February 14, 2000
Governor of Okinawa: Keiichi Inamine
Mayor of Nago Tateo Kishimoto
The relocation of the Futenma Air Station of U.S. Marine Corps
to the coastal region of Henoko in Nago City, as Prefectural Governor
of Okinawa expressed on November 22,1999 and accepted by the Mayor
of Nago on December 27 of the same year, is being advanced as
an established fact, while having unclear parts including various
information on subsequent events. And in the process, it has left
many questions and actualities, incomprehensible to many people.
We think this issue, and the relocation of U.S. military bases,
has "very important meanings for the peace of all Japan",
as Japan Scientists' Association (JSA) expressed on December 12,1999,
moreover, the "problem is not a local issue that could be
resolved between the agreements of the Governor and Mayor."
Furthermore, the results from the research conducted by a group
of scientists, mainly composed of the JSA members, in 1997 indicate
the relocation plan includes the problems that cannot be overlooked
as minors. Therefore, we address the following questionnaire to
the Governor of Okinawa and the Mayor of Nago. We demand this
letter to be answered at no later than March 31, 2000.
1. Question about Efflux
(1) It is unusual to propose the relocation again, to
the almost same ground as the scheme which was rejected by the
referendum in Nago in December 1997 (53.8% against, 46.7% in favor).
The consideration of the relocation point, the "basic idea
in selecting the candidate site," proposed by Okinawa prefecture
does not include the referendum intention of the residents of
the prospected location. Okinawa prefecture should clarify why
the result of the referendum is not taken into consideration.
Moreover, Nago city should clarify again for the same reason accepting
the prefecture's proposition that ignores the intention of the
people in Nago.
(2) Of the maintenance conditions regarding relocation
of the base in which Okinawa prefecture indicated, the letter
"prerequisite" is attached only to the provision of
the retaining period of 15 years. In the case this condition should
not hold, would you reject the entire relocation plan even if
other conditions were satisfied, as the letter "prerequisite"
states? Please clarify whether Nago City would also define the
condition as "prerequisite."
(3) In the Japanese government proposition in 1997,
two plans, A and B, were presented including the scale and the
method of the construction of the base. It was considered useful
for the local residents in determining whether they should vote
in favor or against for the referendum. However, presentation
similar to the above is not presented at all in the proposition
of the prefecture this time. Okinawa prefecture should explain
the reason. In addition, we expect Nago City to explain the reason
for accepting the proposition without notification about the scale
and the method of the construction of the air station.
(4) Even though this plan to relocate the Futenma Air
Station to Nago City is stated as the realization of the rearrangement
and reduction of the U.S. base, the actuality is said to be a
functional enhancement of the base, as shown by the planned deployment
of a newest military transport aircraft called a MV-22 Osprey.
We want to know the view of the prefecture whether this plan is
consistent with the concept of "rearrangement and reduction"
of the base even if the above- mentioned "functional reinforcement"
should take place.
2. Question about the Impact on the Ecological System
(1) Okinawa Prefecture and Nago City should explain
about the fundamental idea of accepting the construction of military
base in an "natural conservation area," which had been
so specified by Okinawa prefecture.
(2) According to the Academic Investigation Research
on the Okinawa U.S. Offshore Base of 1997, the area around the
construction point serves as the natural habitats of dugongs,
a pile of recovering coral reefs, mangrove stands with rich biodiversity,
etc. Since Okinawa prefecture claims that it would hold the effects
to the natural environment to a minimum in its maintenance conditions,
the prefecture should clarify the concrete methods of limiting
the destruction of the natural resources. Moreover, since Nago
city has presented the "basic conditions" of significant
similarity, the city should also show the concrete methods of
preserving the natural environment. Even though the Japanese government
has proposed its view in 1997, to transfer precious living things
to other water areas when they exist in the construction area,
this idea is completely ridiculous in reserving a natural eco-system.
(3) Although the proposal raised by the prefecture and
the basic conditions shown by the city suggest that necessary
inquiry would be performed, the decision is likely to be made
without the inquiry. Please clarify why the decision of relocation
is not made, based on before-the-fact appraisal (environmental
assessment). If the inquiry is replaced with the one already performed
by the Japanese government in 1997, the prefecture and city should
clarify their concrete explanations to our opposite apprehension
that has already been presented as a result of our inquiry (already
submitted to the governor of Okinawa and the Mayor of Nago).
3. Question about Effects on Residents' Lives
(1) There are many U.S. military bases around Henoko
today. If 2,500 more U.S. troops move into Henoko, the balance
between the number of residents (1,500 residents) and the troops
will change. This change could affect the people's lives, and
it is not hard to imagine it would increase accidents and crimes.
This will violate the Local Government Act Article 1, chapter
2, term (1) "holding security, health and welfare of the
citizen and the visitors." In addition, it violates the new
Local Government Act Article 1 - 2, stating that a "local
public body bearing (widely) the role of autonomous administration
at the area in which it will plan to increase the welfare of the
people." The views of the prefecture and city should be shown.
(2) One of the biggest causes of the relocation of Futenma
Air Station is noise pollution. In spite of the assertion that
the noise problem would decrease in the Henoko coast, there is
no guarantee in case of in case of a deployment of large-sized
military aircraft, or changes in the models or increase in the
number of aircraft. Moreover, it is a well-known fact that the
U.S. Forces have always rejected requests by Ginowan City to perform
flight training offshore, but have performed their training in
the township sky. Also, from the facts just pointed out, we think
that the relocation acceptance of a base does not agree with the
principle of the above-mentioned Local Government Act. We also
expect the apprehensions of the prefecture and the city on this
matter.
(3) The prefecture has demanded "economic development of the relocation point and its adjacent area" as conditions of the acceptance of base relocation at the first place. To the policy of the Japanese government in 1997 to trade the economic development off the marine base, Japanese public opinion has rejected the links of two problems and claimed the government to carry out the economic development of Okinawa independently, by the government itself. This time, the same trade off is being requested by the local government. It is very inhumane and it would be a bad precedent. Okinawa prefecture should clarify its views about this point.
Japan Scientists' Association # 2000.7.19