11.12.2012 Views

Historical Dictionary of United States-Japan ... - Bakumatsu Films

Historical Dictionary of United States-Japan ... - Bakumatsu Films

Historical Dictionary of United States-Japan ... - Bakumatsu Films

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

134 • JAPAN–U.S. SECURITY TREATY, REVISION NEGOTIATIONS<br />

23 June 1960. The treaty consists <strong>of</strong> a preamble and 10 articles. In<br />

comparison with the <strong>Japan</strong>–U.S. security treaty <strong>of</strong> 1952, this revised<br />

treaty is different in four major respects. First, the new treaty<br />

does not contain a clause allowing the U.S. armed forces to suppress<br />

large-scale domestic strife and civil disorder. Second, the new<br />

treaty is good for 10 years, and “after the Treaty has been in force<br />

for ten years, either Party may give notice to the other Party <strong>of</strong> its<br />

intention to terminate the Treaty, in which case the Treaty shall terminate<br />

one year after such notice has been given.” Third, the treaty<br />

contains a specific clause that both the <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> and <strong>Japan</strong> defend<br />

<strong>Japan</strong> and U.S. armed forces stationed inside <strong>Japan</strong>ese territory:<br />

“Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either<br />

Party in the territories under the administration <strong>of</strong> <strong>Japan</strong> would be<br />

dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act<br />

to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional<br />

provisions and processes.” Fourth, the new treaty has a clause<br />

agreeing that both countries, as equal partners, consult closely:<br />

“The Parties will consult together from time to time regarding the<br />

implementation <strong>of</strong> this Treaty, and, at the request <strong>of</strong> either Party,<br />

whenever the security <strong>of</strong> <strong>Japan</strong> or international peace and security<br />

in the Far East is threatened. After the end <strong>of</strong> the Cold War, the<br />

<strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> and <strong>Japan</strong> redefined the meaning <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Japan</strong>–U.S.<br />

alliance, culminating in the <strong>Japan</strong>–U.S. Joint Declaration on<br />

Security—Alliance for the 21st Century <strong>of</strong> 17 April 1996 and the<br />

Guidelines for U.S.–<strong>Japan</strong> Defense Cooperation concluded on<br />

23 September 1997.<br />

JAPAN–U.S. SECURITY TREATY, REVISION NEGOTIATIONS.<br />

The so-called Vandenberg Resolution <strong>of</strong> June 1948 stipulates that<br />

when the <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> assumes responsibility for the military defense<br />

<strong>of</strong> another country, it must be based on that country providing for its<br />

self-defense and mutual assistance. Consequently, in the early 1950s,<br />

the <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> could not enter into a mutual defense agreement<br />

with <strong>Japan</strong> because <strong>of</strong> that country’s lack <strong>of</strong> self-defense forces. The<br />

<strong>Japan</strong>–U.S. Security Treaty <strong>of</strong> 1951 was one-sided in that U.S.<br />

forces stationed in <strong>Japan</strong> would not assume responsibility for defending<br />

<strong>Japan</strong>. This is why the <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> repeatedly demanded that<br />

<strong>Japan</strong> increase its self-defense forces after the treaty was signed. At

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!