Monday, December 10, 2012
Our Next War
Where will our next war be? Now that Iraq is over and Afghanistan is wrapping up, we need to look at who to go kill next. Iran is an obvious contender for the Zionist war mongers among us. Those people, who were historically treated poorly and never given a chance or their own country to call their own, who are doing the same thing to Palestinians for whatever reasons, seem like the most promising next war. To stand with Israel and support them in their attacks on Iran, that is.
But the reality is probably less obvious. Considering China's change in leadership, their 500 year dominance of Japan, Japan's more modern overpowering of China earlier last century and their current status as a world power and world economy, the next war or "police" action" whatever you want to call it, could come over a dispute in the Senkaku Islands.
Traditionally these islands belonged to China. But so did Japan. Then when Japan took over China, they claimed and to this day have been in possession of, these islands. Now China is pushing for their historical possession of these islands and the Chinese and Japanese navies have been pretty contentious around these islands.
Our problem lies in our treaty with Japan. After the intensity of Japan in WWII, America wanted to cut Japan off at the knees and made an agreement to Japan to protect them if they ran into martial problems with another country in Asia. That meant we didn't have to be so concerned about Japan rebuilding their military force and once again take on their historically aggressive attitude and thus find ourselves in yet another conflict with them.
What we hadn't foreseen was their going up against the new strength and possible threat in Asia, China. If a conflict starts between these two countries and it is possible, we would have to go to the aide of Japan against the second most powerful nation in the world and to whom we owe a massive debt.
So first of all, who really should have possession of these island?
They say that possession is 9/10ths of the law. It is true that a current owner has greater claim over previous owners. But a bigger power can also take back or make a claim outright and simply occupy a place, thus having new, albeit possibly temporary ownership. Then it would take others to go in and reclaim that place through force, or agreement. Considering China's new economic and world situation, as well as their newly changed regime at this time and that new regime needing to assert their control, it is very possible they will find that they do want to push this issue to its ultimate conclusion so that they might reclaim ownership of the Senkaku islands.
Japan and China have had a long traditional opposition and neither has forgotten the last hundreds of years. Japan will not want to give up these islands. Partially because and both know this, there are some very wealthy oil reserves in this location and they both want them.
Here is my view. These islands belong to Japan. They are in possession of them. They have been in possession for many years and China has accepted that. So the possession issue in my mind is settled. China argues that they had historically had possession of these islands, which is also true, but what does that matter, really? I had historical possession of my car years ago, but I sold it, thereby accepting that I no longer owned it. Can I now go back with threat of force and reclaim it because I had historical possession of it? No.
Also, China had tried to take over Tibet for hundreds of years until a decisive battle settled who was sovereign:
"In 821 China-Tibet Peace Treaty: "Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China". The peace treaty was an acknowledgement of stalemate between the two countries after 200 years of Sino-Tibetan conflict. The treaty stated that the Chinese recognized Tibetans as equals and Tibet as a separate state with its own inviolable territory. The treaty was engraved on a stone pillar in front of the Jokhang temple in Lhasa."
1910-12 A Qing army led by General Zhao Erfeng invades and occupies Tibet, causing the Dalai Lama and Tibetan government officials to flee.
1918 Tibetan army, led by British-trained officers, defeats Chinese army. Tibet and China sign a peace treaty; China refuses to ratify treaty.
So, if China's argument on the Senkaku Islands is to be accepted, then they need to move out of Tibet. If their claim on Tibet is true and valid, they do not get the Senkaku Islands back.
We therefore are obligated to follow through to defend Japan's claims on the islands and the wealth therein, against China no matter what the consequences. China, if Tibet is any kind of example, will most likely not back down without some kind of remunerative benefit, either by way of taking possession of the islands, or in some other way.
A conflict in those seas is highly possible and could potentially be our next war, in or around these islands. If we allow Israel to drag us into another Middle Eastern morass of killing with Iran, we might once again find ourselves in conflict with two different countries, only on very different parts of the globe.
This won't be the same thing as Bush Jr. getting us into an Iraq war over a reason that didn't exist. This will be a war required by law, unless we can help them to find another way to resolve it. Perhaps they can share the islands? This isn't really acceptable as Japan's legal possession at this time in my mind is indisputable. But the reality of a military the size of China's brings along with it, an entirely different kind of reality. Not to mention our financial debt to them, where they could also potentially use it against us if we angered them enough, although that could easily backfire on them and they know it.
The world is not at peace yet and we need to get on that as soon as possible. Once people get used to peace, they get pretty unpleasant when forced back into war. But as long as we maintain any kind of a semblance of being at war, the possibility of starting a new war is always a more easy possibility.
We need to start paying more attention to what is important. Peace, climate change, our economy, (that is, paying for what we want and not charging it for future administrations to worry about), and forging a truly peaceful world into being.