U.S. vows to defend Japan against China

Picture expired. US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) and Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida walk after their private bilateral meeting on Feburary 7, 2014 at the US Department of State in Washington AFP

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 18

    noriyosan73

    The USA taxpayer has been defending Japan since 1945. This story is nothing new. Japan needs to start an immediate deep water drilling program to pull out the valuable natural resources that the country needs for future growth. Do this now before China does it.

  • 8

    Dennis Duine

    Finally some good news. Although the fact that Kerry had to make guarantees kind of shows how far things have gone already. Let's hope it never comes to that.

  • -11

    sfjp330

    U.S. could just keep on saying ” hoping all parties adhere to international norms and seek peaceful solution". I would feel better if U.S. government went to Japan, India, the Philippines and Vietnam with the political courage and message: you are on our own.

  • -7

    CrazyJoe

    Although the U.S. is obligated to protect Japan under the U.S-Japan Security Treaty, it might be good for the U.S. to step back a little bit here. Japan did some things in the past. The music that they're going to have to face is a tune that they have to face alone.

  • 8

    sfjp330

    CrazyJoe Feb. 08, 2014 - 07:46AM JST it might be good for the U.S. to step back a little bit here.

    Same can be said for China. China's total trade between these two countries Japan, U.S. total approx. $800 billion annually, and in five years, it will be close to $1 billion. I doubt any of these trading partner wants to jeopardize their economy over a piece of rock.

  • 25

    Ryokai

    Kerry made this statement after Putin rebuffed China's request for mutual support on any island claims with Japan. This effectively isolates China politically on its Senkaku claim and reassures the US that Russia will not take a pro-China stance if a Senkaku fight does break out. This represents the victory of common sense and diplomacy over China's medieval demands.

  • 17

    OssanAmerica

    China's plan for victory by intimidation with Japan has failed completely, and in fact has brought Japan strategically closer to both Russia and India as well as the United States. Worse, for China, is that China's inability to subjugate Japan on the Senkaku issue will fuel resistance by the South east Asian countries that are in China's sights. More and more the game is looking harder for China's expansion plan hawks. So will China continue it's now pointless weekly ship intrusions, until it feels ready to take on the United States?

  • -4

    voiceofokinawa

    At the meeting Kishida brought up the Futenma issue, assuring Kerry that progress is being made to relocate the Futenma base to Henoko. Was Kerry satisfied to hear that, knowing undemocratic measures are being taken against the will of the Okinawan majority?

  • 6

    AlexNoaburg

    it's better for all parties involved including china if china doesn't take the islands. worry about your people, not about claiming territory.

  • 11

    Tom Thompson

    soft power china, look it up in Wikipedia no-one likes you

  • 10

    Peacetrain

    Good news.

    Now let's hope for two things. One, that Abe doesn't start baiting China and instead can start being diplomatic.

    And second, that China doesn't feel backed into a corner and start something in order to not be seen as losing face.

  • 10

    Tamarama

    Yes, China now finds itself further isolated from a suspicious and alert ring of neighbours. Their ham fisted diplomatic attempts to obtain allies for their expansionist designs, as well as their shrill bleating about the intentions and ambitions of their neighbours has backfired badly.

    China is not yet a mature, reliable, circumspect country, and their neighbours all know it.

  • -9

    Magnet

    So the question now is, if / when the time comes, will Japan accept help?

  • -11

    nostromo

    Now let's hope for two things. One, that Abe doesn't start baiting China and instead can start being diplomatic. And second, that China doesn't feel backed into a corner and start something in order to not be seen as losing face.

    Unfortunately that's been Abe's whole game.... once the US committed openly to Japan, Abe could easily ramp up the China baiting knowing that regardless of what he does, the US will back him.... Japan will never be the economic force it was 20 years ago and Abe and his mates want to nobble China before Japan becomes totally irrelevant in Asia... Abe only needs a confected military skirmish and then to sit back and watch the US whack China

  • -4

    Sam Huntington

    I would rather see Japan as a co-equal to the US rather than a dependency. No country in the Far East would be a better check against Chinese or North Korean bullying. Moreover, I would like to see Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Vietnam form a mutual defense pact. The reason for this is simple: the US is no longer a dependable ally.

  • 13

    sighclops

    China is out of control. I'm glad that Russia opted out of the debate, effectively leaving them on their own!

  • 12

    SamuraiBlue

    @aussie-musashi

    Discuss what may I ask? The only thing Japan is going to state is that the Senkaku is an integral territory of Japan.

    All bark and no bite.

  • 0

    Sensato

    *Now let's hope for two things. One, that Abe doesn't start baiting China and instead can start being diplomatic. *

    @PeaceTrain

    I fully agree. with the U.S. unequivocally vowing to defend Japan I think it likely that Japanese politicians will show even less concern about reckless rhetoric and behavior, knowing that the U.S. will come in and clean up the mess if a military conflict erupts.

    As it stands already neither Japan, China nor Korea are working very hard toward constructive diplomacy, this will likely make them even less apt to work toward more positive relations.

  • 1

    kcjapan

    "The United States voiced disappointment in December when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, known for his conservative views, paid a pilgrimage to the Yasukuni shrine which honors 2.5 million Japanese war dead including convicted war criminals from World War II. . . . Abe’s visit outraged China and also fellow US ally South Korea." - article

    Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is not helping Japan, South Korea or the United States.

    As Prime Minister, Abe has taken a deliberate, calculated and confrontational course of action. The Japanese People will pay a very high price, along with the rest of the Globe, for Mr. Abe's tactic if it all goes sideways.

    Surely, no one is amused at China's aggressive moves. Throwing sand in the dragon's face may feel empowering but Mr. Abe had best remember the numbers are stacked against a dangerous gambit that won't alter the dragon's path but might well lead him too quickly into frenzy. Pray for the world if that happens. Where is Diplomacy in Mr. Abe's skill set?

  • 8

    Gene Wheeler

    I really wish that all of the politicians in Japan, China and Korea would think a hell of a lot more before they say and do things. I'm an American who has been living in Japan for almost twenty years and I obviously love it here and love the country and it's people - with the exception of the politicians. Every time any politician of any affiliation visits Yasukuni, all I can do is cringe and wait for the inevitable (and legitimate) uproar from China and South Korea.

    Fighting over uninhibited rocks in the middle of nowhere seems pointless to me. Japan not facing up to what they did prior to and during the Second World War seems equally ridiculous. However, holding the current generation of politicians responsible for what happened 70 years ago seems pointless to me. My grandfather was, by all accounts, a real son of a bitch. By the logic being applied in this situation, I should be held accountable for his actions - which hardly seems fair to me since I never knew the man. I would hate to have the generations to come be expected to atone for the sins being committed by the current crop of politicians - and that includes the politicians in the states.

    It seems to me that until the leaders in all three countries ratchet things back a few notches and forget about the past and try to move forward in a positive direction that this game of insulting and being insulted by the words and actions of each other is only going to continue. I studied Asian history as an undergrad and I understand just how long the history and memories of the people in this part of the world can be, as well as just how important a sense of honor is, but that memory doesn't seem to be doing these countries any good these days.

  • 10

    Fox Cloud Lelean

    Well, if Japan had sat down and started talking with China over the Diaoyu islands, then Kerry wouldn`t have to give reassurances.

    Japan has offered to speak with China over the Senkaku Islands, and China has refused. This is China's issue. If they want the Senkaku Islands so badly, without using military force, they need to take it up with ICJ. However, China does not acknowledge ICJ's authority, they would not accept ICJ's ruling unless it was favourable, but most importantly: they know they don't have a leg to stand on. The Senkaku Islands are Japan's territory. It's the same with South Korea and Takeshima. The only difference is that South Korea took Takeshima by force and is refusing to return the island rightfully to Japan. They also avoid going to ICJ, knowing the ruling would be in Japan's favour.

    It's good to hear that the US will defend Japan against China. With Russia distancing itself from China as well, China has found itself backed into a corner, with only North Korea as an ally. They can either admit defeat, and save a slither of face, or they can provoke military action, and get beaten into submission, saving no face whatsoever. Tough choice for a moron. For a smart leader though, the decision is simple: peace.

  • 9

    ReformedBasher

    Unlike some countries I could mention, it's good that the US remembers and honours it's treaties.

  • 5

    Strangerland

    To resolve the dispute

    How exactly do you think this dispute will be resolved? They are at loggerheads. The Chinese say 'it used to be ours, give it back' and the Japanese are saying 'no, it's ours'. There isn't a compromise here.

    However, by agreeing to sit down for discussions, it gives credence to the Chinese claims that the islands are theirs. A foot in the door as it were. This will only complicate things, not solve them.

    The only solution to this dispute is adjudication by a 3rd party according to international law. Also known as the ICJ. The Japanese have said they will abide by an ICJ decision. The Japanese have no reason to file with the ICJ though - they already own the islands. It's up to the Chinese to make a claim to the ICJ. The fact that they have not is telling. It means they do not think that the decision will go in their favor.

    So if the Chinese don't have confidence that they have the rights to the islands, then why should the Japanese give them a foothold by agreeing to talks about them? It makes no sense.

  • 1

    Kabukilover

    This is all very nice, but do you feel like being in a war over a some uninhabited rocks in the ocean?

  • 6

    hidingout

    And second, that China doesn't feel backed into a corner and start something in order to not be seen as losing face

    How long do we have to tiptoe around worrying about the commies "losing face"? Who cares about their face.

  • -6

    Utrack

    until Japan releases the USA of the security treaty we are obliged to defend.

  • 3

    House Atreides

    The United States entered the Korean War to defend Japan, not South Korea.

    "The recognition that the security of Japan required a non-hostile Korea led directly to President Truman's decision to intervene... The essential point... is that the American response to the North Korean attack stemmed from considerations of US policy toward Japan."

    The US suffered over 33,000 battle deaths fighting North Korean and Chinese forces. It would be absurd to believe the United States would not continue to defend its interest in Asia given the sacrifices made securing those interests.

  • -1

    yosun

    The picture says all where John Kerry put his arm on Fumio Kishida's shoulder, that body language means both side regard each other buddy, and accept the US is elder/ higher one and elder brother pardons younger one who made some troubles lately, this is good news for Japan. However on the other hand, we didn't see and won't see, I think, China and the US would have this sort of body language because they see each other not so close and also in the same level, that means internationally the US, Russia, China, Euro are the Big Fours now so you never see leaders of these fours put arm on each others' shoulder. It's true you get higher you get more lonely.

  • 5

    tinawatanabe

    The United States entered the Korean War to defend Japan, not South Korea

    I've never heard of it. The action indicates US was defending South Korea from North and China.

  • -4

    The_True

    U.S. vows to defend Japan against China

    But if is Russia, then you on your own Japan! just like Georgia, remember guys? OH!! and remember how the US backdown when the Russian put they food down and send those war ships to the Mediterranean?

  • 4

    JoeBigs

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry vowed Friday that the United States would defend Japan against attack including over islands claimed by China as tensions boil between the Asian powers

    If this isn't plain or simple enough for Communist China and it's allies here, well then you and it will never get it anyways.

    Communist China and it's supporters want the U.S. to leave Asia so it can destroy and plunder every nation. But, luckily the U.S. hasn't forgotten it's responsibilities to it's friends.

    aussie-musashiFeb. 08, 2014 - 12:42PM JST Really? Do you have a supporting link? How can they, when they dont even recognise the existence of a dispute?

    And as usual the pro-Communist lobby strikes. To counter your so called point the only folks that think there is a dispute are the thirsty for oil Chinese.

    They didn't have a dispute over the sovereignty of the islands until natural resources were discovered there in the late 1960. After that, Communist China draped a flag over the islands and cried crocodile tears.

    Their only dispute is that they want what is under those rocks, nothing else.

    aussie-musashiFeb. 08, 2014 - 09:43AM JST Well, if Japan had sat down and started talking with China over the Diaoyu islands, then Kerry wouldn`t have to give reassurances.

    The more you harp your tune,the more folks see through your tales.

    Again, Communist China didn't have a dispute with Japan's ownership of these rocks until oil and other natural resources were discovered.

    After that China cried a river of lies and claimed the rocks was a long lost family member.

    sfjp330Feb. 08, 2014 - 07:35AM JST I would feel better if U.S. government went to Japan, India, the Philippines and Vietnam with the political courage and message: you are on our own.

    Translation, you want Communist China to have a free hand in the conquest of all neighboring nations.

    Sorry, that will never happen, freedom will always be protected against the tyranny of Communism and Fascism.

  • 4

    Łukasz Kania

    But if is Russia, then you on your own Japan! just like Georgia, remember guys? OH!! and remember how the US backdown when the Russian put they food down and send those war ships to the Mediterranean?

    What are you on about, it's highly unlikely Russia will do anything to Japan right now.

  • 2

    techall

    Well I hope the U.S. defends Japan better than they have with our other allies, overseas diplomats and people who look to us for help lately.girds, banking facilities

    China would not start a shooting war with Japan but they will make cyber attacks and shut down power girds, banking facilities, communications etc., how is the U.S. gonna help then?

  • 2

    Utrack

    **The Security Treaty **

    The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan (日本国とアメリカ合衆国との間の相互協力及び安全保障条約 Nippon-koku to Amerika-gasshūkoku to no Aida no Sōgo Kyōryoku oyobi Anzen Hoshō Jōyaku?), also known in Japan as Anpo jōyaku (安保条約?) or just Anpo (安保?) for short,[1] was first signed in 1952 at the San Francisco Presidio following the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco (commonly known as the Peace Treaty of San Francisco) at the San Francisco War Memorial Opera House. Then, the Security Treaty was later amended further on January 1960 between the US and Japan in Washington.

    When the Treaty was first signed, it contained amendments that permitted the United States to not only act for the sake of maintaining peace in East Asia, but also permitted the United States to exert its power on Japanese domestic quarrels. The latter part mentioned has been deleted in the revised version of the Treaty. In the amended treaty, articles that delineate mutual defense obligations, the US obligations to pre-inform Japan in times of the US army mobilization were included to alleviate unequal status suggested in the treaty signed in 1952.

    [2] The treaty established that any attack against Japan or the United States perpetrated within Japanese territorial administration would be dangerous to the respective countries' own peace and safety. It requires both countries to act to meet the common danger. To support this requirement, it provided for the continued presence of U.S. military bases in Japan. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.

    [3] This treaty has lasted longer than any other alliance between two great powers since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.

    [4] The treaty had a minimum term of 10 years. However, it provides that it will remain in force permanently unless one party gives notice that they wish to terminate it. Upon such notice, it is meant to terminate one year later.

    Contents

  • 5

    hkitagawa

    I'm happy to see that EUA is in the Japanese side and also hope that Russia will do the same. China is not only dangerous to Japan and all countries in Pacific but also dangerous for Russia in a long term.

  • 1

    yosun

    No war would happen if Japan keeps feeling comfortable to be a second class country which is protected by another one. Anyway I think you don't understand Mr. Abe if you think his goal is such low.

  • 7

    tyvtgo1US

    In any event, Japan needs to push forward with the revisions of Article 9 in their constitution because there is no end in site on China's military expansion. Which will only make China feel more empowered if others do not keep their sites on their own military capabilities added to that of the US. Including TAIWAN! And to add to that .. referring to a post above>>>.

    sfjp330 U.S. could just keep on saying ” hoping all parties adhere to international norms and seek peaceful solution". I would feel better if U.S. government went to Japan, India, the Philippines and Vietnam with the political courage and message: you are on our own.

    This is where I would tell the others along with Japan, India, the Philippines and Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, with the political courage and message, you can be with us and we will combine our forces and keep the South China sea and East China sea free for all to navigate and come together in consensus on rules and behavior under international laws! Again over whelm the areas and seas with numerous ships from all countries. China is using power in numbers, well all together China stands no chance!

  • -3

    BertieWooster

    U.S. vows to defend Japan against China

    How do you spell "raspberry?"

  • -1

    kaimycahl

    @aussie-musashi All bark and no bite.

    If you continue to back an ANGRY DOG IN A CORNER EVENTUALLY that dog will bite. I see bombs flying if this is the continued attitude of both countries their is just too much animosity with neither wanting to back down. This is the pre- cursor to WWIII where the US getting dragged into to fight this war.

  • -3

    hampton

    The USA also told the UK it would stand behind Britain if attacked, right up until the start of the Falklands War. The US never fights strong countries, especially not ones with nuclear deterrents. It couldn't even win fights in places like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghan last time I checked. The US has also done nothing about North Korea, just sat back and watched as the Kims developed nuclear bombs. All talk and no action.

    China knows she is not strong enough to fight USA, not even Japan, Taiwan or Korea. I don't think attacking is China's intention anyway. The US will not stop China's incursions into Japanese airspace, and if Japan starts shooting first believing the US will risk a trade war or nuclear war with China, Japan might find out how valuable America's words truly are when oil is not involved.

  • -7

    heynong

    US vowed! US warned! US concerned!

    It has been so sweet for my ears for many years now. To be honest I do not take then seriously. When John Kerry campaigned Presidential election, he told George Bush Bring them on.

    Karl rove who was in charge of Bush campaign downplayed Kerry as flip- flopper. At the end, Kerry lost the election.

    Kerry should start blocking PRC planes and ships like Gulf war for designated area. If he will not, it is the marketing for sale instead of direct intervention. If the e whole Japan buy his words, Sun Goddess will descend over NHK station for making state of union speech.

    It is time for action. Not more talks!

  • 5

    Strangerland

    It is time for action. Not more talks!

    It's never time for action, and always time for talks. War is never acceptable, and is a result of people who are too weak to talk it out.

  • 4

    StormR

    So China got 2 bits of bad news recently, first that Russia ain't interested in their gum flapping and secondly any military action directed at Japan as a result of their gum flapping will be met with force from the USA, nice to know Japan does have some friends as china isolates itself more and more.

    The world got along fine before china came onto the scene and I am sure the world will still spin if china goes into isolation again.

  • 1

    nadki8

    Beneath senkaku is full if oil. China and japan wont fight because for a piece of rock. I think japanese is smart but low EQ same applies to China. At the end biggest losers are Asian diginity. An idiot! Great laughing stalk for the western world. Asian will never be superpower. So.short sighted! The biggest winner is USA!

  • -3

    Asian2013

    Since 2 big powers are ganging up, then China better build up more militarily before these 2 try to contain China again. If there is to be any fight, it should be fair. China has suffered enough since 100 years ago. Hopefully the US and Japan do not make noise when they hear that China is spending militarily!

  • -3

    mmwkdw

    Why does Japan's claim to the Islands which are so far away make any sense ? Aren't they actually closer to the Philippines ?

    Wouldn't it be better to put these uninhabited Islands under International Waters consideration and share equally (or in proportion to distance from mainland whatever resources are found there) ?

    The Japanese Imperialistic History does have some significance here, and it will pose a rather interesting 'Political' issue should a conflict arise - so best to avoid it... or stay clear from the matter.

    Personally, I feel that the general populace just doesn't care, and just wants to get on with their jobs without the meddling of Politicians. Though without jobs, this does make them easy prey for those more manipulative Politicians who wish to stir up trouble. I think we all know this is a Natural Gas/Oil resource grab issue, and the stakes are high for Japan - particularly without its Nuclear Power - so the matter should point more towards an International settlement.

    If they can't decide amongst themselves then ... how about a crowd-sourcing venture to repurchase the islands from Japan ( in order to allow them an 'escape-clause' from their present dilemma), and then setup the first Internet-owned Country/Company/Nation...

  • 3

    OssanAmerica

    rsgz4gg7y2Feb. 09, 2014 - 04:28AM JST Kerry's comments are designed to make Japan feel better, more content under the American umbrella. Clearly the Americans see the trend Abe's government has been pushing to strengthen up Japan's military with more >funding etc is a sign that Japan is losing faith in the Americans to protect them.

    Don't you ever tire of posting propaganda for the purpose of splitting the alliance? The United States is behind Japan's military strengthening. "On October 3, 2013, the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee (SCC) convened in Tokyo, with the participation of both the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and Japan’s Ministers for Foreign Affairs and of Defense. On the occasion of this historic meeting, the SCC reaffirmed the indispensable role our two countries play in the maintenance of international peace and security and reconfirmed our Alliance’s commitment to the security of Japan through the full range of U.S. military capabilities, including nuclear and conventional. The two sides also set forth a strategic vision that, reflecting our shared values of democracy, the rule of law, free and open markets, and respect for human rights, will effectively promote peace, security, stability, and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region." http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/10/215070.htm

  • 2

    JoeBigs

    StrangerlandFeb. 08, 2014 - 11:16PM JST It is time for action. Not more talks! It's never time for action, and always time for talks. War is never acceptable, and is a result of people who are too weak to talk it out.

    A wise Commander looks to talk out his problem and ignorant one wont sit down to talk. How many times has Japan offered to talk and how many times has Communist China said no?

    rsgz4gg7y2Feb. 09, 2014 - 04:28AM JST Kerry's comments are designed to make Japan feel better, more content under the American umbrella.

    No, the U.S. has been saying the same thing time and again. These words were not meant for Japan these words were meant for Communist China.

    The question is, is Communist China and the PLA listening?

    rsgz4gg7y2Feb. 09, 2014 - 04:28AM JST Clearly the Americans see the trend Abe's government has been pushing to strengthen up Japan's military with more funding etc is a sign that Japan is losing faith in the Americans to protect them.

    Come on, if you actually believe this then you haven't been reading many papers and books. For years the U.S. has been trying to get Japan to rid itself of Article 9 and then arming up with good ole fashioned U.S. built weapons.

    But, Japan didn't want to because there weren't any real threats in the area. But in the last 14 years Communist China has changed all that. Since 2000 Communist China has built up it's military from a domestic controlling one to one that is very aggressive against it's neighbors.

    And thankfully Japan took note and now under this responsible government has started to remove Article 9 so they can defend themselves even more against Communist China.

    rsgz4gg7y2Feb. 09, 2014 - 04:28AM JST Such push will lead Japan to become more and more independent of the US. That's not what the Americans want.

    Japan has always been independent, you have made an error thinking that the Japan-American alliance was like the Communist China-North Korea one.

    Let me mention, Japan's military is very good already, it's troops are highly trained and equipped. But, now imagine a Japanese for that is larger and even better equipped. They would be an even better ally to the U.S. and that is what the U.S. wants.

  • 2

    Athletes

    It's never time for action, and always time for talks. War is never acceptable, and is a result of people who are too weak to talk it out.

    If talks can solve every conflict, Middle East problem has been solved long ago. However all talks have been going nowhere there. US has been mediating them for many decades. On the other hand, US is selling weapons for profits. US Weapons manufacturers will be unemployed if everyone is talking without action. For the sake of that industry, more actions and less talks.

  • 6

    Fox Cloud Lelean

    How can they, when they dont even recognise the existence of a dispute?

    Japan does recognise the existence of a dispute, but China is unwilling to discuss the matter in a civilised manner, so Japan says that there is no dispute. If China took the matter up with ICJ, Japan will agree to settle the debate.

    I find it ironic that the situation with Dokdo is in the reverse. It is Japan (who seems to have forgotten it colonised South Korea for 35 years) that`s demanding the return of Dokdo. Yet if Japan refuses to recognise a dispute over Diaoyu, why should South Korea over Dokdo?

    Because South Korea occupied Takeshima by force. It's not the same as the Senkaku debate, which is two countries arguing over uninhabited islands. If Argentina occupied the Falklands by force, Britain would demand their return. It's exactly the same. Takeshima is the sovereign territory of Japan (and so are the Senkaku Islands), just as the Falklands are the sovereign territory of Britain. Just as Argentina rattles the sabres with Britain over the islands to distract its people from their corrupt government, so too does China rattle the sabres with Japan over the Senkaku Islands to distract its citizens (and indeed the world) from China's atrocious Human Rights violations and toxic pollution levels. Let me reiterate: Japan doesn't refuse to recognise a dispute over the Senkaku Islands. China refuses to deal with the situation diplomatically, so there is no point in saying that there is a dispute. Since China is the claimant, it is up to them to take the matter up with ICJ, but they refuse. Hence, no dispute. The Senkakus are Japanese, China is just claiming otherwise without evidence. South Korea should recognise a dispute. In the Takeshima case: Japan is the claimant. They want to take the issue up with ICJ, but South Korea refuses. That is the difference. Both South Korea and China are in the wrong however, and they are making it next to impossible for there to be peace in the region.

  • 3

    25psot

    Small conflict in Sought China sea could get out of control and turn in to major war and if US and Russia would get involve it could become third world war so better never happen and may all people live in peace.

  • 2

    KnowBetter

    Not giving China any credit for 'smarts' but even dumb moves could pull everyone in the area into an all out war at least a serious scare.

    Lately, we've heard next to nothing from China's stinky, little, yappy, lapdog, North Korea. How odd it would be now if all of a sudden that yappy little dog came running out onto street, trying to bite at anyone in sight. Not saying it would happen but it would not be far from the crap that China does within its own borders to distract its own people from its governing responsibilities that it might nudge NK stir the pot internationally to distract everyone including the Chinese long enough to hopefully let them forget that their mighty Chinese government got slapped in the nads by the international community and was told to stop it and smarten up. Again, I don't think China would be smart enough to be that stupid. At least I hope...

  • 1

    tyvtgo1US

    mmwkdw Why does Japan's claim to the Islands which are so far away make any sense ? Aren't they actually closer to the Philippines ? Why did you not say....Why is China taking claim to seas and islands which are so far away in the South China seas, Aren't they closer to Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei. I mean really!

  • 0

    EthanWilber

    Gene Wheeler, You have been “vetted” as an American who lives in and loves Japan since you understand America and Japan by noticing the gaps in between alike those who are obviously blinded by their native nationalistic feelings). :) Okay, put joke aside. I agree with you on two accounts a. politicians in C.J.S apparently are locked in a historical mentality which restricts them to look over the immediate political environment to see things in the future. b. to shed people’s blood for few tiny remote islets are absolute ridiculous But I am going add one more point -the US is unlikely to depend those rocks even Kerry said it so in a choreographic diplomatic move.

    Granted, Japan is very important American ally in Asia to counter China’s rise, Kerry wanted to reassure Japan that the American’s stance is still same as before in terms of the defense treaty. But looking beyond the vow, Japan should not put itself in a false sense of security and thus miss the real opportunity.

    Here is the thing: The likelihood for Obama to start a war during his tenure is next to impossible.

    Let me take a page off from the American playbook to show you what would lie ahead.

    Does anyone here remember last year’s Syria crisis? At the last minute of an inevitable American military action, Obama took a walk for about an hour with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough on the White House grounds and then he suddenly decided to ask Congress to approve the strike. Please note, Obama made his decision without any inputs of his two major war salesmen, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. Then, both of two dept-heads were working around clocks to convince the media outlets, American public, US Congress and American major allies (UK, Germany, France, Israel, Turkey …) for its necessity of maintaining the rea-line. In the end, the war hype fizzled along with Kerry and Hagel’s credibility inside and outside of the US. The key point is that apparently Obama did everything (looks like he will do) in his power to disengage the U.S. from wars within his tenure. Furthermore, his cabinet seemingly didn't even have an option on the table for Obama to take it for real. Now, if Obama could not get UK and the US congress on the board to strike Syria, anyone has the confidence that the US will fight for few piece of rock for Japan with a country in which American has the largest investments outside of the US. People may what about the tready, Technically speaking, Obama can ask the US congress to modify the defense treaty. Personally, I think that is not a savvy move. Nut you never know.

    On the American Asian foreign policy playing field, carefully scripted talking points, smiles and handshakes in front of cameras are just a part of “foreplay” for seving media feeding frenzy; yet the real American stakes on the complex issues would carefully mapped out and dealt with in the closed doors with few involved.

    Please don’t make too much of Kerry’s statement, even Japan major news paper smells something different. Ref: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/world/news/20140208-OYT1T00963.htm?from=ylist

  • 0

    Ting Zhao

    In helping the Japanese people we trust - by John Kerry .

  • 1

    Fox Cloud Lelean

    Why does Japan's claim to the Islands which are so far away make any sense ?

    Does Britain's claim over the Falklands make sense to you? DIstance is not a factor. The fact of the matter is, Japan can prove sovereignty over the Senkakus, and the same with Takeshima. Senkakus are uninhabited, and until the UN discovered valuable resources arount there, were completely ignored by China. China raised no complaints when it signed the Friendship Agreement in 1965(?), which they then reaffirmed in the 70's. But, the moment resources were found, all of a sudden China has a problem. Takeshima was settled by the Japanese for some time, before South Korea invaded it by force and illegally occupied it. Both of these are far from Japan, but they are still Japanese, just as the Falklands are British.

  • -2

    zaldaus

    @Gene Wheeler

    "My grandfather was, by all accounts, a real son of a bitch. By the logic being applied in this situation, I should be held accountable for his actions - which hardly seems fair to me since I never knew the man. I would hate to have the generations to come be expected to atone for the sins being committed by the current crop of politicians - and that includes the politicians in the states."

    As much as you may think it is unfair, it works both ways. You gladly share in the goodwill of people if it stems from your ancestors' good fame, for example, don't you? And you don't turn down that good will, saying "I never knew those people, judge me only by what I do myself", right? Besides, the comparison here is not correct. We are talking about such entities as nations, not individual people. And national memory is amplified millions of times compared to an individual. Good and bad actions will have dire consequences in the minds of the beneficiaries or the victims for many years to come.

    Like it or not, your ancestors/predecessors' actions have a great impact on how you are perceived. That is true on both levels, but much more so on the national level. And yes, there is such a thing as national responsibility. This is why Germany is still feeling guilty and trying to make amends.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Politics

View all

View all