Archive for the ‘Japan’ Category

The State of the US-Japanese Alliance

January 21, 2010

This week, three similar articles about the state of the US-Japanese alliance were published in major newspapers (two in The Economist and one in the New York Times), and in each piece  the authors argue that the relationship between the two nations is on the brink of major deterioration.  They cite the dispute over the relocation of the American airbase on Okinawa and the strengthening ties between Japan and China as key reasons for the supposed breach.  They note the fact that Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has thus far sought more independence from Washington than his predecessors; last September, his Democratic Party took power from the Liberal Democratic Party, which had ruled the country for 53 years.

These analysts exaggerate the threat of a permanent rift between the long time allies.  The US and Japan still have major strategic interests in common, and the benefits that Japan derive from the relationship mitigate against a political divorce.  America remains the primary guarantor of security and stability in East Asia because of its military, economic and diplomatic clout.  The Treaty of Mutual Co-operation and Security enables Japan to spend less on defense and more on social programs, and it removes the impetus for the country to develop a nuclear deterrent against other regional powers who have the Bomb, including China and North Korea (the US also assists Japan with missile defense systems).  On an economic level, a falling out between the close trading partners would encourage protectionist policies in the US which would further hurt Japan’s relatively stagnant economy.

Although America and Japan disagree on some issues and many Japanese would like to assert more independence from Washington, it is highly unlike that the government in Tokyo would allow the alliance to fall apart because doing so would not serve its interests.  Domestic politics complicate the Futenma airbase problem for Mr. Hatoyama and it is unclear how it will be resolved, but when it comes to the big picture his political fortunes, and those of his party, will be jeopardized if he repeatedly pursues policies that alienate the US and undermine his country’s security and economic position.  American policymakers certainly need to pay attention to Japan’s concerns and keep relations as amicable as possible because the US benefits greatly from the trans-Pacific partnership; but people should not fear the dissolution of one of the strongest alliances in the world anytime soon.

Advertisements

China Accused of Launching Cyberattacks

January 15, 2010

Today, the New York Times published an article by David Sanger and John Markoff in which they discuss cyberattacks against Google that were allegedly launched by Chinese hackers who were probably supported by the Chinese government if the allegations are true.  The reporters speculate that the intruders were trying to do one of the following things:

1. Gain commercial advantage.

2. Insert spyware.

3. Break into the email accounts of Chinese dissidents and American experts on China who frequently exchange email messages with administration officials.

Other technology companies might also have been targets, including Yahoo, Symantec, Adobe, Juniper, Northrop and a prominent research organization with ties to the White House. 

Aside from the commercial implications of the attacks, there are also national security aspects to cyber threats.  Two years ago, a computer system in the Office of the Secretary of Defense was penetrated, and US officials believe the Chinese government was behind the effort, although there was no definitive proof that China was culpable.  The difficulty of pinpointing the exact source of an attack complicates the task of defending against them and taking retaliatory measures. 

There is a high probability that cyberwarfare would be part of any Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan or take away its de facto independence through coercion, and American military forces could be vulnerable in the event of a conflagration because they rely heavily on computer systems for things like communication and targeting.  China has already successfully tested anti-satellite missiles that could take out military hardware in space and seriously disrupt US naval and air operations if America intervened in the conflict, and there is strong reason to believe that the Chinese would use non-kinetic means for similar ends.

Naturally, American defense personnel are waging defensive cyberwarfare against hackers from China and elsewhere.  After the aforementioned incident at the Department of Defense, the US reportedly warned Chinese officials that further attacks against America’s national security apparatus would not be tolerated, which suggests that America maintains offensive cyberwarfare capabilities that could be used to retaliate against attackers or preemptively in the early stages of a conflict.

US Sells More Arms to Taiwan

January 13, 2010

On Monday, the Chinese government responded to America’s decision to sell Patriot missile defense batteries to Taiwan by testing a land-based missile defense system of its own, according to Chinese officials.  The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has placed hunderds of missiles within striking distance of Taiwan, which is one reason why the island wants a missile defense system.

Most Chinese consider Taiwan to be a renegade province that should be part of the People’s Republic, whereas the US treats Taiwan like a separate country despite its so-called “One-China” policy, according to which America supports the idea of a peaceful reunification of the two territories at an indeterminate point in the future.  For decades the US has sold weapons to its longtime ally, which infuriates Chinese leaders.  Under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act, which Congress passed in 1979 after America recognized the communist regime in Beijing as the legitimate Chinese government and closed its embassy in Taipei, the US is obligated to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive nature and maintain the capability to respond militarily to any use of force or coercion that threatens Taiwan’s security or independence.

Taiwan has no inherent strategic value to the US.  But the American government offers support to the de-facto nation for three main reasons:

1. It wants to deter a Chinese attack that could destablize the East Asia region, where the US has vital economic and security interests.

2. The ability to provide or withhold specific weapons systems to Taiwan is a diplomatic bargaining chip that can be used in negotiations with China.

3. Pro-Taiwanese  and anti-Chinese constituencies in the US encourage American politicians to help Taiwan improve its defensive posture.

It is unclear if the Obama administration or its successors would intervene with force in response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan.  They would not be legally obligated to do so by any treaty, and the American government maintains a policy of “strategic ambiguity”  toward this potential conflict to insure political flexibiliy.  

The desire to protect Taiwan’s independence would not justify a war with China, which is one of America’s most important international partners.  A military conflagration with the People’s Republic could prove costly to US forces, especially since the PLA has been procuring area denial weapons like submarines and anti-ship cruise missiles that could target American naval vessels, including aircraft carriers (a few years ago a Chinese diesel submarine surfaced in the middle of a US carrier battle group before it was detected).  Moreover, America’s security commitments to its other allies in the region would still be credible if the US did not join the fight because of the unique nature of Taiwan’s situation; in fact, a battle between China and Taiwan would probably strenghten the US-Japanese alliance, which has been somewhat weakened lately, partly due to a dispute over the location of a Marine air base on Okinawa.

Kristof on Costa Rica

January 8, 2010

Yesterday, the New York Times published an op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof in which he discusses the relative “happiness” of countries around the world, focusing primarily on Costa Rica, which ranks number one according to various indeces.  The World Happiness Index ranks the US 20th, with Togo and Tanzania coming in last; another study ranks America 19th and puts Zimbabwe at the bottom of the list.

Mr. Kristof argues that the main reason that Costa Ricans are so happy is that they have low levels of military spending (the country has no armed forces) and they invest a relatively large amount in education per capita, which in turn has led to political stability.  He also credits the nation’s environmental conservation efforts as a contributor to public contentment.  Based on this assumption, he argues that the US should spend less on defense (including foreign military assistance) and more on social programs like education.  He also suggests that America should do more to protect the environment.

I respect Mr. Kristof for his efforts to highlight humanitarian disasters and violations of human rights, particularly in Darfur, but his latest article is highly flawed.  Comparing the US with Costa Rica when it comes to military expenditures is nonsensical.  Costa Rica faces no serious internal or external threats, whereas America is responsible for underwriting international security and protecting the world’s oil supply, on which the global economy is dependent.  Partly as a consequence of America’s foreign policy commitments and interventions, terrorists and insurgents are determined to attack the US and its interests overseas, and policymakers have found it necessary to provide materiel and financial assistance to governments battling anti-American militants in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen.  Withholding such aid could have disastrous consequences, and reducing the size and capability of the American military would undermine the liberal international order that Mr. Kristof claims to support.

Another weak point in his argument is his assertion that “happiness” is based on social spending.  He mentions that Mexico and Colombia rank higher than the US on happiness indeces, but both nations spend less on education and medical care than America, and they are also plagued by higher levels of drug-related violence.  He himself acknowledges that a “cultural emphasis on family and friends” might be responsible for the disparity in contentment; although such things are difficult to measure and his claim that Latin Americans value family and friends more than Americans is certainly disputable.  One thing that Mr. Kristof fails to note is that Latin Americans generally work fewer hours per week than Americans do (as do Europeans, who are reportedly “happier” than people in the US), which could be an important factor when it comes to reported personal satisfaction.

I am not suggesting that education and other forms of social spending are not important, or that federal and state governments in the US should not spend more in these areas (I believe they should).  I am merely saying that Mr. Kristof’s prescriptions for increasing “happiness” in America may not have the intended results  in light of geopolitical and social conditions. 

On a separate note, Mr. Kristof’s insistense that the US reduce military spending reinforces public perceptions that liberals are weak on national defense, which inhibits the electoral success of liberal candidates and inhibits their ability to promote the political causes that Mr. Kristof supports.

The Deification of Dead Political Leaders

January 7, 2010

In an op-ed piece published today on nytimes.com titled “Asia’s 70-Percent Gods,” Roger Cohen discusses his recent trip to Asia where he saw the preserved bodies of Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong.  He notes that the Communists leaders who control one-party states have deified their predecessors for nationalist purposes while ignoring the socioeconomic ideas that they assiduously promoted at the cost of millions of lives (Stalin is still a revered figure in Russia, although some Russian elites, including President Dmitry Medvedev, have criticized his repressive actions).  The deceased political titans remain symbols of resistance to foreign oppression and the overthrow of corrupt governments, but current Asian powerbrokers are promoting the capitalist-type economic policies that Ho and Mao decried in an effort to stay in power by improving the living standards of their countries’ citizens.

At times other Asian nations have treated their heads of state like gods, including North Korea (which is still a communist dictatorship), and Japan; although the latter no longer considers the emperor a deity.

Contemporary Chinese leaders have so far succeeded in facilitating rapid economic growth and remaining in power while using authoritarian measures like censorship and the banning of alternative politial parties.  However, China is not as stable as many outsiders believe.  There are thousands of riots each year as well as ethnic conflict, and there is a wide and growing wealth inequality between urban dwellers and rural peasants that could eventually lead to class warfare.  And when the living standards of the middle class reach a certain level those in it may focus more on their lack of civil liberties and demand change; such a development would undermine the primary pillar of the Communist Party’s political strategy and threaten its primacy.

Political instability, as well as the aging of the population due to the one-child policy, may put a halt to China’s impressive economic growth in the coming decades.  The threat of this happening is significant but largely ignored in America where many fear that China will overtake the US economically and geopolitically by mid-century.  While some might welcome attempts to liberalize Chinese society and bring down the communists, people should be aware that the consequences of a revolutionary movement could be disastrous in terms of lives lost and the destabilization of the global economy.  If democracy emerges in China or other Asian countries one hopes that it will be the result of a peaceful process much like the velvet revolutions that occured in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War rather than a bloodbath.