent a delegation to the United States twice to request the settlement of the land issues. The current land problems and actions we are taking are, in a sense, a revival of the situation in those years.

What is peculiar to the land problems in Okinawa since the prewar era is that most land taken for military bases were taken from farmers. Farming, for a very long time, had been a key industry on Okinawa. Dispossessed farmers were deprived of their means of income and forced into emigrating to foreign countries such as Bolivia to search for a place where they could live in peace. Many others had no choice but to abandon farming and seek jobs at the military bases.

As historical records indicate, for the people of Okinawa who espouse ancestor worship, land is not a subject of purchase or merely a place to cultivate crops. For Okinawans, land is a valuable inheritance from their ancestors and a symbol of their attachment to their forebears. Therefore, Okinawans are strongly devoted to their land and firmly protest against any forced requisitions. In relation to this, I must point out that while 87% of the land occupied by the U.S. Military in mainland Japan is state-owned, as much as 33% of the land occupied by the U.S. Military in Okinawa is private property. Especially in the southern and central parts of the main island of Okinawa, 75% of the military-used land is under private ownership. In addition, the delay of the agreement on nose restrictions for Okinawan bases and the difference in the patterns of military drills between mainland Japan and Okinawa make Okinawans feel that they are being treated unfairly. A number of accidents resulting form military activities and crimes committed by U.S. Military personnel continue to occur. The rape of an Okinawan schoolgirl last September by three U.S. servicemen is one example of heinous crimes that we find hard to forgive.

Despite a resolution in the National Diet upon the reversion of Okinawa to Japan, which promised to reduce and realign the bases as soon as possible, little change has been made in terms of the military base situation.

The people of Okinawa had hoped that the bases on the island would be reduced and realigned after the end of the Cold War. However, despite our hopes, U.S. forces will maintain troop levels of 100,000 in the Asia-Pacific region, according to the East Asia Strategic Report by the U.S. Department of Defense. Also, there was much concern that the U.S. president and the Prime Minister of Japan would, at the summit meeting scheduled for last November, reaffirm the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and reevaluate the functions of U.S. bases on Okinawa on a global basis. Thus, the people of Okinawa were anxious that the function of the military bases on Okinawa would be further strengthened and consolidated into the 21st Century.

Under these circumstances, it was very difficult for me, in charge of the administration of Okinawa Prefecture, to accept the reinforcement and consolidation of the U.S. Military bases. Therefore, I could not sign the documents for expropriating Okinawan land for U.S. Military use. I could not help but refuse to sign in light of the responsibility I have for the people of Okinawa. The decision does not necessarily seek an immediate repeal of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, nor does it harm the relationship between our two countries.

Needless to say, I do not think that my refusal would instantly lead to a resolution of the base problems. The people of Okinawa have been forced to live side by side with military bases and have suffered from the burden for fifty years. Considering this fact, I may safely say that the people of Okinawa have been contributing well enough to the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.

The reversion of Okinawa in 1972 meant its return to Japan and its peace constitution, and for Okinawa, it was expected to be a great turning point in both name and reality. Upon reversion, the people of Okinawa had earnestly desired that the bases would be reduced to the same level as mainland Japan, that people would have their human rights restored, and that local autonomy would be established.

But, little has changed in the Okinawan situation for about a quarter of a century since the reversion. A massive and disproportionate concentration of U.S. Military bases still exists on Okinawa, and base-related incidents and crimes by U.S. military personnel continue to occur. This situation is far from what Okinawans had desired. Article 2 of the Status of Forces Agreement provides that U.S. forces may be stationed anywhere in Japan under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty in the so called "bases-throughout-the-country system." Under this provision, I can hardly understand why only Okinawa, not any of the other prefectures, should shoulder such an excessive and disproportionate burden of the bases.

Most Okinawans do not want to force their suffering on to other people. We, however, believe that all Japanese should equally share the responsibility and the burden of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, if it is so important. If not, we feel that we are being discriminated against in a violation of legal equality.

There are 1.27 million Japanese people in Okinawa. Fundamental human rights such as property rights and the right to live in peace that are guaranteed in the constitution as well as the principle of local autonomy are at question in this lawsuit. In this sense, all Japanese should act assertively for a resolution of the base problems in Okinawa for it involves the issue of the protection of human rights. In this respect, the base issue is not only a mere local problem for Okinawa but also a problem for all Japanese, in which Japan's sovereignty and democracy are challenged.

Since taking office, I have been to the United States five times in order to resolve base-related problems and have repeatedly asked both the Japanese and U.S. governments for reduction and realignment of the bases as well as the prevention of base-related accidents and crimes. My efforts were rewarded to some extent when the interim report of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) came out in April, showing the complete return of the Futenma Air Station and the returns of other facilities. This did make a certain degree of progress in regard to the reduction and realignment of the bases.

However, the Okinawan people cannot be satisfied with the content of the report because the facilities will be returned on the condition that their functions are transferred to other existing facilities and areas in Okinawa. Residents of municipalities, which are considered potential sites for relocation, regard the transfers as reinforcements of bases, so they strongly resist the proposals. I would like to ask those officials in charge of the decision to relocate the bases to come to Okinawa to inspect carefully the potential sites and evaluate the impact that relocation would have on the livelihood of the neighboring residents and the surrounding environment and ecological system.

The history of Okinawa has been strongly influenced by outside factors. The Okinawa Prefectural government, of its own will, promulgated the Base Return Action Program for the planned and gradual return of the U.S. Military bases by 2015, and is now formulating the Cosmopolitan City Formation Concept, which will direct the future of Okinawa in the 21st Century.

This concept aims at creating an Okinawa free of bases, resistant to natural disasters, that is peaceful and beautifully green. It aims to create a cosmopolitan city where technological, economic, and cultural exchanges with Asian countries are promoted through the exchange of people, products, and information. I would like to transform the bases into productive places, which contribute peace and happiness of all people. Utilizing Okinawa's geographic location and its traditional and friendly relationship with other Asian and Pacific countries, I want to establish a peace-oriented exchange network in Okinawa which unites Japan and other Asia-Pacific countries amongst the global community. I would like to entrust Okinawa's future to this cosmopolitan project.

At the end of my statement, I would like to note that the people of Okinawa sincerely hope that the Supreme Court, as a guardian of the constitution, will judge fairly the military base problems in Okinawa.

I hope that the Supreme Court will examine the past and the present situation in Okinawa and understand that the principle of the constitution has not been at work for its people. I sincerely ask that the Supreme Court refer to the principle of basic human rights and the objective of local autonomy provided in the constitution and reach a ruling which will give the young people in Okinawa hopes and dreams for a brighter future.