End of the Beginning or Beginning of the End for Shinzo Abe?

[Disir]

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe seems determined to push through a national security in agenda that would put to end Japan’s post-war pacifism, at least in the form that Japan’s citizens have come to know it. Despite the best efforts of Abe and his colleagues in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Japan’s public and opposition legislators are determined not to let Japan’s constitutionally enshrined pacifism go gentle into that good night. Last week’s crucial vote in the House of Representatives–the lower house of Japan’s bicameral legislature–revealed the deep fissures in Japan around Abe’s national security agenda. The legislative package passed, but at great cost–protest and opposition uproar reached unseen peaks.

A casualty of Abe’s determination to get this package of 11 security-related bills through both houses of the Diet could be nothing less than the very fabric of the U.S.-Japan alliance. Observers stateside have admired Abe’s impulse to rearrange the burdens of the alliances by letting Japan play a more active role. Abe’s dynamism has taken this alliance to a tipping point unlike one seen since Japanese Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki and U.S. President Ronald Reagan laid out the contours of the “sword and shield” alliance that stood largely unchanged for nearly three decades. (Yasuhiro Nakasone later would utter the words “unsinkable aircraft carrier” as a characterization of Japan’s islands as immutable foundations of American power projection in the Pacific.)

What Abe (and the broader LDP-Komeito coalition) seem not to have fully considered is the longer term effects of pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation on broader Japanese public opinion toward the United States and the U.S.-Japan alliance. Abe, as prime minister, should first be concerned with his duty to the Japanese people as his constituents, but he seems to be equally (if not more) concerned with his “constituents” in the United States.
End of the Beginning or Beginning of the End for Shinzo Abe The Diplomat

It's the beginning of the end for good old Abe.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't see a problem here.

Japan SHOULD take a more active role in the security of the region. It's one of the richest countries in the world, it certainly doesn't need the United States to defend it. It is more than capable of defending itself.

The bigger question is, why isn't anyone asking why the US is still going along with this arrangement. Japan and China are robbing us blind on trade deals, and we are chucking out hundreds of billions a year to provide security for them to do it?

 

[Disir]

You have a problem with a nation-state deciding to be pacifist and/or neutral?

 

[JoeB131]

You have a problem with a nation-state deciding to be pacifist and/or neutral?

I have no problem with that at all. They just shouldn't come whining to me when they get overrun by less enlightened types.

Japan has been getting over on us for decades. And there is a lot about the Japanese people and culture I like. But they are enjoying their "pacifism' because we have been protecting them for 70 years.

They need to man up and hold up their end of the log if they want to play lumberjack.

 

[martybegan]

You have a problem with a nation-state deciding to be pacifist and/or neutral?

I have no problem with that at all. They just shouldn't come whining to me when they get overrun by less enlightened types.

Japan has been getting over on us for decades. And there is a lot about the Japanese people and culture I like. But they are enjoying their "pacifism' because we have been protecting them for 70 years.

They need to man up and hold up their end of the log if they want to play lumberjack.

I have to agree with Joe here. We stamped out the virulent form of Japanese militarism, same as we did to the Germans. We let the Germans re-arm because of the strategic threat from the Soviets, (but we still keep soldiers there to placate the rest of Europe), we can do the same with the Japanese.

Keeping China from getting feisty takes precedent.

 

[Disir]

I disagree. Japan has been forced into agreements with the US that the populace is against.

The primary fear currently is that they will be drug into whatever little war or conflict that the US decides to go into. Can you understand where they are coming from?

 

[Disir]

You have a problem with a nation-state deciding to be pacifist and/or neutral?

I have no problem with that at all. They just shouldn't come whining to me when they get overrun by less enlightened types.

Japan has been getting over on us for decades. And there is a lot about the Japanese people and culture I like. But they are enjoying their "pacifism' because we have been protecting them for 70 years.

They need to man up and hold up their end of the log if they want to play lumberjack.

I have to agree with Joe here. We stamped out the virulent form of Japanese militarism, same as we did to the Germans. We let the Germans re-arm because of the strategic threat from the Soviets, (but we still keep soldiers there to placate the rest of Europe), we can do the same with the Japanese.

Keeping China from getting feisty takes precedent.

I see what you guys are saying but I can't recall the last time that the US had to actively defend Japan.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I see what you guys are saying but I can't recall the last time that the US had to actively defend Japan.

You are missing the point, then. The best defense is one that is so formidable no one tries to start anything.

Japan is right next to a lot of bad actors- Russia, China and North Korea. But those bad actors mostly behave themselves because of US Deterrence.

 

[martybegan]

You have a problem with a nation-state deciding to be pacifist and/or neutral?

I have no problem with that at all. They just shouldn't come whining to me when they get overrun by less enlightened types.

Japan has been getting over on us for decades. And there is a lot about the Japanese people and culture I like. But they are enjoying their "pacifism' because we have been protecting them for 70 years.

They need to man up and hold up their end of the log if they want to play lumberjack.

I have to agree with Joe here. We stamped out the virulent form of Japanese militarism, same as we did to the Germans. We let the Germans re-arm because of the strategic threat from the Soviets, (but we still keep soldiers there to placate the rest of Europe), we can do the same with the Japanese.

Keeping China from getting feisty takes precedent.

I see what you guys are saying but I can't recall the last time that the US had to actively defend Japan.

Japan actually has its own disputes with China that do not really involve the US directly, but is probably kept at a simmer because of our defense commitment.

Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Plus they tend to side towards the non-China side of the Spratly Islands dispute.

 

[Disir]

[

I see what you guys are saying but I can't recall the last time that the US had to actively defend Japan.

You are missing the point, then. The best defense is one that is so formidable no one tries to start anything.

Japan is right next to a lot of bad actors- Russia, China and North Korea. But those bad actors mostly behave themselves because of US Deterrence.

Joe, Abe gutted their constitution and pushed through legislation that most of the people do not agree with.

 

[Disir]

You have a problem with a nation-state deciding to be pacifist and/or neutral?

I have no problem with that at all. They just shouldn't come whining to me when they get overrun by less enlightened types.

Japan has been getting over on us for decades. And there is a lot about the Japanese people and culture I like. But they are enjoying their "pacifism' because we have been protecting them for 70 years.

They need to man up and hold up their end of the log if they want to play lumberjack.

I have to agree with Joe here. We stamped out the virulent form of Japanese militarism, same as we did to the Germans. We let the Germans re-arm because of the strategic threat from the Soviets, (but we still keep soldiers there to placate the rest of Europe), we can do the same with the Japanese.

Keeping China from getting feisty takes precedent.

I see what you guys are saying but I can't recall the last time that the US had to actively defend Japan.

Japan actually has its own disputes with China that do not really involve the US directly, but is probably kept at a simmer because of our defense commitment.

Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Plus they tend to side towards the non-China side of the Spratly Islands dispute.

Japan does have their own disputes with China and right now there is a lot that is being thrown around between the countries but I don't think that the US is the deterrent. The people are the deterrent.
Kobe air raid survivor in letter to PM Abe You really have no idea what war is -

 

[martybegan]

You have a problem with a nation-state deciding to be pacifist and/or neutral?

I have no problem with that at all. They just shouldn't come whining to me when they get overrun by less enlightened types.

Japan has been getting over on us for decades. And there is a lot about the Japanese people and culture I like. But they are enjoying their "pacifism' because we have been protecting them for 70 years.

They need to man up and hold up their end of the log if they want to play lumberjack.

I have to agree with Joe here. We stamped out the virulent form of Japanese militarism, same as we did to the Germans. We let the Germans re-arm because of the strategic threat from the Soviets, (but we still keep soldiers there to placate the rest of Europe), we can do the same with the Japanese.

Keeping China from getting feisty takes precedent.

I see what you guys are saying but I can't recall the last time that the US had to actively defend Japan.

Japan actually has its own disputes with China that do not really involve the US directly, but is probably kept at a simmer because of our defense commitment.

Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Plus they tend to side towards the non-China side of the Spratly Islands dispute.

Japan does have their own disputes with China and right now there is a lot that is being thrown around between the countries but I don't think that the US is the deterrent. The people are the deterrent.
Kobe air raid survivor in letter to PM Abe You really have no idea what war is -

Appeal to emotion, nothing more. Should Japan just let China take the islands? Pacifism is a nice idea, but only works if 1)the other side is as well, or at least isn't forceful or 2) you are willing to be subjugated.

 

[Disir]

I have no problem with that at all. They just shouldn't come whining to me when they get overrun by less enlightened types.

Japan has been getting over on us for decades. And there is a lot about the Japanese people and culture I like. But they are enjoying their "pacifism' because we have been protecting them for 70 years.

They need to man up and hold up their end of the log if they want to play lumberjack.

I have to agree with Joe here. We stamped out the virulent form of Japanese militarism, same as we did to the Germans. We let the Germans re-arm because of the strategic threat from the Soviets, (but we still keep soldiers there to placate the rest of Europe), we can do the same with the Japanese.

Keeping China from getting feisty takes precedent.

I see what you guys are saying but I can't recall the last time that the US had to actively defend Japan.

Japan actually has its own disputes with China that do not really involve the US directly, but is probably kept at a simmer because of our defense commitment.

Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Plus they tend to side towards the non-China side of the Spratly Islands dispute.

Japan does have their own disputes with China and right now there is a lot that is being thrown around between the countries but I don't think that the US is the deterrent. The people are the deterrent.
Kobe air raid survivor in letter to PM Abe You really have no idea what war is -

Appeal to emotion, nothing more. Should Japan just let China take the islands? Pacifism is a nice idea, but only works if 1)the other side is as well, or at least isn't forceful or 2) you are willing to be subjugated.

Of course it is. These are the people that remember the last time. Japan has, in their Constitution, the ability to defend themselves. Right now, the problem over Spratly Islands is more about the US escalating the tensions than Japan.
PressTV- US plays with fire in South China Sea

 

[martybegan]

I have to agree with Joe here. We stamped out the virulent form of Japanese militarism, same as we did to the Germans. We let the Germans re-arm because of the strategic threat from the Soviets, (but we still keep soldiers there to placate the rest of Europe), we can do the same with the Japanese.

Keeping China from getting feisty takes precedent.

I see what you guys are saying but I can't recall the last time that the US had to actively defend Japan.

Japan actually has its own disputes with China that do not really involve the US directly, but is probably kept at a simmer because of our defense commitment.

Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Plus they tend to side towards the non-China side of the Spratly Islands dispute.

Japan does have their own disputes with China and right now there is a lot that is being thrown around between the countries but I don't think that the US is the deterrent. The people are the deterrent.
Kobe air raid survivor in letter to PM Abe You really have no idea what war is -

Appeal to emotion, nothing more. Should Japan just let China take the islands? Pacifism is a nice idea, but only works if 1)the other side is as well, or at least isn't forceful or 2) you are willing to be subjugated.

Of course it is. These are the people that remember the last time. Japan has, in their Constitution, the ability to defend themselves. Right now, the problem over Spratly Islands is more about the US escalating the tensions than Japan.
PressTV- US plays with fire in South China Sea

Actually Taiwan, Indonesia,and the Philippines are more than capable of escalating tensions on their own, and very willing to considering the natural resources of the area.

China has the weakest geographical claim to the area, but the biggest stick. So basically we should let the bully win?

 

[Disir]

I see what you guys are saying but I can't recall the last time that the US had to actively defend Japan.

Japan actually has its own disputes with China that do not really involve the US directly, but is probably kept at a simmer because of our defense commitment.

Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Plus they tend to side towards the non-China side of the Spratly Islands dispute.

Japan does have their own disputes with China and right now there is a lot that is being thrown around between the countries but I don't think that the US is the deterrent. The people are the deterrent.
Kobe air raid survivor in letter to PM Abe You really have no idea what war is -

Appeal to emotion, nothing more. Should Japan just let China take the islands? Pacifism is a nice idea, but only works if 1)the other side is as well, or at least isn't forceful or 2) you are willing to be subjugated.

Of course it is. These are the people that remember the last time. Japan has, in their Constitution, the ability to defend themselves. Right now, the problem over Spratly Islands is more about the US escalating the tensions than Japan.
PressTV- US plays with fire in South China Sea

Actually Taiwan, Indonesia,and the Philippines are more than capable of escalating tensions on their own, and very willing to considering the natural resources of the area.

China has the weakest geographical claim to the area, but the biggest stick. So basically we should let the bully win?

But, they currently aren't escalating; the US is.

 

[martybegan]

Japan actually has its own disputes with China that do not really involve the US directly, but is probably kept at a simmer because of our defense commitment.

Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Plus they tend to side towards the non-China side of the Spratly Islands dispute.

Japan does have their own disputes with China and right now there is a lot that is being thrown around between the countries but I don't think that the US is the deterrent. The people are the deterrent.
Kobe air raid survivor in letter to PM Abe You really have no idea what war is -

Appeal to emotion, nothing more. Should Japan just let China take the islands? Pacifism is a nice idea, but only works if 1)the other side is as well, or at least isn't forceful or 2) you are willing to be subjugated.

Of course it is. These are the people that remember the last time. Japan has, in their Constitution, the ability to defend themselves. Right now, the problem over Spratly Islands is more about the US escalating the tensions than Japan.
PressTV- US plays with fire in South China Sea

Actually Taiwan, Indonesia,and the Philippines are more than capable of escalating tensions on their own, and very willing to considering the natural resources of the area.

China has the weakest geographical claim to the area, but the biggest stick. So basically we should let the bully win?

But, they currently aren't escalating; the US is.

Flying a non-stealth, turboprop sea-control plane over open ocean is "escalating"????

THIS is the plane in question:

Getting information on China's militarizing of the area is NOT escalation, China's militarizing the area is the escalation.

The article you linked could have been written in Beijing.

 

[Disir]

Japan does have their own disputes with China and right now there is a lot that is being thrown around between the countries but I don't think that the US is the deterrent. The people are the deterrent.
Kobe air raid survivor in letter to PM Abe You really have no idea what war is -

Appeal to emotion, nothing more. Should Japan just let China take the islands? Pacifism is a nice idea, but only works if 1)the other side is as well, or at least isn't forceful or 2) you are willing to be subjugated.

Of course it is. These are the people that remember the last time. Japan has, in their Constitution, the ability to defend themselves. Right now, the problem over Spratly Islands is more about the US escalating the tensions than Japan.
PressTV- US plays with fire in South China Sea

Actually Taiwan, Indonesia,and the Philippines are more than capable of escalating tensions on their own, and very willing to considering the natural resources of the area.

China has the weakest geographical claim to the area, but the biggest stick. So basically we should let the bully win?

But, they currently aren't escalating; the US is.

Flying a non-stealth, turboprop sea-control plane over open ocean is "escalating"????

THIS is the plane in question:

Getting information on China's militarizing of the area is NOT escalation, China's militarizing the area is the escalation.

The article you linked could have been written in Beijing.

It is to China. It's a tit for tat between China and the US right now and the ability to rope in as many other folks as possible. Japan is one. They aren't flying by with banners saying, "just wanted to say hi". Gutting the constitution in Japan for 11 pieces of legislation for the benefit of the US simply tells the people that they are not and independent and sovereign nation.

 

[martybegan]

Appeal to emotion, nothing more. Should Japan just let China take the islands? Pacifism is a nice idea, but only works if 1)the other side is as well, or at least isn't forceful or 2) you are willing to be subjugated.

Of course it is. These are the people that remember the last time. Japan has, in their Constitution, the ability to defend themselves. Right now, the problem over Spratly Islands is more about the US escalating the tensions than Japan.
PressTV- US plays with fire in South China Sea

Actually Taiwan, Indonesia,and the Philippines are more than capable of escalating tensions on their own, and very willing to considering the natural resources of the area.

China has the weakest geographical claim to the area, but the biggest stick. So basically we should let the bully win?

But, they currently aren't escalating; the US is.

Flying a non-stealth, turboprop sea-control plane over open ocean is "escalating"????

THIS is the plane in question:

Getting information on China's militarizing of the area is NOT escalation, China's militarizing the area is the escalation.

The article you linked could have been written in Beijing.

It is to China. It's a tit for tat between China and the US right now and the ability to rope in as many other folks as possible. Japan is one. They aren't flying by with banners saying, "just wanted to say hi".

Screw what China thinks. The Islands are disputed, and the US does not recognize their claim, and are exercising freedom of navigation, with a ocean surveillance aircraft. Again, China makes the claims, China bases military craft in the area, and the US is "escalating???"

 

[Disir]

Of course it is. These are the people that remember the last time. Japan has, in their Constitution, the ability to defend themselves. Right now, the problem over Spratly Islands is more about the US escalating the tensions than Japan.
PressTV- US plays with fire in South China Sea

Actually Taiwan, Indonesia,and the Philippines are more than capable of escalating tensions on their own, and very willing to considering the natural resources of the area.

China has the weakest geographical claim to the area, but the biggest stick. So basically we should let the bully win?

But, they currently aren't escalating; the US is.

Flying a non-stealth, turboprop sea-control plane over open ocean is "escalating"????

THIS is the plane in question:

Getting information on China's militarizing of the area is NOT escalation, China's militarizing the area is the escalation.

The article you linked could have been written in Beijing.

It is to China. It's a tit for tat between China and the US right now and the ability to rope in as many other folks as possible. Japan is one. They aren't flying by with banners saying, "just wanted to say hi".

Screw what China thinks. The Islands are disputed, and the US does not recognize their claim, and are exercising freedom of navigation, with a ocean surveillance aircraft. Again, China makes the claims, China bases military craft in the area, and the US is "escalating???"

We can't just say screw what China says. I mean we could but then we just go to war and stop screwing around.

The rest of the world recognizes this as escalating tensions. Looking for a pretext for war.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/704e7a1e-ff6d-11e4-84b2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3gXDGu1wL

Again, gutting a constitution by way of passing 11 pieces of legislation that benefits the US is exactly what the Japanese papers are reporting.

 

[martybegan]

Actually Taiwan, Indonesia,and the Philippines are more than capable of escalating tensions on their own, and very willing to considering the natural resources of the area.

China has the weakest geographical claim to the area, but the biggest stick. So basically we should let the bully win?

But, they currently aren't escalating; the US is.

Flying a non-stealth, turboprop sea-control plane over open ocean is "escalating"????

THIS is the plane in question:

Getting information on China's militarizing of the area is NOT escalation, China's militarizing the area is the escalation.

The article you linked could have been written in Beijing.

It is to China. It's a tit for tat between China and the US right now and the ability to rope in as many other folks as possible. Japan is one. They aren't flying by with banners saying, "just wanted to say hi".

Screw what China thinks. The Islands are disputed, and the US does not recognize their claim, and are exercising freedom of navigation, with a ocean surveillance aircraft. Again, China makes the claims, China bases military craft in the area, and the US is "escalating???"

We can't just say screw what China says. I mean we could but then we just go to war and stop screwing around.

The rest of the world recognizes this as escalating tensions. Looking for a pretext for war.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/704e7a1e-ff6d-11e4-84b2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3gXDGu1wL

Again, gutting a constitution by way of passing 11 pieces of legislation that benefits the US is exactly what the Japanese papers are reporting.

yes, we can when they are in the wrong. Let them make the first act. We are supporting our traditional allies, including Taiwan and the Philippines. If Japan wants to take more of a role in the region and other parties are OK with it, Including South Korea, then let them.

So basically you want the rest of the world to reward China for being assholes and a bully?