| |
 |
|
|
Background information on Article 9, the peace clause of the Japanese constitution |
Japan’s militarization and the role of the government of the United States
Under the 1960 US-Japan Security Treaty, the United States was “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.” Today, the U.S. maintains 135 military installations in Japan in 27 municipalities, occupying over 1,100 km2. The Japanese government covers all expenses except the salary of the U.S. personnel stationed there, whose number is around 40,000.
A radical and qualitative change in the U.S.-Japan relationship observed
The bilateral agreements
“U.S.–Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future” of October 2005 and the “Roadmap for Realignment Implementation” worked out at the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee in May 2006, signed by the “two-plus-two”, namely, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Machimura and Minister of State for Defense Ohno, concretized a process of redefinition of the U.S.–Japan military alliance which had already begun around the mid-1990s. The Clinton-Hashimoto joint statement in 1996 made it clear that, though the Cold War had ended, the U.S. would maintain its military presence in Asia-Pacific and that the Japanese commitment to this strategy will continue to constitute the corner stone of this security setup in Asia Pacific. The major change made under the new arrangements is that the alliance is to cover the “Arc of Instability” running from Korea to the Middle East and beyond. Contrary to the limitations of the 1960 treaty, Japan has been made a major hub for American military operations all over the world, transforming the Japanese military forces into part of the globally deployed U.S. military forces. The legality of this process is extremely dubious since the contents of the new arrangements are of a nature that should require a formal revision of the treaty through democratic procedures.
The “Transformation and Realignment” document lists a whole gamut of strengthened military cooperation ranging from Japan’s commitment to full participation in ballistic missile defense, counter-terrorism, search and destroy operations, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations, through response to attacks by weapons of mass destruction and joint use of bases and facilities in Japan with the Self Defense Forces to the U.S. use of seaport and airport facilities, roads, water spaces, airspaces, and frequency bands.
The unification of Japan’s Self Defence Forces and U.S. forces under the U.S. command
The document “U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future” emphasizes “U.S. Forces and the SDF will establish a bilateral and joint operations center at Yokota base. The shared use of this center will ensure constant connectivity, coordination, and interoperability among U.S. forces in Japan and the SDF.” Given the power relations between the U.S. and Japanese military which are to be interconnected, there is little doubt that these “joint operations” must end up as operations that are totally commanded by the United States. One of the top priority tasks assigned to Japan under this arrangement is Japanese participation in the ballistic missile defense system.
The ongoing transformation and realignment of the U.S. military presence in Asia Pacific will include another major move, namely, the proposed transfer of the global headquarters of the First Army from Washington State to the Camp Zama near Tokyo which will command global operations of U.S. Army expeditionary task forces. The SDF will also establish the headquarters of a Ground SDF Central Readiness Force Command in the Camp Zama, “thereby strengthening the coordination between the headquarters.”
All these moves are unconstitutional.
Article 9 of Japan’s Peace Constitution states, “Land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.” In the 60 years since the Constitution was promulgated, no person has been killed under the right of belligerency of the Japanese state.” The missile defense system violates Article 9, the Triple Principles of Weapon Export Ban, the principle of peaceful use of space、and the prohibition of the right of collective defense. Already in the year 2000, a report entitled “The United States and Japan: Advancing toward a more Mature Partnership,” prepared by the Pentagon’s special committee chaired by the undersecretary of Defense Richard Armitage openly urged Japan to remove its constitutional restraints on the exercise of the right to “collective defense.” The Armitage report said this restraint was a major impediment to a “mature alliance” to be shaped after the model of the Anglo-American alliance and therefore should be removed. This was tantamount to demanding that Japan remove Article 9 by revising its constitution.
Click here for page two of this backgrounder.
back |
|
|
|
|