Militarization and Environment Rights in Okinawa
Hideki Yoshikawa
Introduction
Hello, my name is Hideki Yoshikawa. I am Co-director of the Citizens’ Network for
Biodiversity in Okinawa, an environmental NGO. First I would like to express myappreciation to the organizers of this event for giving me this important opportunity totalk. I would also like to express my appreciation to those who are attending thisevent.
There are two things I would like to talk about today. The first one is the history of thetragic relationship among militarization, environmental problems and Human rightsviolations in Okinawa. The Second one is the issue of the construction of a US militarybase in Henoko and Oura Bay, Nago city, Okinawa. Nago city is my home town.
Along the way, I would like to refer to the work of Mr. John Knox, an UN Independent
Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment. He articulates “proceduralobligations” and “substantive obligations” to ensure our rights to a safe, clean, healthyand sustainable environment: Access to environmental information, public participationin environmental decision-making, and access to remedies for environmental harm areessential. Attention to these obligations helps us understand how and why militarization
is causing environmental problems and human rights violations in Okinawa.
The Battle of Okinawa
Militarization takes various forms, and Okinawa has experienced many forms ofmilitarization at different time periods.
The most devastating form of militarization is war. A our governor talked about,
Okinawa experienced the “Battle of Okinawa” at the end of WWII in 1945, becoming
the only ground battle field taking place in Japan.
The Battle of Okinawa took the lives of 200, 000 people including soldiers of both sides
and 120,000 Okinawans (one in four people in Okinawa lost his/her lives).
The war also destroyed and contaminated the environment, people’s homes, form lands,forests, rivers, and the sea.1 However, unlike information on human casualties, we do
not have much information on the destruction of the environment by the war. In fact, theNational Research Reports on the history of war damages (compiled from 1977 to 2009by the Japanese government) do not have any information on Okinawa because the war
destroyed many administrative documents. The war indeed erased important
information on the environment before the war as well
1We still feels the effects of the war when unexploded munitions buried under theground during the war are discovered at present time. (Since the reversion of Okinawa
to Japan in 1972, the Japanese self defense force some 1,700 tons of unexploded
munitions have been discovered.

Construction and Operations of US Military Bases
During and immediately after the end of WWII, another form of militarization took
place in Okinawa. As Governor Onaga talked about, while Okinawan survivors of thewar were put in interment camps, the US military confiscated their land and converted
into US bases. The U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station was built in such a manner.
In the 1950s, responding to the escalating Korean War, the US military government
seized more land from Okinawan people, often with “bayonets and bulldozers,” andconverted them into military bases.2
As US bases became a major part of Okinawa’s landscape or environment, they also
became a major cause of many environmental problems. They include contamination ofland with PCB, dioxins, and even depleted uranium, noise from military aircrafts flying
over residential areas, forest fires from live ammunition excises, and aircraft crushing.
Because of the proximity between US bases and our life, in most cases just separated bya fence, these environmental problems are immediate threats to the people of Okinawa,
and urgent and effective remedies are needed.
However, such environmental problems often occur within the boundaries of US bases,
and these “procedural obligations” articulated by Mr. Knox are hardly put into practice.
The people of Okinawa including the prefectural government face a big problem ofaccess to information on military base related environmental problems. Even when suchinformation is provided, we are not sure if it is accurate (we have no way to check it).
Public participation in dealing with military base related environmental problems is rare.
Priority attaches to the US-Japan Security Alliance. The Status of Forces Agreement
between Japan and the US effectively prevents the “procedural obligations.”3
As a result, the right of the people of Okinawa to live in a clean, safe, healthy, andsustainable environment is denied.
Construction of a new military base in Henoko and Oura Bay
Now, I would like to discuss the construction of a US military base in Henoko and Oura
Bay, Nago City, which is my home town. This is another form of militarization inOkinawa.
2It is important to emphasize here that, in Okinawa, the confiscation of private landand conversion of them into military bases have been discussed in terms of violations ofhuman rights to private property, but not in terms of violations of our rights to theenvironment. In either term, however, there have been little efforts to address andredress the confiscation of land and conversion of them into military bases.
3 According to the agreement between the US and Japanese government on access tosuch information articulated the governments 1972 agreement (5.15 agreement), forexample), the USG guarantees access to the local representative of the Forest Agency or
his designation “This access is permitted provided that such access does not interferewith U.S. Forces operations)Since Governor Onaga has already explained the issue in some detail, I would like tofocus on environmental aspects of the issue.
First of all, the area is one of the most biodiversity rich areas in Okinawa and Japan. It
is habitat for more than 5,300 marine species including 260 endangered species. The
endangered blue coral and the endangered and Japan’s National Monument andOkinawa’s cultural icon, Dugong, marine mammals inhabit there.
The proposed construction of a US base involves substantial reclamation of the sea. It
would require 2.1 million cubic meters of soil and rock (That is, 3.5 million truckloadsof soil and rocks dumped into the sea!). Of the amount, 1.7 million will be transportedby ship from other areas of Japan, creating the possibility of introducing and spreading
invasive alien species to Okinawa.
From a point of view of environment conservation, these facts alone are enough to say“No” to the construction of the base. The construction of the base spells anenvironmental disaster.
Also, the area of Henoko and Oura Bay is home to over 4,500 people. They include
fishermen, farmers, eco tourism operators, whose livelihoods depend upon a healthymarine environment.
Also, Henoko and Oura Bay are just 20 kms away from the Yambaru forest, which theOkinawa prefectural government is pressing to have recognized as a UNESCO World
Natural Heritage site.
These are critical environmental reasons that make people like me oppose theconstruction of the base for almost 20 years.
New Form of Violations of Environmental Rights
Then, how and why is the Japanese government (and to an lesser extent the USgovernment) able to say “let’s reclaim the sea and build a military base in this area?”
How and Why is the Japanese government, with democracy and environment
conservation laws and regulations (or “substantive obligations”), using the Coastal
Guard and the Policy to attack protesters on the sea and on the ground with such
violence?
Well, according to the Japanese government, they can push forward the construction
because the fomer governor of Okinawa approved the land reclamation for theconstruction of the base. And the former governor approved the land reclamation
because the Japanese government’s Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for theConstruction of the base concluded that there will be no adverse impacts on theenvironment from the construction and operations of the base.
No environmental problems, No human right violations.

According to the Japanese government, it is the protesters and the people of Okinawa
who are making unjustifiable claim that the base should not be constructed.
Problem with the EIA
The Japanese government EIA has been severely criticized by experts, NGOs, theOkinawa prefectural government. We argue that the government’s EIA did not assess
accurately the value and vulnerability of the environment; it grossly underestimated theeffects of the construction and operations of the base on the environment; itoverestimated effectiveness of the mitigation measures it proposed.
Dr. Yasuo Shimazu, a leading expert on EIA and former chairperson of the Japan
Society for Impact Assessment, denounced the government EIA as the worst EIA in thehistory of Japanese EIA.
However, the Japanese government insists their conclusion is valid. And all theadministrative procedures and decisions based upon the conclusion are thus valid andlegitimate, thus keep pushing the construction forward.
What is extremely troubling is the Japanese government has never revealed
certaincrucial information: who was it that concluded there would be “no impacts on theenvironment?” Despite constant requests from NGOs and concerned citizens, no namesof the “experts” it relied on have been provided to the public. Basically, the Japanese
government tells the people of Okinawa to accept the “no impact on the environment”
conclusion blindly.
According to the “procedural obligations” articulated by Mr. John Knox, to secure therights of people to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, we need (a)access to environmental information, (b) public participation in environmental
decision-making; and (c) access to effective remedies for environmental harm.
These obligations require that environmental information be accurate and valid, or atleast that the accuracy or validity of environmental information be examined in atransparent manner.
If this requirement is not being met, these same “procedural obligations” could turn into
an instrument to induce environmental problems and to violate people’s rights to a safe,clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In my view this is what is happening to theJapanese EIA in Henoko and Oura Bay.
As Governor Onaga said, we are reliving the aftermath of WWII. Our land and sea arebeing seized and converted into a US military base with the physical violence of the ourown government and the Japanese EIA as new “Bayonets (béiәnit) and bulldozers.”
US Responsibility
Apparently, the Japanese government’s practice of withholding critical information had
spill over effects on the US Department of Defense.

In 2008, in a lawsuit held in a US federal court, the judge ruled that the US Departmentof Defense violated the US National Historical Preservation Act by not taking into
account the effects of the base on the Dugong in the construction plan. The judge
ordered the DoD to conduct its own analysis on the effects of the base on the dugong.
Apparently, the DoD examined and incorporated the results of the Japanese EIA into its“take into account” process. It reached the same conclusion as the Japanese EIA: thatthe construction and operation of the military base would have no adverse impact on thedugong.
Despite requests from the plaintiffs, the DoD refused to provide its analysis on theJapanese government EIA and other related documents. It also did not allow public
participation of the people of Okinawa in its process.
Governor Onaga Takes Action
Despite constant political pressure from the Japanese government to conform to thegovernment policies, Governor Onaga established an independent committee to review
the land reclamation approval process as well as the EIA. The committee concluded thatthe land reclamation approval was legally flawed and the EIA was problematic.
Governor Onaga has begun the process of rescinding the land reclamation approval,
thereby defending the rights of the people of Okinawa to the environment.
Along with many of my NGO colleagues, I feel vindicated. But we know that we face arough road ahead. We expect the Japanese government to use all the means at its
disposal to push forward the construction of the base, and that lawsuits will be filed
against the Governor and people of Okinawa.
My hope today is that the International Community will pay attention to what ishappening to the people of Okinawa and to the environment. Also my hope is thatscientists and experts, Japanese and international, will join in further examination of the
impact of the construction of the base on the people and on the environment and makerecommendations accordingly.
Concluding Remarks
Finally, let me direct your attention to a little-appreciated fact. Futenma Air Station is
not only a US base but also (since the Korean war) has been a “United Nations Air
Distribution Hub Facility.” Constructed on land confiscated from people of Okinawa,
situated dangerously in the middle of a crowded city, infamously referred as the mostdangerous of all bases, the Futenma is a UN facility. If the base to be constructed in
Henoko and Oura Bay is a replacement of the Futenma air station, it would also be aUN facility. The UN should address its own responsibility in the Futenma/Henokomatter.