February 23,2010
The “NATO Formula” is the policy that the Japanese government applied to the negotiations (held between 1950 and 1951) for revising the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the Japan-U.S. agreement under Article 6 of the Security Treaty regarding facilities, areas, and the status of the U.S. forces in Japan.
Explaining that the Japan-U.S. treaty is of the same nature as the treaty and agreement between Germany and nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which took effect in 1949, the Japanese government intended to convince the U.S. that the Japan-U.S. relation should also be “equal.”
However, the U.S. forces, which occupied Japan as a victorious nation, actually maintained its unequal privileges. In contrast to the NATO-Germany treaty and the U.S.-Philippines treaty, the Japan-U.S. treaty was extremely subservient and unequal.
Limitation on base sites
Germany was defeated in WWII as well as Japan and, since then, has hosted the stationing of about 60,000 U.S. servicemen. Despite this, the situation of the U.S. forces in Germany under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) Supplementary Agreement (the so-called the “Bonn agreement” concluded in 1959) is very different from that of U.S. forces in Japan.
Under the Japan-U.S. SOFA, which was signed in connection with the revised Japan-U.S. Security Treaty on January 19 1960, there is no restriction on facilities and sites provided to the U.S. military and exercises that the U.S. military conducts outside its bases (Article 2). In addition, the U.S. forces in Japan are not required to give any information regarding the purpose and duration of the use of base sites. They can use base sites in whatever manner they like.
Regarding crimes committed by U.S. personnel, although Japanese authorities have the right to jurisdiction, if a suspect escapes onto a base, the U.S. military are able to hold the suspect until the Japanese authority indicts. The U.S. forces in essence have extraterritorial rights.
What about the “Bonn agreement”? The agreement requires NATO militaries, including the U.S. forces, to submit a detailed plan for the use of military facilities (Article 48) and applies German law regarding the use of areas and facilities (Article 53). The agreement also allows the German police to enter foreign military bases to conduct investigations (Article 28).
NATO forces must ask permission of the German Defense Minister before conducting maneuvers outside their bases (Article 45) and there is a strict limitation on the use of airspace.
Decrease of 52 U.S. bases in Germany
In regard to the U.S. forces realignment, there is big difference between Japan and Germany.
Since 2003, the U.S. has reconfigured the presence of U.S. forces worldwide. In Germany, the number of U.S. bases in 2008 decreased by 52 from 235 in 2005 (U.S. Department of Defense, Base Structure Report).
In Japan, during the same period, the number of U.S. bases remained unchanged. What is more, the U.S. requested the Japanese government to provide a new military base as an alternative to the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station in Ginowan City in Okinawa.
It is unusual for an independent nation to host a foreign military for such a long time in the first place. This is nothing but a threat to the nation’s sovereignty and its people’s lives. In this respect, the U.S.-German relation is also unequal in principle.
The Japanese government at the beginning had acknowledged that the stationing of the U.S. forces was unusual. However, Japan had a very different post-war history from that of Germany. Germany has expanded its sovereign rights over U.S. military facilities by amending the SOFA three times, even though it was forced to host foreign military bases on German territory as a defeated nation. In contrast, the Japanese government has complied with the U.S. requests by even concluding secret agreements with the U.S. and has become ever more subservient to the U.S.
- End of Illusion of ‘equality’
Explaining that the Japan-U.S. treaty is of the same nature as the treaty and agreement between Germany and nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which took effect in 1949, the Japanese government intended to convince the U.S. that the Japan-U.S. relation should also be “equal.”
However, the U.S. forces, which occupied Japan as a victorious nation, actually maintained its unequal privileges. In contrast to the NATO-Germany treaty and the U.S.-Philippines treaty, the Japan-U.S. treaty was extremely subservient and unequal.
Limitation on base sites
Germany was defeated in WWII as well as Japan and, since then, has hosted the stationing of about 60,000 U.S. servicemen. Despite this, the situation of the U.S. forces in Germany under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) Supplementary Agreement (the so-called the “Bonn agreement” concluded in 1959) is very different from that of U.S. forces in Japan.
Under the Japan-U.S. SOFA, which was signed in connection with the revised Japan-U.S. Security Treaty on January 19 1960, there is no restriction on facilities and sites provided to the U.S. military and exercises that the U.S. military conducts outside its bases (Article 2). In addition, the U.S. forces in Japan are not required to give any information regarding the purpose and duration of the use of base sites. They can use base sites in whatever manner they like.
Regarding crimes committed by U.S. personnel, although Japanese authorities have the right to jurisdiction, if a suspect escapes onto a base, the U.S. military are able to hold the suspect until the Japanese authority indicts. The U.S. forces in essence have extraterritorial rights.
What about the “Bonn agreement”? The agreement requires NATO militaries, including the U.S. forces, to submit a detailed plan for the use of military facilities (Article 48) and applies German law regarding the use of areas and facilities (Article 53). The agreement also allows the German police to enter foreign military bases to conduct investigations (Article 28).
NATO forces must ask permission of the German Defense Minister before conducting maneuvers outside their bases (Article 45) and there is a strict limitation on the use of airspace.
Decrease of 52 U.S. bases in Germany
In regard to the U.S. forces realignment, there is big difference between Japan and Germany.
Since 2003, the U.S. has reconfigured the presence of U.S. forces worldwide. In Germany, the number of U.S. bases in 2008 decreased by 52 from 235 in 2005 (U.S. Department of Defense, Base Structure Report).
In Japan, during the same period, the number of U.S. bases remained unchanged. What is more, the U.S. requested the Japanese government to provide a new military base as an alternative to the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station in Ginowan City in Okinawa.
It is unusual for an independent nation to host a foreign military for such a long time in the first place. This is nothing but a threat to the nation’s sovereignty and its people’s lives. In this respect, the U.S.-German relation is also unequal in principle.
The Japanese government at the beginning had acknowledged that the stationing of the U.S. forces was unusual. However, Japan had a very different post-war history from that of Germany. Germany has expanded its sovereign rights over U.S. military facilities by amending the SOFA three times, even though it was forced to host foreign military bases on German territory as a defeated nation. In contrast, the Japanese government has complied with the U.S. requests by even concluding secret agreements with the U.S. and has become ever more subservient to the U.S.
- End of Illusion of ‘equality’
