Japanese protest the continuing presence of American forced in
Okinawa. After
decades of extremely favorable treatment, people
in Japan are increasingly
demanding changes that will put U.S.
troops who commit crimes under
Japanese jurisdiction.
‘Inequitous’ U.S.-Japan Security Agreement Must Be Revised (Nishinippon Shimbun, Japan)
“With the exception
of when a U.S. serviceman is arrested on the scene by Japanese authorities, U.S.
authorities take custody of the suspect until he is charged. Of course, that can
prevent a full investigation. … And it isn’t just the right to investigate. The
U.S. has primary jurisdiction over crimes committed by all military personnel
on official duty. On top of that, the U.S. is the judge of what counts as ‘official
duty.’”
The U.S. and Japanese governments have agreed in principle
to set up a joint committee to work on amending the U.S.-Japan
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which specifies the legal status of
American troops stationed in Japan. The plan appears to be to reach a formal
agreement during the Noda-Obama talks scheduled for April 30.
[Editor’s Note: Under
a deal reached in Washington announced the day this editorial was published, about
9,000 Marines will move from Okinawa to Guam and other locations in the region,
including Hawaii and Australia. That will leave about 10,000 U.S. troops on the
island.]
It has been 52 years since SOFA was signed. During this
period, not once has the Japanese government officially demanded a review.
Taking this into account, let us evaluate the fact that a consultative committee is being formed to do so.
“Demanding a review of the Status of Forces Agreement” was a
Democratic Party of Japan [DPJ] election pledge. The
Noda regime should aim, once and for all, to revise the “unequal provisions” of
the current agreement, which bestows a privileged position of U.S. forces in
Japan.
If Japan continues to rely on improvements brought about by
U.S. generosity and goodwill, the inequity of the agreement will never be
corrected.
Areas hosting U.S. bases, including Okinawa, Sasebo, and Iwakuni, are seeking an end to “unfairness” - even though
Japan is not under occupation by American forces, Japanese sovereignty and rule
of law cannot be enforced.
Even if U.S. soldiers are stationed in accordance with the treaty,
they should be investigated and prosecuted by the Japanese side under Japanese
law if on Japanese territory, they do damage to people or their property.
When it comes to a sovereign state, this should be a matter
of course. Yet that is not the reality of what happens.
Under SOFA, with the exception of when a U.S. serviceman is
arrested on the scene by Japanese authorities, American authorities take
custody of the suspect until he is charged. Of course, that can prevent a full
investigation.
And it isn’t just the right to investigate. The U.S. has
primary jurisdiction over crimes committed by all military personnel on
official duty. On top of that, the U.S. is the judge of what counts as
“official duty.”
It was under such iniquitous provisions that the 1995 Okinawa
incident took place, in which three Marines raped a 12-year-old girl. This
led to subsequent talks between the two sides to improve the application of
these regulations.
Posted by Worldmeets.US
Now, suspects accused of serious crimes (such as murder and
rape) are handed over to Japanese authorities before being charged, and the
“official duty” defense is no longer allowed for drunk driving. But a large
proportion of decisions are still left to American discretion.
If the DPJ Government insists on talking
about “equal U.S.-Japan relations,” it should officially demand a comprehensive
review of SOFA and do everything in its power to eliminate the inequality.
The government should continue to push for amendments to
SOFA, such as limiting U.S. extraterritoriality to their bases and ensuring
that criminal cases committed off base by U.S. military personnel are tried
under Japanese law.
Such is the desperate desire of Okinawans,
who have suffered from crimes committed by U.S. servicemen and have had their
human rights repeatedly trodden upon - all because of this “prejudicial
agreement.” We want to see a show of mettle from the Noda Government to earnestly
respond to these calls.
Unfortunately, it is patently clear that the new consultative
body is a just ploy to draw a compromise from Okinawa in regard to the
stalemate over the relocation of the Futenma Air
Base. If that is the central motive here, then no such committee should be
formed. It would only serve to deepen the mistrust Okinawans
already have toward the DPJ Government.
