Okay... I've about had enough of this. Part of this thread deals with something that was said in this thread (
U.S. Forces in Japan: time to say good-bye? ) which put me off enough that I was contemplating stopping posting on this board because for all the work I did, if I am just going to get trashed for it I might as well not post at all.
I usually post on here without any pretensions of my education or the work I do. But I never slandered other people's views as uneducated or infantile. I never questioned your education MAS but you dismissed mine, which pissed me off enough for me not to even reply to your post. I have an honors degree from Queens University. I do defence research for the Canadian government, I will either go to the London School of Economics, University of Kent, or the University Of Aberswthyth in Wales for my masters next year (and maybe a PhD). I am going to try for Kings College, Oxford, but I honestly don窶冲 know whether I will get in. If you know about foreign Relations those are the best schools outside of United States (and are compared to US schools but I rather like their course curriculum over the heavy doses of Neo realism that are espoused in most US IR programs). Next year I will most likely publish an article about the Common European Security and Defence Program, and I am just finishing my thesis on the Future of the Visegrad group for European Security (which I should be working on but you pissed me off enough to do this). Although my current bend has been on European Security I have done much work in Asian Security. I am a member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies (
www.IISS.org), maybe the world窶冱 most respected think tank that has done significant work in the region (called the Shangrila Dialogue). I don't take kindly to my views being called superficial because I didn't work to get a Honors degree or acceptance into some of the best masters schools world to be referred to as a idiot. And don't boost your ego because I didn't reply. You acted so rudely that I didn't bother putting in the time to give a major reply to your arguments. Now that you are rude to other people I feel compelled to reply to your so called informed views. They too are contestable.
I窶况e read your comments and I have become skeptical about your position. You also have completely missed the whole point of the Foreign Affairs Article. That article titled "Japan's New Nationalism", by Eugene Mathews should indicate you what the whole article was about, which you dismissed in the other thread. This is your direct quote (
U.S. Forces in Japan: time to say good-bye?)
" Pertaining to US troops in Japan, our presence is not needed there for stability. First off animosities between the nations of east asia are slowly dissipating with each new generation窶ｦ. 窶ｦ.So much for this perceived Japanese superiority. Just because you read an internet article doesn窶冲 mean that is true for all cases. Remember that is a generation gap and current sour relations now can become amicable economic partnerships later, depending on the generation窶
So wait, here you say that Japanese nationalism is on the rise and on the other thread you say it isn窶冲? Which is it? I should say that I read the article before I posed my previous views about your previous thread, and the rise of Japanese nationalism is a well known occurrance(I subscribe to FA). I also have read about the issue on a whole variety of works, and studied in Japan for 5 months, two years ago in political studies. Therefore my views aren窶冲 based on one internet article like you so rudely put.
Secondly Mathews argues that the US should remain in the region as a major power. I'm more interested in this because you argue against this by your belief in the removal of American forces in Korea. You completely trashed my argument that the US should militarily remain in the area because it accrues political capital in the region, which is what matthews argues. The US hegemonic control over the region stabilizes the region and decreases the need for states to build up their armed forces. Removing those units would be akin to removing the control rods from a Nuclear reactor, it increases the amount of reactions between protagonist (tensions) in the region. Keeping the Japanese bottled up, mostly as a self defence force with some expeditionary capability confined to out of area peace stability missions is probably the best way to ensure stability in the East Asia region. The whole article is about preventing Japan from acquiring that offensive capability, especially in the form of Nuclear weapons. According to the article the US窶冱 INABILITY to deal with North Korea has pushed Japan towards nationalization. IE the US窶冱 forces aren窶冲 perceived to be an effective deterrent in the region therefore the Japanese would rather do it themselves. If American forces are removed from the region all deterrence provided by the US is removed and then you will be adding more kindling to the fire, possibly touching off an arms race. Even popular theories about Democracies don窶冲 fight democracies are voided in this region because two of the main players aren窶冲 even democracies, and one is Stalinist. US forces need to stay in Japan to prevent its militarization, as well as working diplomatically to diffuse some of the crisis present.
Your assessment about china is also well off the mark compared to current thoughts. For the time being China has acquiesced to US hegemony in the region. Considering trade as an impediment to China asserting a more forceful role in the region is somewhat foolish. On a meta-theoretical level, Neo-realist thinkers like John J Mearshimer or Kenneth Waltz completely disregard trade as a impediment to war, I'm sure you have read Mearshimer's "the tragedy of great power politics" or Waltz's seminal work "Theory of international Relations". An applied reading of Chinese politics would give you even less heartening assessment. Denny Roy argued recently, it is not a matter of whether China will attempt to usurp US influence, but when. The current period of ambivalence is merely the CCP biding their time until they can assure themselves of security. But the Chinese Foreign policy has not been completely spineless. The Chinese have been quite assertive in using their military to achieve their goals, even for minor issues. The Spratly Island issue has seen the Chinese use naval forces as an instrument to carry out their foreign policy goals. Even more visible example has been the Chinese foreign policy towards Taiwan. The recent statement by the Chinese government that it will go to War if Taiwan attempts independence is a good indicator about the importance of Chinese regional pride in comparison to trade. Is this just toothless saber rattling? I doubt it, as the Chinese have deliberately militarized the straights and created an offensive doctrine with the capabilities to match in order to invade that country. I would argue (as many other theorists have) the Chinese hesitation to invade has more to do with the fact they would probably lose a conflict because of the Marines based in
Okinawa. Troops mean commitment. Worded guarantees and treaties don窶冲. The Czechs figured that out the hard way in 1938 when it was dismembered by the Munich agreement by its so called allies the French and the British. If the US was not present as a security guarantee for Taiwan, the Chinese would be far more tempted to carry out an invasion. Trade is an important issue, but the Chinese Communist party believes they would be able to negate or minimize the damage from a US led embargo. The new Chinese diplomacy has worked hard to create new strong links with outside regimes other than the US to ensure that if it did carry out an invasion it would not be completely cut off from the outside world. An interesting article on this topic was in the spring 2002 issue of Survival about the Chinese new oil diplomacy. China in 2001 went from self sufficiency in Oil production to the need to import oil from the Middle East. They immediately moved to secure bilateral relations with Middle Eastern states in order to prevent itself from being a blackmailed through 窶廾il Diplomacy窶? Taiwan窶冱 trade with the mainland is insignificant, and to the Chinese, national pride has always been a driving force in Chinese politics. Looking back in their history, the CCP are acutely aware that Political change has come when governments (the Manchu and the Guomingdang) were not receptive to public demands. The average Chinese citizen has been bombarded with Four decades of communist party propaganda about Taiwan窶冱 rightful place inside of China, and action to right that is going to stop because of a few billion dollars of trade.
I窶冦 going to leave it at that because I have better things to do with my day than sit and argue with you, like writing a thesis. I just wished you showed more respect to people on here because there are several who do have intelligent views that differ over your own and you should at least have the minimum academic courtesy to reply in kind.