What's new

Washington and Tokyo ramp up military preparations against China

senheiser

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
4,037
Reaction score
-1
Country
Russian Federation
Location
Germany
Washington and Tokyo ramp up military preparations against China
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services39





[ Editors Note: This is our first article from Vladimir Odintsov, a seasoned political commentator writing for NEO in Moscow, a strategic affiliation we have made to tap into their huge stable of Oriental scholars. We wanted to give our readers some insight into how the Russians view current geo-political events though the prism of being closer than we are.

Americans did not hear much about the Kerry-Hagel visit to Japan, and that was maybe by design. We see more and more signs that our government feels that the less we know about what is going on the easier it is to manage our perceptions. It generally works.

One example of this is a little secret about 'demilitarized' Japan. It actually has nuclear weapons, but they keep them unassembled. Of course America and most other countries pretend they don't know. The funny part is that Iran has none, yet has been vilified as a dangerous threat for years. Someone has obviously been having fun at our expense. Most of you know why.

But also unknown by the West is much about Japan's space program. They have a rocket (H-2B) that can take up 11+ ton payloads, like a whole bunch of nuclear weapons for example. Who has ever stopped to think that any country who can put up satellites has a delivery option for a nukes? Surprised? You should be.

But that would be illegal of course, so you don't have to worry about the Israelis sneaking one in. They would never break the rules, right? They are already building ICBMS which will be able to strike the US, Russia and China with MIRV'd warheads. Surprised again? They have been working on this with India. I wonder who is paying...the American taxpayer maybe? ...Jim W. Dean ]

________________________________

… by Vladimir Odintsov, and New Eastern Outlook, Moscow



One broke country – reaching out to another

Despite the break out of a U.S. budget crisis and Obama’s cancelled trip to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit “to save public funds”, the White House has neither revised nor curtailed its military obsessions. Only the emphasis has changed.

Under the influence of international opinion, rather than involuntarily halting the military machine with respect to Syria, Washington has instead decided to thoroughly apply itself in the direction of its “Asian pivot” and intimidate China, North Korea and, while they’re at it, Russia as well, within the Pacific Ocean.

With this in mind, it was important for Washington and its allies in Asia to prepare for the Tokyo “2+2” style meeting at the beginning of October of this year, which would be held between U.S. State Secretary John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera.

This meeting was nervously anticipated both in Japan and its neighbouring countries. There were fears that, due to the White House abandoning its plans for a military attack on Syria and the necessity of reducing the national budget, as a host of U.S. politicians claim, that this meeting would not only be cancelled.

There were also concerns of adjustments to Obama’s earlier claims of “our pivot to Asia, to expand and develop our cooperation with countries in this region”, that is, reducing American presence.

The Obama administration’s “Asia pivot” began in the middle of 2009. However, the trade and economic goals of this “pivot” quickly took a backseat and instead we now see the rise of military plans and the incitement of nationalism in Asia.

This process is best reflected within the politics of Japan, where new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took office in December of last year, promising in his election campaign to build a “strong Japan with brand new armed forces”.

Once in power, the new government substantially increased military spending, adopted a tougher stance towards disputed territories and took concrete steps to liberate the national armed forces from their constitutional restrictions.


The Big Mother – How many MIRV’s nukes could this carry? – A bus load.

In particular, work is underway on reviewing Article 9 of the Constitution, which outlaws war as a means of settling international disputes, and amending the phrasing of the stipulation prohibiting the right to collective self-defence, which is to conduct military operations “to protect an ally who has suffered from aggression”.

Collectively, all of this points to a rapid expansion of military activities in Japan as well as its involvement in conflicts that are not directly related to protecting the Japanese archipelago.

According to the preliminary feedback on the “2+2” style meeting which did happen, after all, on October 2-3 in Tokyo, the discussions involved reviewing a number of aspects of American-Japanese relations within the sphere of security.

The U.S. “welcomed” a number of Japan’s decisions, including Japan’s intentions to “actively get involved in security issues standing before the international community”, the decision to create a National Security Council, increase the defence budget and review the legal justifications of “collective self-defence”.

The meeting became quite an important step towards strengthening both American military presence in the region and the American-Japanese strategic alliance, as well as towards further development of the military cooperation between these two nations.

The meeting also saw active discussions on various current events in Asia, including North Korea’s nuclear programme and the territorial disputes in the East China Sea and the East Sea.

However, the most important part of the meeting dealt with increasing joint US-Japan efforts to counter Chinese influence, particularly within the military sphere.

This is confirmed in the post-conference statement where both countries pledge to a number of points, including U.S. intentions to deploy high-tech weapons to Japan, Washington’s agreement to the further militarization of Japan and joint efforts in military opposition against China.


A plane still plagued with performance issues, software code problems, but too big to fail it seems

In particular, the countries have agreed that Japan will soon receive a large shipment of MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircrafts as well as the short take-off and vertical landing variant F-35B fighters, to aid paratroopers.

There are also plans to base the Boeing P-8 Poseidon within Japan in December of this year, which is a patrol aircraft designed for anti-submarine warfare, while the American unmanned Global Hawk reconnaissance drones will come next year.

It’s no secret that the goal of this clearly provocative step on the part of Washington and the main future target of these air force additions, to be used primarily by the Japanese airborne divisions, will be China and the U.S. “older brotherly” aid in the event of growing tensions within territorial disputes over islands in the East China Sea and the East Sea.

To accomplish the same objectives, a second early-warning X-band U.S. missile-defense radar system will be installed near Kyoto as part of the joint missile defence system. Although the official statement claims that the radar will be installed to “monitor North Korea’s nuclear preparations”, it is clear for everyone involved that these weapons are also a part of Pentagon’s military programmes directed against China and Russia.

_______________________________


” Now I lay me down to die…”

Along the same lines, there are also plans to jointly modernize a Radio Intelligence Center and equip it with cutting-edge electronic equipment. It is located on the Iwo Jima Island, which lies 700 miles to the south-east of Japan, and collects intelligence from the entire Pacific Ocean, with a particular emphasis on obtaining information about China’s military potential.

It’s easy to see from the abovementioned examples of the American “pivot to Asia” and the strengthening of its military presence that there’s probably no point in waiting for any de-escalation of the maritime disputes between Japan and China, as well as other regional tensions in general.

The White House clearly sees the Shinzo Abe government as a central partner within the region, specifically with respect to strengthening the opposition to Beijing. This can also be seen in the fact that the meeting was held in Tokyo and not in Washington, as it usually would have been.

It is also quite emblematic that Washington has once again, in a time of an economic crisis, turned to developing military cooperation and inflating war hysteria in yet another region of the world as a means of pulling itself out of a difficult financial situation.

The same chain of events transpired during the outbreak of the previous global economic crisis, when Washington’s exit strategy included more military operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

Meanwhile, the “strategists” at the White House, as is the case with Japan, actively incited and supported nationalistic feelings as well as various complaints within the conflict regions, amid the population’s growing social discontent and budget issues.

In this respect, one can understand the feelings of Americans, who, amidst U.S. budget woes and increasing unemployment, are forced to search for a means of livelihood at the same time as they are supposed to “be happy of the successes of national politics within Asia”.

Well, to each their own, the poor have their problems while the Washington hawks have their new military contracts.

Vladimir Odintsov, political commentator, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Editing: Jim W. Dean
 
No!

Japan is a good country.

North Korea is a bad country.

And China is bad too.
 
No!

Japan is a good country.

North Korea is a bad country.

And China is bad too.
When did you qualify to judge who is bad and who is good?
Can I judge you? I'd say you're a bad person for betraying the Chinese people and being a US lap dog plus sucking up to the Japanese.
 
Japan once before is bad, they were punished,
Now China start to step on Japan's footprints of WW2 era

They would be punished too.
 
Japan once before is bad, they were punished,
Now China start to step on Japan's footprints of WW2 era

They would be punished too.

Japan is trying to bring back its glory before the WW2 by denying crimes, amending the constitution and praising the criminals who had killed a lot of innocent people (including yours) during the war, silly. And you people compare China to WW2's Japan, which is even more ridiculous.
 
Why Japan Is Still Not Sorry Enough | TIME.com

By Kirk Spitzer Dec. 11, 2012

Keen observers know that Japan’s ugly territorial disputes with its neighbors aren’t really about fishing grounds or oil and gas reserves or ancient historical claims. What they’re about is that the Japanese still – still – won’t admit they did anything wrong during the Second World War or during their long colonial rule in Asia.

That’s how the neighbors see it, anyway. And it explains why arguments with China and South Korea over islands of questionable value have turned into volatile confrontations. Armed ships are conducting rival patrols around the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands, which Japan controls but are claimed by China; Japan and South Korea are in a bitter feud over Dokdo (Takeshima) Island, which South Korea controls but which Japan claims.

Now comes author Thomas U. Berger to explain why Japan is viewed as so unrepentant. Some 20 million people died and millions more were subjugated and oppressed during Japan’s half-century of war and colonial expansion, which ended in 1945.

In a new book, War, Guilt and Politics After World War II, Berger says a complex web of culture, politics, geography and shifting notions of justice have made it more difficult for the Japanese to apologize for past transgressions than other societies. That’s particularly true compared to Germany, whose crimes outstripped even those of Japan, but which has largely reconciled with former victims.

Berger is an associate professor of international relations at Boston University and a frequent traveler to Japan; he is currently lecturing at Tokyo’s Keio University. I chatted with Berger about his book via email this week. Here are excerpts:

Why did you decide to write this book?

I had done research previously on the impact of historical issues on defense and foreign policy in both Germany and Japan. So when disputes flared up in the 1990s over how Japan was dealing with its past, a number of my friends thought it would be a natural topic for me to look at. I wrote a couple of essays and thought I could spin off a quick book, but it took close to 14 years to get it out.

Why so long?

As I worked on the topic, I became convinced that political scientists and policy makers do not have a very good handle on what drives the politics of history. I was forced to read a lot of material from different fields to help me make sense of it.

Also, on a more personal note, I found myself talking often with my parents about their experiences. My mother lived in Germany during the war, experienced bombings, lost many of her school friends and eventually was driven out of her home. My father came from Vienna, and though a Christian, was of Jewish background and therefore was forced to flee after the Nazis annexed Austria in 1938. Their experiences brought to life for me the reality of the times, and how individuals had to try to deal with the aftermath of the war. I hope it didn’t damage my objectivity – I don’t think that it did. But it did help make it a very personal project on a certain level.

What did you find out? Is Japan as unrepentant about its past as its neighbors claim?

Yes. But it’s not as simple as that.

It’s true, Japan has not been as repentant as Germany or other countries that have faced up to the darker sides of their past. Japan has apologized for waging aggressive war and oppressing its neighbors, but those apologies have fumbling and awkward, and often been undercut by revisionist statements from senior politicians. Japan has offered relatively little compensation to the victims. And to this day there are no nationally sponsored museums or monuments that acknowledge Japanese aggression or atrocities.

But Japan has been far more repentant than is often credited. Prime ministers have repeatedly offered apologies for their country’s misdeeds. Japan has sponsored joint historical research with both South Korea and China. Most Japanese school textbooks deal with issues like the Nanjing massacre and the colonial oppression of Koreans in a fairly open manner. Opinion polls suggests that most Japanese feel their country did things in Asia for which the country should apologize.

So why can’t the Japanese just say, “We were wrong. We’re sorry”?

Apologizing is a costly business for leaders of any country, and requires the investment of a great deal of political capital. Apologies tend to be given when there is a belief that those apologies will be accepted, at least in part, and that dialogue between the two sides will be advanced. So unless there are strong reasons to do so, most leaders avoid it.

American readers may recall how difficult it has been for us to come to terms with the legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism. Issues like the atomic bombings of Japan and the massacre of insurgents in the Philippines remain difficult for American politicians to address — if they are aware of them as issues at all.

The problem is, in China and Korea there has been very little readiness to accept Japan’s efforts to promote reconciliation, and as a result, those efforts have tended to founder.

So it’s all Japan’s fault?

No, the Koreans and the Chinese bear a large share of the blame. With the Koreans, there has been an unwillingness to help the Japanese find ways of reconciling when the Japanese have tried to do so. This was most apparent with the Asian Women’s Fund, which the Korean government did not support and in fact subverted by establishing a separate, rival support system for the former comfort women. This has been made worse by the tendency of Korean politicians to score cheap points by very publicly taking out their frustrations with Japan — as when President Lee Myung-bak went to Dokdo/Takeshima recently.

There is good reason to question whether the Chinese really want or care about reconciliation. When Jiang Zemin went to Tokyo in 1998, he hectored the Japanese about the past in ways that prevented the Japanese from offering the kind of written apology that they gave South Korea President Kim Dae-jung that same year.

Chinese leaders have preferred taking a hard line on Japan. This has been especially so when there are divisions in the Chinese leadership, and on a deeper level may have something to do with the Chinese leadership being deeply worried about their legitimacy. While Korean leaders are frequently unpopular, there is strong support for the Korean political system and pride in its democratic institutions, but Chinese leaders need to strike a nationalistic tone in part because there is greater internal skepticism about one-party rule.

Most other countries in Asia seemed to have moved on, haven’t they? Why are things different China and Korea? Was it because the occupations lasted longer, or because more people were killed there?

A lot of people died in Indonesia, Vietnam, and elsewhere, too. But Southeast Asians have been generally willing to forgive the Japanese. And the Japanese were in Taiwan even longer than in Korea, but anti-Japanese attitudes there are weak or non-existent.

To my mind, the key difference is how modern nationalism was created in those countries. Chinese and Korean nationalism is in many ways defined itself against Japan. In contrast, the national identity of most Southeast Asian countries was defined in opposition to their old colonial masters. In Indonesia, the focus was the Dutch, in Malaysia it was the British, and in the Philippines it was the United States. Taiwan is also instructive here, since the pro-democratic movement focused its resentment against domination by mainland China, first under the Nationalists and more recently against the PRC.

O.K., so what’s next? China has new leadership; Shinzo Abe is likely to become the new prime minister of Japan this month; and South Korea is holding new elections as well. Will that help?

I am not too optimistic, at least over the short term – the next five years or so.

There is a genuine chance for an improved relationship between Japan and South Korea. They both have strong common interests. They share many common values. Both are decent, democratic societies. In contrast to the past, the Japanese have come to respect and even admire the Koreans, while the Koreans have won back their self confidence and can afford to be more magnanimous towards their former oppressors.

Unfortunately, there are lots of signs that the Abe administration is coming into office thinking it will be firm but conciliatory with China, but really dump on the Koreans. They appear to be thinking about revoking the Kohno statement on the Comfort Women and may do some other things on historical issues that the Koreans will find highly provocative. This would enrage the Koreans and may lead to their taking counter steps.

With the Chinese, the gap in interests as well as perceptions is too big to allow for the pursuit of reconciliation, and even a more limited strategy of damage control may prove impossible. The new Xi administration shows every sign of wanting to continue to push the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue further, and China may even choose to escalate the pressure in the pring. Since Chinese claims are based on a particular reading of history that is very critical of Japan, there is little or no chance that the two sides will be able to dampen the nationalist passions that are feeding the crisis in the East China Sea.

Hopefully, cooler heads on all sides — perhaps with behind-thescenes help from the United States — can persuade the governments not to escalate the issue to dangerous levels. But the possibility of further riots, diplomatic crises and possibly even clashes involving paramilitary forces around the disputed territories is all too real.
 
I'm trying to be positive. I want Asian countries to have peace. The more peaceful are the Asian countries, the less America has to be involved.
your wish may come true, but I´m afraid we are heading to the abyss.
 
your wish may come true, but I´m afraid we are heading to the abyss.

Well, I wish peace in Asia. Especially in a thread opened with a Russian written article that has the intension to create tension between US and China.
 
I'm trying to be positive. I want Asian countries to have peace. The more peaceful are the Asian countries, the less America has to be involved.
My respects to you. We need more people like you than idiots. Hell, peace could be achieved in Asia because of people like you.
--------------------
Resource Wars - The Fallout wiki - Fallout: New Vegas and more

This is a backstory from a really good video game series.

I can't believe it's close to reality. If everyone does not back down, nuclear war could happen.
 
Well, I wish peace in Asia. Especially in a thread opened with a Russian written article that has the intension to create tension between US and China.

no it doesnt, the article states the facts, that japan is already a technical nuclear power and gets eased constitution to be more aggressive which is supported by the US government.
 
Well, I wish peace in Asia. Especially in a thread opened with a Russian written article that has the intension to create tension between US and China.
Unfortunately not everyone is like you. If all the people were like you, the world would have been a better place.
 
Don't you hear the poor crazy JEW USA calling us to invade them?

That's why they always stir shit

Don't think it's impossible
 
Back
Top Bottom