They were Tokyo’s worst-kept diplomatic secrets: Clandestine Cold War era agreements with Washington that obligated Japan to shoulder the costs of US bases and allow nuclear-armed US ships to sail into Japanese ports.
For decades, Japanese leaders have gone to great lengths to deny the pacts’ existence, despite mounting proof to the contrary from the testimony of former diplomats and declassified US documents. The most sensational instance came in 1972, when a reporter who unearthed evidence of one of the treaties was arrested on charges of obtaining state secrets, reportedly by means of an adulterous affair.
Now, the so-called secret treaties are causing problems again, this time in how Japan is handling its suddenly rocky relationship with the US. The new government in Tokyo, whose election last summer ended a half-century of nearly unbroken control by the Liberal Democrats, wants to expose the treaties as a showcase of its determination to sweep aside the nation’s secretive, bureaucrat-dominated postwar order. Last fall, the foreign minister appointed a team of academics to scour Japanese diplomatic archives for evidence of the treaties. Its findings are due later this month.
The problem is that the inquiry is coming at a delicate moment in Japan’s ties with its longtime patron, the US. The government of Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and US President Barack Obama’s administration are already divided over the relocation of a US air base on Okinawa. By exposing some of the less savory aspects of Japan’s military reliance on the US, the investigation has drawn criticism, particularly from conservatives in both nations, as an effort by the left-leaning Hatoyama government to pull away from Washington.
However, those involved in the investigation in Japan, both within and outside the government, insist that it is not about challenging the US alliance. In interviews, the current central figures in the case — including Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada, a retired Japanese diplomat who helped reveal the pacts’ existence and the reporter who got the original story, Takichi Nishiyama, now 79 and fighting to restore his reputation — described the probe as an effort to expose agreements from the 1960s and early 1970s that were too old affect current diplomatic relations.
Okada and the others emphasized that the existence of the treaties had already been made public in the US. Some also said that the Japanese probe was drawing attention only because it was so unusual for this nation to reveal its past after years of obfuscation under the Liberal Democrats. They said the investigation was a highly symbolic gesture by the new government to make Japan’s stunted democracy more forthcoming and accountable to its own people.
“The prime minister and I cannot just stand before parliament and deny the secret treaties, as has been done until now,” Okada said. “We are just doing what the United States has already done.”
Diplomatic experts agree that exposing the treaties will have little or no direct effect on the alliance, partly because the US announced in the early 1990s that it was no longer carrying nuclear weapons on most of its warships.
But the probe could have unintended consequences if it uncorks long-suppressed public debate on a point that Tokyo has, until now, purposefully left vague: whether Japan, which bans nuclear weapons from its territory, can continue to rely on the US’ nuclear umbrella, which may require it to allow such weapons on US ships and planes in a time of crisis.
This could lead to calls to remove the US bases, rewrite Japan’s Constitution to allow a full-fledged military or even develop the country’s own nuclear deterrent, political observers said.
“This is the biggest contradiction of the postwar period,” said Masaaki Gabe, a professor of international relations at University of the Ryukyus. “The Democratic Party could be opening a Pandora’s box of public debate.”
Experts says there were four known secret pacts, made when the two countries revised their security pact in 1960 or during negotiations for the return of the Ryukyus to Japan in 1972. One of the first to expose them was Nishiyama, then a rising reporter at the Mainichi Shimbun.
His revelations provoked a battle pitting the public’s right to know against government demands for secrecy that many likened to the Pentagon Papers in the US. But unlike the Pentagon Papers case, Nishiyama lost.
Public attention quickly turned to his arrest and the details of his affair with a Foreign Ministry worker, which he admitted took place. However, he says the tabloid aspects of the case were highlighted by prosecutors to divert public attention from discussion of the secret pacts themselves. Japan’s Supreme Court found Nishiyama guilty of obtaining state secrets in 1978, and he has been filing lawsuits ever since, seeking an official apology and the disclosure of documents related to the treaties.
“Why do the Japanese people only learn about their own government from documents disclosed in the United States?” he said. “This is crazy.”
Nishiyama and a handful of civic groups seeking evidence of the pacts got a boost in 2000, when the US began declassifying documents related to the secret agreements. An unexpected breakthrough came four years ago, when a diplomat who had testified at Nishiyama’s trial that the pacts did not exist — Bunroku Yoshino, one of the negotiators of Okinawa’s return to Japan — came forward three decades later to admit that he had lied.
“After dozens of years have passed, you cannot keep distorting history,” said Yoshino, now 92.
Okada said he was aware of the criticism that the investigation was anti-American, which he called a misunderstanding. He said exposing the truth would actually strengthen the alliance by righting a past wrong that had led many Japanese to doubt the sincerity of their own government and the US.
“Telling the facts to the people is extremely important for democracy,” he said, adding that the change in Japan’s government “is a great chance” to do so.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with