US Gov. Setting Japan against China?

From a TIME magazine article:

In contrast to Seoul's gradual retreat from the U.S. strategic orbit, Japan is fast emerging as the lynchpin of the administration's Asia strategy. The administration has long pushed for Tokyo to relinquish the pacifism that has defined its postwar foreign policy, and Secretary Rice left no doubt that the Bush administration wants a more assertive Japan to balance and limit China's expanding influence. In a policy speech in Japan, she spoke of a ﾂ"values-basedﾂ" alliance with Japan and other countries around China designed to push it in a more democratic direction. Answering questions on the goals of a U.S.-Japanese alliance following a speech in Japan, Rice said ﾂ"it is our responsibility to try and push and prod and persuade China to a more positive course."

Promoting Japanese assertiveness is unlikely to improve U.S. relations with either China or South Korea. As far as Beijing is concerned, Japan has never apologized or atoned for the millions of Chinese killed by Japanese invaders during World War II, and the fact that Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi makes an annual pilgrimage to the Yasukuni Shinto shrine honoring, among others, Japan's wartime leader General Tojo — executed by the Americans after the war — has caused considerable alarm in Beijing. The atmosphere between the two countries is increasingly ugly, and when the U.S. in February concluded an agreement with Tokyo that defined maintaining security in the Taiwan Strait as a ﾂ"common strategic objectiveﾂ" for the U.S. and Japan, Beijing became alarmed at what it perceived to be an acknowledgement of a Japanese right to intervene on the Taiwan issue.

Seoul, too, is alarmed at the assertiveness out of Tokyo. President Roh warned, in response to Japanese claims on a set of disputed islets, ﾂ"We will now have no choice but to deal sternly with the Japan's attempts to justify its history of aggression and colonialism and revive regional hegemony.ﾂ" If North Korea can be coaxed back to a new round of six-party talks, they will take place at a table in which new tensions and alignments are increasingly on display as the region's players retool for a new strategic game in a region where China's economic growth has changed the political calculus.

Click to expand...

Anyone else asides from me that the push for Japan to redefine the role of the SDF might actually have been encouraged from Washington? Quite possibly even years in advance? The militaries are actually quite close, much closer in many instances than the US is with its more traditional allies with the exception of the UK and Canada.

I think the thing that is escaping me is how a more heavily armed and aggressive Japan is going to do anything to further U.S. interests in the region. I suppose I understand in principle how having a military build up in Japan would help ensure say, the stability of Taiwan or perhaps act as a further deterrant to North Korean craziness, but is it really something we should encourage? Infact I wonder if a Japanese build up would actually be deterimental to our long term goals by making it more difficult for China to seperate itself from an increasingly unstable North Korean regime.

Also, part of me wonders if this isn't an attempt to "play both sides against the middle". That is, preying on the fears other countries have of Japanese militarism. In such a situtation the U.S.A. (being Japans closest military ally) could "exert influence" to ensure everyone keeps playing nice. I guess the analogy I am looking for is that the USA would then be the man holding back the angry dog by the leash - This would have the effect of possibly actually increasing US influence in asia, albiet via proxy.

All in all, a pretty dangerous game, eh?

The principle behind the US policy is very simple. They are trying to be friend with everybody (Japan, China, Taiwan...), make business with everybody (and get rich out of the operation), try to keep the tensions between China and Taiwan (while selling arms to Taiwan and making business with China), keep the tensions between China and Japan, and even encourage Japan to re-arm and China to become stronger economically. At one point, China will become strong enough to attack both Japan and Taiwan, the US will say "it's none of our business" (while still selling arms to both countries) and watch them destroy each others while making sure it doesn't get out of control, then plan the reconstruction of all these countries as their "old friend" who brought an end to this terrible war.

Colonialist approach. The US governement have nothing to teach Europeans about it. That's self-evident, but the Chinese and Japanese won't see it coming as they are still deep into their petty rivalry and mutual misunderstanding.

What does the US get from that ? Plenty of money (arms and reconstruction, like in Iraq), and a better control on both Japan and especially China (which it fears).

A dangerous game indeed.

I definitely think that in the current state of affairs that Japan strengthening its military presence would be seen as a threat by the rest of E. Asia because of the whole WWII apology thing. I'm really not sure if an apology would be enough for Korea and China though- if they got one they might not be satisfied and demand reparations or something. I know it's a really touchy issue with alot of people in the area, but I think everyone would be better off if the subject was just dropped. Maybe an apology would solve everything, maybe it wouldn't do anything, but WWII ended 60 years ago and all those people are dead so I wish we could all just move on with our lives.

Now as for Japan strengthening the SDF, I could definitely see how that would be in the best interest of the US. The US military is spending way too much with its recent "excursions" into the Middle East and is trying to recall some of its troops from other parts of the world to compensate for it. If Japan's forces were stronger they could theoretically replace some of the US occupation there. So the question is, is a strong Japanese presence better than a strong US one? If you have to pick one, which would you choose? If US troops withdrew from Japan, would a stronger Japanese military be acceptable to East Asian countries, or would that just cause more problems?

Maciamo -

While I agree that the U.S. is not above playing foreign nations against each other to further its own national interests (And honestly, what government is?) - I do think that your view of the situation is faulty.

Just a few direct responses:

The principle behind the US policy is very simple. They are trying to be friend with everybody (Japan, China, Taiwan...), make business with everybody (and get rich out of the operation),

Click to expand...

Without a doubt economic concerns are chief amongsts the U.S. governments rational for participating in foreign policy. I'm an American and I don't deny that. However...

try to keep the tensions between China and Taiwan (while selling arms to Taiwan and making business with China), keep the tensions between China and Japan, and even encourage Japan to re-arm and China to become stronger economically.

Click to expand...

I don't think the first statement makes much sense. There is a long history of the Taiwanese being upset at the fact that they couldn't purchase the weapon systems that they wanted from Washington. Infact until around 1999 the U.S. government heavily restricted what types of armaments they would even allow to Taiwan in an effort not to antagonize the Chinese government. Even to this date there is a long list of items that are basically forbidden to be given to the Taiwanese. If it was the U.S. goal to simply sell arms to Tawain, then there would be a complete and total deregulation of military procurements from us - but thats not the case. The reason for this mostly is because China is actually a far larger consumer of US military exports than Taiwain is. It's my opinion that the (limited) weapon sales to Taiwan are more in the purpose of keeping up a face about supporting democracy abroad than an actual attempt to turn a profit. Fun fact: US put pressure on the EU to cut/curb weapon sales to China, and it worked! This is despite the fact that the US exports almost 3 times as many weapons to China as the entire EU does. I think you can see which market the U.S. really wants to protect.

At one point, China will become strong enough to attack both Japan and Taiwan, the US will say "it's none of our business" (while still selling arms to both countries) and watch them destroy each others while making sure it doesn't get out of control, then plan the reconstruction of all these countries as their "old friend" who brought an end to this terrible war.

Click to expand...

While I could see China attempting to take Taiwan by force, the idea that they would launch an attack against Japan is pretty ludicrous. To be completely honest I don't see China really doing anything more than sabre rattling over the next few decades even in regards to Taiwan. China quite frankly isn't stable enough, nor will it be in the near future, to withstand the economic repercusions of such an act. This has always been part of the U.S.'s long term strategy with dealing with China. Why do you think the U.S. supports so many economic initiatives in favor of the Chinese government? The logic is that a China that is economically dependant on trade is a China that is less likely to start an international confrontation. The U.S. basically never has to worry about China attacking it at this point - why would they risk such a thing? The economic fallout would kill more people than a war would.

I suppose it is difficult for many people to understand, but capitalism has been the U.S.'s weapon of choice ever since the begining of the Cold War. Every single barrier to globalization or world trade has been systematically dismantled in order to ensure the economic superiority of the U.S. as well as to ensure its safety.

This is why countries like North Korea cause so many problems for the U.S. - their isolationist nature and lack of international trade and markets make it difficult for our government to bring its most powerful arsenal to bear.

And as far as encouraging an Asian war would go - this would quite possibly be one of the most disasterous things that could happen in terms of U.S. long term goals. It doesn't take a major economicist to see how a major confronation in Asia would drive up energy costs, effectively crippling the U.S. economy. Our nation relies on having abundant access to cheap energy in order to maintain its economic superiority. If anything, the most threatening thing about China at this point is that they will put too much demand on the world oil markets and raise inflation here at home. A rise in inflation would cause the central bank to decrease the inter-institution short term borrowing interest rate (which our massive banking industry relies on) until the point where it couldn't be lowered anymore. Once that happened, you would see the stagnation of the U.S. stock market and an eventual stock collapse. For a country that has the majority of its debt held in treasury bonds overseas... well I think you can see where I'm going with this.

What does the US get from that ? Plenty of money (arms and reconstruction, like in Iraq), and a better control on both Japan and especially China (which it fears).

Click to expand...

Well, all I can say is I think this is wrong. I laid out my evidence above, I think fairly well. I stand by the assertation that any sort of large scale conflict in Asia would be bad for U.S. hegemony and I'm sure that the politicians (or atleast their strategists) are well aware of this.

Still, interesting topic.

Mal said:

any sort of large scale conflict in Asia would be bad for U.S. hegemony.

Click to expand...

One side of the coin tells me; benefits >> losses.

Short term gains

1. boosts arms sales which is exceptionally profitable, always
2. can declare martial law, tighten the borders, profile suspects of terrorism
3. divert public's attention from domestic problems
4. excuse to withdraw from Middle East
5. accuse dissidents of profiting the enemy, whoever that may be

Mid term gains

1. war industry
2. hostile atmostphere to pass laws restricting civil rights
3. crackdown on civil resistence
4. criminal org. members recruited as combatants reduce domestic crimes
5. reduced male population eases tension on the whole
6. deter women's rights movement including rights to abortion

Long term gains

1. war industry
2. a demolished/dimished Asian production capacity creates new jobs in US
3. reconstruction work opens opportunities to expand US influence, capital share, etc.
4. diminished Asian assault capability lending relative superiority to US
5. preventing any decisive victory, US is left with 1 less superpower to worry about
6. Brains drain into the US
7. One bloody step closer to the f-ing NEW WORLD ORDER. HAIL PAX AMERICANA !

Mal said:

The U.S. basically never has to worry about China attacking it at this point - why would they risk such a thing? The economic fallout would kill more people than a war would.

Click to expand...

Well argumented post, just 2 things which I don't support. I think, you underestimate the influence of ideology.

China may suffer economically from a conflict with Taiwan, but that wouldn't stop the hardliners in the CCP & esp. in the PLA from attacking in case of some (at this time unlikely) move of Taiwan in the direction of independence.

The Bush government already showed that they don't care so much about economy in general. As long as their cronies in the industry benefit, they'll probably try to advance their agenda.

Just a couple of points -

First off, people generally misunderstand the status of the American economy. Often they relate its economic strength in terms that they are familiar with. For instance, manufacturing production and jobs. Frankly, thats not an accurate view of the current situtation.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that if there was a war, America wouldn't have the potential to make some money in the defense sector. However, that sector as a whole represents such an tiny segement of the overall economy that any short or long term gains realized there would be negated in other sectors (namely energy trading and banking). The way I understand the stratification of the current economy is thus:

1) Financial Services
2) Energy Trading
3) Other services
4) Intellectual Properties
5) Manufacturing

Manufacturing (as a whole) occupies I believe less than 20% of the entire output of the economy and far less than the #4 position (Intellectual Properties).

The #1 segement (Financial Services) is the goliath of the American economy. Every single mark, frank, yen, peso, euro, etc, is going to flow at one point through New York. The industry requires a collosal amount of foreign capital to stay afloat. Basically they need investment money from overseas to continue to expand. Any sort of war in Asia would take two of the largest investors in American capital firms out of the loop - namely Japan and China. The U.S. needs those countries to continue to invest their money into the financial sector and any sort of war build up would make it far less likely they would have any money to spare to continue investing.

Thats why I don't see the practicality of wanting to encourage a conflict. Any small gains made in the smallest of U.S. sectors would be massively overshadowed by drop off in investment capital. Also the taxes collected by the U.S. government from the financial sector far overshadow what they collect from manufacturing. Infact, it could definately be argued (and is by several US economists) that the entire manufacturing sector is being subsidized by Washington.

Also to answer Bossel directly:

China may suffer economically from a conflict with Taiwan, but that wouldn't stop the hardliners in the CCP & esp. in the PLA from attacking in case of some (at this time unlikely) move of Taiwan in the direction of independence.

Click to expand...

Actually I do agree with you. The difference I think, is that I believe it would happen later rather than sooner. I don't think China is in the proper situation right now to embark on that adventure. In 20 years if they still haven't launched an attack, you'll owe me a beer ok? Otherwise I'll pony one up myself It's just one of those things that time will tell I suppose.

The Bush government already showed that they don't care so much about economy in general. As long as their cronies in the industry benefit, they'll probably try to advance their agenda.

Click to expand...

It's not that they don't care, its just that they care in a way that hasn't been proven to work. The economic policy that they are working on is centered around reducing the U.S.'s trade deficit via a weakening dollar. The problem with this is that focusing purely on the trade deficit is an outmoded idea. In principal it should be part of a comprehensive economic policy that also fosters growth in the service industry as well as increase in foreign investment. The problem is that we have too much debt out there right now, so its dilluted the value of buying any additional debt. Becoming an American creditor has gone from a compelling concept for foreign banks, to basically holding a bunch of nearly worthless debt - due to the weak dollar.

If the President and Congress could exercise some self restraint and actually lower the deficit, then the rest of their policy would work. You just can't weaken the dollar and create massive amounts of debt at the same time, the two things will snowball with each other.

And finally, Lexico -

7. One bloody step closer to the f-ing NEW WORLD ORDER. HAIL PAX AMERICANA !

Click to expand...

One step closer? I was under the impression that this had already been here for a while?

/joking! (well... sorta )

Mal said:

Every single mark, frank, yen, peso, euro, etc, is going to flow at one point through New York.

Click to expand...

Aprt that there are no more marks (and only swiss franks), I don't think more European money transit via New York that USD transitting in Europe. Very few Europeans care to put their money in the US, especially since the coming of the euro (and Bush acting as a repelent).

The industry requires a collosal amount of foreign capital to stay afloat. Basically they need investment money from overseas to continue to expand. Any sort of war in Asia would take two of the largest investors in American capital firms out of the loop - namely Japan and China.

Click to expand...

Here, on the contrary, I'd say more Japanese and Chinese people would place their money in the US or Europe. They are already doing it in Japan, with more and more people each year buying US, Australian and NZ dollars, euros, or pounds (mostly because an account in yen doesn't earn interests).

Mal said:

In 20 years if they still haven't launched an attack, you'll owe me a beer ok?

Click to expand...

When I was talking about China attacking Japan, I imagine more like in 30 or 40 years from now. But could be before if the tension rises with Taiwan, or a major earthquake levels down the Japanese economy, thus decreasing the economic gap with China...

Aprt that there are no more marks (and only swiss franks), I don't think more European money transit via New York that USD transitting in Europe. Very few Europeans care to put their money in the US, especially since the coming of the euro (and Bush acting as a repelent).

Click to expand...

My rhetorical flair caused me to use an anachronism Happens sometimes

Anyway, what the individual european cares to do with their money is almost inconsequential. The industrial speculators and investors are the ones that are directing the largest flow of capital. Anyway, no need to take my word for it. You can get a copy of the latest UNCTAD World Investment Report and see for yourself. This is a report put out every year by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. It has a ton of interesting facts, but is a little short on analysis.

Another thing to consider is that the US often is a brokerage house for global investment. Institutions from country "A" invest in US securities firm, then that firm turns around and invests in countries "B", "C" and "D". All the while taking a cut from the action. Thats why we say we have a service based economy here Ok that last sentance was a joke, but still it has a grain (or a handful of grains) of truth in it

Besides, you can't really have it both ways. If people want to assert that the U.S. is the largest economic power in the world, then they need to explain how this is. It's obviously not our manufacturing sector, or else we wouldn't be running such a huge trade deficit. Seems logical enough doesn't it?

When I was talking about China attacking Japan, I imagine more like in 30 or 40 years from now. But could be before if the tension rises with Taiwan, or a major earthquake levels down the Japanese economy, thus decreasing the economic gap with China...

Click to expand...

I don't think outside tensions or economic situations are that much of a factor in a China/Taiwan confrontation. I'm more apt to believe that the CCP has its hands full currently dealing with the political rammifications of the current stratification of wealth in the country. For a "Communist" country, the wealth gap is currently out of control. Also rapid expansion has put a huge strain on social services and infrastructure. Frankly without massive investment from outside sources (Namely the U.S. and Japan) China could find itself in the middle of a massive social upheaval.

Instead I believe the CCP is more likely to try to cool the economy down to a slower rate (this can be somewhat evidenced by their refusal to let their currency float - they still peg it to the dollar) as well as focusing more of their energies on keeping their social services network from disolving into a steaming pile of goo. I think they rightly identify income disparity as something that is aiming right at the heart of the dictatorship, if its not addressed sufficiently there is no telling what could happen.

The question then becomes, "How long will it take for them to get their house in order" and also "What exactly will the government look like when they're done".

In any case, its a very long term project and most likely precludes any efforts at doing anything other than "maintaing the status quo" in regards to outstanding issues like Taiwan.

Another interesting article on the Taiwan situation:

Massive anti-China march in Taiwan

Evidently the protesters were carrying U.S. and Japanese flags and errected large poster boards featuring President Bush and Prime Minister Koizumi.

A fairly blatant ploy to stir up anti-China sentiment in both the United States and Japan?

Mal said:

Evidently the protesters were carrying U.S. and Japanese flags and errected large poster boards featuring President Bush and Prime Minister Koizumi.

A fairly blatant ploy to stir up anti-China sentiment in both the United States and Japan?

Click to expand...

I don't think, there were that many protesters with US & Japanese flags. I watched the coverage on German TV & didn't see any.

Actually I do agree with you. The difference I think, is that I believe it would happen later rather than sooner. I don't think China is in the proper situation right now to embark on that adventure. In 20 years if they still haven't launched an attack, you'll owe me a beer ok? Otherwise I'll pony one up myself It's just one of those things that time will tell I suppose.

Click to expand...

Actually, we are on almost 100% agreement here. The only unknown is Taiwan. As it seems to me, the PLA would probably attack rather sooner than later if the Taiwanese government sets any distinct steps towards formal independence. Right now, I don't see this happening, esp. since the vast majority of the Taiwanese people obviously wants to keep the status quo.
But the future is uncertain.

We have a deal on the beer, though. Although I definitely wish for a peaceful future, since my further life is probaby closely connected to China.

Any Chinese-Taiwanese (/US/Japanese?) war would also have disastrous effects on world economy. Not only because of the financial markets directly connected to China, but also because of worldwide investor relations. Any conflict would probably set a downward spiral in motion which would make Black Friday look rather pale in comparison.

Actually, we are on almost 100% agreement here. The only unknown is Taiwan. As it seems to me, the PLA would probably attack rather sooner than later if the Taiwanese government sets any distinct steps towards formal independence. Right now, I don't see this happening, esp. since the vast majority of the Taiwanese people obviously wants to keep the status quo.
But the future is uncertain.

Click to expand...

Well I am split on this, from a strategic advantage it may benefit Taiwan to unilaterally declare its independance within the next few years. The key here is that economic concerns abroad would probably keep them relatively safe. But then again, its a toss up - hard liners are hard headed and they don't always make the best decisions. The best timing for such a declararation would be after a Japanese re-armament and around the time the Chinese government finally decides to let the yuan float instead of pegging it to the dollar. Any agressive action on their part would probably then cause their currency to crash due to market speculation (currency traders in a panic). At that point its just a case of what is stronger, ideology or economics. My money (ha!) would be on the economics. If this point in time is delayed even further out (say 10 to 15 years) I would be almost certain of it because of the ever increasing influence of business leaders amongst the controlling party.

Any Chinese-Taiwanese (/US/Japanese?) war would also have disastrous effects on world economy. Not only because of the financial markets directly connected to China, but also because of worldwide investor relations. Any conflict would probably set a downward spiral in motion which would make Black Friday look rather pale in comparison.

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with that. This is why despite being fiercly anti-communist I've always supported encouraging China to participate in global trade. Despite the hardship it creates in some corners of the world, I find it overall more pragmatic to bind the Chinese government into a situation of "economic mutual assured destruction". Think of it as an economic cold-war situtation and you'll understand my view on the matter.

I'm actually fairly optimistic that the situtation will work its way out in a peaceful way. I'm actually not even too concerned with the SDF positioning itself as a more aggressive (or potentially ) agressive force. The Japanese after all are just as invested in the regional economy as anyone else (infact, most likely more so!).

The only wild card in the situtation being of course Chinese hard-liners. However that seems to be a situtation that is correcting itself as time goes on (in my estimation anyway).