The recent foreign policy of the Obama administration has been unremarkable, especially in terms of its posture towards Beijing. Against such a backdrop, the testimony made March 4th before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by Daniel R. Russell, Assistant Secretary in charge of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, was dramatic as he clearly laid out the direction the US apparently is determined to pursue in the Asia-Pacific region.

　　　Earlier, on February 5th, in testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee, Russell had clearly demonstrated US readiness to value Japan more highly—despite Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s controversial visit to Yasukuni Shrine in late December. Russell’s testimony this time, using a venue more influential and authoritative than its House counterpart, once more emphasized the importance of strengthening the US-Japan alliance while also sounding an alarm against Beijing. Conspicuous in Russell’s testimony was the direct manner in which he warned against the Chinese threat.

　　　Similar to his testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee, Russell declared that the US government “firmly” opposes “intimidation, coercion and the use of force” with regard to “behavior of states in connection with their territorial or maritime disputes.” He noted that the US is “concerned by an unprecedented increase in risky activity by China’s maritime agencies near the Senkaku Islands” in the East China Sea. He then took the trouble of adding: “The US returned administration of the Senkakus to Japan in 1972, and they fall within the scope of the US-Japan mutual defense treaty, particularly its Article 5.”

　　　While he did not specify to whom sovereignty over the Senkakus belongs, his remarks are tantamount to a recognition of the cluster of four uninhabited islands as indeed being Japanese territory.

　　　From Russell’s testimony, one senses the particular care the US is taking in dealing with Japan and South Korea simultaneously. For instance, in referring to the two Asian neighbors, Russell made sure he painstakingly put “South Korea” before “Japan” after referring to the two nations as “Japan and South Korea,” and vice versa, delivering a subtle message that the US has no intention whatsoever of putting one of them ahead of or behind the other in terms of importance, treating both of them equally as two of the US’s most valued Asia-Pacific allies.

　　　Frankly, it is surprising that the US is trying this hard to treat Japan and South Korea with kid gloves as they lock horns with each other. In doing so, the US obviously is trying much harder to pacify South Korea in the strained relations between Tokyo and Seoul over the past year or so. At the same time, one is rather put off by the realization that the Korean sense of rivalry and jealousy towards Japan is actually this intense.

　　　Diplomats pay particular attention to the words they use, and it is significant to note that the US State Department properly refers to the disputed islands in the East China Sea as the “Senkaku Islands”—not the “Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands” as the mass media, including the New York Times, generally call them. This is a further meaningful indication of the US position on the islands.

Remarkable Testimony by the State Department

　　　In his testimony, Russell further stated:

　　　– “We object to unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo　or advance a territorial claim through extra-legal or non-diplomatic　means”;

　　　– “Therefore we were also concerned by China’s sudden and　uncoordinated announcement of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea…”; and,

　　　– “One of the problems with the Chinese ADIZ announcement is that it purports to cover areas administered or claimed by Japan and　the Republic of Korea…”

　　　“Our concerns are amplified by the situation in the South China Sea, where we are seeing a similar pattern of coercive behavior, strident rhetoric, and ambiguous claims,” continued Russell. “This is an issue that senior Administration officials have raised directly and candidly with Chinese leaders.”

　　　This was remarkable testimony, coming from a State Department which more often than not has chosen to resort to appeasement in its policies towards Asia and the Pacific, demonstrating a weak posture in particular as regards its dealing with North Korea. The Russell testimony can credibly be viewed as a welcome reflection of Washington switching to a much more positive posture of attaching greater importance to its relations with Tokyo amid reports of alleged US displeasure with Japan—its close Pacific ally—over Abe’s Yasukuni visit.  In point of fact, sources close to the prime minister’s office stress confidently that US-Japan relations “are not shaky at all. Rumors that the US is angry with Japan over its view of historical issues are groundless.”

　　　Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida visited Washington last month, holding a series of talks with Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Reportedly, not a word was mentioned about Abe’s Yasukuni visit, or the “comfort women” issue. Instead, the talks focused on Abe’s “active pacifism,” the on-going Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, as well as China’s arbitrary establishment of its ADIZ, which Washington and Tokyo agreed to reject.

　　　On March 11th, the US and Japanese governments submitted a letter in their joint names to the secretary-general of the International Civil Aviation  Organization, headquartered in Montreal, Canada, objecting to China’s arbitrary decision to restrict international flights in a new ADIZ established unilaterally over the East China Sea outside China’s own air space. Initially, the US government had indicated it might take a softer line, agreeing to have foreign airlines submit flight plans of all aircraft passing through the controversial ADIZ to Chinese authorities, as China had demanded. However, Washington, working in tandem with Japan, has subsequently made clear its total opposition to China’s position.

　　　Tadae Takubo, Emeritus Professor at Tokyo’s Kyorin University and Deputy Director of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals (JINF), a private Tokyo think tank which I head, believes the Obama Administration has once again taken a step to attach greater importance to the US-Japan alliance, stressing that the “US anger with Japan,” which the Japanese media hotly wrote about, did not obviously have a lingering impact.

　　　How, then, will such a policy change on the part of the US government specifically be reflected in its national defense framework? Indications seen in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QAR), released on March 4th by the Defense Department, unfortunately do not allow much room for optimism.

Will Diet Debate Be Postponed—Again?

　　　Among other proposals, the QAR plan does call for deploying 60% of US Navy warships in the Asia-Pacific region—this despite a drastic military budget reduction made necessary by the large cumulative fiscal deficit. In this way, it is clear that Washington will pursue a policy of attaching greater importance to Asia by strengthening relations with Japan and its other allies in the region. However, a very key point is missing in all this.

　　　Yasushi Toyama, a member of JINF’s Planning Committee, declares the Obama administration has yet to figure out which nation represents the greatest threat to US national defense, noting: “The only nation the US defines as a threat to the Asia-Pacific in the QDR is North Korea. In doing so, the US fails to single out China, which has been intensifying its military provocations against Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, and other Asian nations in the East and South China Seas.”

　　　No matter how much reconciliatory rhetoric the State Department may use, the Defense Department has traditionally been very sensitive to the Chinese threat. And yet the Pentagon in the QDR dares not identify China when it actually constitutes the biggest threat not only to the Asia-Pacific region but to the US itself. China must certainly find such a weak-kneed posture on the part of the US most morale-boosting.

　　　China announced a 12.2 percent increase in its 2014 defense budget during the National People’s Congress convened in Beijing on March 5th. Thanks to its hefty defense outlay, which has increased 30 fold over the past 25 years, China is steadily forging ahead with reinforcement of its conventional and nuclear weapons, warships, fighters, as well as its cyber units. At this juncture, the US and Japan have combined military strength beyond China’s. But what about the future?

　　　There is, among the personnel of the Japan Coast Guard and the Japan Maritime Self Defense Forces charged with the defense of the Senkakus, concern about our national security in view of the growing Chinese threat. These men maintain that, with the US implementing drastic arms reduction and Japan resigned to precariously limit its national defense initiatives, it will not be  long before China catches up with the US and Japan. Some predict the US and Japan combined will only be able to maintain military supremacy over China for ten years—or less.

　　　It is obvious that Japan must immediately undertake what the situation calls for. Not only must we enhance our weapons and equipment, but also make every effort to enable us to exercise our right to collective self-defense in order to allow the US-Japan alliance to function fully.

　　　And yet there are rumors that that Diet debate on this crucial matter will again be postponed. An excessively cautious approach, forcing one to turn a blind eye to the harsh reality surrounding Japan, is precisely what will endanger the alliance, as well as our own future—an abominable posture that must be fought against at all costs.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 599 in the march 20, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)