The bounds of the security treaty

在日米軍再編と
日米安保条約

The government is coordinating views with Washington. Internal reviews are under way, including discussions among Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda, Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura and Defense Agency chief Yoshinori Ono.

One realignment plan calls for moving the U.S. Army's 1st Corps headquarters in the state of Washington to Camp Zama in Kanagawa Prefecture. The United States is said to be giving top priority to this plan as an integral part of relocating 5th Air Force headquarters at Yokota Air Base in Tokyo to 13th Air Force headquarters in Guam.

U.S. officials reportedly say relocation of both headquarters is vital to the global redeployment strategy, particularly with regard to a wide, volatile region that stretches from Northeast Asia to the Middle East. The chief concern is that U.S. bases in Japan might come to play a pivotal role in global U.S. military operations — a role that could go well beyond treaty provisions.

Article 6 of the pact states: "For the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan." The government defines the Far East as Japan and surrounding waters, South Korea and Taiwan. According to this definition, moving 1st Corps headquarters to Camp Zama would be outside the purview of the treaty.

Foreign Minister Machimura maintains that the realignment issue should be discussed from a broader perspective that takes into account new security threats, such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The scope of discussion will be limited, he says, if the debate is premised entirely on the security treaty, particularly the Far East clause.

Past events seem to suggest that the security treaty, especially the Far East clause, is out of touch with reality. In 1996, Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto and President Bill Clinton signed a joint security declaration redefining the role of the bilateral alliance as contributing to peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region. The deployment of about 3,000 Marines in Okinawa to the Middle East in connection with the Iraq situation has effectively expanded the scope of the treaty.

It does not follow, however, that the treaty's stated aims should be altered implicitly in keeping with U.S. military transformation. The Japan-U.S. alliance is important, but this is not the same thing as saying that Japan should accept U.S. requests in toto. Considering the mistakes or misjudgments often made by U.S. policy-makers — most recently in Iraq — the government should not lose sight of the Japanese perspective in dealing with the U.S. realignment strategy.

Easing the excessive burden of military bases in Okinawa is an urgent necessity. It is open to question, though, whether Japan should agree to a strengthening of U.S. command functions here in return for a reduction of Okinawan bases. In the long run, upgrading the role of U.S. forces in Japan seems unlikely to lead to the reduction of U.S. bases here.

The security alliance will change qualitatively if Japan tightens its ties to the U.S. military strategy through the "flexible interpretation" or "redefinition" of the security treaty. This should not be allowed to happen. The question for Japan is what and how it should act to deal with new security threats, and thereby promote regional and global peace in accordance with the pacifist principles of the Constitution.

The Japan Times Weekly
Oct. 30, 2004
(C) All rights reserved

      米側は在外米軍再編計画のもと、ワシントン州の陸軍第1軍団司令部を神奈川県のキャンプ座間へ移転することを提案した。

      在外米軍再編は、北東アジアから中東にいたる広範な地域に戦力を展開することを目指している。

      日米安保条約の第6条は「日本の安全と極東の平和と安全の維持に寄与するため、米陸空海軍は日本国内の施設と区域の使用を許される」と規定している。

      政府は極東を「日本と、韓国、台湾を含む周辺地域」と定めている。従って（中東・北アフリカまでをも指揮・統制下に置く）司令部をキャンプ座間に移転させることは安保条約に抵触することになる。

      町村外相は、在日米軍再編問題はテロ、大量破壊兵器の脅威などを含む広い視野から検討されねばならないという。

      安保条約の「極東条項」は現実から遊離しているようだ。96年、当時の橋本首相とクリントン米大統領は日米同盟の目的をアジア太平洋地域の平和と安全保障に寄与することとする共同安保宣言に調印した。イラク情勢に対応するために行われた在沖縄3000人の米海兵隊の中東への展開は事実上、安保条約の適用範囲を拡大したものだ。

      しかし、米軍再編に伴い条約の目的を当然変更すべきだとは言えない。日米同盟は重要だが、日本は米国の要求を全部呑む必要はない。

      沖縄の米軍基地負担の軽減は緊急の課題だが、その代償として米軍司令部機能強化に同意すべきがどうかは疑問である。

      日本は安保条約の「柔軟な解釈」を通じ米軍事戦略との関係を安易に強化すべきではない。問題は新たな脅威にいかに対処し、平和憲法の下で地域と世界の平和を推進するかである。その目的のため、安保政策についての議論を深めるべきである。