Sign in to follow this  
Araiguma_Rascal

Should Japan become a "normal" country?

Recommended Posts

While these are basically matters for the Japanese to decide for themselves, us gaijin Japanophiles can put in our two cents' worth, too, right? (Cheers...)

There seem to be several "big" issues facing Japan today:

1) Should Japan become a "normal" country? In other words, should Japan amend its constitution to allow it to have an armed forces like all other countries have?

2) Should it be possible for a female to ascend to the Chrysanthemum Throne?

3) Should Japan have a permanent seat on the UN security council?

4) Does Japan, which has the 2nd largest economy in the world, need to have US forces permanently stationed on its soil indefinately?

My own answers to these questions:

1) yes

2) yes

3) yes

4) no

I wonder what others think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same answers from me. I wonder if there'll be any member voting differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan has a better equipped and larger military than most nations in Europe. It has the second largest bugetary commitment to military spending in the world and not all of it is to supporting US forces in the country.

Because tanks are called'special vehicles' and other weapons have similar 'synonyms' does not mean they are any less militaristic.

By person, (considering population and UN donation I understand) Luxumbourg pay more - should they have a permanent council seat?

Is might always right? More people count for more?

My answers

a. - irrelevant - in Japan, interpretation is key. See notes above

b. - yes - back to interpretation although deeper than SF needs to go - has been done before and the senior Shinto god is a goddess - Amaterasu.

c. - not until they play a commensurate role vis s vis military size and spending. A few troops in Samawah surrounded by as many Aussie bodyguards as there are Japanese troops in theatre is not a proper contribution - get in and get dirty or get out. I was in, (Iraq - Kurdish area) )I was dirty, I survived. Many did not. NB - as we stand, a combined US/J/UK/Fr (for example) force on patrol under a UN op would see all four nations responding IF J forces were attacked in their 'quarter'. If Fr/UK/US forces were attacked, by J law, the Self Defence Force (Japanese military) MUST NOT respond as THEY were not attacked. Try asking a few exmilitary men who have worked under the blue flag this question and see the response.

d. - no - but watch the panic if US troops say they are going home - suddenly personas most welcomus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Pro'lly, but since they do have quite a decent army in "self-defence forces" I agree this is mostly packaging.

2. Yeah, and keep those unworthy men from it! We want a matriarchate! (Cheers...)

3. Don't know.

4. That's trully for Japanese to answer. My gut response is "no", my brain response is "if they trully didn't want them, they'd find a way to get rid of them by now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a. - irrelevant - in Japan, interpretation is key. See notes above

c. - not until they play a commensurate role vis s vis military size and spending. A few troops in Samawah surrounded by as many Aussie bodyguards as there are Japanese troops in theatre is not a proper contribution - get in and get dirty or get out. I was in, (Iraq - Kurdish area) )I was dirty, I survived. Many did not. NB - as we stand, a combined US/J/UK/Fr (for example) force on patrol under a UN op would see all four nations responding IF J forces were attacked in their 'quarter'. If Fr/UK/US forces were attacked, by J law, the Self Defence Force (Japanese military) MUST NOT respond as THEY were not attacked. Try asking a few exmilitary men who have worked under the blue flag this question and see the response.

Somehow I find it hard to reconcile your answer for a with your answer for c. Maybe it's a matter of intepretation, but I think its better to call a spade a spade. For example, if you have a law that says you can't have any apples in the country, but in practice you can have all the apples you want as long as you call them "oranges," then people will lose respect for the law. I think you should either allow apples and call them apples, or actually ban them no matter what they are called. Also, the SDF rules of engagement depend on the Japanese interpretation of their consitution. They could change the interpretation, but it would be better to have the constitution explicitly allow you to do what you need to do. A constitution change would allow them to play a more active role in UN missions on the military side.

(Cheers...)

Edited by Araiguma_Rascal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Pro'lly, but since they do have quite a decent army in "self-defence forces" I agree this is mostly packaging.

4. That's trully for Japanese to answer. My gut response is "no", my brain response is "if they trully didn't want them, they'd find a way to get rid of them by now."

1. Maybe, but I think it's better to have the law agree with reality. A too-clever-by-half interpretation is bad because the law becomes meaningless.

4. Sometimes people don't change things simply because they have become used to them and it would be somewhat of a bother. Right now that seems to be the main reason for maintaining the status quo.

(Cheers...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting response above but as you know - so many Japanese laws have no real meaning and interpretation is always lurking in the background.

Few examples over the past few years

1. Children die in overheated car as mother plays pachinko - no penalty (except suspended sentence) as the death is penalty enough.

2. Penalties for smoking in various parts of Tokyo / Japan are voluntary. They are not legally enforced and you CAN walk away.

3. In my local area there is a 20,000 yen penalty for throwing litter yet people are seen doing it every day. Nobody has ever been penalised accordign to the city office as the threat of 20k is 'enough' to deter most.

4. A man kills - planned murder - penalty between 3-15 years. Behaves - out in as little as 5. A man kills - accidental death or self defence - same penalty. There is NO legal concept concerning pre-meditation in Japan.

5. Discrimination (race etc) became illegal 2 years after it became illegal to treat animals badly - the latter intro'd in around 2001 carries a fine and prison penalty. However, there is no penalty for discrimination - because it doesn't happen!! Legal battles won against discriminating onsen / real estate agesnt are won in courts that use international law.

6. A Japanese person born in the country, educated and raised in the nation can vote at age 20, get a job in a public service and if they have a foreign parent - must, at age 22 choose nationality. Choosing the non-J nationality loses them the job if managerial (or removes any promotion chance if not already), removes their right to vote and means they will now have to get a visa to live in the land of their birth - oh and 24/7 must carry the ID card.

With all this - how do you really call a spade a spade when actually, from another angle - it is an orange!

For Japan to be normal - a complete overhaul of its laws are necessary.

As long as the nation signs up to international treaties (international 'face' sake) but refuses to enforce them at home, the Japanese people are victims. But are they citizens, subjects or residents? Another interpretation concept.

When domestic law overrides international law - no need to play the international game - no UNSC seat.

Edited by Adachinoryu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While these are basically matters for the Japanese to decide for themselves, us gaijin Japanophiles can put in our two cents' worth, too, right? (Cheers...)

There seem to be several "big" issues facing Japan today:

-snip-

2) Should it be possible for a female to ascend to the Chrysanthemum Throne?

-snip-

I wonder what others think.

Women are the "hidden" secret weapon of Japan. Tend to speak English better than their male counterparts. Tend to be more interested in and pursue studies of things non-Japanese. Tend to be better traveled, and to "risk" travel without using tour groups that buffer one from any meanful experience in a foreign land.

Koizumi used the tactic of adding several high-profile women to the list of candidates running in the recent national election, and most were elected (didn't hurt that most were deemed attractive by the press, etc.). More women in politics/business (the line is not so distinct here) is good for Japan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
interesting response above but as you know - so many Japanese laws have no real meaning and interpretation is always lurking in the background.

Few examples over the past few years

Hmm, interesting. I might add to your list the silliness (as I see it) of the rules surrounding the pachinko industry. A pachinko parlor cannot directly give its customers cash for winning, only "prizes." However near every pachinko parlor is a "prize exchange shop" where winners can sell their prizes for cash. I'm not sure what purpose it all serves except to make the process less efficient. If they condone this activity, they might as well just let the parlors directly give cash to the winners, it seems to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Help me...) The pachinko thing is one glaring example of the "middle-man" phenomenon in Japan. Everything must be done via a "go between", who of course takes a cut of the profits. There are often several go betweens/levels of middle-man, depending on the industry...

This is supposed to smooth the various transactions, and to provide a party to go to if/when things go wrong. In practice, those who are supposedly responsible to assist in times of trouble disappear once their chunk of the pie is taken. (Cheers...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a. Yes.

b. Yes.

c. No. Not until they accept their responsibility for their past wrong-doings in WWII, and offer real apologies instead of "regrets". Presently, they just show poor international citizenship.

d. Yes.

But of course © is the only item that the international community have a real say. All the other issues are purely domestic and should be decided by the Japanese themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
c. No. Not until they accept their responsibility for their past wrong-doings in WWII, and offer real apologies instead of "regrets". Presently, they just show poor international citizenship.

But of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Should Japan become a "normal" country? In other words, should Japan amend its constitution to allow it to have an armed forces like all other countries have?

Yes, Japan should have armed forces as any other country in the world. It is vital for Japan.

2) Should it be possible for a female to ascend to the Chrysanthemum Throne?

No, it must not be possible. I am not a misogynist. I just favour the patrilineal line of the dynasty. The real heir must always be male.

3) Should Japan have a permanent seat on the UN security council?

Yes, Japan must be a permanent member of the Security Council along with China. Two mighty Asian countries will be a benefit for the region.

4) Does Japan, which has the 2nd largest economy in the world, need to have US forces permanently stationed on its soil indefinately?

Yes, Japan needs US forces if China and North Korea continue to behave so irrationally like now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isn't this thread "political" and thererby not allowed under SF rules?

The rules are a bit strict as they stand now as I haven't yet updated them to match the current more lenient way. Perhaps politics is a topic that would be best to be left out of forums dedicated to other topics since those evoke strong feelings, attacks etc. but in Japan discussions-subforum, this kind of thread seems to fit well. Of course if things get out of hand somehow or swords are thrown, then maybe a quiet locking up the thread is in order but in general I am not too keen to restrict the topics too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Rijicho.

I want to be be respectful of people with other opinions. I think we may disagree as long as we are civil. I do not intend any disagreement as a personal attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AR-san,

who gave more - the woman with one coin who gave it all or the rich man with a bagful of gold who gave a few coins?

Is all about money?

Your 'paying more than 4 out of 5' members is largely centered on finances as a whole but who pays more per person?

BTW - you follow the practice of many Japanese politicians when you ignore my comments on Luxembourg in bringing money to the forefront again. Are we not all equal?

Japan ranks quite low when considering funds paid per person so who truly pays more?,

Should nations with larger populations get priority on all things? Is size of population more important than the individual? If so there are around 8? nations that deserve a seat ahead of Japan.

All is related and nothing moreso than Japan's obvious lack of natural resources. Japan must be careful in thinking money buys everything - as you can't eat money.

The UNSC issue is one of pride alone as many more educated Japanese will indicate.

On the nuke issue too - Japan has more depleted uranium than any nation on earth? Why? Did not (forget his party at present - prob DPJ) Mr Ozawa, a couple of years back say Japan has enough material for 3000 nukes? How would he know if it hadn''t been studied or he hadn't been briefed?

All is not sweetness and light my friend.

Edited by Adachinoryu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue is total contribution (not just money but other ways of contributing such as troops for peacekeeping ops may also be considered), not contribution per capita. It seems a reasonable position to me, I don't see how contribution per capita is relevant. If that were the case then an individual (or a country with 100 people) might donate a few miniscule funds and deserve a permanent seat? Of course not, per capita is not the issue, its the total. Of course, like you say, Japan does not provide much help in the troops department because they have very restrictive rules of engagement. This is because of their constitution, so I think it should be amended. The original criteria were 1) "Great power" status and 2) On the right side in WW II. Now WW II is ancient history and alliances have changed, so the second criterion is no longer relevant, but the first is. You are correct the not all is sweetness and light, but unless I am mistaken, I did not make that assertion. :-) I do agree that the issue is simply a matter of pride (although I'm not sure it would never come in handy as a practical matter), but it seems to matter to some Japanese. Maybe they should be democratic and ask the people if they want the government to pursue the matter as a high priority.

Edited by Araiguma_Rascal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets face it, the Japanese behavior before and during WWII were perhaps the most brutal in modern era, and that is why they are still hated so much in East Asia. People in China and Korea are not protesting for no reason whatsoever. It is because the Japanese have not shown any contrition over their acts. It is really a mirro of how they are looked upon in Asia

Koizumi and and conservatives in the LDP know very well that the Yasukuni Shrine (which enshrines Tojo and other 13+ convicted war criminals) visits inflames countries in East Asia, yet they persist. There is also the lesser issue of the revisionist textbooks being approved for the schools. So they have to pay the piper when it comes to international relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets face it, the Japanese behavior before and during WWII were perhaps the most brutal in modern era, and that is why they are still hated so much in East Asia. People in China and Korea are not protesting for no reason whatsoever. It is because the Japanese have not shown any contrition over their acts. It is really a mirro of how they are looked upon in Asia

I suggest that Asians, especially the Chinese and Koreans, should get over the WWII and start to build a better and prosperous Asia for all. Europe has discussed and condemned all the atrocities and now they are peacefully cooperating for their united continent. But the Chinese and Koreans are still childishly stubborn.

As for the recognition of the facts . . . Well, Emperor and several prime ministers repeatedly admitted the wartime cruelties and asked for forgiveness. What else can the Japanese do?

Secondly, the most brutal behaviour is a big exaggeration. Korea under the Japanese rule prospered and developed as never before. Even Koreans admit that. Koreans were always an equal part of the Japanese society as exemplified by the fact that Koreans were in the Japanese Olympic teams. Two Koreans won gold medals.

Hated in Asia, you say. No, I say, hated in communist countries. Japan brought peace, development, and progress to Korea, China, Philippines, and Indonesia.

Of course, war is war. Atrocities must always be punished and condemned. But remember that Reds were no less violent.

Edited by Lucius Flavonius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason behind remilitarization is that big business wants to get even more tax money for "defense" spending. Japan has prospered greatly by not having to pay the cost of a huge military on the ground. Personally, I think Japan would most benefit by emulating the Swiss. Not the chocolate part, the neutral-at-all-costs stance that would keep the crazies who populate the black trucks out in the boonies where they belong.

I despise the American military presence. But there is a purpose here that is more beneficial to Japan than it is a burden. As far as the Security Council seat, that is all about jiminto old-fart ego more than anything else.

I think Japan would be best served by keeping a low profile and playing "hard to get," when it comes to the militarization of its foreign policy. Besides, I see very few situations on this planet that are worth one drop of Japanese blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this