Author: Satoru Nakamura

Japansese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2772

Nakamura Satoru
Senior Researcher, International Research Institute of Historical Controversies

Introduction: Administrative extremes hidden behind a noble cause

The “Ordinance for Building a Society Free of Discrimination” enacted in Okinawa Prefecture, contrary to its stated purpose of the noble ideal of “eliminating discrimination,” has in reality, degenerated into a system to enforce censorship and a tool for suppressing free speech designed to exclude specific forms of expression. The purpose of this essay is to unravel how this ordinance, while wearing a mask of human rights protection, fixes the “independence narrative” that underlies Okinawa’s goals of secession and independence, and how the Okinawa administration and the media are colluding to create a totalitarian environment that suppresses different views. We will examine how abuse of administrative power threatens the very foundations of democracy and what should be done.

Chapter 1: Administrative cover-ups and the deliberate undermining of due process

The core problem of this ordinance lies in the fact that the Okinawa administration is concealing its own improper procedures and infringing upon the legitimate rights of all prefectural residents. As a specific example, there was a case in which a prefectural resident used the Chinese idiom “Zoku kan soku zoku” (a thief accuses another of being a thief; an idiom meaning to deceive people’s eyes and divert their attention—Source: Weblio Chinese-Japanese Dictionary) during a live YouTube webcast. Subsequently, the administration determined that this statement constituted racially discriminatory language. The individual webcaster filed a request with the administration for the disclosure of public documents underlying this determination. This request constituted the “exercise of a prefectural resident’s legitimate right to defense”, intended to defend his opinion regarding the de facto disciplinary action taken by the administration. However, the administration completely removed his “purpose of the request” from the appendix to the notice of the decision to withhold disclosure, thereby intentionally downplaying the facts and engaging in a cover-up.

Furthermore, the administration has made frequent use of the “refusal to confirm existence,” an exceptional measure found under the Information Disclosure Ordinance. This hardline stance of “refusing to even confirm the existence of information” thoroughly conceals the very deliberation process that serves as the basis for the ordinance’s implementation and constitutes a direct denial of the “right to know” held by prefectural citizens. The administration is entrusted with this authority by the prefectural residents on the fundamental premise that the administration will comply with the law and operate fairly and impartially and to ensure that residents are able to verify this—the administration is required to maintain transparency and accountability. Nevertheless, Okinawa Prefecture’s deliberate application of the ordinance and its culture of circumvention and concealment have caused it to completely lose any claim as an fair and transparent local government.

Chapter 2: The sophistry of “education” and the complete collapse of legal grounds

The Okinawa government imposes social sanctions, such as public disclosure of true names, on specific words and actions, while at the same time claiming that these measures are “merely part of guidance and educational activities.” In doing so, the Okinawa government intentionally blocks legal avenues for redress for those subject to disciplinary action should have access. Even when those subject to disciplinary action ask for an explanation, the authorities merely respond, “Please write it in your statement of opinion,” and fail to fulfill their obligations of accountability. This sophistry under the guise of education has already been exposed as logically flawed in both the judiciary and local Okinawa assemblies. In its written decision submitted to the District Court, the prefecture attempted to evade its procedural obligations by arguing that the decision to withhold information and the measure of publishing names were “not disciplinary actions but part of educational efforts.” However, during a general questioning session on June 29, 2026, when newly elected Prefectural Assembly Member Aragaki asked for “the legal basis for claiming that the publication of true names is not a punitive measure,” the prefectural government was totally at a loss for response. This inability to answer laid bare the fact that the prefecture’s publication of true names is an illegal sanction lacking any legal basis whatsoever, constituting a serious deviation from the rule of law.

Chapter 3: The formation of a collusive relationship between the media and public authorities

A further abnormality in the enforcement of this ordinance lies not only in the Okinawa administration’s unilateral suppression of free speech but also in the fact that it incorporates specific media outlets as de facto “enforcement agencies.” Commentators who oppose the ordinance’s enforcement are labeled “discriminators” by local media and face the risk of being socially ostracized through fabricated news articles. In Okinawa, while certain media outlets have suppressed free speech in the past, media and public authorities have merged to eliminate dissent. The true purpose of collective is to maintain and expand the “Ryukyu independence narrative,” which is supported by only a tiny minority of the prefecture’s residents (approximately 0.01%). This collusion between the administration and the media is nothing less than control of free speech by a totalitarian body.

Chapter 4: Legal encirclement and legislative audit powers as counter-tactics

To stop “weaponizing” administrative ordinances, our goal is thorough legal encirclement. The first weapon is the “Information Disclosure Ordinance.” We will accumulate the administration’s repeated “refusals to confirm the existence of records” as decisive evidence of its “abandonment of the burden to prove legality,” and establish the facts of the cover-up through requests for review and lawsuits. Refusing to disclose information is tantamount to an admission that the administration “lacks grounds to explain its legality.” The second weapon is the “Administrative Procedure Ordinance.” We must legally prove that the publication of true names constitutes a substantive “administrative disposition” and pursue procedural defects arising from the lack of an opportunity to present a defense. In response to the rhetoric of “education purpose,” we must challenge the balance between means and ends (the principle of proportionality) to expose illegality. Even more important is the exercise of the administrative audit authority by the assembly, which represents the residents. Although the administration refuses to provide explanations, citing “under review” or “pending litigation,” it has no right to remain silent—it has only a “duty to explain.” It is impossible to nullify the council’s oversight authority, guaranteed by Article 98 of the Local Autonomy Act, through an ordinance. The council must persistently demand legal justification, and if the administration remains silent, it should deem this an “admission of illegality” and issue a recommendation for corrective action or call on the administration to resign.

Conclusion: The bulwark of local autonomy lies in our own hands

The situation unfolding in Okinawa reveals the reality that a “takeover”—resulting from infiltration into local communities and the decomposition of administration—begins with local autonomies, which are strategic strongholds of the nation. In the face of this crisis, we are confronted with a stark reality: when local government runs amok, neither the national government nor the judiciary possesses the authority or the will to stop it immediately. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications maintains that “the national and local governments are on equal footing, and the national government cannot intervene,” while the judiciary will turn a blind eye to illegal administrative actions unless a plaintiff files a lawsuit. Faced with this shocking reality, the only entities that possess the right and obligation to halt illegal administrative operations are the prefectural residents who are sovereigns and the prefectural assembly. The assembly’s oversight of the administration is not a privilege of its members, but a duty of those entrusted by the residents. Furthermore, it is the unceasing responsibility of the prefectural residents themselves to elect and continue to nurture assembly members who will stand firm against the administration. The soundness of local autonomy is maintained solely by the resolve of each and every prefectural resident to protect the town in which they live.

China’s complex legal warfare and Japan’s unified defense strategy ~ Before 2026 deadline, urgent proposal to sustain national sovereignty

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2565

NAKAMURA Satoru
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Introduction: the narratives as an “invisible battleground”

The primary principle of this proposal is to reconfirm the fact that “in China’s strategy, narratives stand above military power.” The greatest crisis facing present Japan is that Japan is helpless and defenseless against the “complex legal warfare” waged by China attempting to rob Japan of sovereignty legally and ethically, which is more threatening than physical military invasion. Without decerning this strategy, it is impossible to defend Japan’s sovereignty.

1. October and November 2025: the truth about the silent declaration of war

From October to November 2025, the Japanese society was totally exposed to harsh diplomatic and verbal attacks by China. According to general reporting, these attacks were interpreted as “unilateral anger” or “emotional repulsion” on the part of China against specific incidents such as the so-called Prime Minister Takaichi’s statement. However, the truth is completely different.

What happened during this period was the start of a planned war or “silent declaration of war”. China has been preparing over several decades for the operation to deprive Japan of its sovereignty over Okinawa. China used the specific statement only as a “convenient trigger” and the true nature of China’s reaction was not emotional panic but the start of an extremely cool-minded, calculated and legally and ethically structured attack. While Japan has been attempting to “calm down through dialogue,” China has been steadily moving the process to deny Japan’s right to rule Okinawa in the international community.

2.Heavily layered logic of “deprivation of sovereignty” plotted by China

China’s invasion in the form of narratives aims to dissolve Japan’s sovereignty from within by pursuing the following three levels of logical structure.

(1) “Historical weapon” as the basis (the existence of the Ryukyu Kingdom)

The lowest level of logic is the distortion of history and emotional narratives. The narrative that the former independent state of the Ryukyu Kingdom was annexed by military power, deprived of its culture and during World War II was deserted as mere means to an end is disseminated to the world. By emphasizing such “historic tragedy,” China defines present Japan’ rule in Okinawa as “continuous and illegal colonial rule.”

(2) “Ethical weapon” as apparatus (United Nations human rights mechanism)

It is the United Nations human rights mechanism that changes the historic narrative into international “justice.” In the United Nations, China has made the narrative that the Okinawan people are indigenous people an established fact and switched the issue of the United States base in Okinawa with the ethical cause of “violation of human rights against the indigenous people.” Using this “human rights” weapon, China aims to deprive the Japanese Government of credibility in the international community and lead the global opinion in favor of China.

(3) “Legal weapon” as the conclusion (the theory of the superiority of the Potsdam Declaration)

After cementing the outer moat with history and ethics, China inflicts the final blow of legality. Its core is the assertion that “San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) was an illegal secret pact intended to conceal human rights violation, and the Potsdam Declaration is the supreme law.”

• The nullification of the SFPT: to deny the SFPT as the hindrance to the “liquidation of colonialism” which the Potsdam Declaration upheld.

• The fulfilment of the Cairo Declaration: Based on the Cairo Declaration as quoted in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine,” China claims that the territorial position of Okinawa is not yet defined and therefore Japan has no territorial right to Okinawa. China imposes this new interpretation in terms of international law.

Along this logic, activities of the Japan Self-Defense Forces are to be regarded as “challenge to the new post-war order” and Japan’s national defense itself can be branded as “violation of international law.”

3. Historical trap of “2014 Agreement”

China has been elaborately promoting its long-term plans since 2012. Among them, the 2014 Four-article Agreement between Japan and China was a fatal point in which Japan willingly recognized “the existence of conflict” and gave China a “permission” for international maneuvering on the part of China. Japan had “different views” on the concept of “crisis management” but China interpreted it as “official recognition of the territorial conflict” and posted it on its digital museum and elsewhere as historical outcome. On the leverage of this agreement, China has completed the syllogism in which it justifies Chinese Coast Guards expelling activities around the Senkaku islands belonging to Okinawa as legitimate official duty based on the agreement.

4. March 2026 -- The final time limit for the defense of sovereignty (deadline)

The plot to deprive Japan of sovereignty over Okinawa has entered the final countdown.

• Phase 1 (now to March 2026): In the United Nations Human Rights Council, China condemns Japan as a human rights violator and continuous colonial ruler. If Japan fails to clearly refute China’s claim and passes this period without taking any action, “Acquiescence” in terms of international law comes into effect and the legal ground for defending Japanese sovereignty over Okinawa will be lost forever.
• Phase 2~3 (2027 and thereafter); in the case of Okinawa emergency, China will demand “Ryukyu’s neutrality,” backed by the United Nations resolution and the U.S.-Japan deterrent power is legally numbed. This is the moment of “check mate” when China will take hold of the hegemony over East Asia.

5. Counterstrategy: Integrated defense policy led by NSC (National Security Committee) 

Given that the enemy attacks using historical, ethical and legal narratives, Japan needs integrated defense, getting rid of the ineffective “vertical administration.”

Operation A (International front): legal and diplomatic attack

Clearly declare to the international community that “the final determinant of the postwar order is not the Potsdam Declaration but the San Francisco Peace Treaty.” Completely destroy China’s legal interpretation based on “piecemeal history” from the root and let the world re-recognize the legitimacy of Japan’s territorial right in terms of international law.

Operation B (Domestic front): development of national unification narrative

• Reform of ceremonial events: change the role of memorial days to the symbol of “national unity,” not “division.”
• Use of the authority of the Royal Ryukyu Family: The head of the Royal Ryukyu Family should make a historically and culturally significant statement that “The Okinawan people are Japanese,” which will be distributed and officially used by the Japanese Government. Through the message, the false historical structure of the narrative “Ryukyu versus Japan” which China depends on will be destroyed from within.

Conclusion: Sovereignty should not be lost without fighting

The United Nations examination in March 2026 will be the last turning point to defend Japan’s sovereignty. Here, representatives from Okinawa will directly refute China’s demands by stating, “We are not an indigenous people but Japanese.” This simple and yet powerful statement of the truth is the only means to stop China’s invasion steadily under way through the silent declaration of war. Now, we must fully recognize that we are in the middle of a war fought with weapons called words.   

【日本語】https://i-rich.org/?p=1832

NAKAMURA Satoru
Senior Researcher
International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

Revolutionary struggle that shifted from anti-war peace movement to anti-discrimination struggle

There is a new key phrase that started to be used after Okinawa’s Henoko struggle began in the 2010s. That is “Okinawa discrimination.” It argues that “the importance of the U.S.-Japan security alliance is understandable, but it is impermissible to overly burden Okinawa when it comes to the U.S. military bases in Japan.” It does not instigate the Okinawans to fight against the U.S.-Japan security but to instigate them to embrace the feeling that discrimination is impermissible.

To brew the sense of being unduly discriminated, they made up stories like “disposal of Ryukyu” and “sacrificed Okinawa during World War II” and claim that “Okinawa has been constantly under the discriminatory colonial rule by Japan to this day.”

In addition, a new term, “structural discrimination,” began to be used, asserting that people outside Okinawa Prefecture treat Okinawa discriminatorily without realizing the discrimination solely for the sake of national interest. They present the goal of their movement: for the future of Okinawa, the only action to be taken against the discrimination is to recover Okinawa’s right to self-determination.

In other words, the movement against the U.S. bases in Okinawa has completely shifted from “anti-war peace movement,” to “anti-discrimination struggle.”

Anti-discrimination struggle using the United Nations recommendations

The United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination have been issuing recommendations to the Japanese Government that “the Japanese Government should officially recognize the Okinawan people as indigenous and duly protect their rights,” for six times in total since 2008. The Japanese Government has been arguing against the recommendation each time. However, the fact that the United Nations has been repeatedly sending the same recommendation means that the United Nations firmly believes that the Okinawans are indigenous people. What is dangerous about this recommendation is that it coincides with the “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” which was passed by the United Nations in 2007 and approved by Japan. Article 30 of the Declaration states, “(1) Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned,” and in the case of conducting military activities there, “(2) States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, prior to using their lands or territories for military activities.” In terms of the United Nations recognition, if the Okinawans say that they don’t need a U.S. military base in Okinawa, the Japanese Government that fails to take the relevant measures will be regarded as violator of the United Nations “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

In addition, China has been disseminating propaganda both domestically and abroad, claiming that “Ryukyu has been a member of the Chinese people ever since the ancient times and continuing independence movement from Japan and the United States and the Chinese people must support it.” In the event of a Taiwan emergency, it is highly probable that this anti-discrimination movement may give China a very good excuse for meddling with Okinawa’s sovereignty or really interfering in Okinawa.

The Japanese mass media provoke class struggle, using the ambiguously defined hate speech   

The Japanese Government has been making dangerous laws and acts one after another. Typically, there is the so-called “Elimination of Hate Speech Law.” The official appellation goes, “Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons Originating from Outside Japan.” This is a conceptual law without penalty, aiming to cope with discriminatory speech and behavior committed in Japan against persons originating from outside Japan and others whom the Japanese Government recognizes as minorities in Japan, namely, Ainu people and Korean residents in Japan. The aim to eliminate discriminatory speech and behavior cannot be denied, but this is a highly risky act prone to misuse and in fact, it is being wrongly used.

The Act defines the term “hate speech” as discriminatory speech and behavior against persons originating from outside Japan. However, in daily circumstances, the term “hate speech” is used not only for discriminatory speech against persons originating from outside Japan but hate speech for anyone. Although Human Rights Protection Agency of the Ministry of Justice cites cases of “hate speech,” there is no clear definition. After asking the Legal Affairs Bureau to clarify the definition, the response was that they were not in the position to refer to the use of the term “hate speech.” That was a refusal of response, indeed.

Therefore, despite the fact that Okinawans are not persons originating from outside of Japan, the phrase “Okinawa hate” is all over the place. Based on such circumstances, “Ordinance aiming to create a society without discrimination against Okinawa Prefecture” was put into effect in April 2023, stating “The Prefecture shall take measures to eliminate unfair discriminatory speech and behavior due to being citizens of Okinawa Prefecture.” Based on these Act and Ordinance, some people and mass media started to target those who criticize the method and action of the anti-discrimination struggle, making up imaginary discrimination and throwing accusations like “X committed discrimination,” “Y’s speech is hate speech,” and so on, and went too far against anyone who asked for better ways to cope with the issue.

How to fight “public opinion war” regarding Okinawa

In the teaching creed of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, “three wars” are advocated: “public opinion war,” “psychology war,” and “law war.” The People’s Liberation Army defines them as “combat actions committed based on the Central Military Committee’s strategic intention and operative missions.” These three wars are closely interrelated, but the most important one, with the strongest political impact concerning Okinawa now, is the “public opinion war.” And in the recent years, a public opinion war based on the story that “the people in Ryukyu have been discriminated since the era of the Ryukyu Kingdom and that Okinawa is about to be turned into a battleground once again. To evade the imminent war, Okinawa must regain its right to self-determination.” Unfortunately, Japan at present has no capable organ of intelligence, including the Self-Defense Forces, to carry out defensive operation against the public opinion war. Against the Chinese “three wars,” there is no alternative but for civilians to stand up and fight. In addition, now that the threat of a Taiwan emergency is looming, the public opinion war in Okinawa is the front of national defense.

Moreover, behind the public opinion war, the United Nations recommendation that Okinawan people are indigenous has been issued. Although this recommendation is the most vital matter directly concerning the Okinawan people’s identity, it has been so cunningly concealed that the Okinawans are totally unaware of it. The reason for the perfect concealment is that since 99% or more of the Okinawans identify themselves with the Japanese, instigators fully understand that they will fail, should the Okinawans be informed of their attempt.

Here is a hint to favorably fight the public opinion warfare, despite the adverse position Okinawa is now in. If Okinawan people are widely informed of the existence of this recommendation and the purpose and danger of the “anti-discrimination struggle,” this very issue could be brought to the election focal point, stating, “Those of you who regard yourselves as indigenous people, vote for that candidate, and those who think you are Japanese, vote for this candidate!” Then, things will completely change to your advantage. In addition, the power promoting anti-discrimination struggle with the convenient tool called “hate speech” will no longer be able to accuse those who say, “We are Japanese. The U.N. recommendation is wrong!” nor criticize it as “hate speech.”

However, most of the television and newspaper media stand on the side of the “anti-discrimination movement” and the activities on our part in the public opinion warfare are restricted to the Internet, handing out brochures, and making street speeches. However, if for the Okinawans who are merely 1% of the total Japanese population, the rest of 99% Japanese across Japan should fight in patriotic unison, the Okinawans will awake, and I am confident that we can win in the Okinawa public opinion war. We hope that the entire Japanese people will recognize this issue and act promptly for our country.

NAKAMURA Satoru
Senior researcher
International Research Institute for Controversial Histories

Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=1545

The biggest crisis in Okinawa

Now, Japan is facing its biggest crisis in the postwar years over the issue of the national security. And Okinawa is the main problem. Not only is Okinawa exposed to a military threat from China, but it also is the subject of a history war. However, the Japanese Government has failed to effectively cope with the grave situation. Therefore, Okinawa has become Japan’s largest national security issue. Ever since the clashing incident of a Chinese fishing vessel off the Senkaku Islands took place in 2010, China has been continuously disseminating propaganda to the effect that “Ryukyu has been a member of the Chinese nation since ancient times and now is struggling for independence against the United States and Japan, which China should support.” China’s most important  basis for the claim is the historical view of the “Ryukyu disposal.” According to the Chinese propaganda view of history, Japan has kept Okinawa under its colonial rule ever since the “disposal of Okinawa” in 1879 (the twelfth year of Meiji). On the other hand, in Japan, in 2006, Suzuki Muneo, a member of the House of Representatives, submitted a statement of inquiry to the House of Representatives: “At the time when the Japanese name of era was changed to Meiji in 1868, did the Japanese Government recognize the Ryukyu Kingdom at that time as an indivisible part of the State of Japan? We ask the Government for a clear answer.” The response of the Government was, “Regarding Okinawa, it is difficult to definitively state since when Okinawa became part of Japan. But it is certain that Okinawa was part of Japan at the latest when early in the Meiji era, the Ryukyu Domain became Okinawa Prefecture.” This is extremely ambiguous and void of trustfulness, I must say. Such an ambiguous historical view is greatly favorable to China, which desperately wants Okinawa.

The positioning of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture among the Japanese people

Here, let us consider the position of the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture, which is termed as “Ryukyu disposal.” The term “Ryukyu disposal” may give a negative impression as if the Ryukyu Kingdom was ruined. Certainly, in Okinawa, Ryukyu disposal generally meant that the Japanese Army came to Shuri Castle and forcibly took over the castle and sent the then head of the Ryukyu Domain, King Sho Tai, to Tokyo. But to be fair, it was not Okinawa alone that had its castle taken over but the same happened at Domains all over Japan. Castles of Kumamoto, Himeji and Matsumoto followed the same fate after the decree of “Abolishing Domains and Establishing Prefectures” was proclaimed and the respective Heads of Domain turned over their castles throughout Japan. Also, after the Heads of the Domain came to Tokyo, they were treated the same way and raised to the peerage. Currently, the present heads of the Shimazu Family and the Tokugawa Family are alive and so is the present head of the Second Shu Family, the descendant of the Ryukyu King. The Ryukyu disposal does not mean that people living in Okinawa were annihilated or the lineage of Ryukyu King had perished. Essentially, the construction of a modern state by the Meiji Restoration was the transition from the feudalistic system of ruling the country by a “family” to the modern ruling by the government. The rule by the Tokugawa Family was gone and in the 300 domains throughout Japan, the rule by the family of the domain head was abolished, and equally in Okinawa, the rule by the Sho Family ceased. And instead, prefectural governors sent by the Ministry of the Interior were placed in charge of the administration throughout Japan.

The Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa and ended with the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture

Looking at the Meiji Restoration from the perspective of Japan’s defense of Okinawa, we can find new significance. In the school history textbooks and history books on the shelves of bookstores, it is interpreted that the Meiji Restoration started with the arrival of the foreign black ships in 1853 at the end of the Edo period and ended with the Seinan Civil War in 1877, the 10th year of Meiji. And as the national border designated after the Meiji Restoration was completed, the Okinawa disposal (the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture) emerged. The Meiji Restoration and the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture were recognized as separate events, which led to the historical view that “as the result of the Meiji Restoration, the Ryukyu Kingdom perished,” and such a view supported the assertion made by a certain power that Okinawa was victimized by Japan or that people of Ryukyu-Okinawa are an indigenous people in Japan. In fact, however, the Meiji Restoration started in Okinawa, the stronghold of the national defense at that time. Patriots in the Satsuma Domain began to feel threatened by the Western Powers when they obtained information that the Chinese Qing dynasty was defeated by Britain in the Opium War in 1842. Two years later, the threat became real. In 1844, French battleship Arcmere came to Ryukyu and its crew demanded that the kingdom open its port. At that time, following the Treaty of Nanjing, the Qing opened her five ports to the Western Powers and Western ships came in a row, approaching Ryukyu. The five ports were Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo, and Amoy. Look at the East China Sea on the map. On the way from these five ports to Japan, there is Ryukyu (currently Okinawa), which is best situated as the base for opening Japan to the world. The man who most seriously perceived the crisis and contemplated about what path Japan should follow was Lord Shimazu Nariakira of the Satsuma Domain. As soon as Nariakira became the Lord of Satsuma in 1851, he launched the Shusei-kan enterprise of building Western-style ships, reverberatory furnaces and blast furnaces, manufacturing land mines, torpedoes, glass, gas lamps and so forth in order to build a rich and strong military country by promoting modern industries. Two years prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga, the original framework of the policy to establish a rich and strong military state was implemented in Satsuma (presently Kagoshima), the southernmost part of Japan. The original idea was drafted by Godai Hidetaka, father of Godai Tomoatsu, who led Satsuma’s enlightenment policy after Shimazu Nariakira died. The afore-mentioned Arcmere left, predicting the reentry of a bigger battleship a year later. The Bakufu Government (Tokugawa Shogunate) ordered Satsuma to send guard soldiers to Ryukyu. A member of the personnel who were ordered to sail to Ryukyu asked how to solve the Ryukyu issue and Hidetaka wrote the “Ryukyu secret plan.” The plan specifically stated in the question-and-answer form how to cope with the French military pressure on the part of the Satsuma Domain. The gist of the plan was: in disposal of Ryukyu, implement two alternative policies of refusal and conciliation, 1) refuse to open the country, citing any thinkable excuses and 2) when refusal would not work, then open the country. But never resort to the means of war. And once Japan is opened, Japan must have more powerful military force than the Western countries. Ryukyu disposal was not a plan to destroy Ryukyu, but to protect Ryukyu. That was the root of the secret strategy--the idea of “open the country and become rich and strong military power.” Thus, the Meiji Restoration started with the crisis in Okinawa.

Ryukyu Cannon Ship

There is a ship that confirms the fact that Shimazu Nariakira felt threatened with respect to the defense of Okinawa. That was the Shohei-maru. At that time, it was impossible to build a huge military ship. The Bakufu Government prohibited the building of large ships as one of the regulations of Buke Shohatto, laws prohibiting the military families from conducting several activities  in order to keep them under control. The laws did not change even when Western battleships started to appear along the coast of the Sea of Japan. Nariakira, worrying about the defense of Ryukyu, consulted with the Shogun’s senior councilor Abe and started building the “Ryukyu cannon ship” at Kinko-wan Bay (presently Kagoshima Bay) in 1853 in order to defend Ryukyu. It was three days prior to Perry’s appearance off Uraga. Later, Nariakira remodeled the ship into a Western-style one, renamed it Shohei-maru and dedicated it to the Bakufu Government in 1855. Shimazu Nariakira’s policy of a “rich and strong military state” can be applied to the present-day Japan. As it was at the end of the Bakufu Government, at present, Okinawa is the front of Japan’s defense, and the present Government lacks the strength to protect Okinawa. At the end of the Bakufu Government, a political idea of opening the country and making it rich and militarily strong was born in the Satsuma Domain, which was held responsible for the defense of Ryukyu. Satsuma, after toppling the Edo Bakufu Government, became the center of the Meiji Government, built the Japanese Army, and implemented the policy of making the whole Japan rich and militarily strong, which was the meaning of the Meiji Restoration. Japan lost the power to protect Okinawa on her own, due to the defeat in the Greater East Asian War, and another restoration is indispensable so that Japan may be reborn to become competent enough to protect Okinawa once again. However, the Satsuma Domain does not exist anymore. Japan urgently needs to create a power capable of rebuilding the country’s capacity to defend Okinawa.

*Reference

Tha Secret Plan of Ryukyu [ Original Document ] [ Colloquial Translation ]