Christina Anikari wrote:Actually if you had studied Japan you would have known that Japan in the Edo was in fact heavily involved in East Asian trade and was in fact also quite open to cultural influences from both China and Europe. In fact Japan was so heavily involved in East Asian trade that the Chinese monetary situation was only kept stable due to the constant importation of Japanese silver. Granted European culture was known as "Dutch Learning" because it was the Dutch who traded with Japan, but that does not mean that they were ignorant about these things. In fact this was so common that by the time Perry entered Tokyo Bay most villages that weren't dirt poor had at least one person who could read Dutch and several works by renowned European scholars, even in the most distant reaches of the country. Likewise Japan was engaged in significant trade with Korea, the Philipines and the Ryukyus as well as a significant degree of subjugation of the Ainos of Hokkaido. And on the political side of things Japan had significant political interaction with the Ryukyus and Korea as well as several attempts at getting Qing dynasty China to relent on its demands of subservience in exchange for trade. As for the European powers they were as disinterested in Japan as Japan was in them, it was not as if they ever tried actual diplomacy with Japan until after Meiji, if anything it was Japan that was the more interested party of the two.
Okay, I've done a little research and am just wondering... are you outright lying or just have no idea what you're saying? The Emperor of Japan was so isolationist that he enacted the Closed Country Edict of 1635. This stated that anyone who traveled outside Japan was permanently banished. At the same time, Japan wouldn't even allow traders on their soil, and would only allow the Dutch on Dejima, a small artificial island. And you say that Europeans had no interest in Japan, but this is once again untrue. Edo executed Christians and Portuguese diplomats.
Wikipedia wrote:Besides small trade of some outer daimyo with Korea and the Ryukyu Islands, to the southwest of Japan's main islands, by 1641, foreign contacts were limited by the policy of sakoku to Nagasaki. By 1650, Christianity was almost completely eradicated, and external political, economic and religious influence on Japan became quite limited. Only China, the Dutch East India Company, and for a short period, the English, enjoyed the right to visit Japan during this period, for commercial purposes only, and they were restricted to the Dejima port in Nagasaki. Other Europeans who landed on Japanese shores were put to death without trial.
Once again... was that a lie, or just extreme confusion on your part?
Christina Anikari wrote:You really should study before you repeat a an ill-conceived myth as proof of your own stance. Was Japan isolationistic? Not by your definition, but by any other definition i have heard it was despite what i said above. Most trade was conducted in foreign countries or designated ports for example and diplomacy was a secretive affair were it had to appear nothing was going on. My point with this is that even isolationist countries have never attempted to cut off all contact with the world. No, North Korea is not trying to cut off contact with the rest of the world either and has never tried it and that is an isolationist country if any is. What North Korea has tried is to ensure that the government regulates the contact with the rest of the world.
The truth speaks for itself - Edo outlawed travel, restricted trade to a ridiculous degree, put foreigners to death without trial, and even executed diplomats.
Christina Anikari wrote:As for whether isolationism and non-interventionism is the same thing then let me direct you to the wikipedia article about Warren G. Harding, US president from 1920-1923, which directly stated that he was an isolationist. I would also like to point out the impossibility of even attempting to cut off all contact with foreign countries. Not only is there the basic problems of people complaining if they cannot get foreign luxury goods anymore or the size of the country making it unfeasible to posit a complete lack of economic activity across the border. There is also the basic problem of no government wanting to intentionally blind itself to what is going on in the rest of the world and the political challenges it will face in the future. Doing what you call isolationism is simply not a policy that can be carried out due to the political and economic consequences of the country attempting it, nor has it ever been tried as radically as you seem to suggest.
Once again, Japan did during the Edo period. You claimed you've studied it. The emperor did so because he was distrustful of foreigners and thought Christianity was a threat to stability. It is a policy that can be done and has been done. It simply takes severe laws, such as the Closed Country Edict of 1635.
Christina Anikari wrote:Part of what you call non-interventionism according to the wikipedia article you use as your proof is to avoid entangling foreign alliances of all kinds. How exactly do you propose to handle environmental issues, refugees or the increasing global inequality diplomatically without involving the country into any sort of international agreements that place restrictions and demands on the behaviour of the US? Solving these problems exactly means entering into entangling alliances, otherwise it is just pretty words and no substance. If anything that has been the one lesson learned by the EU, that you cannot deal with complex issues without adding rules to a long list of tangentially related issues, especially political and judicial, as well as a willingness to defend the other parties of said agreement...and without the means to enforce it. There is nothing straw man in asking about how you propose to deal with these issues without alliances. If anything they will make a desire to not get involved in the affairs of other countries harder not easier.
Nikkou answered this well. He is addressing alliances for the purpose of defense or war. We would still be willing to act on matters of global importance.
Christina Anikari wrote:And it is patently not true that there has been no attempts at isolationism, in Europe or North America in recent times. Isolationism was the early French response to the Great Depression, most likely aggrevating it further. And it was by no means an uncommon reaction, though the French went further than any other European country. In the same vein isolationism, also more radical isolationism than Ron Paul proposes, has been a commonly suggested solution to economic and political problems in the US, just look at all the people who proposes that the way to create jobs in American industry is to prohibit outsourcing and increasing tariffs. Even radical political and economic isolationism is certainly alive today, and especially in the US now that the EU has integrated Europe beyond the point where it doesn't look absurd.
So, first you say that isolationism never existed, then you say that no one has ever really wanted to be an isolationist, and now you're pointing out examples of isolationists? Can I please get some of whatever you're smoking?
Seriously though, prohibiting outsourcing and increasing tariffs are just bad economic policy and barriers to free trade, the basis of Ron Paul's philosophy. So, once again, you're pointing out how Ron Paul is different from an Isolationist. Thank you!
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)