Japan, U.S. Differ on China in Talks on 'Grey Zone' Military Threats - Reuters
As Japan and the United States start talks on how to respond to armed incidents that fall short of a full-scale attack on Japan, officials in Tokyo worry that their ally is reluctant to send China a strong message of deterrence.
Military officials meet this week in Hawaii to review bilateral defense guidelines for the first time in 17 years. Tokyo hopes to zero in on specific perceived threats, notably China's claims to Japanese-held islands in the East China Sea, while Washington is emphasizing broader discussions, officials on both sides say.
Washington takes no position on the sovereignty of the islands, called the Senkaku by Japan and the Diaoyu by China, but recognizes that Japan administers them and says they fall under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, which obligates America to come to Japan's defense.
But even as Asia-Pacific security tensions mount, U.S. officials have made clear they do not want to get pulled into a conflict between the world's second- and third-biggest economies…
Comments
I don't see how Russia placed China in a bind... they merely provided the Chinese with an opportunity to negotiate for some gas at preferential rates, and opportunity that the Chinese naturally took. Of course they are no different than any other superpower, and of course they pursue their own perception of their own interests. Who would expect anything different?
Robert---if one listens to the Chinese in their recent comments they talk of superpower status and the ability to sit on the table and to make decisions in international events befitting those of a superpower.
Reference China's quest for superpower status--Russia has massively placed China in a bind. Their single core foreign relations principle has been the respect for national territorial borders which they truly believe in---now comes along their sole strategic partner who is violating that very principle---so what do they do---they are demanding privately from Russia that they will sit still if they received large long term natural gas deliveries at way below world prices---something Russia is signaling they could live with.
So in effect they are no different than other superpowers when it comes to hard core economic decisions reflecting on international events.
Many of their current moves are all about economics and raw resources---just as we had similar problems with Japan in the 30s.
As one who is not a cold warrior and as one who has watched the US waffle when they are signatories to international agreements and as the US has moved to a soft power approach---then what does one do in the far east when actual interests are crossed if your "image" is something else?
If one looks at the results of the soft approach---yes we are out of Iraq and heading for the door in AFG, we have effectively no leverage in the Crimea unless we truly want to get seriously serious, CAR/Sudan/Mali/Yemen are not going away not to speak of Syria--so what is the soft approach in reality? Let's not even discuss our lack of a strategy in the ME.
There are over 345 potential locations in the world that have ethnic/religious/languages that the Putin Doctrine can be applied to with many in the Far East and a lot in Africa---can in the end soft power be the single answer when international borders get redrawn?
We want the EU/NATO to led and become a greater power--but do we really want that in the end as it leads to a lessening of US interests in Europe.
Some might even say that is great but when we need say the EU in other locations in the world to support us will they?--do they want to? While we talk about how great AFRICOM is doing in Africa the EU Bde is now on the ground in Africa and the EU is actively engaging with troops in the CAR/Mali---we are not---so much for AFRICOM.
We can back away and back away and isolate ourselves to a larger degree, but does it not bring in the end far greater problems?
Our ability to react to the world in the coming years hinges on a strategy---just not sure there is one at this moment in time. Notice I use the word react---have not seen leading from the front on any particular international event lately.
Kissinger's article yesterday on understanding history is a telling article as he is challenging us on just how much do we know of the world around us and he is correct as we seem in the end to really know little about what is really occurring in the world---IMO right now soft power is actually just in a reacting mode due to the total lack of a strategy.
By the way SF had in VN a similar comment when they were advisors to the CIDG---"you were an advisor until the first bullet was fired and then you led and led from the front".
Interesting thought though as I have had the experience that if one leads from the front setting the example then hands it off the group matures to the point of the advisor sitting back and enjoying the ride.
Kind of like NATO. But then I did not have 28 individuals to convince my way would work.
The article cited refers to discussions on "how to respond to armed incidents that fall short of a full-scale attack on Japan". How to respond to an attack on Japan is not in question.
The US position is that response to "armed incidents that fall short of a full scale attack" is best determined according to the specific circumstances of the incident. I don't think that's unreasonable, given the all too evident risks of drawing red lines.
The Japanese have a modern, well trained, and very capable Navy, even if they do call it a "maritime self-defense force", and it's not that easy to envision an "armed incident that falls short of a full scale attack" that they would be unable to manage. I don't see any reason to set the bar for U intervention too low.
Robert C Jones:
Plain recognition of commitments and responsibilities, and the consequences of not fulfilling them can be considered simplistic I suppose. But the nature of the humans hasn't changed, and if turn your back on your friends you will eventually have to face the the hangman alone, alone and covered in shame. That holds no matter how cleverly we rationalize our actions. We may congratulate ourselves in how ably we justify what can't be justified, but the world doesn't listen to that. It only sees what we do.
Robert C Jones:
I like to use Biblical references. The writing in that book was powerful.
Your following paragraph sounds great and says nothing.
Your next two paragraphs are a bit puzzling. You say Japan is a valuable ally but above you say they can take care of themselves. That seems like a bit of a one way street; they are valuable allies to us but how can we be valueable allies to them if we were to let them face Red China alone over the Senkakus? They may not agree that the Senkakus are not essentential and for us not to back them when they feel they need to fend off an aggressor may result in the loss of an ally. One step closer to facing the hangman alone.
The thing that is really a cipher is your statement that we can't afford to risk a clash because it would expose our vulnerabilities and then people would respect our power. What? We can't do anything because if we did then people would know that we really can't do anything and that would be worse than now because they don't know we can't? Geesh, talk about thin ice.
You tell an ally we will back them if they are attacked. Straight talk, no need for signals. Anything else means you can't be trusted. That is not only dishonorable, it is dangerous. You are likely to end up with no allies in that case.
Ah, yes, the book of Revelations is upon us. Unlikely.
What is likely is that the airwaves are being bombarded by Chickenhawks with little understanding of the fusion of history, strategy and the military art. Mostly good Cold Warriors who believe the United States posture as it emerged from WWII, or even the end of the Cold War, is somehow carved in stone. An 'end of history' set of conditions that must be preserved indefinitely at any cost.
Yes, Japan is one of our most vital allies, due far more to the geostrategic position of where Japan sits and the history of Japan with continental asia than of any moral or contractual agreement from recent years. Japan, like Great Britain, is an unsinkable aircraft carrier and staging base that serves as the vanguards of American Defense thousands of miles from either shore. These relationships were two of the great prizes of WWII.
In pragmatic terms, the Senkaku islands are not essential to that role, nor to the survival of Japan. On the otherhand, military clash with China, even if we prevail, could expose vulnerabilities that undermine and diminish the strategic deterrent effect of our military.
There are no easy decisions for our national leaders on issues like this, and loud, persistent banging of wardrums by those with no direct stake in the fight is not particularly helpful. We must be as careful to send the right signals to our allies as we are in communicating to our challengers. Blank checks of blind support are as dangerous to one as rigid redlines are to the other.
Robert C Jones:
You didn't listen to the whole thing did you? Here it is again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSS3yxpnFU
The moral of that story is you stand by your friends or will end up standing alone.
Whether we like it or not history is coming back, headed straight for us. It is riding fast, mounted on a pale horse. There are four more riders behind it. We can meet it early with people to help us while it is still weak, or we can wait and meet it alone after it has gathered strength. But it will not cancel the meeting.
As a young cadet, I listened eagarly to the Special Forces Master Sergeant's tale of an operation in Vietnam working with a South Vietnamese unit in pursuit of an enemy force (I do not recall if they were VC or NVA). When he told how he put the South Vietnames out front and followed back in the formation with his team I asked "why didn't you lead"? His response has resonated with me for over 30 years now, "Last time I checked, it was their country."
The moral of this tale is this, the first duty for defending Japanese sovereignty rests with Japan. They certainly have the capacity and the primary interest at stake - and the last time I checked, it was their country.