Comments on: Obama and Japan http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/01/21/obama-and-japan/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:28:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Jon Tanakahttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/01/21/obama-and-japan/comment-page-1/#comment-7816 Jon Tanaka Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:01:44 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=1394#comment-7816 It is simply incorrect to say that ‘Beijing exerts strong financial and trade influence over the US and the Obama Administration’ when Beijing has never exercise this and has never attempted to do so. It would also be very unwise to do so, especially given the current global financial crisis. The removal of the DPRK from the US terrorist state sponsoring list is a political exercise (as it was when it was placed there by the Bush Admin) that was bilateral in nature. Japan is not the only state not consulted. It is my understanding that no other states (eg. 6PT parties) were directly consulted, or expected to be consulted, although all knew about the process for several years, and knew that this was the only way to unlock the obstacles to genuine progress on denuclearization. Japan’s self-marginalisation is a problem that only the Japanese the LDP and its senior Gaishushyo officials can address. The concern in Japan about the abductee issue is one of Japan’s own making and is a messy domestic affair and legacy left over from the Abe Admin and propped up by right wing and nationalist elements within the LDP. It is an issue that other states wish would go away as its distorting Japanese foreign and strategic policy development. The denuclearization issue and Korean peninsula peace prospects are far more important issues to address than the abductee issue, an issue which Japan has not itself sought to resolve bilaterally due to its refusal to carry out other parts of the agreements reached by Kim Jong Il with PM Koizumi in August 2002 and again in 2005. It is simply incorrect to say that ‘Beijing exerts strong financial and trade influence over the US and the Obama Administration’ when Beijing has never exercise this and has never attempted to do so. It would also be very unwise to do so, especially given the current global financial crisis. The removal of the DPRK from the US terrorist state sponsoring list is a political exercise (as it was when it was placed there by the Bush Admin) that was bilateral in nature. Japan is not the only state not consulted. It is my understanding that no other states (eg. 6PT parties) were directly consulted, or expected to be consulted, although all knew about the process for several years, and knew that this was the only way to unlock the obstacles to genuine progress on denuclearization. Japan’s self-marginalisation is a problem that only the Japanese the LDP and its senior Gaishushyo officials can address.

The concern in Japan about the abductee issue is one of Japan’s own making and is a messy domestic affair and legacy left over from the Abe Admin and propped up by right wing and nationalist elements within the LDP. It is an issue that other states wish would go away as its distorting Japanese foreign and strategic policy development. The denuclearization issue and Korean peninsula peace prospects are far more important issues to address than the abductee issue, an issue which Japan has not itself sought to resolve bilaterally due to its refusal to carry out other parts of the agreements reached by Kim Jong Il with PM Koizumi in August 2002 and again in 2005.

]]> By: Dr Michael Vaughanhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/01/21/obama-and-japan/comment-page-1/#comment-7573 Dr Michael Vaughan Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:39:17 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=1394#comment-7573 Whilst Secretary of State Clinton's 'cornerstone' remarks are comforting, Japanese policy makers are right to worry about Sino-American relations and about North Korea. Beijing exerts strong financial and trade influence over the US and the Obama Administration needs to tread a very careful line between China on the one hand and Japan on the other. North Korea won a major concession from the US in being removed from the list of terrorist sponsoring states - a concession granted with little or no consultation with Japan. The concern in Japan is that the abductee issue will be quietly dropped and North Korea will get its heavy fuel oil and other benefits without settling this highly sensitive issue from Japan's perspective. One hopes that Washington will handle relations with Beijing and Tokyo with skill, tact and prudence. Much depends on this and the new President is on notice. Whilst Secretary of State Clinton’s ‘cornerstone’ remarks are comforting, Japanese policy makers are right to worry about Sino-American relations and about North Korea. Beijing exerts strong financial and trade influence over the US and the Obama Administration needs to tread a very careful line between China on the one hand and Japan on the other. North Korea won a major concession from the US in being removed from the list of terrorist sponsoring states – a concession granted with little or no consultation with Japan. The concern in Japan is that the abductee issue will be quietly dropped and North Korea will get its heavy fuel oil and other benefits without settling this highly sensitive issue from Japan’s perspective. One hopes that Washington will handle relations with Beijing and Tokyo with skill, tact and prudence. Much depends on this and the new President is on notice.

]]> By: Aurelia George Mulganhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/01/21/obama-and-japan/comment-page-1/#comment-7120 Aurelia George Mulgan Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:13:32 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=1394#comment-7120 I would be interested in Kenji Takita's elaborating on how the Clinton administration offered some form of power-sharing to Japan: from memory, burden-sharing 'yes' (e.g. the revised Guidelines on US-Japan Defence Cooperation) but power-sharing 'no'. I would be interested in Kenji Takita’s elaborating on how the Clinton administration offered some form of power-sharing to Japan: from memory, burden-sharing ‘yes’ (e.g. the revised Guidelines on US-Japan Defence Cooperation) but power-sharing ‘no’.

]]>