Friday, December 15, 2006
Red sun rising?
Japan's Parliament passed a law today that increases the status of its "defense agency" to a ministry for the first time since the end of World War II. It is a symbolic act in a country where symbols mean a great deal, and it is part of Prime Minister Abe's broader initiative to stir up Japanese nationalism (by, for example, mandating "patriotic education" in the schools).
Good, bad, doesn't matter, or more complicated than that?
17 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Dec 15, 12:11:00 PM:
I wonder if that "patriotic education" includes what happened in places like Nanking in WWII. Because I don't think that the japanese are taught that in school at the moment - and as I understand it, it remains a sore point in Sino-Japanese relations.
By 
Ken McCracken, at
Fri Dec 15, 01:15:00 PM:
Japan is a responsible democracy with a free press that no longer seeks hegemony in asia - unlike the hypocritical whiners in Bejing.
China's Communist government has committed atrocities that makes the rape of Nanjing look like a boy scout jamboree, so for them to complain about Japan takes a lot of chutzpah.
Japan not only should arm itself with nuclear weapons, it needs to. The psycho running North Korea can't hit the U.S. with a nuke (yet) and so Japan remains his second-most likely target, after Seoul.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Dec 15, 01:17:00 PM:
TH: "Good, bad, doesn't matter, or more complicated than that?"
It probably doesn't matter much at this point.
The North Koreans don't like the increase in the status of Japan's Defense Agency. But the North Koreans always criticize any Japanese "expansion" in the military field.
What may matter more to the Chinese is this quote from an editorial in the Japanese newspaper The Daily Yomiuri today: "In India, Japan finds a partner that is both influential in the establishment of a regional order for East Asia and that shares common values, such as freedom and democracy. Japan must accelerate its economic and interpersonal exchanges with India to promote strategic diplomacy."
India says that it has no plans for a military alliance with Japan. But nothing is off the table.
A military alliance between Japan and India--two bookends on either side of China--might increase tension in the region.
By Ken McCracken, at
Fri Dec 15, 02:02:00 PM:
An alliance between Japan and India may well increase 'tension' in the area - but is that a reason not to do it?
This is like saying that putting locks on your doors in an unsafe neighborhood is only going to outrage the burglars.
The only reason there is tension in the region at all is because most of the big players are led by unelected dictators who threaten those democracies.
By , at
Fri Dec 15, 02:53:00 PM:
Japan can and should be a counterveiling force in the region. It is because they haven't been, the Soviets and Chinese have gotten away with so much.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Dec 15, 03:11:00 PM:
Looking at the situation from a military point of view:
Pakistan is China's buddy, Ken. A rise in tension would put democratic India between hostile "bookends," too.
Now we would have a "game," with three of the four countries in possession of nuclear weapons.
By , at
Fri Dec 15, 03:12:00 PM:
Well. it should be four for four (Paki, Indai, China and Japan) with nuclear weapons.
Many medium-large states with nukes. We had a real crack at non-proliferation in 1946 (of course most of us weren't alive or influential then), but that day is 60 years gone.
The "Rape of Nanking" was horrific, as well as other aspects of the Japanese occupation and WWII in general (the US firebombed major Japanese cities and slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians), but that too is 60 years gone.
This is the harbinger of the "New World Order", but not quite the one that "Poppy" Bush had in mind.
This is the way the world is, and is going to be. No number of 'thoughtful' editorials in the NY TImes or chatty interrogatives with Tom Friedman, David Broder, etc. on "Meet the Press" are going to change it.
The bullies and thugs of this world are only too happy to push until resisted. Well, this is resistance to being pushed by bullies and thugs. The Japanese are civilized people with something of value to protect, and I would much rather have them as allies than, say, the French.
-David
By sunguh5307, at
Fri Dec 15, 03:13:00 PM:
DEC raises a good point, it's not a great picture. But hey, we shouldn't be meddling in other countries policies anyways, or so I seem to recall many people tell me about the Middle East.
If we won't protect an ally like Japan both politically and materially, why should they not look elsewhere to bolster the security of their country?
And if they do, and we aren't willing to stand up for them in the face of China, North Korea, etc... we really can't complain.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Dec 15, 04:35:00 PM:
To keep things in perspective:
The Daily Yomiuri also says: "Currently, however, Japan's relationship with India is not as strong as it is with China, a relationship that has been described as 'economically hot.' Japan's trade with India is one-twenty-eighth that of its trade with China."
By Grumpy Old Man, at
Fri Dec 15, 11:50:00 PM:
Patriotic education in the US doesn't include the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, either.
Why do we need troops in Korea and Okinawa 61 years after WWII and almost 20 after the collapse of the USSR?
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Dec 16, 12:08:00 AM:
Patriotic education in the US doesn't include the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, either.
I knew about that in high school.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Dec 16, 10:47:00 AM:
PA: Me too.
"Japan's trade with India is one-twenty-eighth that of its trade with China."
However, economic ties are no panacea against conflict or guarantor of alliance. In August 1939, Germany's chief trading partner was France.
I concur with David. The globe is finally sliding back towards a multi-polar system. What we'll be seeing play out in Asia is a classic balance of power between rival states, analogous to Europe in the 19th century.
By , at
Sat Dec 16, 11:23:00 AM:
"What we'll be seeing play out in Asia is a classic balance of power between rival states, analogous to Europe in the 19th century."
I really hope it doesn't turn out that way - the 19th century was pretty bloody, and in this day and age of alliances and nuclear weapons, any hot war between major powers in Asia would probably trigger a cataclysmic nuclear exchange.
By William, at
Sat Dec 16, 11:34:00 AM:
I also learned about Dresden and Tokyo in high school...
I'll second phrizz. At this point there is serious hope that we can avoid a multi-polar world. If we can avoid isolating China by making military alliances around it and rather our very best at incorporating China into this New World Order (something that we really have done quite well already), then perhaps we can hope to keep any nationalistic rivalries purely economic and athletic.
Of course, such an incorporation does not merely mean not forcing them into a corner by surrounding them with military force but also not luring them onto the center stage by not having any military force at all. That, combined with our need for strong allies in combating rogue regimes, means that it is a good development that Japan is strengthening militarily.
However, it would be a terrible development were Japan to develop nuclear weapons. Not only does its lack of nuclear weapons shine as an example of a first world country that can do without, but it also keeps them militarily dependent on the United States. Japan is probably one of, it not our best, ally, and we want to keep it that way.
Thus we should keep China incorporated, strengthen Japan's military, and do our very best to persuade them not to develop nuclear armaments.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Dec 16, 11:43:00 AM:
"In August 1939, Germany's chief trading partner was France."
One difference:
Japan (both the government and the people)--the legendary "Japan Inc."--thinks much more about business than either France or Germany did in 1939.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Dec 16, 10:25:00 PM:
I'm sure you're right DEC, but there is one thing that will always outstrip money in the greater scheme of things, and that is power. Especially for non-democratic and highly nationalistic countries.
Money is one way of measuring power, but it is not the only way. Bahrain is a wealthy nation, especially considering its size, but it is still a pawn to greater powers like the US, Saudi, and Iran.
A subtle argument against the idea that globalization and the proliferation of trade promotes peace is that if a nation has some particularly valuable trading relationship, then it has one more valuable rope about its neck with which to be threatened. A rich nation which is dependent on trade for its way of life (Japan, US, et cetera) can be seriously threatened with the severance of that trade and may feel inclined to respond strongly to such threats, even with force. Especially an island nation. It wouldn't be the first time in history that conflicts flared up over trade rights. Even the modern pacifistic nations of Europe fire on each other semi-regularly over, of all things, fishing rights.
By , at
Thu Oct 18, 04:29:00 AM:
Sometimes it happens that for the same ailment different treatments are offered by different doctors. This confuses the patients to a great deal. Which treatment to go for, which doctor to follow etc, etc. Under these circumstances people can refer to the
patient info sites where they can get all the information regarding the disease, its treatments, prices etc.
