We should be concerned with the current state of US foreign policy. The very nation that has shaped and maintained the post-war international order now appears to be uncertain and indecisive in its policies in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere in the world. The wavering nature of Washington’s foreign policy cannot help but affect the complicated relationship between Japan and China as well.

　　　On November 23rd, China abruptly announced, without due regard to international law, a new air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea encompassing the disputed Senkaku Islands. Beijing declared that aircraft flying over the zone “should report their flight plans to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China or the Civil Aviation Administration of China…( and) abide by any instructions from the National Defense Ministry.”

　　　Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo, a senior naval advisor, was quoted as saying: “The Chinese government will expand similar air space over related territorial waters, such as the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea.”

　　　The US immediately protested the Chinese action. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan—and even the European Union—followed suit. There is a view that China was compelled to take such action because President Xi Jinping is not powerful enough to check hard-liners within the PLA. Closer security cooperation between Tokyo and Washington is all the more mandatory at this point, where China’s unstable domestic circumstances have the potential for creating an international crisis such as the recent designation of the new ADIZ. To nurture a solid alliance with the US in the Pacific, Japan must determine where President Obama’s foreign policy is headed, as well as what Japan’s own vision should be as both a reliable US ally and a responsible democracy in Asia.

　　　Let us review the instability of US foreign policy in terms of how Washington has dealt with Teheran. On November 24th in Geneva, a “Joint Plan of Action” regarding Iran’s nuclear program was agreed upon following four days of negotiations between Iran and six world powers—the US, Britain, Russia, Germany, France, and China. The agreement comprises two stages, the sole purpose of the first step being to prove that Iran is developing its nuclear program strictly for peaceful purposes.

　　　The second step, based on a satisfactory consummation of step one, is aimed at eventually lifting economic sanctions against Iran imposed by the United Nations Security Council, allowing the Muslim state to obtain nuclear technology for non-military use.

Iran’s Ultimate Goal: Acquisition of “Nuclear Weapons”

　　　The first step under the accord calls for Iran to voluntarily implement the following measures over the next six months:

　　　* Stop enrichment of uranium over 5%;

　　　* Dilute uranium enriched to 20% to no more than 5%, or divert uranium enriched to 20% to oxide uranium not linked with manufacturing nuclear weapons;

　　　* Suspend efforts to enhance enriching capability; in other words, not building of new centrifuges or enriching facilities;

　　　*No increase to the stock of enriched uranium, even at low levels;

　　　* Suspend the activities of the Arak heavy water reactor;

　　　* Allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

　　　Incidentally, if and when construction of the heavy water reactor in Arak in western Iran is completed, it will enable Teheran to extract plutonium that can be used for nuclear weapons. Theoretically speaking, Iran will then be capable of producing between 5 and 10 kilograms of plutonium—believed to be enough for one nuclear weapon.

In return for Iran’s pledge, the six nations, including the US, agreed to the relaxation of some trade sanctions for humanitarian purposes.

　　　How then did Iran react to the Geneva accord? Time magazine quoted President Hassan Rouhani, just back from Geneva, as triumphantly telling the press in Teheran that “the powers of the international community recognized Iran’s ‘nuclear rights.’” A significant reason for Rouhani’s delight, speculatedTime, was that the Geneva accord turned out be more generous to Iran than any of the past agreements with the UN.

　　　Indeed, not a small number of experts see a possibility of Iran resuming its nuclear program if push comes to shove.

　　　In fact, Gary Samore, who until early this year served as White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction under the Obama administration, is quoted as saying: “There’s no question that the Iranians are after nuclear weapons ultimately. Therefore, persuasion alone cannot sufficiently make Iran change its mind. Only by exerting strong pressure can we effectively prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear research and development capabilities.”

　　　In Israel, too, Iran’s peace overture is regarded simply as a ploy to seek relaxation of economic sanctions, with many Israelis believing that Iran “has no intention of ever quitting the nuclear program itself, even if it may be prepared to stop it one step before actually acquiring nuclear weapons.”

　　　This harsh Israeli reaction reflects the awareness that the very destiny of their nation is at stake. In an address at the United Nations General Assembly on October 1st, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decried Rouhani as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Iran has long vowed to exterminate Israel.

　　　Rouhani, considered a moderate, was actually quoted by Iran’s ISNA student news agency as saying on August 2nd: “The Zionist regime has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed.” But the agency later replaced Rouhani’s remarks with a new quote, which read: “In our region there has been a wound for years on the body of the Muslim world under the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the beloved al-Quds (Jerusalem).”

　　　Reports regarding Rouhani’s “real” remarks may be conflicting. However, doesn’t this incident attest to the fact that hatred for Israel runs so deep in Iran that the news of its president saying a nation “should be removed” was dispatched with no feeling of wrongness whatsoever? Iran, which entertains a bitter hatred for Israel, has over the past two decades circumvented monitoring by the international community to continue engaging in nuclear development. It is no wonder that Israel feels imperiled.

　　　Undoubtedly, Iran’s peace overture has resulted from the highly effective economic sanctions imposed by the UN.

Dialogue Alone Cannot Resolve Problems 

　　　The Iranian economy is in a shambles, affected by years of economic sanctions by the international community. Let’s look at Iran’s crude oil exports, which form the foundation of its economy. In 2012, exports dropped by 39% from the previous year—from 2,520,000 barrels to 1,520,000 barrels per day. (It further dropped to 1,060,000 barrels per day in the first eight months of this year.)

　　　Last year Iran’s foreign currency revenue from crude oil exports stood at US$69 billion—down 27% from a year before. The nation’s overseas assets, estimated to be worth around US$50 billion, are still frozen by foreign governments.

The value of the Rial against the dollar continues to decline, dropping from US$ 1.00= IRR (Iranian Rial) 15,000 in January 2011 to US$ 1.00=(almost) IRR40,000 at the end of 2012. Inflationary rates continue to climb—21.5% in 2011, 25.2% in 2012, and 40.1% during the January-September period of this year.

　　　The devastating state of Iran’s domestic economy prompted Iranians to question the government’s hard line toward the US, leading to the election of moderate Rouhani as president last June.

　　　In an attempt to accommodate nations opposed to or skeptical about the Geneva accord, President Obama took a step on November 29th aimed at keeping Iran’s crude oil export at their existing level, announcing an extension of penalties imposed in 2011 on foreign banking institutions doing business with the central bank of Iran, preventing them from further accessing the US financial system for the next six months.

　　　The limits of Obama’s foreign policy, aimed at resolving critical issues which dialogue alone can hardly settle, are sadly obvious. Japan must send a friendly message to the US that China is yet another country with which Washington could not possibly conduct a viable foreign policy by merely trying to promote dialogue in order to resolve major differences.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 586 in the December 12, 2013 issue of The Weekly Shincho)