During a joint press conference with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House on March 10, President Barak Obama described as “nasty” the tone of the US presidential primaries, going on to state that he has “not contributed” to the nastiness himself.

　　　　　Responding to his remarks, The Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled “The
Obama Referendum” in its opinion page on March 16, criticizing the President for washing his hands of the tone of American politics “as if somebody else had been president the past seven years.”

　　　　　Obama is shutting his eyes, the journal claimed, to the fact that it is disappointment with his own policies that has led to the ugliness of the campaign and the appeal of candidates such as Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.

　　　　　The article reminded me of a specific case in Australia in which Obama indeed seems blind to the implications of the very strategy he himself implemented.

　　　　　The incident in question involves a $506 million agreement signed last October between the government of Australia’s Northern Territory and China’s Landbridge Group, which secured a 99-year lease of the port of Darwin in the territorial capital. The deal, in which the Chinese firm agreed to pay considerably more than all other bidders, stunned US and Australian military officials. Darwin is a vital strategic post the Obama administration selected in November 2011 as a bridgehead for the US marines—a crucial monitoring post designed to put a check on China in the South China Sea.

　　　　　Obama visited Australia at the time and delivered an address at the Australian Parliament, celebrating America’s new foreign policy. Known as the “Pivot-to-Asia,” the policy involves three key points: 1) The US will pull its troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, giving top priority to its commitment to Asia-Pacific security: 2) The US is a Pacific nation; and 3) American diplomacy is based on “core principles.”

　　　　　America’s announced commitment to these “core principles”—honoring international law and agreements, committing itself to freedom of navigation, and settling international dispute peacefully—were all intended as restraints on China.

Lacking Awareness of Impending Crisis

　　　　　Obama chose Darwin to enable the US to take specific action swiftly in case of emergency. For that purpose, the port of Darwin is ideally located to monitor and deter Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, and to expeditiously dispatch troops whenever necessary. Nonetheless a Chinese corporation was able to get its hands on this strategic spot, of all places.

　　　　　Judging from a statement on its homepage—“A strong enterprise does not forget to repay the country, while a profitable enterprise does not forget national defense.”—Landbridge Group can reasonable be regarded as inextricably linked with the Chinese Communist Party. In point of fact, the Canberra-based Australian Strategic Policy Institute refers to the company as being “guided by a powerful branch of the Communist Party of China. This 200-member body takes its orders—through a dendritic structure—from the central committee and ensures that the company acts in accordance with the party-state’s interests and strategies.”

　　　　　The length of the lease, as well as the group’s readiness to pay a high price for leasing a generally underdeveloped port area, suggests that the group signed the agreement with (China’s) national security, rather than commercial interests, in mind.

　　　　　Because Obama introduced the “Pivot to Asia” policy and chose Darwin as the US Marine stronghold designed to deter China, he ordinarily should have swiftly questioned the nature of the deal and objected to it. But he was quoted as having belatedly stated to his　Australian counterpart Malcolm Turnbull, whom he met in Manila almost a month after the Darwin deal was consummated: “Please let me know in advance the next time around.”

　　　　　When will “the next time around” come, if ever? Be that as it may, I feel that the “Pivot to Asia” is a powerful policy that has led a number of US allies in the Asia-Pacific region who had been losing trust in the US to renew their belief. Let’s not forget that it was Obama who devised and extolled this policy. Was it because the American leader failed to see through the seriousness of the Chinese actions in Darwin that he reacted almost nonchalantly with his “next time around” remarks? One wonders if he has become oblivious to the significance of this policy of his own making.

　　　　　The lack of the sense of impending crisis—or should I call it a lack of leadership—on the part of Obama leaves one with a sense of near helplessness. I believe Mr. Obama must bear in mind more stringently that China is actually flinging down a challenge to the US and that its leaders, with Xi Jin-ping at the helm, are desperate in their desire to prevail.

　　　　　In late November 2011, about a month after the Darwin deal was announced, it was the Chinese Foreign Ministry, not a private corporation, offering a new challenge to the US by announcing that consultations were underway with the Djibouti government over construction of a refueling facility there.

　　　　　Located at the base of the Somalia Peninsula, Djibouti is an east African state of vital strategic importance at the intersection of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The US has viewed Djibouti as a valuable information gathering post targeting the Arab nations across North Africa, as well as a monitoring station to put under surveillance the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea which are full of embarkation ports for strategic materials, including crude oil. Now, right in front of America’s nose in Djibouti, China is forging ahead with plans to build a stronghold in order to “enable (its) armed forces to better fulfill its mission and make new contributions to regional peace and stability.”

Establishment of Effective Control

　　　　　Off the coast of Somalia, the navies of a host of nations are joining hands in combating pirates. Their activities are carried out within the realm of international cooperation, but international cooperation involves an endless succession of delicate maneuvers, including competition as well as cooperation, and the collection and analysis of intelligence pertaining to partners. China is going all out to build a stronghold of its own in the proximity of the US military base watching over the three specific areas of extremely high strategic importance—the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and Strait of Hormuz. Clearly, this constitutes China’s bold challenge to the US—proof that a fierce battle is under way behind the scenes between the US and China.

　　　　　Holding up a dream of “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese race” and eager to magnify its control over the South China Sea, China has deployed HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island, the largest of the Paracel Islands, where land reclamation still continues. Similar missiles are expected to be deployed in the Spratly Islands sooner than later. Eventually, China will establish an effective ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) without announcing one in particular. China has been good at establishing effective control over territorial land and waters in this fashion.

　　　　　The US has countered the Chinese moves by deploying three B-2 stealth bombers. What concrete military action and deployment are required to discourage adversaries from reckless ventures? Both the US and China, as well as members of ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) grapple daily with this question in front of them, constantly driven to make harsh judgments. A difficult situation has been created in the international community, compelling the government and the people of all nations to earnestly recognize the harshness of international politics. Needless to say, Japan cannot be an exception. Despite the constraints of its constitution, Japan has entered a critical phase requiring its people to think hard.

　　　　　China never informs its people of matters of importance, keeping them under rigid rule. But under the oppressive administration of Xi Jinping, we have seen evidence of destabilizing factors beginning to accumulate. The disappearance of five journalists accused of having demanded Xi’s resignation, for instance, is drawing growing criticism from a wide range of the Chinese people.

　　　　　Hong Kong book sellers, Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, and human rights lawyers have all been detained and subjected to brutal treatment. Clearly, the leaders of China are increasingly losing touch with their people. Now is the time for us Japanese to bring into play our traditional principles and values—principles and values the complete opposite of China’s—as the source of our own true strength.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 698 in the March 31, 2016 issue of The Weekly Shincho)