Evil weapon named collective defense
Y: And the pointless, perpetual discussion continues. Next, I have a diagram on collective defense. See.
Y: Let me explain the difference between the original meaning of collective defense and the one advocated by the U.S. and Prime Minister Abe today. No.2 is the original collective defense vision: The Security Council identifies dangers; then they take tentative measures, make recommendations, and take non-military measures like economic sanctions; if all fails, they use UN Forces and regional security entities for military strikes. No.1 is the right to self-defense, which every state inherently has. The reason they took the trouble to include such a natural right is to camouflage the nature of the new concept of collective defense. By including collective defense in the UN Charter, the U.S. managed to reserve the right for states, specifically for the U.S., to engage in war. Even so, this procedure in No.2 is in case of an attack on a UN member country. But No.4, or the collective defense advocated by the U.S. and Prime Minister Abe today, is totally different.
H：They attack without being attacked.
Y: A potential threat is all they need, which is why they can do whatever they want, as in the case of the Iraq War. If the U.S. identifies a potential threat, they can gang up with others to attack. It’s clear when you compare No.2 and No.4, but what the U.S. wants is to legally hold a position equal to the Security Council alone. This is what the U.S., or rather, what the U.S. military-industrial complex, wants.
If Japan allows collective defense, which is essentially overseas deployment of the SDF, Japan would legally be obliged to follow U.S. Forces in pursuit of whatever potential threat they identify.
H: We’re running out of time.
Y: Let’s move on.