February 19, 2012

The Japanese Communist Party calls for Japan to abolish the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, not conclude military alliances with any countries, not host military bases of any countries, and promote independent foreign policies.

However, some people raise questions like “Actions of China and North Korea are worrisome” or “Aren’t the U.S. forces necessary as deterrence?”

USF has nothing to do with Japan’s defense

The U.S. forces stationed in Japan based on the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty have nothing to do with defense of Japan. This has been confirmed many times by U.S. high officials:

In 1970 at a hearing before a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U. Alexis Johnson, undersecretary of state at that time, testified, “We have no forces, either ground or air, in Japan that are directly related to direct a conventional defense of Japan. That is entirely now a Japanese responsibility.”

In 1982 at a Senate hearing before the Committee on Appropriations, Caspar W. Weinberger, secretary of defense at that time, testified, “The Marines in Okinawa are not assigned to defend Japan.”

In fact, the U.S. forces were sent from Japan to the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghan War and the Iraq War. Instead of defending Japan, the U.S. military bases in Japan have been used as forward attack bases of the United States to wage wars of aggression and acts of military interference against other countries.

The U.S. forces in Japan are made up of units for rapid deployment, which are irrelevant to Japan’s defense.

Of the three U.S. Marine Expeditionary Forces, only the Okinawa-based Third Marine Expeditionary Force is deployed outside of the United States. Of the eleven U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft-carriers, only the Yokosuka-based aircraft-carrier George Washington is home-ported outside the United States.

The main force of the U.S. Marine Corps in Okinawa and the carrier strike forces in Yokosuka are deployed abroad for almost 6 months in a year. Their deployment to Afghanistan has now become routine. How can it be argued that they are stationed in Japan to defend Japan?

Has US military presence in Japan led to peace?

Japan for over 60 years since the end of WWII has always been under U.S. control in regard to military matters. This control has made it easy for the Japanese people to accept the “myth” that peace has been maintained because of the presence of U.S. forces in Japan.

The Philippines, based on its 1991 parliamentary decision, forced the removal of all U.S. bases. No neighboring country has attacked the Philippines due to the lack of a U.S. military presence there.

As to territorial issues in the South China Sea, China and Southeast Asian countries seek negotiated settlements through talks based on the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum (ARF).

Only 9 countries in the world host more than 1,000 U.S. military personnel, and only 4 countries (Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Italy) allow the stationing of more than 10,000 U.S. military in their countries. In Japan, between 40,000 and 50,000 U.S. servicemen are always present. It is the norm worldwide for a country not to have any U.S. military presence.

How about China?

Concern about China is used as the biggest excuse to maintain the Security Treaty. However, China is the largest holder of U.S. government bonds and the largest trade partner with Japan. Experts assert that it is not in the realm of possibility for Japan and the United States to declare war on China.

As to the Taiwan Straits issue, the only possible cause of regional conflict, defense ministry officials point out that both Taiwan and the United States want the present situation to be maintained.

On the other hand, the U.S. Obama administration is trying to secure U.S. military superiority with China in mind, based on the thinking that military and foreign affairs are inseparable. Japan’s Self-Defense forces agree with this line of thought. At the same time, China is strengthening its military preparedness. If Japan, under the fetters of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, creates unnecessary tension and promotes a vicious cycle of “military actions for military actions,” it may bring about an irreversible crisis.

What about the North Korea question?

In North Korea, the transfer to a new regime under Kim Jong Un is proceeding. The world is watching its transition. The task now is to demand that North Korea put into practice the Japan-North Korea Pyongyang Declaration confirming the comprehensive settlement of the nuclear, abduction, and missile issues, and that North Korea resume the Six-Party talks over North Korea’s nuclear development issue. In doing so, Japan should contribute to developing this consultative framework into a framework for peace and stability in Northeast Asia.

New relations with Asia

If Japan abrogates the Security Treaty and the U.S. forces leave Japan, Japan will be able to create new relationships with Asian countries and proactively contribute to world peace. If Japan criticizes China for its arms buildup or North Korea for its nuclear and missile development while remaining in the Japan-U.S. military alliance, the criticism will be powerless because it would be hypocritical to do so. If Japan abolishes the Security Treaty and establishes its neutrality, its argument calling for negotiations will be persuasive and Japan can lead the movement to create a framework to establish peace in Northeast Asia.

The abrogation of the Security Treaty does not translate to hostility to the United States. Abrogating the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty will only follow the abrogation procedure stipulated in Article 10 of the Security Treaty as agreed upon by the two governments.

The Japanese Communist Party proposes for Japan to conclude a Japan-U.S. treaty of friendship. It is high time to change the Japan-U.S. relation from one of prewar hostility and postwar subordination to one of friendship and equality.