  Acceptance of US 1st Army Corps even contradicts Japan-U.S. Security Treaty -- Akahata editorial, November 2Japan and the United States are discussing the issue of relocating the U.S. First Army Corps to Camp Zama in Kanagawa Prefecture from the U.S. state of Washington. Both the mayors of Zama and Sagamihara hosting the U.S. Zama base have expressed their opposition, protesting to the government that the return of the base site to the two cities is out of the question. The acceptance of the 1st Army Corps will pave the way for United States to retain the Zama base. If the plan is accepted, it will mean a permanent existence of Camp Zama. It will even contravene the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and allow the U.S. forces to use Japan as a key command post for the promotion of the preemptive attack strategy. This has nothing to do even with defense of the Far East The First U.S. Army Corps with about 20,000 active-duty soldiers is a "strike force" designated by the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command (USCINCPAC) as a "standing Joint Task Force (JTF) for theater-wide contingencies"(Statement by First Army Corps Commander George A. Crocker before the Subcommittee on Military Readiness of the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 18, 1999). The First Army Corps is not assigned to defense of particular regions such as the Far East. Its aim is to meet "theater-wide contingencies" that will threaten U.S. interests. Given this, the command's move to Japan is be unacceptable even under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Its covers the globe, including Central America, Europe, the Middle East, far beyond the Asia-Pacific region. The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty in Article 6 states that "the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan" only "for the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East". Therefore, there is no room for discussion about Japan's acceptance of the First Army Corps. Nevertheless, the U.S. Bush administration is urging Japan to accept the relocation plan. Why? Because the U.S. Bush administration is reviewing U.S. worldwide military posture on the grounds that the present deployment of U.S. forces to particular countries and regions are "not optimized to meet today's threats" (White House "Fact Sheet on transformation of US military", August 16, 2004). Douglas J. Feith, U.S. undersecretary of defense has said that the need now is "a comprehensive review of the U.S. global defense posture" by attaching "greater flexibility for our forces, their ability to deploy powerful capabilities rapidly anywhere in the world" to it (Statement before the House Armed Services Committee on June 23, 2004). The proposed relocation to Zama, therefore, means enabling all U.S. forces in Japan - the Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy - to carry out U.S. preemptive attacks without restrictions against targets anywhere in the world. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated: "Yet over time, some host countries and/or their neighbors have imposed restrictions on the movement and use of our forces.ĘSo it makes sense to place a premium on developing more flexible legal and support arrangements with our allies and partners where we might choose to locate, deploy or exercise our troops" (At U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Sep. 23). This is a clear expression of the U.S. intention to remove any restrictions that can be an obstacle to the U.S. forces. Knowing that a revision of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty may cause major political instability in Japan, the U.S. government is trying to use the relocation of the First Army Corps to Japan to virtually stop confining the application of the treaty to defending the security of Japan and the "Far East". No secret deals condoned Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro suggested that he might accept the First Army Corps relocation by saying that it can be done within the framework of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, adding that the question should be dealt with from the viewpoint of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the Japan-U.S. alliance in the world (Mainichi Shimbun, Oct. 20). It is unacceptable for the government to secretly discuss the stationing of more troops in Japan, a fundamental issue concerning national sovereignty, without the knowledge of the Diet. Let us join our efforts to bring about a peaceful Japan without the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and military bases in the 21st century. (end) |