politics

U.S. approves plan for Rouhani visit to japan

17 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments
Login to comment

During the potential visit by Rouhani, Abe is expected to demand that Iran comply with the nuclear deal

Why?  Did the Iranians pull out of the deal?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Daddy says you can play with your friend for a while.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Why does it need American approval?

11 ( +12 / -1 )

The U.S. approves Tokyo's plan for the Iranian President's visit to Japan?

That tells everything about the bilateral relations: the U.S. dictates and Japan performs as is told.

So when discussing security issues such as the Futenma relocation, one must take that in mind.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Trump wants an after action report from Abe. Ok, just as soon as he releases the transcripts from his meetings with Putin, and the Russian Foreign Minister and ambassador in his office.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The master demands, and Abe agrees, of course!

What an oh so great relationship ..... just the way Donnie likes it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@zichi

Why does it need American approval?

Japan lost the WW2 and became a protectorate of the US, that's why.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

In some countries the whole approval thing would be considered as an insult and interference in diplomatic matters.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Samit Basu,

The poster code-named No Business commented in his Dec. 3 post on the thread of "Gov't to buy island ..." that it always made him laugh "when the Japanese moan about the US military in Japan", adding they should think, before complaining, about the fact that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, thus insinuating that the U.S. military presence in Japan is the end result of that attack.

Samit Basu, your opinion is no different from No Business’.

So I paste the same answer here as I gave No Business: 

The U.S. government says the U.S. troops in Japan are "invited guests", stationed here in accordance with provisions stipulated in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. In your opinion then, as in mine, that treaty is nothing but a farce, shenanigans to hide the true state of affairs, that is, a continued subjugation of Japan..

Do you also agree?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Jump! .....how high master?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The U.S. government says the U.S. troops in Japan are "invited guests", stationed here in accordance with provisions stipulated in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. In your opinion then, as in mine, that treaty is nothing but a farce, shenanigans to hide the true state of affairs, that is, a continued subjugation of Japan..

Here we go again.

I mean, who cares about the Mutual Security Agreement. It's only a binding legal treaty that says the US must vacate Japan within a years time if Japan tells them to go, but who cares about that when you have a conspiracy theory you want to peddle, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does it need American approval?

Agreed. I'd guess the headline was designed to piss off Japanese people. We don't know if Japan privately asked the US how they might help and this headline is the result of their "anyway you can" response.

We don't know if Japan or the US tried to kick start this meeting, but it is clear that Japan can really help Iran and the US to have some sort of break through.

Also, as SDF is in the middle east, Japan has interest in avoiding any conflicts with Iran.

The headline worked, clearly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US approval this, Americans approval that, the Yankees approval blah blah blah......of Japan!  That's was what an good alliance partner is for! Must be a very proud thing for Japanese people!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

extanker,

Who cares about the Mutual Security Agreement?  How dare can you say it?

Of course, the current bilateral relations are very abnormal. It's like a master (or colonial power) versus vassal (or colony) relationship, with the U.S. always dictating and Japan meekly performing as told, as far as security matters are concerned.

Under such circumstances, what does the bilateral treaty mean? As you suggest, it may be something nobody really cares about. If so, then can't it be said that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is a mere façade to camouflage the hard reality that Japan is put under?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Who cares about the Mutual Security Agreement? How dare can you say it?

Wow. You REALLY missed my point...

YOU are the one disregarding the wording of the actual treaty every time you talk about the US being some kind of colonial power in Japan when they can get the boot at any time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The point at issue here is not about Article 10 of the Security Treaty but whether or not an abandoned super tanker can be converted to a mock carrier or floating runway for U.S. fighter jet pilots to practice touch and go exercises.

Your answer to this is, No, it can’t, because it must be equipped with a catapult, arrest cables, a control tower, etc. Then you say the treaty can be terminated whenever one party tells the other party of its intention to withdraw.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

extanker,

The point at issue here is not about Article 10 of the Security Treaty but whether or not Japan must get approval from the U.S. as regards the Iranian President’s visit to Japan. You say the treaty can be terminated whenever Japan informs the U.S. of its intention to withdraw. Isn’t that off the track and off the topic?

0 ( +0 / -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