PACIFIC PERSPECTIVE : A Sovereign Nation Can Say No : Japan is capable of devising its own global strategy and should do so, and not just accede to U.S. wishes.

Thirty years have passed since the renewal of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. It’s time for a change.

The raison d’etre of the treaty--that Japan would provide the front line of defense for the American-led postwar order in Asia against expanding communism--has collapsed. The treaty is gradually losing its significance and will eventually become totally obsolete.

Although it would be hasty, even careless, at this time to call for the abolition of the pact, it should be dramatically changed from a one-sided arrangement that supports only U.S. strategic objectives to one that enables Japan to provide for its own defense and pursue its own interests.

Despite the illusory protection of Japan by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, Japan cannot tactically defend itself under the terms of the treaty, as even Germany can do as a member of NATO.

Only one division of the U.S. forces stationed in Japan is devoted to the defense of Japanese territory. The rest are assigned to a strategic mission that encompasses the defense of an area stretching west of Hawaii all the way to Cape Town, South Africa.

Although we have spent much money revamping our maritime self-defense force, it constitutes just a single division of the American 7th Fleet. It functions only to monitor submarines in the seas around Japan, not as a means of defending Japanese territory. The situation is similar with respect to ground forces. The northernmost island of the Japanese archipelago, Hokkaido, is the most likely place for an invasion. Yet there is not a single American soldier stationed there.

From the Japanese standpoint, one is obliged to ask two questions: Aside from the U.S. strategic agenda, why are American forces stationed in Japan if not for the defense of Japan? And, if they are not defending Japan, why are we constantly being pressured by the United States to pay more for them?

Answers to the first question can readily be found in Pentagon planning documents, in which the Soviet Union is listed as enemy No. 1, China as enemy No. 2 and Japan as enemy No. 3. Recently, a commander of the U.S. Marine Corps testified before Congress that American troops are in Japan to ensure that we cannot enhance our military capabilities and once again become a major military power.

Yet we are expected to foot the bill so America will, supposedly, save us from ourselves. Japan is shouldering 40% of the expenses of maintaining American forces stationed here. This amounts to about 8 million yen per soldier, or the average annual pay of a typical salaryman (corporate employee).

Talk of Japan’s enjoying a free ride of military protection at the expense of the

U.S. taxpayer is thus obviously unfounded. As it is, the Japanese are prohibited from using either their brains or their hands to defend their homeland.

It is time for this to change.

While staying well within the constraints of the Japanese Constitution, its cap (1%-of-gross national product) on military spending and its restriction against offensive weapons, Japan can reorganize its forces under the terms of the security treaty so that it is capable of tactically and more effectively defending its territory ourselves.

We could defend our coastlines with high-speed cruisers that possess ship-to-air missiles. We must be able to close Japan’s three most vital sea straits in the event of foreign attack. We need our own jet fighter, the FSX. We can dispense with the ridiculously out-of-place tank defense of an island nation that is mainly mountainous and forested.

We should seek the return of at least one of the three large U.S. air bases on the outskirts of Tokyo. The Yakota Air Base in particular is not used to any great extent, yet the air-control situation around Tokyo is dangerous because of very heavy congestion at both Narita and Haneda airports.

I do not oppose cooperation with the United States and even the maintenance of American forces on Japanese soil. But to the extent that the strategic mission of U.S. forces is beyond direct Japanese interests, they should not be based here rent-free. To the extent that they help defend Japan, our own forces must be capable of defending the U.S. bases.

By reconfiguring our forces, we can improve Japan’s defense fourfold, while remaining within the 1% cap on military spending. It would not go unnoticed, of course, that--because of the size of Japan’s GNP--this would make us the nation with the third-largest expenditures for defense, after the Soviet Union and the United States.

The importance of the size of Japanese military spending, however, should not be exaggerated. Civilization is entering a new era where economic and technological might outweighs the importance of military power. Japan is the nation most strongly positioned to play a major role, especially with its mass production capabilities in semiconductors. Indeed, as a 1986 Pentagon report made alarmingly clear, the weaponry upon which America’s world strategy relies already depends fundamentally on Japanese mass-production of high-quality semiconductors.

It is precisely this vital technological role that gives Japan the leverage to chart an independent course in which it designs its own contribution to the world order.

For example, the United States will not allow the sale of reconnaissance satellites to Japan. Yet, without our own satellites, how can we obtain the information that will allow us to independently and accurately assess not only military threats, but also ecological and development problems that we are called upon to help alleviate?

Under present arrangements, if a developing country wants aid from Japan, it must first go to Washington for approval, and then Washington calls on us. Japan is not willing to continue such silly efforts. Our money just disappears down a hole with no measurable effect.

It is time for Japan to consider the possibility of playing our microchip card in order to bring the United States to its senses rather than it arrogantly and arbitrarily constraining our capacity for initiative in the world.

Japan’s technological prowess, however, is not only a negative lever. It is also a positive asset. In fact, it is the basis for the global ideal of what I call “the dynamics of Japanese aid,” which can be Japan’s chief contribution to the new international order.

Information and resource-efficient technologies are central to modernizing the developing world. More than anything else, those countries need an information and renewable-energy infrastructure if they are not going to be left out of the 21st Century. In all these areas--from consumer electronics, such as VCRs and TVs, to the most sophisticated microchip, optical fibers and solar batteries--Japan has the most advanced technologies.

Since all these technologies were developed commercially rather than for military purposes, they are both cost-efficient and non-threatening. Other countries may be able to provide the infrastructure of the past, such as highways, railroads and huge power stations, but only Japan can mass produce the communications and energy infrastructure of the new age at a low cost.

“The dynamics of Japanese aid” could make an even more powerful contribution to countries with a higher level of skills and education, such as Hungary or Czechoslovakia. If a concerted multilateral effort supported this idea of Japanese-style aid, we could turn those two countries around within five years. And, no doubt, Great Britain and France would welcome our efforts, since they would provide a counterweight to German economic domination of Eastern Europe.

Thirty years after the signing of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, which subordinated Japan to the strategic objectives of the United States, Japan is capable of going its own way. It is capable of devising a global strategy and should do so. A Japan that can say no to U.S. orders is a Japan that has recovered its full sovereignty, just like any other nation.