What’s stopping it, though? That Japan and China are competing for the same markets? I mean, if Japan relies on US relations for access to US markets, China’s market is growing fast enough that Japan could have their needs met by selling more to China. Obviously Japan can withstand no force projection by the US, so that’s a major inhibitor. But economically it would seem like Japan would benefit from closer ties to BRICS over the coming decades.
US basically has a puppet regime in Japan right now, and there is no political will to go against US policy. Japan is also militarily occupied by US at the moment.
I’m sure that US has an incredible amount of influence over politics in Japan as well. That’s what facilitates the military occupation at the end of the day.
I would think it’s the opposite. The influence over politics comes from the force projection. If Japan could defend itself against the US, then it could resist them politically. Unfortunately, we can’t trust Japan to build up it’s military without it being an existential to the workers movements in Asia. So Japan will be stuck until it can be brave enough to resist the US politically while simultaneously pushing them out militarily and forging stronger ties with China.
Both aspects reinforce each other. On paper, Japan is allowing US to keep the troops on its soil, which is a political decision. And I agree that Japan could become a danger to worker movements Asia, however US is just as big of a threat in practice.
I mean that if Japan armed, I think it would make sense to interpret it as US force projection in the region, not Japanese resistance of US hegemony. Japan would need to first break US hegemony domestically, likely through expelling spies and thoroughly de-tapping technology at their highest levels of coordination before any domestic military development could possibly be on the right side of history.
When do we think Japan will leave the North Atlantic bloc and begin showing signs of collaboration with China?
I doubt that will happen in the near future. Maybe if Japan collapses economically there will be an opportunity to go in a new direction.
What’s stopping it, though? That Japan and China are competing for the same markets? I mean, if Japan relies on US relations for access to US markets, China’s market is growing fast enough that Japan could have their needs met by selling more to China. Obviously Japan can withstand no force projection by the US, so that’s a major inhibitor. But economically it would seem like Japan would benefit from closer ties to BRICS over the coming decades.
US basically has a puppet regime in Japan right now, and there is no political will to go against US policy. Japan is also militarily occupied by US at the moment.
The military occupation is the most material reason probably.
I’m sure that US has an incredible amount of influence over politics in Japan as well. That’s what facilitates the military occupation at the end of the day.
I would think it’s the opposite. The influence over politics comes from the force projection. If Japan could defend itself against the US, then it could resist them politically. Unfortunately, we can’t trust Japan to build up it’s military without it being an existential to the workers movements in Asia. So Japan will be stuck until it can be brave enough to resist the US politically while simultaneously pushing them out militarily and forging stronger ties with China.
Both aspects reinforce each other. On paper, Japan is allowing US to keep the troops on its soil, which is a political decision. And I agree that Japan could become a danger to worker movements Asia, however US is just as big of a threat in practice.
I mean that if Japan armed, I think it would make sense to interpret it as US force projection in the region, not Japanese resistance of US hegemony. Japan would need to first break US hegemony domestically, likely through expelling spies and thoroughly de-tapping technology at their highest levels of coordination before any domestic military development could possibly be on the right side of history.