On 17 December, Prime Minister Abe's Cabinet approved the National Security Strategy and two related documents on defence planning. Together they will determine the country's diplomatic and security stance for the coming decade. They do leave, however, a lot to be desired.
First and foremost they are not clear how to build better relations with China and DPRK. Are they going to be Japan's enemies, or otherwise, and if the latter, how to build meaningful communication with them. The documents describe them mainly as threats to our security. Foreign correspondents in Japan seem to be surprised that Abe does not want to have, and is not actually having, dialogue with China. It is not at all our dishonour to extend our hands to China, and even to DPRK.
To put it in a different way, we are saying that since China, or DPRK, has taken such and such a military measure, we have to do something to counter their move. Where is the diplomacy, then? The documents say that diplomacy has also its role to play. But have we let it play it? The other day Abe wanted the US Vice President to play a mediator between Japan and China, and Japan and South Korea. Despite the Vice President's effort the story collapsed. Apparently he had more serious business to attend to. Abe should have done it himself.
The US influence on Japan's defence thinking is as strong as ever in the documents. They make a clear reference to the US nuclear deterrence. What a dishonour for a country with tens of thousands of nuclear bomb victims to depend on the US nuclear deterrence! At the same time the documents are full of animosity toward China and DPRK, especially the former. The regional emphasis of defence as a whole will move to the southwestern Japan, with the formation of an amphibious unit modeled on the US Marine Corp, more destroyers, more fighter and reconnaissance planes to be based at Naha airbase, Okinawa, etc., which are all military in nature.
One more thing is that the documents call for loosening the existing restraint on arms export. After the Second World War nobody in any remote corner of the world has been killed by weapons exported from Japan and that is a really great achievement. The UN Secretary General at the press conference on 16 December highly evaluated the first ever treaty on the restraining the trade of conventional weapons signed in the course of the year 2013.
The Japanese people will strive to find a more peaceful way to cope with the tension in East Asia. At the same time we strongly wish China to give up their claim to Senkaku Islands, as it is a baseless claim spurred by the interest in natural resources in the area, and wish DPRK to give up their nuclear program, as it goes against not just one but more of the international treaties and communiques that they have signed. If they do so, the above documents will instantly lose most of their legitimacy. Who will have the honour of breaking the vicious circle?
First and foremost they are not clear how to build better relations with China and DPRK. Are they going to be Japan's enemies, or otherwise, and if the latter, how to build meaningful communication with them. The documents describe them mainly as threats to our security. Foreign correspondents in Japan seem to be surprised that Abe does not want to have, and is not actually having, dialogue with China. It is not at all our dishonour to extend our hands to China, and even to DPRK.
To put it in a different way, we are saying that since China, or DPRK, has taken such and such a military measure, we have to do something to counter their move. Where is the diplomacy, then? The documents say that diplomacy has also its role to play. But have we let it play it? The other day Abe wanted the US Vice President to play a mediator between Japan and China, and Japan and South Korea. Despite the Vice President's effort the story collapsed. Apparently he had more serious business to attend to. Abe should have done it himself.
The US influence on Japan's defence thinking is as strong as ever in the documents. They make a clear reference to the US nuclear deterrence. What a dishonour for a country with tens of thousands of nuclear bomb victims to depend on the US nuclear deterrence! At the same time the documents are full of animosity toward China and DPRK, especially the former. The regional emphasis of defence as a whole will move to the southwestern Japan, with the formation of an amphibious unit modeled on the US Marine Corp, more destroyers, more fighter and reconnaissance planes to be based at Naha airbase, Okinawa, etc., which are all military in nature.
One more thing is that the documents call for loosening the existing restraint on arms export. After the Second World War nobody in any remote corner of the world has been killed by weapons exported from Japan and that is a really great achievement. The UN Secretary General at the press conference on 16 December highly evaluated the first ever treaty on the restraining the trade of conventional weapons signed in the course of the year 2013.
The Japanese people will strive to find a more peaceful way to cope with the tension in East Asia. At the same time we strongly wish China to give up their claim to Senkaku Islands, as it is a baseless claim spurred by the interest in natural resources in the area, and wish DPRK to give up their nuclear program, as it goes against not just one but more of the international treaties and communiques that they have signed. If they do so, the above documents will instantly lose most of their legitimacy. Who will have the honour of breaking the vicious circle?
No comments:
Post a Comment