Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by suryon » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:16 AM UTC

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…

Do not forget the Korea. Albeit Japan is their ally they will work their asses so hard to destroy them economically or militarily if the opportunity arises.

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

#22

Post by nl » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:22 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #10

nl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analysis is pathetically bad. I'm no fan of the TPP, but one shouldn't view every single thing that happens through that lens. There's a number of things going on here: 1) The South China sea dispute is getting more and more dangerous. Japan wants flexibility in making alliances to counterbalance China in that area. 2) This give Japan the ability to deploy troops (or more likely aircraft) to the Middle East in s…

>one shouldn't view every single thing that happens through that lens. It doesn't. Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in public) almost overnight an the only thing that changed in that period in US-Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal. Ironically the deal might still fail (which Abe probab…

Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in public) almost overnight an the only thing that changed in that period in US-Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal.

Abe has been on the path to rearming Japan since 2012[1][2].

The US has wanted Japan to rearm for years. See the articles in the NYT and the WSJ in 2013[3][4]. It's seen as a way to use Japanese money as a counter to China in the region. The fact they are likely to buy US weapons systems helps, too.

The way your comment is phrased makes me wonder if you think the US State department had some legal oversight of the clause or something? It doesn't - the legal basis for this change is completely in Japanese hands.

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100293527

[2] http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/2623282-is-japan-on-t...

[3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873240817045782310...

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/world/asia/with-eye-on-chi...

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

#23

Post by thomasfoster96 » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:36 AM UTC

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 the US and it's allies to help them defend themselves against ISIS, and bombing Syria to defeat ISIS counts as defending Iraq.

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

#24

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:40 AM UTC

sergers wrote: post #19

Animats wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of the above are true. China is getting more aggressive about control of the oceans near, and not so near, China. China has a territorial dispute with Japan over the islands south of Kyushu and northeast of Taiwan. China is also claiming some islands further south, in the South China Sea, but that disagreement is with Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. China's military parade last week was v…

i wonder if there is any significance they chose september 18th to re-militarize overseas action, being thats the date japan invaded china in 1931. all else aside on the territorial disputes, i feel abe and his associates continually look past their genocides and atrocities in WWII, continually going to war memorials and celebrations of these same japanese that attacked US and committed the acts during WWII. so china…

[deleted]

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

#25

Post by nl » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:46 AM UTC

suryon wrote: post #20

nl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analysis is pathetically bad. I'm no fan of the TPP, but one shouldn't view every single thing that happens through that lens. There's a number of things going on here: 1) The South China sea dispute is getting more and more dangerous. Japan wants flexibility in making alliances to counterbalance China in that area. 2) This give Japan the ability to deploy troops (or more likely aircraft) to the Middle East in s…

If Japan takes action against North Korea the South will bomb Tokyo to the oblivion. South Korea will not permit anyone and especially Japan to touch anything that belongs to Koreans. Koreans living in the NK are still citizens of SK and the land is claimed by SK. Yes if there is conflict on the seas or in the air with the NK forces then SK will do nothing to stop the Japan. What Japan did today/yesterday just pushed…

I agree with this assessment. But I can imagine circumstances where joint SK/Japanese operations against NK would be possible.

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

#26

Post by rtpg » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 8:00 AM UTC

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 product of the American occupation, originally written in English, by US lawyers.

Though that might not change the good/badness of it's contents, it does smell a bit of colonialism.

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

#27

Post by unabst » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 8:01 AM UTC

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.

And before that, they gave up on amending the constitution and settled for reinterpreting it because that would be less work. They basically hacked this into law. Why so desperate? And would the Obama administration really endorse this? Because that is what many "experts" are speculating. Basically no one knows, but it all just non-consensually moves forward. Isn't there a word for this? Tyranny? Definitely not democracy.

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

#28

Post by suryon » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 8:02 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #25

suryon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Japan takes action against North Korea the South will bomb Tokyo to the oblivion. South Korea will not permit anyone and especially Japan to touch anything that belongs to Koreans. Koreans living in the NK are still citizens of SK and the land is claimed by SK. Yes if there is conflict on the seas or in the air with the NK forces then SK will do nothing to stop the Japan. What Japan did today/yesterday just pushed…

I agree with this assessment. But I can imagine circumstances where joint SK/Japanese operations against NK would be possible.

Unlikely. Maybe under the US general. But who am I to know ?

Koreans have not even allowed the Japanese to help them with the Sewol ferry even if they were within the reach.

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

#29

Post by suryon » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 8:02 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #25

suryon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Japan takes action against North Korea the South will bomb Tokyo to the oblivion. South Korea will not permit anyone and especially Japan to touch anything that belongs to Koreans. Koreans living in the NK are still citizens of SK and the land is claimed by SK. Yes if there is conflict on the seas or in the air with the NK forces then SK will do nothing to stop the Japan. What Japan did today/yesterday just pushed…

I agree with this assessment. But I can imagine circumstances where joint SK/Japanese operations against NK would be possible.

Unlikely. Maybe under the US general. But who am I to know ?

Koreans have not even allowed the Japanese to help them with the Sewol ferry even if they were within the reach.

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

#30

Post by frivoal » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 8:03 AM UTC

unabst wrote: post #27

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.

And before that, they gave up on amending the constitution and settled for reinterpreting it because that would be less work. They basically hacked this into law. Why so desperate? And would the Obama administration really endorse this? Because that is what many "experts" are speculating. Basically no one knows, but it all just non-consensually moves forward. Isn't there a word for this? Tyranny? Definitely not democ…

Also gathered constitutional experts, tasked them to research whether this would be constitutional (expecting them to say it was). When they concluded it wasn't, the gvt apologized for hiring the wrong folks, and moved on.