As long as the sun rises in the east, Japanese tourists will be somewhere en masse, camera's in hand, oversized hats covering them from the sun, whispering oohs and aahs at mundane sculptures of trees, and gracing the local strip clubs with record profits. Moshi Moshi Mistah Hagreydoh!
In fact I remember watching a documentary that Japan has the 6th largest military in the world and among the most modern. The real issue is that Japan is an American subsidiary sitting between China and Russia. I think I remember reading a stupid number of US bases there. Also, no one is allowed to question it without unofficial reprucussions. Don't see anyone being critical of this. Mostly I feel bad for Japanese citizens and Chinese citizens. EDIT: Yeah I think Japan is pretty secure. *Large Map showing US installations in Japan* Spoiler Spends $56bn on military which puts it at 7th highest expenditure in the world. That's roughly 50% of China's budget, or about 6% of the US budget.
Judging by the limited scope of these pictures, I REALLY wonder how much of these protests are encouraged/organized by Chinese automobile manufacturers.
If you want rally nationalism and dampen dissent, you fire up conflict with an old historical foe. Government 101.
.........wow. That is wrong. And I don't mean just wrong. That is so ridiculously wrong that I seriously want to know where the heck you came up with that. There are a lot of controversies over the bases, especially the one in Okinawa. They run hand in hand with the idea (which I fully support) that Japan needs to trash Article 9 and become a normal nation with a normal military. Because of Article 9, there's all sorts of stupid limitations on the boats Japan can buy (like Japan bought a couple PT boats or something like that of Indonesia, but they didn't come with any guns) and it's been 70 years. Of course, you have the crazy pacifists, but no one takes them seriously anymore. Seriously? Come on, man. Most people my generation understand that the IJA was a giant cluster****. Last time I checked, the defense pact between Japan and the United States that was signed after the war didn't have an expiration date.
Sorry by 'no one', I meant no politician. I can see there is progress, but it's really not a matter for discussion. It's basically America's decision. It would not be unique at all to Japan. I don't know that that's completely true, but you seem to know more about it than I do. Certainly there are people who believe what you've stated. However from everything I've read (admittedly, nothing substantial) Okinawans really just want the bases out, and they're willing to accept the bases being moved to a remote part of Japan. The grievances are generally related to crime, pollution and noise. I don't think it has anything to do with Article 9. Really, Article 9 would make very little difference as they spend plenty and employ plenty in their military. They can call it self-defense, but the US called Iraq and Afghanistan self-defense. OBL called his actions self-defense. Saddam said he was retrieving land, not invading a country. It's really just a labelling exercise along with some more allowances. I think the Japanese have been smart in restricting inflation of their military budget - it's not like they have the money to throw around. It is even more silly since the change to article 9 would unfold a mind-numbingly stupid sequence of events where China and Russia will consider a heightened risk as sufficient rationale to further "secure" the area. Then Japan will claim that it's neighbours are threatening it and bla bla they can never accept such threats being made. The circle jerk will go on while Japan sits on a shaky economy and most Chinese are still quite poor. At least with Article 9, the citizens can hold their government more accountable. Here's an excerpt from wiki:
It's controversial. On one hand, most of what you've said is correct in that the Okinawans don't like the noise and there have been incidents between the American military and the people and so on. But the base is big business, and for that reason, many Okinawans want the base around. I think the US government directly pays Okinawans in order to maintain the base, and of course there's the business of selling stuff to Marines, so on and so on. Okinawa at the end of the day is basically a giant rock. If the US military left, pretty much the only business that they would have left at all is tourism, because it's a popular destination for leisure trips - I have read an article which was concerned about the fact that most young Okinawans are moving to Japan proper and so on, especially since Okinawans aren't really Japanese. Article 9 does restrict the Japanese military and what they can get, however. Most of that spending, for example, is not for buying weapons so much as it is for the soldiers and training. And like I said, whenever Japan tries to buy anything remotely offensive, like a PT boat that has guns, there's load of controversies in the Diet and so on. China can start building aircraft carriers and no one would blink, yet everyone would go into a frenzy if Japan so much as rebuilt the Yamato. It's that stigma which is incredibly irritating, and those who support repealing it pretty much argue that they're sick of it and want Japan to be treated normally.
I believe the protests are an overreaction but the issue is more than just some rocks in the ocean. The islands themselves are little more than big rocks but control of them gives Japan a foothold on the Asian continental shelf, rich fishing areas and potentially big mineral and oil wealth. The tourism issue might have something to do with the Diaoyu / Senkaku issue, but keep in mind this has been an issue since the 60's when the US gave Japan those islands so it isn't new. Also given the disparities in cost between Japan and the PRC it should be no surprise that Chinese tourists may pass on Japan while Japanese tourist continue to go to the PRC. Overall though I highly doubt war breaks out. The PRC still doesn't have that powerful of a navy and amphibious forces. There are too many trade and other issues between the two countries that would keep them from war.
Given all of the handwringing in the US and other countries over the PRC possibly developing a new long range fighters there is a lot of concern whenever the PRC upgrades its military. Consider the tensions in the South China Sea with ASEAN nations and US concerns about Chinese increasing their range of military operations so its not like everyone is fine if China starts building its own aircraft carriers. Also the Japanese already rebuilt the Battleship Yamato. Spoiler
Interesting, I thought the opposite was true. I only saw this while surfing wiki today, but doesn't that contradict with: It's also strange Okinawans seem to be MORE anti-US than the rest of Japan (based on the polls I cited earlier), while what you've said seems to indicate that the Okinawans have the most to gain from keeping the forces there. I can see it from this perspective. Personally I think they are the normal ones and everyone else should be stigmatized, but I understand what they mean and what you mean. It is worth serious consideration though whether repealing it, even symbolically, would have the politicians drooling about expanding it unnecessarily and also accelerating an already dangerous weapons/arms race in the region.
Japan is a close ally of the United States. As has been pointed out, we still have a very large military presence in the country, with upwards of 50,000 personel (unless that has changed recently). If China were to go to war with Japan, they would be going to war with the United States. I doubt very much that the Chinese government desires that. My suggestion to the PRC would be to stop encouraging their people to demonstrate, and worse, against Japan for the government's own political reasons. These demonstrations and other acts to flame national passions against Japan do not happen without the tacit approval and encouragement of the Chinese government, in my opinion. China needs to dial down their rhetoric, and dial down their aggressive posture in the region's seas, IMO, and sincerely negotiate with her neighbors, using the existing international treaties governing the extent of each country's continental shelf as the basis for those negotiations, and not simply declare what they consider to be their continental shelf and the attendant sub-surface mineral rights.
The Japs need to stop invading China unless they think they are ready for an all-out war. 1.4 billion Chinese have been waiting for it for too long.......I think this is the moment. BTW, China has been into many wars with USA, one more is doable.
You're insane. Certifiably insane, if you desire a war between the PRC and the United States. And I'll add that calling the Japanese "Japs" is just as unacceptable as calling the Chinese "Chinks." You should pay more attention to your language.
http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=36393&sec=1 Beijing announced yesterday it will submit a partial submission concerning the outer limits of the continental shelf to the United Nations in its latest move to defend its maritime sovereignty. The move came as the Japanese prime minister vowed to take the Diaoyu Islands (known in Japan as Senkaku Islands) dispute to the UN General Assembly. Beijing is calling for people to express their demands in a "legal and rational way". Protests against Japan broke out across China over the weekend in what observers described as the largest demonstrations against Japan in China since 1972 when diplomatic relations were normalised. Experts said the protests could continue for days. Tuesday, Sept. 18, is a memorial day marking Japan's wartime occupation of parts of China. The Foreign Ministry announced yesterday that China has decided to submit its Partial Submission Concerning the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles in the East China Sea to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The ministry said technical preparations for the State Oceanic Administration's submission "are close to completion". According to the convention, if the continental shelf of a coastal state extends more than 200 nautical miles, information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical miles shall be submitted by the coastal state to the commission. Zhang Haiwen, deputy director of the China Institute for Marine Affairs, said China's decision to submit the outer limits of the continental shelf in the East China Sea to the UN is both a commitment and a counter-measure. "China has kept its promise, made in 2009, that it would offer a submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea at an appropriate date. Now, since preparations are close to being completed and tensions over the Diaoyu Islands are escalating, China has announced the decision," Zhang explained. The move came one day after the SOA announced the exact longitude and latitude of Diaoyu Island and 70 of its affiliated islets while publishing location maps, three-dimension graphs and a sketch map for the islands. On Sept 10, the government announced the coordinates of the territorial waters of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets, as well as the names and coordinates of 17 base points, after Tokyo said it decided to "purchase" three of the Diaoyu Islands that day. China has filed a copy of the government's Diaoyu Islands baseline announcement to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The Kyodo news agency in Japan reported yesterday that Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda plans to stress the importance of handling territorial issues in accordance with the "rule of law" during the UN General Assembly later this month, if he wins, as is expected, the Democratic Party of Japan's leadership race scheduled for Sept. 21. However, to avoid his UN speech "inciting antagonism", Noda will avoid using the Japanese names of the Diaoyu Islands and the islands over which Japan and South Korea are in dispute, it said. Sunday also marked the resumption of activities by Chinese fishermen after months of recess. Chinese trawlers have been disrupted in their work by Japan for a number of years. In September 2010, a Chinese trawler collided with Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats near the islands. The collision, and Japan's subsequent detention of the trawler captain, resulted in a major diplomatic dispute between the two nations. Six Chinese surveillance ships have started patrolling waters around the Diaoyu Islands, that belong to China, since Friday morning. Angry protesters against Japan's provocations took to the streets in Beijing and many other cities yesterday. The emotions have spilled abroad, with more than 10,000 Chinese people rallying in Los Angeles to protest against Japan. The organisers said such protests are expected to spread in North America. There have been reports of damage to Japanese cars, Japanese supermarkets being targeted and attacks against Japanese companies in some Chinese cities. The isolated attacks immediately prompted calls for calm and a more rational approach, and warnings from the authorities against breaking the law. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei had said on Friday that the protests were not directed at the Japanese people. "The rights of Japanese citizens in China are protected under law. And we ask Chinese citizens to express their demands in a legal and rational way," Hong said. "Raging expressions of patriotism will only bring joy to the [Japanese] evil doers, put our foreign policy on the defensive and wound the feelings of compatriots," the official People's Daily, the Communist Party's main paper, said in a website commentary yesterday. Noticeably, Noda said yesterday the other pillar of his policy is "level-headedness". "It is important to remember that we are the world's second and third-largest economies, and growth in China means opportunities for Japan," he said. Rana Mitter, professor of the History and Politics of Modern China at Oxford University, said the US does not want a crisis just ahead of November's election. David Fouquet, senior associate at the European Institute for Asian Studies, said others outside the region should refrain from any involvement that could make matters more difficult. Gao Hong, deputy director of the Institute of Japanese Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said Noda is likely to win the party vote because few people are willing to "take over the mess". Gao emphasised that China has sufficient historic and legal evidence to prove that the islands are an inherent part of China. Complicating the situation, Japan's newly designated ambassador to China, Shinichi Nishimiya, 60, died in Tokyo yesterday, Japan's Foreign Ministry said, without specifying. Nishimiya, who was officially appointed on Tuesday, was taken to hospital after falling ill on a street near his home on Thursday. Nishimiya had planned to leave for Beijing in October. The government is now considering a replacement from among retired foreign ministry officials, local reports said. The Diaoyu Islands were illegally seized by Japan at the end of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), but the islands were returned to China in key declarations following the end of World War II. Liu Jia in Brussels and Zhang Chunyan in London and Xinhua contributed to this story.
China was the greatest nation in the world... Until around 1850. Now it's just a messed place where being rich and pseudo chic is more important than life itself. They should really re-examine their past, and appreciate just how legendary their culture was. Instead of trying to emulate and get involved in everything from the West, they really should go to their garbage and recover what was lost during the Cultural Revolution: their identity. And Japan really needs take some lessons from Germany in terms of humble acceptance, because that goes a long way to normalizing relations with nations like China.
Even being half Japanese hearing or reading the term "Japs" doesn't necessarily bother me knowing the content in which it was said or written. But it sounds like you're itching for a fight so I'm going to assume you used the term in a derogatory way. Go wash your mouth out kid or put up your dukes.
