North Korea may have hoped to intimidate Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe by pledging a nuclear test, but wound up playing into his hands, analysts said.
Abe, who took office last week, faced his first crisis as he prepared to head to China and South Korea on a breakthrough tour to repair tense relations.
North Korea may have wanted to drive a fresh wedge between Japan and neighboring countries, which have taken a softer approach to Pyongyang, but its saber-rattling will also vindicate Abe at home, analysts said.
Abe, 52, rose to prominence through his tough talk on North Korea. He has an unabashedly conservative agenda that includes rewriting the US-imposed 1947 pacifist Constitution.
"In many ways this will make life easier for Abe. He has always had a strong anti-North Korean position. Now he can say, `I told you so,'" said Phil Deans, a professor of international affairs at Temple University in Tokyo.
"He will be able to use this to say, look, we can't always rely on the United States. The time has come for Japan to act -- standing with its allies, but on its own feet," Deans said.
He said a North Korean nuclear test will also boost a hardline minority who believe Japan -- the only nation to suffer nuclear attack -- should acquire atomic weapons on its own.
Abe has not called for nuclear weapons. But he wants Japan to have a military in name -- not the "Self-Defense Forces" as it is now known -- which would take a larger role overseas.
His views are unpopular in Asian countries that have been invaded by Japan. But China and South Korea said on Wednesday they will host Abe next week in a bid to repair ties strained over history issues under his predecessor Junichiro Koizumi.
North Korea has now managed to steal some of the focus of Abe's diplomacy.
"It may be that his record and hostility toward North Korea has aided those in the North who wanted to take a more provocative stance, saying that now that this man is in charge there's no point to compromise," Deans said.
North Korea, in a statement on Tuesday announcing its plans, made no direct reference to Japan. Pyongyang said it would test nuclear weapons because of hostility and financial sanctions by the US.
But even if North Korea's main concern was not Japan, it provides a first test for Abe, analysts said.
Masao Okonogi, a professor of North Korean studies at Tokyo's Keio University, said the neighboring countries would shun Japanese attempts to impose further sanctions on the North.
"This weekend's summits with Beijing and Seoul will inevitably show the differences in stance on the North between Tokyo and the two Asian neighbors," Okonogi said.
Abe, speaking in parliament last Wednesday, pledged to use his upcoming visit to form a united front on North Korea.
It was a change in tone from July, when Abe -- then the top aide to Koizumi -- rattled neighboring countries by suggesting a theoretical pre-emptive attack on the communist state.
Japanese are particularly concerned as Pyongyang fired a missile over the country's main island in 1998. The test led Japan to team up with the US on missile defense and to ease its longstanding ban on weapons exports.
Robert Dujarric, a North Korea expert based in Tokyo, said the true test of Abe's intentions will be whether he seeks to step up military spending, which has declined in recent years as Japan battles a ballooning public debt.
"This will probably push Abe to be a little more aggressive verbally. But what to watch is what it does to Japan's defense," Dujarric said.
"This is good for those who are perceived as being hawkish in Japan, because the soft line of `let's negotiate with North Korea' looks weaker and weaker," he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing