politics

Trump spoke privately about ending Japan defense treaty, Bloomberg reports

81 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

81 Comments
Login to comment

"unfairly, disadvantage, unhappy, compensation....."

De Donnie is running (or is it ruining) his presidency like his private business.

Where are the people who could at least try to educate him, I mean on a pre-school-level would be fine already!

15 ( +22 / -7 )

Donny sure an uninformed moron with zero desire to learn.

8 ( +16 / -8 )

As Bugs Bunny so eloquently put it in several short animated films, "What a maroon!"

6 ( +14 / -8 )

Ruining the US like his business. Putin is living this! Will there be a Trump Tower? Abe is being punk'd again.

This is embarrassing for both countries!

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Donny sure an uninformed moron with zero desire to learn.

He don't need to learn coz he knows it all already. He's a genius, remember?

I know more about ISIS than the generals do

I know more about courts than any human being on Earth

Nobody knows more about trade than me.

I understand politicians better than anybody.

Technology — nobody knows more about technology than me

I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have.

I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth.

I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world.

I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me.

I understand money better than anybody.

[L]ook, as a builder, nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump.

nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do

I know more about people who get ratings than anyone

I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results

https://www.axios.com/everything-trump-says-he-knows-more-about-than-anybody-b278b592-cff0-47dc-a75f-5767f42bcf1e.html

Reading through those, all gathered together......lawd above, moron doesn't do him justice.

25 ( +29 / -4 )

Ok when are they leaving.

Japan paid ¥5 trillion for years but was reduced to about ¥4 trillion. Japan hosts the second highest number of troops, after Germany with 75% of them in Okinawa.

Trump the disrupter has been very busy across the globe but basically offering or putting nothing forward other than they should stop that, or should pay more.

Also threatening to withdraw the fleet from the Middle East.

Problem with Trump, he can't seem to modify his behaviour.

17 ( +20 / -3 )

If the US withdraws from the treaty Japan (and South Korea) will go nuclear.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

I remember when Donald was campaigning to become president, and they called him out for not knowing anything about becoming a president, and his response was "When I become president, I'll know everything about everything".

Real genius. If anyone was a maron, it was the people that voted for him. I thought it was April fool's day when I heard this clown got elected.

14 ( +19 / -5 )

Thanks, when are you leaving exactly...? and dont forget to clean up the land you polluted.

5 ( +18 / -13 )

This comes out from some unknown source of a private conversation with emphasis on "unfair" just befor the G20 is so convenient for some isn't it?

It certainly encourages China and Russia.

It certainly "awakens" Japan. And, in a way warns Japan to accommodate more on behalf of US on trade.

But the source is Bloomberg, which "opposes" Trump anyway.

So... do you believe it or not? It is still hearsay.

But for Asia and SE Asia, US Japan "alliance" is still the key to local stability. Recent affirmations by India and countries like Thailand indicate that US must be "present". However, without a "unconditional" part of the alliance the "deterrent" would not have been effective in the past and even in today's environment.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

For some reason, every single deal done by a US President is considered a bad deal by Donald Trump. Also, it seems only he is capable of making a good deal.

While I understand the government position here in Japan, I am pretty sure many people in Okinawa are cheering.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

This is the only region in the world with four nuclear powers sharing borders.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

zichi, four? Sharing borders?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Thanks, when are you leaving exactly...? and dont forget to clean up the land you polluted.

Indeed, US military bases are known to be extremely polluted, with some really nasty stuff.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

The biggest objectors to a pullout would be the Japanese. The Americans wouldnt care much, especially the younger generation.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

zichi, four? Sharing borders?

Yes! that's correct. Four nuclear powered nations sharing borders. Russia/China/North Korea/USA

But you'll say that the USA does not have borders but it behaves like it does.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

The US leaving would allow Japan to have better relations with her neighbors, and probably finally get her islands back. Plus, I don't trust the US to defend Japan; just look at how the US recently set up Japan in the Strait of Hormuz.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

The U.S. president believes the more than six-decades-old treaty is one-sided to the disadvantage of the United States as the Japanese military has no obligation to come to U.S. defense, according to the report.

Funny, we have the same feeling as the U.S. President has about the U.S. military presence: We feel that: the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is one-sided to the disadvantage of Japan. 

As regards U.S. bases in Japan, especially in Okinawa, the U.S. forces are given too much preferential treatment to the detriment of Japanese citizens. U.S. bases occupy about 18% of Okinawa Island's land mass. Recently, in Iwakuni, Yamaguchi Prefecture, a drunken Marine soldier stole a car off-base, smashed it into the parking lot of a townhouse. But the police didn't arrest him for theft, drunken driving and damage to the property and send him to the prosecutor for further interrogation because they were obstructed to do so by the security treaty and the accompanying agreement, the so-called SOFA.

Take USMC Air Station Futenma, for example. It sits on private land that was expropriated by the occupation U.S. army in sheer violation of international law. The very use of bases and areas by the U.S. Marines is based on quite a dubious legal basis because the security treaty stipulates only the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Forces are granted a right to use these bases and areas on land, at the sea and in the air.

Is the U.S. President aware of these facts? I hope he does and so I wish he addressed this abnormalities once and for all.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

The biggest objectors to a pullout would be the Japanese. The Americans wouldnt care much, especially the younger generation.

Of course, the American people by and large wouldn't care if we pulled our troops out of Japan, or Germany or any of the other hundreds of bases around the world. But our government, despite Trump's musings, isn't about to give them up. They're about projecting power, checking our competitors' expansion, keeping markets open to our products, and the profits from resource extraction flowing into our 1 percenters' pockets. None of that can be accomplished by playing the isolationist with a bunch of nukes.

Trump brainstorming like he's in a 9th grade civics class is well and good, but there is no serious discussion in the US about dismantling our imperial bases--in either party. Defense appropriations are passed with overwhelming bipartisan support every year.

If I were Japanese, I'd rather have complete sovereignty and my own nukes as a deterrent than have to kiss the ring of morons like Trump year after year. Look at what happened to Hatoyama when he got frisky and questioned the US imperium, that of the relatively tame Obama no less.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Garbage article. How about an attributable source Bloomberg?

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Trump is great. He is revolutional. "Change" is an American spirit. Japan's problem is they do not change. Trump will change Japan.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

Alex Einz

Thanks, when are you leaving exactly...?

When the treaty obligations are no longer needed. You know, when the RF, PEC, and DPRK cease to be bad actors.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Thanks, when are you leaving exactly...?

When the treaty obligations are no longer needed. You know, when the RF, PEC, and DPRK cease to be bad actors.

It's funny how whenever the treaty is about to be renewed/renegotiated, some of these groups act up...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Raw Bear

If the US withdraws from the treaty Japan (and South Korea) will go nuclear.

Only if Japan is willing to walk the North Korean style Arduous March due to US sanctions.

No nuke under an exception, ever.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Indeed, US military bases are known to be extremely polluted, with some really nasty stuff..

No. They're not. I willing to bet you've never set foot on a US base.

The US leaving would allow Japan to have better relations with her neighbors...

Yes, like having the Sekaku islands stolen from them along with the rest of Okinawa and having her personal space invaded by China without consent.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

The only sure thing is, if the US military withdraws from Japan, it will start withdrawing from Korea first. And Japan's Self Defense Force turns into an army.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

more than six-decades-old treaty is one-sided to the disadvantage of the United States as the Japanese military has no obligation to come to U.S. defense

In some ways it is a disadvantage. Japan has pretty much unlimited access to US markets, and their defense taken care of the US security umbrella. Agreed, it would be a dumb move to withdraw, but the idea should be floated every now and then to remind Japan of their free ride. Many of them are unappreciative of how good they have it at the US expense.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@darknuts

like having the Sekaku islands stolen from them

The Diaoyu Islands were never Japanese to begin with. It was the periphery island of Taiwan that came with Taiwan but never returned to Taiwan after the end of WW2.

The only right course of action Japan can take regarding the Diaoyu islands is to return them to Taiwan.

from them along with the rest of Okinawa

China don't want to take over Okinawa, China only supports Okinawa's independence aspirations and is willing to finance it, with the expectation that the sovereign Republic of Ryukyu would kick Americans out..

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

I see all of you complaining about the US Military being in Japan. You people complaining about the troops being here, the bases here, are the same people that will be begging the Troops to save you if Japan is attacked. If the troops left, Japan is doomed. Japan does not have the technology, the troops, the knowledge, etc to defend yourself. I trained with Japanese Sailors, and I can tell you that they have very little knowledge. Why do you think the Japanese troops train with the US so often? So they can get trained! Before bashing the US Military, think long and hard tonight before you rest your head if the US troops leaving is what you really want.

Also, The US has been protecting Japan for years and what has been in it for the US? Nothing. America has got nothing in return. Next time you see a US Sailor, Soldier, Marine, or Airmen, stop them and tell them thank you. WE are the ones that have protected you, and WE are the reason you can sleep at night.

My Grandpa used to say, don't bite the hand that feeds you!

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

@Drako

the same people that will be begging the Troops to save you if Japan is attacked.

Okinawans couldn't care if Japan is attacked or not, it is none of their problems yet Okinawa bears 75% of the burden, and wants out of it for an understandable reason.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

@Samit

When I speak of "Japan", I am referring to Okinawa as well.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Recently, in Iwakuni, Yamaguchi Prefecture, a drunken Marine soldier stole a car off-base, smashed it into the parking lot of a townhouse. But the police didn't arrest him for theft, drunken driving and damage to the property and send him to the prosecutor for further interrogation because they were obstructed to do so by the security treaty and the accompanying agreement, the so-called SOFA.

Bollocks! There is nothing in the SOFA agreement that would prevent a service member from being arrested for a crime committed in Japan. What most likely happened, if anything, is that the base security got thier hands on him first and detained him. In which case, they do not have to hand him over until his indicted. The police have full access to question him at the base. They choose not to do that and just drop the charges because they dont want to do actual work to gather evidence and convict him. They rather just brow beat him for hours on end until his confessess. Despite being let go, he will most likely face a court martial and do prison time in the US for his actions. Justice served.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The SDF is actually quite strong, ranking 6th out of the world's militaries. It became stronger during the Korean war as US pressured them to do the opposite of what they had said earlier. The SDF just can't start wars (can US switch to an American SDF, please?). It has been deployed for different non-combat operations, though.

Source:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=japan

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Right on, Cleo. Calling Trump a moron gives morons a bad name!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Drako

When I speak of "Japan", I am referring to Okinawa as well.

The only country that has shown hostility toward sovereign Ryukyu kingdom to date was Japan, this is the very reason why Okinawa is called a part of Japan today.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Kissinger/Nixon ( in that order) started this with handing over the manufacturing of the world to China in 1972. Now its coming around, America can't be seen to be the aggressor. Look at US history, like a fixed game of chess play the victim and the military industrial complex make a mint. Thumb me down all you like cos people, all people hate to hear.... The truth.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Right on, Cleo. Calling Trump a moron gives morons a bad name!

Almost all politicians are morons, didn’t know it was a bad thing to say.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@Jumin Rhee.

If you are not first, you are last. Sorry, it is the way it goes. Can thr SDF operate with allies? Yes! Can they operate alone? Not so much. You can tell me all day how strong they are, but I trained with the SDF in the past, and they lack some serious skills needed for Defense. Did you train with the SDF and Americans?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The US is waiting for Abe to change the constitution, when they will join and support the US.

Very ironic that Japanese people will potentially die for the US.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

“However, Trump has not taken any steps in this regard and such a move is highly unlikely”

so basically nothing here.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Drako:

I'm not telling you, an independent source is. Sources are better than anecdotes. Sorry.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Trump's biggest problem is shooting off his mouth, usually followed by some inflamed tweet, then has to dial back or justify what he just spouted off.

If there's no big backlash then he thinks he might have said something correct. If there's a backlash they are people who don't understand or spreading fake news.

Trump has no interest working with congress except when he wants something.

He does not have partners, everyone is seen has a competitor.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I wonder why not more Americans are coming to Japan. It is a lot safer country than the United States of Trump.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Trump has previously spoken about turning the U.S. Military into a for-hire organisation with countries paying a going rate.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I don't expect anything to come of it but it would be nice if the grotesque war machine of my country got the hell out of here already.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

"Trump has previously spoken about turning the U.S. Military into a for-hire organisation with countries paying a going rate."

That will be in keeping with Washington's mindset: gun for hire, mercenaries.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Darknuts,

What most likely happened, if anything, is that the base security got their hands on him first and detained him

You mean, the base MP got to the venue first and detained the suspect before the civilian police? The soldier will face a court martial anyway, you seem to say, and so there's nothing wrong with the arrangements SOFA stipulates?

In 2016, an MV-22 Osprey crashed off the coast of Abu District in Higashi Village. One year later, in 2017, a CH-53E helicopter crashed on a meadow, again in Higashi Village. In 2004, a CH-53 D Sea Stallion helicopter crash-landed on the campus of Okinawa International University. In each case, the crash sites were completely cordoned off by the U.S. military even though the accidents occurred off-base. The Japanese police and fire fighters even weren't allowed to enter the cordoned-off areas.

Don't you think these aren't one-sided and humiliating arrangements for Japan, fairly though it may be stipulated in the security treaty and the SOFA?

,

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Japan needs this kind of shot in the arm to be awoken. Really.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Abe should also invite Bloomberg interview and say Japan would quickly go nuke to protect the country

in response.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Yes please go already! Did enough damage to Japan for the last 75 years!

Your holding Japan back economically since the 80s when the unfair treaty was signed, what follows is the lost decades and trillion of dollars lost in wealth for the average Japanese, 12 hours of work became common, birth rates started to suffer. You can thank America for that, same country trying to put Japan down again in 2019. Trump your America took advantage of Japan since the end of War World 2. Fact

2 ( +7 / -5 )

It is time for Japan to graduate from US and stand on it's own foot. Your perception is BS but thanks Trump

for reminding Japan. Do it again at G20 and again before national election and again and over again.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Who knows ???. trump is changing his mind all the time, I am sure his wife is too busy guessing too.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Notice the key word in the headline 'privately'...

All of you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. This was never meant for public consumption, just like the countless number of other random things with no chance of happening that have been discussed behind closed doors at the white house since the US became a country.

The only difference now is that some people privy to those private conversations no longer respect the discretion that is inherent to their positions.

I'm also guessing that while Trump undoubtedly did not have an understanding of the defense relationship between Japan and the US before he floated the idea, he does now.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

China don't want to take over Okinawa, China only supports Okinawa's independence aspirations and is willing to finance it,

Right. Just like China respects the independence of Hong Kong that they agreed to when it was handed back over to them... oh wait.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

All of you are making a mountain out of a mole hill

I agree with the sentiment of your post. However, the Trump pattern is to put into action multiple opposing initiatives, sit back and wait for others to debate, rage n all, then make the final decision based on his gut instinct. This, is an example of that pattern.

If, there is traction in this, ie IF the Japanese say, yeah, sure, we'll change our own constitution, defend ourselves and be less influenced by your (US) foreign policy decisions, this may actually get up.

US treaties on defense was really always about maintaining strong allies, if the Japanese say they can be strong on their own, I don't see how it can't be a win win situation for the free world.

On the other hand, China and Russia likes the meddle at the edges to sow doubt in the alliance, so that also has to be considered.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

However, the Trump pattern is to put into action multiple opposing initiatives, sit back and wait for others to debate, rage n all, then make the final decision based on his gut instinct. This, is an example of that pattern.

But in this case, it's really not an example of the pattern. This idea was never officially released to the public, or to anyone really. There was no debate and there wasn't meant to be. It was just something discussed behind closed doors with his own people. One of whom has a big mouth and should be quickly fired.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The U.S. president believes the more than six-decades-old treaty is one-sided to the disadvantage of the United States as the Japanese military has no obligation to come to U.S. defense, according to the report.

Errrrm yeah!. That's the way the United States wrote Article 9 of Japan's Constitution after the WW2. It was only in 2014 that the Constitution was amended to allow the SDF to come to the defense of allies (the US) in the event that war is declared upon them.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

engaged in his "America First" agenda that demands two-way agreements

That's quite the contradictory statement, don't you think? How can it be a two-way agreement if it puts America first? Well, that's Trumpian logic for you. In his crusade to pretend that he's going to "Make America Great Again!" so far all he's done is stab his closest allies in the back, claim the accomplishments of others, lie endlessly and insult basically everyone.

Don't worry, Japan. You won't lose this defence agreement. Not permanently anyway, but I can't rule out it being scrapped briefly, then reforged once Trump has been removed from office. In the mean time, just grin and bear it. The lunatic's ravings will end sooner or later. Patience is a virtue, and putting up with Trump will prove that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Although some people in Japan may be cheering, the mere consideration that America might withdraw military presence from Japan and end the defense treaty sends resounding signals to China that Asia is theirs for the taking. By circumstance, Japan would be forced back into developing a large scale military, well beyond their current Self Defense Force. And no matter how unpopular, the Japanese government would likely develop a nuclear arsenal to counter threats from China and North Korea. Maybe Donald should stop playing golf and start playing chess. Because this is a Bad chess♟move!

This is why you don’t put a “business person” in the most senior public office with no political experience at all!!! ONE major mistake can have looong lasting consequences.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The 5-year period of the current host-nation support, in which Japanese taxpayers pay 15 billion yen (about $136 million) for the operating costs of U.S. bases, ends in 2021. So Washington and Tokyo have started talks for the next round of Japan's "host nation support."

Trump's floating of his complaint about one-sidedness in the security treaty must be considered in this context. He's a businessman by nature, a real estate mogul and a great deal maker. He once said Japan must pay 100% for operating costs of these bases. Currently, it’s about 74%, excluding base workers' salaries, rents for private lands, damages to noise pollution, etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan does not have the technology, the troops, the knowledge, etc to defend yourself. I trained with Japanese Sailors, and I can tell you that they have very little knowledge.

I have never trained with them, but thats something I suspected all along. their equipment looks all shiny and new, allot of it variants from the US, but my feeling being around them was they were Japanese first, and soldiers or sailors 2nd. I could not see them participating alone in any conflict, unless its a UN peacekeeping mission. The ROK military, maybe, but the JSDF, not sold on that

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

*Yes please go already! Did enough damage to Japan for the last 75 years! **Your holding Japan back economically since the 80s.....birth rates started to suffer. You can thank America for that...*

Wow, you forgot to blame the US for earthquakes and tsunamis. Ah, you mean the 1980s when Japan set it sights on the US auto market and allowed to gain a 40 percent share of it. Also the horrible nation which has let Japan run a trade deficit with it ($67 billion last years) since the 1970s. Economic success and better education leads to lower birth rates so maybe the US did have a part in that...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Indeed, US military bases are known to be extremely polluted, with some really nasty stuff..

.

No. They're not. I willing to bet you've never set foot on a US base.

You're right, I have never set foot on a US base. But I have worked in a US lab working on bioremediation, and my boss at the time told be they get a lot of research funding from the military because their bases are very polluted with some truly nasty stuff.

And there are reports of host countries being left to handle an ecological disaster when US military bases relocate.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Indeed, US military bases are known to be extremely polluted, with some really nasty stuff..

No. They're not. 

Yes they are.

“The pollution at U.S. military bases is considered to be a serious issue all over the world, and the problem should be called ‘base pollution,’”

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201905080004.html

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It is time for the USA to let other governments run their own country

The USA did good when necessary and brought the world after WW2

That was a long time ago.

Times have changed and the Military Industrial and banking interests of the USA is out of control

Japan can handle any issue with Russia, China and North and South Korea

There Japan can come out of hiding behind the US military and make deals in Japan's interest not the USA

the USA needs to close all their 800 plus bases and return the worlds countries to their own rules and negotiations

Also will save lots of money for the Citizens of the USA to fix their issues domestically and to also shrink the wasted money on Military and downsize the aggressiveness of The US abusive treatment of other nations.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Right. Just like China respects the independence of Hong Kong that they agreed to when it was handed back over to them... oh wait.

That betrays a complete lack of understanding of what was in the handover agreement. China agreed to nothing of the kind.

Hong Kong has never been independent, and the PRC has consistently rejected independence for any part of what it considers its territory. It has always applied this principle to Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan.

Under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, Hong Kong was to have a "high degree of autonomy". That's not remotely similar to what you say was agreed to. Another important aspect is that this was not to be in perpetuity, but for exactly 50 years. That is written into the agreement, and there is no provision for what happens beyond that point.

The agreement text is here

https://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/jd2.htm

"High degree of autonomy" is legally ambiguous, and autonomy in any case is a problem word in PRC history, which has a number of officially designated "autonomous regions", such as Tibet, which are notorious for harsh rule and human rights abuses. This was of course fully known by Britain in 1983 when it was negotiating with China, and in 1984 when it put its name to the agreement.

What Britain got with the Joint Declaration, and it knew it, was the best of a bad job. The crucial terms can be interpreted to the convenience of either side, with China's prevailing because it was China that was resuming sovereignty. Legal protections: none. Diplomatic recourse: none.

China can still claim to have kept to the agreement, and that 50-year clock is ticking away anyway. Half the time's up already.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

 This was of course fully known by Britain in 1983 when it was negotiating with China, and in 1984 when it put its name to the agreement.

Yes the British didnt think out, or didnt care, about the fate of the citizens of HK. They should of made or negotiated some kind of transition, offer, provision, etc for the independence of the HK people long before the hand over. Taiwan got theirs, as did Singapore.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is time for the USA to let other governments run their own country

The USA did good when necessary and brought the world after WW2

That was a long time ago.

Its only when you leave the US that you realize how many people hate it, including many in the US.

I am convinced, as those who pulled out of the democratic movement in Japan in the 50s (the reverse course) that Japan on its own, would become a basket case, and the nationalist would take charge once again. Its just all under the surface. Bizarre ideas on their view of the world would emerge. Their not ready yet, its only an illusion they are pacifist due to the guidance and supervision of the US.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Unfortunately the US pulling out of Japan is inevitable in the not so distant future much like Great Britain empire had to lower their flag and returned to their own island.

Basically the reason why the US required to show presence around the world was to control oil trade based on US dollar. Once the carbon economy collapses entering the era of the hydrogen economy the US will lose control with hydrogen being able to be produced anywhere around the world with enough water and sunlight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump complained what America is here to defend Japan but Japan does not defend America.

Guess he missed his schooling about America writing and imposing the constitution preventing that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yes the British didnt think out, or didnt care, about the fate of the citizens of HK. They should of made or negotiated some kind of transition, offer, provision, etc for the independence of the HK people long before the hand over.

No.

Again, that stems from a complete failure to understand Hong Kong's status. It also ignores China's standpoint since the establishment of the PRC, which was that no part of Chinese territory will be granted independence.

Britain could never have negotiated such a thing with China, and to grant it unilaterally would have triggered an invasion or annexation. The British always knew they were powerless to prevent this. China also had the ability to simply blockade Hong Kong, which is on its southern coast and is enclosed by a maritime boundary with China; and it could even have just cut off the water that the city receives from across the border.

The British had a very weak hand. The lease on the New Territories was set to run out; they could never have legitimately granted independence to a region that they were leasing but did not own. They also, by the 1980s, could not retain the part of Hong Kong that actually had been ceded in perpetuity: it was already integrated with the New Territories so closely that division along the original border, now heavily urbanised was not feasible. Half the population of Hong Kong lived on the "China" side of the boundary.

Taiwan got theirs, as did Singapore.

This has no relevance to Hong Kong.

Taiwan has a form of de facto independence which is the legacy of the Kuomintang losing the Civil War and evacuating from the mainland. It's not that Taiwan "got" its independence: it was taken over by the KMT and governed as a dictatorship under Chiang Kai Shek until his death in 1975, and for another 12 years by his son. It still officially designates itself the Republic of China, an entity that is diplomatically isolated and recognized as an independent nation by literally no one, and as the legitimate nation representing all of China by a very small handful of very minor countries. This was a game that the KMT entered into, was winning in the early years, and has now lost.

Singapore is territory that was never claimed by China, so its departure from the British Empire is no more relevant to Hong Kong than that of Jamaica, Ceylon, or Kenya. Singapore gained independence from Britain by merging with Malaysia, which is to say it was not in itself an independent nation, or trying to be. It was later expelled from Malaysia (against its will, obviously) and became fully independent (again, against its will) as the Republic of Singapore. It has had one ruling family ever since.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That betrays a complete lack of understanding of what was in the handover agreement. China agreed to nothing of the kind.

That's funny, if they didn't agree to it, why did they have to declare that the agreement has no meaning...?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary-china/china-says-sino-british-joint-declaration-on-hong-kong-no-longer-has-meaning-idUSKBN19L1J1

If they were following it to their own interpretation, they wouldn't have had to make any declaration that they weren't going to abide by it.

High degree of autonomy" is legally ambiguous,"

You are acting like this is the only statement made in the agreement while leaving out a lot of much more important details of the text in the link you posted that does say Hong Kong will remain unchanged for the time agreed to.

"The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law."

I could keep copying and pasting as there is a ton more that actually covers in detail how Hong Kong will be allowed to remain unchanged, but people can read it for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its only when you leave the US that you realize how many people hate it, including many in the US.

Only if you surround yourself with like-minded individuals. Every time someone says this, I think of how many people I know in and out of the US that love it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to today's Asahi Shimbun Digital, President Trump again let out his complaint over the one-sidedness of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty to the disadvantage of the U.S.

He said that if Japan were attacked, U.S. forces would defend it even at the risk of a World War III but if the U.S. were attacked Japan would only sit back on a sofa and watch the incident on television. 

But it was the U. S. that most wanted a bilateral security treaty when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed. In a way, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was forced upon Japan in exchange for Japan's restoration of independence.

Under this treaty the U.S. was guaranteed to maintain all the bases and perquisites it used and enjoyed during the Occupation. In other words, the U.S. forces' presence remained the same as before. Or more concretely, the occupation continued. This state of affairs can be seen most conspicuously in Okinawa.

So if Trump says the U.S. would withdraw from the security treaty, we would be rejoiced and exalim, "Yes, please!"

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So if Trump says the U.S. would withdraw from the security treaty, we in Okinawa will be rejoiced and exclaim, "Yes, please!" That'll be the most welcome overtureevers made by a U.S. president to build a more normal and natural bilateral relationship.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That's funny, if they didn't agree to it, why did they have to declare that the agreement has no meaning...?

So that there can be no misunderstanding, "it" being, in your original words, "the independence of Hong Kong".

They have their reasons - whether right or wrong - for declaring that the agreement has no meaning: if you need examples from other countries, the current US president makes a virtue of doing exactly that.

None of the reasons have anything to do with what you imply. "Independence of Hong Kong" is not in the agreement. The word independent is used just twice, in a narrow context, stating that Hong Kong shall have "independent judicial power", which it does, and "independent finances" (to which is added that the Central Government will not levy taxes on the HKSAR), which it also has.

The word "independence" would never have got into the agreement. No agreement would have been signed under those terms, even if Britain had been seeking it, which it wasn't.

If they were following it to their own interpretation, they wouldn't have had to make any declaration that they weren't going to abide by it.

They can essentially do as they please, and perhaps they already have. That means that they can follow it as loosely as they choose, and even having done that, still rip the agreement up. And none of this brings you any closer to showing how they agreed to "the independence of Hong Kong". It wouldn't, of course, because they didn't.

As for the details that are laid out in the agreement, the great majority of it can be interpreted one way by one side and a different way by another, including what counts as "unchanged". Broadly, Hong Kong retains the freedoms it had before 1997. Pretty much everything you quoted, freedom of association, right to strike, freedom of correspondence, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, religious belief etc. all the way through your quote, is still in place. Hell, quite a few of these are things that Singapore doesn't have, and continues to disparage as unnecessary for its citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posters may be referred to the same news story as reported in Asahi Shmbun Digital in the following  CNN article;

 "Trump claims Japan 'doesn't have to help' if US is attacked" run on CNN: June 26, 2010.9

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Trump's on-off-on MEGAGOB!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I dont claim to be any authority on HK, but from what I have read, Thatcher had the opportunity to push back on Dengs threats about the Brits allowing democracy and an independence movement taking place. It seems to me she waivered and was just looking out for short term British benefits to appease the Chinese. Wasnt there a treaty of perpetuity for some parts of Hong Kong?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From what I have read, Thatcher had the opportunity to push back on Dengs threats about the Brits allowing democracy and an independence movement taking place.

I won't go into that much beyond saying that she had a very weak position to negotiate from, and China was adamantly opposed to extending Hong Kong's colonial status, something they made clear to Thatcher. Also bear in mind that Hong Kong wasn't even represented at those talks, and the British were clueless about Hong Kong itself and even more clueless about China. Thatcher relied wholly on what information she received from the Foreign Office, a class-ridden institution in itself, and from fossilized China expert Percy Craddock. While China was far less strong and far more backward in the early 1980s than it is now, Britain could not have prevailed.

Wasnt there a treaty of perpetuity for some parts of Hong Kong?

Hong Kong Island, Stonecutters Island, and Kowloon up to what is now Boundary Street. If you're at all familiar with Hong Kong, the Prince Edward district is south of the line, and Shamshuipo is north of it. While Britain held part of Hong Kong in perpetuity, there is the question of whether China would even have respected that beyond 1997, and there is the total impracticality of splitting Hong Kong, with Britain holding onto the original 14% it had acquired in perpetuity, and the remaining 86% reverting to China.

Also, have a look at a map (the dark green is the New Territories), and consider what it would mean to trim those maritime borders to delineate the new, drastically smaller British colony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Territories#/media/File:Hong_Kong_New_Territories.svg

Despite what some people seem to think, the perpetuity was not in any way leverage for obtaining extra time or a permanent handover of the rest of the territory to Britain. China had all the cards here. This was still the 20th century, and the history of redrawing borders, and in particular of running them through thriving cities, was still a raw wound in most people's minds. Britain had the loss, in just 50 years, of an entire empire to learn from: Northern Ireland, the partition of India, division of Cyprus - not to mention a problem or two in the Middle East. What they were most anxious for was a peaceful and orderly future for Hong Kong; certainly preferable to a refugee crisis, a civil war, or a war between Britain and China...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Britain had the loss, in just 50 years, of an entire empire to learn from: Northern Ireland, the partition of India, division of Cyprus - not to mention a problem or two in the Middle East. What they were most anxious for was a peaceful and orderly future for Hong Kong; certainly preferable to a refugee crisis, a civil war, or a war between Britain and China...

I dont really understand why Britain gave up its empire so easily unless its guilt or progressive canniablism from within. Ive always admired their accomplishments and what they left behind in Nigeria Singapore and HK, and somewhat India. I think post war Japan would of benefited more from a British occupation and reconstruction rather than the U.S. We are good at winning wars; reconstruction not our best accomplishment.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites