My friend Frederick O'Brien, now of Manila, formerly of Honolulu, has a lively imagination and if you do not believe my statement, read this quotation from his paper, The "Cablenews American."Yeah, that seems to be the typical treatment from our government to foreigners. Including former enemies:
"(There are in Hawaii now about 85,000 Japanese, or at least there were that many in April last when the editor of this paper made a study of the Japanese question there. At least 50.000 of them were men and veterans of the Russian-Japanese war or in the reserve forces of the Japanese army. Some were officers, and it was generally conceded by military observers that Japan had in Hawaii, according to American military formation, about 45 full regiments. The right to bear arms is not withheld from the Japanese and though it is known that only a minority of this 50,000 have rifles yet it would not be difficult for Japanese vessels to land arms at some of the obscure ports or to send them ashore from ships standing off the beaches.)"
"The foregoing tales gives cards and spades to anything ever sent out or Honolulu. While the Japanese were "landing arms on the beaches," what would our gallant Captain Carter and the Iroquois be doing? let me ask."
- Hawaiian Star, Honolulu, Hawaii, Saturday, December 21, 1907. Vol. XV. Pg. 7.
Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan;
September 8, 1951 (1)
Japan has this day signed a Treaty of Peace with the Allied Powers.(2) On the coming into force of that Treaty, Japan will not have the effective means to exercise its inherent right of self-defense because it has been disarmed.
There is danger to Japan in this situation because irresponsible militarism has not yet been driven from the world. Therefore Japan desires a Security Treaty with the United States of America to come into force simultaneously with the Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and Japan.
The Treaty of Peace recognizes that Japan as a sovereign nation has the right to enter into collective security arrangements, and further, the Charter of the United Nations recognizes that all nations possess an inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.
In exercise of these rights, Japan desires, as a provisional arrangement for its defense, that the United States of America should maintain armed forces of its own in and about Japan so as to deter armed attack upon Japan.
The United States of America, in the interest of peace and security, is presently willing to maintain certain of its armed forces in and about Japan, in the expectation, however, that Japan will itself increasingly assume responsibility for its own defense against direct and indirect aggression, always avoiding any armament which could be an offensive threat or serve other than to promote peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.
Accordingly, the two countries have agreed as follows:
Japan grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right, upon the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace and of this Treaty, to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about Japan. Such forces may be utilized to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East and to the security of Japan against armed attack from without, including assistance given at the express request of the Japanese Government to put down largescale internal riots and disturbances in Japan, caused through instigation or intervention by an outside power or powers.
During the exercise of the right referred to in Article I, Japan will not grant, without the prior consent of the United States of America, any bases or any rights, powers or authority whatsoever, in or relating to bases or the right of garrison or of maneuver, or transit of ground, air or naval forces to any third power.
The conditions which shall govern the disposition of armed forces of the United States of America in and about Japan shall be determined by administrative agreements between the two Governments.(3)
This Treaty shall expire whenever in the opinion of the Governments of the United States of America and Japan there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements or such alternative individual or collective security dispositions as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance by the United Nations or otherwise of international peace and security in the Japan Area.
ARTICLE VWell now, INHERENT RIGHT you say?! Does anyone else see something VERY WRONG with this picture? Japan had ATTACKED the United States without provocation. Japan was guilty of heinous war crimes – RAPE, MUTILATION and TORTURE. Japan was guilty of GENOCIDE(S). They BRUTALIZED American, Australian, British, and other prisoners of war. And yet, a mere six years after the end of World War II, the United States was advocating that Japan can rearm herself? A little HYPOCRITICAL in consideration of what is going on in our country today, isn’t it? Not to mention the United Nations Charter....
This Treaty shall be ratified by the United States of America and Japan and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Washington.(4)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.
DONE in duplicate at the city of San Francisco, in the English and Japanese languages, this eighth day of September, 1951.
(1) TIAS 2491, 3 UST 3329-3340. Ratification advised by the Senate, Mar. 20, 1952 ratified by the President, Apr. 15, 1952, entered into force, Apr. 28, 1952. Back
(2) Supra, pp. 425-440. Back
(3) See infra, pp. 2406-2423. Back
(3) Instruments of ratification were exchanged Apr. 28, 1952.
Wonder if Japan had to do a Background check? For, wouldn't that have also been a violation of the Felon, (of the most dangerous type), in possession law?
And the above is by no means the only example of the hypocrisy of our federal government. To Wit:
Exchange of Notes Between the Secretary of State and the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs, December 10, 1954
(A) The Secretary of State to the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
I have the honor to refer to recent conversations between representatives of our two Governments and to confirm the understandings reached as a result of those conversations, as follows:
The Republic of China effectively controls both the territory described in Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Defense between the Republic of China, and the United States of America signed on December 2, 1954, at Washington and other territory. It possesses with respect to all territory now and hereafter under its control the inherent right of self-defense. In view of the obligations of the two Parties under the said Treaty and of the fact that the use of force from either of these areas by either of the Parties affects the other, it is agreed that such use of force will be a matter of joint agreement, subject to action of an emergency character which is clearly an exercise of the inherent right of self-defense. Military elements which are a product of joint effort and contribution by the two Parties will not be removed from the territories described in Article VI to a degree which would substantially diminish the defensibility of such territories without mutual agreement.
Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
JOHN FOSTER DULLES
Secretary of State of the
United States of America
GEORGE K. C. YEH,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of
The Republic of China.
(B) The Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Secretary of State
EXCELLENCY:So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Our government signed a treaty with the communists, acknowledging they had an inherent right to self-defense? And yet actively has worked to undermine our Second Amendment Right, enumerated into our OWN Constitution? Just how much more corrupt, evil, and hypocritical can they get? Makes one almost shudder to dwell on it.....
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's Note of today's date, which reads as follows:
"I have the honor to refer to recent conversations between representatives of our two Governments and to confirm the understandings reached as a result of those conversations, as follows:
"The Republic of China effectively controls both the territory described in Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Defense between the Republic of China and the United States of America signed on December 2, 1954, at Washington and other territory. It possesses with respect to all territory now and hereafter under its control the inherent right of self-defense. In view of the obligations of the two Parties under the said Treaty and of the fact that the use of force from either of these areas by either of the Parties affects the other, it is agreed that such use of force will be a matter of joint agreement, subject to action of an emergency character which is clearly an exercise of the inherent right of self-defense. Military elements which are a product of joint effort and contribution by the two Parties will not be removed from the territories described in Article VI to a degree which would substantially diminish the defensibility of such territories without mutual agreement."
I have the honor to confirm, on behalf of my Government, the understanding set forth in Your Excellency's Note under reply.
I avail myself of this opportunity to convey to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.
GEORGE K. C. YEH
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China His Excellency JOHN FOSTER DULLES
Secretary of State of
The United States of America
* - Charter of the United Nations; June 26, 1945
“ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION”
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”