by Brian Hioe

語言:
English
Photo Credit: Public Domain

COMMENTS BY Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi seen as expressing support for Taiwan have led to a large response from China. One has seen flights canceled, bans on Japanese imports, and performances by Japanese artists halted on stage.

Among the more unusual responses from the Chinese government, however, has been political messaging on state-run media outlets questioning Japan’s sovereignty over Okinawa. Okinawa is, of course, where the majority of US military bases in Japan are located. Okinawa also has a distinctive sense of political and cultural identity from the rest of Japan. These, then, have been contributing to a long-standing movement in Okinawa against militarism.

A segment on CGTN program “The Point with Liu Xin” proves a case in point. Liu frames Okinawa’s status as “undetermined” and highlights the discontent of Okinawans with the US bases on their soil. Liu also highlights how Okinawans are not acknowledged as an Indigenous people by the Japanese government, in spite of their distinctive culture and history, and suggests that Okinawa is a country that has been “erased” from history by the machinations of the US and Japan. Liu then goes on to suggest a cultural affinity between Okinawans and China, pointing to how Okinawa was a tributary state of premodern Chinese kingdoms.

Ironically, Liu is not wrong when it comes to much of her commentary on Okinawa. It is correct that Okinawa has been repeatedly colonized, with the desires of its inhabitants disregarded. This continues to be an injustice perpetrated by the Japanese state to this day. It is indeed the case that Okinawans should be allowed the right to self-determination, as a remedy to the historical injustice that they have long faced.

The segment in question

At the same time, it proves rather odd for Chinese state-run media to suggest that Okinawans should have the right to self-determination as a counter to perceived Japanese support of Taiwan, which was, in fact, referred to as “lesser Ryukyu” in premodern times. Taiwan is, of course, an example of when China, too, has forcefully denied a people the right to self-determination. If Okinawa has historically been denied the right to self-determination and it should have this, as Liu suggests, that is not wrong–but should not one then ask why Taiwanese, Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other so-called “ethnic minorities” in China should not also have the right to self-determination? Should not the right to self-determination be a universal principle for all and not only for some?

Framing Okinawans as Indigenous denied recognition by the Japanese government is strange in light of China’s own actions against Indigenous peoples. Liu next goes on to attack the Japanese government for refusing to acknowledge Okinawans as Indigenous. But this sounds an odd note for China. One notes the ethnic cleansing projects that the Chinese government is currently undertaking against Uyghurs, as well as the attempted cultural extermination of Tibetans that has been ongoing for decades, not to mention the colonialism that has long been directed at other so-called “ethnic minorities” in China. It proves a strange blind spot for Liu to attack the Japanese government over the lack of acknowledgement of Okinawans as Indigenous when the Chinese government also systematically deprives Indigenous peoples of their rights and engages in the genocidal practices of colonialism to this day.

Much of the political thrust of Liu’s commentary seems to be aimed at casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Cairo Declaration, the Treaty of San Francisco, and other World War II agreements that have played a role in Taiwan’s international status. Such commentary is now a recurrent theme of Chinese state-run media in the wake of Takaichi’s comments, though somewhat also at odds with statements by Chinese President Xi Jinping, which seek to frame Taiwan as belonging to China on the basis of the post-war order and cast existing documents and treaties that pertain to Taiwan as affirming that Taiwan belongs to China.

Even so, in raising the question of Okinawan self-determination as it is linked to the post-war order, the Chinese government has unwittingly raised a rather valid point–that the right to self-determination is one that should be upheld in the region, particularly for those caught between the machinations of great powers. Perhaps that is the remedy to the historical injustices that have long plagued victims of empire–whether in Okinawa, Taiwan, or wherever. A broken clock is right twice a day, after all.
No more articles