tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35894930.post8358436729139687485..comments2023-12-31T15:40:06.675-08:00Comments on Peace Philosophy Centre: Armitage says new base plan in Okinawa may be impossible アーミテージは「名護市議選もあったし、沖縄県知事選によっては普天間移設は無理になるかもしれない」と言っているが主要メディアは完全無視Peace Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03884294048618803206noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35894930.post-66865321638725333862010-09-24T01:32:49.950-07:002010-09-24T01:32:49.950-07:00I suppose that when Nakaima says "impossible&...I suppose that when Nakaima says "impossible" he is being<br />opportunistic (or saying to the Tokyo government, "don't blame me!") But I believe that when grass roots people use the term they mean, We have made it<br />impossible. And a man like Armitage (or Nye or Campbell) will never respond to an appeal for sympathy or understanding, but as "realists" the dichotomy "possible/impossible" is a concept their simple minds can grasp. (I thought the big clod was pretty entertaining as he presented the well-worn threats<br />of raising the military budget and engaging in military exercises as if they were "subtle and nuanced" responses - as if they were fresh ideas that he just thought up. He should have stuck with pro wrestling)Douglas Lummisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35894930.post-85946697874504795122010-09-24T00:47:19.393-07:002010-09-24T00:47:19.393-07:00Thank you Doug.
It is extremely interesting wha...Thank you Doug. <br /><br />It is extremely interesting what you said about the use of terminology impacting political trends. Nakaima has been using this (不可能、and 無理) for some time and I have been looking at it rather negatively, because it is 日和見主義、not coming from a value within himself,compared to Inamine, who is clear about not letting the base to be built inland<br />or on the ocean. For Inamine, he is the subject of the decision, but<br />for Nakaima, the subject is more blurry. It is almost like a natural disaster, what in my understanding many Japanese regarded war, firebombing, atomic-bombing, and US occupation even. It just happens and you have to deal with it. I thought Nakaima using that narrative was for allowing leeway for changing his position (or observation)<br />depending on the political trend of a future time. But now more<br />Okinawans are using it. Are they all becoming a Nakaima, or asserting more power as you suggest? Why don't they say what Inamine says? Is that because these people are aware of their own limitation and want to<br />adopt a narrative that leaves an impression as if some higher power is ruling the whole political scene? <br /><br />By the way, now Nakaima is officially asking for kengai. I thought it was a dangerous move, attempting to remove the Futenma issue out of the whole campaign to undermine Iha's candidacy itself.Peace Philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884294048618803206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35894930.post-43782762501685114542010-09-24T00:46:01.166-07:002010-09-24T00:46:01.166-07:00Belatedly I have just listened to/watched the Armi...Belatedly I have just listened to/watched the Armitage video you sent. My impression: for some time back a few people in Okinawa have been trying to change the terms of the debate, from "please listen to our voices, have some<br />sympathy for our plight" (i.e., we are powerless) to, "sorry, but building the base at Henoko is now impossible" ( i.e.,we have the power). Because in politics, sometimes the direction of a discussion is decided by the terms in which it is defined, and changing the terms can have large consequences. It is interesting that the word "impossible" 不可能 is appearing more and more in<br />political discussion, and in the newspapers. And interesting that now it has even entered Armitage's vocabulary for talking about Henoko even though, as John pointed out, he tried to hedge as soon as he used it.<br /><br />DougDouglas Lummisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35894930.post-83601392990342676852010-09-18T09:48:10.348-07:002010-09-18T09:48:10.348-07:00Thank you John. I am glad I got a chance to ask y...Thank you John. I am glad I got a chance to ask you what Armitage meant by "short of complete relocation," though of course no one has the right answer, it is something that we shouldn't assume we all have the same understanding about. The terminology over this issue has become excessively complex, because the word "relocation" is used ambiguously to mean different combinations of return of Futenma, construction of a new base elsewhere, transfer of Futenma Marines to that new base and/or to other locations, and transfer of training. Maehara, proponent of collective self-defense rights, as new FM is certainly worrisome news, considering his pro-US stance. He will possibly intensify the "candy and whip" policy to buy off the will of Nago and beyond.Peace Philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884294048618803206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35894930.post-21377717316590442592010-09-18T02:08:42.211-07:002010-09-18T02:08:42.211-07:00It certainly sounds that way, though who can tell?...It certainly sounds that way, though who can tell? It strikes me that this is very similar to what Ozawa was saying during the DPJ presidential campaign, and in a sense it's stating the obvious, because building the base as planned is in fact impossible. With Maehara as the new foreign minister, the stupid spat with China will, as you suggest, help maintain the pretense that the marines need to stay in Okinawa, and it's possible the US will find it easier to talk to Maehara (not necessarily a good thing overall, but potentially leading to some compromise on Futenma).John Junkermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35894930.post-20554843649014923992010-09-17T22:50:12.600-07:002010-09-17T22:50:12.600-07:00Thanks for your supportive comment, Gavan, and Joh...Thanks for your supportive comment, Gavan, and John, thank you for your citing Armitage more accurately. His words were certainly difficult to summarize in a few words, but for the simplicity of the heading, I described it in the way I did, and I believe his words did have that tone that Henoko could be impossible. But you are right that his suggestion of this issue settling into something short of the complete relocation of Futenma was significant. In my understanding, "the complete relocation of Futenma" means construction of the Henoko base. So, something short of that would be an alternative "relocation" - partial transfer of training, for example, instead of construction of a whole new base. And Futenma will still be returned. Am I right?Peace Philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884294048618803206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35894930.post-2707184288126642442010-09-17T22:16:55.984-07:002010-09-17T22:16:55.984-07:00I agree this is an important sign, but just for th...I agree this is an important sign, but just for the sake of accuracy, Armitage said the Nago and gubernatorial elections "could make things near to impossible... hard, but not impossible. It is hard to see a resolution on Futenma, but it is not impossible." He goes on to suggest that the resolution might be something short of the complete relocation of Futenma, which is significant, given the US stance to date.John Junkermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35894930.post-8476411886545747612010-09-17T13:50:56.240-07:002010-09-17T13:50:56.240-07:00A terrific piece of detective work. We are really ...A terrific piece of detective work. We are really indebted to you.<br /><br />I myself had seen reports of the Armitage talk (ie minus the Okinawa references), and assumed it was Armitage as usual, delivering instructions to Japan.<br /><br />I did notice, just in the last hour or so, today's Okinawa Times editorial, where I had circled with an exclamation mark and question mark the sentence you rightly draw attention to.<br /><br />But I had not really grasped it and had no idea of the scale and significance of the broader media phenomenon you describe.<br /><br />The implications are huge.<br /><br />And as the Okinawa Times editorial puts it "it is really pathetic that it should be the American side, not the government of Japan, that first responds to the shift in Okinawan people's consciousness."<br /><br />I urge you to circulate widely.Gavan McCormacknoreply@blogger.com