Myth, Protest and Struggle in Okinawa

158 Myth, protest and struggle in Okinawa
land lease himself. Simultaneously, he sued Ōta for neglecting his professional
duty. In March 1996, the Fukuoka High Court ordered the Governor to authorize
the non-contract landowners’ land lease. At the Supreme Court, the Governor asked
for Okinawa’s predicament to be seen as Japan’s predicament, citing Okinawans’
‘constitutionally guaranteed property rights, people’s rights to a life in peace, and
[the prefecture’s] right to home rule’ (Ōta 2000a: 213).
if the Mutual Security Treaty is important for Japan . . . responsibility and
burdens under the treaty should be assumed by all Japanese citizens. If not,
many of my people point out that the outcome is discriminatory and goes
counter to [the principle of] equality under the law.
(Ōta 2000a: 212)
Ōta’s position has been underpinned by the ‘constitutional’ framing ‘although the
principles of the Constitution are not fully realized, they are the most important
foundation not only for Okinawa and Japan but for humanity in general’ (Ōta 1969:
100). The Supreme Court, however, dismissed Ōta’s appeal on 28 August 1996.
At the same time, the Japanese government set up a ‘special adjustment budget’
of ¥5 billion to reinvigorate the Okinawan economy. In early September 1996,
Ōta finally agreed to authorize the leases. The event immediately followed the
Prefecture referendum of 8 September 1996. The voting rate (59.53 per cent) was
unexpectedly low, even though 89 per cent of those who voted agreed with the
reduction of US forces and revision of SOFA. Ōta’s decision disappointed many
anti-base activists and cooled many Okinawan citizens’ resurgent interest in the
struggle against the bases. Arguably these two events induced a sudden plunge of
the momentum of the ‘third wave’. Here, the ‘third wave’ seemed to have settled.
Yet it had not. A much tougher and longer period of collective action against the
plan to relocate the base in Futenma following the rape case was about to start.
The wave has, however, been much less spectacular and called for more dogged
commitment. This period will be discussed in the second half of this chapter.
The women’s movement and the myth of a unified ‘Okinawan
Struggle’
In the context of racial, national, and ethnic conflict, rape has a political implication
of dominance. Cockburn (1998: 223–4) explains: ‘“Rape” is used metaphorically
to convey that feeling of abuse, as when someone or some group penetrates, invades
and damages the space (the land, perhaps, or culture, or thoughts) in which another
or others dwell.’ Angst (2001) points out that precisely because of this effect of
rape that elevates the physical violation into the abstract, the main public concern
to do with the rape case in September 1995 was sidetracked from the issue of
women’s rights as human rights; quickly, the central issue switched to the US
military’s violence against ‘Okinawa’.
The 1995 rape awakened the myth of a united ‘Okinawan Struggle’ from a long
hibernation. It is not accidental that, at the 21 October rally, the 1955 Yumiko-chan