Could it be possible that the USFJ Commander Angelella commit high treason, as Chinese media implied?

Lt. Gen. Salvatore A. “Sam” Angelella, Commander of the US forces, Japan, was invited by Japan National Press Club to deliver a speech. 

He made the speech on phone, due to the record-breaking snowstorm that had prevented him from reaching downtown Tokyo.  The keen questions from the press obviously took the commander by surprise.

In spite of the release of the transcript by the US Forces, Japan, and the audio file by the JNPC, a report with the astonishing title “The US commander claimed that they will not get involved in Sino-Japan conflicts” was created by the Chinese news agency ribenxinwen.com (RBXW), or Japan News Net, which was founded by a Chinese journalist in 2000.  Without careful verification, mis-interpretation is most likely to occur.

The RBXW report in question may be translated from Chinese to English literally like this: When the question “What will the US forces do, if military conflict happens between China and Japan?” was raised, the Commander replied, “We do not wish it to happen.  Rescue will be our critical responsibility, if it happens.  It will be very dangerous, if the US forces intervenes directly.” 

The misleading wording seemed intended to give the impresion that the Japan-US alliance is breaking.  In fact, there is much difference between the Chinese report and the transcript released by USFJ or the audio record posted by JNPC on YouTube.

If RBXW’s repot were true, Commander Angelella would have violated the treaty obligations of the US-Japan alliance, since only the White House and the Japanese Cabinet have the authority to alter the treaty.  In other words, RBXW’s report has wrongly suggested treason on Angelella’s part.

Let’s check the raw data.  According to the transcript of the USFJ, the reporter’s question and Angelella’s answer used the phrase “marine collision,” which has actually been a daily routine on East China Sea.  According to the audio file by JNPC (25:30~), the question in Japanese said “軍事衝突” (Gun-ji Shou-totsu).  The term “Gun-ji” refers to military, yet “Shou-totsu” could be understood as the term’s common usage “collision,” or its rare usage “conflict.”  Without hesitation, the English interpreter responded with the word “collision,” and Commander Angelella replied accordingly.  It fit the context.

Moreover, the Commander Angelella was referring to the behavior of both Japan Coast Guard and China Marine Police over East China Sea, which are definitely not military establishments.

Arbitrarily, RBXW translated “Shou-totsu” into “armed conflict,” implying that the US had surrendered the treaty obligation with Japan to China through the tongue of the USFJ Commander.

By the way, it is weird for a Chinese medium to be named “Japan” News Net.    rewritten at 1620

2月10日駐日美軍司令受邀接受日本記者協會演講，中國人辦的「日本新聞網」以〈美司令稱不會捲入日中衝突〉發佈新聞，並於報導中強調「日中萬一發生軍事衝突，美軍怎麼辦？的提問時表示，我們不希望發生這一種衝突，如果萬一發生的話，救護將是我們最重要的責任。如果美軍直接介入的話，那會出現十分危險的問題。」似乎美日安保已經崩解。

假使實情如此則非同小可：駐日美軍司令 Angelella 違反美日安保的條約義務，而這權威僅有白宮與永田町擁有。換言之，嚴重的話 Angelella 是叛國。

駐日美軍已經先發佈文字實錄。網友報知錄音檔：http://blog.ifeng.com/article/31811540.html?touping

請聽第25分30秒之後

主持人轉述共同社記者的提問。他說了「軍事衝突」（ぐんじしょうとつ）。

衝突，在日文中較多的用法是（車船等）「衝撞、相撞」，也可以有「武裝衝突」的意思。哪一個正確？

從問題的文脈判斷，此處記者問的是「衝撞、相撞」。又從駐日美軍司令的回答，也清楚知道是船隻衝撞事件（所以提到海上保安聽與中國海警，而那不是軍事單位）。

但，就漢字「衝突」而言，記者有可操作的空間。而記者徐靜波選擇了「操作」。

再根據演講的後發展平靜研判，也並非指「軍事衝突」（武裝衝突）。

因以上緣故而判斷：報導該新聞的中國「日本新聞網」、創辦人兼記者徐靜波有新聞造假之嫌。不可取。

Transcript

Q:  Mr. Guo Ishi from Kyodo News, and the question is, in the East China Sea, be it on the sea or under sea or above the sea, there could to be all sort of different possibilities of collision between Japan and China for example collision between the law enforcement organizations like the Japan Coast Guard and the CMS, I mean the China Marine Surveillance, so sorry.  If and when the collision happens, what may be your response?

GENERAL ANGELELLA:  Well that’s also a very good question and depending on – Well, our first priority of course to make sure these incidents don’t happen, and that there are no collisions, and that everyone is acting within customary international law on, under and over the sea.  You know, there is really no scenario that justifies any unsafe behavior at sea.  But your question is, what happens if there is a situation where there is a collision. And so the most important thing if something happens is to make sure we increase the safety immediately and rescue anyone that might be in peril.  Communication at the highest levels of government is also very important. And then finally, further professional actions on the side of both parties will help prevent the situation from escalating.

There’s a lot of discussion about this throughout the Pacific and I spoke with Admiral Locklear about it myself. And he said there are two things that reassure him of the safety in the future.  He said the first thing of course is the strength of the Japan-U.S. Alliance, you know, one that we’ve enjoyed for many, many years.  And that will allow us to conduct those immediate high level discussions of the facts.  And then the second thing is the professional actions and capabilities of the self-defense force, and how they’ve been acting and behaving over the past many years.  And I feel the same way.  Arigato gozimas.

Q:  Thank you very much, Sir.  Now there is another question on the Senkakus Islands, a more concrete question to do with time of emergency.  This is from member of Japan National Press Club, Mr. Shimura and the question is, when and if the Chinese military lands on the Senkaku Islands and the Japanese Self-Defense Forces will move to remove the Chinese military, what, how will the U.S. military forces respond to such a situation?  Now, because this is to do with the operational aspect we do fully understand that there may be things that you, the general, you may not be able to disclose to us.  But the intention of Mr. Shimura asking the question is that it would be better for the U.S. forces to explain on what may be the concrete actions to be undertaken for such an event which may work to be a deterrence with China.

GENERAL ANGELELLA:  Yes, you’re right, that is quite a provocative question.  But as I’ve said before earlier today, that you know we oppose any intimidation, coercion, or force to change the status quo.  So you know we would encourage China not to do what you suggested….