supporting international economic system is one thing,geopolitics is another.You can get along with China on former,but not the latter.

Aren’t Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo right to call for more security when they are supporting more of the international economic system now?

Also Brzezinski had written a book published in Japan only back in the early 90’s with a strange term called “Amerippon”,that predates the current “Chiamerica” created by Niall Ferguson,and proclaimed Japan to remain as defacto American protectorate to serve it’s own national interest.

President Obama enjoys solid personal popularity, but without deft handling, Japanese popular support for the US is soft. It’s based more on the possibility of American culture, a sort of non-fungible soft power that’s unrealistic for those dreaming it, and unrealistic for the object of love to cash in. Identifying with pols in Okinawa or Tokyo is bad for Washington. Washington should support political reform, with all its teething plans, as long as the Hatoyama administration is willing to compromise on money for Afghanistan. As a matter of policy, Washington should allow Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo to be the glue in the international economic system, and give them public accolades. The US needs to rebuild infrastructure, rebuild savings, and generally take a break. Tokyo can take up the slack. A few INGO reforms and the judicious use of foreign investments in the US economy is a small price to pay for three decades of finance capitalism.

Ernest, your arguments kind of remind me of the notion that without the Bible there would be no morality in the Western world. That is, the view that if you take away the constitution, rewrite it along the rather sensible lines of “Japan can’t go to war with anybody, but it can help out in U.N. peacekeeping missions” or even redefine it, a-la Ozawa to mean that for the purposes of international cooperation, overseas deployment is not just okay, but kind of an obligation, then the Japanese will go crazy and as well as joining whatever invasion their ally tells them to, massacre half of East Asia again.

You live in Tokyo, right? Do you really have so little faith in your friends and neighbours?

You know that the view that the constitution circumscribes the right of Japan to defend itself was given a boost by certain people in Japan who needed a weapon to use against the SDF, which they saw as a tool of state oppression against domestic dissenters, right? You know that when the Diet voted to place an unofficial restriction on overseas deployments of the SDF, the government was extremely careful to point out that such an action had absolutely nothing to do with the constitution, right? So if the constitution allows for participations in missions like ISAF (again U.N. sanctioned, and it does not necessarily imply the need for Japanese combat troops) why are you going on about the constitution, if this is the type of thing you oppose?

“The peace constitution is a product of U.S. intervention.”

Well, yes in that the Americans ordered the revision and wrote the draft, but Article 9’s genesis is a little more murky than that. Some say it had Japanese origins. And some say the cabinet revised the original wording specifically to allow for self-defence. I’d agree with the former, but probably not the latter, argument. But as far as I can tell the intention of the drafters doesn’t carry much legal weight in Japanese jurisprudence. Or does it? Lawyers?

So does this mean you are pro intervention now?

You’re leftist cred isn’t really shining – you just broke out every argument for dominating those shifty, democracy-challenged, atrocity denying, Japanese.

The below was explicitly used as an argument for dropping the bomb. We don’t need to see it in 2009.

“As long as Japan still educates people from a young age to myopically follow
instructions whatever they are, a peace constitution is needed. Asia knows it.”

Presumably there is a powerful corporate zaibatsu lobby for
re-writing the constitution so that the likes of Mitsubishi can
make the most sophisticated weapons in the world.

As long as Japan still educates people from a young age to myopically follow
instructions whatever they are, a peace constitution is needed.
Asia knows it. They have witnessed it first hand, and then suffered the
discourtesy of Japan denying or trivializing it (esp. Comfort Women).

Okinawa is the jewel in the crown and could be the center piece of Japan’s
fledgling tourism industry. potentially worth millions of dollars.
It needs to be conserved as the only pristine stretch of coastline left in Japan.

Not relying on U.S. military protection would bring about the necessity for a new era of diplomats who can really make inroads into building peace in Asia.
And besides, with the Americans still armed to the teeth in nearby Korea, and all over the rest of Honshu.
With fortified bases and embassies already springing up accross the middle east, there is no serious argument for keeping bases in Okinawa.

True, but what to do about Japan’s heavily armed neighbors who are popularizing the idea that Japan is leading the pack of militarist revival?

“there has never been a more important time to re-affirm article 9
and the promotion of a peaceful constititution.”

Something tells me that this is where Japan’s public will rests. There should still be a serious discussion, however.

Costa Rica and Japan are leading the pack at the moment in this respect.

the peaceful constitution is a safety mechanism as you never know when another
imperial army type zeal will materialize.

as the remaining Hibakushas die off in the next few years,
there has never been a more important time to re-affirm article 9
and the promotion of a peaceful constititution. There is no
other way

But some of the countries that are involved in Afghanistan have sent UN led forces to central Africa.

“cutting of people’s arms in Saudi Arabia.”

Not big on that either, but I see a difference between that and the Taliban violence – it is judicial and at the very least people are forewarned about consequences. So much of the Taliban violence was/is extrajudicial and focused on what you could call crimes of thought and feeling.

“But I can’t stand bloggers being blase about so much unnecessay suffering.”

I think that we need to get away from this tendency of people on the left to see interventionists/conservatives as simply bloodthirsty. People who hold those positions, apart from the most extreme examples, still feel something about civilian deaths. Acknowledging that is the way to have dialogue rather than a series of pronouncements.

If you had more Japan grounding, I think that you would perhaps read Curzon’s post differently. He’s mainly concerned, I believe, with a the future security of a country that very well could be hung out to dry by the pacifist ideals of its constitution. I don’t much like the prospect of increased Japanese involvement in the Middle East, but what alternatives do we have to the alliance? Uncritical Japanese support of China – which could very well go next to Saudi Arabia on your list? A nuclear armed Japan? A defenseless one? I’m way bigger on the DPJ than Curzon, but I also want to see a real plan.

Let me apologize for my rudeness. But I can’t stand
bloggers being blase about so much unnecessay suffering.
Referring to the “war on terror” as though it is a beach clean-up
that everyone has to lend a hand in.

It’s not. It’s an invasion and a war on superflous brown people.
If you want to promote democracy start by fair elections at home.

So don’t get all uppity about “children dying in a war”
there is a big difference.
These are children dying in an invasion and occupation.

When you guys stop responding to his childishly uncivil comments, he can tell himself that he “won” the argument because you couldn’t answer his questions.