From the article of 'Petrel'
No.596 / September 8, 1996

Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.

The supreme court is a part of national powers, too

Governor Oota's lawsuit was repelled
and the rule of the large capital and imperialism is accomplished



The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the representation signature refusal lawsuit of governor Okinawa concerning land offer of Okinawa base and the prefecture governor side was defeated. The Supreme Court insists that the Supreme Court insists that Stationing military use ground special measures method that provide for grounds of compulsion use is not unconstitutional, and was concluded that the prime minister had the discretion right by it which land of countries to be offered the U.S.Army. By the decision's of the Supreme Court having gone out, the possibility that "Conclusion" will pound by May next year of which the use time limit such as Kadena airports comes will grow as for the land problem of the base if the governor responds to "public notification and general inspection" in the future. However the fulfilment of the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement is falling into "Illegality" state more and more continue and the contradiction between imperialism and "Inhabitant" intensifies, if governor Oota refuses this the confrontation of the country and Okinawa Pref..

The governor insisted that the stationing military use ground special measures method that provide for procedure of compulsion accommodation of land is a violation of the constitution. However it is not possible that there was what from it is concluded that this land accommodation method is unconstitutional, because judging whether the law of the subordinate position of can come that agrees with the constitution and deciding are bourgeois power, no "Logic", no worker class, no "Inhabitants of the prefecture".

It is clear that it ends in the vain hope from the beginning, even if you expect the decision with which "Administration of justice" organization that is a part of a bourgeois -- the Supreme Court of the center in the much more -- , national organization collides from the front with the standpoint of the nation and the policy to be put out. In this respect, the petty bourgeois public opinion understands that it is only in opportunism "the separation of the three powers" the one is cheating of plain rule of the monopolistic capital and wears the veil to it.

The rule of the monopolistic capital will be driven in a bourgeois nation to a difficult standpoint at once if the Supreme Court does these kind of things and is confused and shake.

However, it might be not possible that the base of a bourgeois nation is scattered in the whole country "equally" on average from the essence. It might be too clear that such "Equality" is essentially nonsense and the base is the one exactly put from a national, military necessity on a certain place or other places. Such nations only become not the class nation but the laughter one, if there is a nation which decides the place where the base is placed based on "Equality under the method".

On the other hand, if the society that overcame the class society is said, a military base etc. do not become problems from the beginning. Governor Oota's reason is meaningless and he does not understand the essence of the class nation at all if so.

We do not have any reason opposed it if 70 percent of the base is too a concentration and yet, the necessity is a doubt in the class nation, and the load might be able to be reduced even in some measure. However, such discussions are only dragging in of us to the discussion about barrenness like 'If it is not 70 percent but is 50 percent, is it good?', 'Can it be endured that it manages to be up to 30 percent?'. Moreover, such discussions make the existence of the base assumption. Why can you say it is good if it is a base of 30 percent? An imperialism military system is not the one that the worker admits though as many as 70 percent though as many as 30 percent.

If the imperialism nation continues and expands, there is no security that is that bases reduce more than now even if the rate decreases to 30 percent( because the base expands nationally and it becomes 30 percent in that ). In addition, if an imperialism and military action is begun and expands -- Japan must just be so in 1930's and 40's --, a military base in Okinawa ( and, the base in the whole country, too ) might be again rapidly inevitable in getting sulky of one.

Therefore, workers class insist that all discussions by which it is pulled out that there is present system in rule of monopolistic capital and imperialism are nonsense, petty bourgeois's one and empty.

"Public interest" theory that Oota recited is being easily refuted by the Supreme Court. Oota insisted that the existence of the base contradicts Okinawa inhabitants of the prefecture's "Public interest". The Supreme Court emphasized that because the base is a profit of the nation, even inhabitants of the prefecture's profit is not contradicted one, to opposite, if the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement is not fulfilled and the function of national defense is lost, important "Public interest" is ruined -- for instance, "Defense" in the country cannot be accomplished.

I borrow the word of the Supreme Court as it is as follows. "If the governor keeps refusing the signature, the obligation in the country based on the security treaty agreement etc. cannot be accomplished." "Trying to solve the base problem by refusing the signature comes off from the outline of the compulsion use system." Therefore, the behavior of the governor remarkably impairs "Public interest". "Public interest" for a bourgeois nation is "to defend". Therefore, the base for that is originally right in the target and their "Public interest". The petty bourgeois is a certain complaint that it ruins an own profit at times, but they approve there is a big profit there at once at the following moment, and become to protect and to beautify it.

Of course, it is extraordinary and irrelevant to take out "Human rights" of the base problem etc. ( There was "Photo journalist" criticized that "the decision disregards human rights and symbolizes Japan of now", too ). For instance, such bourgeois's logic and they will be not able to fight in any way. 'Because a huge base is necessary for the invasion of the foreign country to defend Japan, it defends "Human rights" in a more basic meaning ( is not it "to defend Human" to defend the people from incorrect rule of the foreign country? ).'

Finally, there is a problem of "Governor's independent judgment right"-- problem of local autonomy -- which Oota instituted. That is, they are such reasons that when the representation signature contradicts "Principal object" of local autonomy, the governor can refuse it. It is not always clear that the one meaning "Principal object" which he says, however it seems that the nation cannot selfishly decide it by disregarding the intention of a local inhabitant because the problem of the base is to affect inhabitant's interests.

In a sense, it is right. However, the intention of "Inhabitant" mentioned here is not the same either -- it is divided in the class. Moreover, "Inhabitant" divides an own intention because they are "People" with "Inhabitant" in the region. They are afflicted as "Inhabitant" by the base "Pollution", and on the other hand, neither existence nor the security treaty agreement of the army are necessarily denied like being so Oota for the necessity of "National defense". Therefore, even if "Inhabitant's intention" is taken out here, it might be clear not to be able to solve nothing. It only leads Oota to another dilemma.

However, a huge base in Okinawa --in Japanese nation -- is a reality of this society. Even the development of the monopolistic capital, imperialism, and the militarism --even the international relation -- invented such huge bases.

The base concentrates on Okinawa. This is a problem of the entire bourgeois nation, problem of overall rule of monopolistic capital ( nationwide, furthermore worldwide ) and it is not a problem of Okinawa alone, and is not a problem that is solved if the base in Okinawa is transferred. These kind of things might be too clear for the worker.

They will fall into the blind alley and will suffer from the dilemma if the problem is set up like the petty bourgeois. They will be not able never to find the exit. After all, resistance -- a fierce, radical one and the one based on the expectation for good intentions both -- to their nations fails and they only return to the resignation and subordination to the nation again.

However, the worker is different. The worker develops a fundamental and class fight against rule of the monopolistic capital and a bourgeois nation. The worker class crushes imperialism and the militarism in the fight, therefore, is finally solved to the problem of a huge base too.