North Korea: 2012-2016

[Dayuhan]

However, restricting this argument to Japan, rather than all of Asia, there is still one more data point which I haven't mentioned (and I double checked the timeline on this.) Their 'lost decade' - not just a decade, but heralding a long-term decline in their power - was preceded by an international currency intervention, the Plaza accord. While this wasn't necessarily against Japan's will, it was led by the US, and thus still follows this theme of foreign events dictating Japan's internal political situation.

I still think you're overestimating the impact of external influence on Japan's internal politics. The Plaza Accord was an international intervention in support of the US economy (trying to deflate an overvalued dollar that was contributing to an unsustainable balance of payments deficit), and while the subsequent increase in the value of the yen was arguably one of the causes of the later Japanese asset bubble, it was certainly not the only or the primary cause. Japan's asset bubble and subsequent economic troubles did not take place in a vacuum - nothing does, these days - but it cannot be attributed to external intervention, certainly not to intentional action from an external source.

After their defeat in WWII, Japan put their economy into overdrive - at the bequest of the US. Finally, when outside economies (led by the US) expressed discomfort at how hot Japan's economy was, Japan figured they had done all they needed to in terms of war reparations, and they've kind of let things drift since then.

So this explains Japan...

Again, I don't think it does fully "explain Japan". Certainly the US wanted to see Japan succeed economically, but the Japanese of course wanted the same thing, for their own reasons. The US may have helped Japan get started, but the Japanese economic boom was ultimately a product of Japanese action, much assisted by a culture that stresses hard work and discipline. As we've all seen elsewhere, US action or desire alone cannot produce economic development.

China this theory isn't be consistent enough to generalize to North Korea. Assuming Japan is unique as an Asian country can at least help explain why Japanese re-armament is such a potent issue in the region though. We can threaten to encourage them to rearm in order to keep other countries in the region in line (particularly China, to use against North Korea, because North Korea themselves won't respond rationally.)

I'm not sure that would work. The Japanese make their own decisions for their own reasons, and if there was ever a time when the US could "use Japan" as a leverage point, that time is long past.

In fact, in my view, it's possible to draw some strong parallels between these two parts of the world: Japan is equivalent to Israel; North Korea is equivalent to al-Qaeda, and the rest of East Asia is equivalent to moderate Islam. The connection between these two parts of the world, as I see it, is the US, which sees both Japan and Israel as its post-WWII responsibilities.

The comparison is IMO a bit strained... Japan may have been a US responsibility at the close of WW2, but that ended decades ago.

Having made this connection that US policy in the Middle East and East Asia is colonialism

Is US policy in the Middle East and East Asia colonialism? How so? I'm not sure the connection is supportable.

Getting both of these international sub-systems to govern themselves without American help would allow us more flexibility to prepare for new kinds of threats; and also reduce the chances of us screwing things up and being held politically viable.

Really I'm just throwing some thoughts around - I don't know if this is any more viable than any of the other ideas I've had. If this methodology can produce ten bad ideas and one good one, it's still a useful exercise.

With this I agree... but America is no more able to get these areas to "govern themselves without American help" than it is able to govern these areas itself. As far as North Korea goes, I think the 6-party format, cumbersome as it is, is probably the only viable approach. China has more leverage than anyone, but they will use that leverage as they see fit, and the ability of the US to influence those decisions is very limited. Fortunately China's trade-driven prosperity has moved them into the position of a status quo power with little interest in rocking any regional boats.

I don't think North Korea is controllable. I do think the situation is manageable, though the management will not be entirely satisfactory. Their nuclear capacity is subject to deterrence, and their perennial shortages of food and fuel are a point of vulnerability that can be exploited. Internal political change will come, but it will be internally driven and it could take a long time (or it may not; we don't know). I don't see any external action that is likely to accelerate the process.