Dear Congress delegates, consultative delegates and comrades throughout the country,

I am making this report to the Congress on behalf of the Central Committee.

In the roughly two months following publication of the draft Congress Resolution in late July, party organizations throughout the country have earnestly discussed it. There have also been great repercussions to the draft Resolution outside the party.

"This is not how politics should be." There were very favorable reactions from various quarters to this statement in the draft Resolution. Also, there was great support expressed for our proposals in relation to "what kind of Japan we are aiming for."

The draft Resolution explains from a political, economic and social point of view that the contradictions between the people's interests and Liberal Democratic Party politics are reaching their limit, and in less than the past two months, this feature of the situation has become clearer than ever, which you may also keenly feel in your daily activity.

I

Oppose the Substantial Adverse Change to

the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty

As regards the current situation, first, let me touch on the question of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, particularly the review of the "Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation."

From the Japanese People's Historical Experience

In dealing with the question of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, we should remember that the Japanese people have had two crucial historical experiences. One was in 1951, when Japan was still under total U.S. occupation; the initial Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was imposed by the power of the occupation forces in an autocratic way. The other was in 1960, when the Japanese and U.S. governments advanced the proposal that the Security Treaty should be changed to include provision for combined Japan-U.S. military operations; this was opposed by the people with a nationwide struggle, which developed to the highest point ever in history and shook the Japanese archipelago. But in an outrageous way, which undermined democracy, ratification of the revised treaty was railroaded through the Diet. This was a bitter experience.

Now the "Guidelines" review.

The ongoing review of the "Guidelines" constitutes a move to make bigger substantial adverse changes to the Security Treaty than the 1960 treaty revision; the danger is that Japan in the 21st century will be bogged down in an almost irrevocable crisis situation in terms of war and peace. "Guidelines" review is a technical term which we must not be deceived by as just representing minor change; we have to expose the dangerous plans of the Japanese and U.S. governments being pursued behind this technical term, and seriously think about Japan's course for the 21st century. And I want to make the point that this is very important for the future of Japan and the Japanese people.

How Is the Japan-U.S. Military Alliance Going to Be Changed? It Is Important to Know This

It is all the more important to understand how the LDP government wants to use the "Guidelines" review to change the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, the military alliance with the United States.

The biggest reason for the existence of the Japan-U.S. military alliance was that it was for the so-called "defense of Japan," with the "Soviet threat" argument used as the pretext. If this was correct, then now that the Soviet Union is no more, the review should be about disbanding the military alliance. Given the logic of the government and the Liberal Democratic Party, this should be a matter of course. After the Soviet Union's demise, however, the United States became the only superpower in the world and in this situation the United States is trying to force the whole world to accept its views and accord to its interests on every possible issue. In this way the imperialist and hegemonic global strategy of the United States is ever being more revealed. This is what we call "the world's gendarme" strategy; if something happens which they do not like, they will resort to military intervention anywhere on the planet.

Japan's LDP government subjects itself to this, and it has now gone as far as abandoning the ostensible aim of "defending Japan" in order to turn the Japan-U.S. military alliance into an alliance for intervening militarily in the Asia-Pacific region. This constitutes a fundamental change, and is the core of the "Guidelines" review. The "Guidelines" review literally represents a major adverse change which is much more serious than the 1960 revision of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty against which there was struggle all over Japan.

Let's take a look at the changes they are proposing to make.

First: To Take Part in Illegal Operations of Intervention Led by the United States

First, dealing with "emergencies in areas surrounding Japan" is the biggest question at issue in the review. This is not about dealing with "emergencies" in Japan, such as incursions into Japan by foreign powers and other threats; it is about joint Japan-U.S. operations to deal with "emergencies" outside Japan.

The use of force by a country is allowed under the United Nations Charter only when there has been a direct external attack on such a country. If something happens somewhere in the world, which you do not like and you interpret it as "an emergency," and take unilateral military action, this would be an illegal act contrary to the UN Charter.

What "emergencies" have there been for the United States? The war of aggression against Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, the invasion of Grenada in 1983, the invasion of Panama in 1989 which were added to by the unilateral attack on Iraq in September 1996 in the wake of the Gulf War. None of these were endorsed by the international community. On Grenada and Panama, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolutions which condemned the United States' use of force as unlawful aggression and intervention. To this day the U.S. government and military have made no self-criticism about their actions. On the war of aggression against Vietnam, in particular, they say outright in official documents that it was part of glorious U.S. history which U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region should carry forward in the future.

This is not just a question of assessing the past. This is to say that there will be further illegal acts of the same kind in the future whenever something happens they do not like, and this is the official policy of the U.S. government and military. If Japan takes part in such illegal actions, it will transgress international law by supporting such hegemonic actions of the United States. The meaning is so clear.

Second: What Japan Is Going to Undertake Represents a Commitment for War--A Setup for Japan's Automatic Involvement in War

The second question: What will Japan do when it participates in U.S. military action? Various plans are being proposed on the tasks which Japan should undertake, with arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution that some of such acts are possible. Whether they concern minesweeping by sending in minesweepers, the provision of supplies to U.S. forces in action, and the use of Japanese sea and air ports for U.S. forces, they all amount to war action, meaning that Japan will become a belligerent nation.

Moreover, even in times of peace, Japan will have to be well prepared to invoke at any time the war participation program under the new "Guidelines." Therefore, this program will be automatically invoked whenever "an emergency" occurs. As for who has the right to decide the launching of armed intervention, this is the United States, as the Japanese government has openly admitted in the Diet. Neither public opinion nor the Diet, which is the highest organ of state power, will be given any chance to take part in any such decision-making process. This is literally a setup for Japan's automatic involvement in war. There is no such mechanism for any other U.S. allies, including the NATO members in Europe.

Third: "Areas Surrounding Japan" Means Anywhere in the Asia-Pacific Region

Thirdly, what is the definition of "areas surrounding Japan"? The government have still not answered this question. This really is the crafty part of the problem. To begin with, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty has no provision for "surrounding areas." The idea for such a provision was suddenly raised because the "Far East" range stipulated in the current Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is regarded as not sufficient; the purpose is to remove the "Far East" limit and to extend the range of the Japan-U.S. military alliance to cover the whole of the Asia-Pacific region. This is their true intention.

The "areas surrounding Japan" even include the Persian Gulf region, which is virtually covered by the U.S. Forces in Japan. According to the Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper two months ago, Richard Armitage, former assistant secretary of defense, said, "If the agreements (the "Guidelines") had been in place during the Gulf War, some of the agreements would have had to be carried out." (Nihon Keizai Shimbun, July 20, 1997) He implied that if the agreements had been ready, then Japan would have been compelled to participate in the war.

The government talks as if the "Guidelines" review is for preparing for "emergencies on the Korean Peninsula." They are using this as the means for imposing on Japan a dangerous mechanism covering the whole Asia-Pacific region. The idea is that if a dangerous situation develops on the Korean Peninsula, very close to Japan, this is sufficient reason in the name of safeguarding Japan, to impose on the Japanese people the U.S. policy of intervention and Japan's military participation. Behind this expedient there is such a calculation.

On this question, an important statement by Japan's representatives in the negotiations has been reported by the media. According to reports, in spite of much talk about Korea, they do not have in mind any situation like this, which means that they do not foresee any attack on the South (by the North). They also say, "Possible emergencies in Korea are not described in terms of magnitude, but because they can basically be used to cover all aspects of defense cooperation between Japan and the United States." (Asahi Shimbun, August 15, 1997) Emergencies in Korea are regarded as the expedient scenario for drawing up comprehensive aspects of support for the United States. How outspoken they are.

No Country in the World Has the Right of Armed Intervention in the Taiwan Strait

Whether "emergencies in areas surrounding Japan" include the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan or not has become a serious international question. To deal with this question, the government and the LDP have invented, after many contradictory statements, the explanation that "'areas surrounding Japan' is not a specific geographical definition." But such an excuse won't work.

To say that the statement does not cover a specific geographical area means to say that it has no geographical limits. It therefore follows that any area can be covered by Japan-U.S. joint operations, if the United States unilaterally designates a situation as an "emergency." There are no limits to this.

On the connection between the Taiwan question and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, U.S. intentions were expressed during the "Taiwan crisis" last year.

For example, James Auer, the former U.S. special assistant for Japan in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, made a serious statement. When the U.S. aircraft carrier Independence left Yokosuka for the Taiwan Strait, he said that the only regrettable thing was that Japan did not cooperate with the United States for stability in the region by sending one or two Maritime Self-Defense Force escort ships to operate with the U.S. aircraft carrier Independence. (Sankei Shimbun, April 8, 1996) This was said to mean that it is desirable and natural that Japan as an ally must send its ships in such a case. Such is the thinking of the U.S. government and U.S. military.

Although Japan did not send any escort ships, Japan's Air Self-Defense Force and its Maritime Self-Defense Force were on immediate alert on the pretext of "strengthening the system for intelligence gathering." A statement on this was made in the Diet at the time by the Defense Agency. Even in relation to the Taiwan question, military action based on the review of the "Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation" is already under way as an accomplished fact.

So long as Japan supports the "one China" policy, the inescapable conclusion is that the question of Taiwan is an internal Chinese question. To attempt armed intervention in the area, in any circumstances, would amount to putting Japan in a position of making a frontal challenge to world peace which is based on national sovereignty and independence, by assuming an outlaw role in the world.

If something happened in Asia and the Pacific region which the United States disliked, they would undertake armed intervention in the name of dealing with an "emergency." This would be a brazen expression of hegemonic intervention.

To say that the Taiwan question is a Chinese internal question does not mean that China can do whatever it likes. The outbreak of war on the question would have a serious negative effect on peace in Asia and the world. Unification by peaceful means and respect for the will of the people who live in Taiwan must be the principled approach to this question. It stands to reason that countries should make all possible diplomatic and political efforts so that the Taiwan question can be settled based on such principles. No country in the world is empowered with the right to make the Taiwan situation a reason for it undertaking military intervention. The Japanese government must make this clear.

Fourth: The Ongoing Review Is Just the First Step, and an Actual Combat Posture Is Being Assumed in Advance

The fourth important point to note is that, for the time being, the Japanese and U.S. governments are regarding the ongoing "Guidelines" review as the first step, and based on this breakthrough, are planning to further proceed to develop and strengthen the system for Japan's automatic involvement in war. Therefore, if the review results in some limited proposals, these are only the first step, and will be followed without fail by second and third steps, according to their schedule.

Asked by a magazine why such a serious question has not been put to the Diet, a government official said, "It doesn't fit into Diet approval, because it has to be under constant review to meet the changing situation." If the Diet endorses something definite as the first step, it is not easy to get it changed. For it to go further, keep it away from Diet approval; this is what they say.

What is actually taking place is always ahead of the actual text of the "Guidelines" under review. In fact, the process of assuming an actual combat posture has been steadily under way even though formal work on the "Guidelines" review is still proceeding. Some examples of this surprise the people day after day: The sending of SDF aircraft to Cambodia, aimed at accruing achievements in this sphere, calls by U.S. war ships into Japanese civil ports, including the call by the USS Independence into Otaru Port, and the call today into Kagoshima Port by the amphibious assault ship Belleau Wood, and the call yesterday by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Nimitz into the Yokosuka military port. These amount to de facto advance effectuation of the "Guidelines." U.S. forces are now routinely using Japan's civil airports. The transportation by SDF aircraft of U.S. forces has been increasing and Japan-U.S. combined exercises are being further enlarged. The JCP Dietmembers Group recently revealed that the U.S. forces have made a detailed survey of Japan's civil sea and air ports throughout the country.

This shows the government's intention to set up an "emergency" system for the general mobilization of not only the SDF but civilians as well. Large-scale actual preparations have already begun.

LDP Politics Neither Has the Intention to Recover Japan's Sovereignty Nor Reflects on Militarism

As is clear from the four points I have just mentioned, the core of the question is U.S. hegemonic strategy. This strategy assumes Japan to be a faithful U.S. ally who will take part in U.S. armed intervention, whenever the United States undertakes armed intervention anywhere in Asia and the Pacific region, and consolidates the system of Japan automatically taking part in U.S. war. This is the aim of the "Guidelines" review.

This will mean major adverse revision of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which will completely trample on Article 9 of Japan's Constitution which prohibits Japan from possessing war potential and using or threatening the use of force as the means of settling international disputes. It is reasonable for the Asian and the Pacific countries to see this as a new threat and to raise loud voices of alarm against it.

Basically, under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, Japan's position is one of extraordinary subservience without parallel in the world.

The whole of Okinawa Prefecture is actually a military base for U.S. forces. Tokyo and the Metropolitan area has the second biggest concentration of U.S. military bases, next to Okinawa. The two strike forces, U.S. Marines and a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group, whose major mission is to launch expeditions abroad, are being supplied with permanent bases, and the U.S. forces have virtual freedom of action. To support this U.S. military base setup, Japan bears all the financial costs of constructing facilities on these bases, and in addition pays the huge "considerate budget" for the U.S. forces, 279.8 billion yen this year and a total of 2.6791 trillion yen over past years, which Japan is not obliged to pay under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. All these are without parallel in the world.

I referred earlier to the series of U.S. illegal actions of aggression which were not approved by the international community. But the Japanese government has always unconditionally supported all the U.S. unlawful military interventions. The rest of the world has reacted with surprise at and contempt for Japan's attitude as something not worthy of a sovereign state.

In addition to this position of subordination, an arrangement for Japan to automatically take part in U.S. armed interventions is about to be set up.

We cannot but say that LDP politics completely lacks the will to recover Japan's national sovereignty.

The LDP also lacks any criticism of U.S. interventions and is not in the least self-critical about Japan's militarist past.

On this background, a Dietmembers League calling for setting up a Diet committee for discussing the Constitution question has been formed. This is serious because underlying this is an attempt to get adverse revision of the Constitution's text put on the agenda.

Comrades, isn't it clear that on the most serious national question of war and peace LDP politics must not be left unconstrained up to and into the 21st century?

The JCP 21st Congress draft Resolution clearly shows the course for Japan to take in the 21st century--a course of independence, sovereignty and non-aligned neutrality.

It is now clear where the LDP course for maintaining the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and of subordination to the United States will lead Japan and its people. Let us lead the people in a struggle to foil such moves and decisively increase our efforts to get a majority of the people to back and support this new course for Japan.

HOME:www.jcp.or.jp/english The Central Committee of the Japanese Communist Party 4-26-7 Sendagaya,Shibuya-ku,Tokyo 151-8586 E-mail:info@jcp.or.jp © .JCP