Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

#51

Post by toyg »

norswap wrote: post #49
archlight wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It paves way to start a war by ripping off legal framework first like "versailles treaty". Germany earns the trust to be responsible country to do peacekeeping overseas by reconciling with neighbours. Japan is different story. it hasn't even shown any gesture of sincere apology.

Somehow I don't think we're going to see the fabled Japanese mechas run over Europe and the US any time soon :)

This is not about the West, it's about the South China Sea. Chinese mechas will fight it out with Japanese ones.

Re: Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

#53

Post by maaku »

thebmax wrote: post #4
crdoconnor wrote: post #2

This, incidentally, was partly a "gift" from Obama to Abe in order to get him on board with the TPP: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/obama-bribes-abe-supp... It just goes to show just how desperate Obama is to get the TPP signed and the depths to which he'll sink. First tacit approval of slavery in Malaysia and now state department approval of Japanese re-militarization. All for a trade agreement that grants c…

Amazing what Obama is willing to give up in order to secure 'his' legacy issues. 60 years of post war Asian defense strategy thrown out the window. I don't see this ending well. Japan a has a deep militaristic underbelly and most japanese hate their regional neighbors (South Korea, China). They are our allies but this increases instability in Asia enormously and could lead to a regional arms race between China and Ja…

> most japanese hate their regional neighbors

Well let's not over-generalize, hate is a strong word. But yes, there are unresolved history and serious tensions...

Re: Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

#54

Post by jonyt »

rtpg wrote: post #26
hkmurakami wrote: post #8

>The opposition’s obstructionist tactics delayed Mr. Abe’s victory until after 2 a.m., but could not prevent it. Apparently the manner in which the vote was made was "trick play" like, quickly executed without warning, and caught opposition party members by surprise. I wasn't aware that such tactics were available.

the debates for it have been going on for weeks. They announced the vote at the beginning of the week. Concretely, nothing could have prevented this outcome, because the Prime Minister's party has such a huge majority. There have been massive protests for a while now too, but that didn't seem to sway things as much. A silver lining is that there seems to be a renewed interest in the constitution itself, It is a produ…

It wasn't colonialism. Japan was occupied as the result of losing their own colonial war. The US was trying to prevent them from starting another one in the future.

Re: Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

#56

Post by Navarr »

archlight wrote: post #39
adrianN wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exactly the same argument Germany uses to send the Bundeswehr to Afghanistan. "Deutschlands Freiheit wird am Hindukusch verteidigt" - "Germany's freedom is defended at the Hindukush."

It paves way to start a war by ripping off legal framework first like "versailles treaty". Germany earns the trust to be responsible country to do peacekeeping overseas by reconciling with neighbours. Japan is different story. it hasn't even shown any gesture of sincere apology.

Other than the millions of times the country has apologized and that it has raised an entire generation of peace loving anti-war people.

Abe and his crew are voted in by the older, xenophobic crowd, which remains the majority with Japan's dwindling population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements...

"Apology is a very important thing in Japan."

Re: Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

#58

Post by frivoal »

bane wrote: post #42

So I'm not familiar with Japan's system of government, what's the chance this goes before a Supreme Court equivalent and is struck down?

A few couple of quotes from wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court is generally reluctant to exercise the powers of judicial review given to it by the constitution, in large part because of unwillingness to become involved in politically sensitive issues. When decisions have been rendered on such matters as the constitutionality of the Self-Defense Forces, the sponsorship of Shinto ceremonies by public authorities, or the authority of the Ministry of Education to determine the content of school textbooks or teaching curricula, the Court has generally deferred to the government."

"The Supreme Court of Japan has been described as the most conservative constitutional court in the world, and for good reason ...Since its creation in 1947 [the court] has struck down only eight statutes on constitutional grounds. By way of comparison, Germany’s constitutional court, which was established several years later, has struck down over 600 laws."

So what's the chance? Not very high.

Re: Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

#59

Post by njharman »

adrianN wrote: post #35
thomasfoster96 wrote: post #23

It's interesting to see how countries are reinterpreting laws to 'expand' the legal boundaries of conflict. Essentially, Japan now interprets 'self-defense' to no longer just mean defending the country when under attack, but to also include assisting allies in foreign countries. This sort of the same legal basis most countries are using to bomb targets in Syria (and Japan will probably use it too) - Iraq has asked th…

It's exactly the same argument Germany uses to send the Bundeswehr to Afghanistan. "Deutschlands Freiheit wird am Hindukusch verteidigt" - "Germany's freedom is defended at the Hindukush."

Huh, when I saw "same argument Germany" I thought you were gonna call back to the Third Reich's explaining various annexations / occupations as "defending the German people in those lands".

Re: Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

#60

Post by copsarebastards »

Jackersob wrote: post #57

It's really ironic that the US, which literally wrote Japan's pacifist constitution essentially as the ultimate smackdown (not only did we beat you, but now you can never go to war ever again), is the one pushing to change it.

Our incentives have changed. At the time, the US was afraid of Japan (and justifiably so). But US military presence in Japan for the last half-century has meant that the Japan doesn't have to invest any money in security: they have instead invested that money in becoming one of the strongest economies in the world. And that has happened, to a large extent, at the expense of US taxpayers. The interdependence of our economies makes the US less afraid of Japan trying to take over the world, and the US economy is no longer strong enough to be propping up the economies of other nations.
Post reply on HN