From the article of 'Petrel'
No.623 / April 6, 1997

Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.

How can we solve the base problem?
The reactionary sect plainly protects the base
The liberal sect does not see the reality of imperialism


=====
The mass communication, "public opinion," of Japan was divided to two about the base problem of Okinawa. There is the tendency of "liberal," for example, The Asahi Newspaper and The Mainichi Newspaper on the one hand, and on the other hand, the reactionary intention, for example, The Yomiuri, The Sankei, and The Nikkei. The workers will not mistake looking because this division is too decisive and clear. What should the workers learn from this "division" of bourgeois public opinion?
=====

Gore the vice president in the United States visited Japan, and declared they have no will to reduce 100,000 persons' marine corps in East Asia by taking out "the Korean situation" on the like at the conference with Prime Minister Hashimoto and Foreign Minister Ikeda. Hashimoto followed him as "the same recognition at all," too. This has invented the two completely differ, or rather antagonistic correspondence.

One is to insist this right such as The Yomiuri, The Nikkei, and The Sankei Newspaper, etc. They say that the standpoint such as the Shamin parties expecting the marine corps to reduce failed.

Another is the reformative and "liberal" standpoint represented by The Asahi Newspaper and The Mainichi Newspaper, etc. They say that the Hashimoto regime is repeating the American nation's word like a parrot so it is not the true "Alliance."

The reactionary standpoint is needless to say, can the workers really support the "liberal," reformative standpoint?

The Japan Economic Newspaper (The Nikkei Newspaper) carried the insistence "The Marine corps reduction theory broken to pieces by Mr. Gore" on the "Editorial" on the 25th and jeered the "reformative" opinion.

The insistence is as following. The Okinawa base problem is "the domestic problem," it is only that the bill sent the problem ahead up to now has turned now though invalidity is clear." It is irrational and nonsense to expect and demand the reduction of the marine corps by "turning the bill to the United States." Such "Emotional expectation" was crushed by the word of Gore.

The reactionary criticizes the petty bourgeois idealism standing on the standpoint of the bourgeois "realism." From this standpoint, we must defend our nation by the military power in the "real" world where the imperialist nations, the invasive nations, the reactionary nations stand together in large number, and the law of the jungle prevails; The alliance with the powerful nations and a steady army of independence are indispensable for that.

The party who does not understand this does not seriously think about the defense of the nation and is only playing in an ideal imagination.

The Japan Economic Newspaper insists as following.
(The side of the United States) "showed unpleasant feeling as Japan is politically playing with the Japan-US Security Treaty. The way to fuel expectations fruitlessly, pretending as if there is a possibility of achievement though there is not at all, is not wise from the standpoint of the keeping of healthy Japan-U.S. relations. It amplifies only people' distrusts including the Okinawa prefecture inhabitants."
"It is rational to discuss ahead the consensus in Japan if it is necessary to request the reduction of the US marine corps and the U.S.Army forces in Asia and the Pacific Ocean region. In that case, the strategy how to correspond to the tension of the Korean peninsula is also indispensable. It is the recurrence of the past 'One country pacifism' and does become nothing only to repeat 'Reduction' without even doing it. We should not to mistake that the Okinawa base problem being a serious problem now is the character to be processed as a home administration problem of 'Country' even though it is a story that the U.S.Army is closely related to."

However, such an explanation is not convincing at all for a liberal public opinion.

Even if the base and the U.S.Army forces of Okinawa are indispensable, where is the necessity that it exists like now? Why do they deny to examine and discuss the "Reduction?" This is the doubt of this public opinion.

The Security Treaty itself did not be connected and does not have existed as the Soviet Union to be the "virtual" enemy country to begin with? Why the similar alliance and war potential should continue after the dismantlement of USSR. It should be reorganized according to a new situation. It is the thing that the liberal public opinion wants to say.

Gore described that it was the worst time to discuss the reduction of the marine corps if considered of the situation of the Korean peninsula. The Hashimoto regime also responded, "We just have the same recognition. The presence level of the U.S.Army now should be maintained if we consider of the situation and the security environment of this region." However, if to see from the liberal, this becomes the standpoint "stiffened" completely not seeing the situation that has changed.

The standpoint of the government looks like submitting and following too much to the United States for the liberal (And, the Communist Party). Though it becomes the one of the truth and the one possible to trust only after discussing the mutual standpoints and interests seriously comparing even in case of the alliance relation, but the Japan-US relation lacks it. They say the Liberal-Democratic Party regime following completely to the United States is responsible to it.

The liberal public opinion has been actively discussing "the forces review" of the U.S.Army staying in Japan. This discussion is as following. The U.S.Army forces of Okinawa might be able to be reduced. Because the Soviet Union dismantled ("the Cold War" ended), and it is not need to explain the existence meaning of the Security Treaty any longer as before regarding the Soviet Union as "the virtual enemy country," how much military necessity for making a huge marine corps stationed in Okinawa is there? ("The possibility to commit the marine corps at the step of the beginning of a war in emergency," etc.)

However, the liberal public opinion could not institute and make clear the problem that how much reduction is admittable (or not), in addition, whither the complete withdraw will be able to be, in what condition these are able to be.

The problem is that even if the reduction of the U.S.Army staying in Japan would able to be, it stays in a mere improvement and there is not a change at all at the point the rule of imperialism continues and accomplishes in the world where the imperialism of the monopolistic capital rules. However they were able to discourse nothing of this truth.

The one to make the huge military bases inevitable is the rule of the monopolistic capital and the monopolistic capital has already caused the rule on every corner in the world. We provide this the imperialistic rule of the monopolistic capital.

Just the world hegemony of the monopolistic capital appears as the military rule of the United States of the world, and after World War II, the army of the United States has been dispatched and "arranged" to all over the world---Europe (In the name of NATO), Asia (To Japan and Korea especially), the Middle East and the Central and South America.

The army of the United States has been "expanded" literally in all over the world in a scale of several hundred thousands, and It has played a definite role for "Keeping of the order" like at "the Korea War" and the Vietnam War, at the Middle East dispute before. It is the reason to be called "the Military Police in the world."

The tens of thousands of persons' U.S.Army in Okinawa and the military power exists as an important ring of the world rule of such American monopolistic capital. Without this confirmation (that is, the consciousness of the rule of the monopolistic capital and the imperialistic hegemony), it does not go out from the region of the petty bourgeois ejaculation to shout "Go out United States from Okinawa."

United States will not "go out" from Japan, form Okinawa, without to abandon the imperialistic ambition completely, even if it would go out, it would "go out from Okinawa" only on the condition that it finds the substitutive place in other nation, in Hawaii, and so on.

Or it might be only on the condition when the Self Defense Forces becomes powerful further and executes thoroughly the keeping of imperialistic rule and "Order" as a proxy, which the U.S.Army corps bore.

In Europe, the United States is making a powerful army reside chiefly in Germany. It bore arms with even the nuclear weapon on the pretext "to oppose the Soviet Union."

It maintains a powerful army in Korea and Japan in Asia, too. Twenty thousands or more of more than 10 percent of the U.S.Army marine corps resides in Japan and it represents the marine corps in "foreign countries." The U.S.Army of Okinawa staying in Japan does not exist for "the Defense of Japan," but is affecting the keeping of "the Safety" and "the Order" in a vast area including the Middle East and Africa, from a Korean peninsula to East Asia naturally.

The base problem of Okinawa is also the problem of the imperialistic rule system in the modern world, and in the root, there is the united powers and rule of the monopolistic capital all over the world --- now it appears as "multinational corporation," that is as the monopolistic capital that carries on business all over the world.

Well, then we want to ask to the liberal public opinion and the Communist Party. Is it really able to "solve" only in Japan with cutting off the whole imperialistic policy of the monopolistic capital under the leadership of the United States? Is it possible to think such a thing? What kind of "solution" to be won by such way?

The monopolistic capital of Japan already invests the capital in all over the world and has hoped for the bourgeois "Order" and "Stability" in the world keenly, their profits definitely depend on the keeping of the "Order" and "Stability" in the world by the military power of the United States.

Might you be able to think that such Japanese bourgeoisie resists the military request of the United States straight even in some measure? To think in such a way is to forget completely where to exist the demand of the Japanese monopolistic capital and to forget the alliance of the Japanese monopolistic capital and the American monopolistic capital.

They unite for a common profit, and then, it becomes more definite, the more they do not pay any consideration to the profit of "local" or to the profit of "inhabitant."

It is clear that the standpoint of the liberal public opinion is a stunted reformism. Though they said repeatedly something as if it is a definite problem that "the Reduction" of U.S.Army forces is done in some measure and have averted worker's eyes from the essencial problem of the imperialistic rule. However, they never deny "the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty System."

They do not deny this system, and on the assumption of it, they hope for some "Reduction" of the marine corps. However, how much do they say of this reduction on the whole?

The liberal public opinion does not talk concretely. They cannot talk. Even if they would reduce 20 percent, it might be too clear that it is not any solution of the problem either. If some land would be returned as the collateral of 20% reduced forces, there is no security that the all land is the land of the 3 thousands persons' landowner whose land is in the time limit this time. If so, the problems how to treat the land-use right of the landowner who are refusing to offer, whether expropriate "by force" or not, whether revise the Site Special Measures Law or not still remain completely as it is.

Thus, if we would stand on the standpoint of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty holding fast we should revise this law, it is necessary to secure the land by changing the law for the continuing of the base, and the liberal public opinion will also need to agree with this. If it becomes so, the first opposition by the liberal will only acquire the "meaning" that it actually justified and secured the land secure of the U.S.Army's base by the stunted improvement on the whole.

We emphasize that the demand of reduction or cancellation of the base in Okinawa being cut off from the fight to eliminate the rule of imperialism internationally, that is, the common and cooperateing fight of world workers opposing to the rule of monopolistic capital and aiming at the overthrow, the class fight, is a stunted reformism, it averts the workers' eyes from the essence of the problem and return in a vulgar nationalistic rubbish and a petty bourgeois pacifistic illusion.