That's what they get for having lost the last war in which they were involved, i.e. they get to play the music their victor is singing (also see the Plaza Accord).
It may be that the Japanese see hegemony of the US as a lesser evil than the CCP, and hegemony of the latter a risk well worth dying over. This may be quite rational.
I do wonder why there are so many western voices that seem almost giddy about the rise of China as a power. I imagine they don't like the west much. But unless they've also lived in China in recent years, it's just maligning the devil you know.
I'm mirroring de Gaulle right now, in saying that the US have been blind-sided by not having had any real war on their homeland for more than a century (he was saying it in 1968), that's why they have all this messianic instincts. No, almost nothing is worth dying for en masse (which what a US vs China war would mean).
Famed critic of cultural and national sovereignty?
I think you got him wrong, he was in fact a supporter of national sovereignty (also see his NATO-related policies). I got that quote from a transcript of a discussion he had with Ceausescu (I'm from Romania myself), during his last visit outside of France as a president (in May '68).
He also did take some risks regarding his personal safety when it came to the sovereign future of Algeria. Granted, what his henchmen did in connection to Africa was definitely not ok (I'm right now reading a book about Foccart), but unfortunately that was par for the course for the big powers back then.
Whom you’re mirroring to argue Japan should submit to Beijing.
I don't think China would mirror France's policies against Guinea, it has never done so in, what? 1000+ years?. Saying otherwise is preposterous. But, hey, whatever gets the Western war machine going, I guess. Also, you're ignoring the part about de Gaulle being right about NATO and about its real meaning (US direct control over Western Europe).
It’s Western Europe that is unable to wean itself off the sweet sweet American funded protection.
It's not the non-violent choice any more than England trying to appease Nazi Germany was the non-violent choice. Or Ukraine trying to make friends with Russia.
Or France calling Nasser as literally the new Hitler when they had become upset about the Suez Canal (real title from the NYTimes: "Nasser Is Hitler Imitator, France's Premier Charges"). It doesn't work that way.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1956/07/31/archives/nasser-is-hitler...
The idea of racial might has been disproven, but international might (including allies) very much still makes right. The undisputed winners of WWII were the USSR and the US, both with internationalist ideologies and very strong industrial bases. One might say that inclusive might makes right. (Another lesson would be to stay out of the fight and build up industrial capacity, supporting your allies by proxy while the other parties wear themselves down.)
One of these states collapsed and was replaced by nation-states which are more or less inclusive of minorities, more or less democratic; some very much so, others not at all. The other, although it still projects power around the world, is riven by internal dissent and the type of self-questioning of its own history and validity that would never fly in a nationalist, expansionist, authoritarian state like Germany or Japan during the war.
Some people think that's a sign of weakness for the US, but since the US's hold on the world hasn't lapsed perhaps we should consider it a sign of strength. In that case it's not just inclusive might, but self-reflection against the foundations of "might" that lets one write and rewrite history by appealing to people stuck in less flexible systems.