Myth, Protest and Struggle in Okinawa

– an original member of the One-tsubo Anti-war Landowners’ Organization – the
most important and meaningful character of both anti-war landowners and Onetsubo
anti-war landowners is essentially ‘their existence and not their action’
(Arasaki 1995: 129). This relatively small portion of One-tsubo members has
engaged in protest activities, mainly as ‘supporters’.
Strategy and activities
The anti-war landowners 113
The main activity of the anti-war landowners has been long-term disobedience to
the state’s request to sign a lease to the US military occupation of their properties.
This has put a constant pressure on Japanese government officials. The anti-war
landowners claimed the forceful occupation of their land was unconstitutional,
because it breaches Article 29 (right of private ownership of assets) of the
Constitution. The regular players in this struggle have been a small group of antiwar
landowners, including One-tsubo landowners, members of Iken Kyōtō, and
expert attorneys, versus the officers at the Naha Defence Facilities Bureau.
Japan is obligated to supply the US forces with facilities and land by the US–
Japan Mutual Security Treaty. In order to keep the US occupation of properties
owned by these non-contract landowners legal, the Japanese government has
‘reformed’ relevant legislation, time and time again. First, the Diet passed the Public
Property Law (Koyōchi hō) on 31 December 1971, which legalized the use of all
privately owned properties hitherto occupied by the US military in Okinawa for
five years from 1972. 10 Nevertheless, this law was only good for the five years, as
a temporary measure necessary in the transition period. In 1976, the landowners
and Iken Kyōtō filed their first legal case against the Public Property Law.
In order to maintain the US military’s use of the non-contract landowners’
properties, the government came up with manipulative and convoluted legislation
in 1977. The Japanese Cabinet enacted the Land Registration Identification Law
(chiseki meikakuka hō), which obligated the government to identify land registration
within the military bases in Okinawa. 11 In a subject clause, the government extended
the period of the Public Property Law for another five years (Arasaki 1995: 97).
Before the passing of this bill, Uehara Kōsuke, former Zengurnō leader and then
a JSP member representing the Okinawan electorate in the Lower House, pressured
the JSP executives to resist a little longer in their negotiations with the LDP. This
stalled the bill for four days, making the military’s occupation of the anti-war
landowners’ properties technically illegal for those days. The lawfulness of the
Japan–US Mutual Security Treaty was endangered. As symbolic acts of protest,
the members of Iken Kyōtō and anti-war landowners broke the gates into some of
the bases, to return to their previous homes for the first time since WWII. 12 During
these four days, an anti-war landowner, Shimabukuro Zenyū, and his family,
accompanied by a lawyer, took their tractor into his former property in Camp
Shields. In front of the US military personnel, he released his ducks, ploughed the
farmland and planted garlic (Shimabukuro and Miyazato 1997: 156–60). These
four days created an embarrassing situation for the state, which was temporarily
using private properties unlawfully.