Okinawa marks 80 years since end of one of harshest WWII battles with pledge to share tragic history
TOKYO (AP) — Okinawa marked the 80th anniversary of the end of one of the harshest battles of World War II fought on the southern island.
With global tensions escalating, its governor said on Monday it is the Okinawan 'mission' to keep telling the tragic history and its impact today.
The Battle of Okinawa killed a quarter of the island's population, leading to a 27-year U.S. occupation and a heavy American troop presence to date.
Monday's memorial comes one day after U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, adding to a sense of uncertainty on the island about the heavy American military presence and in its remote islands, already worried about getting embroiled in a potential conflict in Taiwan.
Gov. Denny Tamaki, noting the escalating global conflicts and nuclear threats, made a resolve to contribute to global peace studies, disarmament and the preservation of war remains. 'It is our mission, as those living in the present, to preserve and pass on the reality and lessons to future generations.'
Fierce battle and civilian deaths
U.S. troops landed on the main Okinawa island on April 1, 1945, beginning a battle in their push toward mainland Japan.
The Battle of Okinawa lasted nearly three months, killing some 200,000 people — about 12,000 Americans and more than 188,000 Japanese, half of them Okinawan civilians including students and victims forced into mass suicides by Japan's military.
Okinawa was sacrificed by Japan's Imperial Army to defend the mainland, historians say. The island group remained under U.S. occupation until its reversion in 1972, two decades longer than most of Japan.
Monday's memorial was held at the Mabuni Hill in Itoman City, where the remains of most of the war dead reside.
Remembering the tragedy
Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was in a hot seat when he attended Monday's ceremony. Weeks earlier, one of his ruling party lawmakers Shoji Nishida, known for whitewashing Japan's wartime atrocities, denounced an inscription on a famous cenotaph dedicated to students as 'rewriting history' by portraying the Japanese army as having caused their deaths, while Americans liberated Okinawa. Nishida also called Okinawa's history education 'a mess.'
His remark triggered an uproar in Okinawa, forcing Ishiba days later to apologize to the island's governor, who had criticized the remark as outrageous and distorting history.
The Himeyuri Cenotaph commemorates student nurses who were abandoned near the end of the battle and killed, some in group suicides with teachers. Japan's wartime military told the people never to surrender to the enemy, or die.
Nishida's remarks add to concerns about the whitewashing of Japan's embarrassing wartime past as memories of the tragedy fade and ignorance about the suffering grows.
Ishiba, at Monday's memorial, said Japan's peace and prosperity is built on the sacrifices of Okinawa's history of hardship and that it is the government's responsibility to 'devote ourselves to achieve a peaceful and prosperous Okinawa.'
Postwar years and growing fear
Okinawa remained under U.S. occupation from 1945 until the 1972 reversion to Japan. The U.S. military maintains a heavy presence there due to Okinawa's strategic importance for security in the Pacific. Their presence serves not only to help defend Japan but also for missions elsewhere, including in the South China Sea and the Middle East.
Private properties were confiscated to build U.S. bases, and the base-dependent economy has hampered the growth of local industry.
Fear of a Taiwan conflict rekindles bitter memories of the Battle of Okinawa. Historians and many residents say Okinawa was used as a pawn to save mainland Japan.
There are also ancient tensions between Okinawa and the Japanese mainland, which annexed the islands, formerly the independent kingdom of the Ryukus, in 1879.
Burden of history
Okinawa remains home to the majority of about 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan under a bilateral security pact. The island, which accounts for only 0.6% of Japanese land, hosts 70% of U.S. military facilities.
Even 53 years after its reversion to Japan, Okinawa is burdened with the heavy U.S. presence and faces noise, pollution, aircraft accidents and crime related to American troops, the governor said.
Nearly 2,000 tons of unexploded U.S. bombs remain in Okinawa, with some regularly dug up. A recent explosion at a storage site at a U.S. military base caused minor injuries to four Japanese soldiers.
Remains of hundreds of war dead are still unrecovered on Okinawa, as the government's search and identification effort is slow to make progress.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
'Most Peaceful Country' Report Lists Ukraine, Russia Last: See Who Is First
Based on factual reporting, incorporates the expertise of the journalist and may offer interpretations and conclusions. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The new Global Peace Index (GPI) report ranked countries based on their "level of peacefulness," placing Russia as the least-peaceful country and Iceland as the "most peaceful country" in the world. The 19th edition of the report from the Australia-based Institute of Economics & Peace (IEP) looked at 163 independent states and territories using 23 indicators to measure the level of societal safety and security, the extent of ongoing domestic and international conflicts, and the degree of militarization. Of the 163 countries ranked, 74 improved their placement while 87 slid from last year's ranking. The GPI found an average deterioration of peacefulness of about .36 percent, marking the sixth year in a row that overall peacefulness declined. Why It Matters The world has seen increased instability in the international security landscape, with conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East adding to global tensions. President Donald Trump hit on this issue during last year's presidential campaign and promised that upon taking office he would tackle the major conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. In the past months, Trump has pursued a number of peace deals, including one signed this month between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, ending the fight between Congo government forces and rebels allegedly backed by Rwanda. The GPI report noted that there are currently 59 active state-based conflicts, "the most since the end of WWII and three more than the prior year." What To Know The 2025 GPI found that "global peacefulness continues to decline and that many of the leading factors that precede major conflicts are higher than they have been since the end of WWII. More countries are increasing their levels of militarization against the backdrop of rising geopolitical tensions, increasing conflict, the breakup of traditional alliances and rising economic uncertainty." Published earlier this month, the GPI had a relatively unchanged top 10, which Iceland topped, followed by Ireland, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Portugal, Denmark, Slovenia, and Finland. The biggest move at the top saw Canada tumbling out of the top 10 and land at tied-14th with the Netherlands, who did not move at all. The United States ranked 128th, just ahead of Ecuador, Brazil and Libya, but behind Bangladesh, South Africa, Honduras, Togo, and Kenya. Israel placed 155th, just ahead off South Sudan, Syria, and Afghanistan. Both the U.S. and Israel ranked last for the GPI "Militarization domain," which appears to have a significant weighting, while Russia and Ukraine ranked last in the "Ongoing Conflict domain." Afghanistan, Yemen, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan ranked last for the "Safety and Security domain." The Palestinian Territory was ranked 145, ahead of Turkey, Iraq and Nigeria and behind Colombia, Haiti, Iran, Niger and Pakistan. A woman rides a scooter past the damaged Pokrovy Presvyatoyi Bohorodytsi Church in the city of Svyatohirs'k, Donetsk region on June 26 amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A woman rides a scooter past the damaged Pokrovy Presvyatoyi Bohorodytsi Church in the city of Svyatohirs'k, Donetsk region on June 26 amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Tetiana Dzhafarova/AFP via Getty Images What People Are Saying The authors of the 2025 Global Peace Index wrote, in part: "The world has become less peaceful over the past 17 years, with the average country score deteriorating by 5.4 per cent since the index's inception in 2008. Of the 163 countries in the GPI, 94 recorded deteriorations, while 66 recorded improvements and one recorded no change. Seventeen of the 23 GPI indicators deteriorated between 2008 and 2023, while seven improved." Later in the same report, they wrote: "Despite the overall deterioration in peacefulness globally, some indicators recorded noticeable improvement. The perceptions of criminality and homicide rate indicators both continued their long running trend of improvement. The violent demonstrations indicator also improved, although it has deteriorated for 12 of the past 17 years." "There were substantial improvements for many Safety and Security indicators, including violent demonstrations, terrorism impact and the homicide rate. Several countries in the Central and North America region recorded significant reductions in the number of homicides, although the region still has the highest average homicide rate of any region," they wrote.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Advertisement Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Advertisement But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Advertisement Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Advertisement Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that 'district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not 'carefully heed this court's guidance' and act within limits, 'this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene.' In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. Advertisement All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing 'legalese,' she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. 'In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law — and it must,' she wrote before striking a cautionary note. Advertisement 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law,' she added. 'By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.' But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
6 Americans detained in South Korea for trying to send rice and Bibles to North Korea by sea
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — Six Americans were detained Friday in South Korea for trying to send 1,600 plastic bottles filled with rice, miniature Bibles, $1 bills and USB sticks toward North Korea by sea, police said. The Americans were apprehended on front-line Gwanghwa Island before throwing the bottles into the sea so they could float toward North Korean shores on the tides, two Gwanghwa police officers said. They said the Americans are being investigated on allegations they violated the law on the management of safety and disasters. The officers, who requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to media on the issue, refused to provide personal details of the Americans in line with privacy rules. Gwanghwa police said they haven't found what is on the USB sticks. The U.S. Embassy in South Korea had no immediate public comment. For years, activists have sought to float plastic bottles or fly balloons across the border carrying anti-North Korea propaganda leaflets and USB thumb drives carrying South Korean dramas and K-pop songs, a practice that was banned from 2021-2023 over concerns it could inflame tensions with the North. North Korea has responded to previous balloon campaigns with fiery rhetoric and other shows of anger, and last year the country launched its own balloons across the border, dumping rubbish on various South Korean sites including the presidential compound. In 2023, South Korea's Constitutional Court struck down a controversial law that criminalized the sending of leaflets and other items to North Korea, calling it an excessive restriction on free speech. But since taking office in early June, the new liberal government of President Lee Jae Myung is pushing to crack down on such civilian campaigns with other safety-related laws to avoid a flare-up tensions with North Korea and promote the safety of frontline South Korean residents. On June 14, police detained an activist for allegedly flying balloons toward North Korea from Gwanghwa Island. Lee took office with a promise to restart long-dormant talks with North Korea and establish peace on the Korean Peninsula. Lee's government halted frontline anti-Pyongyang propaganda loudspeaker broadcasts to try to ease military tensions. North Korean broadcasts have not been heard in South Korean front-line towns since then. But it's unclear if North Korea will respond to Lee's conciliatory gesture after vowing last year to sever relations with South Korea and abandon the goal of peaceful Korean reunification. Official talks between the Koreas have been stalled since 2019, when U.S.-led diplomacy on North Korean denuclearization derailed.
