Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You say that the US was never really trying to come to terms with Japan. I'm saying that there wasn't a point in trying. Hypocrisy in diplomacy is nothing new, but saying that a country won't tolerate having its foregn policy dictated to while doing the same to other countries, doesn't provide a rational basis for any sort of negotiation. Neither is expecting a country to provide you with the raw materials for you to expand territorily and militarily.

It is generally illegal to break contracts and agreements. If this results in general misery and starvation, it also is usually immoral. To do both over a political issue we had already adopted a different policy on for half a decade is a bit wierd, you must admit. I am surprised to say this - it is not what I was taught - but I think the war with Japan was not necessary. IF we wanted war with Germany we had plenty of cause (in the Atlantic). We should have been able to honest broker a cease fire in China and, possibly, done some thing about Indochina. The matters at issue were not that big compared to what we have been able to do since.

Do not interpret this as support for IJA or the policy of Imperial Japan which it dominated. Nor do I support the policy of Vichy France - or of the British Empire for that matter. [Thailand reoccupied provinces wrongly forced from it by UK and France - and was not allowed to keep them. On the other hand it also occupied provinces in Burma to which it has utterly no right - and should not have kept them. Thailand, in fact, was a real Axis power, with a dictator, racist policy - anti-Chinese - and a leader who actually returned to power post war! The most successful Fascist state that did not ride out the war as a neutral.] I am no great fan of Stalin, Mao, Chiang either. Policy debate is not a simplistic thing with guys in white hats and guys in black hats.

Cid, turn this around for a moment and tell us about how fair Japan was to China and Korea. I suspect we'd be sitting on the edges of our seats to hear how "legal" and "morale" the Japanese treated these two nations during the 60 or so years before WWII.

US policy was not made in a bowl containing only US and Japan. US observed Japan operating in Asia and modified its policy as Japan began to operate in accordance with a pattern.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It is generally illegal to break contracts and agreements. If this results in general misery and starvation, it also is usually immoral. To do both over a political issue we had already adopted a different policy on for half a decade is a bit wierd, you must admit. I am surprised to say this - it is not what I was taught - but I think the war with Japan was not necessary. IF we wanted war with Germany we had plenty of cause (in the Atlantic). We should have been able to honest broker a cease fire in China and, possibly, done some thing about Indochina. The matters at issue were not that big compared to what we have been able to do since.

Okay, a little reality check here. "Illegal" implies a legal structure that both parties are answerable to. There is no such entity in international affairs. There are no courts or law enforcement agencies to require, and have the ability to force, countries to abide by their agreements (aka "treaties"). (I won't argue about morality, it is far too subjective.) There is no such thing as "international law"! There are just some usually roughly agreed upon ground rules that most nations follow most of the time because its more convenient to do so. Unless it is convenient not to.

As to brokering a cease fire in China, from the US point of view that is exactly what we were trying to do. The US' requirement that Japan withdraw from China was part of that cease fire that the US was attempting to broker. Japan did not feel that what they were doing in China was any of the US' business and not only did not want anyone "brokering" a cease fire, their resentment over the Americans "butting in" was one of the factors that lead them to attack the US.

As for "compared to what we have been able to do since", some of the factors that allow us to do those things now are 1) the experience we gained from the FUBAR that our negotiations with Japan during this time were; 2) the diplomatic experience we gained as part of a huge multi-national war machine; and 3) the fact that we proved ourselves to be the 9,000 lb. gorilla on the block in WWII in large part by hammering our way across most of the Pacific Ocean to utterly destroy a world power. Prior to 1945 we simply didn't have the experience to know what to try to get other nations to agree to and didn't have the "big stick" of proven overwhelming military force to get other countries to listen.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It is generally illegal to break contracts and agreements. If this results in general misery and starvation, it also is usually immoral. To do both over a political issue we had already adopted a different policy on for half a decade is a bit wierd, you must admit. I am surprised to say this - it is not what I was taught - but I think the war with Japan was not necessary. IF we wanted war with Germany we had plenty of cause (in the Atlantic). We should have been able to honest broker a cease fire in China and, possibly, done some thing about Indochina. The matters at issue were not that big compared to what we have been able to do since.

Okay, a little reality check here. "Illegal" implies a legal structure that both parties are answerable to. There is no such entity in international affairs. There are no courts or law enforcement agencies to require, and have the ability to force, countries to abide by their agreements (aka "treaties"). (I won't argue about morality, it is far too subjective.) There is no such thing as "international law"! There are just some usually roughly agreed upon ground rules that most nations follow most of the time because its more convenient to do so. Unless it is convenient not to.
As to brokering a cease fire in China, from the US point of view that is exactly what we were trying to do. The US' requirement that Japan withdraw from China was part of that cease fire that the US was attempting to broker. Japan did not feel that what they were doing in China was any of the US' business and not only did not want anyone "brokering" a cease fire, their resentment over the Americans "butting in" was one of the factors that lead them to attack the US.

As for "compared to what we have been able to do since", some of the factors that allow us to do those things now are 1) the experience we gained from the FUBAR that our negotiations with Japan during this time were; 2) the diplomatic experience we gained as part of a huge multi-national war machine; and 3) the fact that we proved ourselves to be the 9,000 lb. gorilla on the block in WWII in large part by hammering our way across most of the Pacific Ocean to utterly destroy a world power. Prior to 1945 we simply didn't have the experience to know what to try to get other nations to agree to and didn't have the "big stick" of proven overwhelming military force to get other countries to listen.

Yep!


EDIT: A little note here - Mao was right...power does flow from the barrel of a gun.

Legal authority in the long run comes down to how much force you can muster to enforce your will.

[el cid again]

It does???? I must have missed that lecture during boot camp!
Why in the hell would the US Navy be teaching international politics and economics in boot camp? We barely teach our own naval history any more.

Basically the world order is to our liking. We LIKE Japan not doing naval ops more than a thousand miles from home - and that means WE have to escort tankers to Japan if need be. We are expecting navy people to undertake - in all situations - cold or hot - defending Japanese sea lines of communicaitons - and we need navy people to understand that. The Navy does lots of things that do not make headlines - just as it fought the U Boats before WWII began. Situation normal. And - note - it is USN policy to explain what we are up to - in all cases. The theory is that if everyone knows what we are trying to do, any chance to make any choice will get it made towards that end. It is common in other services to get orders with no explanation of why - but not in the Navy. You are expected to tell the troops why we are doing this, peace or war, action or training, whatever.

[el cid again]

Cid, turn this around for a moment and tell us about how fair Japan was to China and Korea. I suspect we'd be sitting on the edges of our seats to hear how "legal" and "morale" the Japanese treated these two nations during the 60 or so years before WWII.

Japan dominated Korea after a contest - mainly with the Russians - which the Russians lost. This began in the late 19th century. About the same time, Japan went to war with China - that is how it got Formosa for example. Korea and Formosa became keystones of the empire - they were the "rice bowl" for one thing - and they became important industrially as well - more than we realized I think. Japanese hydro projects in Korea are TVA in scale and still important. In both countries Japan tried to turn everyone into Japanese - forbidding local languages - requireing you take a Japanese name - etc.
In Formosa they even hunted aboraginies - a way to train in semi-real combat! These policies were deeply resented, particularly in Korea. Korea is the most nationalistic place on the planet, and it had been invaded many times by China and Japan - always to get free in the end - although this time the struggle remains because it never did get free and unified (yet).

Nothing about the history of Imperial Japan in either territory makes any sense from a democratic point of view. On the other hand, we had zero basis to say boo, given the policy of our own colonialism, and our allies colonialism, in Asia in general and in China in particular. Japan was just upsetting the apple cart by trying to horn in - and then dominate - colonial politics in China. The objections we had were commercial - Standard Oil for example felt its interests were threatened. There was a streat of idealism in a China Lobby, but it was more or less co-opted by Chiang and his wife, and they were hardly democrats themselves. If you study the KMT archives (I recommend at least the English language China and the Origins of the Pacific War) you will come away with a very different view of China than "China was just a poor victim." It was poor and a victim, but it was also a player as much as US, UK, Japan or Russia were.

I take a rather Russian view of policy: sudden and dramatic reversals are dangerous, unstable, and contrary to everyone's interests. It is very poor policy to tolerate Japanese occupation of territories for 80 years and then change your mind in a heartbeat. And if you are going to be upset with Japan about its past, you should not be totally happy about the Opium wars and their outcome either (that is, Allied conquests in the same area). The US did not push for return of administration of basic things (e.g. the postal system) to China - Japan did that. This is not a simple subject - and talking like it is is mere propraganda - not helping people understand what happened - or what could have happened.

[el cid again]

Okay, a little reality check here. "Illegal" implies a legal structure that both parties are answerable to. There is no such entity in international affairs. There are no courts or law enforcement agencies to require, and have the ability to force, countries to abide by their agreements (aka "treaties").

You said that to the wrong guy. I am a big advocate of international law. Anyway, I am a US fighting man - and it is US LAW that treaties are to be honored. An early USSC decision by Oliver Wendal Holmes says treaties, together with the Constitution and amendments thereto, and statutes enacted by the Congress, form the "supreme law of the land." Whatever the status of international law may be in the wilds of Cambodia, it is OUR law - and OUR soldiers - and more often sailors - are called to enforce it. Actually, enforcing it was once a big US Navy job - I remember shooting pirates - although since Watergate we didn't do that (until just the last couple of years).
But USN and RN have been big about stamping out slavery and piracy by enforcement - so don't pretend we didn't. In any case, policy is a matter of politics, and in a democratic country what is legal ought to matter, politically. I will not lightly disregard civil contracts, diplomatic agreements, much less treaties. Nor should you - if you are wise. It is bad policy - although on occasion one may have to make a hobson's choice and take the lesser of evils - and I have been there too. I WILL break a law - but it is under the doctrine of necessity - to SAVE lives - not to take them

[el cid again]

(I won't argue about morality, it is far too subjective.) There is no such thing as "international law"! There are just some usually roughly agreed upon ground rules that most nations follow most of the time because its more convenient to do so. Unless it is convenient not to.

This is irrational. There is both customary and codified international law. The US practically invented the latter. And it works very well, by and large. Consider the International Postal Union. Or the conventions under which civil airliners fly. Ships have similar conventions. We find them most useful and enforce them too. There are many sorts of law - and note that in domestic law if NO ONE HONORS IT it is not law anyway. Law is most of all effective when voluntarily honored. When we tried things that people would not honor - even just in large minorities - we had to get rid of them.
Consider prohibition (STILL law in much of my state by the way - where it is regularly votend on and kept - and where I grew up in Michigan - six counties remain dry - because THERE it is practice). Law was never about what you could force on people - study the philosphy of law.

[el cid again]

EDIT: A little note here - Mao was right...power does flow from the barrel of a gun.

Legal authority in the long run comes down to how much force you can muster to enforce your will.

I have studied Mao since high school. In HIS system there is NO law. To this day.
The power of the gun means you can ignore the law - and that is what CCP is about.
I don't think you want to go that way. In China a court has three judges - one law judge and two party judges. Majority rules. This is no joke - and it works exactly as you might expect it to work.

[dtravel]

El Cid, your last two posts actually support what I was saying.

We find them most useful and enforce them too.

We enforce them. If not by military force (and, yes, the USCG is military force) then by economic force.

As individuals we submit to and obey the law because it is in our best interests to. Part of why it is is because most other individuals in our communities do so as well. The same basic principles apply to international dealings. Things like international postal regulations and civil air conventions exist and are, for the most part, honored because it is in the interests of the individual countries to have them. (Of course, part of why it is in their interests is because it placates the 9,000 lb gorilla who handed you the treaty and said, "Sign!" [:D])

But just because the US requires its citizens to obey treaties as though they were US law does not mean that other countries are bound by them. Today they tend to do so, but that is in large part placating the gorilla. (And even then, not always. Witness the current international wrangling over intellectual property rights.)

As for the US "change your mind in a heartbeat" regarding Japan in the '30s, that is part of the nature of a republic or democracy. *shrug* Humans are not rational. The more of them you stick together, the less rational they tend to be. Don't ask me to explain it, I can't.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

EDIT: A little note here - Mao was right...power does flow from the barrel of a gun.

Legal authority in the long run comes down to how much force you can muster to enforce your will.

I have studied Mao since high school. In HIS system there is NO law. To this day.
The power of the gun means you can ignore the law - and that is what CCP is about.
I don't think you want to go that way. In China a court has three judges - one law judge and two party judges. Majority rules. This is no joke - and it works exactly as you might expect it to work.

I submit that you don't fully understand what "power flows from the barrel of a gun" means. US law has one of the same critical underpinnings as current Chinese law. The power and ability of the state to enforce it. How the state gets that power may differ, but it ultimately comes down to someone saying "don't do that!" and backing it up with force. In the US we as a society provide that force thru our elected officials.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I don't think you want to go that way. In China a court has three judges - one law judge and two party judges. Majority rules. This is no joke - and it works exactly as you might expect it to work.

I don't know..., maybe a three judge panel with one to worry about "The Law" and the other two with "Justice" wouldn't be all that bad. As it is now, seems the ONLY people in a Court with any "Rights" are the ones accused of doing the "Wrongs".

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I don't think you want to go that way. In China a court has three judges - one law judge and two party judges. Majority rules. This is no joke - and it works exactly as you might expect it to work.

I don't know..., maybe a three judge panel with one to worry about "The Law" and the other two with "Justice" wouldn't be all that bad. As it is now, seems the ONLY people in a Court with any "Rights" are the ones accused of doing the "Wrongs".

So now that we are way OT...whose Justice?

[ChezDaJez]

Basically the world order is to our liking. We LIKE Japan not doing naval ops more than a thousand miles from home - and that means WE have to escort tankers to Japan if need be. We are expecting navy people to undertake - in all situations - cold or hot - defending Japanese sea lines of communicaitons - and we need navy people to understand that. The Navy does lots of things that do not make headlines - just as it fought the U Boats before WWII began. Situation normal.

You must not have heard of the annual RIMPAC exercises with Japan, Canada, Australia and other Pacific nations. We hosted 4 JMSDF P-3s at Whidbey Island a few years back. Japanese ships and aircraft routinely visit the West Coast during these exercises.

And - note - it is USN policy to explain what we are up to - in all cases. The theory is that if everyone knows what we are trying to do, any chance to make any choice will get it made towards that end. It is common in other services to get orders with no explanation of why - but not in the Navy. You are expected to tell the troops why we are doing this, peace or war, action or training, whatever.

You must also have been in a different Navy than I. In my Navy, sailors are expected to carry out there orders regardless of whether they know the reason for them or not. Now, I'll admit it's nice to know the why and such but that is not necessary for me to carry out my orders. If my CO said, "Load 4 Mk-46s on yonder P-3 and launch them on the first enemy sub you see!" My answer would be, "Aye, Aye Sir!" and I would start loading the torps. I might be wondering why the hell he told me to do that but rest assured, there's soon to be one enemy sub on the bottom.

In my Navy, sailors are expected to get the job done. If I can tell them the why, great! If not, then it's "Shut up and get your a$$ to work!" It has to be that way, period!

Obviously, in your Navy, sailors aren't expected to do their job unless you tell them why.

Chez