Border-Crossers and Resistance to US Military Rule in the Ryukyus, 1945-1953
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 6 | Issue 9 | Article ID 2906 | Sep 01, 2008 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Border-Crossers and Resistance to US Military Rule in the Ryukyus, 1945-1953 Matthew R. Augustine Border-Crossers and Resistance to US main island groups. Trade barriers with Japan Military Rule in the Ryukyus, 1945-1953 were relaxed in 1950, but the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed in 1951 reaffirmed that Matthew R. Augustine the Ryukyus would remain under US military rule, divided from Japan. By this time, the Sixty-six years after Japan’s annexation of the increasing cross-border interconnections former Ryukyu Kingdom in 1879, in the waning between residents in the Ryukyus and months of the Asia-Pacific War, the American Okinawan and Amamian residents in Japan had military partitioned the Ryukyu Islands from already given rise to an organized movement Japan. The replacement of Okinawa Prefecture calling for reversion to Japanese sovereignty. by US military rule in the Ryukyus from 1945 had profound implications, for residents of the How did the establishment of the military occupied islands. A major repercussion of the government and new postwar borders actually military government’s separation of theaffect the movement of residents within and Ryukyus was the enforced isolation of the four outside of the Ryukyu Islands? Conversely, to main island groups from occupied Japan. The what extent did the resistance of residents in Ryukyuan-Japanese border severed long- the Ryukyus and their effort to overcome their standing administrative and economic links, division and isolation influence the military while restrictive border controls prohibited free government’s border controls and related travel and interaction between the two sides. occupation policies? Most studies of migration Another consequence of this imposed barrier and border controls focus exclusively on the was the socio-economic problem of how to role of the nation-state in answering such provide for the livelihood and welfare of the questions, although some recent scholarship island residents, who thereby became entirely attempts to emphasize the agency of the dependent on the military government. These migrants.[1] I argue that what happened at the problems were compounded by the massive territorial boundary between Japan and the destruction, loss of life, and overallRyukyus was shaped by the interplay between displacement of residents in the wake of war, the national politics of border controls and the especially in Okinawa. actions of those who transcended these borders. This relationship was in turn strongly Residents of the Ryukyus responded byinfluenced by the emergence of the Cold War developing a thriving smuggling trade that conflict in Northeast Asia. This article will extended southwest from Okinawa to the therefore examine the interplay between these Miyako and Yaeyama Islands, as well as to the domestic and international forces. Amami Islands and Japan in the other direction. The illicit smuggling trade became so rampant A transnational history of border-crossings can that in 1948 the military governmentbest reveal the interlinked relationship responded by implementing measures to between the various movements of people and promote economic integration among the four the border politics of the US-occupied Ryukyu 1 6 | 9 | 0 APJ | JF Islands. Weaving together the US occupation of disposition of the Ryukyus, the document ended the Ryukyus with that of Japan proper will also by outlining policy proposals primarily aimed at help break down the barriers of national preventing Japan from using these islands history, which have largely ignored theagain for imperial expansion.[4] Okinawan experience, beyond the realm of geopolitical issues relating to the large-scale While the State Department continued to shape US military presence. The politics of drawing American policy towards the Ryukyus, the US and redrawing postwar borders as well as the military began producing detailed studies about cross-border networks within and beyond the the islands in preparation for occupying and Ryukyus developed in a relatively short period using them as stepping-stones in the military of time. This study therefore focuses on the conquest of Japan. On June 1, 1944 the Office most fluid stage of US military rule in the of Strategic Services (OSS) published a 147- Ryukyus, from the landing of Army forces on page intelligence report entitled The Okinawas Okinawa in April 1945 until the reversion of the of the Loochoo Islands: A Minority Group in Amami Islands in December 1953. Japan.[5] This report found that, while the Japanese government implemented a heavy- Borders, Divisions, and the Isolation of the handed assimilation policy, Okinawans were Ryukyus simultaneously discriminated against for not being fully Japanese. Consistently emphasizing Why were Okinawans arrested for illegal entry the cleavage between the Japanese and when they crossed into Japan after 1945? This Okinawans, the OSS report suggested that US question cannot be answered withoutforces might utilize this in psychological considering, briefly, how Okinawa Prefecture warfare and in the postwar occupation of was divided from Japan and renamed the Okinawa.[6] Ryukyu Islands during the Asia-Pacific War. Examining the wartime origins of Okinawa’s Recognizing the geostrategic importance of the division from Japan in turn reveals theRyukyus as a military base, the US Navy historical background behind the incorporation employed this logic of differentiating between of the Ryukyus as a Japanese prefecture. The Japanese and Okinawans as a convenient US State Department first conceived the idea of justification for advocating the separation of separating Okinawa from Japan while drafting the islands. On November 15 the Office of the the terms for Japan’s surrender. In advance of Chief of Naval Operations produced a longer the Cairo Conference in July 1943, thereport entitled Civil Affairs Handbook: Ryukyu Territorial Subcommittee prepared a series of (Loochoo) Islands. Although this 334-page policy studies on various island groupsreport differed from the OSS report in surrounding Japan, mapping out the territorial methodological approach and sources boundaries for postimperial Japan.[2] The consulted, both concluded that the Ryukyu policy document on Okinawa began by stating Islands and its people were not innately part of that the “postwar territorial adjustments in the Japan. Both texts also restored the former Far East will involve the question of the name, “Loo Choo” or “Ryukyu” in their titles, possible detachment of the Liuchiu Islands further emphasizing the identity gap between from the Japanese Empire.”[3] Consciously the Ryukyus and Japan.[7] Based on the referring to Okinawa by its ancient Chinese premise that imperial Japan had forcibly name, Liuchiu, the document reminded the assimilated Okinawans, the two sources reader that the Ryukyus were stripped of together raised the possibility of de- sovereignty when Japan forcibly annexed the assimilation to justify the separation and islands in 1879. Considering the futuremilitary rule over the Ryukyus. 2 6 | 9 | 0 APJ | JF Dismantling the Japanese rulingmilitary command and began immediately structure—politically and culturally—in the cementing Okinawa’s political subordination. In Ryukyus emerged as one of the main objectives a symbolic statement on the new status of the of the US military invasion and occupation. On Ryukyus, the military government formed the March 1, 1945 on the eve of the Battle of Okinawa Advisory Council on August 15, the Okinawa, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz,same day that Emperor Hirohito announced Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet, Japan’s surrender. The Council was the first issued a political and economic directive for the political organization entirely consisting of prospective military government in the Okinawans, thus breaking from the prewar Ryukyus. This detailed directive plainly spelled out that military occupation of the Ryukyus was Japanese system of denying the local necessary to destroy “Japan’s power ofpopulation political representation. Murray aggression and the military class whichquickly made it clear, however, that the fifteen controls the Japanese Empire.” The directive members of the Council would be limited to granted the military governor the power to assisting and advising military government remove from office all high ranking orofficials. policymaking officials, and to dissolve all Japanese patriotic or secret societies.[8] Then While the Ryukyus were denied the far- on April 1, 1945 Admiral Nimitz issued “United reaching democratic reforms implemented in States Navy Military Government Proclamation Japan, Murray recognized the value of a limited No. 1,” as the US Tenth Army combat units form of self-government to win Okinawan landed on Okinawa Island. Declaring that “all acquiescence to US military rule. As a result, powers of the Government of the Japanese on September 20, 1945 the military Empire are hereby suspended,” the so-called government held elections for mayors and Nimitz Proclamation signaled the administrative detachment of the Ryukyus from assemblymen in the sixteen military Japan. The newly established Militarygovernment districts.[11] Another major event Government of the Ryukyu Islands thusin the political rehabilitation of the Ryukyus replaced imperial Japan’s control over Okinawa was achieved on April 24, 1946 when Shikiya in what would subsequently be referred to as Koshin, a respected