NOTE: This is the interview Professor Roland Simbulan gave for the Japanese national daily newspaper AKAHATA in its July 9, 2010 issue. Akahata has a daily circulation in its Japanese edition of 1.2 million. Professor Roland Simbulan was interviewed by Akahata's ASEAN correspondent, Mr. Inoue Ayumi.
 

(Professor Roland Simbulan's answers are in bold italics)


1. Japanese politicians expressed opposing views on the issue of retaining the U.S. military facilities in Okinawa prefecture.  Residents of Okinawa are pushing for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. military troops in their area, but the Japanese government still believes in the importance of maintaining its strategic defense alliance with the U.S. and has in fact broken its election promise to remove the U.S. bases.  What is your opinion on this issue?

     Strategic defense alliances can be forged with other countries even without the deployment of U.S. military bases and facilities on Japanese soil. As it is today, the so-called strategic defense alliance with the United States only makes Japan a hostage to U.S. overseas military adventures in contravention to Japan's peace constitution, while at the same time putting Japan at risk because of the deployment of U.S. interventionist forces on its soil. It makes Japan a strategic sitting duck to enemies of the United States but which are not necessarily hostile to Japan. The people of Japan, especially the people of Okinawa where most of U.S. forces are deployed, are right in stepping up their struggle against interventionist U.S. military forces based on its soil. U.S. forces based in Japan such as the Marine Expeditionary Forces, are really interventionist forces used against other countries.



2. The Japanese government and pro-U.S. bases advocates insist that the U.S. military facilities in Okinawa are vital in the preservation of peace, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.  Do you believe that the Okinawa military facility serves as a deterrent against any threat on regional security and stability?

     The preservation of peace, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region does not depend on the deployment of foreign military forces on Japanese soil, or similarly, on other countries. On the contrary, these foreign military deployments have been the source of instability in East Asia as well as previously, in Southeast Asia. Deterrence against what? The only reason why North Korea is interested in Japan is because it is threatened by the presence of large numbers of U.S. interventionary forces on Japanese soil whose armaments are aimed against it. This was the same obsolete argument used by pro-bases elements in the Philippine and U.S. governments when U.S. military bases and facilities were still on Philippine soil. At that time, they were floating all kinds of "threats"  ranging from China, North Korea and Vietnam.

  

3. How would you compare the regional security situation before and after the dismantling of the U.S. military bases in the Philippines.

     The 1991 removal from the Philippines of the largest U.S. overseas naval and air force bases did not destabilize the Philippines nor threaten the security of Southeast Asian countries.  On the contrary, the ASEAN is now more stable through the principle of collective non-interference , a principle formalized in such regional collective agreements such as the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Treaty.  Understandable, the United States was not in favor of these initiatives. It did not want ASEAN countries to rely on themselves for their security; the United States wanted them to rely for their defense and security on the gunboat diplomacy of U.S. military forces and the U.S. 7th Fleet. It seems that the U.S. is still relying on the obsolete containment policy as its regional doctrine, namely to surround countries it perceives hostile to its interests with a string of U.S. military bases, facilities and U.S. military forces. But the Cold War is over.

     The Philippines was not, and is not threatened by anybody after the pullout of U.S. bases. We have in fact diversified our foreign relations with most countries of the world and it helped secure regional stability. The presence before of US military bases and forces on Philippine soil was the stumbling block if not the obstacle to the realization of ASEAN's Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality. Their removal from the Philippines in 1991, allowed the full realization of the 1995 Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, a treaty which the United States tried to block but failed.



4. Do you think it is feasible for Japan to ensure its security even without U.S. bases or even with reduced U.S. military presence?   Should the U.S. Marines be pulled out of Okinawa?

        It is feasible for any independent and sovereign country to take care of its security, much more a country like Japan which is a respectable member of the United Nations. Even more than other countries including the Philippines, Japan has the economic and technological capability and power to ensure its own security with reduced U.S. military presence, or even better without any U.S. military bases or foreign troops on its soil. U.S. Marines, especially the U.S. interventionary forces under expeditionary units/ delta units/ army rangers and special operations forces should be pulled out of Okinawa right away. By mutual agreement, the U.S. can still be allowed to retain small communications facilities but under joint management by U.S. and Japan defense forces.
    

5. Do ASEAN member-states and Asian countries agree on the need to maintain permanent U.S. military presence in Japan?  Do Asian countries believe it helps ensure regional peace and security?

     No sovereign country would ever agree to the permanent maintenance of foreign military forces on its own territory or on the territory of other sovereign nations. ASEAN now has the benefit of experience to realize that it is more stable now than when U.S. interventionary forces were deployed in Vietnam in the 50s, 60s up to the mid-70s. Those were years of instability because of the intervention and aggressive action by U.S. forces on Asian soil. Collective regional defense dialogue, both bilateral and regional, is now what assures regional peace and security in ASEAN. The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) is one such venue for collective regional defense dialogue.



6. How do ASEAN nations maintain the peace and security in the region even without the U.S. bases?

      With a combination of collective regional initiatives and dialogue as well as bilateral agreements among each other, ASEAN nations are able to maintain regional peace and security even without the U.S. bases.


7. The ASEAN charter showed that ASEAN countries, in principle, do not want to serve as host to foreign military bases.  Could you expand on this policy?

     The ASEAN Charter is indeed an unprecedented document and leap forward towards regional peace. It is in fact a regional peace treaty, committing the state parties to a policy of non-intervention, peace, self-determination and nuclear weapons-free policy in the region. It is a product of lessons derived from the Cold War experiences where foreign military presence by Western (and Japanese Imperial ) military forces only created instability, war and suffering among many ASEAN peoples.

8. What is the regional security architecture as viewed by the ASEAN region?  In this connection, should this model be followed by other countries in East Asia?

      The ASEAN regional security architecture could be a model for other unstable areas of the world including East Asia. Of course, there may be some unique features in East Asia, but it is clear that the continuing presence of interventionary U.S. military forces in both Japan and South Korea are a source of instability to the area, rather than securing it. When ASEAN was still hosting large numbers of U.S. and even British military forces in the 50s, 60s, up to early 70s, these became the source of regional instability, suspicion and strife that fragmented if not caused so much suffering to the peoples of ASEAN. Regional collective dialogue in ASEAN is a collective responsibility that has also helped ensure stability and peace in Indochina after the Vietnam War.

9. The Japanese government is also using the perceived nuclear threat posed by North Korea as an excuse to justify the presence of U.S. troops in Okinawa, what is your view on this?

      Unless Japan still wants to see itself as a satellite or a modern military colony off the United States, this argument is bereft of and far from reality. My view on this is that North Korea is only interested in Japan and Okinawa because of what it perceives to be the presence and deployment of U.S. military forces there, with U.S. forces and weapons systems that are aimed and threaten North Korea. The North Korean armed forces are largely defensive in nature: it has no intention to invade or occupy Japan even if this is in the creative imagination of U.S. and Japanese military strategists!

     On the contrary, therefore, the continued presence of U.S. forces in Japanese and Okinawa territory threaten Japanese security, as these U.S. forces serve as a magnet for defensive actions by any country hostile to the United States. Other hostile forces to the United States, but not necessarily to Japan, regard U.S. bases and military forces as potential targets on which to launch actions against them, and that is why they are always natural and potential targets of attack. When the Japanese Imperial Army invaded the Philippines during World War II, the first areas that were attacked , bombed and put out of action were the U.S. military bases on Philippine territory.



10. How would you assess the economic, political and security situation in the Philippines, almost 20 years after the removal/dismantling of the U.S. military facilities?

     In my recently published book last year (2009), FORGING A NATIONALIST FOREIGN POLICY (Essays on U.S. Military Presence and the Challenges to Philippine Foreign Policy),  I have recently fully assessed the economic, political and security situation in the Philippines after the removal of the U.S. military bases and facilities. The former U.S. bases in the Philippines have been converted to civilian, commercial and peaceful uses, far from being the unproductive foreign war machines that trampled on the rights and violated the sovereignty of our country. Now, without the U.S. bases, we have converted them into productive economic enclaves which have created jobs more than three times than at the peak of U.S. military base activity during the Vietnam War. They continue to thrive today as beehives of economic activity, attracting both foreign and local investments.

    Politically and along the arena of our security, we are not anymore held hostage to the gunboat diplomacy of the United States which had used our territory during the bases era as a springboard or launching pad for U.S. military operations - both covert and overt - against other countries. This included countries with full diplomatic relations with the Philippines. Today, consistent with our Constitution, we rely on the principle of peacemaking and non-intervention in our relations with other countries, especially in our bilateral and multi-lateral relations with others. We have diversified our relations with all nations of the world, including those hostile to the United States.


11. Does the issue on conflicting claims on Spratlys pose a security threat to the stability of the Asia-Pacific region?

     The issue regarding the conflicting claims on the Spratlys which could have been aggravated by the intervention of U.S. military forces, has somehow been stabilized through a combination of collective and bilateral dialogue on this issue by ASEAN members themselves. The experience of ASEAN is the best teacher for all that it is better to exchange views on a problem through unceasing dialogue rather than relying on external forces to militarily back up a local issue or even a regional issue. I foresee that in the long run, natural resources in offshore areas can in fact be shared by collective agreement and cooperation that will benefit everyone. No one really benefits by threats, wars and conflicts or through the continued presence of foreign war machines - whether inland or offshore - in the region. Foreign military bases and presence are like guns - not even our own and controlled by others- in our very own homes, but which are used to threaten our neighbors. Can these ever give us real security?

_______________________________________________________________

     * Roland G. Simbulan is Full Professor in Development Studies and Public Management at the University of the Philippines. A specialist in Philippine-U.S. security relations, Philippine foreign policy and U.S. military intervention in the Asia-Pacific, he has written five books on these issues. A former Senior Consultant on Defense and Foreign Policy issues at the Philippine Senate, he is regularly invited as resource person at Congressional hearings and by the Philippine media.