In response to "North Korea’s trap for Japan"

Ottawa, ON, Canada, April 27 — A response to "North Korea’s trap for Japan" (http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2009/04/23/north_koreas_trap_for_japan/4590)

Richard Albert presented a point that Kim Jong II is a shrewd strategist and is a large source of instability for Eastern Asia. But his argument fails to support his conclusions of the re-armament of Japan, or its effect on the region. First off is that the creation of an offensive military force does not suddenly make Japan a military power in the region. That is as illogical as calling Canada a world naval power after the purchase of a few defunct subs. Japan doesn’t have to create a large army to serve its objectives in terms of territorial sovereignty. Take Australia as an example. Here’s a large wealthy country that represents all of the American values that are most hated in the region, all alone and sitting right off the coast of China. Does Australia require a huge army with a high number of warships to defend its sovereignty?

Both China and Russia are in another class when it comes to military strength. Neither of these countries would feel threatened nor have their influence diminished from the presence of a small Japanese fleet. The only threat that Japan would have to be concerned with is the coastal navy of North Korea that doesn’t have the capability to attack Japan.

Another point I find of contention is the issue of nuclear warheads. But since all of this talk is in hypotheticals, let's forget first of all that the sociological state of Japan in terms of the perception of military and nuclear armament is eons ahead of the United States. Let us also pretend that the nuclear deterrent capability of the US, which is currently capable of hitting a foxhole on the other side of the planet, is just not enough of a nuclear deterrent to reassure the Japanese. Let’s further assume that China suddenly decides to devastate their economy in favor of war, because Kim Jong II was somehow able to fill the exportation vacuum previously filled by wealthy industrialized countries, and that Russia… well, Russia just wanted to fight. Then yeah, I guess if Japan armed itself with nuclear warheads, then there could be cause for concern.

But even in this situation, we would have to ignore the most fundamental component that insures the safety of Japan, which is also the greatest point of contention within Mr. Albert’s article. Japan is a pillar of technology and sociological progress in the world. It’s a gem, much in the same respect that Canada considers itself a gem in terms of advanced sociological views. There isn’t a single piece of technology that we or anyone else uses today that hasn’t been improved in some way by the Japanese. This country is on a different level entirely in terms of importance, and cannot be compared to the backyard cleaning of Iraq and Afghanistan. Japan’s safety relies in the fact that not only would the Americans respond to any real threat with full force, but so would the rest of the industrialized world. They are also a courteous and unoffending country that has no natural resources and so little reason to start a fight with.

That leaves Kim Jong II alone in his vilification of Japan. For the leader of a country that relies on posturing to win money and is completely dependent on China, to attack Japan requires stupidity and a gross neglect of self-preservation, which seems to be contrary to Mr. Albert’s assessment of this leader. While Kim Jong Il's actions are indeed mystifying at times, they become somewhat sensible when considering the U.S. foreign policy of undermining foreign governments, the lack of a working global communist model, and the lack of a stable source of monetary development. There is currently no model that permits a country to govern itself without foreign interference whilst at the same time receiving funds for development. In this light, his provocative actions, which result in monetary rewards as well as the need for an iron curtain, provide the means with which to get money, debt-free I may add, while retaining complete sovereignty without worry of foreign interference.

If something happens to destabilize the region, it will not be due to the creation of a military in Japan. It may, however, be associated with an infringement upon the sovereignty of North Korea or conflict over an essential resource.