Japan’s Nihon Keizai Shimbun recently reported that Japan and the US were going to consult one another on drawing up joint operation plans to prevent China from using military force to seize the disputed Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan.
If the report is true, this development not only upsets the “balance of terror” that has existed between China and Japan since last year, but also dismantles the “dual deterrence” strategy that forms part of the US policy of rebalancing toward Asia.
Following the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyutais, the two countries got stuck in a deadlock in the form of a “balance of terror.” For its part, the US has adopted a dual deterrence strategy over the dispute. The US does not want Japan to do anything that could escalate military conflict, but it is also strengthening the US-Japan alliance so as to deter China from taking further military action. Evidently, dual deterrence has become an important element in the US policy of rebalancing toward Asia.
Although Japan would like to break out of its confrontation and deadlock with China by getting the US involved in the Diaoyutai dispute, the US has stuck to its dual deterrence strategy by neither intervening or taking sides.
However, recently cracks have been appearing in the “balance of terror” deadlock between China and Japan, and this is causing the US’ dual deterrence strategy to disintegrate.
In January, a Chinese navy ship allegedly locked its fire-control radar onto a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force corvette. This action signaled a departure from what was originally a non-military confrontation between China and Japan, and it gives the impression that seizing the Diaoyutai Islands by force has become part of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s rules of engagement.
This development has made the US anxious and left it no option but to strengthen the US-Japan alliance by switching from the preventive deterrence to targeted deterrence.
The decision by Japan and the US to formulate joint operation plans with regard to the Diaoyutai Islands has two military implications.
First is that the defensive scope of the US-Japan alliance has been elevated from covering incidents arising in Japan’s periphery to including those that could occur in Japan itself.
Whereas previous operational plans were mostly concerned with peripheral areas such as the Taiwan Strait, this would be the first operational plan to be directly concerned with an attack on a specific area of Japanese territory.
If military conflict breaks out between China and Japan in the vicinity of the Diaoyutai islands, the US would be obliged to engage in joint operations with Japan.
The second implication is that the role of the Japan Self-Defense Forces is changing from logistical support to the use of armed force. Under the framework of the US-Japan alliance, the Japan Self-Defense Forces have in the past generally played a logistical support role, but this time they could engage in joint military operations with US armed forces.
When Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took office, he made a call to amend Article 9 of Japan’s constitution to allow Japan to engage in collective defense. The reason he gave for this was that Japan does not have a first-strike counterstrike ability, so if it suffers an external attack on its territory, the US armed forces would have to intervene militarily. However, the joint operations plan currently under consideration shows that the US has long since had its hands tied by Japan.
Tsai Zheng-jia is division head of the Second Research Division at the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with