The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 14 | Issue 24 | Number 4 | Article ID 4991 | Dec 15, 2016

1

Okinawa: NGO Appeal to the United Nations and to USMilitary and Government over Base Matters, December 2015and December 2016

Edited by Hideki Yoshikawa and Gavan McCormack

Okinawa: NGO Appeal to the UnitedN a t i o n s a n d t o U S M i l i t a r y a n dGovernment over Base Matters, December2015 and December 2016

1 Introduction, by Hideki Yoshikawa

2 Document 1. Okinawan Citizens’ Groups,“Joint Submission to United Nations,”December 2015

Attachments

Lawyers’ Group on Henoko,“Statement against wrongfuldetention in front of CampSchwab gate,” July 2015

Okinawa Bar Association,“Statement on SecurityA c t i v i t i e s o f J a p a nCoastguard” 11 March 2015

Japan Federation of BarAssociations, Demand toJapanese Government toR e s p e c t F r e e d o m o fExpression, 15 December2011

Violence, Detention andArrests in Henoko, 2014-15

3 Document 2. Letter from 40 Okinawan,Japanese, and International NGOs to USMilitary and US Government, 1 December 2016( o r i g i n a l J a p a n e s e t e x t h e r e(https://apjjf.org/data/4991-original.pdf))

Introduction

December 2nd 2016 marks the 20th anniversaryof the Special Action Committee on Okinawa(SACO) agreement between the Japanese andthe U.S. governments. The 1996 SACOagreement was a response to Okinawa’soutrage against the rape of a 12 year old localgirl by three U.S. soldiers in 1995. Theagreement was proclaimed and has beenpromoted as a means to reduce the heavyburden of the presence of the U.S. military inOkinawa since the end of World War II.

However, what the people of Okinawa haveexperienced for the past 20 years has been theoppressive reality of the agreement. The returnof land occupied by the U.S. military was madeconditional on the provision of replacementbases and facilities within Okinawa and, evenworse, the Japanese government has met theopposition to the construction of new bases andfacilities with an iron-fist and the U.S. militaryand the government treated it with scorn.

The 20th anniversary thus passed withoutceremony. Protesters against the constructionof new helipads for the U.S. military in theYanbaru forest clashed with Japanese riotpolice at the construction site. People gatheredat the Nago Police Station to demand the

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

2

release of protesters detained in its cells and todenounce the police search of the offices oflocal peace organizations. Okinawa GovernorOnaga Takeshi defended himself againstcharges that he had accepted the constructionof helipads in the Yanbaru forest as a “painfuldecision” in return for the return of half of theU.S. military’s Northern Training Area toOkinawa, repeating that he did not approvetheir construction.

The SACO agreement continues to affect and tochallenge the people of Okinawa. Despite itsmany contradictions and flaws, it is still theonly agreement between the Japanese and U.S.governments that stipulates return to Okinawaof land occupied by the U.S. military. Many inOkinawa wonder what would happen ifOkinawa did not seize the opportunity providedby this agreement. Okinawa continues to sufferunder the other two bilateral frameworks, theU.S. Japanese Security Treaty and the Status ofForces Agreement (SOFA).

It is in this context that the following twodocuments were produced. The first, createdby Okinawan, Japanese and internationalNGOs, was sent to special rapporteurs of theU.N. Human Rights Council in December 2015.It insists that the concentration of U.S. militarybases is a form of discrimination against thepeople of Okinawa. It details how theconstruction of helipads and a new base havebeen carried out by the Japanese government,and the various forms of human rightsviolations involved. The second is a letterwr i t ten by Okinawan, Japanese andinternational NGOs and sent to the U.S.Ambassador to Japan and to U.S. Forces inJapan in December 2016. Referring to theWorld Heritage Convention, it argues that theconstruction of helipads and the conduct ofU.S. military training in the Yanbaru foresthinder the chances of success for the forest inits bid for recognition as a World NaturalHeritage site.

Both documents attest to the growinginternationalization of Okinawa’s struggle.They seek to release Okinawa from the spell ofthe U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and, the SOFAand SACO agreements by reaching out tointernational bodies and conventions, andtaking a stand on the principles of humanrights and environmental conservation withwhich the people of Okinawa have embraced inthe course of their struggle to live with U.S.military bases.

Hideki Yoshikawa

Futenma Air Base

Document 1

“Violation of Freedoms of Expression andPeaceful Assembly in Okinawa, Japan,”

All Okinawa Council, Citizens’ Network forBiodiversity in Okinawa, InternationalMovement aga ins t A l l Fo rms o fDiscrimination and Racism (IMADR), andothers, Joint Submission to UnitedNations, Human Rights Council, 11December 2015.1

Introduction

This report highlights violation of rights to free

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

3

expression and peaceful assembly taking placein Okinawa, Japan in four forms;

1) State violation of freedom ofexpression and peaceful assembly:

2) Police violations of freedoms ofexpression and peaceful assembly:

3) Oppression on freedom of press:and

4) Infr ingement of r ight toinformation.

This report aims to provide the SpecialRapporteur on the promotion and protection ofthe right to freedom of opinion and expressionand the UN Office of the High Commissionerfor Human Rights (OHCHR) with the thoroughinformation to illustrate the acute situation offreedom of expression and peaceful assemblyas well as democracy in Okinawa, and Japanoverall.

Background Information

The nineteen-year controversy over the U.S.and Japanese governments’ plan to relocateU.S. Marine Air Station Futenma to Henoko(the Henoko base construction plan) in thenorthern part of Japan’s Okinawa Island is at acritical juncture.

On October 13, 2015, supported by anoverwhelming majority of the people ofOkinawa, Okinawa’s Governor Onaga Takeshirevoked the land reclamation approval for theconstruction of the U.S. military base grantedunder heavy pressure from the Government ofJapan in December 2013 by his predecessor,Nakaima Hirokazu. Governor Onaga’srevocation was based upon a review of theapproval process conducted by a Third Party(Experts) Commission, which concluded thatNakaima’s approval had many legal flaws. Withthe act of revocation by Governor Onaga, the

construction and related activities becameillegal, and in fact the Government of Japantemporarily halted them.

However, the Government of Japan quicklyacted to file complaints in an attempt tosuspend and nullify Governor Onaga’srevocation. It declared its intention to take theissue of Governor Onaga’s revocation to courtand to reinstate or “execute by proxy” the landreclamation approval. On October 29 itsuspended Governor Onaga’s revocation andresume construction works and on November12 it resumed drilling surveys.

These events are deeply disturbing to thepeople of Okinawa. Opposition to the Henokobase construction plan reaches unprecedentedlevels. It has never been lower than 70 per centof the population in Okinawa, and in somecases even higher than 80 per cent over thepast several years. Confrontation betweenprotesters and riot police forces escalates atCamp Schwab, the existing U.S. military base,part of which is to be incorporated into theprojected new base. On a daily basis, protestersare forcibly evacuated, detained and evenarrested resulting in the increase of thenumber of injuries. This situation is consideredas a clear violation of freedom of expression aswell as freedom of peaceful assembly.

State violation of freedoms of expressionand peaceful assembly

The Government of Japan has been violatingthe freedom and dignity of its citizens byforcibly promoting the construction of a newmilitary base in Henoko, Okinawa, under theguise of ‘transferring’ Futenma Airbase to aless populous location. However, the violationof constitutional rights relative to the U.Smilitary bases in Okinawa started a long timeago. When we especially discuss the freedom ofexpression, the Takae SLAPP Lawsuit must bereferred.

The Takae district in Higashi village of

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

4

Okinawa Island, is located in the ‘Yanbaru,’ thenatural forest that covers the northern half ofOkinawa. U.S. Marine Corps helipads havebeen relocated adjacent to Takae residences,and others are being constructed. Residents ofthe Takae district have opposed construction ofthe helipads. The Government of Japan filed amotion for “illegal obstruction of traffic”against Takae residents who staged a sit-inprotest in front of the entrance to theconstruction site for a new U.S military facility,whereby they became defendants in this case.This kind of lawsuit, intended to suppress ordiscourage publ ic opposi t ion to theGovernment’s plans, is known as a “SLAPP”lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against PublicParticipation).

SLAPP lawsuits were first used in the 1970’s-1980’s in the United States when civilmovement was mounting. In response, lawswere enacted in the 1990s in the U.S. in orderto prevent SLAPP lawsuits.

The Takae SLAPP lawsuit started with arequest by the Government of Japan to issue atemporary injunction against 15 Takaeresidents on 25 November 2008. A 7-year-oldgirl was among those named as a defendantbecause she was the daughter of the localprotest leader. In actuality, the girl had neverbeen involved in any of the protests. As aresult, the case against her was eventuallywithdrawn, but the temporary injunctioncontinued to be sought against the other 14defendants. On 11 December 2009, the NahaDistrict Court dismissed the case against 12 ofthe remaining 14 defendants. The dismissaloccurred because some residents were namedsimply because they were spouses ofprotesters, even though they had not actuallyparticipated in the protest.

When the preliminary injunction was approved,a lawsuit was filed against the two remainingresidents. The Naha District Court dismissedthe case against one of the two; however, it

proceeded to prosecute the other one, on 14March, 2012. The high court upheld the caseon 25 June 2013, and on 13 June 2014, theSupreme Court upheld the lower court order.During this time, the Liberal Democratic Partywas defeated and the Democratic Party beganto rule. However, the Democratic Party did notdismiss the lawsuit.

The defendant’s actions expressing his desireto “live in a peaceful place without militarybases,” constitute an act of political expression,which is nominally protected by the JapaneseConstitution. Its intent was to promoteachievement of a self-sustaining existence forOkinawa. Because the Government of Japan’scase against a private citizen is intended tointimidate and to suppress future politicalexpression, the rationale for its actions must berejected unless some strict, clear criteria areprovided. The Government lawsuit requests anindefinite suspension of political expression byprivate citizens. While securing unimpededconstruction of the helipad is a trivial benefit tothe Government, the loss of constitutionallyguaranteed freedoms by the citizens of Japan isimmensely consequential. The Government’sactions cannot be justified.

The violation of freedom of expression hasbegun already, and the critical situation ofJapanese democracy, as represented by theconstruction of a new U.S military base inHenoko is not something which startedrecently. The Japanese democracy has been inperil already.

Police violation of freedoms of expressionand peaceful assembly

Japanese police have undermined freedom ofexpression through oppressive and violentmeasures against protesters demonstrating onboth land and sea. On a daily basis, the policeforcefully evacuate peaceful protesters whogather in front of the gate of the Camp Schwab,the U.S. military base in Henoko.12 Thoseevacuated are detained on the sidewalk, where

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

5

they are kept inside an enclosure of iron barsand police vehicles. At sea, the Japan CoastGuard (JCG) uses violence to remove protestersand journalists in kayaks and small boats bydetaining and evacuating, purposefullycolliding with and damaging their boats anddeliberately flipping smaller boats.3 The policeand JCG take video footage of protesters andjournalists, identify, and threaten them byname in order to suppress them.4 The JCGfrequently uses excessive force, includingchokeholds and holding demonstratorsunderwater to threaten them with drowning.Since July 2014, at least 35 cases of detentionaffecting hundreds of protesters, 13 cases ofalleged excessive use of force, and 12 arrests ofprotesters have taken place.5 From 4thNovember 2015, the Government has broughtin riot police squads from the mainland on adaily basis. Each squad is composed of around100 officers. As a result, the number of personsinjured due to excessive use of force by the riotpolice has increased.6 These actions have alsofuelled chilling effects among people andescalated the tension between people ofOkinawa and the Government of Japan.

The legal basis of such oppressive actions bythe police and JCG is dubious. Although thepolice claim that their measures comply withlaw, it is not clear to which law they refer.7 ThePolice Duties Execution Act prescribes thatmeasures without warrant can only beconducted in exceptional cases, when there arethreats of injury, of life or to property.8

However, because the protesters aredemonstrating in a non-violent manner they donot pose a threat to anyone or anything.Furthermore, the JCG is violating the JapanCoast Guard Act. According to section 1 ofArticle 18 of the Act, stopping, transferring,and disembarking of vessels is only permitted:1) in a dangerous situation (such as anaccident); 2) in a situation involving risk to lifeor body of person, or of significant damage toproperty; and 3) in a situation of urgent need.9

These exceptional measures must be strictly

interpreted, since they limit personal libertiesguaranteed by the Japanese Constitution. Inother words , the pol ice and JCG areconsistently acting beyond their legal purviewsand violating constitutional rights.

Moreover, allegations of “obstructing officialduties” as well as the Act on Special MeasuresConcerning Criminal Cases10 are arbitrarilyused to arrest and oppress protesters andjournalists. Circumstances of arrest for“obstructing official duties” are often unclear,since they often occur when police are forciblyremoving protesters. The police are alsoaccused of provoking protesters to createopportunities to arrest them. In 2015, threeindividuals were arrested for alleged violationof the Act on Special Measures. Of those, twowere dragged by security guards into CampSchwab and then arrested.11 It was a clear caseof arbitrary arrest with application of the Acton Special Measures. Furthermore, the JCG hasmentioned a possible application of the Actagainst detained protesters who entered thetemporary restricted area. This raises a seriousquestion about the government’s interpretationof the Act. The purpose of the Act on SpecialMeasures is to guarantee activities of the U.S.military in Japan, but the current temporaryrestricted area is for completion of preliminaryconstruction work for the foundation of a basethat is a project of the Government of Japan.Therefore, the Government of Japan is misusingthe Act in order to prevent citizens fromexpressing their opinions.

Those extrajudicial measures are taken tooppress protesters and spread chilling effectsto prevent people from joining demonstrations.Regrettably, national courts have not foundthese measures legally problematic, despiteserious impacts on constitutional rights, inparticular, freedom of expression, freedom ofspeech and the right to peaceful assembly.Freedom of expression, especially freedom ofpolitical expression, exercised with respect forother human rights, must be upheld, since it is

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

6

a core component of a democratic society. Intaking oppressive measures against peacefuldemonstrations, the Government of Japan notonly violates its Constitution, but also theInternational Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights.

Oppression on freedom of press

Background

Since Abe administration started, theGovernment’s intervention to the press hasstrengthened severely. In November 2014, justbefore the general Lower House election,ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) sentofficial letters to NHK (“Nippon Hoso Kyokai”,Japan Broadcasting Corporation) and all themajor TV stations in Tokyo, requesting them tohandle the news on the election from a “fairand neutral standpoint”. The request wasprecise, including how to select the speakersand tips to take into account when editing thecurb side interview. It was to ensure the newsand programs not be inclined to a specificopinion and remain “fair and neutral”. LDPstates that this request is not the oppression offreedom of speech, since it is just asking for a“fair and neutral standpoint” which is stated inarticle 4 of Broadcast Law. However, in realitythere lies a severe problem. In the first place,in Japan it is the Ministry of Internal Affairsand Communications (MIAC) which has theregulatory authority and the authority to grantlicenses to TV stations. In short, TV stations areunder observation of MIAC through licensingprocess, therefore any request or guidancefrom MIAC becomes a strong pressure to theactual broadcasters.12 Consequently, such arequest from the Government creates a chillingeffect, which makes it quite difficult for thebroadcasters to criticize Government’s policiesin TV programs.

T h e r e h a s b e e n a n e x a m p l e o f t h e“administrative guidance”, which has astronger impact than the request above.Broadcasting Ethics and Program Improvement

Organization (BPO) had been investigating theprogram of NHK, broadcast in May 2014,which was accused for the prearrangedperformance. BPO is the third partyorganization to promote the accuracy andimprovement of broadcasting. However in themiddle of investigation, Sanae Takaichi, theM i n i s t e r o f I n t e r n a l A f f a i r s a n dCommunications, administrated a reprimand asan administrative guidance. She explained thisaction had been taken in accordance withBroadcast Law. However, this action is widelyunderstood as the Government ignoring therole of the third party organization, and directlypressuring the media. It was quite an unusualmeasure in recent history.

LDP and the Government of Japan have beeninterfering with TV stations in succession, bymisusing Broadcast Law. However, the section2 of article 1 of Broadcast Law was to secure“nonpartisan of broadcasting” in order toprevent the intervention from the Governmentand to secure “fact” in order to forbid thepressure from the Government to falsify thefacts.13 However, the Government of Japan isusing the law as a means to regulate freedomof press, without understanding nor respectingthe original purpose of the law.

Amid the strengthening interference by theGovernment over journalism, the media inOkinawa, especially two local newspapers, havekept on conducting critical coverage againstthe Government about the U.S. base relatedissues. This is out of their ethics and mission aslocal newspapers, to report U.S. base relatedissues, which are rarely covered by the mediaoutside Okinawa. This attitude is unfavorable ofthe Government of Japan, which promotes theconstruction of a U.S. base in Okinawa, and theGovernment has been criticizing the Okinawanmedia as “biased”. The Hyakuta incidentoccurred under such circumstances.

Hyakuta incident

On June 25th, 2015, about 40 junior LDP Diet

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

7

members held a study session at the LDP’sheadquarters. This study session is called“Culture and Art gathering” and its aim was topromote constitutional amendment. Theyinvited the famous writer, a former member ofthe Board of Governors of NHK, NaokiHyakuta. The study session was vibrant, with aseries of critical opinions about mediaexpressed by the LDP Diet members and NaokiHyakuta.

Hideo Ohnishi said “The best way to teachmedia a lesson is to depr ive them ofadvertisement income. Neither politicians norPrime Minister Abe can say this, so we wantyou to appeal to the Federation of EconomicOrganizations that it is outrageous to provideadvertisement income to media which commitsa fault against the interest of Japan. Somethinglike boycotting.”

Takahiro Inoue said “When I served as apresident of the Fukuoka branch of JuniorChamber International Japan, I bashed media.From this experience, I learned that theboycotting sponsorship damages media themost. We must do (this) all over Japan. Why notannouncing the worst 10 TV programs and listthe name of sponsoring companies?”

Takashi Nagao asked Hyakuta “It is the failureof post war conservatives that created the oddstructure of media in Okinawa. What will youdo to straighten the biased public opinion ofOkinawa? I believe media is completely takenover by the left wing.”

Answering to these opinions and questions,Hyakuta said “We must smash up (twoOkinawan newspapers)”. He went further totell a false history of Futenma Air Base saying“People from the neighboring communitymoved around the Air base for the money”.

Minoru Kihara, the head of this gathering, said“Mr. Hyakuta has been providing informationand voicing his opinions and belief to thepublic, and he is well accepted by the people.

We, politicians, should all learn from him.”Several government officials also attended thisstudy session.

On June 30th, in response to the press HideoOhnichi answered, “We should punish (themedia critical about the new Security bill)” or“I believe companies should restrain spendingadvertisement fees to the media which conductfalse news coverage.”

Issues raised through this incident

The remarks cited above were intended tooppress the media. Together with theGovernment’s regulation of the freedom ofexpression, it is clear that they produce aserious chilling effect. LDP removed KiharaMinoru from the Director of Youth Division, andordered the suspension of any post for a year.Hideo Ohnishi, Takahiro Inoue, Takashi Nagaowere repr imanded. However , thesepunishments cannot address the problematicnature associated with the incident. Thefollowing three points must be pointed out.

Firstly, “Culture and Art gathering” is anofficial study session of Diet members held atthe LDP’s Headquarters, which many Dietmembers with high-ranked positions in LDPand the Government participated. Therefore wecan conclude that the remarks made there,created political pressure using the position ofthe ruling party.

Secondly, we must highlight the fact that theremarks were concrete, including specificmethods on how to reduce the advertisementincome or sponsors of media. Their utterancedenies the freedom of press, and therefore werecognize them as a threat and challenge to thefreedom of press by the authority.

Thirdly, we must focus that the remarks madeby Naoki Hyakuta were not denied orquestioned, but were accepted positively by theDiet members. Diet members are therepresentatives of Japan which is a democratic

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

8

country. They must adamantly oppose suchproposal of media regulation. Instead, they said“We must learn from Hyakuta Naoki.”

Conclusion

In recent years the oppression of freedom ofpress by the Government and ruling LDP hasbeen intensified more and more. Especially tothe media of Okinawa, conflicting with theGovernment over the U.S. base related issues,the oppression has progressed to the levelwhich seeks to deprive freedom of press, ratherthan disrespecting it. This is clear from the factthat LDP members discussed how to “smashup” the local newspaper at the study session. Itcannot be excused for the sake of protectionand maintenance of democracy. The presentsituation, where the freedoms of press andexpression have been threatened, is the crisisof Japan’s democracy.

Infringement of right to information

Introduction

Freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article21 of the Japanese Constitution, which alsostipulates the people’s “right to information.”In Okinawa, however, the Government of Japancontinues to conceal information arbitrarilyfrom local communities, particularly thoserelated to military affairs. Some observers havecharged that the government’s efforts atconcealment have nothing to do with concernsabout national defense, but that they areintended to avoid fueling civilian opposition tothe U.S. military bases. In addition, the lack oftransparency regarding discussions about U.S.mi l i tary bases wi th loca l Okinawancommunit ies const i tutes a problem.Information is not equitably or properlydisclosed to Okinawan residents. TheGovernment must share as much informationabout U.S. military installations as possiblewith people of Okinawa, whose lives areimpacted by the U.S. military presence. Onlyafter proper information disclosure is ensured

can democratic decision-making be pursued.Anxious to quell the increasing anti-basesentiment in Okinawa, the government hasoften violated people’s right to know bycontrolling information in an arbitrary manner.

The following chapters outline the latest casesof hiding information about deployment ofOsprey military aircraft and about theGovernment’s obstructing informationdisclosure regarding a prefectural road in theTakae district of Higashi Village, used by theU.S. military.

Hiding Information on Deployment ofOsprey Military Aircraft

Following the rape incident of an Okinawanschool-girl by three U.S. service members in1995, the Special Action Committee onOkinawa (SACO) was established by theGovernment of Japan and U.S. Government.The November 26, 1996 document of the SACOtalks compiled by the U.S. military describesthe “comments of the U.S. military officials inJapan (1)” of the fact that “the Government ofJapan has not released information ondeployment of MV-22 Osprey aircraft. The U.S.military calls for the immediate release of theinformation (C).” Due to a high number ofaccidents associated with the aircraft, localresidents on Okinawa have long beenconcerned about deployment of the aircraft toFutenma. With safety concerns, local citizenshad been contacting the Government, askingwhether there was a plan to deploy the aircraftto Okinawa. On November 27, the documententitled, “The Government of Japan’s view onthe relocation of U.S. Marine Corps Air StationFutenma” (MCAS Futenma) was sent to U.S.military forces in Japan. Section 5 “Q & Aregarding matters related to MV-22 Ospreyaircraft: Explanation for the prefecture andpeople of Okinawa provided by Naha DefenseFacilities Administration Bureau” notes that“the Defense Agency prefers answers inaccordance with the following details. The sea-

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

9

based facility will serve as the base foroperation of sixty helicopters. [...] If thesehelicopters are to be replaced with MV-22aircraft (not fixed-wing aircraft) in the future,the base is considered to be capable ofaccommodating the new aircraft under thesame conditions. The sea-based facility willremain to be a heliport as it was originallyplanned to be used for the relocation site fortransport helicopters that are currently basingin MCAS Futenma.”

In the document it was stated that “Thesedocuments were passed from Takamizawa inthe Minister of Defence to the military J/3 inJapan”, and “The third part (fifth item) is anexpected question and answer regardingdeployment of MV-22”.

Nobushige Takamizawa, then Director ofDefense Policy of the Japan Defense Agencywho attended the negotiation meeting with theU.S government, answered a question by theRyukyu Simpo (newspaper) interview, aboutthe person ‘Mr. Takamizawa’ mentioned in thedocument, saying that “It is hard to deny thatthat person is not me”. The document is theagreement on joint use concluded on 1December, 1990, between the Director of theEngineering Division, Marine Corps BasesJapan, the Governor of Okinawa, and theDirector of the Facility Division of the NahaDefence Facilities Administration.

Following the guidance of the Government ofJapan, the SACO Final Report of December 22of the same year contains a phrase “...will alsosupport operation of short takeoff and landingaircraft,” with the description of the MV-22Osprey aircraft removed. Although the U.S.Government tried to reveal the planneddeployment of MV-22 Osprey aircraft in theSACO agreement, the of Japan requestedremoval of the statement regarding thedeployment through Nobushige Takamizawa14,then Director of Defense Policy of the JapanDefense Agency. As a result, the statement

regarding deployment of MV-22 Osprey aircraftwas struck from the SACO Final Report.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Lawrequires all organizations to undertakeenvironmental impact assessments beforecarrying out major projects like the new baseconstruction at Henoko. Assessments areconducted to study adverse environmentalconsequences of proposed activities and topresent measures to protect the environment. Ademocratic process of disclosing information tothe public and hearing opinions from citizens,as well as scientific verification should beensured throughout the process o fenvironmental impact assessment, specificallyduring development of an investigation plan(Environmental Scoping Document) and whenreporting the results of assessments (DraftEnvironmental Impact Assessment).

However, even after the Environment ImpactStatement (EIS) for the construction of a newU.S military in Henoko started, the Ministry ofDefence did not mention the plan to deploy theOsprey in the Environmental ScopingDocument (ESD) or the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (DEIA), and informationrelated to deployment of Osprey had beenhidden, despite the many inquiries about theOsprey from citizens. However on June 6th,2011, The Okinawa Defence Bureau finallyrevealed information about the Ospreydeployment by sending a FAX entitled“Notification to local community (Oral)” toOkinawa Prefecture and Ginowan City. Thedocument said, “This is to inform you that wehave received information from the Ministry ofDefence of Japan that the U.S. Government hasannounced the deployment of MV 22 Osprey toOkinawa. The U.S. Marine Corps is exchangingCH 46 helicopters for MV 22 Ospreys bygradually reducing the number of CH46s.” At4:00 a.m. on December 28, 2011, the‘Evaluation Document’ of the final report of theEnvironmental Assessment was submitted tothe Okinawa Prefectural Government, in which

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

10

the plan of Osprey deployment was mentionedfor the first time. However the process ofseeking public opinion about the “EvaluationDocument” was lacking; therefore citizens werenot given any opportunity to raise concernsabout the Osprey deployment.

The Government of Japan hid the Ospreydeployment plan because it knew thatOkinawan opposition to the U.S. military baseat Henoko would have strengthened had thepeople known about it. This would have made iteven more difficult to start construction of anew military base in Okinawa. This flawedassessment completely ignores stipulatedprocedures for the Method Document and thePreparatory Document, thereby making amockery of the entire process. The constructionof a new base in Henoko is exactly the kind ofissue that these procedures were designed toaddress and the construction work at Henoko isalready underway without the right processes.

Prevention of information disclosureconcerning the use of the road in theTakae district

On 19 February 2015, Okinawan residentssubmitted an information disclosure request tothe Okinawa Prefectural Government about: 1.‘FAC 6001 Agreement on Joint Use of U.S.military Facilities in the Northern TrainingArea by the Okinawa Prefectural Government’(1 December, 199015) and also the memo ofthe Facility Special Committee, and ‘FAC6001Agreement on Joint Use of part of the landof the Northern Training Area (18 December198116) ’ . The Okinawa PrefecturalGovernment decided on the disclosure of thosedocuments.

This document is part of the notification sentfrom the Secretary General of Naha DefenceFacilities Administration Agency to theOkinawa Prefectural Government, through theDirector of the Okinawa Forest Land-UseManagement Office, dated February 15th 1983,inquiring about the conditions of use proposed

by the U.S. military for joint use of land by theGovernment of Japan and the U.S. Government.The Government of Japan possesses the landdesignated FAC6001, the northern trainingarea, located in Higashi and Kunigami Villagesand has approved use of the area by the U.S.military. The Governor of Okinawa submittedan application for joint use of the land based onitem 4 in Article in the Status of ForcesAgreement on October 9th, 1979 and it wasapproved by the joint committee on September27th, 1990.

However, on March 4th, the Government ofJapan filed a legal case to cancel OkinawaPrefecture’s decision regarding the disclosureand on March 5th the court ordered suspensionof the disclosure17. The Government ofJapanese’s petition claimed “it is clear that therelationship with the United State will be lost(if these documents were disclosed). Thegovernment pointed out that in the meetingminutes of the first meeting of the Japan-U.SJoint Committee, (Official Name: JointCommittee established by Article XXV of theAgreement under Article VI of the Treaty ofMutual Cooperation and Security betweenJapan and the United States of America,regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status ofUnited States Armed Forces in Japan) and “9.The United States made recommendations onthe following procedures and preparation andJapan agreed”, and “F. Official meeting minutesof the Joint Committee shall be considered asofficial documents for both countries and notbe disclosed without mutual agreement by bothGovernments.”

However, these documents only stipulate theagreement on the use of the shoulder of theroad that runs through the training facilities inthe jungle located in northern Okinawa Island,which means that no military informationwould be included. Therefore, the OkinawaPrefectural Government, which owned thesedocuments, decided that these documents didnot have to be concealed.

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

11

Nevertheless, the Government of Japanopposed their disclosure, claiming that thisagreement was made under the Status ofForces Agreement and refused access toinformation, even if it had no bearing onnational security.

Conclusion

From these cases, it is obvious that theGovernment of Japan has arbitrarily limitedpublic access to information in its possession,especially that related to the military. Thesecases are just the tip of the iceberg and there isconcern that arbitrary concealment ofinformation continues to the present.Moreover, due to enforcement of the Act on theProtection of Specially Designated Secrets (thegovernment has offered no definition of“Designated Secrets”), there is also concernthat the Act makes it easier for the Governmentof Japan to conceal information concerning theU.S. military. In such a case, Okinawa, wherethe U.S military bases are concentrated, willsuffer.

The methods that the Government of Japanuses to regulate acts of expression, limitingpublic access to information, reminds us of thetime before the World War II when the freedomof expression and the right to information wereboth significantly restricted. The freedom ofexpression and the right to information must beprotected as basic democratic principles, asthey are protected by international standards ofhuman rights.

Henoko, 2010

Attachments

Statement against Wrongful Detention infront of the Camp Schwab Gate by RiotPolice of Okinawa Prefecture

Lawyers group for suit to cancel the approvalof landfill in Henoko (Head: Toshio Ikemiyagi),29 July, 2015

Against citizens’ protest activities in1.front of the Camp Schwab Gate to opposethe construction of a new base inHenoko, Nago city, Okinawa prefecturalpolice repeatedly mobilise a number ofriot police officers and evacuates citizensto a temporary detention space by usingiron fences and police vehicles on theside walk where evacuated citizens aredetained. Such acts of the prefecturalriot police are detention without warrantwhich violates the Articles 33 and 34 ofthe Constitution.With regard to the wrongful detention,2.lawyers belonging to our group directlyquestioned riot police officers for itslegal basis, yet riot police officersignored the questions and continuedillegal detention of citizens.

Nevertheless, since citizens are conducting

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

12

non-violent protests, it is not in a situationwhere security cannot be ensured withoutdetention. Thus, detention above by theprefectural riot police officers is an illegal actwhich cannot be justified by law. Moreover,evacuation by prefectural riot police officers isconducted in which several officers holdcitizens’ arms and legs or bind their armsbehind to deprive their physical liberty, andthen bring them inside the fences. Even if itspurpose is to ensure the safety of citizens, itsignificantly exceeds the appropriateness ofmeans. Such acts of prefectural riot policedisrespect basic human rights and humandignity of citizens by treating them as if theyare “objects”, which have to be said illegal andwrongful.

According to press reports, the1.prefectural police explained in interviewthat “(it is) taking appropriate measuresin accordance with law in a view tosecure security for people and preventtroubles”, “(it is) moving people toresolve an illegal situation, and usingequipment and cars to make sure thatpeople do not come out to the road untilvehicles enter (the Camp)”. (Morningedition of Okinawa Times on 29th June2015) However, it is absolutely unclearwhich “law” is referred here. Even if it isbased on the Police Duties Execution Act,the Act only illustrates that measures canbe taken in a necessary capacity to avoida risk only when there is a threat to livesor bodies of persons or property. There isa very low possibility for citizens, whoare conducting expressive activitiesguaranteed by the Constitution in a non-violent manner, to pose such a risk. Evenif “moving people to resolve an illegalsituation” is approved, “using equipmentand cars” to detain citizens concernedclearly exceeds the scope permitted bylaw.Moreover, it can be said that illegal2.detention by the prefectural police

officers in front of the Camp SchwabG a t e r e p r e s e n t s t h e c u r r e n tGovernment’s attitude to disrespect theConstitution. The current Governmentrailroaded the security bill in the lowerhouse of the Diet in which the majority ofthe population expressed their oppositionand vast majority of constitutionalscholars concludes it unconstitutional.The current Government’s attitude toneglect the Constitution is clearlyrepresented by ongoing illegal detentionin front of the Camp Schwab gate andt h e f o r c i b l e p a s s a g e o f t h eunconstitutional security bill, whichm a k e s u s a l a r m e d a t J a p a n ’ sconstitutionalism, rule of law anddemocracy.Overall, citizens’ activities to oppose the3.construction of a new base in Henoko,which are taking place around the CampSchwab, are part of the exercise offreedom of expression guaranteed by theConstitution. Especially since thefreedom of political expression is a basichuman right in the foundation of ademocratic society, any authoritativeregulation against it must be inhibitory.

We strongly demand the prefectural police takesufficient consideration to citizens’ freedom ofpolit ical expression by fol lowing theConstitution and other laws by which civilservants are bound.

“Statement on Security Activities of JapanCoast Guard in Henoko, Okinawa,”Okinawa Bar Association, HidekatsuShimabukuro, president) 11 March 2015

1 Currently [March 2015], Japan Coast Guard(JCG) is conducting security activities usingpatrol vessels and rubber boats against citizensprotesting at sea who oppose the constructionof a new U.S. military base by the Governmentin Henoko, Nago city. The JCG’s securityactivities range from stopping boats and canoes

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

13

carrying citizens and media personnel to JCGofficers moving onto those boats, overturningcanoes or forcibly towing those boats, on theground of safety guidance. Among thosesecurity activities, citizens claim that JCGofficers used violence against them for severalcases, which are brought lawsuits.

2 Nevertheless, JCG officers are restricted totake forcible measures against citizens actingat sea only for cases which fulfill the conditionsset by the Article 18 of the Japan Coast GuardAct. According to the section 1 of the Article,stop, transfer and disembarkation of a vessel isonly permitted when: 1) it is in a dangeroussituation such as sea accident; 2) there is a riskof threat to life or body of person or significantdamages to property; and 3) there is an urgentneed. Interpretation of these conditions mustbe made strictly, since these forcible measureslimit personal liberty guaranteed as a humanright in the Constitution, which normally haveto be supported by a warrant from a courtjudge under the warrant principle, and it isconsidered as an exceptional measure in anemergency situation. With this regard, forciblemeasures JCG is currently conducting at sea donot fulfill any of those conditions, even basingon the explanation from JCG.

3 On the other hand, JCG refers the possibleapplication of the Act on Special MeasuresConcerning Criminal Cases for those enteringthe temporary restricted area in the water zoneprovided for U.S. military in Camp Schwab.Principally, in a situation when a crime is goingto be committed, JCG can take forciblemeasures on the basis of the section 1 of theArticle. However, although the Act on SpecialMeasures is a legal system to guaranteeactivities of U.S. military in Japan, the settingof the current temporary restricted area is notfor the purpose of guaranteeing U.S. militaryactivities. It is clear that the purpose of thetemporary restricted area is to complete theconstruction work for the foundation of a basewhich is a Government of Japan’s construction

project. Such expansion of the application ofpenal law for different purposes from theobjective of the law poses a risk to violatepersonal liberty guaranteed in the Constitution.Therefore, it must be stated that the control ofJCC officers based on the application of the Actof Special Measures in the temporary restrictedarea is problematic.

4 Civilian activities against the construction ofa new base in Henoko around the CampSchwab are part of exercises of the freedom ofexpression guaranteed in the Constitution. Itgoes without saying that particularly thefreedom of political expression is a foundationof a democratic society in which restriction byauthority should be inhibitive. Our associationstrongly demands JCG to make sufficientconsideration to citizens’ freedom of politicalexpression and respect the strict conditions forforcible measures set by the Japan Coast GuardAct.

“Statement Demanding the JapaneseGovernment Respect Freedom ofExpression,” Kenji Utsunomiya, President,Japan Federation of Bar Associations, 15December 2011

On 25th of November, 2008, the Japanesegovernment filed at a court for a provisionaldisposition against the 15 residents who opposethe construction of the U.S. military helipad inthe Takae district, Higashi-son, because theyhad interfered or might interfere with theGovernment’s passage and other activities nearthe entrance of the construction site.

On 11th of December, 2009, the Naha districtcourt made the final decision to issue aprovisional disposition only for two residentso u t o f f o u r t e e n a n d d i s m i s s e d t h eGovernment’s claim for the other twelve, whilethe Government had withdrawn its filingagainst a 7-year-old girl (the lawsuit against thetwo residents to bar the interference withpassage, who had been issued an provisionaldisposition, closed a hearing on 14th of

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

14

December and the judgement will be renderedon 14th of March, 2012 whilst the constructionstill continues.)

Meanwhile, the Kyushu Bar Association issueda recommendation to the Government toconduct a sufficient investigation and reviewbased on reasonable grounds before takinglegal proceedings against its people whilerefrain from causing chilling effects beyond anecessary level, since the Government’s actionwas infringement on freedom of expression ofthe residents.

The court has recognized the residents’expressions of opinion against the constructionas acceptable and not exceeding therespectable scope since it was based onpolitical beliefs, while the Government, asapplying for provisional disposition, hadcondemned all forms of the local people’sexpressions of their opinion including sit-inprotests, writing opinions on the internet,making requests to stop the construction to theGovernment and expressing their opinionsthrough the mass media.

Meanwhile, in filing for the provisionaldisposition, the Government singled out theTakae district residents, including a marriedcouple and a 7-year-old girl, out of the manyprotesters from inside and outside Okinawa.Moreover, considering the fact that the photossubmitted to the court by the Government werenot identical with those who had been sued andeventually the Government’s claim againstmost of them was rejected, it would be naturalto assume that the Government simply selectedthose who expressed opposition withoutsufficient prior examination to assess whetherthey had actually interfered with the passageor not when it filed the complaint.

This legal action has effectively causedsignificant chilling effects on residents’activities in political expression by imposing aheavy burden on the residents and subjectingthe broad range of their activities.

As we have seen, there is a doubt that theGovernment’s lawsuit was not aimed atresolving the dispute in a sincere manner orrealizing substantive rights, but instead it wasaimed at suppressing the residents’ movementas a whole by imposing the residents burdensand disadvantages both psychologically andmaterially in and out of court.

Freedom of expression is an important humanright to determine the fate of a democraticsociety, and therefore, a free and democraticsociety is established by free discussions andformation of democratic consent. The Stateintervention or interference with politicalexpressions is considered a serious crisis inguaranteeing freedom of expression in general.Also, when these expressions of opinionsconcern the right to a peaceful existence thatunderl ies basic human r ights , theseexpressions should be respected all the more. Ifwe lose freedom of expression once in ademocratic society, it is extremely hard toobtain it back. Therefore, the State’s action tol imit i t must be done with suf f ic ientconsideration to avoid unnecessary chillingeffects against its people’s activities ofexpression while the freedom has immanentlimitations.

The provisional disposition is concerned tohave significant impacts not only on this case,but also on future activities of politicalexpression by citizens.

Therefore, we, JFBA, demand that theGovernment respect freedom of expression andgive due consideration so as not to result insuppression of the people’s activities ofexpression when it takes legal proceedingsagainst its people,

Appendix: Violence, Detention and Arrests in Henoko, Okinawa in 2014-1514

No. Date Victim Perpetrator Incident Action byauthorities Source

1 27/07/2014 2individuals

Japan CoastGuard

2 protesters oncanoesapproaching towatch the workfor the seabedinvestigationweretemporarilydetained.

Detention Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/prentry-229258.html)

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

15

2 15/08/2014 3individuals

Japan CoastGuard

3 citizens oncanoesprotestingoutside thetemporaryrestricted areaweretemporarilydetained whileone of themhad slight cutaround hiseyes by theJCG officers'violence.

Excessiveuse of forceanddetention

Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/movie/prentry-230221.html)

3 25/08/2014 3individuals

Japan CoastGuard

3 citizens oncanoesprotestingbetween the oilfence and theJCG-installedbuoys weretemporarilydetained.These buoyswere installedto constraincitizens fromprotesting.

Detention Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/prentry-230605.html)

4 26/08/2014 7individuals

Japan CoastGuard

7 protesters oncanoes jumpedinto the seaover the buoysto protestagainst on-going drillinginvestigationweretemporarilydetained.

Detention Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/prentry-230653.html)

5 30/08/2014 20individuals

Japan CoastGuard

20 protesterson canoescrossing overbuoys weretemporarilydetained. Someof themapproached thespuddingpontoon.

Detention Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/prentry-230851.html)

6 02/09/2014 1individual

Japan CoastGuard

One protesteron a canoecrossing overbuoys wastemporarilydetained.

Detention Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/prentry-231010.html)

7 03/09/2014 3individuals

Japan CoastGuard

3 protesters oncanoescrossing overthe oil fenceweretemporarilydetained forapproximately40 minutes.

Detention Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/prentry-231069.html)

8 04/09/2014 10individuals

Japan CoastGuard

10 protesterson canoesapproachingthe spuddingpontoon weretemporarilydetained forapproximately1 hour while 6canoes werealsotemporarilyconfiscated.

Detentionandconfiscationof canoes

Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/prentry-231146.html)

9 09/09/2014 21individuals

Japan CoastGuard

All protesterson canoesapproachingthe spuddingpontoon fordrilling surveyweretemporarilydetained.

Detention Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/prentry-231346.html)

10 12/09/2014 5individuals

Japan CoastGuard

JCG officerssaid "the Acton SpecialMeasuresConcerningCriminal Caseswill be applied"to the detainedcitizens whohad protestedon canoes, andtook their facephotos againsttheir will byforcibly takingoff theirsunglasses orhats.

Detentionand verbalthreat

Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/prentry-231531.html)

11 13/09/2014 At least 12individuals

Japan CoastGuard

Citizens oncanoesprotestingoutside thetemporarilyrestricted areaweretemporarydetained in aforcefulmanner. Oneprotester washeld his neckby the JCGofficer and hithis headstronglyagainst theboat, whichwould haveinjured him ifhe was notwearing ahelmet.

Excessiveuse of forceanddetention

Ryukyu Shimpo (Japanese)(http://ryukyushimpo.jp/movie/prentry-231584.html)

Document 2

Letter from 40 Okinawan, Japanese andInternational NGOs to the U.S. Ambassador toJapan and to U.S. Forces in Japan, December2016

December 1, 2016

The Honorable Caroline Bouvier Kennedy

Ambassador, Embassy of the United States ofAmerica

Tokyo, Japan

Lt. Gen. Jerry P. Martinez

Commander, United State Forces Japan

Yokota Air Base, Japan

Lt. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson

Commander, United State Marines Japan

Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan

Mr. Joel Ehrendreich

Consul General, Consulate General of theUnited States of America in Naha

Okinawa, Japan

Letter of Concern and Request

Inscription of Yanbaru Forest as a WorldNatural Heritage Site15

Dear Ambassador Kennedy, Lt. Gen. Martinez,Lt. Gen. Nicholson, and Consul GeneralEhrendreich:

We write to express our concern and to makerequests to you regarding the construction ofsix “landing zones” for U.S. military aircraft inthe U.S. military’s Northern Training Area(NTA) in the Yanbaru forest in northernOkinawa Island, especially in light of the

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

16

factthat the Yanbaru forest is now on theTentative List submitted by the Japanesegovernment for UNESCO World NaturalHeritage Sites.

As the U.S. Forces in Japan is well aware, theOkinawa Defense Bureau is now rushing toconstruct all the proposed landing zones by theend of the year 2016 amidst strong oppositionf rom loca l communi t i es and g loba lenvironmental and peace organizations. To doso, the Bureau adheres to its 10-year-oldEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (2007)for the construction, despite the fact that thatEIA has been widely criticized for its scientificand procedural flaws. The Bureau is alsomaking drastic changes in constructionprocedures while failing to implementmitigation measures set forth in the EIA. Thiswas most apparent in the revelation in October2016 that the Bureau plans to clear-cut over24,000 trees for construction of landing zonesand entrance roads. Not only is the Bureaudestroying the environment, but also it issubverting the integrity of EIA.

Intense and violent confrontation betweenprotesters against the construction of landingzones and the riot police force dispatched bythe Japanese government takes place daily atthe construction sites. It often leads to varioushuman rights violations, including unwarrantedarrest and detention of protesters, in somecases causing injuries, and the use by police ofderogatory terms such as “Doj in” (adiscriminatory term referring to indigenouspeople). The situation is chaotic and dangerous,escalating further the already antagonisticrelationship between Okinawa and theJapanese government.

The opposition to the construction comes fromvarious quarters. The residents of Takae inHigashi village have been opposing it since late1990s because these landing zones are builtextremely close to their community. Theaircraft training, using the two completed

landing zones, is already causing intolerablelevels of noise, disrupting and threatening theirdaily life.

Others oppose it because they see the newlanding zones as another form of militaryburden imposed upon Okinawa by the Japanesegovernment. Okinawa, only 0.6% of thelandmass of Japan, already bears the “hosting”of 74% of the U.S. military bases and facilitiesin Japan.

Still others (including the authors of this letter)oppose it because the landing zones are beingconstructed within a sensitive area of theYanbaru forest, which is one of the mostimportant ecological areas in Japan asdiscussed below.

We are concerned that, despite all of this, theU.S. military and the U.S. government haveremained silent, allowing construction,destruction, and confrontation to take place asif you had nothing to do with these matters.

Construction of Landing Zones: SACO,SOFA and Jurisdiction

We understand that the construction of thelanding zones is one of the conditions agreedbetween the U.S. and Japanese governmentsfor the return of a half of the NTA to Okinawain the Special Action Committee on Okinawa(SACO) agreement in 1996. We also understandthat, under the Japanese and U.S. MutualSecurity Treaty and the U.S. and Japan Statusof Forces Agreement (SOFA), the Japanesegovernment is responsible for providingfacilities and areas to the U.S. military, andthus the Japanese government is accountablefor the construction of those landing zones.

We know, however, that it was the U.S. militarythat demanded construction of those newlanding zones since it stood to lose sevenlanding zones in the land return deal. In ouropinion, the U.S. military should have returnedthe land without any conditions rather than

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

17

demanding additional landing zones. We alsoknow that under SOFA, the U.S. government(and the U.S. Forces in Japan) are given thepower to take “all the measures necessary fortheir (U.S. bases and facilities’) establishment,operation, safeguarding, and control.”

In other words, the U.S. government and theU.S. military have the power to make decisionsover whether or not to allow the construction oflanding zones in the NTA.

The Yanbaru Forest on the Tentative Listfor UNESCO World Heritage Sites

We now direct your attention to the fact thatthe Yanbaru forest is on the Tentative Listsubmitted by the Japanese government forUNESCO World Natural Heritage Sites.

As the U.S. Forces in Japan is well aware, the

27,800 ha (68,695 acres) Yanbaru forest is theoldest subtropical rain forest on OkinawaIsland and it is one of the richest biodiversityareas in Japan. It is home to some 5,400species of fauna and over 1,000 species ofvascular plants. They include over 170endangered species listed on the Red List ofthe Japanese Ministry of the Environment.Endemic and endangered species such as theOkinawa woodpecker (Sapheopipo Noguchii)and the Okinawa rail (Rallus okinawae) are thebest known of the well-known habitants of theYanbaru forest. They are also Japan’s “NaturalMonuments.” It is most appropriate that theYanbaru forest, along with Iriomote Island alsoin Okinawa prefecture, and Amami-Oshima andTokunoshima Islands of Kagoshima prefecturewill be officially considered for inscription onthe UNESCO World Heritage List.

The Japanese Ministry of the Environment, theOkinawa prefectural government, othergovernmental agencies, and local communitiesworked hard to get the precious environment ofthe Yanbaru forest on the Tentative List inFebruary 2016. The Environment Ministry alsodesignated in September 2016 a central part ofthe Yanbaru forest as Japan’s 33rd NationalPark as part of the World Natural Heritageinscription process. It is expected that preciseboundaries including “buffer zones” for theYanbaru forest for World Natural Heritage willbe established soon and that the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), theexpert advisory body for UNESCO, will visitOkinawa to evaluate these sites sometimeduring 2017.

Meanwhile, since 1957, when 7,800 ha (19,274acres) of the Yanbaru forest was taken over bythe U.S. military and converted into the U.S.military’s Northern Training Area, the U.S.military has been conducting jungle warfaretraining and low flying training of aircraftthere. There are 22 (plus 2 newly constructed)landing zones for military aircraft and othertraining facilities in the NTA. Loud noise

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

18

emitted from aircraft, land contamination fromdisposed materials and crashed aircraft,combined with logging and construction oflogging roads by local forest industry, havepresented and continue to present significantenvironmental challenges to the Yanbaruforest. The current construction of landingzones now adds to those challenges.

Landing zones under constructionNovember 2016. Photo provided by S.Kirishima

We are concerned that those challengespresent a significant obstacle for the WorldNatural Heritage inscription process as WorldHeritage requires “integrity” which is definedby the UNESCO as “a measure of thewholeness and intactness of the natural and/orcultural heritage and its attributes.”

Regrettably, there is no evidence that the U.S.military has given proper consideration to thisWorld Natural Heritage inscription process ofthe Yanbaru forest. None of the U.S. military’sdocuments available to the Okinawa publicacknowledges the inscription process. Oneexample is the U.S. mil i tary’s “FinalEnvironmental Review for Basing MV-22 atMCAS Futenma and Operating in Japan” (theso-called “Environmental Review”) prepared bythe U.S. Navy for the deployment and training

o f M V - 2 2 O s p r e y t o O k i n a w a . T h eEnvironmental Review discussed the naturaland cultural resources of the Yanbaru forestand laws and regulations to protect them.However, it completely failed to address thefact that the Japanese Ministry of theEnvironment and the Okinawa prefecturalgovernment were engaging in preparation forthe inscription process despite the fact thattheir preparation was in 2012 (when theEnvironmental Review was published) alreadywell underway.

Given that the U.S. military closely followsdevelopments in Okinawa in general, especiallyones associated with the U.S. bases, facilitiesand areas, we have difficulty understandingwhy this is so. We do not know whether theU.S. military ignores information on theinscription process or the Japanese governmenthas not properly informed the U.S. military ofit.

We are concerned that, the U.S. military andthe U.S. government’s failure to acknowledgethe World Natural Heritage inscription process,along with the construction of the landingzones, the violent confrontation and humanrights violations and the training of U.S.military aircraft, all hinder the inscriptionprocess.

U.S. National Historical Preservation Act,World Heritage Convention, and OurRequests

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

19

MV-22 Osprey terrain flight training in theYanbaru forest. Photo provided by T.Kitaueda

We understand that, under the current U.S.National Historical Preservation Act(NHPA)(Section 402), the law that addressesmatters related to the World HeritageConvention, while the U.S. military is requiredto take into account the effects of itsundertakings, whether training or constructionof facilities, on World Heritage sites andproperties in foreign countries, it is notrequired to do so in relation to Word Heritageinscription processes including one for theYanbaru forest. We believe, however, that thespirit and intention of the NHPA is for the U.S.military to take into account the effects ofallowing construction of landing zones andtraining on the Yanbaru forest, given that theYanbaru forest is a World Natural Heritagecandidate site and is now undergoinginscription process

In fact, Section 135 of the OperationalGuideline for the World Heritage Convention,to which the U.S. is a signatory state,stipulates:

Wherever possible, transboundarynominations should be preparedand submitted by States Parties

jointly in conformity with Article11.3 of the Convention. It is highlyrecommended that the StatesParties concerned establish a jointmanagement committee or similarbody to oversee the managementof the whole of a transboundaryproperty.

And the UNESCO World Heritage ConventionArticle 11-3 stipulates:

The inclusion of a property in theWorld Heritage List requires theconsent of the state concerned.The inclusion of a propertysituated in a territory, sovereigntyor jurisdiction over which isclaimed by more than one State,shall in no way prejudice the rightsof the parties to the dispute.

Please be reminded that the U.S. military’sNTA, over which the U.S. has jurisdiction, islocated in a sensitive part of the Yanbaru forestand that the coordinates of the “northern partof Okinawa Island” or the Yanbaru forest forWorld Natural Heritage inscription provided onthe Tentative List is just 1 km (0.6 miles) awayfrom the NTA.

We do not believe that the U.S. military and theU.S. government would like to be seen as anobstacle in the way of the World Heritageinscription process in an ally country.

Therefore, we request the following:

In accordance with Article 11-3 of the UNESCOWorld Heritage Convention, Section 135 of theOperational Guideline for the World HeritageConvention, and the spirit and intent of 402 ofthe National Historical Preservation Act,

That the U.S. military, in consultation with localcommunities, prefectural and national

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

20

(Japanese) government, and relevant NGOs,conduct an assessment regarding the impact ofallowing the construction of landing zones andthe conduct of aircraft and other types oftraining in the Yanbaru forest on the inscriptionprocess of the Yanbaru forest for World NaturalHeritage;

That the U.S. military, while conducting thisassessment, cease the issue of entrancepermits to the Okinawa Defense Bureau forpurposes of landing zone construction andsuspend its aircraft and other types of training;

That relevant U.S. government agencies,including the Advisory Council on HistoricalPreservation and the Office of the AssistantSecretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks,should be involved in the assessment process.

Sincerely,

Okinawa Environmental Justice Project

Association to Promote Ryukyu Islands asWorld Natural Heritage

Okumagawa Basin Protection Fund

Yanbaru DONguries

Naha Broccoli

Okinawa Environmental Network

Japan Environmental Lawyers’ Federation(JELF)

The Conservation Network for ForestEcosystem in Japan

The Nature Conservation Society of Japan

Greenpeace Japan

Friends of the Earth Japan

The Japan-U.S. Citizens for Okinawa Network

No Helipad Resident Society

Association for On-Site-Action Against HelipadConstruction in Takae

Association for Protection of MarineCommunities (AMCo)　

Okinawa Reefcheck and Research Group

Association to Protect the NorthernmostDugong

Save the Dugong Campaign Center

Dugong Protection Fund

The Save-Awase-Higata Association

Iruka & Kujira ( Dolphin & Whale ) ActionNetwork

Biodiversity Information Box

Diving Team Rainbow-The ConferenceOpposing Heliport Construction

Project Disagree

All Okinawa Council for Human Rights

International Movement Against All Forms ofDiscrimination and Racism

Alternative People's Linkagein Asia

“No Heliport Base” Association of 10 DistrictsNorth of Futamai

The Conference Oppos ing He l ipor tConstruction

Minshuku Yaponesia

Dugong no sato

“No Heliport Base” Association of 10 DistrictsNorth of Futamai

Committee on Okinawa, Northern Branch,

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

21

Tokyo District, The United Church of Christ inJapan

Committee on International Mission・NorthernBranch, Tokyo District, The United Church ofChrist in Japan

Shinshu Otaniha・Kyugjonokai Ogaki

The Voice of Gifu Citizens for saving Peace,Human rights and Environment

Kyujonokai Ogaki

Zainichi chosenjin sakkao yomukai

The following organizations support this letter.

Dugong Network Okinawa

Team Zan

Contact:

Hideki Yoshikawa

Director

Okinawa Environmental Justice Project

Email: yhidekiy@gmail.com

Enclosure: YANBARU, OKINAWA: FutureWorld Natural Heritage and U.S. Military’sNorthern Training Area (map)

CC: Advisory Council on Historical Preservation

CC: The Office of the Assistant Secretary ofFish and Wildlife and Parks

Hideki Yoshikawa is an anthropologist who teaches at Meio University and the University ofthe Ryukyus in Okinawa. He is the International director of the Save the Dugong CampaignCenter and Director of the Okinawa Environmental Justice Project.

Gavan McCormack is an emeritus professor of Australian National University andcoordinator of The Asia-Pacific Journal. He is co-author with Satoko Oka Norimatsu ofResistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States(http://www.amazon.com/dp/1442215623?tag=theasipacjo0b-20) (Rowman and Littlefield,2012, Horitsu bunkasha, 2013) and co-author with John Dower of the recently publishedTenkanki no Nihon e – Pax Americana ka Pax Asia ka (NHK Bukkusu, 2014).

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

22

Notes1 See here(http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Joint-submission-Violation-of-freedoms-of-expression-and-peaceful-assembly-in-Okinawa_11Dec2015.pdf). For the official UNdocument: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Joint Submission(http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Joint-Written-Statement_SGC_HRC31_item4-General-Debate_Human-Rights-Violations-in-Okinawa-Japan.pdf), 11 December 2015[15 February 2016]2 IMADR. “Militarization and Human Rights Violations in Okinawa, Japan”(http://imadr.org/militarizationhumanrights_okinawa_japan_hrc30-21september2015/), theislands’ voice to UN Human Rights Council. September 9, 2015.3 Under the warrant principle, a restriction of personal liberty has to be supported by awarrant from a court judge. This measure is confin to emergency situations.4 IMADR, Human Rights Violations in Okinawa, Japan (HRC30, 2015, Joint-WS)(http://imadr.org/humanrights-violations-okinawa-japan-hrc30-2015-joint-ws/). September 17,2015.5 These numbers do not include incidents of which a number of victims is not clear. See theattached list “Violence detention and arrests in Henoko Okinawa in 2014-15”6 As of 10 December 2015. See the attached list “Violence detention and arrests in HenokoOkinawa in 2014-15”7 Lawyers group for lawsuit to cancel the approval of landfill in Henoko, Statement againstWrongful Detention in front of the Camp Schwab Gate by Riot Police of Okinawa Prefecture,29 July 20158 Ibid.9 Okinawa Bar Association, Presidential statement on security activities of Japan Coast Guardin Henoko, 11 March 201510 This act is based on the “Agreement under Article 6 of The Treaty of Mutual Cooperationand Security between Japan and the United States of America, regarding Facilities and Areasand the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan”11 The incident took place on 22 February 2015. Ryukyu Shimpo, Henoko protesters detainedby US military (http://english.ryukyushimpo.jp/2015/02/24/17224/).12 Japan Federation of Bar Associations, “Declaration for the Establishment of Freedom ofExpression. -To realize a Free ad Democratic Society-”(http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/en/document/statements/year/2009/20091106_3.html) November 6, 2009.13 Broadcasting Ethics and Program Improvement Organization (BPO), “Opinions concerningthe program [Becoming a priest fraud] of NHK”(http://www.bpo.gr.jp/wordpress/wpcontent/themes/codex/pdf/kensyo/determination/2015/23/dec/0.pdf)November 6, 2015.14 All incidents took place in Henoko (in front of the Camp Schwab Gate or in Oura Bay). Theterm "detention" includes the restraint of personal physical liberty by law enforcementofficials.15 For further discussion, in Japanese, of the IUCN and World Natural Heritage proceedings,

APJ | JF 14 | 24 | 4

23

see Yoshikawa Hideki, “Henoko, Takae, kankyo no arasoi,” Okinawa Times, 22 and 23November 2016.