Liberal Japan

From a Fox news report about the May 15th GOP Presidential Debate in America:

“They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. … We’ve been in the Middle East,” Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq. “Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.
-
“They are delighted that we’re over there because Usama bin Laden has said, ‘I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time they’ve killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary,” he continued.
-
“That’s really an extraordinary statement,” Giuliani said, interrupting FOX News panelist Wendell Goler. “That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

So when a candidate for president puts forth a fairly reasonable theory about blowback, the reply is to tell him to shut up and apologize?

And to think I was a little concerned about Japan.

In other recent news John Bolton, whose neoconservative credentials need no clarifying stated:

It’s been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear program. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure. If we can’t get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we’ve got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups… that’s the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it’s safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force.

Okay.

Anyway, no surprise there. John Bolton, a true hawk, has been calling on Japan to get rid of article 9 of its constitution since at least 2000. Here’s a quote from an article of his printed January 2 of that year in the Taipei Times:

World War II seems increasingly remote as the 20th century ends, but parts of its legacy are more enduring than the results of the Cold War that followed. Even now, the 1945 victors still grapple with the appropriate roles in international affairs of what the UN Charter called “enemy states.” Although the winners eschewed a punitive peace, they did impose on Germany and Japan still-valid constitutional limits on the use of military force. These limits are now particularly vexing, given both nations’ enormous economic strengths and successful transitions to democracy after military occupation.
It is precisely the enormous disparity between their economic clout and their military weakness that catalyzes the debate, within Japan and Germany as well as among outsiders, about what their proper roles should be … Much of the concern motivating Japanese politicians in particular is the realization that China’s economic reforms and the growing prospects of Korean reunification, combined with Japan’s lengthy inability to recover fully from the collapse of the “bubble economy,” mean that Japan’s pre-eminence in Asia is no longer unquestioned. These concerns explain in part Japan’s willingness to enhance defense cooperation with the US, but also explain its consideration of more independent military capabilities.

If that’s a bit cryptic, then I guess it’s because talk like that once use to at least raise a few heckles. But perhaps now it’s the order of the day?

Today a Japan Time’s article reports:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has urged Japan to declare the right to collective defense so its missile defense shield can be used to intercept North Korean ballistic missiles targeted at the United States, according to Japanese and U.S. diplomatic sources. Gates made the call during talks with Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma late last month in Washington, the sources said. Exercising the right to collective defense — coming to the aid of an ally under attack — is banned under the government’s current interpretation of the Constitution. U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer, who was present at the Gates-Kyuma talks, warned that the alliance could change if the Japanese missile defense shield cannot be used to intercept attacks against the U.S., the sources said. … The U.S. demand on collective defense reflects its strategy to boost its deterrence toward China and also carries Washington’s hope that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will partially allow the use of such a right by revising the Constitution.

This sounds pretty close to an implicit threat. Neocons clearly want Japanese military might on their side. What’s that word again … blowback?

Recently the Japan Observer complained about gaiatsu in terms of constitutional reform, and specifically stated, “the US — and alliance handlers in Washington who have been long awaiting this moment — cannot try to influence the outcome.”

If that’s not gaiatsu then perhaps I don’t understand the term.

Let’s finish this entry with a nice video of Ron Paul defending the blowback theory:

Good luck Ron Paul!