SDF and foreign spouses: Is America any different?
Debito has a thought provoking post about J MSDF demoting military officers with NJ spouses.
Debito states:
Imagine the uproar that would ensue in the US if the US military or State Department (with their high numbers of international spouses) were to engage in these sorts of practices–treating their employees as untrustworthy because they married foreigners, naturally all suspectable as spies!I agree with the thrust of Debito's argument, but I think he might be a little off in specifics. Debito's source for the story is a Japan Today article, MSDF officers with foreign spouses to be moved from sensitive posts. This articles cites as it's source a Sankei Shimbun article. I found this article at Yahoo! Japan. Here is the link. Now, according to the Sankei Shimbun:
在日米軍関係者によると、米軍では配偶者が外国人の場合、「情報部門などの責任者になることはありえない」とされ、配置される部署や職種についても「不適当と判断されるなどの制限を受けることは覚悟しなくてはならない」という。I can't give a word by word translation of the above, but it is saying that according to people who have connections with the US military in Japan, America is very careful in its placement of US service members, and does not allow those with a foreign spouse to be placed in a position where they could have access to important information. This is stated very strongly, so that the reader will infer Japan has been lackadaisical in this area while America has not. I tried to search on the Internet for American policy in this area, but without knowing what specific key terms to use, my search was a bit futile. In any event, if we can trust the Sankei Shimbun, America does practice these policies. So, there's always a double edged sword when we try to compare Japan to another country. Despite this, I still think Debito is right and the policy is racist. I'll up the ante here and say it's also sexists and flawed to boot. While I am sure the policy will apply whether the SDF member is male or female, my guess is the primary fear is of the femme fatale, who will use her wily sexual ways to seduce secrets out of unsuspecting innocents. I'm sure there's a lot of sexism going into the formulation of this policy. But let's be realistic, shall we? What if the relevant personnel merely have girlfriends? Wouldn't a secret foreign girlfriend be even more dangerous? (From a sexist perspective.) Or how about if these officers associate with foreign prostitutes? Some of these officers are so careless, one can almost imagine them taking home their military secrets on a notebook computer but stopping off first at the local soapland shop with notebook computer in tow. I mean what a bunch of rubbish. If a person can't be trusted to keep secrets, then they shouldn't be in the relevant position to begin with, period. What difference does it make who they are married to. And I hate to nitpick but why does America still have a military in Japan more than 60 years after the end of the war, and what's Japan doing with a military at all, isn't that unconstitutional ... and another thing ...what the @#$% is the deal with ... never mind ... I'd better just stop.
Opinions expressed in comment section are the opinions of the author only. Because of a spam problem comments are currently off.
As far as I can tell in being
As far as I can tell in being in the US military for over three years now is that you simply fill out your SF-86 and you get your appropriate level of clearance. Most members have to be eligible or granted Secret to even work. During transfer season you fill out your dream sheet and pray that the detailer is going to be merciful when he deicdes where you'll be worrking for the next few years. Otherwise there is no other way to do it unless you have been investigated. To be honest there is a sort of collective neighborhood watch for these kinds of things. A CO in the US has a lot of control on what to tell and when to tell it. Depending on how high on th totem pole you are a lowly grunt may not get a brief until 96 hours before he/she gets kicked on a plane. So as far as I can tell there is no set policy regarding foreign spouses, then again there don't seem to be that many as many foreign spouse either adopt US citizenship or dual citizen ship since th benefits wheel get cranky and jittery when certain conditions aren't met. I don't really think of it as discriminatory, just archaic and in all honesty the way the paper work snafus pan out it is most certainly very democratic.
As for being careless it happens, makes me shudder at the thought that we are the defenders of the US...
In the case of US bases in Japan first off I prefer to make the distinction between the ones on the Home Islands and those on the Ryukyu chain. Most of the bases have been moved to the Ryuyku chain much to the chagrin of the locals who are not considered as culturally equal to Yamato Japanese. Hence why the Ryukuyans are much more opposed to US bases because their say in the matter is decidedly small. The bases are there as a result of the Cold War when the US needed front line bases to respond to any action by the Soviet Pacific Fleet. We are still there due to current policy regarding Formosa (Taiwan) and as a counter weight to the PRC and North Korea. Honestly the US has plenty of bases in foreign countries as a result of security pacts, I fail to understand why this is such an issue with some Japanese as the cold hard military reality is that it does bolster the JSDF. Its not like the US presence is that pervasive the only billets left in Tokyo is a desk job with JTF. In Ryukyu and Yokohama maybe, but there ain't that much elsewhere that is just US.
The issue of having a Japanese military in name is complex one to say the least. However any expansion of the JSDF is looked upon with suspicion in the region and in all honesty it would just create an arms race with her neighbors to gain prestige in a dangerous game. Bear in mind Japan still has territorial disputes in the region that still haven't been resolved with China and South Korea both of which are significant military powers.
Although Debito dissagrees
Although Debito dissagrees with me, I think the title of his post is missleading. They are not being demoted but transferred. Demoted to me means reduced in rank and pay.
However, I do agree with Debito that this action is absurd.
Crusader, Your comments were
Crusader,
Your comments were very thoughtful. Thank you.
You replied to two serious topics:
1. US forces in Japan
2. Constitutionality of the SDF
These are very serious issues, and I was being flippant. I should be more careful when I express my opinion on these issues. My opinion is as I stated it, and I hope to explain this in more detail in the future. When I do so I will try to be as thoughtful as you were. I really appreciate your comments.
Also, reading your post, I saw the word clearance and realized that was the key word I was looking for in my Google search. I'm still fishing around on this, but just briefly I did turn up something. The following is from a Q&A about State department jobs in the foreign service:
Question: How much would an international marriage affect getting a security clearance? And does the potential spouse's country of origin pose any problems? For example, Canada compared to communist China?
Answer: Foreign ties are one element of the security clearance process. Marriage to a foreign spouse will be considered but by no means will necessarily preclude getting a security clearance; it may lengthen the time needed to complete the investigation. The country of nationality of one's spouse could influence the clearance process and also could influence where one is (or is not) assigned.
Here is the link.
I'm still looking for more ...
Jon, I guess the debate
Jon,
I guess the debate depends on what one means by demoted.
I'll leave it to you and Debito to decide!
You said you think the policy is absurd.
I'm thinking that it may be the 大雑把 (oozappa) way they went about it that might be creating the biggest problem. I'm still thinking about this issue.