Talk:Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan

Why the Protests?

The article notes that there were protests and demonstrations and generally a lot of unrest around this, but does not explain why. Granted, different people were probably protesting different things, but what was the main thrust of the protest? Why didn't people like the new treaty?

I have created an article on this at Anpo Protests. I will update this article as well, as soon as time and other commitments allow. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have finished updating this article and explaining the protests. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be very biased. An alternate view of the events surrounding the signing of the treaty can be found in "Japan, A Reinterpretation" by Patrick Smith (page 23):

Kishi brought the Diet to the brink of rioting, for he had a selfimposed deadline. He wanted the treaty signed into law before Eisenhower visited Japan in June. Impatient with lenghty debates, Kishi eventually ordered police to carry opposing politicians out of the legislative chamber. Then he railroaded through a renewal vote in his adversaries' absence. It was a messy, undignified scene all around. Kishi's forced vote was legal, but it sat badly with a population that knew him as a wartime bureaucrat imprisoned after the surrender. It also looked as if the Liberal Democrats were more concerned with pleasing Washington than with honoring the wishes of the electorate.

This article in contrast looks like historical revisionism to me...

- Morbuto

 Done I rewrote the sections on the protest and removed some extremely pro-Kishi sections --Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Treaty text

Why hasn't anyone put up a link to the actual treaty? MPA 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Not sure when it happened, but now there are multiple links to the actual treaty itself --Ash-Gaar (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Common Name in Japanese

The article currently says "In Japan, the treaty is known as anpo..." The common name of this treaty in Japanese is not as short as "anpo". The common name is Nichibei Anpo Joyaku or just Anpo Joyaku. But I have never heard just "anpo". I don't think Japanese would understand the word "anpo" alone. It is 日米安保条約 or 安保条約, but not just "anpo". If there is no objection, I will make a change. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has lived in Japan for many years and speaks Japanese, I can assure you that the treaty is often called just "Anpo" for short. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Could someone put up translations of these names, as they are currently pretty useless to anyone who doesn't speak Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.173.93 (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ANPO expire date?

Is there any expire date at all for the ANPO treaty ? or effectively in force until otherwise noticed? What's the procedure for Japan to end it, should they so wish? Electron9 (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done I explained the procedures for ending the treaty. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of the 1960 protests

I'm watching the "making of" Interviews for the movie Still Walking. There's an interview of the cinematographer Yutaka Yamasaki that shows:

• Black & white still photo of a building. The title is "Nihon University, Tokyo." There's no date but we'll assume ~1960.
• Yamasaki says "I barely touched a 16mm camera until the 1960 Anpo struggles." (I brought this up as to show the name or title he uses for this.
• Another black and white still photo is shown. The context is unclear - we see a large crowd of older teen or young twenties people. I'm assuming it's a protest at the university. Yamasaki says "I was a student of about 20 at the time and even university students who weren't into politics or driven by strong political ideology were all participating in the demonstrations."
• Another black and white still photo is shown with four dead or severely injured people on the ground. The crowd around them is blood splattered.
• The next photo looks like a large crowd occupying a building. Yamasaki says "So I was a student documenting students."

I was curious as to what the Anpo struggles were and found this article. From Yamasaki's brief portrayal it appears the 1960 protests were significant and likely similar to the anti Vietnam war protests in the USA in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The Japanese Wikipedia has separate articles for the treaty and what they called the 安保闘争 (security struggle) with 130,000 to 330,000 protesters with one person being trampled to death (probably by accident) plus a 16 or 17 year old killing himself in protest. Hopefully someone runs across this note that has the time to dig into the protests and to update this article. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have created an entire article on this at Anpo Protests. I will update this article as well, as soon as time and other commitments allow. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have finished updating this article and explaining the protests. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Ratification

It was signed January 19, 1960, but when did the U.S. Senate ratify it?—GoldRingChip 18:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The treaty has lasted longer than any other alliance between two great powers - really?

The Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373 has been in force for 647 years, for what it is worth Harris (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Harris000: I change the sentence, so that there is no contradiction.--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Happy with that. I'll remove my dubious! Harris (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Not to nitpick but I'm still very skeptical about this sentence. Even though it might technically be true, it is only barely so, and seemingly hinges on the reader agreeing to a set of premises not stated in the article. Are only explicit written alliance treaties counted? From which date is an alliance considered to be valid, and when if ever, is it consider to be void or dormant? What about personal unions between European Kingdoms? I can think of at least three cases that could be argued as counterexamples to the sentence.

1. The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance but only counted since the 1668 Treaty of Lisbon, as that is the official start of the independent Braganza Portuguese State.

2. The Sweden-Norway Union of 1814-1905 seeing as how Norway maintained an independent military.

3. The de-facto alliance between UK and Netherlands from the Napoleonic Wars and onwards.

While not outright wrong, I think that lacking further elaboration, the sentence is a more likely source of confusion for the reader, rather than accurate information. The abelian fox (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

One sided POV

There's one mention to the biasedness of the article above, but the reply was that: "I rewrote the sections on the protest and removed some extremely pro-Kishi sections". Well, the article is extremely pro-socialist now. Combating bias is not targeting one side, bias is an issue that has to be addressed. The article exaggerates the influence of such groups and such prostests, at the same time downplays the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyersx (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)