Event to read aloud names of victims of Okinawa battles begins
An event began on Ie Island in Okinawa Prefecture on Sunday to read aloud the names of more than 240,000 people killed in fierce battles in the prefecture during World War II.
The event will run through June 23, when a ceremony will be held to mourn the victims whose names are engraved on a monument at a peace memorial park in the Okinawa city of Itoman.
"The experience of the tragic war is the origin of thoughts shared by people in the prefecture who wish for peace," Okinawa Gov. Denny Tamaki said in an opening speech for the event. "I sincerely hope that Okinawa's wish for peace will spread" through the event, he said.
Yui Tomoyose, a 13-year-old who participated in the event for the first time, said that the names of victims that she read aloud included that of a newborn child.
"I felt sad that there was such a small child," she said. "I realized once again that many people had died."
Naomi Machida, a 68-year-old member of the committee that organized the event, said, "At a time when wars are taking place around the world, we want to send out the wish for peace from Okinawa."
Participants can join the event at sites in Okinawa and elsewhere in the country as well as online to read the names of all the victims in a relay system. About 6,000 people from Japan and overseas had applied for participation as of Sunday, according to the organizers.
The event started in 2022. Last year's participants totaled some 5,800 people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
42 minutes ago
- Japan Today
Europeans concerned U.S. will withdraw support from NATO; Americans should be, too
By John Deni The United States has long played a leadership role in NATO, the most successful military alliance in history. The U.S. and 11 other countries in North America and Europe founded NATO in 1949, following World War II. NATO has since grown its membership to include 32 countries in Europe and North America. But now, European leaders and politicians fear the United States has become a less reliable ally, posing major challenges for Europe and, by implication, NATO. This concern is not unfounded. President Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken of a desire to seize Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member. He has declared that Canada, another NATO member, should become 'the 51st state.' Trump has also sided with Russia at the United Nations and said that the European Union, the political and economic group uniting 27 European countries, was designed to 'screw' the U.S. Still, Trump – as well as other senior U.S. government officials – has said that the U.S. remains committed to staying in and supporting NATO. For decades, both liberal and conservative American politicians have recognized that the U.S. strengthens its own military and economic interests by being a leader in NATO – and by keeping thousands of U.S. troops based in Europe to underwrite its commitment. Understanding NATO The U.S., Canada and 10 Western European countries formed NATO nearly 80 years ago as a way to help maintain peace and stability in Europe following World War II. NATO helped European and North American countries bind together and defend themselves against the threat once posed by the Soviet Union, a former communist empire that fell in 1991. NATO employs about 2,000 people at its headquarters in Brussels. It does not have its own military troops and relies on its 32 member countries to volunteer their own military forces to conduct operations and other tasks under NATO's leadership. NATO does have its own military command structure, led by an American military officer, and including military officers from other countries. This team plans and executes all NATO military operations. In peacetime, military forces working with NATO conduct training exercises across Eastern Europe and other places to help reassure allies about the strength of the military coalition – and to deter potential aggressors, like Russia. NATO has a relatively small annual budget of around US$3.6 billion. The U.S. and Germany are the largest contributors to this budget, each responsible for funding 16% of NATO's costs each year. Separate from NATO's annual budget, in 2014, NATO members agreed that each participating country should spend the equivalent of 2% of its gross domestic product on their own national defense. Twenty two of NATO's 31 members with military forces were expected that 2% threshold as of April 2025. Although NATO is chiefly a military alliance, it has roots in the mutual economic interests of both the U.S. and Europe. Europe is the United States' most important economic partner. Roughly one-quarter of all U.S. trade is with Europe – more than the U.S. has with Canada, China or Mexico. Over 2.3 million American jobs are directly tied to producing exports that reach European countries that are part of NATO. NATO helps safeguard this mutual economic relationship between the U.S. and Europe. If Russia or another country tries to intimidate, dominate or even invade a European country, this could hurt the American economy. In this way, NATO can be seen as the insurance policy that underwrites the strength and vitality of the American economy. The heart of that insurance policy is Article 5, a mutual defense pledge that member countries agree to when they join NATO. Article 5 says that an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against the entire alliance. If one NATO member is attacked, all other NATO members must help defend the country in question. NATO members have only invoked Article 5 once, following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., when the alliance deployed aircraft to monitor U.S. skies. A wavering commitment to Article 5 Trump has questioned whether he would enforce Article 5 and help defend a NATO country if it is not paying the required 2% of its gross domestic product. NBC News also reported in April 2025 that the U.S. is likely going to cut 10,000 or more of the nearly 85,000 American troops stationed in Europe. The U.S. might also relinquish its top military leadership position within NATO, according to NBC. Many political analysts expect the U.S. to shift its national security focus away from Europe and toward threats posed by China – specifically, the threat of China invading or attacking Taiwan. At the same time, the Trump administration appears eager to reset relations with Russia. This is despite the Russian military's atrocities committed against Ukrainian military forces and civilians in the war Russia began in 2022, and Russia's intensifying hybrid war against Europeans in the form of covert spy attacks across Europe. This hybrid warfare allegedly includesRussia conducting cyberattacks and sabotage operations across Europe. It also involves Russia allegedly trying to plant incendiary devices on planes headed to North America, among other things. A shifting role in Europe The available evidence indicates that the U.S. is backing away from its role in Europe. At best – from a European security perspective – the U.S. could still defend European allies with the potential threat of its nuclear weapon arsenal. The U.S. has significantly more nuclear weapons than any Western European country, but it is not clear that this is enough to deter Russia without the clear presence of large numbers of American troops in Europe, especially given that Moscow continues to perceive the U.S. as NATO's most important and most powerful member. For this reason, significantly downsizing the number of U.S. troops in Europe, giving up key American military leadership positions in NATO, or backing away from the alliance in other ways appears exceptionally perilous. Such actions could increase Russian aggression across Europe, ultimately threatening not just European security but America's as well. Maintaining America's leadership position in NATO and sustaining its troop levels in Europe helps reinforce the U.S. commitment to defending its most important allies. This is the best way to protect vital U.S. economic interests in Europe today and ensure Washington will have friends to call on in the future. John Deni is Research Professor of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational Security Studies, U.S. Army War College. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
NHK
2 hours ago
- NHK
Japan to study South Korean president-elect's foreign policy
The Japanese government plans to cautiously study the foreign policy of South Korean president-elect Lee Jae-myung, who has taken tough positions on Japan in the past. The candidate of the largest opposition Democratic Party won the presidential election on Tuesday, bringing about a change of government. During the campaign, Lee stressed that he will focus on cooperation with Japan, and the two countries' relations with the United States. Some members of the Japanese government think that Lee will not drastically change South Korea's relations with Tokyo, as East Asia is facing a challenging security environment. Japan hopes to build a stable relationship with the new administration to keep the momentum for improved ties that began under former President Yoon Suk-yeol. Officials will work to arrange a summit between Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru and Lee at an early date on the sidelines of an international conference. However, there are concerns that Lee may take a tougher stance toward Japan. He has previously criticized the country on bilateral issues.
Yomiuri Shimbun
7 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Japan's Ruling, Opposition Parties to Delay Compiling Plan on Imperial Succession; General Agreement on Female Imperial Family Members Keeping Status
The Yomiuri Shimbun Members of the Liberal Democratic Party and Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan attend a meeting on Imperial succession in April. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan are expected to postpone compiling a plan for stable Imperial succession. The leaders and deputy leaders of the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors had hoped to have the plan be completed before the upper house election this summer, according to sources. The two parties apparently decided they needed more time for discussions, as they failed to overcome their differences after several unofficial meetings. The parties mostly discussed two issues: whether to allow female Imperial family members retain their Imperial status after marriage and whether the Imperial family should adopt male descendants of male lines of former Imperial family branches. The parties are generally in agreement on the issue of female Imperial family members retaining their status. However, the LDP opposed the idea of giving husbands and children of female Imperial family members Imperial status. The LDP said it is concerned that it might lead to an emperor from the female line. The CDPJ, on the other hand, seemed positive about the idea of having an emperor from the female line. LDP top adviser Taro Aso and CDPJ leader Yoshihiko Noda have repeatedly held unofficial negotiations, looking for common ground. Aso argued that Imperial status should only be given to the husbands and children of female Imperial family members if her husband is a descendant from the male line of one of the 11 branch families that lost their Imperial status after World War II. Noda presented a plan to have the Imperial House Council resolve the Imperial status issue. As both parties are in general agreement regarding female Imperial family members retaining their Imperial status after marriage, some said a plan should be compiled ahead of other issues. However, House of Representatives Speaker Fukushiro Nukaga took a more cautious stance and said the issue should be decided at the same time as whether to give husbands and children an Imperial status and pushed to postpone the final decisions.
