Time to question whether Japan should continue to be bound by Japan-U.S.
Security Treaty -- Akahata editorial, August 24, 2001

This is the 50th year since the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the
Japan-U.S. Security Treaty were concluded.

On September 8, 1951 these treaties were signed, and today the
Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is much discussed in feature or serial newspaper
articles, most of which are based on the notion that the treaties are
everlasting.

However, the "Soviet threats," which used to be the rationale behind
maintaining the Japan-U.S. military alliance, are gone, and the Asian
situation has greatly changed.

Now is the time to seriously question whether Japan should continue to
be bound by the security treaty with the United States.

Miyazawa's confessions

Asked by Japanese Communist Party Chair Shii Kazuo in the recent Diet
session if the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty setup should be maintained in the
21st century, Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro said he would make efforts
for a smoother operation of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty system, thus
expressing hope that the treaty will last many more years.

The U.S. Forces stationed in Japan comprise the Marine Corps, the
aircraft carrier task force group, air/space expeditionary forces, and
other forces which have nothing to do with the defense of Japan; they are
forward strike forces against enemy countries.

The Japanese people have long been afflicted by the U.S. Forces'
low-altitude flight/bombing exercises, night landing exercises, live-fire
exercises, accidents, and soldiers' crimes.

In no independent countries, other than Japan, have foreign troops been
stationed in such numbers for more than half a century.

Recently, former Finance Minister Miyazawa Kiichi disclosed in a
newspaper that 50 years ago, he received a "top secret message" from then
Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru allowing Miyazawa to propose to host the
stationing of the U.S. Forces in Japan (even after the end of the
occupation). In his article in the August 24 issue of Yomiuri, Miyazawa
wrote as if the conclusion of the security treaty grew out of Japan's
independent decision.

But it was no one but Miyazawa who referred to this issue in an opposite
way. In a book titled "Secret Tokyo-Washington Talks," he said that it is
natural for the Japanese people to be infuriated by the fact that foreign
troops have been deployed in Japan without the knowledge of the people
about the procedure. The people have enough reason to say, "Yankee Go
Home," he said.

After totally occupying Japan following the end of World War II, the
U.S. Forces imposed de facto martial law, under which the Japanese people
were deprived of the freedom to express their opinions, and forced Japan
into accepting the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Thus, the U.S. Forces did
not leave Japan even after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force
despite the treaty provision that all occupation forces of the Allied
Powers must withdraw from Japan no later than 90 days thereafter.

The U.S. Forces then established a network of military alliances in
Asia. But they were driven out from a number of countries. At present they
are stationed only in Japan and South Korea.

An increasing number of Asian countries are now in favor of making the
region nuclear weapons-free and promoting nonalignment; they are increasing
their mutual discussions on settling international disputes through
negotiations, not by military force.

The Koizumi Cabinet, nevertheless, is calling for Japan to be allowed to
exercise the right to collective self-defense. Far from demanding the
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Japan, it is willing to involve Japan in
U.S. wars even though Japan is not under attacks by foreign countries. The
cabinet is also playing a part in increasing regional tension by making
Japan cooperate with the United States in the so-called missile defense
plan which many countries are criticizing as paving the way for an
intensified arms race.

Asian countries are more critical and cautious about a Japan which is
seeking to play greater military roles under the Japan-U.S. military
alliance without expressing clear reflections on its past war of aggression.

This could again lead Japan to isolation and even cause animosity
between Japan and other Asian countries.

One-year advance notice is enough to end the treaty

Military alliances and foreign military presence represent the current
that reverse history.

The Japan-U.S. Security treaty can be terminated one year after either
side gives notice to the other party of its intention to do so on behalf of
the majority of the people.

If Japan breaks away from the military alliance with the United States,
it can develop an era for Japan-U.S. relations which will enable Japan to
end its subordination to the United States and establish instead Japan-U.S.
friendship based on an equal footing.

It without doubt will be a great contribution to developing a new world
in totally new international relationships, not only between Japan and the
United States but in the whole of Asia and the world as well. (end)