Thomas F. Holt, Jr., CEME Fellow
Last week in Washington D.C., the U.S. Japan Research Institute convened a panel to discuss the relationship between the United States and Japan in a changing Asia. This session included participants from five major Japanese universities, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and lawyers from the firm of K&L Gates.
While the various panelists brought different perspectives to the topic at hand, there was agreement on one important fact, namely that the Asian Pacific region has become a very different and more dangerous place in the fifty years since the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security was signed by the U.S. and Japan. As if to underscore this point, the USJI meeting coincided with top-level military talks between North and South Korea that were being held in Panmunjom to discuss the framework for future dialogue between the countries in the wake of the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel and the shelling of Yeon Pyeong Island. These talks were abruptly halted when the North’s primary representative Colonel. Ri Sun Gyun suddenly walked out of the meeting.
While North Korea’s persistent belligerence poses an ongoing and potentially calamitous situation for the U.S. and Japan, China’s emergence as the world’s second largest economy and its increasingly robust military capacity was front and center in last week’s discussion at the USJI forum. Both the U.S. and Japan have reasons to be wary of China while at the same time embracing that country as a significant trading partner. China’s rise as a global economic power as well as other recent events involving China and its neighbors have prompted the U.S. and Japan to re-examine in a meaningful way their long standing relationship.
Recent tensions between the U.S. and China which include Washington’s insistence that the renminbi is undervalued, abiding concerns over the protection of intellectual property rights, and the objections to Chinese industrial policy, and the might (and presumed influence) of the Chinese military has thrust the U.S. - China relationship to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy discussions. Most, if not all of these issues also affect Japan. How the U.S. and Japan respond will inevitable affect geo-political realities in the Asian Pacific region for decades to come. Both countries begin this endeavor with a principled commonality based on their democratic institutions, free market economies, commitment to free trade and adherence to the rule of law. It should be recalled, however, that the U.S. Japan relationship has not always been free from tension. As we know from the trade disputes of the 1980’s “Japan, Inc.” was widely reviled by U.S. politicians and corporations. Nevertheless basic shared values allowed the two countries to reach accommodation and profitably coexist while cooperating on pressing global and regional issues.
China’s unveiling of a stealth fighter during Defense Secretary William Gates’ recent visit to Beijing, and the U.S. Navy’s acknowledgement of China’s ballistic missile threat to U.S. carriers in the Pacific are a reason for concern on the part of both the U.S. and Japan. Likewise, periodic rumblings from Chinese officials as they might choose to reduce their investment in U.S. Treasury Securities, while largely hollow, coupled with China’s effective embargo on the export of rare earth materials to Japan following the collision of a Chinese fishing boat with a Japanese military vessel have caused anxious moments in Washington and Tokyo, and suggest that China has contemplated using economic power as a strategic lever. In light of these recent happenings, it is no surprise that President Obama took the occasion of President Hu Jintao’s visit to Washington to remind all concerned that Asian and Chinese prosperity has greatly benefited from free trade as well as the stability provided by the presence of the U.S. military in the region. The U.S. and Japanese economies are enmeshed with that of China. As a consequence, powerful constituents in all three countries have a strong interest in maintaining stable relations. It is hoped that this interdependence will prove compelling and that differences can be resolved without threat of coercion or mercantilistic policies. A lot depends on it.