(c) all persons whose official duties require access to the IJC have a staff security clearance; Each recipient party affixes or identifies the name of the liberating party on all MICs. The IJC must also be characterized by the corresponding security classification of the receiving party. Reaffirming the agreement between Japan and the United States on the basis of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, signed in Washington on January 19, 1960, the cornerstone of achieving common security goals, and will be Japan`s first agreement on foreign military presence on its soil since an agreement on the status of the armed forces in 1960 that allowed the United States to deploy ships war. , fighter jets and thousands of troops in and around Japan as part of an alliance that Washington describes as the foundation of regional security. The United States of America is currently willing, in the interests of peace and security, to maintain some of its forces in and over Japan, but in the hope that Japan itself will increasingly end its own defence against direct and indirect aggression, always avoiding any armament that could pose an offensive threat or serve others. , to promote peace and security as peace and security, in accordance with the purposes and principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations. (b) access to the IJC is granted only to government officials whose official duties require such access and who, in accordance with the recipient`s national laws and regulations, have obtained security clearance for staff. (g) the recipient party conducts initial and regular security inspections in each contracting entity in which the IJC is stored or made available to the departed party, to ensure that it is protected under this agreement; The IJC, which is transmitted electronically, is protected during transmission by encryption adapted to the level of classified information. Information systems that process, store or transmit CMI receive security approval from the competent authority of the contracting party that uses the system. Despite Okinawan`s strong opposition to the U.S.
military presence on the island, the agreement was also strongly supported. Fear of a new imperialist Japan led its legislators to be barred from maintaining more than one self-defense force when they designed the post-war constitution. As a result, Japan has never spent more than 1% of its GDP on military spending (Englehardt, 2010). In exchange for authorizing the U.S. military presence in Japan, the United States agreed to defend Japan against foreign opponents such as North Korea. The conditions governing the organization of the armed forces of the United States of America in and around Japan are set by administrative arrangements between the two governments. U.S. officials say the new deal does not concern China, but it will likely be greeted with skepticism by Beijing, which is wary of the Abe administration`s military intentions. The former 1951 security treaty formed the first basis for Japan`s security relations with the United States and was signed after Japan regained full sovereignty at the end of the Allied occupation. The United States and Japan unveiled a new pact to overhaul the two countries` security measures and pave the way for more robust participation by Japan`s self-defense forces in disaster relief, peacekeeping, missile defense and other military missions.
(a) No government official is entitled to access CMI solely on the basis of a rank, appointment or security clearance of staff; (e) Before a representative of a party releases the IJC to a representative of the other party, the recipient party recognizes the party`s authority that the representative has the required level of authorization for the security of staff; The representative must have access to official purposes; and that the recipient party should take appropriate measures, in accordance with its national legislation, to ensure that the IJC has a state of protection equivalent to