Jun Sasamoto | President of Confederation of Lawyers of Asia and the Pacific (COLAP), Bureau member of International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)
Summary
• The U.S. military claims that its presence and bases in East Asia―including Japan and South Korea―are intended to protect the region from China and Russia. However, this is not the U.S.’s true goal. Its aim is to divide and rule Asia in order to dominate the region. This is particularly true in East Asia.
• The aggressive nature of the United States is not limited to the current Trump administration. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has established a network of military bases and alliances throughout East Asia, dividing and ruling the region to institutionalize its military dominance. This applies to Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines in East Asia.
1. The History and Strategy of U.S. Imperialism: Dominating Other Nations Through the Construction of Military Bases
A History of Aggression and Domination: Dominating other nations through the construction of military bases and military alliances. U.S. imperialism is not only aggressive but also domineering; it is a form of neocolonialism.
(1) Historically, since the independence of the 13 Eastern colonies in 1776, the United States invaded the indigenous peoples of the western mainland in the 19th century and subsequently secured Pacific island territories such as Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines. Backed by military power, the United States expanded its borders through the construction of military bases and the migration of Americans, incorporating territories into the United States (Hawaii) or establishing them as autonomous territories (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands) (USW p. 39).
(2) In the 1940 agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom regarding the exchange of warships and military bases following World War I, the United Kingdom, which needed warships for the war against the Nazis, sought to acquire them. Conversely, the United States secured naval bases in key maritime locations such as the Caribbean, the Azores in the Atlantic, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. In this way, the status of imperial power shifted from the United Kingdom to the United States. At that time, from the U.S. perspective, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans were “moats that could not be bridged” (USW p. 143).
(3) Rapid Expansion of Overseas U.S. Military Bases After World War II
Following the experience of Pearl Harbor, the United States―feeling vulnerable―decided to establish bases on Pacific island territories in order to avoid attacks and deter aggression far from its own borders (USW p. 164). At the time, MacArthur emphasized a defensive line connecting the Philippines, Okinawa, the Aleutian Islands, and Alaska in East Asia as a perimeter to protect the United States. After World War II, the U.S. took control of the western Pacific islands (the Marianas, Micronesia) that Japan had previously occupied, governing them under the nominal status of UN Trust Territories while effectively treating them as colonies.
Immediately after the war, the United States had come to possess some 2,000 bases worldwide. “Within ten years of the war’s end, 42 nations and 8 mutual defense treaties, over 30 countries and administrative security agreements―all of which touched on bases (base rights)” (USW p. 195). This reflected a vision of the Pacific as a vast “lake” (USW p. 182), and represented a further intensification of what can be called “offensive defense” (USW p. 181).
U.S. military bases acquired after World War II were built in occupied territories won through war. Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan are prominent examples. Today, the U.S. maintains between 700 and 800 overseas military bases. These have grown in a pattern that encircles the Soviet Union (Russia), China, and Iran. The approximately 800 U.S. military bases deployed around the world vastly outnumber the overseas military installations of Russia and China (China has only Djibouti; Russia is concentrated primarily in former Soviet states).
(4) Interference in Domestic Affairs via the CIA and NED
In Italy, the U.S. interfered in elections. American military bases in Italy are referred to not as “U.S. bases” but as “NATO bases.” The United States also intervened in Japanese elections after the war.
The strategy of American imperialism centers on encircling the Soviet Union (Russia), China, North Korea, and Iran. After the Cold War, the focus shifted to suppressing the rise of nations beyond U.S. control. Maintaining and strengthening U.S. military bases in South Korea and Japan is one pillar of this strategy.
(From David Vine, “The United States of War,” pp. 4-5)
In the Middle East, during the U.S. attack on Iran in 2025, U.S. military bases across the region were highlighted as potential targets for Iranian retaliation―and in the attacks of 2026, they did in fact come under Iranian fire. This reflects just how extensively U.S. military bases have been established throughout the Gulf states.
(5) Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean
The Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean were returned from the United Kingdom to Mauritius in 2024, following an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice―a development that can be supported as part of the decolonization process. However, in May 2025, the United Kingdom concluded a new 99-year lease agreement with Mauritius for the use of the military base. As a result, Diego Garcia continues to be used as a U.S. military installation. It served as a key staging ground during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and was targeted by Iran during the 2026 Iran war. It will continue to serve as a critical hub for projection of power and control over Asia. The Chagossian people were expelled from the islands to make way for the U.S. base, and legal proceedings challenging the UK-Mauritius agreement have since been filed in British courts.
(6) The Role of Overseas U.S. Military Bases
The presence of foreign military bases instills in host-nation populations a sense of oppression and occupation. The peoples of South Korea and Japan have come to feel this, often without fully realizing it.
Threat to adversaries: U.S. military bases in South Korea, Japan, and Okinawa have posed a continuous threat to North Korea and China for over 80 years. Reflecting on the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s, it is clear that the presence of a foreign military base near one’s own territory constitutes a genuine threat.
(7) The existence of U.S. military bases, along with actual exercises and deployments, has grown increasingly aggressive―serving as a trigger for war, and provoking not only military and intelligence confrontations but actual armed conflict. (Examples: NATO’s eastward expansion as a cause of the Ukraine war; the escalating aggression of U.S.-South Korea military exercises, including decapitation strike scenarios targeting Kim Jong-un.)
(8) American imperialism employs a wide range of tools beyond military pressure―including provocations (such as former House Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan), media propaganda (“the China threat” narrative), and financial support for opposition forces (NED activities) – all aimed at stoking tensions and destabilizing governments, thereby increasing the risk of regional military conflict and war.
(9) Underlying this American imperialism is the pursuit of economic interests by the U.S. military-industrial complex. The more military tensions and wars arise, the more weapons they are able to sell―and this is the fundamental engine driving American imperialism. Even President Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex.
2. U.S. Imperial Strategy in Asia
(1) The U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy
2009-2017, Obama Administration: Through its “Pivot to Asia” policy, the U.S. shifted its military focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. Following the end of the Cold War, the priority became containing the rising power of China rather than maintaining military forces in Europe.
2019, First Trump Administration: Designating China, Russia, and North Korea as adversaries, the U.S. sought cooperation from its allies and significantly increased joint military exercises. The U.S. strategic focus was reframed from the “Asia-Pacific” to the “Indo-Pacific,” with an emphasis on encircling China. Taiwan became the focal point of U.S. dominance in Asia.
The Taiwan Contingency
2022, Biden Administration: Military intervention in the Taiwan question was implied on four separate occasions. A 2023 report by CSIS (a U.S. think tank) outlined scenarios in which China, Taiwan, Japan, and the United States engage in combat, based on the assumption of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
U.S. military involvement in the defense of Taiwan constitutes a violation of international law. The exercise of collective self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter is only justified when invited by a state recognized as independent by the international community.
Acting in accordance with U.S. intentions, Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi suggested Japan’s military involvement in the Taiwan question under the security legislation (November 2025). This amounts to the exercise of collective self-defense premised on U.S. military involvement in the Taiwan issue―and, like the U.S. position, constitutes a violation of international law. It also violates Japan’s Peace Constitution.
(2) Strengthening Cooperation with Pro-U.S. Nations in East Asia
The 2023 U.S.-Japan-South Korea summit (led by Biden, Kishida, and Yoon) strengthened the trilateral military alliance. Biden invited the two leaders to the United States to reaffirm the strong bonds among the three nations. This trilateral alliance covers the range from North Korea to Taiwan and the South China Sea.
2025, Second Trump Administration: While maintaining large-scale U.S. military bases in Japan, South Korea, and Guam, military use of bases and military exercises in the northwest Pacific have been increasing. Even under South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, the trilateral relationship remains unchanged. Under Japan’s Takaichi administration, Japan’s military buildup has advanced further―including the deployment of missiles with enemy base strike capability.
Trilateral ties among the Philippines, Japan, and the United States are also being strengthened. Under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), the Philippines expanded the number of Philippine military facilities available for joint use with the U.S. from 5 to 9. Japan and NATO countries have also participated in U.S.-Philippines military exercises (Balikatan), aimed at addressing contingencies involving Taiwan and the South China Sea.
Japan and the Philippines agreed to begin negotiations on an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) for the mutual provision of military supplies, and concluded a General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) for the sharing of military intelligence (April 30, 2025). Their shared objective is the containment of China.
(3) Burden-Sharing Indicators Among Allies (2024 RAND Corporation Report)**
Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan in Asia, along with Turkey, Romania, Poland, the three Baltic states, and Norway in Europe, are positioned on the front lines against the four nations the U.S. regards as adversaries (China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran). In terms of military burden-sharing, the U.S. accounts for 46.5%, while Japan’s share of 6.7% is the highest among all allies.
The actual structure of the encirclement of China and Russia is, as can be seen from the map below, nearly identical to the distribution of U.S. military bases. Those bases form the structural foundation of the encirclement network.
3. A History of U.S. Imperial Domination of Asia Since World War II
(1) After Japan’s defeat, the U.S. used Japan as a buffer against the Soviet Union. From 1951 onward, the Japanese government was bound by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the Status of Forces Agreement―a strategy that embedded “base rights,” enabling the establishment of massive U.S. military bases on Japanese soil.
(2) Following U.S. intervention in the Korean War, and from 1953 onward, massive military bases were established in South Korea, along with the UN Command Korea, the U.S.-South Korea military alliance, and a permanent U.S. military presence.
The UN Command also concluded a Status of Forces Agreement with Japan (1954), enabling it to use facilities within Japan. Large numbers of military personnel from NATO countries come to U.S. bases in Okinawa. Since 2018, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, New Zealand, and Canada have used Futenma and Kadena Air Base―both UN Command bases―a combined total of 23 times.
(3) Intervention in Taiwan
In 1979, the normalization of U.S.-China relations led the U.S. to acknowledge China’s “One China” policy. At the same time, however, the U.S. effectively turned Taiwan into a base for aggression and domination in Asia.
The Taiwan Relations Act―a piece of U.S. domestic legislation enacted in 1979―has been used to hint at armed intervention against China and to sell weapons to Taiwan, thereby posing a continuing threat to China. While there are no U.S. military bases in Taiwan itself, the U.S. bases in Okinawa serve as a pressure point against China.
4. The Ukraine War and NATO
(1) The question of how to interpret the Ukraine War is an indispensable perspective for any analysis of contemporary U.S. imperialism.
After the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved―yet NATO was not. Instead, NATO continued its eastward expansion with Russia as its imagined adversary. NATO subsequently carried out attacks on Kosovo and Libya, transforming itself from a defensive alliance into an aggressive one. (See President Putin’s declaration of war.)
In 2014, the U.S. orchestrated the Maidan coup, with the NED providing financial support to media outlets and anti-Russian forces. Phone calls by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and others revealing interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs were also exposed. This brought an anti-Russian government to power in Ukraine. As with other color revolutions, the U.S. adopted a strategy of providing financial and intelligence support to opposition forces, escalating unrest, and engineering regime change. (See Oliver Stone’s *Ukraine on Fire*.)
From 2014 onward, attacks on Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine were carried out using neo-Nazis. This has not been reported in Japan or South Korea, where the influence of Western media is strong.
(2) A Framework for Understanding the Ukraine War
Those who view the Ukraine War solely through the lens of criticism of Russia cannot fully grasp the aims of U.S. imperialism outlined above.
The Western criticism that invoking neo-Nazis or NATO expansion “serves Russian interests” confuses “justification” with “explanation.” Such criticism obscures the social reality of the dangers posed by the expansion of a military alliance like NATO―a reality that most of Japan’s peace movement has failed to recognize.
A proxy war between the U.S. and Russia: During the Biden presidency, the U.S.―though capable of participating militarily had Ukraine requested it―chose not to do so, instead adopting a proxy war strategy of using Ukraine to exhaust Russia. At the same time, the provision of U.S.-made weapons served the interests of the American military-industrial complex.
In a Taiwan contingency, the U.S. may use Japan and South Korea as expendable pawns to weaken China. The aim is to stoke fears of a Chinese threat―compelling Japan to purchase large quantities of U.S. weapons in peacetime―and then, in wartime, to have Japan and South Korea fight China directly while selling them weapons.
Within the European peace movement as well, most voices remain focused on criticizing Russia. However, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) and the World Peace Council are accurately analyzing the actions of both Russia and NATO.
In Japan, there is a history of hostility toward the Soviet Union and China dating back to the 19th century, and Japanese citizens show the highest rate of criticism of Russia over the Ukraine War among any nation. International peace movements that serve as bridges to China and Russia―such as COLAP and IADL―are urgently needed now.
5. East Asia in the 21st Century
(1) The Manufactured Taiwan Crisis (U.S. Propaganda)
Not only Xi Jinping, but successive generations of Chinese leaders have maintained that they will not renounce the use of force to achieve Taiwan’s unification. (Endo Homare, *Xi Jinping’s Aim: From U.S. Unipolarity to Multipolarity―It Is the CIA That Is Manufacturing the Taiwan Crisis*, p. 272)
• Jiang Zemin (1990s): During the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis, China conducted missile exercises near Taiwan, and President Jiang Zemin strongly emphasized his opposition to any moves toward Taiwan independence.
• Hu Jintao (2000s): The Anti-Secession Law was enacted in 2005, and President Hu Jintao stated that “if Taiwan declares independence, non-peaceful means will be employed.”
• Xi Jinping (2010s onward): At the 2022 Chinese Communist Party Congress, Xi stated that China would “make every effort to achieve peaceful reunification, but would never commit to renouncing the use of force.”
The theory of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by 2027―promoted by the CIA Director and the Department of Defense―was found to lack any concrete basis whatsoever, as revealed in March 2026 by U.S. intelligence (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence). The “China threat” narrative is U.S. propaganda orchestrated through media outlets across the world.
(2) U.S. Provocations
Taiwan: The visit to Taiwan by House Speaker Pelosi in August 2022, the meeting between the U.S. House Speaker and President Tsai on U.S. soil in 2023, and exchanges with President Lai―China has responded to each of these with military exercises.
Since last year, Japanese lawmakers have begun visiting Taiwan, drawing criticism from China.
Arms sales to Taiwan from 1979 onward (Endo, p. 209), and NED support for pro-Taiwan independence forces (discussed below)―even if these U.S. and Japanese actions are described as “unofficial,” China regards them as interference in its internal affairs and condemns them as violations of the “One China” principle.
(3) Characteristics of Propaganda Emanating from U.S. and Western Media
• Japan’s military buildup has been advanced under the slogan “Yesterday’s Ukraine is today’s Japan.” In December 2022, Japan decided through its three national security documents to acquire counterstrike capability missiles.
• A hallmark of this propaganda is the framing of events such as “Russia prepares attack ahead of 2022 invasion”―with no coverage whatsoever of NATO’s own movements. The deployment of NATO missiles in Poland and Romania went unreported. Nor was it reported that the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline was carried out on U.S. orders. Only independent media and journalists covered this.
(4) The Korean Peninsula
North Korea’s missile launches are primarily a reaction to U.S.-South Korea military exercises. Under the Yoon administration, over 40 military exercises were conducted, including drills for decapitation strike operations – exercises that can no longer be described as defensive in nature.
U.S. involvement with North Korean defector organizations (invited to the U.S. Congress; defector groups launching balloons near the border) has also been documented.
There are also reports that during President Yoon’s declaration of martial law, the U.S. was involved in a false flag operation, with U.S. military aircraft overhead at the time.
6. Military Actions by the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea as Reactions
The military actions of the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea can be understood, in part, as reactions to aggressive U.S. military actions and provocations.
• The Soviet response during the Cuban Missile Crisis ← U.S. deployment of missiles in Italy and Turkey
• North Korea’s missile and nuclear development ← Partly a reaction against U.S. aggression in Iraq and Libya, and against the U.S. designation of these countries as part of an “axis of evil”
– China’s territorial disputes at sea ← A reaction to the reinforcement and expansion of U.S. military base construction in Okinawa
7. U.S. Imperialism from Behind the Scenes – The Role of the CIA and NED
(1) Interference in Domestic Affairs in the CIA Era
The overthrow of the Iranian government (1953), the overthrow of Allende’s government in Chile (1973), support for anti-government forces in Nicaragua (1980s), the attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its president (2026).
Color Revolutions―interference in domestic affairs aimed at toppling governments by supporting pro-U.S. forces within target countries (Georgia’s Rose Revolution, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, etc.)
During the attack on Venezuela, President Trump ordered the CIA to carry out operations, and in the abduction of President Maduro, the CIA conducted covert activities including locating his whereabouts.
(2) NED Interference
Funding and research activities by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID.
Under President Reagan in the 1980s, a government-funded private foundation was established to avoid criticism of the CIA’s overt interference in the internal affairs of other nations. It provides financial support and conducts research activities in favor of pro-U.S. forces. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has published a detailed research report on this matter.[1]
A) Hong Kong: Financial and organizational support for the Hong Kong democracy movement.
B) Xinjiang and Tibet: Support for independence movements.
C) Taiwan:
• In July 2023, NED presented President Tsai Ing-wen with its Democracy Award (see photo, right).
• Taiwan’s Digital Minister Audrey Tang sent a congratulatory video message on the occasion of NED’s 40th anniversary.
• Financial support for Taiwan’s Umbrella Movement.
D) Korea: North Korean defectors.
There has been financial support for defector organizations that conduct provocations along the 38th parallel, as well as for defector witnesses who testify before the U.S. Congress (as reported by an American journalist).[2]
E) Financial Support to Other Asian Nations
In Bangladesh in 2025 and Nepal in 2026, anti-government protests rapidly escalated into riots and acts of violence within short periods, resulting in the successive overthrow of governments that had been favorably disposed toward China. These events have also been identified as part of a pattern of color revolutions in which NED funds pro-U.S. NGOs to engineer regime change. It has been pointed out that the U.S. is involved in fomenting what are labeled “Gen Z movements,” in which short-lived riots are steered toward the toppling of governments (source: *The New Atlas* on YouTube).
Notes
[1] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/wjbxw/202408/t20240809_11468618.html
[2] *Article by Tim Shorrock* https://newstapa.org/article/UVx_7
The North Korea Freedom Coalition (NKFC) and the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), together with the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), are among the largest foreign supporters of North Korean defector organizations. All of these organizations are connected to the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK), the most influential defector-support organization in Washington. NKFC representative Scholte and NED founder and president Carl Gershman both serve on its board of directors.
