Published on January 27, 2020. Continuing from the previous chapter, this article introduces Yoshihisa Komori’s essay from WiLL on the significance of the 1960 Japan–U.S. Security Treaty and the Japan–U.S. Alliance. It argues that U.S. military deterrence became Japan’s greatest security pillar while Japan restricted its own defense under Article 9 of the Constitution, and criticizes the Asahi Shimbun for opposing the security treaty and continuing sympathetic reporting toward communist and socialist forces.

January 27, 2020
It became the greatest pillar of defense for Japan.
For Japan, which had imposed restraints on its own national defense through Article 9 of the Constitution, it became a powerful security framework that repelled military threats from outside.
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Allergy to “State” and “Nation”
Second is the Japan–U.S. Alliance established in 1960.
In January of that year, the current Japan–U.S. Security Treaty was concluded.
Even before that, there had been a security treaty between the two countries, but it was incomplete in content, with many biases from the occupation period.
The 1960 security treaty pledged that, in exchange for Japan accepting the stationing of U.S. forces, when Japan was subjected to a military attack or threat from a third country, the United States would defend Japanese territory jointly with Japan.
In other words, the powerful deterrent force of the U.S. military was incorporated into Japan’s defense.
The Japan–U.S. Alliance built on this treaty became a deterrent against the threat of the Soviet Union during the East–West Cold War.
It became the greatest pillar of defense for Japan.
For Japan, which had imposed restraints on its own national defense through Article 9 of the Constitution, it became a powerful security framework that repelled military threats from outside.
It can be called a wise choice by postwar Japan.
Support among the Japanese people for the Japan–U.S. Alliance can now be said to be overwhelming.
All major political parties, except the Communist Party, also support the Japan–U.S. Alliance and its foundation, the Japan–U.S. Security Treaty.
If this Japan–U.S. Alliance had not existed, the Soviet Union would probably have tried to achieve the communization of Japan even by using military means.
However, at the time in 1960, the Asahi Shimbun opposed this Japan–U.S. Security Treaty.
It launched a major campaign, together with reconciliation with the Soviet Union, to the effect that Japan’s security would be fine as long as it had Article 9 of the Constitution.
In its formal editorials, it somewhat restrained outright and fierce opposition, but it mobilized all other pages to inflame the argument against the security treaty.
If our Japan had followed this Asahi Shimbun argument opposing the Japan–U.S. Security Treaty, it would probably have entered the Soviet sphere of control.
Japan has today’s prosperity and stability precisely because it chose a policy directly opposite to what the Asahi Shimbun advocated.
On the most important issue of national independence and defense, the Asahi Shimbun advocated a mistaken choice that would have meant destruction for Japan.
That is precisely why the Asahi Shimbun has value as a negative example for Japan.
Even after that, the Asahi Shimbun continued biased reporting that portrayed the communist dictatorship and militaristic Soviet Union as if it were a “peace force.”
Regarding China as well, it engaged in mistaken reporting that went so far as to praise the brutal Cultural Revolution.
In any case, it consistently maintained a tendency to defend communism and socialism, and its commentary that praised even Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia, a primitive communist regime that massacred its own people, as “full of gentleness,” and denied the massacres, became widely known.
The Asahi Shimbun dislikes the concepts of Japan as a “state” and Japanese people as a “nation.”
Therefore, it emphasizes that Japanese people are “global citizens” rather than citizens of Japan.
The great false reporting on the “comfort women issue,” which demeaned Japan itself, is already well known.
This article continues.