From the article of 'Petrel'
No.577 / April 14, 1996
Please
send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.
Unite gOpposite the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement" with the class standpoint
"Redefine" of Japan-U.S. security treaty
"it corresponds to making a Japanese monopolistic capital imperialism
The visit to Japan of President Clinton is the near future. Now since "Economic friction" of Japan-U.S. is eased in some measure, the first problem of the Clinton visit to Japan is strengthening of Japan-U.S. "Alliance" further, when paraphrasing, it is "Redefine the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement." It is because the bourgeoisie in Japan and the United States matches the will mutually, that where is the Japan-U.S. security treaty system of "After the cold war" meant?, does it have what meaning and the role?, no whether it is necessary to have meaning and the role or not?.
Basic standpoint of Japanese monopolistic capital faced conference with Clinton is the one of being accomplish it hereafter that the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement had played an important role for "Stability of the world and Asia".
A bourgeois public opinion is filled with the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement as follows openly.
"The staying in Japan U.S.Army that makes the navy and the marine corps a main axis is a mobile unit and generality is high though it is the land forces with which Korea lives the U.S.Army entirely provided in the emergency of a Korean peninsula.(Therefore, they say that petty bourgeois's why the marine corps is necessary for Okinawa question is silly!--Quotation person) Because the Japan-U.S. security treaty system has the large area stability function more than the imagination, an economic of Japan activity almost unconsciously enjoys the profit.h (April 8 eJapanese economic newspaper')
Therefore, the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement gets rid of "narrow" interpretation current, that is, mere "Defense of Japan" and becomes suitable for "Internationalization" age. That is, it grows up to more "Global". So, it is necessary to convert at least effectively for "Asia and Pacific Ocean region". Any opinion does not differ between Hashimoto and Clinton in this standpoint either.
The monopolistic capital of Japan tries only to speak more strongly and insist on self's profit and standpoint in the background of the economical, military ability made powerful further. They begin to be conscious of "Subjectivity" about "What should be said is said".
It is clear that the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement is synonymous with "Defense" of a present capital system from this fact. It exists ultimately for rule and the profit of the monopolistic capital (for "Stability" and "Prosperity" of the "Region" or the world system). Pull this out and talking about the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement will become only an empty chat after all.
Mr. Niizaki professor of the Okinawa university is complaining following recently. "What might on the whole meaning be that the local government and the inhabitant in the mainland oppose the U.S.Army base that is the materialization of the Japan-U.S. security treaty saying it is necessary? Is it a mere regional egoism or does the security treaty put in question?" (31 March eThe Mainichi News paper')
Of course, he wants not to say that he can move the base in Okinawa to the mainland, but he insists "If the inhabitant in the mainland opposes the security treaty, should not they also clarify posture to the security treaty?"
First, two opinions are noticeable as people' opinions -- including it of Okinawa inhabitants -- of the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement.
One is a typical, bourgeois opinion that the security treaty agreement plays a big role for"Peaceful with safe" of Japan and it has done "Contribution" to "safety of Far East".
That is, for being of the security treaty agreement and stability of political economy of "Far East"-- and the world --, Japan was able to enjoy big "Peaceful with prosperity". The bourgeois stand in this viewpoint, and they naturally hope for the continuance of the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement and are ardent also to the "Redefine". It is nature that the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement comes to play the new role for adjusting to "After the cold war", and it is also nature that the Japanese monopolistic capital that have great reserves of power play the more important role.
Another opinion is a typical and petty bourgeois opinion, for example, the communist party etc. In this opinion, the problem of the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement is a result of "Subordination toward America", and Japan might be rapidly increasing dangerous "That is rolled in the war" to say nothing of "Safety" for the relation (subordination) to United States. Therefore, its solution is that the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement is abandoned and Japan does "Independence", and it is necessary that Japan knead "Plan" of a Japanese original security.
Becoming to the problem by "Redefine" for bourgeois power is that the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement has become already important for that of "Asia and Pacific Ocean region" with Japan only for no the near "peaceful with safe", therefore, Japan should be thrown away a narrow-minded conception method "The country is had to be defended" and correspond to this problem by the United States as United States and "Equal partner".
In that case, it is contradiction that they are having this "Load" shouldered only in Okinawa. They should seriously work on the mainland move of the base from Okinawa.
However, they do not try to move one finger for that. One of the reasons is that "Inhabitant in the mainland" repulses it strongly, and any more reason is that "Strategic value" is admitted in Okinawa as the island in a military base.
If the monopolistic capital of Japan admits it is necessary of it, it is in setting a powerful base somewhere in the mainland -- even though Hokkaido, even though the Chugoku district, even though the metropolitan area -- and they have the necessity also by any hesitation and the hesitation. Only they have already been constructing the base of the U.S.Army and the Self Defense Forces everywhere the whole country and Okinawa is the most important part. The worker confirms that it is an organization that the one nationally meaning "universal" existence in the base (The existence of the base is not problem of Okinawa alone), that is, this bourgeois nation was armed.
On the other hand, the petty bourgeois, for example, the communist party and the citizens ideologists is shouting that the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement opposite is shouted and the base is unnecessary for Japan. In this case, the communist party especially emphasizes "The base in the foreign country can be lost". Is not it why "Base in the foreign country" neither developing general a military base general of the militarism and imperialism?
The answer is that the base in foreign country and army stayed there are expressions that Japan lost the independence, and they do not exist to defend Japan (What of Japan? Is Japan in what state?) and exist to "draw " Japan in the war of the United States.
The Japan Communist Party shouts the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement opposite in one side and insisted abolition of the U.S.Army base, it is the other side, they vociferate the maintenance of the system which the capital rules and private possession. That is, they protect"defense" of Japan and the army and the base for "Defense" of a capital system. Moreover, they do not feel badly that he is contradicted.
However, on the assumption of a capital system, why they opposed the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement for a capital system and can they fight against it to the last minute? The Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement opposite of the communist party is only one of the lie and exists, superficial lip service and one swiz to worker.
The capital power evaluated for the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement to bring "Stability and prosperity" (of course, it is one in a bourgeois meaning thoroughly) aim the continuing and reinforcement in support of that agreement and to"redefine", to revalue it.
On the other hand, the petty bourgeois power is opposed to the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement in the lip service. However, the standpoint is the one based on the petty bourgeois, peaceful, and principle fantasies "The base should reduce because the cold war ended"-- the reality of capitalism and imperialism is forgotten and it is shelved. --, or only nonsense of badness because of the base in the United States it the nationalistic principle -- after all, they can exist if it is an army of the monopolistic capital of Japan, which does Japan in "Defense".
After all, because the rule of the capital is admitted, a latter standpoint (represented by the Japan communist party) is absorbed and contract in the standpoint of the monopolistic capital, too. If you allow the rule of the capital, is not it true that the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement has done "Contribution" to the rule and "Stability" of one either? In that case, the standpoint of the communist party was thoroughly self-contradicted.
The worker also opposes the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement. The reason is that "System" expressed by this agreement is a system of the monopolistic capital, and the agreement "defense" and reinforces the system. Because the agreement only expresses "Subordination toward America", the worker does not oppose it. The worker ties Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement opposite consistent and class standpoints in which they oppose rule of monopolistic capital and aim at socialism. So, the worker fights from this standpoint.
If you approve rule and private possession of the capital, it is only cheated, no matter how you clamour loud voice the Japan-U.S. security treaty agreement opposite. The standpoint comes to a standstill or falls into a bourgeois follow all and fails.