Why do we say no to Japan
WarMachine
Active member
They're both jerks, China and Japan. They can't resolve the issues of their past without first talking to each other. The japanese have a strong sense of pride in their country, chinese domenstrations only make the japanese feel more alienated. China has a strong sense of nationalism, and i think it's hyprocritical to say japan ignores the abuses of human rights in the past when the chinese commit them on a daily basis. Both countries need to communicate and resolve their issues just like Germany did with the rest of Europe. France and Russia like Germany a lot these days, but those countries suffered from the german occupation of their land in ww2. If that can be forgiven, then i think there's hope in resolving the problems in the far east.
ASTRALdragon
Active member
WarMachine said:
I agree! The difference between the Europeans and the Asians is a little concept called "face" or "honor saving." For a vast majority of Westernized nations, it's a little fight here and there and we all kiss and make up and let's all move on. Whereas in most Asian cultures, you have to have the last word/blow OR you must make it so your enemy profusely apologizes to you on their knees. China cannot stand that Japan owned them in the past, and also owns them now in the realm of ohhhhh just about everything (Wait ok fine, China owns them in the realm of illegal piracy). So, they must play upon the "honor side" of other Asian nations who suffered under the Japanese in the past in order to get some kind of satisfaction that they are regaining some type of honor. Not surprisingly, it works on the poor nations but not the developed ones.
CABAL
Active member
The UN is almost becoming a failed institution, it has become a center of nations primarily focused on self-interests and in search for absolute gains. According to some Liberals, institutions like the UN fail because nations cheat and lie. Unfortunatey they are incorrect. According to Neo-Liberals, the UN is still important not because of their abilities to handle certain problems, but it is essential that the UN remain as a focal point for multi-national diplomacy. Any actions or exclusive deals bi-laterally can be troublesome and cause problems.
Remember that the Perm 5 are all nuclear armed nations. For Japan or Germany to be a big player in International security, it must obtain nuclear weapons. Neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz endourses the idea that Nuclear Deterrence will stablize possible conflict between states.
The only problem if either Germany or Japan obtain nuclear weapons, it would create shock waves across the world, entering the 21st Century of Nuclear Weapon Proliferation and possibly a multipolar arms race. Of course no one will dare to use such weapon because fear of retaliation and the opponent's second strike capabilities. NATO signed the No First Use policy during the Cold War. But certainly this will generate fear among the general population that the world has become less safe.
You are correct in some aspects.
During the late 19th Century, England was able to produce a powerful navy quite similar to Japan's Maritime SDF Navy in terms of their capabilities and their modernity. While Germany was about to produce the most powerful Army in the region under a doctrine brilliantly devised by Von Moltke...quite similar to the most powerful Army in East Asia which is China.
The PLA of China does not field the most advanced weapons to date, however the Prussian Army was able to achieve victory despite their technological inferiority during the Franco-Prussian War.
Remember that the Perm 5 are all nuclear armed nations. For Japan or Germany to be a big player in International security, it must obtain nuclear weapons. Neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz endourses the idea that Nuclear Deterrence will stablize possible conflict between states.
The only problem if either Germany or Japan obtain nuclear weapons, it would create shock waves across the world, entering the 21st Century of Nuclear Weapon Proliferation and possibly a multipolar arms race. Of course no one will dare to use such weapon because fear of retaliation and the opponent's second strike capabilities. NATO signed the No First Use policy during the Cold War. But certainly this will generate fear among the general population that the world has become less safe.
You are correct in some aspects.
During the late 19th Century, England was able to produce a powerful navy quite similar to Japan's Maritime SDF Navy in terms of their capabilities and their modernity. While Germany was about to produce the most powerful Army in the region under a doctrine brilliantly devised by Von Moltke...quite similar to the most powerful Army in East Asia which is China.
The PLA of China does not field the most advanced weapons to date, however the Prussian Army was able to achieve victory despite their technological inferiority during the Franco-Prussian War.
Last edited:
AussieNick
Forum Digger
And Australia, England, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Borneo, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, The Solomon Islands, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia (although they were not known as such back then).
They also have all had very very bad experiences with Japan in the past... and memories last a very long time. The UN is a 1 nation 1 vote organisation, so having a few nations who are not fans of your past is not a help.
WarMachine
Active member
Japan already is an important member of the UN because of their contributions monetarily and politically. I think it would make sense for them to join since you don't have to have buddy-buddy members of the security council. The US and USSR are proof of that. Though in a constantly deadoclke SC, i think that better relations between its memebers is a must. So maybe japan can enter the UN when they kiss and make up with china by investing in them over the decades. A lot of the countries japan wronged 60 years ago are now dependent on japanese economy for their own growth, maybe that ought to even things out.
I bet this would all go away if their PMs would stop visiting shrines that have a few war criminals. To be fair i'm pretty sure they're mostly honoring the non criminals but they're all honored together so what can you do?
I bet this would all go away if their PMs would stop visiting shrines that have a few war criminals. To be fair i'm pretty sure they're mostly honoring the non criminals but they're all honored together so what can you do?
CABAL
Active member
What's more concerning is that there have been referrals of Japan to re-militarize, especially from Japanese Nationalists who are gaining traction in Japan's Political structure. Many of them simply do not want China to rise or to become a major power in this region. The situation between China and Japan has nothing to do with Koizumi's shrine visit. The two countries are inter-locked in border disputes and disputes over natural resources.
What alarms China is that the PLA have noticed that many of Japan's Military capabilities, in terms of power projection and technology, goes beyond China's military. But China's moderately paced Modernization program is over-reacted and many reporters fail to realize that the PLA has a long way to go to obtain a Blue Water Navy, although it is in the process of doing so.
China is not the only country that is in dispute with Japan. South Korea is having an escalating conflict with Japan over a small island, which the Japanese call it "Takeshima". Japanese Nationalists claim that South Korea's sucess comes from Japan. At the same time, Anti-Japanese nationalism is on the rise in South Korea.
Last edited:
ASTRALdragon
Active member
CABAL said:
Japan = China's counter-balance in the region
It would be a very bad thing if China was the lone superpower in the Asian-Pacific area. Plain and simple, it needs a counter-balance to ensure that no country goes on a power trip.
WarMachine
Active member
Sounds like they can exist together in a balance one of these days, like a mini cold war. I'm surprised how much importance the east asians are putting on these small islands with obscure boundries that probably could be shared. Basically, any island they're fighting over has some sort of natural resource like gas or oil near it, so they make a big deal about who controls those resources. East Asia needs it's own EU or something, and not a window dressing organization either.
ASTRALdragon
Active member
WarMachine said:
Heh not going to happen... At least not in our lifetime. Why? Please refer to my post above on "face-saving." It's just how it is in mainstream Asian cultures. Europeans are a bit better about it because they believe in money because in the end knowledge -> power -> money -> respect. Every culture/nation has their priorities. The cool thing about it is that Japan already has money and respect.
sunb!
Forum Barbecuer
SAARC (est 1985) is an organization for promoting economics and social development for the members (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and SriLanka), in 1993 the SAPTA agreement was signed and trade negotiations have been concluded with the object of moving towards a SAEU (South Asian Economic Union). SAFTA (South Asian Free Trade Area) was signed in Islamabad in Januar 04 and started January this year.
There is an equal organization to the EU present in the region, however I do believe it will take some decades for it to grow.
There is an equal organization to the EU present in the region, however I do believe it will take some decades for it to grow.
Last edited: