The central government’s legal action to force through construction of a new U.S. military base in Okinawa Prefecture is tantamount to compelling the Okinawa governor to make a “bitter decision.”

We strongly oppose this act of a top-heavy, centralized bureaucracy to override a local democratic choice, which will only deepen the rift between the central and local administrations.

The legal action concerns the central government’s plan to build a new U.S. base off the Henoko district of Nago city in the prefecture to take over the functions of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, also in the prefecture.

Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki missed a government-set Oct. 4 deadline for a decision on accepting a design change application submitted by the Defense Ministry for the land reclamation work off the Henoko district. He said it is “difficult” to approve the application.

The ministry applied for permission to change the design to deal with the problem of soft ground under the seabed in parts of the reclamation area.

In response to Tamaki’s failure to meet the deadline, land minister Tetsuo Saito submitted a lawsuit requesting an administrative subrogation order, allowing the central government to take over the approval process from the Okinawa prefectural government.

Since the Supreme Court’s Sept. 4 ruling to dismiss the prefecture’s appeal, the central government has taken rapid actions to put relentless pressure on the prefecture to approve the application.

A local government chief who refuses to immediately follow a Supreme Court decision may face criticism. However, Tamaki was re-elected last year on a pledge to stop the base construction project.

In the 2019 prefectural referendum on the land reclamation work, more than 70 percent of the valid votes were against it.

We must understand the grave implications of his agonizing decision, made while torn between public expectations and his administrative responsibilities.

The central government might claim damages for any future construction delays.

If Tamaki is prepared to face a damages suit by the state, he must convey his reasons and calculations to the central government, and through every available communication channel, like prefectural assembly sessions and news conferences.

What’s regrettable is how the central government has behaved concerning this matter.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, an Asahi Shimbun editorial reflected on factors that have prolonged the legal battle between the central and local administrations. It urged the national government to sincerely engage with local concerns.

Yet, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism has issued a one-sided “recommendation” (formal suggestion) and a stronger directive, disregarding the prefecture’s request for dialogue.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has shown no willingness for direct engagement with the local government, saying only that the land minister “will handle the matter appropriately.”

Saito has emphasized the legitimacy of the directive issued to the prefecture, repeatedly asserting that “the legality of the entire procedure is established.”

Now that the rift between the two sides is so deep and seemingly irreconcilable, dealing with this bitter and complicated row should start again from scratch.

The Supreme Court only affirmed the legality of the land ministry’s directive to the prefecture to approve the design changes. The top court did not rule on the legitimacy of the plan to build a new U.S. military facility.

Regarding the local administration’s refusal to approve the design changes, a central government agency filed a complaint in a capacity as a “private citizen,” and the land minister, who is part of the central government, handed down a ruling to invalidate the prefecture’s decision.

When the prefectural administration continued to disapprove of the design changes, the minister issued a directive ordering the prefecture to give the permission.

The top court ruled the directive was legal without referring to this collusive process of reviewing administrative actions. The ruling has been criticized for effectively endorsing aggressive tactics to make local governments comply.

The geological survey of the soft ground is inadequate. The prolonged construction period precludes a swift removal of security risks the Futenma air base poses.

The central government should address these concerns raised by the prefecture. First and foremost, the government must abandon its rigid stance that “Henoko is the only solution.”

What must not be forgotten is that this issue isn’t just about Okinawa. The central government’s attempt to enforce a national policy in a way that disrespects local autonomy sets a dangerous precedent.

Above all, the Japanese, as a matter of their own concern, should consider that 70 percent of U.S. military facilities in Japan are concentrated in Okinawa, forcing the prefecture to shoulder the burden.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 6