[Political Interest]

World War II was seventy years ago and in Japan there was never a full scale rejection of the legacy of that war. Many Japanese will not accept the Western narrative as did West Germans. Yet the alliance with America persists until this day. Does Japan maintain its alliance with America for pragmatic strategic reasons or does it do so simply because that is the status quo?

[mikema63]

Pragmatism mostly, but I'm sure there is a bit of the inertia that is inherent in status quo's.

It's not like the US has ever really been a bad allies as allies go, and we were far and away not the worst conquerors as conquerors go. The way we handled Japan after the war was probably the best case scenario for Japan and we were able to set up strong institutional ties to the US. We have a good amount of economic ties as well and we both have strong interests to reduce Chinese nationalism.

I'm sure Rei has quite a few words to say about the alliance between the US and Japan.

[Rei Murasame]

It's the same reason that many countries in South East Asia and South Korea maintain it. It was necessary for the success of containing Russia, and for taking advantage of the open market system and the FDI which comes with it, which the Americans maintain for their own interests but which provide collective benefits.

Because of how global development works, the transformations produced by this leads to the rise of 'Asian Tigers', which spells a relative decline in American power, but which the Americans judged was an acceptable tradeoff if it provided the effect of containment during the Cold War.

However, the rise of the tigers also spells an eventual undoing of the system, as economic power precedes geopolitical power, so eventually the Asian Century will manifest as a result of all of this, as the riches of the East will be restored. At that stage, American military power will be eroded from the pacific.

Obviously that is a very roundabout way to accomplish the task, but there was no other choice after losing the Second World War. Of course, the most preferable thing would have been to have actually just won the Second World War and changed the world, but that didn't happen so now everything has to be done via the back door.

The world will still be changed, just it will be done by actors who are not necessarily confined by borders and by the old ideas.

[ThirdTerm]

Shinzo Abe's conservative party called LDP is staunchly pro-American because it was originally set up by the CIA in the 1950s and some Japanese prime ministers from the LDP were technically American spies, who were on the CIA's payroll. After defeating Imperial Japan, it was Washington's intention to colonise Japan without being ostensibly imperialist and with the presence of 50,000 US troops on its soil, Japan was reduced to the 53rd state of America, which was welcomed by China. But Shinzo Abe has launched his own diplomatic initiative when it comes to Russia, without asking American overlords what to do with Japan's foreign policy. Shinzo Abe recently settled the comfort women issue with South Korea and he may be able to settle the territorial issue with Russia as well, finally concluding a peace treaty between the two countries.

[youtube]QMeCAjKo2mY[/youtube]

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe confirmed their mutual interest in strengthening bilateral cooperation in a phone conversation on Friday, the Kremlin said in a statement. "[The two leaders] discussed the development of Russia-Japan relations in detail. [They] stressed [their] mutual interest in enhancing cooperation in political, trade, economic, humanitarian and other areas. An agreement to maintain personal contact was reached," the statement reads.According to the press service, the leaders discussed the situation concerning the Korean Peninsula, the global anti-terrorist fight and settlement of the Syrian crisis.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/2016012 ... z3y6TDdtlO

[Rei Murasame]

Sites like Sputnik News only report Russia's supposed 'good relationship' with Japan in the same way that they report supposed 'good relationships' with China.

Cynical conversations which are had about 'maintaining dialogue' over the issue of the Korean Peninsula (which happen all the time, because no one - not the US either - wants North Korea to become a nuisance!), are somehow reported as changes in policy direction so that the Russian state can fool its dumb citizens into believing that Vladimir Putin is working negotiation magic.

Abe agrees to actually pick up the phone and hear Putin's voice when it rings. He has agreed to that paltry arrangement. Let's have a celebration with the Russians, get out the vodka and the harmonicas, Japan has placed you on rations that are slightly more than they were before!

Russia's relationship with Japan is shit, and will remain shit because Japan's foreign policy is quite correctly calibrated with that of the United States and Western Europe, given that they all share interlocking interests. And if any politician ever did step out of line, they would be politically destroyed and would deserve to be destroyed.

Regarding the whinging about the CIA, the CIA is always preferable to any of the three-letter alphabet agencies in Russia.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Everyone who thinks, that one country spends years to push the another country into a war, milliards of (old) dollars and tons of human blood to win over it, does it only to demonstrate something, to free someone except its own citizens, and to give the conquered country the right to choose: to be allies or not to be, is a naive idiot.

Why Sussex is still an ally with the UK?

[annatar1914]

Obviously that is a very roundabout way to accomplish the task, but there was no other choice after losing the Second World War. Of course, the most preferable thing would have been to have actually just won the Second World War and changed the world, but that didn't happen so now everything has to be done via the back door.

The world will still be changed, just it will be done by actors who are not necessarily confined by borders and by the old ideas.

Rei, everybody should keep this comment well in mind, everything else is in a Copernican orbit around these facts. I don't like them, and i'll actively fight them, but this is a genuine factual statement that can't be ignored.

World War Two never ended...

[Contrapunctus]

Because we like playstation, Godzilla movies, and Hideo Kojima.

[Rancid]

Basically, CASH MONEY

I don't like The Sniper Quiet, but his other characters are interesting.

[Contrapunctus]

I do like her outfit.

I'd like to think, on a more personal level, we are still allies with Japan because we helped them rebuild after the war, benefited from economic exchange, and had a wonderful cultural exchange for the last 70 odd years.

[fuser]

World War II was seventy years ago and in Japan there was never a full scale rejection of the legacy of that war. Many Japanese will not accept the Western narrative as did West Germans. Yet the alliance with America persists until this day. Does Japan maintain its alliance with America for pragmatic strategic reasons or does it do so simply because that is the status quo?

The question is why they shouldn't be allies? Because History? Should US, UK stop being allies because 1812? UK and France because 100 years war? There is absolutely no reason in 21st century that could lead to a confrontational US-Japan relations but many mutually beneficial reasons for their strategic partnership.

[neopagan]

China

[benpenguin]

China

Beat me to it

[Igor Antunov]

Because Japan is a puppet state. Its political establishment is under Us administration. Same reason England and Scotland are still allies. The stronger party has infiltrated and contained the smaller. English living in Scotland were the deciding factor in the Scottish vote for independence.

There exists a diverging dichotomy however, in that all these US east Asian client regimes are now dependent on a gigantic economy next door that is in direct geopolitical rivalry with the US. So China will eventually end this cross-pacific tributary system and replace it with its own by simple virtue of being the main generator of economic growth globally, and by possessing better geographic access to this collection of pets. The US leash is old and about to snap.

[Potemkin]

World War Two never ended...

Nothing ever truly ends, annatar. As William Faulkner put it, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

[marjy]

Same reason England and Scotland are still allies.

Just for the record, and in a strictly historical context, it is England who is the junior partner of the Union because James VI of Scotland assumed the throne of England in 1601 when he became King James I of England.

He inherited the English crown as great-great-grandson of Henry VII, King of England, due to the lack of an heir to Elizabeth I of England.

Strictly speaking, if anyone should be seeking independence from the Union it is the English from the Scots.

As for Japan (and as mentioned in a previous post) having your constitution written by an occupying power just might have something to do with it.

That and a well deserved feeling of guilt of course.

Oh, and still reeling from a couple of atom bombs I suppose.

That said, and as mikema63 asserted, the US ain't really that bad as an ally.

Japan gave the US the Honda motor car and in return were showered with Starbucks.

[Igor Antunov]

Semantics, English can become independent tomorrow, if they so wished. Scotland is subject to far more manipulation from the south. It's like proclaiming an equal (or worse-headed by the little guy) relationship between China and Mongolia.

[marjy]

That's just the point.

England probably could become independent but the Scots know that financially they could not.

The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues but 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 - or 10% higher - per head of population than the UK average.

Of course, the Scots have a more basic objection, which is that the revenue figures for Scotland make no mention of North Sea oil. These are falling, but were still more than £6bn in 2009-10.

If you add in a proportion of those revenues, in line with Scotland's share of the UK population, it makes very little difference to the overall story.

But if you say that more than 90% of the oil revenues are Scottish, as Mr Salmond thought geographically appropriate, then you get Scotland 'putting in' £48.1bn in tax revenues in 2009-10, not £42.7bn.

However, it wasn't the Scottish Government that made the billions of pounds investment in North Sea Oil in the first place but British Petroleum.

So there are two numbers to choose from, depending on whether you take a English view of oil or the view from Scotland.

From the English perspective, the gap between spending and revenues in Scotland for 2009-10 was £3,150 per head. On the Scottish Nationalist view, the gap between spending and revenues was closer to £2,130.

Scotland is not the only part of the UK that is currently spending more than it raises in revenues.

If you apply the same kind calculation to the UK as a whole, the net 'subsidy' for the average person was well over £2,000 in 2011.

So in the final analysis, Scotland and England have a lot more in common.

The Scots did not vote No because of semantics. They voted No because of mathematics.

[Igor Antunov]

Isn't that rule no.1 of colonialism? Socioeconomic dependency? Historically these were called dependencies. Surely there is price for independence. It is after all independence. USA federal regime spends more than it raises in revenue. On the order of ~$1 trillion/year. It is still an independent great power.

[marjy]

Isn't that rule no.1 of colonialism?

Rule number 1 of colonialism is possessing a flag (according to Eddie Izzard at any rate).

Historically these were called dependencies.

I think the term Dependency was first coined by the British to denote a colony's military dependence on Great Britain for protection against other would be empire builders.

There's an exquisite irony there one feels.