When the Fukushima tragedy happened to the people of Japan, I think it probably moved all of us, at some point, to tears. Watching the victims stoically trying to pick up the pieces of their lives, and then the brave people trying to put out nuclear reactor fires, all this brought them to my eyes, and I am sure did to you.
Then, almost immediately after the tsunami and earthquake, disturbing questions began to be raised, initially by the Japanese themselves, then spreading quickly throughout the internet. The questions surrounded the “un-earthquake-like” seismic signature of the event. Some in Japan openly speculated that the event and tragedy was not natural, that it was the product of a technology.
I was, and remain, among those entertaining this view, and did so here on this website.
My basic method for doing so was that I outlined in my most recent book, Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations, namely, that if the signature of such events is non-typical or anomalous, and there is a political context prior to the event and one subsequent to the event that indicates a change in direction or policy, then the event may have been the result of the application of technologies that I have called “emulational”, i.e., the technologies to emulate acts of God or of nature, while also providing plausible deniability to their user: “We didn’t do it, it was just an act of God/nature.” As readers of that book will have understood, the major powers of the world no doubt have the means and ability to detect the use of such things. The problem is, conveying that message to their people, for to do so would mean admitting two things (1) such technologies do indeed exist, and (2) their use “on us” implies that “we” (whoever “we” is in the context) “are at war.” Indeed, such possibilities have also formed the basis of elitist confabs at the recent Davos summit, where one of the “x factors” discussed was the “rogue” deployment of “geoengineering.”
Thus, my approach to the Fukushima disaster was to look at prior Japanese politics, and the attitude of the Japanese government after the event. Prior to the event, a new government had assumed power in the Diet, ending decades of rule of the party that has more or less led Japan since the end of the Second World War. The new government gave two significant signals of a possible “change in direction,” first, by quietly but firmly asking the USA to close its base on Okinawa, a constant source of irritation to the Japanese, particularly with a steady stream of Japanese rape cases by personnel based at the military base there; and secondly, by quietly seeking to open up greater dialogue with Beijing. Prior to the event, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates sternly warned Japan in words that could be taken as little more than an overt threat, that closing the base would have dire consequences for Japan, consequences that were never explicitly spelled out.
However, after the event, the Japanese government seems to have taken a… well… crazy course of action, deliberately provoking China over some isolated rocks in the Pacific which both nations lay claim to. This abrupt volte face to my mind argues, again, that the Fukushima event may not have been a natural event: message sent, message received and understood.
Now in this context there is something far more serious that took place last October, according to this article by John V. Walsh:
Now, before we get to the part that I want to draw your attention to, first permit me to state that I am in almost total agreement with Mr. Walsh here, particularly in assessments such as these:
“The idea of Japan outdoing China in East Asia economically is a pipe dream, with or without the U.S. China has a population of 1.3 billion and Japan 130 million. To expect Japan to emerge as a serious challenge to China in the long term is like hoping that in the immediate future Canada with its 34 million can challenge the U.S. with 315 million. And China has a vibrant economy, an educated workforce and a culture to be reckoned with, from which Japan’s emerged and followed until it was “Westernized.”
“So what is Japan’s protection to be in the face of such a large and powerful neighbor? For one thing, Japan certainly has the wherewithal to deter aggression from any quarter with its advanced technology and its potential for nuclear weapons development. For another, China has no record of expansionism overseas even going back to 1400 when it was the world’s premier naval power but never conquered or established colonies or took slaves. But a large part of Japanese security lies in an increasing respect for international law with its emphasis on sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty in international law is the protection of small nations from the depredations of large ones. And ironically the principal threat to the idea of sovereignty comes from the United States and the West with their pre-emptive wars and “humanitarian” interventions, which trash the classical concept of sovereignty. Japan should be wary of dealings with such powers and supporting such ideas.”
But I want to draw your attention to this paragraph:
“What then is the U.S. to do? Armitage and Nye see a solution in the joint rescue operations mounted by the Japan Self Defense Forces (JSDF) and U.S. forces (Operation Tomodachi, meaning “Operation Friends”) in response to the earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima disaster of March 11, 2011, know as 3-11 in Japan. There, the joint rescue efforts were not opposed by those who favor Article 9 and the spirit it embodies. Armitage and Nye suggest that Operation Tomodachi simply be taken as a precedent to justify future joint operations. In other words, the Japanese Constitution is simply to be ignored, pretty much the tactic that Truman inaugurated in the U.S. to plunge the country into the Korean war and the tactic Barack Obama has used in interventions like the one in Libya. Simply ignore the Constitution and its requirement that the U.S. Congress alone can declare war. This is an example, as if another were needed, of how our elites view the “rule of law” to which they appeal so often. (And one wonders whether from the outset Operation Tomodachi was viewed in part in this way by its architects. How many other U.S. humanitarian missions might have ancillary covert purposes, one might ask?)” [Emphasis added]
It is true that the USA did deploy significant naval forces to Japan to aid in disaster relief; but as Walsh implies, American
“help” seldom comes without geopolitical strings attached.
So the speculative possibility must be mentioned: was this relief all “part of the plan” to begin with, so that it could later be used to have Americans showing the Japanese how to skirt their own constitution? (“See? Here’s how we’ve been doing it in the good ole USA ever since Roosevelt and Truman… remember him?”) Speculation? Yes, to be sure. But I put nothing past these people. Not one thing.
As for the Japanese, they’re not as stupid as their governments any more than Americans are as stupid as their administrations. What the subtext to Mr. Walsh’s article, and indeed to the original American “mission” or Armitrage and Nye to Japan is really saying is, Japan’s future is, as it always was, inexorably tied to Asia…
See you on the flip side.