Article - "Japanﾂ’s commitment to peace is a victim of political reality"

[bornwithabeard]

The article argues that Japanese forces can now engage in battle abroad. Many people aren't happy but it's about time.

Japan's commitment to peace is a victim of political reality

What does everyone think of the article? Leave a comment in the comment section of the article.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Many people aren't happy but it's about time.

So...what? You love war or something? What battle abroad has Japan ever needed to take part in?

Will get to the article, but for now, in just a few short sentences, I don't think you and I are going to agree on much.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Read the article. I will tell you a political reality: article 9 has kept Japan from being a target. This shift in the status quo has changed that, and now China has been given an excuse. It can now say that Japan is a threat, whereas before, China had no leg to stand on to call Japan a threat. Oh yes, America was a threat, but Japan wasn't. Japan had a "good cop, bad cop" sort of thing going on. Now its just "bad cop, bad cop".

One thing that I hate about this topic is that the stupids on one side are saying Japan needs this change to defend itself, and the stupids on the other side agree. Japan is well armed and long ignored article 9 in order to be so. Japan has been able to defend itself for a long time. This "reinterpretation" (more like a raping of the constitution) was absolutely not necessary in terms of Japan's self defense.

It is my belief that this is simply about money and power, and that is why Japan has at the same time allowed arms sales abroad. Japan is just following America's military industrial complex model, and I wish I could jail all the SOBs behind these moves for life. Crime? Subverting the constitution.

This move was worse than unnecessary. It put Japan back on the map of potential belligerents that someone may decide needs a pre-emptive strike one day.

People who love war should discover the Xbox or the PS3. Lovers of war are pieces of crap.

 

[bornwithabeard]

Read the article. I will tell you a political reality: article 9 has kept Japan from being a target. This shift in the status quo has changed that, and now China has been given an excuse. It can now say that Japan is a threat, whereas before, China had no leg to stand on to call Japan a threat. Oh yes, America was a threat, but Japan wasn't. Japan had a "good cop, bad cop" sort of thing going on. Now its just "bad cop, bad cop".
One thing that I hate about this topic is that the stupids on one side are saying Japan needs this change to defend itself, and the stupids on the other side agree. Japan is well armed and long ignored article 9 in order to be so. Japan has been able to defend itself for a long time. This "reinterpretation" (more like a raping of the constitution) was absolutely not necessary in terms of Japan's self defense.
It is my belief that this is simply about money and power, and that is why Japan has at the same time allowed arms sales abroad. Japan is just following America's military industrial complex model, and I wish I could jail all the SOBs behind these moves for life. Crime? Subverting the constitution.
This move was worse than unnecessary. It put Japan back on the map of potential belligerents that someone may decide needs a pre-emptive strike one day.

I don't agree with the article but it's an interesting perspective as many people in the media have argued along similar lines to yourself. You should leave a comment in the comments section of the article as the authors of The Conversation pieces tend to reply.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I don't agree with the article but it's an interesting perspective as many people in the media have argued along similar lines to yourself. You should leave a comment in the comments section of the article as the authors of The Conversation pieces tend to reply.

I am surprised by your quick and calm response.

What do you not agree with in the article?

 

[bornwithabeard]

I am surprised by your quick and calm response.

What do you not agree with in the article?

When you consider how difficult it seems to be for the UN security council to reach agreements, it is a wonder that something like Article 9 has lasted so long. When countries like the USA can "justify" going to war with Iraq when Iraq's own neighbour's didn't feel an imminent threat (which is a similar situation to the one you are describing regarding Japan) Now the Chinese may be able to justify war.The article is written from a realist perspective and I do think that even if Abe had not chosen to "reinterpret" the article, it would have happened sooner or later. It seems very undemocratic considering the outcries that have occurred in Japan regarding this.

 

[Majestic]

I think the UN is part of the problem, as you suggest. But I would reject your idea that the US justified the war against Iraq on the basis of Iraq's imminent threat to its neighbors. I think this had relatively little to do with the war, although the invasion of Kuwait was an egregious affront to peace in the region, you would have to agree. In fact the UN had passed a number of resolutions against Iraq in the decade prior to the US invasion. The UN's failure wasn't that it couldn't reach a unanimous decision - it did this many times. It's failure was that it couldn't come to agreement on the consequences of breaching those decisions.

This remains its biggest weakness, I think, and it is a contributing cause to the continuing misery in the middle east. Many resolutions have been passed against Israel for appropriating land, but there have been no consequences. It is a failure of the UN and a failure of US policy. But this is an argument for another thread.

Regarding the article, I thought some things about it were strange. It claims the origin of Article 9 is unknown, but then goes on to describe its origin. It claims Japanese leaders refused to agree to it without preservation of the emperor's status, which is not true. Preservation of the Imperial throne was the goal of SCAP. The constitution was drafted in English by GHQ. It was then presented to the Japanese cabinet, who asked for a number of changes, but the document remained relatively unchanged (although when translated back into Japanese some important nuances were added). I was also surprised by the comment that the current cabinet's re-interpretation was shaped by opposition groups. I think their inaction and in some cases their support enabled the policy shift, but I think its a misrepresentation to say that the opposition formulated the policy. I wouldn't call the discussions "highly transparent" either.

If China could generate a number of unanimous UN security council resolutions against Japan, I would agree that the situation would be analogous to the Iraq situation in the 2000s. Frankly, I can't at all see how that would happen.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

But I would reject your idea that the US justified the war against Iraq on the basis of Iraq's imminent threat to its neighbors.

It never ceases to amaze me how people interpret other people's words. Its like they go through a blender in between minds. It seems even I am guilty of misinterpreting bornwithabeard's sentiments right here in this thread. But....

He never said that was a justification. He offered that as proof that Iraq was no threat to the United States, half a world away.

 

[Majestic]

Maybe you can start a new thread on this topic.

Majestic @ regretting he even bothered signing in.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Maybe you can start a new thread on this topic.

Majestic @ regretting he even bothered signing in.

I was just hoping you would recognize the error and correct, admit, or make up for it.