Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's recent state visit to the United States, though largely lauded by US media, there were much concerns in the home fronts on the geopolitical perception undermining Japan's pacifism posture whilst also needlessly inflaming tensions with China. It is said that Japan needs to prioritise strategic 'bridge making' diplomacy (eastasiaforum, May 2024) than hugging too close to a hegemonic hulk, (see firestorms, US military bases and hegemonic hubris).
Indeed, Kishida’s framing of regional security is too closely aligned to the United States, thus swaying uncomfortably Japan strategic positioning between the United States and China’s rising geopolitical status.
In fact, Kishida’s speech to US Congress, with an intoned expression of Manichean-type conflict between ‘democratic’ and ‘authoritarian’ states only reflected the General of NATO’s statements which risks in furtherance tensions - being a member of the NATO-looking-east QUAD - with China.
The April 10 2024 Kishida-Biden joint statement reiterated U.S.’s unwavering commitment to Japan’s defense (see also Barack Obama April 2014 statement; Donald Trump, 2017, and Joe Biden, 2021 statements) under Article V of the US-Japan Security Treaty, using its full range of capabilities, including nuclear. POTUS also reaffirmed that Article V applies to the Senkaku Islands.
However, in the South China Sea, China and Taiwan lay sovereignty claim over the islands, though Japan rejects the existence of a territorial dispute, (read sovereignty-of-the-south-china-sea).
The U.S. government acknowledges the administration by Japan over Senkakus but has taken no position on who has sovereignty over the islands (see document titled The Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Dispute: U.S. Treaty Obligations, published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and updated in 2021).
The Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry has had misleadingly explained that the US-Japan Security Treaty requires the U.S. to defend Japan under an armed attack. The Defense Ministry uses ambiguous expressions; therefore, Tokyo hasn’t told the truth to the public (Reiho Takeuchi, 2024).
June 2022, Japanese Representative Nobuhiko Isaka asked the Prime Minister four questions about Tokyo’s understanding:
1. If Japanese territory is attacked, will the U.S. military automatically defend Japan?
2. Will the U.S. military defend Japan after Congress approves it?
3. If the U.S. doesn’t dispatch its military and only provides the Japanese Self-Defense Force with weapons and ammunition, does the U.S. observe Article V of the Security Treaty?
4. What is the U.S.’s obligation?
However, the then Japanese Prime Minister, avoided answering. He only said that he “believed the U.S.” would fulfill its obligation under Article V, (Takeuchi, 2024, op.cit.).
Article VI of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty while describing the purpose of the U.S. military presence in Japan, only works as a deterrent.
The wholesome truth is whilst Japan’s National Defense Strategy, decided by the December 16, 2022 Cabinet, only set an objective that “should deterrence fail and an invasion of Japan occur, to rapidly respond to the invasion in a tailored and seamless manner; (but) to take primary responsibility to deal with the aggression; and, while receiving support from the ally and others, to disrupt and defeat the invasion”, solely.
Publications posted during the week:
1] Chinese Cosmopolitanism - the history and philosophy of an idea, A Book Review by Alex Lo;
2] We are not yet Winning - but they are losing, Progressive International;
3] Breaking the Debt Supercycle, an IMF blog by Atif Mian;
4] Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - repressing the media and political opposition, Progressive International Observatory;
5] On China's Overcapacity - sufficiency production to change the world, Zheng Yongnian (郑永年);
6] MOMENTUM #199;
7] FRIDAY FILES 17/05/2024.
Thank you very much for reading essays and browsing through situational events On Geoeconomics.
with solidarity,