Russian President Vladimir Putin makes an unlikely swinger. Until now, he has been assiduously courting China. He sells Beijing oil and weaponry. Bilateral trade will be worth about US$27 billion this year.
Cold war border disputes have been settled. The two countries recently held unprecedented joint military exercises. And they often act together at the UN on issues such as Iran and Sudan.
Yet risking accusations of infidelity from Beijing, Putin has spent the past three days in Japan, China's old enemy and regional rival and a country with which Russia is technically still at war. He promised to build a pipeline linking Japan to Siberia's oil. He encouraged further investment in Russia. And he was conciliatory over the hot-button issue of the Kurile islands, known in Japan as the Northern Territories, seized by the Soviet Union in 1945 and which Tokyo wants back.
"We will be doing everything possible to solve this problem," Putin said. "We are fully determined to work to solve all the issues we face." He even listened with apparent equanimity as Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi urged Russia to handle weapons exports to China "in a careful manner."
Putin's two-timing in Tokyo was all the more remarkable given Japan's relative weakness, said Christopher Hughes, a regional expert at the University of Warwick.
"At the end of the Cold War, Russia was on the slide and Japan was on the up. But the tables have turned," he said.
"Japan faces a major economic rival in China that to some extent is outplaying Japan in regional diplomacy and energy acquisition. It needs another big power to balance against China alongside its alliance with the US That's why it's put the islands dispute on the back-burner."
Similar calculations may lie behind Putin's placatory stance. He obtained specific rewards, such as Japanese backing for Moscow's bid for membership of the WTO. But longer-term concerns about becoming dependent on China's markets or being victimized by its strategic designs may also have prompted him to hedge his bets.
"Russia is very weak in the Far East. It has almost no military presence there," Hughes said.
Some analysts suggest resource-rich, thinly populated Siberia could one day prove a tempting target for expanding China.
Similar worries also help explain regionally unloved Japan's tightening embrace of the US, underscored by the visit of US President George W. Bush last week. Undecided whether China's rise is a threat or an opportunity, uneasy over its threats against Taiwan and deeply wary of North Korea, Washington is reinforcing relationships across Asia, notably with India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam and Mongolia.
But Japan remains the linchpin of its regional strategy and, increasingly, of its forward defense. Bush called it "a vital relationship."
Plans to station a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier taskforce, operational commands, and the US Army 1st Corps' rapid reaction force in Japan were agreed last month.
"The security environment in the western Pacific increasingly requires that the US Navy station the most capable ships in forward-deployed positions," Admiral James Kelly said. "This posture brings ... the greatest amount of striking power, if necessary, in the timeliest manner to any regional crisis."
Like its embrace of Russia, US advances carry risks for Japan. It has already been sucked into Washington's wider agenda in Iraq, Afghanistan and the "war on terror." US bases and missile sales remain controversial. And the assertiveness encouraged by Washington is fueling nationalist sentiment. But its position on the edge of a world increasingly dominated by Beijing is lonely.
"We need the US," one diplomat said. "What can we do? We have no choice."
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers