Dialogue and war are not opposites but parts of the same continuum of diplomacy. Military power functions not only for war but as a prerequisite for negotiation, exposing the structural weakness in Japan’s diplomatic framework.

“When one side is pointing a gun while the other holds nothing, even if it appears to be dialogue.”
2016-10-31
The following continues from the previous chapter.
Just as a verbal argument over non-negotiable values and a physical fight over non-negotiable values are essentially the same in nature despite differing methods, dialogue and war are not opposites but parts of the same continuum of diplomacy.
Representatives of the United States make every possible effort to minimize losses and maximize gains for the American people.
Representatives of China make every possible effort to minimize losses and maximize gains for the Chinese people.
Representatives of South Korea make every possible effort to minimize losses and maximize gains for the Korean people.
Japan, having grown too prosperous, often misjudges this fundamental “objective” of diplomacy.
As an aside, if one were to map the American “Department of Defense” and “Department of State” onto Japanese ministries—admittedly a rough comparison—both would correspond to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The difference between these “two American foreign ministries” is that the former conducts diplomacy related to military affairs while overseeing national defense and the armed forces, whereas the latter conducts diplomacy in non-military fields similar to Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Department of Defense is also the largest governmental organization in the United States.
These two wheels together make American diplomacy robust, but Japan lacks the larger of those two wheels.
For Japanese people who have an allergic reaction to any terminology related to “the military,” this tends to be a blind spot, but by global standards military power is not solely for war.
It also serves as a prerequisite for diplomacy and negotiation.
Of course, if issues can be resolved through dialogue, that is unquestionably the most efficient and peaceful outcome.
However, while dialogue can exist between two people pointing guns at each other, and also between two people who are both unarmed,
when one side is pointing a gun and the other holds nothing, even if it appears to be dialogue, it cannot be called genuine dialogue.
To be continued.