Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:55:11.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ryukyu Islands: Pawn of the Pacific*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Ralph Braibanti
Ralph Braibanti
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first territory to be returned to Japan by the United States since the 1945 surrender is a group of the Ryukyu Islands. This fact focuses attention on this strategically important archipelago extending from southernmost Japan to Formosa, although the Ryukyus have been at least on the periphery of Western attention for two centuries. The chief compulsions for American popular interest in the islands have been the Battle of Okinawa of World War II and, more recently, the best selling novel and Broadway hit, The Teahouse of the August Moon.

This transitory and popular interest will undoubtedly give way to wider international attention in the next few years as the Japanese become more articulate in their criticism of the questionable grounds on which these islands were stripped from Japan Proper at the end of the war. Of further significance to political science is the fact that Okinawa, major island of the group, is (excepting only the Bonins) the last area of the world to remain under complete American military government control. The character of this nearly ten-year rule by the United States and its impact on a million people who have continually demanded “reversion” to Japan must inevitably be the subject of study of those interested in the confluence of cultures under conditions of sustained military government.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 1954 , pp. 972 - 998
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fulfilling a promise made by Secretary of State Dulles in Tokyo August 8, 1953, the United States returned the Amami Ōshima group to Japan December 24, 1953. New York Times, December 25, 1953, pp. 1, 4. Discussion favoring immediate return of the Amami Ōshima group can be found in Haring, Douglas G., “Amami-Gunto: Forgotten Islands,” Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 21, pp. 170–72 (Nov. 19, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the author's “The Outlook for the Ryukyus,” Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 22, pp. 73–79 (June, 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See appended Bibliographical Note.

3 That it is the intention of the Japanese government to press for the return of Okinawa was made clear by Prime Minister Yoshida in an address to the Diet on January 27, 1954. Full text in Nippon Times, January 8, 1954, p. 8. Extensive criticism of United States retention of the Ryukyus characterized the Diet debate on the Peace Treaty. See below, notes 58–63.

4 Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas and Japan, comp. Hawks, Francis L., 2 vols. (New York, 1856)Google Scholar, Vol. 1. This is a commercial edition of the official report of the Perry expedition and includes an analysis of Ryukyuan government. Volume 2 of the report consists of miscellaneous letters, notes, and reports submitted to Perry by staff officers. Nearly 50 of the 414 pages of the second volume are concerned with the Ryukyus in the form of scientific reports. This volume also includes Perry's remarks “upon the probable future relations with Japan and Lew Chew.” See Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas and Japan, Senate Ex. Doc. No. 79, 33d Cong., 2d sess., Vol. 2, pp. 15–64, 185–88Google Scholar. A second account of the Perry expedition is that of the official interpreter, Williams, S. Wells, “A Journal of the Perry Expedition to Japan 1853–1854,” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, Vol. 27, Part II, pp. 1–260 (1910)Google Scholar.

5 Writing from Madeira in a dispatch to the Secretary of the Navy December 14, 1952, Perry first proposed “occupation of the principal ports of those Islands [Ryukyus].” In a dispatch from Okinawa on January 25, 1854, Perry proposed putting “Great Lew Chew” [Okinawa] under “surveillance of the American Flag upon the ground of reclamation fo insults and injuries committed upon American Citizens [by Japan].” (Perry's italics.) The Commodore's zeal was quietly restrained by return dispatches sent by Secretary of State Edward Everett and Navy Secretary J. C. Dobbin. Full text of the Madeira dispatch and Dobbin's answer as well as the complete Madeira correspondence are accessible in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, ed. Miller, Hunter (Washington, 1942), Vol. 6, pp. 758–59, 588–90Google Scholar.

6 Conference for the Conclusion and Signature of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, Record of Proceedings (Washington, 1951), pp. 78, 93–94, 271, 277Google Scholar.

7 Although not used in the treaty itself, the term “residual sovereignty” is mentioned in the discussion by both Secretary Dulles and Prime Minister Yoshida. Record of Proceedings, pp. 78, 277.

8 United States Senate, Japanese Peace Treaty and other Treaties Relating to Security in the Pacific, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, 82d Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, 1952)Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., pp. 23–24.

10 Ibid., pp. 51–52.

11 Ibid., pp. 100–16.

12 The only reason for mention of the Ryukyus at all in the Senate and House debates was the occasion of Senator Knowland's brief discussion of the Indian note protesting disposition of the islands. Congressional Record, 82d Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 97, pp. 10663–64, 10742–43 (Aug. 27, 28, 1951)Google Scholar. Indeed the debates in Congress do not deal comprehensively or expertly with the Japanese Peace Treaty as a whole. Ibid., pp. 58, 1694, 3811, 4477, 9429–31, 10524–26, 10594, 10602, 11128, 11946, 12726–28, A5470–71.

13 A complete examination in Japanese of the question of ownership of the Kuriles is that of Toshio Ueda, Ryōdo Kizoku Kankei-shi: Bonins, Sakhalin, Kuriles, Ryukyu [History of Territories Adjacent to Japan Proper: Bonins, Sakhalin, Kuriles, Ryukyu], Heiwa Jōyaku no sōgō Kenkyū [Peace Treaty with Japan: A Symposium], 2 vols. (Tokyo, 1952), Vol. 1, pp. 121–96Google Scholar.

14 For an account of this assimilation, see the chapter by ProfessorAriga, Nagao in Japan by the Japanese, ed. Stead, Alfred (London, 1904), pp. 151–72Google Scholar.

15 See appended Bibliographical Note.

16 There is evidence to support the assumption that the Amabe tribe which settled in the Ryukyus was closely related to the tribes which migrated to Japan. The contemporary Okinawan historian, Kanjun Higaonna (Higaonna is the Okinawan rendition; Higashionna is the name by which he is now known in Tokyo) summarizes this evidence in Outline of Okinawan History (Tokyo, 1950), p. 1Google Scholar.

17 Higaonna, , Outline of Okinawan History, pp. 5–6Google Scholar. The ancient work Chūzan Sekan [Mirror of the Generations of Chung Shan, i.e. Ryukyu] is said to have been compiled in 1650 by Chōshu Haneji. A copy of this work was microfilmed by the Department of State and is reported in The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 28, p. 819 (June 8, 1953)Google Scholar.

18 The Tametomo story can be neither substantiated nor disproved. Western as well as Japanese histories retell the story with no indication of the possibility of its legendary character. Among the standard Western historical works which do not distinguish it from more authenticated historical data are: Murdoch, James, A History of Japan, 3 vols. (London, 1925), Vol. 1, pp. 311–12Google Scholar; Leavenworth, cited in appended Bibliographical Note, p. 107; Akagi, Roy Hidemachi, Japan's Foreign Relations (Tokyo, 1936), p. 59Google Scholar. Commodore Perry repeats that “the race of kings reigning in Lew Chew is related to the imperial family of Japan ….” Narrative, Vol. 1, p. 253Google Scholar. Among those expressing doubt as to the authenticity of the story are: Higaonna, , Outline of Okinawan History, p. 8Google Scholar, and Chamberlain, Basil Hall, “The Luchu Islands and their inhabitants” Geographical Journal, Vol. 5, p. 316 (April, 1895)Google Scholar. Professor Haring maintains that the Tametomo story is probably a deliberate fabrication by the Japanese to support their control over the islands. See Haring, Douglas G., The Island of Amami Ōshima in the Northern Ryūkyūs, pp. 74–75Google Scholar, (cited in appended Bibliographical Note).

19 Cordier, Henri, Histoire Générale de la Chine, 4 vols. (Paris, 1920), Vol. 1, pp. 398–99Google Scholar; Vol. 2, p. 315.

20 Williams, S. Wells, “Political Intercourse between China and Lewchew,” Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 3 (new series), p. 83 (1866)Google Scholar.

21 In Western histories it is generally stated that “36 families” arrived from China. For example, Cordier, citing Leavenworth, states that “ … l'empereur envoya 36 families chinoises dans les îles.” Histoire Générale de la Chine, Vol. 3, p. 8Google Scholar. Professor Higaonna, however, asserts that the term “36 family surnames” was metaphorical, and referred to the inhabitants of the lower reaches of the Min River in Fukien province. Moreover, he continues, they came over a period of years rather than as one group. Higaonna, , Outline of Okinawan History, pp. 15–18Google Scholar.

22 See especially an excellent statement on tribute-bearing by the American diplomatic representative in Japan in 1875 in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1875, Vol. 1, p. 313Google Scholar. For a general study on tribute-bearing during the Ch'ing dynasty (1644–1838), see Fairbank, J. K. and Têng, S. Y., “On the Ch'ing Tributary System,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 135–246 (June, 1941)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Higaonna, Kanjun, History of Foreign Relations of Okinawa (Tokyo, 1951), p. 11Google Scholar.

24 Ibid., p. 14.

25 See documents as quoted in Kuno, Yoshio S., Japanese Expansion on the Asiatic Continent, 2 vols. (Berkeley, 1940), Vol. 2, pp. 288–93Google Scholar. For a general analysis of trade relations between Japan and China during this period, see Yi-t'ung, Wang, Official Relations Between China and Japan 1368–1549 (Cambridge, 1953)Google Scholar.

26 Higaonna, , History of Foreign Relations of Okinawa, p. 52Google Scholar.

27 Translations of documents showing the desire for trade can be found in Kuno, op. cit., pp. 290–93.

28 See Kuno., pp. 288–89, for text of this signed statement.

29 As quoted in Higaonna, , History of Foreign Relations of Okinawa, p 33Google Scholar.

30 Narrative, Vol. 1, pp. 254–55Google Scholar.

31 Williams, , “Political Intercourse between China and Lewchew” (cited in note 20), p. 26Google Scholar.

32 As quoted in Treaties and Other International Acts, Vol. 6, p. 554Google Scholar.

33 Ibid., p. 588.

34 Williams, p. 240.

35 As quoted in Treaties and Other International Acts, Vol. 6, p. 753Google Scholar.

36 Murdoch, , A History of Japan (cited in note 18), Vol. 3, p. 534Google Scholar.

37 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1873–4, Vol. 1, pp. 554–55, 564Google Scholar.

38 Higaonna, , History of Foreign Relations of Okinawa, pp. 46–47Google Scholar.

39 For exchange of correspondence between Italy and Japan, see British and Foreign State Papers, 1873–1874, Vol. 65, p. 740Google Scholar.

40 The discussion between Yanagiwara and the Chinese foreign ministers is reported verbatim by Ariga, in Japan by the Japanese (cited in note 14), pp. 161–63Google Scholar. The Japanese view of this discussion is that China tacitly assented to calling the Ryukyuans Japanese subjects. The Chinese view held that silence did not necessarily imply assent. See Hsü, Shuhsi, China and Her Political Entity (New York, 1926), pp. 88–90Google Scholar and Treat, Payson J., Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Japan, 2 vols. (Stanford, 1932), Vol. 1, pp. 497–98Google Scholar.

41 This was the Japanese interpretation of the Tientsin Agreement. Although signed at Peking, this agreement is usually referred to as the Tientsin Agreement, named after the place where it was negotiated. For English and Chinese texts of the agreement see China, The Maritime Customs, Treaties, Conventions, etc., between China and Foreign States, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Shanghai, 1917), Vol. 2, pp. 585–86Google Scholar. This treaty series refers to the 1874 agreement as the Peking (rather than Tientsin) agreement. Japanese text accessible in Nihon Gaikō Bunsho [Japanese Diplomatic Documents] (Tokyo), Vol. 7, p. 317Google Scholar. For detailed historical analysis of the Japanese position see Ueda, Toshio, “Ryukyu no Kizoku o Meguru Nisshin Kōshō [Sino-Japanese Dispute over Sovereignty of the Ryuyku Islands],” Tōyō Bunka Kenkyū Sho Kiyō [Journal of the Institute for Oriental Culture], University of Tokyo, No. 2, pp. 151–201 (Sept., 1951)Google Scholar. The Chinese interpretation of the agreement makes no such concession of Japanese sovereignty. Hsü, op. cit., pp. 92–101; and Treat, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 568–69.

42 An interesting exchange of Chinese and Japanese views on the presence of a Ryukyuan tribute mission in Peking can be found in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1875–6, Vol. 1, pp. 314–16Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., p. 313.

44 A translation of the Ryukyuan appeal to China can be found in Hsü, op. cit., pp. 95–97.

45 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1879, pp. 606–8, 637–38.

46 Treat, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 73.

47 See Treat, Vol. 2, pp. 101–3.

48 This statement is made from the point of view of political and juridical concepts of Western international relations. Considering traditional Chinese diplomacy, however, the Japanese absorption of the islands was improper. Although China was too late in awakening to the concepts and realities of the Western power system, Japan learned and practiced Western diplomacy quickly. Professor Kublin asserts that the Ryukyuan problem was a case study in which ancient Chinese diplomacy and the new Western brand practiced by Japan came to grips and led to the collapse of the Chinese tributary system. See Kublin, Hyman, “The Attitude of China during the Liu-ch'iu Controversy, 1871–1881,” Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 18, pp. 213–31 (May, 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Treaty of Peace with Japan, Chapter II, Article 3.

50 Correspondence between the writer and the United Nations Trusteeship Division, April 13, 1953, and between the writer and the United States Mission to the United Nations, April 24, 1953.

51 Correspondence between the writer and the United Nations Trusteeship Division, February 8, 1954, and between the writer and the United States Mission to the United Nations, February 9, 1954.

52 New York Times, December 25, 1953, p. 4.

53 Ibid., par. 3 of Dulles statement.

54 For further elaboration see the author's article cited in note 1.

55 This point of view is cogently developed by Ballantine, Joseph W., “The Future of the Ryukyus,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 33, pp. 663–74 (July, 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 See above, note 13, and below, notes 58–63.

57 An explanation of this phenomenon is given in Haring, Douglas G., “Amami-Gunto: Forgotten Islands,” Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 21, pp. 170–72 (Nov. 19, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Dai 12-kai Kokkai Shūgiin Heiwa Jōyaku oyobi Nichi-bei Anzen Hoshō Jōyaku Tokubetsu Iin Kaigi-roku [Twelfth National Diet, House of Representatives, Special Committee on the Peace Treaty and the Japanese-American Security Treaty], Record of Proceedings, No. 3, October 18, 1951, p. 14.

59 Idem.

60 Dai 12-kai Kokkai Shūgiin Heiwa Jōyaku oyobi Nichi-bei Anzen Hoshō Jōyaku Tokubetsu Iin Kaigi-roku [Twelfth National Diet, House of Representatives Special Committee on the Peace Treaty with the Japanese-American Security Treaty], Record of Proceedings, No. 9, October 25, 1951, p. 6.

61 Dai 12-kai Kokkai Sangiin Heiwa Jōyaku oyobi Nichi-bei Anzen Hoshō Jōyaku Tokubetsu Iin Kaigi-roku, [Twelfth National Diet, House of Councillors, Special Committee on the Peace Treaty and the Japanese-American Security Treaty], Record of Proceedings, No. 12, November 7, 1951, p. 17.

62 Dai 12-kai Kokkai Sangiin Kaigi-roku [Twelfth National Diet, House of Councillors], Record of Proceedings, No. 20, November 18, 1951, p. 247.

63 The Far Eastern Commander in Tokyo also bears the title Military Governor of the Ryukyu Islands. The senior military commander present on the islands is designated as Deputy Military Governor and acts in the name of the Military Governor. The actual administration of the islands is delegated to a subordinate organization called United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (USCAR). In this article the general term “military government” is used to designate the American occupation administration carried on by the United States Army through the Military Governor, Deputy Military Governor, and USCAR. The term “military government” is used despite awareness that there was once a distinction between this term and “civil affairs.” In contemporary usage these terms have lost precision, as is indicated by the use of both “military governor” and “civil affairs” in official titles for occupation officials in the Ryukyus.

64 The early period of American military government of the Ryukyus has been almost untouched by extended analysis. For two brief but suggestive studies see Karasik, Daniel D., “Okinawa: A Problem in Administration and Reconstruction,” Far Eastern Quarterly Vol. 7, pp. 254–68 (May, 1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Ford, Clellan S., “Occupation Experiences on Okinawa,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 267, pp. 175–83 (Jan., 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 See the author's “Executive Power in Japanese Prefectural Government,” The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 231–45 (May, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 The dimensions of Ryukyuan government can be even more clearly seen when this fact is compared to the organization of prefectures in Japan. The smallest (in terms of administrative divisions) prefecture in Japan in 1945 was Tokushima, which had one city, 42 towns, and 91 villages. Administrative Subdivisions of Japan (Department of State, 1946), p. 473Google Scholar.

67 The Office of the Chief of Civil Affairs and Military Government, Department of the Army, has been publishing in January and July the Semi-Annual Report of Stateside Activities Supporting the Reorientation Program in Japan and the Ryukyu Islands. The last report was changed to an Annual Report and appeared for the period ending July, 1951. These reports indicate the extent of the exchange-of-persons program for the Ryukyus.

68 Elsewhere an effort was made to analyze the “paradox of democratization by force.” In both Japan and the Ryukyus the character of occupation administration was considerably less military and much more civilian than is generally supposed. See the author's “The Role of Administration in the Occupation of Japan,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 267, pp. 154–63 (Jan., 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Conversations between the author and Ryukyuan government officials at Naha, Okinawa, in June, 1952.

70 Idem.

71 Conversations between the author and the late Elbert D. Thomas, High Commissioner of the Trust Territory of the Pacific, Honolulu, T. H., September, 1952.

72 See, for example, a statement by a missionary on Okinawa: “It is the general opinion that the fault lies in the fact that our occupation is still of a military character. Let the army run its bases, but let a civilian administration be appointed to deal with the people.” Bell, Otis W., “Play Fair with Okinawans!”, The Christian Century, Vol. 71, pp. 76–77 (Jan. 20, 1954)Google Scholar.

73 See note 68.

74 Estimates of the size of the crowd vary. The official American publication, The Ryukyu Review, published in English jointly by the Ryukyus Command and the Twentieth Air Force and used as a medium for disseminating information to United States Forces personnel, estimates the size as 250 persons. The Ryukyu Review, December 6, 1953. An Okinawan paper, however, states both in its news account and in its editorial that at least 1,000 demonstrators were on hand. Ryukyu Shimpo, December 6, 1953.

75 The only reference to this incident in the American press (to this author's knowledge) is in the article by the Rev. Otis W. Bell (cited in note 72) in which he discusses the land expropriation problem as the immediate cause of the demonstration.

76 December 6, 1953.

77 An editorial in the Okinawa Times, Japanese language paper published by Okinawans, December 8, 1953, states: “The land problem, at first, seems to be a difficult one, but it is not so complicated. The problem could be settled if the United States government would consent to disburse from 10 to 15 million dollars for rental fees from her abundant budget. This is far easier for the United States than it is for the Ryukyuan government to disburse ¥100,000. The United States government and not Okinawan landowners makes the problem difficult to solve.”

78 Hearings Before Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations, The Supplemental Appropriation Bill, 1954, House of Representatives, 83d Cong., 1st sess. (1953), Pt. I, pp. 1–37, especially p. 25.

79 Ryukyu Shimpo, December 6, 1953, news account. See also Okinawa Times, December 8, 1953 for similar expression of regret that troops were used in a situation that could have been handled by Okinawan police.

80 For example, Major General Robert S. Beightler in an address to the first session of the Ryukyuan legislature in 1952 forcefully and directly condemned the Ryukyus People's party as a party “which, if allowed to continue unchecked, can lead to the establishment of a communist dominated regime in these islands.” Cautioning the people of the Ryukyus, he continued, “I hope that you will recognize the leaders of the Ryukyus People's party for what they are and do everything within your power to prevent the spread of the dread scourge which they are sowing and which they trust will reach into every mura of the Ryukyus.” Public Relations Office, Ryukyus Command, Address by Major General Robert S. Beightler to Members of the Legislature, GRI, 10 a.m., Tuesday, 19 August 1952 (Mimeographed, 13 pp.).

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.