Japan boosts its role as part of US war machine
By Eva Cheng
Despite widespread protest, the upper house of Japan's parliament rushed through on May 24 three bills to greatly increase the country's role in the United States' war machine.
Japan will now be obliged to provide "non-frontline" services and support to US war action anywhere in the world. Until now, Japan has had to be directly or indirectly under attack before its armed forces, the Self-Defence Forces, could take part in such actions. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and New Komeito had to pool their numbers in parliament to pass the war bills.
In the context of the US-led NATO bombardment of Serbia and Washington's escalating warmongering against China and North Korea, the passage of the bills has greatly increased the military tension in east Asia. Korea, Taiwan, the Senkuku (to the Japanese)/Diaoyu (to the Chinese) Islands and the Spratly Islands top the list of potential flashpoints. Beijing has a high stake in the last three disputes and is a key ally of North Korea.
Washington sought to sneak in the military collaboration under the cover of merely obtaining Japan's "rear area support" for US military actions in "areas surrounding Japan". The change was concealed as an amendment to harmless-looking 1978 "guidelines" tagged on to the 1951 US-Japan military treaty.
Tokyo and Washington announced their planned amendments in 1996, but the changes were couched in extremely vague terms. Not much clarity was gained from the September 1997 publication of the written proposal because officials refused to clarify queries.
Even when enabling legislation essential to the implementation of the guidelines was debated in the Japanese parliament, bureaucrats tried to give evasive answers. To the crucial question of the bills' geographical coverage, foreign minister Masahiko Komura declared: "You can't expect me to specify [the regions] one by one". Later, officials admitted that the meaning of "surrounding areas" is not geographical.
The bureaucrats also tried to sell the idea that the essential military services that were asked of Japan were qualitatively different from frontline war actions. Such a distinction is hardly material to a war enemy.
Details are still short, but according to the February 27 Economist, "backup logistical support" can include highly inflammatory activities such as helping to move US ammunition outside a combat zone, search and rescue, and the inspection of foreign ships suspected of aiding an enemy. (The last point was separated from the main bills for later scrutiny to ensure the former's quick passage.)
Japanese Communist Party MPs also reported that Japanese officials were prepared to allow the US forces to use 11 airports (including Tokyo's main international airport at Narita), 11 ports (including the key Nagoya Port), civil trucks and trailers, as well as Japan's hospitals and related medical institutions. But to what extent Japan must provide such services, even at the expense of civilian needs, remains unclear.
Also unclear is how Japan can reconcile these new obligations with its post-war Constitution which bars it from engaging in any war actions. Japan set up armed forces in 1954 under the pretext that they were for self-defence, but the new obligations would stretch the self-defence argument too thin.
This contradiction may open the way for new mobilisations against the US-Japan war partnership. Since mid-April, protests and other public gatherings opposing the bills have taken place in various parts of Japan. The bigger events included the April 16 rallies of 2800 workers and others in Tokyo and 1800 trade unionists in Hiroshima, a May 7 rally of 6500 women in Tokyo and a May 12 rally and march of 2500 in Yokohama. No less than 207 local governments in Japan have passed resolutions denouncing or expressing their concern about the war bills.