February 14,2010
An “equal partnership” – This has become the keyword of the Japan-U.S. relationship this year marking the 50th anniversary of the revised Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which was signed on January 19, 1960. Led by the Democratic Party of Japan, the Hatoyama Cabinet calls for establishment of a “close and equal Japan-U.S. alliance.” U.S. President Barack Obama said during his visit to Japan last November, “[T]he United States and Japan are equal partners. We have been and we will continue to be.” However, do we really have an equal partnership with the U.S.? Taking a look at how the bilateral security treaty was established, this article questions the assertion of “equality” that both the Japanese and U.S. governments are claiming.
U.S. ambition since conclusion of former security treaty
Visiting Japan in October last year, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that the U.S. Futenma base site will not be returned without a base construction in Henoko, intimidating that if Japan refuses to build a new U.S. Marine Corps base in Nago City’s Henoko district, the U.S. will not return the land currently occupied by the Futenma base, which originally was local residents’ land forcibly taken by the U.S. forces in violation of international law. The Hatoyama Cabinet is desperately looking for an alternative site to “relocate” the Futenma base. This relation is far from an “equal partnership.”
This is not the first time that the “equality” of the two nations has been questioned. The revision of the 1951 Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was initially proposed in order to erase “the Japanese feeling of inequality” (“United States Overseas Military Bases, Report to the President” by Frank C. Nash , December 1957).
Longing for same treatment as other allies
After the end of World War II, in order to use Japan as a “fortress” to block communist forces and the Soviet Union, the U.S. decided to conclude with Japan a security treaty which would enable its forces to continue to stay in Japan, in addition to a peace treaty (San Francisco Treaty) promising Japan’s “independence.” This amounted to a continuation of the U.S. occupation of Japan, going against both the Japanese Constitution banning the nation from possessing any war potential and the Potsdam Declaration which called for Japan’s disarmament and foreign military withdrawal from Japan after the establishment of democracy in the nation.
A classified memo written by Nishimura Kumao, the then head of the Foreign Ministry’s Treaties Bureau, was recently revealed. Written in June 1950 in preparation for concluding the peace treaty, it insisted that Japan should maintain the following principles in hosting U.S. bases: the number of U.S. bases in Japan is clearly designated; a deadline for Japan to host bases is set; the U.S. pays for the maintenance of its bases; and the two nations clearly specify U.S. servicemen’s privileges.
Treaties the U.S. concluded with NATO states and the Philippines limited the areas in the host countries’ territories where the U.S. could place its bases and gave them jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. military personnel. The classified memo implies Japan’s wish that it wanted to be treated in the same way as other U.S. allies.
For maintenance of bases
However, the interest of the U.S. side is to “maintain armed forces in Japan, wherever, for so long, and to such extent as it deems necessary” (“Memorandum for the President” by Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson). The U.S. government already had the intention to keep its bases in Japan indefinitely.
(To be continued)
U.S. ambition since conclusion of former security treaty
Visiting Japan in October last year, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that the U.S. Futenma base site will not be returned without a base construction in Henoko, intimidating that if Japan refuses to build a new U.S. Marine Corps base in Nago City’s Henoko district, the U.S. will not return the land currently occupied by the Futenma base, which originally was local residents’ land forcibly taken by the U.S. forces in violation of international law. The Hatoyama Cabinet is desperately looking for an alternative site to “relocate” the Futenma base. This relation is far from an “equal partnership.”
This is not the first time that the “equality” of the two nations has been questioned. The revision of the 1951 Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was initially proposed in order to erase “the Japanese feeling of inequality” (“United States Overseas Military Bases, Report to the President” by Frank C. Nash , December 1957).
Longing for same treatment as other allies
After the end of World War II, in order to use Japan as a “fortress” to block communist forces and the Soviet Union, the U.S. decided to conclude with Japan a security treaty which would enable its forces to continue to stay in Japan, in addition to a peace treaty (San Francisco Treaty) promising Japan’s “independence.” This amounted to a continuation of the U.S. occupation of Japan, going against both the Japanese Constitution banning the nation from possessing any war potential and the Potsdam Declaration which called for Japan’s disarmament and foreign military withdrawal from Japan after the establishment of democracy in the nation.
A classified memo written by Nishimura Kumao, the then head of the Foreign Ministry’s Treaties Bureau, was recently revealed. Written in June 1950 in preparation for concluding the peace treaty, it insisted that Japan should maintain the following principles in hosting U.S. bases: the number of U.S. bases in Japan is clearly designated; a deadline for Japan to host bases is set; the U.S. pays for the maintenance of its bases; and the two nations clearly specify U.S. servicemen’s privileges.
Treaties the U.S. concluded with NATO states and the Philippines limited the areas in the host countries’ territories where the U.S. could place its bases and gave them jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. military personnel. The classified memo implies Japan’s wish that it wanted to be treated in the same way as other U.S. allies.
For maintenance of bases
However, the interest of the U.S. side is to “maintain armed forces in Japan, wherever, for so long, and to such extent as it deems necessary” (“Memorandum for the President” by Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson). The U.S. government already had the intention to keep its bases in Japan indefinitely.
(To be continued)
