Back to the OP. The US certainly has some informal unwritten power over Japan. This article claims that in 1965 when sovereignty was reverted to Japan the US ambassador pressured Japan into accepting large scale military bases in Okinawa against Japan’s will and into accepting nuclear weapons being stationed there.
The bases on Okinawa are hugely unpopular with Okinawa locals, the local Governor opposes expansion of the bases but has been overridden by the National government. It would be interesting to see what happened if a national government was elected on a platform of closing the Okinawa bases. I would imagine they’d find it very difficult to do so, so it that sense you could say Japan does not have 100 percent sovereignty.
That amounts to little more than saying “sometimes governments of countries have to accept things they don’t really like for political reasons”. The same is true for any other country in the world, including the United States.
Probably would end up like Puerto Rico, impoverished and a leech on the American economy perpetually asking for independence.
But I suspect that it would be even more devestating unless we made the Emperor a Governor or something given the hero worship of the Emperor (considered a deity by majority of the Japanese at this time in history)
I’m far from an expert on the subject, but I did once read an interesting article in New Left Review on the attempt of the (centre-left) Democratic Party of Japan’s attempt to change the relationship slightly, opposing new base construction on Okinawa, following its success in the 2009 elections: Gavan McCormack, ‘Obama vs Okinawa’ (2010).
Well specifically New Zealand stopped allowing US warships to dock because they wouldn’t confirm whether or not any ship had Nuclear weapons on board. The US complained and suspended their ANZUS obligation to defend NZ but nothing more. Japan’s relationship with the US is complicated by its past as a conquered nation administered by the US. There are degrees of sovereignty and I think its fair to say that New Zealand has more sovereignty than Japan does.
In fact, in modern day international law “sovereignty” is a term that is not really used anymore because it does not have a precise meaning and provides no useful substance. What it used to mean originally was the quality of a ruler ( as a person, not a state!) to have no legally binding power above it (the etymology of the word comes, via French, from the Latin “absolutus”, meaning “freed from” or “dissolved from”, i.e., no legal power to which it is bound). Later on it came to mean that a state has no set of rules above it other than international law. But it is a quality of international law that states reduce their freedom all the time, voluntarily - each time you enter into a treaty you create binding obligations for yourself, that’s the very point of a treaty. As a consequence, the term “sovereignty” has pretty much lost its meaning and is not used as a term of art in international law very much, having been replaced by concepts such as statehood or international legal personality. And in this sense, there are no “degrees of sovereignty” - you’re either a state in the international law sense or you are not. Japan certainly is, and so is New Zealand, even though it (still) shares its Head of State with the other Commonwealth Realms.
That’S the legal side of things. Then there is the factual situation that some states are more powerful than others, which is a trivial statement. Maybe the OP could provide some clarification as to whether they were interested in the situation under law or under factual politics.
It wouldn’t have happened, but just assuming for a minute that it could have happened, there is absolutely no reason that Japan would not continue on it’s remarkable industrialization. The circumstances between the two are so radically different, as is it timing, the conditions prior to the respective takeover and subsequent policies. There is simply no comparision. Other posters know more about Puerto Rico but it’s actually not one of the worst countries in the region.
The emperor was not considered a living god, by any means. Sacred may be a better term.
The US could not have annexed Japan at the end of the war. We had already agreed to its eventual status as part of the agreements with Churchill and Stalin. Likewise, the Soviets could not have annexed other countries.
Finally, the US could never have held Japan as a conquered country forever. They would have rebelled at some point, probably sooner than later.
No, it’s simply a matter of knowing history. The reason the US was able to obtain the agreement you referred to was because the US still had military, political and financial control over Okinawa and the other Ryukyu Islands as per the Treaty of San Francisco and Japan wanted it back. They made the agreement in order to have Okinawa restored to them. Had they not cared about that, they too could have told the US to pound sand. They are under absolutely no different legal status in regards to the US than any other country. The statement that thre are different degrees of sovereignty is completely bogus. So, cite?
International agreements are always one indication of the strengths of the bargaining positions as well as the relationship between the countries and the internal factors. If you look at the Status of Forces Agreements between the US and various countries, it’s clear the the one between the US and Germany is much less favorable to the us than the one with Japan while the one with Korea, a country which the US never claimed sovereignty over has conditions much worse for the host country than either of the others.
Chinese spending is about three times greater, and while that’s significance, I wouldn’t call Japanese spending or military miniscule compared to China.
No they couldn’t because they have no large scale amphibious assault capability. It’s doubtful they could even conquer Taiwan. Both Taiwan and Japan have advanced anti ship missiles, any invasion fleet that China sent would never reach Japan.
And China’s bombers are nothing to speak of, old relics from the cold war. And anyway airpower alone cannot conquer and hold territory as we know. China has nuclear weapons, thats it and they can’t use them against Japan, a non nuclear power without bringing down the entire world onto them.
What are you talking about? I’m talking about China invading the Japanese mainland, something which they couldn’t do. You’re talking about the South China sea I guess?
Si Amigo, how much is Beijing paying you and is it by the word or by the hour?
Just having some fun with you. The US military is such a big ape it doesn’t matter how much anyone else is spending now because they skew the playing field. And we still don’t think we spend enough. :eek: