February 22,2010
Nishimura Kumao, former head of the Foreign Ministry's Treaties Bureau who had negotiated with the U.S. in concluding the original Security Treaty, described the new Security Treaty as a treaty in which Japan provides military facilities with the U.S. while the U.S. provides its forces in order to defend Japan.
Although the former Security Treaty gave the U.S. forces the right to bases in Japan, the U.S. obligation to defend Japan was unclear in the provisions.
On the other hand, the revised Security Treaty clearly assigns the U.S. a role of defending Japan and therefore requires Japan to provide military facilities for the U.S. forces. This is how Nishimura characterizes the new treaty.
However, does this view really illustrate the true characteristics of the treaty?
At a secret meeting held in the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from January 26 to 29, 1970, the so-called “Symington Committee”, U.S. Under Secretary of State Alexis Johnson made the following remarks:
“The bases and facilities provided by Japan under the provisions of the treaty are especially important to our ability to maintain our commitments to the Republic of Korea and the Republic of China.”
“[O]ur rear area logistic depots, the communications sites, the large and well-equipped naval facilities and airfields, hospitals, and so on, have also been important factors in our ability to support and maintain our forces in Southeast Asia.” Johnson included no remarks on Japan’s defense.
In revising the Security Treaty, the two governments agreed that they would hold “prior consultation” if the U.S. forces in Japan carry out combat operations which are not related to Japan’s defense. However, such prior consultation has never been held. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Johnson said that there is “understanding” between the two nations, indicating that they secretly agreed in the “Record of Discussion” on June 20, 1959 that the U.S forces in Japan can conduct combat operations without prior consultation.
The revised Security Treaty in Article 5 requires the two countries to fight together in cases of an “armed attack against either party in the territories under the administration of Japan.” Article 6 states that the U.S. forces are stationed in Japan “for the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East.”
The “Far East” is not a clear geographical term. While the Japanese government explained that the “Far East” covers the northern part of the Philippines, Japan, and its surrounding areas, it allowed the U.S. to send its troops from Japan to the Vietnam War from the mid-1960s.
Today, the U.S. forces in Japan are being dispatched to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without trying to verify if such military operations meet the purpose of the Treaty, the Japanese government continues to unquestioningly fulfill its obligations to provide bases for the U.S. forces. Can this be characterized as mutual cooperation?
(To be continued)
Although the former Security Treaty gave the U.S. forces the right to bases in Japan, the U.S. obligation to defend Japan was unclear in the provisions.
On the other hand, the revised Security Treaty clearly assigns the U.S. a role of defending Japan and therefore requires Japan to provide military facilities for the U.S. forces. This is how Nishimura characterizes the new treaty.
However, does this view really illustrate the true characteristics of the treaty?
At a secret meeting held in the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from January 26 to 29, 1970, the so-called “Symington Committee”, U.S. Under Secretary of State Alexis Johnson made the following remarks:
“The bases and facilities provided by Japan under the provisions of the treaty are especially important to our ability to maintain our commitments to the Republic of Korea and the Republic of China.”
“[O]ur rear area logistic depots, the communications sites, the large and well-equipped naval facilities and airfields, hospitals, and so on, have also been important factors in our ability to support and maintain our forces in Southeast Asia.” Johnson included no remarks on Japan’s defense.
In revising the Security Treaty, the two governments agreed that they would hold “prior consultation” if the U.S. forces in Japan carry out combat operations which are not related to Japan’s defense. However, such prior consultation has never been held. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Johnson said that there is “understanding” between the two nations, indicating that they secretly agreed in the “Record of Discussion” on June 20, 1959 that the U.S forces in Japan can conduct combat operations without prior consultation.
The revised Security Treaty in Article 5 requires the two countries to fight together in cases of an “armed attack against either party in the territories under the administration of Japan.” Article 6 states that the U.S. forces are stationed in Japan “for the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East.”
The “Far East” is not a clear geographical term. While the Japanese government explained that the “Far East” covers the northern part of the Philippines, Japan, and its surrounding areas, it allowed the U.S. to send its troops from Japan to the Vietnam War from the mid-1960s.
Today, the U.S. forces in Japan are being dispatched to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without trying to verify if such military operations meet the purpose of the Treaty, the Japanese government continues to unquestioningly fulfill its obligations to provide bases for the U.S. forces. Can this be characterized as mutual cooperation?
(To be continued)
