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

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

11.12.2012 Views

JAPAN–U.S. SECURITY TREATY, REVISION NEGOTIATIONS • 135 the same time that Japan began making incremental increases to the size of its self-defense forces, Japanese Foreign Minister Aiichiro Fujiyama, who served in Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi’s government, began negotiations with Washington in October 1958 to revise the one-sided mutual defense treaty. A revised treaty was signed on 19 January 1960 and became effective on 23 June. The new treaty stipulated that in the event of the external military attack against Japan, the United States would assume responsibility for defending Japan, while in case of U.S. forces stationed in any of the territories under Japanese administration coming under attack, Japan would act in their defense. In addition, the revised treaty eliminated a clause in the initial treaty that gave the responsibility for preventing domestic warfare and civil disorder in Japan to U.S. forces. The revised treaty, which was to last 10 years, also contained these elements: an automatic renewal clause; a new clause describing economic cooperation between the two countries treaty; and a stipulation that when the United States makes an important change in the alignment of U.S. forces stationed in Japan or their equipment as a result of plans by Japan-based U.S. forces to initiate military operations, Washington would first hold prior consultation talks with Tokyo. The most controversial part of the revised treaty concerned Article Nine: “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 of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan.” Opponents of treaty revision in Japan argued that even if Japan was not directly affected by a conflict in the “Far East” and that non-interference was Japan’s best policy option, Article VI created the risk of Japan begin drawn into the conflict once Japan-based U.S. forces initiated military operations. Moreover, opponents expressed fears that by entering into a closer military relationship with the United States, Japan would lose its diplomatic independence. For these reasons, strong political resistance to treaty revision developed across Japan. Following much contentious debate, on 19 May 1960, the Liberal Democratic Party took advantage of its majority strength in the Lower House of Japan’s Diet to push through parliamentary ratification of a revised treaty. This precipitated huge demonstrations against the revised security treaty all across Japan. In accordance with Article 59 of the Japanese constitution, the revised treaty

136 • JAPAN–U.S. SEMICONDUCTOR AGREEMENT was automatically enacted on 19 June 1960 without any discussion in the Upper House, However, widespread Japanese domestic opposition to the revisions, along with anti-Kishi and anti-U.S. demonstrations, forced U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower to cancel a planned visit to Japan. In order to restore political calm, the Kishi government resigned en masse in July 1960. See also NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR BLOCKING REVISION OF JAPAN–U.S. SECURITY TREATY; SHIGEMITSU–DULLES MEETING. JAPAN–U.S. SEMICONDUCTOR AGREEMENT. In September 1986, the Japan–U.S. Semiconductor Agreement was concluded between the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) and U.S. Department of Commerce for the purpose of expanding the foreign share of semiconductor sales in the Japanese market. However, in March 1987, the United States imposed punitive tariffs on Japanese imports because officials in Washington made a determination that Japan was failing to abide by the terms of the semiconductor agreement. To resolve the dispute, Japan and the United States entered into a new round of semiconductor trade negotiations. In July 1991, a second Japan–U.S. Semiconductor Agreement was reached. Unlike the first agreement, the new agreement contained a numerical target: by the end of 1992, sales of foreign semiconductors were expected to account for 20 percent of all semiconductor sales in the Japanese market. The duration of the second agreement was five years. In spring 1993, Japan was able to verify that the foreign share of the Japanese semiconductor market was above 20 percent. In December 1994, MITI formally announced the end of semiconductor trade friction between Japan and the U.S., stating that Japan had achieved its promise of increasing market-entry opportunities for foreign semiconductor (namely, U.S.) makers and had created a domestic market environment conducive to permitting competition from foreign makers over the long term. When the second Japan–U.S. Semiconductor Agreement expired in 1996, the U.S. share of the Japanese semiconductor market was 26 percent. The United States insisted on extending the agreement in order to continue controlled trade with numerical market share targets, while Japan regarded this as no longer unnecessary. Based on the under-

136 • JAPAN–U.S. SEMICONDUCTOR AGREEMENT<br />

was automatically enacted on 19 June 1960 without any discussion in<br />

the Upper House, However, widespread <strong>Japan</strong>ese domestic opposition<br />

to the revisions, along with anti-Kishi and anti-U.S. demonstrations,<br />

forced U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower to cancel a planned visit<br />

to <strong>Japan</strong>. In order to restore political calm, the Kishi government resigned<br />

en masse in July 1960. See also NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR<br />

BLOCKING REVISION OF JAPAN–U.S. SECURITY TREATY;<br />

SHIGEMITSU–DULLES MEETING.<br />

JAPAN–U.S. SEMICONDUCTOR AGREEMENT. In September<br />

1986, the <strong>Japan</strong>–U.S. Semiconductor Agreement was concluded between<br />

the Ministry <strong>of</strong> International Trade and Industry (MITI) and<br />

U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> Commerce for the purpose <strong>of</strong> expanding the foreign<br />

share <strong>of</strong> semiconductor sales in the <strong>Japan</strong>ese market. However,<br />

in March 1987, the <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> imposed punitive tariffs on <strong>Japan</strong>ese<br />

imports because <strong>of</strong>ficials in Washington made a determination<br />

that <strong>Japan</strong> was failing to abide by the terms <strong>of</strong> the semiconductor<br />

agreement.<br />

To resolve the dispute, <strong>Japan</strong> and the <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> entered into a<br />

new round <strong>of</strong> semiconductor trade negotiations. In July 1991, a second<br />

<strong>Japan</strong>–U.S. Semiconductor Agreement was reached. Unlike the<br />

first agreement, the new agreement contained a numerical target: by<br />

the end <strong>of</strong> 1992, sales <strong>of</strong> foreign semiconductors were expected to account<br />

for 20 percent <strong>of</strong> all semiconductor sales in the <strong>Japan</strong>ese market.<br />

The duration <strong>of</strong> the second agreement was five years. In spring<br />

1993, <strong>Japan</strong> was able to verify that the foreign share <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Japan</strong>ese<br />

semiconductor market was above 20 percent. In December 1994,<br />

MITI formally announced the end <strong>of</strong> semiconductor trade friction between<br />

<strong>Japan</strong> and the U.S., stating that <strong>Japan</strong> had achieved its promise<br />

<strong>of</strong> increasing market-entry opportunities for foreign semiconductor<br />

(namely, U.S.) makers and had created a domestic market<br />

environment conducive to permitting competition from foreign makers<br />

over the long term.<br />

When the second <strong>Japan</strong>–U.S. Semiconductor Agreement expired in<br />

1996, the U.S. share <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Japan</strong>ese semiconductor market was 26 percent.<br />

The <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> insisted on extending the agreement in order to<br />

continue controlled trade with numerical market share targets, while<br />

<strong>Japan</strong> regarded this as no longer unnecessary. Based on the under-

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!