Comments on: The CIA’s 1971 Secret Report On The Senkaku Islands Dispute

By: Vegas_Bob

Vegas_Bob — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 20:11:00 +0000

The negotions were between the Nixon Administration and the Sato Administration, as the Ryukus were considered to be part of Japan at the end of the war (they were annexed by Japan in 1879) however, it was a non-binding referendum, though I cannot remember the exact date, it was prior to the 1972 reversion. . .I didn’t say they changed the roads in ’72, though it was switched over night, after many months of preparations.

The independence movement was in its infancy back then, I think that it was also probably fueled by the influx of Japanese who tried buying up property for development, even on islands like Taketomi-jima; development there would have seriously hurt that island’s way of life; though luckily a few of those developers actually backed out of destroying the serenity of that island.

I am not sure that Japan even has a process by where one if its Prefectures could secee, but if that is what the People of Okinawa want, they should be allowed to do it.

By: rdomain

rdomain — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:40:00 +0000

As I understand it, the negotiations to revert Okinawa back to Japan took place between the US government and Japan in the early 70s, over the wishes of many Okinawans, who wanted some form of independence. The roads were switched in 1978. I believe there was a referendum in 1996, and a poll around 2005 indicating that the Okinawan people wanted to stay with Japan, but this is many years after the 1972 reversion agreement. I wasn’t there during any of this, I’ve only read about it – can you tell me when the referendum in the early 70s happened?

By: Vegas_Bob

Vegas_Bob — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 03:47:00 +0000

The US did not “choose to not allow that”, there was a referendum by the Okinawan people, one of their choices was to become independent, the votes were tallied and those who voted the islands be returned to Japan won. . .at the time the Senkaku’s were a part of the territories that the Military High Commissioner oversaw, so they were naturally returned to Japan. . .

You should have been there that first day that they switched the roads from driving on the right (like the US) to driving one the left (like Japan). . .

By: rdomain

rdomain — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 08:12:00 +0000

I don’t think this issue is as clear cut as some of the commentators are posting. Many of Imperial Japan’s territory were taken by Japan under force, and under questionable pretenses. In the early 70s, the US returned many of those territories back to Japan, perhaps to keep Japan as a buffer state against Communist China. For instance, there was a real movement to make Okinawa an independent state. The US choose to not allow that. Similarly, the US gave the Diaoyu islands to Japan, with both China and Taiwan protesting. The UN was never involved. There wasn’t a reexamination of the facts – US just unilaterally made the decision. It’s not unreasonable to reopen the case.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:22:00 +0000

I can obviously see that many people are deeply invested in this, and I haven’t read up much on this, but if the islands were undisputedly Japanese before the discovery of oil, why shouldn’t they just be Japanese?

Of course, I feel like there is much more to this so I plan to read more later. This was just my opinion after reading this article.

By: Federale

Federale — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +0000

Sonnojoi!