The line in the water that divides East Asia into rival alliances has been widened and deepened in the last few weeks, largely due to the eruption of anti-Japanese emotions in China and anti-American outbursts in South Korea.
This line runs from the sea between Japan and Korea south through the East China Sea and the Taiwan Strait into the South China Sea. To the east are the US, Japan, and Taiwan, which are allied by treaty or political commitment. To the west are China, North Korea and South Korea, with China seeking to turn the two Koreas into vassals like their ancient kingdom many centuries ago.
The fundamental issue is which alliance will prevail in East Asia: the autocratic coalition led by China that seeks to drive the US from the region or the democratic grouping led by the US that seeks a stable balance of political and military power in which trade and economic development flourishes. James Lilley, who has been US ambassador in both Beijing and Seoul, wrote recently: "Japan and China have been at each others' throats for centuries over who dominates the Western Pacific, and particularly Taiwan and Korea." He added: "On sea, land and in the commercial arena, the two countries have used everything from piracy and intrigue to coups to advance their own ends."
The critical question today is whether the current confrontation will lead to hostilities. Another US diplomat doesn't think so: "It doesn't make any sense," he says. "There is no rational reason for such a war." Many wars, however, have been started by irrational emotions that led to miscalculation. That is the danger for every nation involved in this dispute.
At the moment, Beijing and its allies in Pyongyang, who have long spewed venom at Japan and the US, and Seoul, which seems on the verge of dissolving its security ties with the US in favor of sliding into an orbit around China, appear to have the upper hand.
The reasons:
The US, under the Bush Administration, is preoccupied with the war in Iraq, rebuilding Afghanistan, pacifying the Middle East and the campaign against terror. In Asia, Bush officials have focused on North Korea's ambitions to acquire nuclear arms and agreed on "common strategic objectives" with Japan, but have failed to forge a comprehensive policy on China.
In Japan, Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura has demanded an apology from China for permitting vandals to rampage against the Japanese embassy in Beijing and to attack Japanese citizens and businesses in several Chinese cities. China has flatly refused to apologize. Beyond that, however, Japan has not responded to China's demand that Tokyo apologize for its invasion of China during World War II. Japanese officials say various prime ministers have apologized 17 or 18 times-but have compiled no public record for it. Nor has Tokyo demanded credit for lending China US$30 billion to build the infrastructure that has attracted foreign investment.
The government in Taiwan, which counts on the US and Japan to help defend it against Chinese threats, has lagged in helping itself. A multibillion dollar arms purchase offered by the US has been held up in the legislature for several years and military conscription has been cut to 18 months from 22 months.
In addition, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has undercut President Chen Shui-bian (
The coalition led by China is not free of problems. A sampling of the Western press shows a backlash generated by China's belligerence. The Times of London editorialized: "China has exploited and exacerbated historic bitterness ... to divert attention from domestic tensions over economic disparities, unemployment, corruption, and political restrictions."
In South Korea, President Roh Moo-hyun has said that his nation could defend itself, suggesting that his nation no longer needed US forces there. He has proposed that South Korea be the "balancer of Northeast Asia," between China, Japan, Russia and the US.
Not all South Koreans agree. The leader of the opposition party, Park Geun-hye, asserted that Roh should "realize that it would be extremely difficult to restore the close relationship with the United States once the damage has been done." She contended that "slackening the alliance with the United States will only create diplomatic isolation and harm the nation."
Altogether, however, the Chinese alliance will continue to overshadow the US-Japan-Taiwan coalition unless Washington, Tokyo, and Taipei get their act together.
Richard Halloran is a writer base in Hawaii.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at