United States: Strategic Bases in the Far East

From END Info 38 (From the archives…)

First published in tricontinental 39, Year IV, June, 1969.

On February 7, 1965, U.S. imperialism began bombing North Viet-Nam thus systematically intensifying its war of aggression in Viet-Nam. Shortly before that, on January 27, Rear Admiral Collins of the U.S. Marine Division stationed on Okinawa, in an interview with Mr. Williams, A.P. news reporter, stated:

“The war in South Viet-Nam must be ended some time. Part of the landing forces of the Marines are always in service on the sea and can be deployed in South Viet-Nam quickly; and even the whole of the 3rd Marine Division could be sent in five days if so ordered.

lf the Marines were to be sent there, they would engage in operations in the Delta zone to the south of Saigon, Saigon city, the cities of Danang and Hue in the northern province.”

(The Ryukyu Shimpo, January 28, 1965).

At the very time the “bombing of the North” was started, the Marine Corps and the Missile Hawk Battalion were sent to Danang. From that time Okinawa has been turned more and more into an advance base for the U.S. war of aggression in Viet-Nam.

Illustrating how the U.S. bases in Okinawa have been used for the war of aggression in Viet-Nam, the then High Commissioner Watson, one year after the beginning of the “bombing of the North” said:

“The U.S.A. has an interest of grave concern in Okinawa. Okinawa is still a base for the defense [read “aggression”] of Southeast Asia, as well as a key military base for the war in Viet-Nam. The military bases in Okinawa are very important for the defense of the U.S.A., Japan and other allied countries of the West Pacific. This was shown in the quick release of troops and munitions from Okinawa to Viet-Nam.”

(Testimony at the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, March 23, 1966).

Then what importance does the U.S.A. attach and what evaluation does it give to Okinawa in its Far East strategy, including the war of aggression in Viet-Nam? U.S. Army Deputy Under Secretary Holt pointed out the strategic position of Okinawa as follows: “Okinawa is situated in the center of an arc beginning from Japan, Korea in the north, to Southeast Asia through Taiwan.”

In order to make use of this strategic position for its aggression in Asia, what did the U.S.A. do with Okinawa as the keystone? In order to answer this, we must look at the series of military pacts which the U.S.A. has set up.

At the Stockholm Tribunal (May, 1967) and the Copenhagen Tribunal (November, 1967) initiated by Lord Bertrand Russell and participated in by conscientious thinkers and scientists from all over the world, the crimes committed in the war in Viet-Nam by U.S. imperialism were completely laid bare, and at the same time, the crimes of the Japanese Government as an accessory were exposed to the light of day.

A series of military pacts which the U.S.A. has concluded (and which the U.S.A. has forced Japan to join) constitute the military and political tie-up in the U.S. Far East strategy. In these pacts Okinawa is regarded as the keystone.

Following is the list of military pacts in order of signing and effectuation.

1. San Francisco “Peace” Treaty and Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Signed Sept. 8, 1961. Effectuation Apr. 28, 1952

2. Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S.A. and the Republic of the Philippines. Signed Aug. 30, 1951. Effectuation Aug. 27, 1952

3. Peace Treaty between Japan and the “Republic of China” (Taiwan). Signed Apr. 28, 1952. Effectuation Aug. 5, 1952

4. Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S.A. and the “Republic of Korea”. Signed Oct. 1, 1953. Effectuation Nov. 17, 1954

5. Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S.A. and the “Republic of China” (Taiwan). Signed Dec. 2, 1954. Effectuation Mar. 3, 1955.

6. Japan – “R.O.K.” Treaty. Ratified on Nov. 12, 1965 in the House of Representatives of the Japanese Diet. Ratified on Doc. 11, 1965 in the House of Councilors of the Japanese Diet.

As stated, the U.S.A., through Article 3 of the San Francisco “Peace” Treaty, acquired “the right to exercise all and any power of administration, legislation and jurisdiction,” which means the right to occupy Okinawa and to establish U.S. military bases there. And through the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty which was concluded and effectuated at the same time, the U.S.A. has acquired the right to establish U.S. military bases and station U.S. Armed Forces in mainland Japan.

An investigation team of the. U.S. House Committee on Armed Service (led by Melvin Price) studying the problem of the military use of land in Okinawa, summarized in the form of “Price Recommendation” the results of its investigation (June 13, 1956) in which it was bluntly said:

“We stay in Okinawa because Okinawa forms an inseparable part of our defense [read “aggression”] on a global scale. The fact that U.S.A. maintains bases in Japan and the Philippines as in other parts of the world depends upon the continuous existence of our friendly governments.

On the Ryukyu Islands, in accordance with our national policy of course, we can make a plan for long-term use of our advanced military bases in a chain of islands the Parties (U.S.A.) as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the other (South Korea)”

[This] means the territory which the U.S.A. considers to be placed under the administrative control of the “Republic of Korea.” When viewed from all angles, such territory can mean nothing but the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Accordingly, this Treaty as concluded with the view to attacking that part of Korea north of the 38th parallel, using Okinawa as the keystone.

Defense Deputy Undersecretary Bundy testified as follows, based upon the experience of this Treaty which was partially invoked.

“The value of Okinawa bases was fully proved during the Korean War and at the time of crises around the Taiwan Straits which have often been repeated.”

(May 9-10; 1962, Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services).

APPLICATION SPHERE OF U.S. TAIWAN TREATY

“For the purpose of Article II and V, the terms ‘territorial’ and ‘territories’ shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores; and in respect of the United States of America, the island territories in the West Pacific under its jurisdiction.”

(Article 6, Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of China).

Clearly, Okinawa is included. What cannot be over­looked are provisions which appear next to this.

“The provisions of Article II and V will be applicable to such other territories as may be determined by mutual agreement.”

What is meant by “mutual agreement”? On December 10, 1954, a week after the Treaty was signed, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles of the U.S.A. and Foreign Minister Yeh Kung Chao of the “Republic of China” exchanged the following letters:

“The Republic of China shall have inherent right for defense over all territories which are and shall be placed under her control at present and in the future.”

The “territories ... which may hereafter be under the control of its Government” can only mean the People’s Republic of China, judging from the fact that Chiang Kai-shek is using the slogan of “counter­offensive against the Continent.” And the Treaty stipulates that Chiang Kai-shek invokes the right of defense against the People’s Republic of China, this “right of defense” is nothing but a synonym for “aggression” through U.S.-Chiang Kai-shek joint operation.

APPLICATION SPHERE OF JAPAN-TAIWAN TREATY

This is not a treaty which was directly concluded by the U.S.A. As can be judged from the date of its signing and effectuation, this is a Treaty which was urged by the U.S.A. to be hurriedly concluded between th, Governments of Japan and the Chiang Kai-shek clique on the very day when the San Francisco “Peace” Treaty and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty came into force.

Already in this Treaty, the role of accomplice which is now being played by the Sato Government of Japan in the U.S. war in Viet-Nam, has appeared in a most plainspoken form. An exchange of notes from the Chiang Kai-shek Minister to the Government of Japan on the same day as its signing laid bare its aggressive character as follows:

“In regard to the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China (Taiwan) signed this day I have the honor to refer, on behalf of my Government to the understanding reached between us that the terms of the present Treaty shall, in respect of the Republic of China (Taiwan), be applicable to all the territories which are now, or which may hereafter be, under the control of its Government.”

“All the territories which are now, or which may hereafter be under the control of its Government” (The “Republic of China”) can mean nothing but the Continent of China or the People’s Republic of China as also indicated in the U.S.-Taiwan Treaty.

This Japan-Taiwan Treaty is a military pact by which the Government of Japan, which is obliged to strengthen the Self-Defense Forces of Japan in accordance with the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, is also bound to launch U.S.-Japan-Taiwan joint operations in the future for armed intervention against the People’s Republic of China.

APPLICATION SPHERE OF JAPAN-R.O.K. TREATY

The series of military pacts which the U.S.A. has concluded (in this case has forced Japan to conclude) are completed with this Treaty. That is because the circle of military pacts which have been separately concluded, in which Okinawa is a military keystone, is completed with this Japan Treaty. It is in this sense that, as has often been said, the Japan-South Korea Treaty has in fact established NEATO (North East Asia Treaty Organization).

No sooner had the Japan-South Korea Treaty been concluded than the Government of Japan established its Consulate in South Korea, and dispatched a military attaché of the Self-Defense Forces. It is by now clear enough that these constitute the Armed Forces of Japan.

It is well-known that the Government of Japan, on the eve of Japanese imperialist aggression against China which developed into the Pacific War, had dispatched armed forces on the pretext of the protection of Japanese residents. And different from the pre-war situation, South Korea has been turned into a massive military base of U.S. Armed Forces. Accordingly, by the conclusion of this Japan-South Korea joint operation by which the Self-Defense forces of Japan can be sent to South Korea for an attack on that part that lies north of the 38th parallel.

The time when the ratification of this Treaty was forces through by the Government of Japan by emergency measures including introducing police forces into the Diet building, was from November to December 1965, at the same time as the U.S.A. had stepped up its war of aggression in Viet-Nam.

Taken together, these facts show that U.S. imperialism has hurriedly made a plan for launching aggression against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and is in a hurry to gain further cooperation from the Government of Japan for this purpose, while stepping up the war in Viet-Nam ever more intensively.

Thus, the stronghold for U.S. imperialist preparation for all kinds of adventurist policies, through which it is escalating the war of aggression in Viet-Nam and expanding the war into other parts of the world, is the military base of the U.S. Armed Forces in Okinawa, that is the occupation of Okinawa.

*tricontinental was published in Spanish, English and French by the Executive Secretariat of the Organization of the Solidarity of the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America (OPSAAAL)