At a gathering of Americans steeped in US diplomatic and security relations with Japan, an analyst summed up the sentiments around the table in Honolulu and among many colleagues on both sides of the Pacific by saying: “We are entering a dark time in US-Japan relations.”
To encourage candor, the conference organizers asked that those attending not be named. No matter. Plenty of Japanese and American specialists have pointed, in each country, to an absence of leadership, an abundance of political turmoil, a lack of vision and a preoccupation with immediate issues. None has singled out an instance of long-range vision in Washington or Tokyo or anyplace else.
US President George W. Bush is a lame duck who becomes less relevant by the day as his approval rating slips below 30 percent. His administration is preoccupied, to the exclusion of almost all else, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s an occasional glance at policy toward China but relations with Japan have been reduced to tired slogans about “linchpins” and “cornerstones.”
There are exceptions — US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have just visited Asia seeking to reassure friends of US commitments to their region. But US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been to Asia just once this year and once last year. And Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Christopher Hill has left to subordinates all but nuclear negotiations with North Korea.
Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda’s approval rating hovers around 20 percent as he deals with a divided legislature in the Diet. Within his Liberal Democratic Party, little gets done as factions jockey for position as they seek to oust Fukuda. Within the opposition, the Democratic Party of Japan, which controls the upper house in the Diet, the turbulence is much the same.
Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba, at the Shangri-la meeting of Asian defense ministers in Singapore last weekend, confirmed that “Japan plans neither to amend its Constitution nor change its interpretation,” meaning Tokyo would not engage in collective defense. The US for years has been urging Japan to remove the so-called “no war” constitutional clause to legitimize its armed forces.
The refusal to engage in collective defense means that the US is obliged by treaty to protect Japan, but Japan has no reciprocal obligation to help defend the US. In an otherwise bland address, Ishiba assured his audience that Japan “does not have any plan whatsoever to become a nuclear power.” That seemed to express confidence that the nuclear umbrella of the US would remain in place over Japan.
Differences over realigning US military forces in Asia and the Pacific are illuminating. US leaders see shifting Marines from Okinawa to Guam as strategically preparing, if necessary, to confront China’s emerging power or North Korean threats. Japanese are more interested in reducing inevitable frictions between Americans on bases in Japan and Japanese living outside the gates.
Richard Lawless, until recently a senior Pentagon official immersed in policy toward Japan, told the Yomiuri Shimbun: “The alliance can’t move any faster than one of its partners. Right now, Japan clearly is not making adjustments and developing the alliance in its own best interest.”
Otherwise, he said, “Japan becomes marginalized.”
In a separate interview, Ryozo Kato, until recently Japan’s ambassador to Washington, told the Yomiuri that Japan and the US “need ceaseless management to maintain our alliance.” In the understated terms of the diplomatic profession, Kato said US and Japanese military leaders should have “more meetings or dinners together” to work out specifics in deterrence or operational plans.
The US election campaign has seen little debate over foreign policy outside of Iraq. In a rare exception, US Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate, and US Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent who votes with the Democrats, wrote jointly in the Yomiuri: “Strengthening the US-Japan alliance is going to demand strong, courageous and innovative leadership from Tokyo and Washington alike.”
They expected “to have a partner in Japan that is willing to assume a role in international affairs that reflects its political, economic and self-defense capacities … The United States in turn must itself be a responsible, reliable ally to Japan, and a good global citizen.”
“US power does not mean we can do whatever we want, whenever we want,” they said. “If we are to ask more of each other, we must also pay greater attention to each other’s concerns and goals.”
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
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