In its ruling on a dispute concerning the construction of a U.S. military base in Okinawa Prefecture, the Supreme Court simply endorsed the government’s policy while abandoning the role of the judiciary as the watchdog over the executive branch.

The court also disregarded the core principles of local autonomy enshrined in the Constitution.

This is a ruling that plants seeds of serious problems for the future.

The legal dispute concerns the central government’s plan to build a new U.S. base off the Henoko district of the city of Nago in the prefecture.

The prefectural administration had continued to refuse the central government’s request for permission to changes in the construction plan. The land minister issued a directive to the prefecture to approve the design changes.

The prefecture filed a lawsuit seeking to have the directive be revoked, but the Supreme Court on Sept. 4 rejected the local government’s request.

This is the first time that the top court has approved the government’s plan to change the design to deal with the problem of extremely soft ground under the seabed in parts of the reclamation area.

The eight-year legal battle between the prefecture and the national government has reached a major milestone.

The court did not make a decision on the legitimacy of the plan to build a U.S. military facility to take over the functions of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, also in the prefecture.

The ruling should not be viewed as an endorsement of the manner in which the government has been forcibly pushing ahead with the project.

The government should return to the original purpose of swiftly removing the danger posed by the Futenma base to the safety of local residents and start exploring better alternatives.

JUDICIARY HAS ABANDONED ITS CORE MISSION

As reasons for not approving the design changes, the prefectural administration cited insufficient ground surveys, disregard of possible environmental impacts and concerns about prolonged construction work.

It is the governor's duty to scrutinize such construction projects to ensure the safety of local residents. Environmental conservation and considerations for disaster risk management are also important requirements for construction projects involving reclamation of public land under the public water body reclamation law.

However, the Supreme Court did not address these key issues, merely making the formalistic argument that a decision by an administrative organization binds related administrative bodies. The ruling was so mechanical and formalistic that it was tantamount to simply refusing to pay serious attention to the plaintiff’s arguments.

The Supreme Court even refused to hear an appeal by the prefecture with regard to the land minister’s ruling to invalidate the prefectural government’s decision to revoke the permit granted by a former governor to reclaim land off Henoko. Okinawa sought to have this ruling reversed along with the minister’s directive.

Regarding the local administration’s refusal to approve the design changes, the Okinawa Defense Bureau of the Defense Ministry, which is in charge of the project, filed a complaint in a capacity as a "private citizen," and the minister, who is part of the national government as is the bureau, handed down a ruling to invalidate the prefecture’s decision as the reviewing agency.

Despite the ministerial ruling, however, the prefecture continued to disapprove the design changes. The minister then issued the directive ordering the prefecture to give the permission.

Many administrative law experts have criticized this collusive process of reviewing administrative actions, issuing statements describing the central government’s behavior as “the state pretending to be a private citizen” and “an abuse” of the administrative complaint review system, designed to handle cases in which the rights of citizens have been violated by administrative acts.

Why does the Supreme Court not rule against acts that violate the spirit of the law? In related cases in the past, the court has repeatedly rejected appeals with rulings focused only on formalities and technical issues.

It is a shame that the top court has failed to demonstrate its commitment to judicial independence by checking administrative actions from viewpoints independent of the government.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUBROGATION WOULD DEEPEN RIFT

The Defense Ministry has already begun preparations for the land reclamation work and is pressing the prefecture to allow transplantation of corals from the reclamation area.

Depending on how the prefecture will respond to the situation in the coming months, it is possible that the construction work will be carried out through administrative subrogation.

If that happens, the dispute between the central and local governments would become a truly hostile confrontation. What the national government needs to do now is to seriously reflect on why the row has dragged on for so long.

In the 2019 prefectural referendum on the land reclamation work, more than 70 percent of the valid votes cast were against it. Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki was re-elected last year on a pledge to stop the base construction project. The government, however, turned a deaf ear to the people's will shown in these votes.

In addition, the revised plan calls for driving more than 70,000 piles into the seafloor over three years to deal with the extremely soft ground, while the construction period, which was estimated at five years at the initial application stage, has been nearly doubled.

It is clear that the plan is no longer consistent with the goal of quickly eliminating the safety risks posed by the Futenma air base.

More than 5,300 species of living organisms, including endangered ones, have been confirmed in areas within and around Oura Bay off Henoko, the site of the reclamation. The project could result in immeasurable damage to the ecosystem.

The landfill work that began in 2018 has already created a large swath of land in southern parts of the reclamation area where the water is shallow, but work has been stalled within Oura Bay, where the ground is soft in some parts.

It is not impossible to stop the project now. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida should initiate fresh dialogue himself.

Tamaki will face tough decisions after being deprived of the means of "last resort” for stopping the base construction--disapproving the new plan.

However, the lawsuit has once again underscored the fact that U.S. military bases impose heavy burdens on local communities, including noise, accidents and restrictions on land use.

As the political leader of the prefecture, Tamaki should continue efforts to drag the national government into dialogue, while at the same time exploring various other legal actions to seek a redress of the situation.

PEOPLE OUTSIDE OKINAWA SHOULD CARE 

A series of trials over the matter has highlighted the current state of local autonomy concerning the relationship between the national and local governments as well as related policy challenges.

The national and local governments should fulfill their responsibilities on an equal footing. Based on this principle, the Central and Local Government Dispute Management Council was set up under the internal affairs ministry in 2000.

The Okinawa prefectural government filed requests for a review of the dispute as many as eight times. Initially, the council called for a settlement through talks. As the central government refused to change its obdurate stance toward the matter, however, the panel could not act as an effective mediator.

The council’s poor performance has prompted some experts to lament that there is no way for local governments and communities to have their intentions be reflected in government policies.

To redress the dysfunctional system, it is necessary to sort out problems with the panel, such as whether its independence as a third-party organization is maintained and whether there are any problems with the selection of committee members.

In 2016, shortly after the legal battle with the national government began, then Okinawa Governor Takeshi Onaga made a passionate case against the landfill work in front of the Central and Local Government Dispute Management Council.

“If the land reclamation is carried out forcibly, it will be passed down to future generations as a spectacular act of foolishness that has wiped out precious assets that are the common heritage of mankind from the Earth,” he maintained. “This (project) is effectively an instruction to destroy irreplaceable nature and ecosystems and nothing but an act of destroying local autonomy.’’

Onaga's viewpoint should be shared by the people in the mainland as well.

Although national security is the exclusive responsibility of the central government, local governments still have an obligation and responsibility to point out problems in national policies and request improvements to protect the lives of local residents.

The national administration should keep this firmly in mind.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 5