The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, signed in 1951, is understood to be an arrangement whereby the United States, in exchange for the use of military bases in Japan, is committed to the rescue of this nation in the event of external aggression. Japan, with its "war-renouncing" Constitution, follows a policy of noninvolvement in foreign disputes. It is assumed, therefore, that the only way Japan can cooperate with U.S. forces is by offering bases and services. This basic assumption remained essentially unchanged even after the treaty was revised in 1960.
However, the new laws governing the Japan-U.S. defense cooperation guidelines allow this nation to cooperate with U.S. forces beyond the framework of the 1960 treaty. Specifically, in the event of an emergency deemed by the government to be a "surrounding situation," Japan will be able to assist U.S. forces through Self-Defense Forces activities on the high seas and logistical support at both the public and private levels, in addition to the use of bases and financial assistance. It is clear to everyone that these laws -- which passed the Diet last week -- represent a de facto revision of the security treaty.
Ichiro Ozawa, head of the Liberal Party, writes in the latest issue of a monthly magazine that the guidelines are essentially a "scenario for Japan to take part in wars." The government, however, has said repeatedly that the guidelines "present no problems because they are not integrated with the use of force." The fact is that the all-important issue of national security has been handled in a way that runs counter to the trend of history in the post-Cold War world.