Ryukyu independence movement

Historical background

The Ryukyuan people are ethnically, culturally and linguistically indigenous people who live on the Ryukyu Islands. Before the unification in the mid-15th century, during the Sanzan period the Okinawa was divided into three polities Hokuzan, Chūzan and Nanzan. In 1429, Chūzan's chieftain Shō Hashi unified them and founded the autonomous Ryukyu Kingdom (1429–1879), later unarmed, with the capital at Shuri Castle. The kingdom continued to have tributary relations with Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty China, which custom was began by Chūzan in 1372–1374 and lasted until the downfall of the kingdom in late 19th century. This tributary relationship was of much prosperity to the kingdom, the kings received political legitimacy, while as a whole economical, cultural and political opportunity in Southeast Asia, without any involvement by China in the Ryukyu's internal political autonomy.

In addition to Korea (1392), Thailand (1409) and other Southeast Asian polities, the kingdom maintained trade relations with Japan (1403), and during this period emerged a unique political and cultural identity. However, in 1609 the feudal domain of Satsuma invaded the kingdom on the behalf of the first shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu and Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1867) because the Ryukyu king Shō Nei rejected to submit to the shogunate. The kingdom was forced to send a tribute to Satsuma, who intermediary monopolized the trade for the shogunate, but were allowed to retain and continue their independence and, now almost exclusive, relations and trade with China because Japan was prohibited to trade with China. This resulted with the kingdom's "dual vassalage" status until the mid-19th century.

During the Meiji period (1868–1912), the Meiji government of the Empire of Japan (1868–1947) began a process lated called as Ryukyu Shobun ("Ryukyu Disposition") - to formally annex the kingdom into the modern Japan. Firstly established as Ryukyu Domain (1872–1879), in 1879 the kingdom-domain was abolished, established as Okinawa Prefecture, while the last Ryukyu king Shō Tai forcibly exiled to Tokyo. Previously in 1875, the kingdom was forced to terminate its tribute relations with China against their own wish for the status of dual subordination, while the U.S. 18th president Ulysses S. Grant proposed sovereign Okinawa and division of other islands between China and Japan. Actually, Japan offered China the Miyako and Yaeyama Islands in exchange for trading rights with China equal to those granted to Western states - Japan de facto abandoned and divided the island chain for monetary profit. The treaty was rejected as the Chinese court at the last minute decided to not ratify the agreement. The Ryukyu's aristocratic class resisted annexation for almost two decades, but after the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), the China and Ryukyus sovereignty interests faded as China renounced its claims in the same year. In Meiji period the government continuously and formally suppressed Ryukyuan people ethnic identity, culture, tradition and language, assimilating them as ethnic Japanese (Yamato).

Since the formation of prefecture, its relationship with the Japanese nation-state was contested and changed. There have been significant movements for Okinawan independence following its annexation, in the period prior to and during World War II. During the WW II Battle of Okinawa (1945), which could have been or at least maximum casualties avoided without the involvement of Emperor Hirohito, died approximately 150,000 civilian people, then 1/3 of population. Many civilians dead due to mass suicide forced by the Japanese military, as well many women were raped by both Japanese and United States military soldiers. After the World War II, the Ryukyu Islands were occupied by the United States Military Government of the Ryukyu Islands (1945–1950), but the U.S. maintained control even after the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, which went into effect on April 28, 1952, as was replaced by the USCAR (1950–1972) government. During this period U.S. military forcibly requisitioned private land for the building of many military facilities, with the private owners put into refugee camps, and its personnel statistically committed thousands of crimes against the civilians.

Only twenty years later, on 15 May 1972, Okinawa and near islands were returned to Japan. As the Japanese had post-war political freedom and economical prosperity, the facilities had a negative economical impact and people felt to be cheated, used for the purpose of Japanese and regional security against communist threat. However, although Okinawa was returned to Japan, both Japan and United States, against the will and protests from the local Ryukyuan population, continued to make agreements for the keep and expansion of the U.S. military bases, and today although Okinawa comprises just 0.6% of Japan's total land mass, 75% of all U.S. military installations stationed in Japan are assigned to bases in Okinawa.

Japanese colonialism

Many scholars in post-war period, and especially recently, began to consider the annexation of Ryukyu Islands as a colonial forerunner of colonization which led to Japanese colonial empire. Some like Taira Katsuyasu consider the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture as colonialism outright. Nomura Koya in his research aruged that in the mainland developed "an unconsciousness colonialism" in which Japanese people are not aware how they continue to colonize Okinawa, seen in the mainland's inclination to leave the vast majority of U.S. military presence and burden to Okinawa. In 2007, he described them as "democratic colonizers". Eiji Oguma noted that the typical practice of "othering" used in colonial domination produced the backward "Okinawa" and "Okinawans". Some like Tomiyama Ichiro suggest that for the Ryukyuans being a member of modern Japan nation-state "was nothing other than the start of being on the receiving end of colonial domination".

In 1957, Kiyoshi Inoue started a debate when emphasized that the Ryukyu shobun was an annexation of independent country which its people opposed, that was aggressive and not a "natural ethnic unification". Gregory Smits noted that "many other works in Japanese come close to characterizing Ryukyu/Okinawa as Japan's first colony, but never explicitly do so". Alan Christy emphasized that Okinawa must be included in studies of Japanese colonialism, however it was continuously excluded from the Japanese state history as a colony for several reasons and arguments with which mainland Japanese scholars attacked Inoue:

The reluctance to label Okinawa a colony was also maintained by some pre-war Okinawans who did not want to consider their experience as colonial. Their consideration originates in the prewar period when the Meiji suppression of their identity, culture and language resulted with anxious self-criticism and inferiority complex and other people's prejudice about them being backward, primitive, ethnically and racially inferior, and not being Japanese enough.

They did not want to be identified with the Japanese colonies, like when protested for being included along six other "less developed" colonial people in the "Hall of the peoples" in 1903 Osaka Expo. Okinawan historian Higashionna Kanjun in 1909 warned them if they forget their historical and cultural heritage then "their native place is no different from a country built on a desert or a new colony". Shimabukuro Genichiro in the 1930s described the Okinawa's pre-war position as "colonial-esque", and in his movement which begun in 1920s supported the alteration of personal name readings to spare them from ethnic discrimination. The anxiety about the issue of Okinawa being part of Japan was up to the limits where even attempts of its discussion were discredited and attacked from the mainland and Okinawan community itself, as a failure of being national subjects.

Eugen Weber's theoretization about the colonies, according to Tze May Loo, suggests that whether to or not consider Okinawa was a colony it is a false choice which ignores the complexity of Okinawa's incorporation in which were used colonial practices to establish the Japanese nation-state. It causes that Okinawa was both a colony and not, part of Japan and not, which is in the basis of the Okinawa's subordination that still persists. Nevertheless, of its incorporation as a prefecture and not as a colony, there were used colonial processes of "un-forming" and "re-forming" of the Ryukyuan communities, and the Okinawan's proximity to Japanese colonialism was not unjustified due to persistent mainland discrimination and exploitation which reminded them of their unequal status within the Japanese nation-state. They had no choice but to consider the inclusion as natural in hope of better legitimacy and treatment. This in turn aggravated their resist to the mainland demands and exploitation, seen in the sacrifice of Okinawa in the Battle of Okinawa for the invasion of mainland, and later prefecture's exploitation for the mainland's economical, ideological and political gain. According to Loo, Okinawa is in a vicious circle where Japan does not admit its discrimination against Okinawa, while Okinawans are forced to accept unfair conditions for the membership in Japan, being an internal colony without end.

Motives

During the Meiji period there was a significant reimagining of the histories of Ryukyu and of Ezo, which was annexed at the same time, and an insistence that the non-Japonic Ainu of Hokkaidō and the Japonic Ryukyuan people were Japanese, racially-ethnically and linguistically-culturally, going back many centuries, despite the evidence they were significantly different people. The primary institution for assimilation was education system, which by 1902 occupied over half of the prefectural revenue, and produced collective identity as well Okinawan teachers and intellectuals who were on the front of Japanese nationalistic Okinawan elite.

Maehira Bokei noted that this narrative considered Okinawa a colony and rejected Okinawa's characteristic culture considering it barbaric and inferior culture, resulting with Okinawans inferiority complex and discrimination against their own cultural heritage. However, the state did valorize and protect some aspects like being "people of the sea", folk art (pottery, textiles) and architecture, although defined it as Japanese. The Okinawan's use of heritage as basis of political identity in the post-war period was interesting to the occupying United States (1945–1972) who decided to support the pre-1879 autonomy and culture in hope their military rule will be embraced by the population.

Many Ryukyuan people see themselves as ethnically separate and different people, with a unique and separate cultural heritage. They see a great difference between themselves and the mainland Japanese people, and many feel a strong connection to Ryukyuan traditional culture and the pre-1609 history of independence. There is strong criticism of the Meiji government's assimilation policies and ideological agenda. According to novelist Tatsuhiro Oshiro, the "Okinawa problem" is a problem of culture which produced uncertainty in the relations between Okinawans and mainland Japanese; Okinawans desire wanting to be Japanese and not, mainland Japanese people consider they are compatriots and not, Okinawa's culture is treated as foreign and with repression and in the same time considered and harbored to be racially same.

The prefecture's subordinate position, and the lack of both Japanese state and general public reconsideration of the Okinawa's point of view, is most obviously seen in the current burden of having 75% of U.S. military facilities in Japan while comprising only 0.6% of Japan's total land area, a political and military treatment other prefectures do not experience.

Ideology

According to Yasukatsu Matsushima, Professor of Ryukoku University and the representative of civil group "Yuimarle Ryukyu no Jichi" ("autonomy of Ryukyu"), the 1879 annexation was illegal and can not be justified on both moral grounds and international law, as the Ryukyu government and people did not agree to join Japan and does not exist any treaty of transferring sovereignty to Japan. He notes that the Kingdom of Hawaii was in similar position, at least the U.S. admitted illegality and issued an apology in 1992, but Japan never apologized or considered compensation. The colonial status of Okinawa is matter of responsibility of both Japan and United States - historically used as a trade negotiatior with China, later as a place to fight battles or establish military bases, a perpetual victimization. After the 1972 return to Japan, the government economic plans to narrow the gap between Japanese and Okinawans were actually used by the Japanese enterprises of construction, tourism and media which restricted their living space, and many Okinawans continue to work as seasonal workers, with low wages while women are overworked and underpaid. Dependant on the development plan, they were threatened with decrease of financial support if expressed opposition to the military bases (for example, it happaned in 1997 under Governor Masahide Ōta, and 2014 because of current Governor Takeshi Onaga's policy). During the soil improvement, many coral reefs were destroyed.

According to him, the contemporary Japanese people are not aware of the situation, they think to understand it and hypocritically sympathize with Okinawans, but until they trully understand that the U.S. bases are on the Japanese soil, and that the lives and land of the Okinawans have the same value as their own, the discrimination will not end. Also, as long Okinawa is part of Japan, the United States military bases will not leave, because it is Japan's intention to use Okinawa as an island base, seen from the Emperor Hirohito's "Imperial Message" (1947) and US-Japan Security Treaty valid from 1952.

Even further, it is claimed that in Okinawa Prefecture is violated Article 95 of Japanese constitution - a law applicable to one single entity can not be enacted by National Diet without the consent of the majority of the population in the entity (ignored during the implementation of financial plan from 1972, as well in 1996 legal change of law about the stationing of military bases). The constitution's Article 9 (respect for the sovereignty of the people) is violated by the stationing of American military troops, as well the civilians human rights were not protected. The 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement is deemed illegal - according to international law, treaty is limited to Okinawa Prefecture as political entity, while Japan and U.S. signed also a secret treaty according to which, although it mentions the power of the state, Japanese state can not act inside the U.S. military bases. Thus, if the reversion treaty is invalid the term "citizens" does not refer to the Japanese, but Okinawans. The independence does not mean revival of the Ryukyu Kingdom, reversion to China or Japan.

History

The independence movement was already investigated by the U.S. Office of Strategic Services's in their 1944 report. They considered its organization to emerge among the Okinawan's emigrants, specifically in Peru, because the Ryukyu land and its population was too small to make the movement attainable. They noted the long relationship between China and Ryukyu Kingdom, saw the China's territorial claims as justified, and concluded that the exploitation of the identity gap between the Japan and Ryukyus is a good policy for the United States. George H. Kerr considered that U.S. should not see Ryukyu Islands as Japanese territory. He asserted that the islands were colonized by Japan, and in echo to Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, since Matthew C. Perry's visit in 1853 the U.S. treated the Ryukyu as independent kingdom and as such should re-examin Perry's suggestion about an independent nation with international ports for international commerce.

There was pressure after 1945, immediately following the war during the United States Military Government of the Ryukyu Islands (1945–1950), for the creation of an autonomous or independent Ryukyu Republic. According to David John Obermiller, the initiative for independence was ironically inspired from mainland. In February 1946, the Japanese Communist Party in its message welcomed a separate administration and supported Okinawa's right to liberty and independence, while the Okinawan organization of leftist leaning intellectuals Okinawajin Renmei Zenkoku Taikai, residing in Japan, also unanimously supported the Japanese independence.

In 1947, the three newly formed political parties Okinawa Democratic League-ODL (formed by Genwa Nakasone, conservative), Okinawan People's Party-OPP (formed by Kamejiro Senaga, leftist), and smaller Okinawa Socialist Party-OSP (formed by Ogimi Chotoku) welcomed the U.S. military as an opportunity to free Okinawa from Japan, considering independence from Japan as a republic under guardianship of U.S. or United Nations trusteeship. Common people also perceived the U.S. troops as liberators. OPP also considered an option for autonomy and request for compensation from Japan, and even in 1948–1949 crisis, the reversion was not in political discourse. The governor of island Shikiya Koshin, probably with support by Nakasone, commissioned a creation of Ryukyuan flag, which was presented on January 25, 1950. Only notable Ryukyuan who advocated reversion between 1945–1950 was mayor of Shuri, Nakayoshi Ryoko, who because of no public support for his reversion petition in 1945 permanently left Okinawa.

During the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (1950–1972), in late 1950 election the Democratic League (then titled Republican Party) was defeated by the Okinawa Social Mass Party (OSMP), formed by Tokyo University graduates and schoolteachers from Okinawa who were against the U.S. military administration and advocated return to Japan. The media editorals, under Senaga's control, in late 1950 and early 1951 considered a pragmatic view, criticized the OSMP (pro-reversion), whether the emotions or economy were more important, concluding that the political and economical future would progress further under U.S. rather than Japan. In February 1951, at the Okinawa Prefectural Assembly the pro-U.S. conservative Republican Party spoke for independence, Okinawa Socialist Party for a U.S. trusteeship, while the OPP (previously pro-independence) and OSMP for reversion to Japan, and in March the Assembly made a resolution for reversion.

The "ethnic pride" was part of the public debate and the option for independence ceased, considered as mistake by critics of U.S. military administration, and as the majority were in favor of reversion to Japan - "home country" because of prominence of the collective identity of Okinawans being Japanese which was formed from the 19th century education system and repression - it silenced the Okinawans self-determination. According to Moriteru Arasaki (1976), the self-determination was too easily and regretably replaced by question of U.S. or Japan protection i.e. Okinawan ethnic identity "sameness" with Japanese instead of difference. In the 1950s was a series of protests against the U.S. land policy, while in the late 1960s and early 1970s (like Koza riot) against the U.S. military administration. In 1956, one third advocated independence, another third being part of the United States, and final third to maintain ties with Japan.

Despite the desire of many inhabitants of the islands for some form of independence, or anti-reverisionism like by Akira Arakawa, the massive popularity for reversion supported the Japanese government decision to negotiate Okinawa Reversion Agreement of the prefecture back to its control. Some consider the 1960s anti-reversionism was different from the 1950s vision of independence because it did not endorse any political option for another nation-state patronage. Arakawa position was more intellectual rather than political, which criticized Japanese nationalism (which is against Okinawan subjectivity) and fellow Okinawans dellusion about the full and fair inclusion in Japanese state and nation, only to perpetuate further subjugation. In November 1971, when was leaked information that the reversion agreement will ignore the Okinawans demands and that Japan is collaborating with United States to maintain a military status quo, was launched a violent general strike in Okinawa, while in February 1972 were hurled Molotov cocktails into the building that housed the Japanese government office.

Since 1972, because of lack of any anticipated improvements in relation with US-Japan alliance, committed voices turned once again towards the aim of "Okinawa independence theory", on the basis of cultural heritage and history, at least by poets and activists like Takara Ben and Shoukichi Kina, and in theoretical level in journals. Between 1980–1981 leading Okinawan intellectuals held symposiums about the independence, with even a drafted constitution and another national flag for Ryukyus, with the collected essays published with the title Okinawa Jiritsu he no Chosen (The Challenges Facing Okinawan Independence). The Okinawan branch of NHK and newspaper Ryūkyū Shimpō sponsored a forum in which was discussed the reversion, assimilation to Japanese polity, as well cost and opportunities of Ryukyuan independence.

U.S. military bases

Though there are pressures in the US and Japan, as well as in Okinawa, for the removal of US troops and military bases from Okinawa, there have thus far been only partial and gradual movements in that direction.

In April 1996, a joint US-Japanese governmental commission announced it will address Okinawan's anger, and reduce the U.S. military foot-print and return part of occupied land territory in the center of Okinawa (only around 5%), including the large Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in densely populated area. According to the agreement, both the Japanese and the U.S. governments agreed that 4,000 hectares of the 7,800-hectare training area are to be returned on condition that six helipads are relocated to the remaining area. So far, July 2016, only work on two helipads has been completed. In December 2016, U.S. military announced return of 17% of American-administered areas.

However, initially considered as positive change, in September 1996 the public became aware that the U.S. planned to "give up" Futenma for construction of a new base (first since 1950s) in the north offshore, Oura Bay, near Henoko (relatively less populated). In December 1996, SACO formally presented its proposal. Although the fighter jet and helicopter noise, as well accidents, would be put away from a very to less populated area, the Relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Henoko i.e. Oura Bay would make a devastating impact to a coral reef area, its waters and ecosystem with rare and endangered species, including the smallest and northernmost population of dugongs.

The villagers organized a movement called "Inochi o Mamorukai" ("Society for the protection of life"), and demanded a special election and maintained a tent city protest on the beach, and in water with kayaks. The majoral race in 1997 saw emergence of a both anti-faction, and pro-faction with members from construction based businesses, and with 52% won a candidate who opposed the base construction. However, the Japanese government successfully sued the new Governor Masahide Ōta, shifted the power about Okinawan land leases to Prime Minister, ignored the 1997 Nago City citizens referendum (which rejected the new base), stopped communication with the local government, and suspended the economic support until Okinawans voted Liberal Democratic Party's new governor Keiichi Inamine (1998–2006).

The construction plans moved slowly, but the protesters got more attention when a U.S. helicopter crashed into a class-room building of Okinawa International University. However, the government twistedly explained it as a reason for the construction of new base, even forcibly, with harm/arrest of the local villagers and opposers. By December 2004, several construction workers recklessly wounded several non-violent protestors. This resulted with the arrival of Okinawa fishermen to the Oura Bay.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama (16 September 2009 – 2 June 2010) opposed the base facility, however his tenure was short, with his failed campaign promise to close the base as the main reason for the move. The subsequent ministers acted as clients for the United States, while in 2013 Abe Shinzo and Barack Obama affirmed their commitment to build the new base, nevertheless the local protests. The relocation was approved by the Okinawa's governor in 2014, but the current governor of the prefecture, Takeshi Onaga, completely opposes the military bases presence. The 2014 poll showed that 80% of population want the facility out of the prefecture. In September 2015, governor Onaga went to base his arguments to the United Nations human rights body, but in December 2015, the work resumed as the Supreme Court of Japan ruled against Okinawa's opposition which erupted new protests, with the 70-year-old man from Urasoe stating that "Okinawa can't stay like a colony of Japan and the U.S.". In February 2017, governor Onaga went to Washington to represent the local opposition to the administration of newly elected U.S. president Donald Trump.

Protests

There have been held many protests, with characteristics of transnational activism, but often lack of political struggle for national independence, and being self-limiting, have limited political horizon, but some consider that are certainly related to independence and anti-reversionist movement, replacing the previous 1970s reversion movement with anti-base and self-determination struggle. Nomura Koya claims that the protests are finally beginning to confront Okinawans with Japanese and American imperialism.

In September 1995, 85,000 people protested because of the U.S. military rape incident. This event is considered as the "third wave of the Okinawa Struggle" - movement against marginalization of Okinawa, US-Japan security alliance, and U.S. global military strategy. Beside being anti-US, it also had a markedly anti-Japanese tone.

In 2007, 110,000 people protested due to Ministry of Education's textbook revisions (see MEXT controversy) of the Japanese military forced mass suicide of the civilians during the Battle of Okinawa.

The journal Ryūkyū Shimpō and scholars Tatsuhiro Oshiro, Nishizato Kiko in their essays considered the U.S. bases in Okinawa a continuation of Ryukyu Shobun to the present day.

The Japanese government designation of April 28, date when came into effect the Treaty of San Francisco according to which was returned sovereignty to Japan, as "Restoration of Sovereignty Day" day was opposed by Okinawans because the islands were severed from Japan and left under U.S. military control until 1972, considering it "day of humiliation".

In June 2016, after the rape and murder of a Japanese woman, more than 65,000 people gathered in the protest of anti-U.S. military presence and crimes against the residents.

Recent events

The presence of the U.S. military remains a sensitive issue in local politics. Feelings against the Government of Japan, Emperor (especially Hirohito due to his involvement in the sacrifice of Okinawa and later military occupation), and U.S. military (USFJ, SACO) have often caused open criticism, protests, and refusal to sing the national anthem. For many years the Emperors avoided visiting Okinawa, with the first ever in history done by Akihiko in 1993, since it was assumed that his visits would likely cause uproar rather than respect, like in July 1975 when Akihito as a crown prince visited Okinawa and demonstrators threw Molotov cocktail at him, although these tensions have eased in recent years.

The 1995 rape incident stirred a surge of ethnic-nationalism. In 1996, Akira Arakawa wrote Hankokka no Kyoku (Okinawa: Antithesis to the Evil Japanese Nation State) in which argued for resistance to Japan and Okinawa's independence. Between 1997–1998 was a significant rise of debates about Okinawan independence. Intellectuals held heated discussions, symposiums, while two prominent politicians highly visible national forums. In February 1997, a member of House of Representatives asked the government what is needed for Okinawan independence, being told that it is impossible because the constitution does not allow it. Oyama Chojo, former long-term mayor of Koza/Okinawa City, wrote a best-selling book Okinawa Dokuritsu Sengen (A Declaration of Okinawan Independence), and stated that Japan is not fatherland of Okinawa. The Okinawa Jichiro (Municipal Workers Union) prepared a report about measures for self-government. Some considered that the autonomy and independence of Okinawa are a reaction to Japanese "structural corruption" and demands for decentralization.

In 2002, scholars of constitutional law, politics and public policy at the University of the Ryukyus and Okinawa International University founded a project "Study Group on Okinawa Self-governance" (Okinawa jichi kenkyu kai or Jichiken), which published a bookelt (Okinawa as a self-governing region: What do you think?) and held many seminars. It posited three basic paths; 1) leverage of Article 95 and exploration of possibilities of decentralization 2) seeking of formal autonomy with the right of diplomatic relations 3) independence.

Literary and political journals like Sekai (Japan), Ke-shi Kaji and Uruma neshia (Okinawa) began to frequently write on the issue of autonomy, and are published numerous books about the topic. In 2005 resumed Ryūkyū Independent Party which was active in the 1970s, and since 2008 revived as Kariyushi Club.

In May 2013, was established Association of Comprehensive Studies for Independence of the Lew Chewans (ACSILs), focused on demilitarization, decolonization, and aim of self-determined independence. They plan to collaborate with regions such as Guam and Taiwan that also seek independence. In September 2015, it held a related forum in New York University in New York City.

The topics of self-determination entered the mainstream electoral politics. The LDP member Governor Hirokazu Nakaima (2006–2014), who approved governments permit on the construction of military base, was defeated in November 2014 election by Takeshi Onaga running on anti-Futenma relocation platform, and that Okinawa has the right for self-determination. Mikio Shimoji campaigned on prefecture-wide Henoko-referendum, on premise if the result was rejected it will be held Scotland-like independence referendum.

In January 2015, The Japan Times reported that the Ryukoku University professor Yasukatsu Matsushima and his civil group "Yuimarle Ryukyu no Jichi" ("autonomy of Ryukyu"), which calls for Ryukyu Islands independence as a self-governing republic, is quietly gathering a momentum. Although critcs consider that Japanese government would never approve an independence, according to Matsushima, the Japanese approval is not needed because of U.N International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for self-determination. His group envisions creating an unarmed, neutral country, with each island in the arc from Amami to Yonaguni deciding whether to join.

In February of the same year, Uruma-no-Kai group which promotes the solidarity between Ainu and Okinawans, organized a symposium at Okinawa International University on the right of their self-determination. In the same month was held all-day public forum entitled "Seeking a course: Discussions of Okinawa's right to self-determination", with the agreement that it is a right time to assume its East Asian role as: demilitarized autonomous zone, a place of exchange with China and surrounding countries, and cosmopolitan center for Okinawa's economic self-sufficiency.

China's support

In July 2012, Chinese newspaper Global Times noted Beijing to consider challenging Japan's sovereignty over Ryukyu Islands. The Chinese government has offered no endorsement on such views. Some Chinese consider that it is enough to support their independence, with the professor Zhou Yongsheng warning that Ryukyu sovereignty issue will not resolve the Senkaku Islands dispute, and Chinese involvement would destroy the China-Japan relations. Professor June Teufel Dreyer emphasized that "arguing that a tributary relationship at some point in history is the basis for a sovereignty claim ... [as] many countries had tributary relationships with China" could be diplomatically incendiary. Yasukatsu Matsushima, professor who advocates independence, expressed his fear of possibility the Ryukyu independence will be used as a tool, and perceived the Chinese support as "strange" since they deny it to its own minorities.

In May 2013, newspaper People's Daily published another similar article by two Chinese scholars from Chinese Academy of Social Sciences which stated "Chinese people shall support Ryukyu's independence", soon followed by Luo Yuan's comment that "The Ryukyus belong to China, never to Japan". However Qi Jianguo assured that scholars considerations do not represent the views of Chinese government. It sparked a protest among the Japanese politicians, like Yoshihide Suga who said that Okinawa Prefecture "is unquestionably Japan's territory, historically and internationally". Matsushima noted that the Ryukyu Kingdom although vassal it did not obey to China's orders, and people in Okinawa are very afraid of the claims and that Beijing is "showing its intention to invade Okinawa". Yoichi Shimada similarly concluded that "China is seeking to capture the Okinawan islands in the future".

In December 2016, the Japan's Public Security Intelligence Agency warned on the concern that China through academic exchanges is forming ties with the Okinawan independence groups to spark a split within Japan. The report was criticized by the independence group professors for committing irresponsible claims against Okinawa as the related conference at Beijing University in May 2016 was without such connotations.

Polls

In 2005, British-Chinese Lim John Chuan-tiong (林泉忠), the associate professor of the University of the Ryukyus, conducted a telephone poll of Okinawans over 18. He obtained useful replies from 1029 people. Asked whether they considered themselved Okinawan (沖縄人), Japanese (日本人), or both, the answers were 40.6%, 21.3%, and 36.5% respectively. When asked whether Okinawa should become independent if the Japanese government allowed (or did not allow) Okinawa to freely decide its future, 24.9% replied Okinawa should become independent with permission, and 20.5% in case of no permission from the Japanese government. Those who believed Okinawa should not declare independence were 58.7% and 57.4% respectively.

In 2011 poll 4.7% of surveyed were pro-independence, 15% wanted more devolution, while around 60% preferred the political status quo. In 2015 poll by Ryūkyū Shimpō 8% of the surveyed were pro-independence, 21% wanted more self-determination as a region, while the other 2/3 favored the status quo.

In 2016, Ryūkyū Shimpō conducted another poll from October to November of Okinawans over 20, with useful replies from 1047 individuals: 2.6% considered independence, 14% federal framework with domestic authority equal to that of the national government in terms of diplomacy and security, 17.9% framework where it has increased authority to compile budgets and other domestic authorities, while less than half supported status quo.