Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

JAPAN: militarization as a manifestation

TintinStorm
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 6:46:50 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
A complicated diplomatic game is played in the Far East. In the struggle for leadership in the region, the US and China are desperately looking for allies and create a coalition. Washington is trying to restrain the "militarization" of the South China Sea. China has territorial claims in the South China Sea to all neighbors, without exception, builds artificial islands and turns them into strong points with port infrastructure and runways.
When Shinzo Abe took Prime Minister Office a second time In December of 2012, he said that he would implement the concept of "active pacifism" in foreign policy. A recent brutal execution of two Japanese nationals by militants of the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" forced Abe to concretize his ideas. However, this specification reveals a paradox: the implementation of the concept of a pacifist in practice involves the active use of the country"s armed forces.
The Japanese army had the right to protect friendly countries; even Japan is not under attack. The country has already entered into force the relevant laws, which removed restrictions on national self-defense forces. This was at the first time since the end of World War II under the new strategy called "proactive pacifism". The military power is increasing actively: develop a military policy, an economy, the military-industrial complex.
In one of his speeches Abe said that the country's territorial sovereignty under threat because China claims to the islands in the East China Sea.
Thus Japan is actively pursuing a policy of militarization under the guise of active pacifism. It threatens further escalation of tensions in the region. It is obvious that no one party of the dispute would not give up their claims and any problem can be solved through dialogue, or the use of weapons.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 4:47:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 6:46:50 AM, TintinStorm wrote:
A complicated diplomatic game is played in the Far East. In the struggle for leadership in the region, the US and China are desperately looking for allies and create a coalition. Washington is trying to restrain the "militarization" of the South China Sea. China has territorial claims in the South China Sea to all neighbors, without exception, builds artificial islands and turns them into strong points with port infrastructure and runways.
When Shinzo Abe took Prime Minister Office a second time In December of 2012, he said that he would implement the concept of "active pacifism" in foreign policy. A recent brutal execution of two Japanese nationals by militants of the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" forced Abe to concretize his ideas. However, this specification reveals a paradox: the implementation of the concept of a pacifist in practice involves the active use of the country"s armed forces.
The Japanese army had the right to protect friendly countries; even Japan is not under attack. The country has already entered into force the relevant laws, which removed restrictions on national self-defense forces. This was at the first time since the end of World War II under the new strategy called "proactive pacifism". The military power is increasing actively: develop a military policy, an economy, the military-industrial complex.
In one of his speeches Abe said that the country's territorial sovereignty under threat because China claims to the islands in the East China Sea.
Thus Japan is actively pursuing a policy of militarization under the guise of active pacifism. It threatens further escalation of tensions in the region. It is obvious that no one party of the dispute would not give up their claims and any problem can be solved through dialogue, or the use of weapons.

China is, obviously, closer to the various countries of East Asia. This presents both a benefit and a drawback.
Benefit: Countries would be more likely to align themselves with a nearby country than a faraway one
Drawback: Whenever China misbehaves, nearby countries would obviously feel more uneasy about this than faraway countries would. China is far, far, far removed from being a model international player, so liberal democratic countries in the region would definitely be reluctant to align themselves with China. China's misbehavior is what's keeping it from being a regional hegemon. Its neighbours have aligned themselves with some country across the ocean because China scares the *expletive* out of them. In the event of a war against China, this would be the US's critical advantage, something which compensates for China's regional power projection advantage and its growing military might.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 4:49:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I would like to add that Shinzo Abe's re-militarisation policy is unpopular among the Japanese people, even if the West welcomes such change.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid