Japanese-American Security Agreement
Japanese-American Security Agreement
The Japanese-American security agreement, which will mark its 50th anniversary in 2010, is unique. The pact, officially embodied in the Japan-US Security Treaty signed in 1960 and further complicated by the Japanese “Peace/MacArthur” constitution has created a “bases for protection” situation between the two states. Over the years, Japan’s unusual position as a world power with strong limitations on the use of its military has stirred debate within the Japanese citizenry. Japan’s renouncement of military activity is best understood in the exact words of the controversial Article 9 of the Japanese constitution:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, 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.
(For further commentary of the status of the Japanese constitution and article nine, please view this interview of Helen Hardacre of Harvard Univeristy regarding constitutional revision.) The first long serving post-war prime minister, Shigeru Yoshida (1946-1947, 1948-1954), prioritized the restoration of Japan’s economy over military capacity and created the blueprint of a foreign policy which limited Japan's role in foreign affairs that would continue for the next several decades. The Japanese populace largely supported these policies due to the too-fresh memories of a virtual military dictatorship and a terrible war. Japan’s policy of spending only one percent of its GDP on its “self-defense force” (jieitai) contributed to the “Japanese miracle” of the post-war era by allowing the government to focus its revenues on education and infrastructure. Throughout the Cold War, the United States’ “nuclear umbrella” assured Japan of military protection in the case of nuclear attack. In return, the United States obtained military bases (with currently 47,000 troops) across Japan, with most concentrated in Okinawa, as well as Japanese financial support for the maintenance of these military bases.
However, the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a nuclear North Korea and powerful China have led many Japanese to question the stability of such an agreement. Will the United States, Japan wondered, sacrifice New York to save Osaka? This question has initiated discussions of expanding the Japanese military and pursuing nuclear armament. Such discourse has prompted the Parliament to elevate the Japanese Defense Agency to a Defense Ministry in December of 2006. The memories of a powerful Japanese military on Japan’s Asian neighbors and the Japanese populace however, make the amendment of Article 9 a difficult question. Nonetheless, the Japanese self-defense force has recently begun to participate in United Nations peace keeping operations while its coast-guard sunk a “mystery-ship” from North Korea in 2002. Obviously, Japanese military capabilities have steadily increased, leading many to promote the recognition of the self-defense force as an army and become less reliant on the US for security. Meanwhile, as the crimes committed by American soldiers began to increase and drew the attention of the media, many parts of Japan began to question the necessity for so many American troops. That many of the Okinawan bases are located in congested areas making air traffic and a plane crash a risk to hundreds of lives complicates the issue.
Most recently, the relocation of Futenma, a large military base on Okinawa, has reached the attention of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who sternly rebuked Prime Minister Hatoyama for reconsidering the agreement made after over ten years of negotiation in 2005 to relocate the base from Futenma to a more remote island off of Okinawa so soon before President Obama’s visit to Japan in November. Despite much debate within Hatoyama’s cabinet, it will ultimately be the Prime Minister who decides. The US military however, has responded negatively to the suggestions by members of the Hatoyama cabinet to consolidate several US bases. Although many Okinawans are enthusiastic about the removal of American bases, much of the Okinawan economy is dependent on the US presence while the “protection for bases” agreement of 1960 lies on Japan’s ability and willingness to provide Americans with bases.
Questions:
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution was (like the rest of the document) written by Americans during the occupation following World War II. Given this background, what do the names, “Peace” and “MacArthur” Constitution imply about the speaker’s viewpoints towards Japanese security? Are Japanese attitudes as reflected in the 1960 Security Treaty and Article 9 pacifist or merely non-interventionist?
Who benefits more from the “protection for bases” agreement? Is it an equal partnership?
Do you see Japanese involvement in UN Peace Keeping Operations (PKO) as signaling the beginning of a new attitude towards the military? In your opinion, do you think Japan will develop self-defense capabilities?
Given the Futenma agreement was made in 2005 under the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party), does Prime Minister Hatoyama, of the DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan) have the right to change agreements made by a past administration? Can you think of instances of party-change in American politics caused changes in international policy?
Useful Links:
1960 Security Treaty
Japanese constitution
Guam head nixes base plan
The Japan Times
December 11, 2009
Guam Gov. Felix Camacho has rejected the idea of relocating Okinawa's Futenma airfield to the U.S. territory, citing the island's limited capacity to host military facilities.
OP-ED: Obama's Japan Headache
By Roger Cohen
New York Times
December 10, 2009
Japan grows restive with US tutelage as misunderstandings multiply. It's time for everyone to take a deep breath.
Japan’s Relationship With U.S. Gets a Closer Look
By Martin Fackler
New York Times
December 1, 2009
A reconsideration of the alliance by Japan's new leaders is not a pulling away from the US but part of a broader effort to outgrow Japan's failed postwar order, say political experts in Japan.
Obama, In Japan, Says U.S. Will Study Status of a Marine Base on Okinawa
By Helen Cooper and Martin Fackler
New York Times
November 14, 2009
Thousands of Japanese protest U.S. base plan
By Isabel Reynolds
The Washington Post/Reuters
November 8, 2009
U.S. Senate cuts fund for marines' Guam move
By Satoshi Ogawa
Yomiuri Shimbun
November 7, 2009
U.S. "Fully Committed" to Japan as Feud Simmers
New York Times/Reuters
November 5, 2009
Editorial: Yomiuri Shimbun
November 5, 2009
U.S. commander: Kadena option not viable
By Yoichi Kato
Asahi Shimbun
October 30, 2009
