Part II: Dialogue with Douglas Lummis on Okinawa Election 沖縄知事選について、ダグラス・ラミスさんとの会話 パート２

Sequel to the previous post, this is the rest of my dialogue with Doug. See previous post here, with explanation of terms like kokugai and kengai.

Dear Doug,

If my memory of what I learned from you before is correct, you said something along the line of calling for unconditional closure of Futenma being equivalent of calling for disbanding of the Futenma USMC units, and that would be unrealistic and irresponsible, because one is not in the position to tell a foreign government what to do with their existing military unit. Please correct me if I am wrong. I think you implied by saying that calling for unconditional closure of Futenma would be asking something impossible, which would be irresponsible, because wanting something impossible would be equivalent of wanting nothing, and that would only perpetuate the status quo, which is unfair base burden of Okinawa: therefore it is colonial.

If my reading you is right, Japanese people are hypocritical if they support Okinawa's call for less bases but support ANPO (Japan-US Security Treaty) at the same time. They should accept base burden in their backyard as long as they support ANPO. But calling for abolishment of ANPO is problematic too, because it is not realistic in any foreseeable future. Again, just talking about something impossible would be the same as talking about nothing, which would be equivalent of approving status quo and that would be colonial.

So, Nakaima's point of kengai, no matter how sincere or insincere his motivation might be, should be emphasized on and should be embraced by the mainland Japanese. Only then Japanese will seriously think about ANPO; they will think more in the same way as Okinawans. They the whole nation will be united to work together against ANPO itself. Is this what you envision?

Going back to the election, what if Iha simply called for kokugai, without specifying the place. It would have been hard for Iha to do, knowing the US plan to move Marines there anyway, on which he has no control on whether he wants it or not. But if he did, would you have supported him more whole-heartedly? For you it would still have been better than his calling for unconditional closure, which would be colonial. Then I wonder why Iha didn't do that: just call for kokugai. What did he gain by talking about Guam, rather than kokugai? I don't have an answer for that.

Touching on what you said about Nakaima reading the situation correctly - if electing a candidate who makes pledges only on reading majority trends in order to win an election is a way for democratic victory, aren't we encouraging any election candidates to read the trend of the time, and if that's the case, in theory all candidates (at least who are ready to win) will have no policy differences. Would that facilitate democracy? No. Citizens will just deprive themselves of their opportunity to voice their position through election, because they will have no choice, as all candidates will already have read the majority opinion. There will be absolutely no room for minority voices, and that would defeat the fundamental purpose of democracy. Do you see the contradiction? By supporting Nakaima's strategy and his victory, are you not voting against democracy itself? Is it not that only in this specific case, Nakaima's victory happened to work for the anti-colonial cause that you support, therefore you support his strategy retrospectively?

Having said this, I agree with the last point you make about his Okinawa nationalism and his anger for Japanese and US governments for their "over-the-head" dealings and decisions. As an Okinawan, I don't think it is hard for him to think this way. But having heard how he justified his previous support for Henoko plan ("I only accepted because Nago said yes"), I can't help thinking in a matter of time he would move so that he would influence the very trend that he would want to read on and act on. I can't help thinking his immediate visit to Tokyo after the election is his first step toward that direction.

Dialogue with you helped me think deeply. Having said all that, I think about the colonial issue you raised more than ever before. Thank you Doug.

Satoko

****************************

Dear Satoko,

I think I see what you are saying about Nakaima and democracy. But it maybe depends on where you look for, to use an old Marxist term,l the agent of change. If you look for Nakaima himself to be the agent of change, of course, what could be more dubious? But I think at this moment the agent of change is the Okinawa electorate. They have changed themselves, they have changed the situation, and as a result they have forced a change in Nakaima - if not in his character, at least in his behavior. He is an effect, not a cause. If he fails in this his political camp will go down to defeat in the next election, and they know it. That's why I think it is not wrong to think of this as a democratic moment.

*****************************

Dear Doug,

I see. Nakaima as an effect not a cause makes sense to me. So now our challenge is how to sustain that democratic "moment," as power shifts from the electorate to Nakaima after the election. What we must prevent from happening is him bringing himself down in exchange of a base approval, just like Higa did, and just like Hatoyama did. Another concern is how do LDP and Komeito hold themselves compatible with the fact that they endorsed Nakaima? They won't possibly call for kengai together with Nakaima. They will pressure him to come closer to them, as they regain power in the parliament. These are pessimistic scenarios but we must have them in mind in order to prevent them.

******************************

Where is Okinawa going?

Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus and Okinawa University will co-organize a forum with this theme on December 19, 2010 at Okinawa University. Information will be posted.

PeacePhilosopher