|
|
Perils of imperialism
Okinawans derided it as postively disgraceful and even the governor, a political ally of Japan's ruling (conservative) Liberal Democratic Party, denounced it as "totally unacceptable." Now, bribes of improved rail and air links are being offered, but in an island increasingly talking about autonomy, if not independence, the outcome is uncertain.
Could the US and Japan be about to receive another unwanted lesson in the perils of imperialism? They represent massive force, but their military plans can be discredited historically, politically and morally.
New wars
The historical perspective, usually lacking in the mainstream media's jargon-stuffed "defense" reporting, concerns a region where three wars involving dozens of nations, including the US, the then-Soviet Union, China, Australia, France, and in two instances Britain, occurred within the 20-odd years from World War II closure through the Korean conflict and Vietnam.
Even today, Japan has yet to sign a Pacific war peace treaty with the former Soviet Union or today's Russia.
North Korea claims nuclear weaponry; China and Taiwan confront Beijing's continued insistence that the island remains part of the People's Republic.
Above all, the astonishingly rapid advance of China's economy renders previous regional assumptions invalid, but not irreplaceable.
The dean of Asian scholarship, Chalmers Johnson, former professor at the University of California at San Diego and Berkeley, and now head of the Japan Policy Research Institute, offers this perspective:
"The major question for the 21st century is whether this fateful inability to adjust to changes in the global power-structure can be overcome.
Thus far the signs are negative ... Is China's ascendancy to be marked by yet another world war, when the pretensions of European civilization in its US and Japanese projections would be finally put to rest?
That is what is at stake."
He sees Bush's encouragement of Japan's re-armament as "dangerous" and adds:
"Such a development promotes hostility between China and Japan, sabotages possible peaceful solutions in those two problem areas, Taiwan and North Korea, that were left over from the Chinese and Korean civil wars, and lays the foundation for a possible future Sino-American conflict that the US would almost surely lose.
It is unclear whether these Washington ideologues understand what they are unleashing: a possible confrontation between the world's fastest growing industrial economy, China, and the world's second most productive ... Japan; a confrontation the United States would have caused."
Politically, it is China's advance that lies behind Washington's push of Japanese leaders' emerging militarism.
Although deflected by Iraq, US neo-cons always regarded "containment" of China a logical sequence to that old Cold War attitude.
Last February they launched it afresh with the first declaration of closer "security" ties between the US and Japan.
In June came defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's aggressive speech on China, when he asked why it rearms when "no nation threatens it."
This statement ignored even his own actions in supporting constant US warship patrols of China's coast and aiming nuclear missiles at its mainland.
|
|
|