Re: Japan's military build-up
I'm reading the official communiques from the Japanese government over many decades. It is clear that they do not forget what they did by the apologies they issued. It is clear in the last 75 years that there has been no repeat, nor do I see any repeat in the foreseeable future.
Two of those apologies were issued jointly with the Chinese government, where both sides applauded the release of the other. If the Chinese government felt that the apologies at the time were insincere and not real, they would never have taken the stage with the Japanese.
That's just the facts of what happened.
Only the first two, and oldest communiques were jointly issued. Ever wonder why?
However, the Japanese government has issued very direct and clear apologies by its Prime Ministers.
As I said earlier, demanding that a people today atone for what occurred 65-75 years ago, when those who committed those things are all dead, is not a productive exercise, particularly when the Japanese government has apologized on numerous occasions.
So if China carpet-nuked Japan tomorrow, issued a few carefully crafted and reserved statements of regret every decade or so, and refrain from nuking anyone else for 65-75 years, all should be forgiven? I think not.
As to sincerity, that is a very subjective judgment that you and I are in no position to determine because we do not know the hearts of these people.
The fact they continue to issue these statements every few years, and the fact that they have not been involved in any military adventurism since that time indicates that they are certainly not the Imperialists they were back in the 1930s and 1940s.
Well, no offence intended but I call BS on that. Just look to Germany's example. How many people would actually doubt the sincerity of their remorse and regret? Gauging regret and contrition is not nearly as subjective as you seem to think, and the overwhelming majority of people in all the countries Japan has occupied does not think Japan's apologies are worth the paper they are printed on. Surely they cannot all be stubborn grudge holders, especially since the vast majority of them were also not even born when those crimes were committed?
Anyone who has any notion if justice and rehabilitation should know the difference between saying you are sorry and actually being sorry, just ask any parole board why the distinction matters.
No one could realistic doubt that Germany could be trusted to wield military power responsibly, yet the same cannot be said of Japan, and that goes to the very core of the issue and controversy regarding the right wing elements' attempt to effectively abolish the pacifist nature of Japan's constitution.
Saying Japan hasn't been involved in military adventures for the last several decades looses a lot of its weight when you consider the fact that Japan has been under American occupation during most of that time, and so was hardly in a position to go having military adventures abroad now was it?
And as you seem to like to point out, countries and people's change over time, and if you hold to the nation that the sins of the father should not be passed onto the children, then surely you would also apply that to the merits of the fathers? So let us look at the behaviour of the current crop of Japanese leaders, the individuals the Japanese people democratically elected to lead and represent them.
For decades now, the Japanese have been white washing their history books until their war crimes and atrocities are little more than footnotes. How can you learn from your history if you do not know it yourself?
We had mayors suggesting forced mass rape was necessary, we have ministers and elected leaders literally lining up to pay their respects to convicted war criminals, we have the Japanese government going against the San Francisco treaty and not only refusing to return land they taken through wars of aggression, but also publicly threatening to use deadly force to resolve the dispute.
The Japanese have deployed troops abroad for the first time since WWII in support of an unilateral, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation not condoned by the UN.
Hardly a list of deems to put anyone's fears at ease.
But, as I also said, and repeat the appeal...let's get the thread back on topic which is the current Japanese military buildup...most of which is thir normal practice of retooling and replacing their older vessels with newer ones.
Well, the title of the threat may say 'build up' now, but that's not really what this thread was about when it was created, and frankly, there is no real Japanese military build up worthy of special attention now.
The main issue is one of symbolism and politics, whereby the Japanese right wing wants to ditch their pacifist constitution and formally normalise their military, and give them offensive, and first strike legal powers which they have lacked thus far.
All of this talk about the atrocities of World War II and to what level the Japanese government has or has not apologized for that (and it is clear from the above statements that there are two sides to that coin) are not a part of this discussion.
Well that is a very subjective interpretation, which I am sure many will disagree with.
As I pointed out above, the issue is less one of some massive Japanese military build up, and more about the legal changes that will allow the Japanese military to conduct offensive and first strike operations rather than function as a purely defensive and reactionary force. In this context, whether or not the Japanese government has earned the right to have such offensive legal power and forces is the issue at hand, and how Japan has faced up to (or not as is the case here) their past crimes and taken steps to make sure those horrors are never repeated goes to the heart of whether they can be trust with a normal military again.
