China's Rise = Remilitarizing Japan?
Image Credit: US Navy

China's Rise = Remilitarizing Japan?


Saying publicly for the first time what they’ve thought privately for years, Japanese defence planners in December announced a new defence posture that fingered China’s military rise as justification for a new, more proactive approach, including a refocusing of forces from Japan’s north to its southernmost islands.

Unfortunately, China’s response was as predictable as it was unhelpful: it issued a blunt statement saying that no country had the right to make irresponsible comments about its development.

From a distance, it’s hard not to be alarmed at the three trends that have dominated the region over the last decade: the growth of Chinese power, the relative decline of US power and the resulting remilitarisation of Japanese power. Indeed, given the growth in importance of the region to the global economy, these trends are as alarming as they are dangerous since they have the capacity to be self-fulfilling, driving a cycle of mistrust and spiralling arms spending. And, since Japan’s defence posture automatically includes the United States (which is obliged by treaty to come to Japan’s defence) any potential conflict has all the ingredients for a ‘great power war.’

How did this happen to a China that seemed intent on managing a history defying ‘peaceful rise’? How did this happen to a United States that has sought to reassure China and give Beijing a seat at the table? And how did it happen to a pacifist Japan, led by a newly-elected political party that looked intent on building closer ties with China? A complicated mix of security dynamics, historical grievances and major shifts in aggregated power mean there’s no easy answer.

The relationship between Japan and China has long been complex. Traditionally, the junior partner and recipient of culture, religion and writing from the 19th century on, Japan developed more quickly the tools, institutions and weapons that ultimately felled its giant neighbour. Following the 1853 US intrusion on its sleepy isolation, Japan began its rise as a great power by focusing on economic and military power.

Using the slogan Fukokyu Kohei, ‘rich country, strong military,’ Japan emulated the strategic thinking of the West, with particular focus on the kind of naval power projection discussed by Alfred Thayer Mahan. Japan’s quicker development reversed its historic relationship with China, and by the time of the Boxer Rebellion in 1899, Japan was fighting alongside British, French and German forces and carving out its own trade empire on the Chinese mainland.

While China’s rise over the last 20 years has done much to restore the historic balance between the two states, it’s more than possible this historical experience continues to shape current Chinese policy and the attitudes of policy-making elites. Defence spending, for example, has surged—doubling every five years—with much going into developing China’s blue-water naval capabilities. (When pressed on this issue, Chinese diplomats tend to point to China’s past vulnerability to naval-borne threats).

Rajat Mann
May 30, 2013 at 17:59

I dont get the point of most people just criticizing china and its policy and saying that democracy is springing flowers in india!!! Its true that corruption is heavy in china but its far more worse in India. And as far as we are concerned about transparency you can see what happens when people post remarks against Shivsena!! India is rising fast but we have so many hurdles in front of us that it cant rise with its full force. Chinas ways are different and if any other country would try going on that path it would be doomed i think but situation there is different and its getting better day by day. In india we have more freedom to criticize government thats all and we pay the price of that freedom by a making a country extremely fragmanted with so many social problems. China isnt dealing with crap of caste system after all. So in my view democracy is the way for india surely but it wont be able to cross china in near future.

[...] China’s Rise Remilitarizes Japan? [...]

August 24, 2012 at 06:30

japan has lots of friends in war with china , china has north korea hahahaha iran hahaha lets see the day will come !!!

Robert in Okinawa
August 9, 2012 at 20:07

This is the United States' fault.  The U.S. pushed Japan to turn to pacifism but allowed China to obtain the bomb.  What stupidity… China is pushing Japan to turn to MAD similar to the USA and the USSR once did.   Do you really think China would survive a nuclear war???  Everyone in the world loses not only China and Japan.

Robert in Okinawa
August 9, 2012 at 20:02

I still say that the U.S. should have let Japan take China during WWII then China would not be arguing which island belongs to them.  The U.S. stopped Japan from taking China and there was nothing China could do to stop Japan without the United Sates' help.  So, China should be lucky that the U.S. only gave Japan the Senkaku Islands vice all of China.  So instead of whining about the Island that belong to the Ryukyu kingdom which was taken by the United States in WWII and then given to Japan in 1971 be happy that all of China doesn't  belong to Japan.
To the conqueror goes the spoils….

January 7, 2012 at 21:46

Japan is vulnerable in two ways.
It has no natural resources to sustain a long war.
It has no strategic ground to survive a nuclear war. Japan will be wiped out quicker than China.

Tron vokoyo coolooc
October 6, 2011 at 21:11

They are an inalienable part of China’s territory according to historical facts and international law; Japan’s claim untenable —

Situated in the East China Sea, due east of Fujian province and northeast of Taiwan, the Diaoyu Islands are the farthest eastern islands of China. They are about 190 nautical miles from the Dongshan Island of Fujian province, 90 nautical miles to the northeast of Keelung city of Taiwan, and 78 nautical miles from the Yunaguni Island of the Ryukyu Islands. The Diaoyu Islands refer to a group of islands that include the main one, Diaoyu Island, and some smaller islands and reefs like Huangwei Island, Chiwei Island, Beixiao Island, Nanxiao Island and three other islets. They are scattered in a sea area at 123 degrees 20 minutes ~ 124 degrees 45 minutes east longitude and 25 degrees 44 minutes ~ 26 degrees north latitude, covering a total land area of 6.5 square kilometers. The surrounding waters of the islands have rich fishing resources and have long been an important fishing ground for people in Fujian and Taiwan of China since ancient times. The well-known Emery Report pointed to the existence of abundant oil and natural gas resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea.

(1) The Diaoyu Islands are an inalienable part of China’s territory.

China was the first country that discovered and explored the Diaoyu Islands and obtained sovereignty by occupation. Since ancient times, the Chinese have fished, collected medicinal herbs and sought shelters on these islands and in their surrounding waters. No later than the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), the islands had been discovered, explored and named by the Chinese. Ancient Chinese books, such as the Book on Voyage Routes and the Voyage with a Tail Wind, kept a complete record of the navigation routes used by Chinese fishermen in this sea area. Due to the natural conditions at sea and the possession of technology such as ship-building at that time, only the Chinese military and civilians could reach the islands during the monsoon season. They navigated through the islands and sought haven there in stormy weather. They carried out economic activities such as fishing, collecting herbs and picking fruits. For about five centuries until 1895, China had never been interfered in its exercise of these rights.

One cannot speak of the Diaoyu Islands without mentioning Ryukyu Kingdom. Ryukyu Kingdom was a vassal state of the Ming and Qing dynasties to which it paid tributes, while the latter sent envoys to grant honorific titles to the kings in Ryukyu in recognition of their rule. The Diaoyu Islands were on the navigation route from China’s mainland to Ryukyu Kingdom. Chinese officials on mission to Ryukyu all referred to these islands as their navigation marks. They put down in the official documents such as the Record of the Mission to Ryukyu with detailed descriptions of their voyages through the Diaoyu Island, Huangwei Island and Chiwei Island and repeatedly confirmed the boundary between China and Ryukyu. Historical facts tell us that the Diaoyu Islands do not fall into the domain of Ryukyu. China’s historical records and official documents all show that it was the Chinese people who first discovered, developed and utilized the Diaoyu Islands. According to the international law of that time, discovery means occupation and occupation means obtainment of territorial sovereignty. Therefore, China obtained sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands by occupation.

The Chinese government exercised effective rule and administration, and strengthened its sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. Successive Chinese governments all included the Diaoyu Islands into the confines of China’s territory and exercised sovereignty and effective rule by taking measures to develop, utilize and administer the islands. In 1171, General Wang Dayou guarding Fujian established military camps on Penghu Islands and sent officers to station in the islands. Taiwan and its affiliated islands including the Diaoyu Islands were under the military command of Penghu and, in terms of administration, they were under Jinjiang of Quanzhou, Fujian province. Both the Ming and Qing dynasties incorporated the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands into their territory and designated them as part of the maritime defense areas. The Book on Managing the Sea (1562, Ming Dynasty) and Imperial Map of Chinese and Foreign Lands (1863, Qing Dynasty) made clear descriptions about the area. Historical facts show that the Chinese government has administered the Diaoyu Islands in various ways and effectively exercised and strengthened its sovereignty over the Islands.

(2) Japan’s arguments about its claim of sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands are untenable.

There are mainly two legal arguments that Japan has evoked to justify its occupation of the Diaoyu Islands: First, occupation of so-called terra nullius, second, acquisition by prescription (prescriptio acquisitive). Both arguments are untenable.

By international law, the object of occupation shall be limited to terra nullius. Terra nullius refers to land which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state or over which any prior sovereign state has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. The fact is that Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands have been subject to the sovereignty of the Chinese government as its sea defense area since the Ming Dynasty. They are an inalienable part of China’s territory. Due to the inhospitable natural environment, these islands are not permanently inhabited and fishermen only take up abode on these islands for seasonal activities. But having no permanent residents does not make these islands terra nullius. The Diaoyu Islands are not terra nullius. They are China’s territory. The Japanese government and society are well aware of this fact. The official archives of the Japanese government and documents and correspondence of Japanese officials all record and give evidence to this. For example, in the letter to Home Minister Aritomo Yamagata, then Japanese Foreign Minister Kaoru Inoue wrote in explicit terms that these islands had already been given Chinese names by the Qing government and that the Japanese government had been admonished by the Qing government for coveting these islands. Since the Diaoyu Islands are not terra nullius, Japan’s so-called occupation is non-existent. Ex injuria jus non oritur (A legal right or entitlement cannot arise from an unlawful act or omission) is a fundamental principle of international law. Japan’s so-called occupation is mala fide, illegal and unjustifiable; it therefore does not have the legal effect as what may arise from occupation recognized by international law.

The other argument that Japan presents is “long and continuous effective administration”, that is, to obtain sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands based on acquisition by prescription (prescriptio acquisitive).

“Acquisition by prescription” of territory has been all along an extremely disputable issue in international law. Those against it totally deny the legitimacy of prescription as a way to obtain territory. They are of the view that this is “merely a legal argument serving expansionist countries for occupying others’ territories”. Those for it see prescription as a way to obtain territory, it is defined as “the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory through continuous and undisturbed exercise of sovereignty over it, and during such a period as is necessary to create under the influence of historical development the general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order.” International judicial practice has never clearly confirmed the status of “prescription” as an independent way to acquire territory. As for the exact time span of the “period as is necessary”, international law has no final verdict to make it 50 years or 100 years.

If we put aside the legitimacy of “acquisition by prescription” and merely examine the key factors, it is clear that both the Chinese central government and the Taiwan local authority have been firm, explicit and consistent on issues concerning China’s sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands and in opposing Japan’s attempt to steal them. They have launched protests, especially diplomatic protests, against official and government-supported civilian activities, including setting up a lighthouse on the Diaoyu Island by Japanese right-wingers, “nationalizing” the lighthouse by the Japanese government, paying the “rent” for land on the Diaoyu Islands to those so-called non-governmental owners, and submitting a chart specifying the so-called baselines of the territorial sea of the Diaoyu Islands to the United Nations by the Japanese government. Japan can never gain legitimate rights over the Diaoyu Islands through occupation no matter how long it may last.

(3) Agreements between Japan and the United States cannot grant Japan sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.

In the wake of World War II, the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, the outcome of the Anti-fascist victory clearly defined the territory of Japan. According to the Cairo Declaration issued by China, the US and the UK in December 1943, their purpose is that “Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of World War I in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese” shall be restored to China. “Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed”.

The Potsdam Proclamation issued in 1945 reaffirmed that “the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine”. On Jan 29, 1946, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction No 667 explicitly stipulated the range of the Japanese territory, which included the four major islands of Japan (Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu Islands north of 30 degrees north latitude. The delimitation of the Japanese territory by the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation is clear-cut. The Diaoyu Islands are not included in the Japanese territory in any way.

On Sept 8, 1951, Japan and the US concluded the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the absence of China and the Soviet Union, two victorious countries in the war against Japan, putting Nansei Shoto south of 29 degrees north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands) under the US trusteeship. The Diaoyu Islands were not mentioned in the treaty, nor by the Japanese government’s later explanations thereof. On Dec 25, 1953, the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands issued the Civil Administration Proclamation No 27 on the geographical boundaries of the Ryukyu Islands and defined the areas administered by the US government and the Ryukyu Civil Administration as the islands, islets, atolls, rocks and territorial waters along 24 degrees north latitude and 122 degrees east longitude. This proclamation included the Diaoyu Islands, China’s territory, into their areas of administration. These islands were also included in the areas to be returned to Japan under the Japan-US Okinawa Reversion Agreement signed on June 17, 1971. The Japanese government takes the above-mentioned agreement as the legal ground for its claim of territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.

On Dec 30, 1971, the Chinese Foreign Ministry pointed out in its statement that “the incorporation by the United States and Japan of China’s Diaoyu and other islands into the area of reversion under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement is totally illegal. It does not in any way change the territorial sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China over the Diaoyu and other islands”. The US government also stated that returning the administrative authority over these islands gained from Japan to Japan does not in any way undermine relevant sovereign claim. The United States cannot increase the legal right Japan had prior to its handover of the administrative authority over these islands to China, nor can it undermine the right of other claimants because of the return of the administrative authority to Japan. All the conflicting claims over these islands are issues that should be resolved by the parties concerned among themselves. On Sept 11, 1996, US State Department spokesperson Nicholas Burns said further that the US neither recognizes nor supports any country’s sovereign claim over the Diaoyu Islands.

On Sept 1951, the Chinese government issued a statement regarding the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed by the US and Japan without the involvement of the Chinese people and the lawful government of China. It pointed out the illegal nature of the treaty. The “trusteeship” and “reversion” deriving from the treaty included the Diaoyu Islands, thus violating China’s territorial sovereignty and becoming the source of the territorial dispute between China and Japan. The San Francisco Peace Treaty and other relevant documents have no right to cover or determine the ownership of the Chinese territory, and cannot have any legal judgment that extends the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands to Japan.

The Diaoyu Islands are an inalienable part of China’s territory. The so-called administrative authority the US “got from” and “returned to” Japan is unjustified. Japan’s claim over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands on that basis has no legal ground in international law.


Japan has never given up its attempt to gain sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. It first destroyed China’s markings on the islands, then renamed the islands, and built a heliport and other facilities. In recent years, Japan went even further. It abetted what it called “civilian actions” to create a fait accompli of “actual control” of the Diaoyu Islands, followed by government renting and “takeover” actions. All this aim to pave the legal grounds for its occupation of the Diaoyu Islands and gradually win recognition from the international community. However, Japan’s claim to sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands and its encroachment are illegal in the first place. Therefore, its carefully designed “government actions” have no legal ground and do not constitute the execution of state power. They never had, and will never have, any legal effect.

Article II of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone promulgated in 1992 makes clear that the Diaoyu Islands and other islands are Chinese territory, and reaffirms the legality of China’s ownership of them. In 2009, a Chinese marine surveillance and law enforcement ship was sent to the Diaoyu Islands in repudiation of Japan’s “acquisition by prescription”. This was also a concrete action of China’s exercise of sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.

September 7, 2011 at 04:34

“much like how large successful “democracies” like Indonesia or India are now, unstable, corrupt countries highly dependent on western aid”

Are you from Pluto? Or do you only prefer to read what CCP says? India doesn’t depend on any aid [keep in mind] Also it is second fastest growing economy [with democratic government]. Also read about the latest transparency report, China is not so much better then India in corruption rating so don’t boost in air. Only margins of new .x points. Also not to forget the nontransparent of data from China which put everything in doubt at first place.

September 3, 2011 at 19:38

I disagree with you. China is not a threat to Japan, and Japanese re-militarization is just an excuse for the country’s far-right wing to gain footing within the government.

“1st off japan is “the sick man of asia” if you will just like the ottamans were 100 years ago. Japan needs a military its people are desperate to feel impornant again.”

First of all, Japan is not the sick man of Asia, even now, Japan’s economy is still stable, and still one of the largest in the world. Secondly, the fact that yu’re pushing Japanese re-militarization for the need for it’s people to “feel impornant” is just offensive to the people who were victims of Japanese militarization in the past.

“it would also be good for the world well except for china. Free tibet china and your western islamic regions from your tyrany and then maybe we will talk to you llike a grown up country. Japan has been itchin for a fight for the past 50 years now and i say we give it to them.”

So, from this statement here, you seem to have exceptional hatred for the Chinese, and seem to leave out the fact that Tibet and Xinjiang have been a part of China longer than most Asian countries have been independent. The west will not treat China like a “grown up country”, no matter what. What the west wants is for China to be a “democracy” much like how large successful “democracies” like Indonesia or India are now, unstable, corrupt countries highly dependent on western aid.

The last part of your statement is just hilarious, in all honesty. You seem to harbor so much hatred for China that you think Japan wishes for even more war, even after their people have been wanting nothing more than peace after seeing the dangerous effects of Japanese Militarism not so long ago.

August 6, 2011 at 06:36

China is a threat and japan is right to feel so. The best thing for america to right now is let japan remilitarze and pull some of its troops back. 1st off japan is “the sick man of asia” if you will just like the ottamans were 100 years ago. Japan needs a military its people are desperate to feel impornant again. One must remember they weren’t just beaten in world war 2 like the germans they were humiliated. ( although germany being split in two was pretty humiliating too) infact screw it are them both again. Enough of the US playing world police. Like the U.K. Gee thanks for those 9,000 troops in afghanistanyou know we have 150,000 there right?
Japan rearming would not only be good for the men and women of japan(get the girls in on the action this time) it would also be good for the world well except for china. Free tibet china and your western islamic regions from your tyrany and then maybe we will talk to you llike a grown up country. Japan has been itchin for a fight for the past 50 years now and i say we give it to them.

Derek Weese
July 25, 2011 at 22:26

As an American I can understand my own country’s nervousness regarding this issue. Our economy is hanging by a thread and our security is dependent upon a strong presence across the globe. However,this does not mean that we have to act as though a 19th Century Imperial power. There is plenty of room at the banquet table for both China and Japan as great powers, in fact the United States should learn to grow closer to China as many of the possible future threats in the world would impact us both negatively. A friend in need is a friend indeed.
As regards to the tensions between China and Japan I am unsure as to whether or not increased US presence in the region would either hinder or help to smooth things out. The past century and a half saw Japan turn towards becoming a great power to stop themselves from becoming a victim of other great powers. And Japan had attempted to establish its hegemony over the region once before in the 1500′s during the Imjin War; so Japan had a historical precedent for Imperial expansion. And the collapsing Chinese Empire during the late 1800′s was seen as prime real estate by everyone, including Japan and the United States. So even barring the horrific war of 1931-1945 (I include Japans invasion of Manchuria into the overall template of the Second Sino-Japanese War) there would be cause for negative feelings on the part of China’s nationalists. But, of course, the real anger with Japan is what happened during the Second World War, and no one should ever be holding to thoughts other than that the Japanese occupation was brutal and barbaric.
But is that a valid reason to stir up popular support for a dramatic increase in military spending and a more forceful foreign policy? I don’t know. My own country does it routinely in regards to Islamic terrorism to provide a Causus Belli for military action in the Middle East. But, then again, no Middle Eastern state has the power to project upon the US to significantly hurt it more than to annoy it. Japan, however, if fully rebuilt as a military power, has the full potential to at the very least slug it out with China in a long conventional war that would end in horrendous death tolls and see no clear winner. And, sadly, my own country would be involved.
But it doesn’t have to go that way. All three nations and peoples involved are logical, well reasoned people (I would argue that Asians are probably the supreme example of this on the planet) so there’s no reason at all why a proper balance of power couldn’t be enforced the region that would not only ensure peace and stability but also help stamp out things such as terrorism and piracy.
Also, one final thought: any nuclear device detonation is catastrophic, and one alone could ruin a nations economy. And may such a thing never, ever occur in history again.

April 8, 2011 at 17:21

Tibet is not a country (sic), it has been a Chinese province since 1100AD. Tibet is a rather British made name, the real pronunciation (Xizang) is nothing like Tibet…

April 8, 2011 at 17:20

Thank you Anthony, you hit the nail at the right spot!

February 11, 2011 at 17:45

thank you for the honest reply

Hu Jintao
February 10, 2011 at 20:17

I agree that we shouldn’t have acted in a hostile manner against Japan. It was a big strategic mistake and we lost a valuable partner because of century old grudges. But the problem is that there are too many nationalists(?) in China who still think that we should get revenge from Japanese for defeating China in Sino-Japanese war. They don’t want to consider how horrible wars are and any war in current world may result in billions of death if things go even slightly out of hand.

February 10, 2011 at 01:50

One poster suggested that the U.S.,i.e., Obama’s “wolf smile” with Hu, while Obama quietly courts India and sells her advanced fighter aircraft, is seeking “the collapse of China.” I disagree. The U.S. would, of course, love to see China’s Communist system of government collapse and be transformed into a democratic system, but this prospect appears unrealistic and remote at present. From the U.S. perspective, a democratic China would be a natural ally of the U.S., as she once was under the Nationalist regime before 1949. Under the present Communist government, the U.S. sees China has a potential threat and enemy, even as it tries to to maintain an economic partnership with China. So U.S. policy is to engage other states, such as India, Japan, S. Korea, Australia and Vietnam to counter growing Chinese power. By adopting this position, the U.S. hopes that China will see that an aggressive foreign policy would not be in China’s national or security interests. The price China would pay for military adventurism would be too high, i.e., risking a major power war to attain her objectives. I mean, is sovereignty over the South China Sea worth losing the lives of millions of people, and risking the destruction of national infrastructure? I think China can achieve many of her goals peacefully and through diplomacy. History has taught us that war as an instrument of national policy does not pay. Look at what happened to Japan in the 1930′s and 40′s when she used force to achieve her objectives. China should learn a lesson from that, as should the U.S. and her allies.

February 9, 2011 at 15:30

Japanese militarization is becoming a reality and has potential to alter balance of power in the region. Japanese posses both technology and money to raise a highly advanced military and they have already ordered several project studies and now their military doctrine clearly stresses China’s threatening attitude and need to counter it.
China has brought it on itself if you see its attitude in ‘diplomacy’. The way China treated Japan on various issues reminded of cowboys-with-guns rather than diplomats with responsibilities of billions lives. Now Japan is deploying its forces in disputed regions. Same thing with India who is increasing its distance with China after China raised border claims and start issuing separate visas to people of some regions, nad it deteriorated its relation with S.Korea, Russia-China border disputes are also well known and China has been making hacking attacks on countries across the world (they tried hacking UK just a few days ago) which marks them as a threat.
Also, someone in the comments said that it would require 600 nukes to destroy China which is more like a fantasy world comment. Even 8 nukes hitting major cities are enough to throw any country back by several decades. No one is going to nuke farmlands and deserts. If you can destroy major cities then the internal collapse and civil war will do the rest, even more so in a military controlled dictatorship.

Guy Carbonneau
February 7, 2011 at 17:16

I agree with you that though their reaction may seem immature and unwarranted, it’s one that is fully understandable. Have the atrocities and war crimes of World War 2 been acknowledged as they have in East Asia as they have with the Western nations? This type of skeleton in the closet issue has been allowed to degenerate in some kind of persistent passive aggressive war. If reparations could be made for South and North Korea, China and other nations devastated by unanswered war crimes, perhaps the healing could commence.

Right now, it remains a deep wound.

February 6, 2011 at 22:01

Japan has peaked, with respect to China, for many centuries to come. Trust me, if I could bet on the downfall of the land of the rising sun, I would bet with more than 75% confidence with about 1/2 of my fortune while the rest would be invested on Gold, Iron, Copper and other commodities.

I don’t know who the aggressoer is – Japan ‘enforcing’ its aggression in a ‘disputed region’ which by all legal and historical backings, should have been part of China long ago. Even your ally, Taiwan lays claim to that region. What have you got to say?

Pacifist? Bluff who? Your posture on Taiwan and your actions on Diaoyu islands (while China is trying to avoid provocation by suggesting a freeze on access to the disputed Diaoyu region by non-civilian forces, but got snubbed by Japan) are for all to see. Hiding behind your great ally doesn’t mean you are correct, but others are just ‘giving face’ to the US (no choice anyway). Japan is the most ‘following’ nation, judging from history. When China was at her peak during Tang dynasty, it followed closely. Similar to the current situation, only its master changed to the current Superpower, the US. No doubt what it would do (may be reluctantly) if the global power shifts again.

Actually, if the world were to maintain the relative peace, Japan may have to be sacrificed as a ‘cushion’ between the US and China. Otherwise, it would be worse for a direct confrontation between China and the US. Trust me, sooner or later, this would almost definitely be the case (direct confrontation between Japan and China). The US wouldn’t sit by but this would be the only chance for China to establish her rightful power sphere in the region, without a full blown war with the US.

Actually, what some Japanese propose is true (China threat). Only thing is, this is a threat in response (reactionary in nature). From history, Manchu, Mongolia and northern parts once occupied by the Huns, were all incorporated into the Chinese empire, because they had been threatening or even occupying China in the first place. So, China doesn’t simply do reverse engineering – also good at reverse occupying. Anyway, just wait and see. However, you may not live to see this – don’t know if it’s a blessing or not.

This is in response to those who see Japan as the ‘victim’.

Share your thoughts

Your Name
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment

Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief