English.news.cn
2010-01-19 12:33:06
by Richard Smart
TOKYO, Jan. 19 (Xinhua) -- On Jan. 19, 1960, the United States and Japan signed an agreement to firm up an alliance that has lasted half a century. The treaty, however, did more than this: over the course of the next 50 years, it was to lead to a number of complex negotiations between the two nations, be the source of much political wrangling and lead to the birth of the Japanese radical movement of the 1960s and the 1970s.
The treaty was signed just 13 years after the Japanese constitution was agreed upon by the government of Japan and the allied occupation forces led by General Douglas MacArthur at a time when many politicians in the Asian nation were questioning some of the articles.
The alliance has survived for half a century, however, despite controversies along the way, and on Tuesday, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama reaffirmed Japan's commitment to working with Washington.
"The U.S. military presence based on the Japanese-U.S. security treaty, I think, will continue to serve the public good by giving a great sense of security to the countries in the region," the prime minister said, calling the alliance "indispensable."
He added that he hoped to see ties between the nations deepen in the years to come.
MISTAKES MADE?
In the five years before the treaty was signed in 1960, a new alliance had been formed at the top of Japanese politics -- the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) -- a loose alliance of politicians from the center and right whose main purposes were to keep the socialists from power and to reassess the constitution.
In its initial years, the party hoped for a future in which there would no longer be foreign forces in Japan, and Article 9 of the constitution, which states "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," would be reformed. And Japan promised that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."
The first LDP Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama, the grandfather of the current prime minister, was a strong supporter of bringing about the revisions. Hatoyama was soon replaced by Nobosuke Kishi, however, who sought a compromise with the United States. The problem, as he saw it, was that while Japan was not allowed armed forces, it had no commitments of protection from its ally across the Atlantic.
After negotiations, Kishi signed with the United States a deal that stated, "The Parties, individually and in cooperation with each other, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop, subject to their constitutional provisions, their capacities to resist armed attack, " and also allowed the U.S. troops to stay on Japanese soil.
ANGER
Many in Japan, however, did not support the signing of the new pact. Nasashi Ishibashi, a prominent socialist of the time called the treaty a mechanism that made Japanese troops "a front line ... for American strategy."
His opinion was shared by many in Japan, and through 1960 there were protests throughout the nation. Notably, in June, a visit by President Dwight D. Eisenhower was canceled as Japanese action continued. Later in the month Kishi was forced from office amid amounting anger on the streets.
Kishi's downfall was seen by Sophia University professor William A. Laney as due to a "lack of solidarity and support" from within and outside his party in a 1967 article on the protests. After his resignation, however, the protesters were to build movements based upon their opposition to the U.S. treaty.
As the United States entered Vietnam, a movement was born that combined opposition to the U.S. troops based in Japan with anger directed at LDP policies. "In the following years, protests grew louder and angrier, as (U.S.) military campaigns escalated," according to notes of Evan Serpick in a 2007 Rolling Stone article.
MOVING FORWARD
Over the course of the 1970s, the protest movements waned and the alliance was strengthened as Japan enjoyed its economic " miracle."
The decline of the USSR in the early 1990s and Gulf War in 1991, however, saw the United States ask for more of its Asian ally. Japan, however, was reluctant to offer any forces to contribute to the effort against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and instead offered 13 billion U.S. dollars in aid for the war effort, in a move that led to accusations of "checkbook diplomacy."
As the 1990s passed, Japanese opposition to U.S. troops grew, in particular after marines based in the southern prefecture of Okinawa kidnapped and raped a 12-year-old girl. From that time, opposition to the U.S.-Japan military alliance has persisted in Japan.
TODAY
The advent of a new century and the war on terrorism led by the United States brought about a decade in which Japan was to commit its first troops overseas since World War II, to contribute to U.S. -led efforts in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, after the government of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi pushed through laws permitting this amid opposition.
In 2009, however, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) was elected in a landslide promising to withdraw from a mission in the Indian Ocean and reassess U.S. Japan relations. Over the past few months, a debate over a treaty that will allow U.S. troops to remain in Okinawa over the coming years has exacerbated tension between the allies.
The tension, however, is nothing new and has been as much a feature of the alliance as cooperation. While debates may endure, it is likely the alliance will continue for years to come.
Editor: Han Jingjing
Posts
