|
By Yu Yongsheng
Japan is longing for a Britain-like status on the US global strategic chessboard.
On October 28, the defence and foreign ministers from the United States and Japan co-chaired a US-Japan Security Consultative Committee (informally known as a 2+2 meeting), reaching a consensus on the re-deployment of American military forces stationed in Japan.
Besides covering a wide range of topics of common concern, the agreement also settled another two priority issues in bilateral relations.
With the conclusion of the agreement, the two countries ended a long-standing dispute about the transfer of Okinawa-based US Marines, and made substantial advancement on their military integration.
The United States benefited a lot from this gathering.
The agreement will not only pave the way for the United States to shift its command center to Japan but, more importantly, will bring itself nearer to realizing a long-cherished strategy of including Japan's Self-Defence Forces in its own overseas military configuration by strengthening military integration with the Asian nation.
Obviously, within the military camps of the United States and Japan, two nations whose strengths are not comparable, the further the "integration process" goes ahead, the more capable the stronger party will be at controlling the weaker side's military forces.
Thus, the United States was the big winner in the accord. But for Japan, this is possibly not the case.
At first glance, it seems that Tokyo has also strengthened its alliance with Washington through deepened "military integration."
Japan has long been hoping for a bigger international and regional role. Through the signing of such an accord with the world's sole superpower, the nation, in its eyes, will make a substantial stride towards this dream.
But it remains doubtful whether Japan can realize such ambitions given Washington's long-standing strategic and tactical arrangements with the ally.
From a historical perspective, the US military occupation of Japan during the post-World War II era was based on its strategic balancing of power in the Far East.
However, the real reason underlying America's military action was to deter and check Japan's rightist forces and prevent the resurrection of the nation's crippled militarism.
It is a fact that Japan-stationed American troops have undergone a strategic change as time went by. It has become the United States and Japan's priority to link up to contain an ever-stronger China. However, American troops based in Japan still retain the role of containing and controlling Japan's influences to avoid its deviation in a direction unfavorable to the United States.
It is of long-standing anguish to the United States that Washington and Tokyo were formerly enemies in the fierce Pacific battle.
According to the latest issue of the American magazine News Weekly, Japan has never reached a consensus about its World War II responsibility although 60 years have passed since the end of the war. That is thought to have provided a seed for the post-war rightists to sweep into power.
Under such circumstances, it is expected that the United States will continue to keep intact its outstanding goal of staying highly alert against Japan's development tendency.
To pursue a "normal state" status, Japan's rightists have long been opposed to the stationing of American troops in their country. Also, they have shown extreme dissatisfaction with the Japanese Government's absolute obedience towards the US Government in the diplomatic domain.
The United States is well clear of this.
From a practical perspective, the United States also entertains its own considerations in its strategic arrangements with Japan.
This year, Japan's top diplomatic priority is to squeeze itself into the United Nations Security Council to become a permanent member.
It is reported that the United States has not extended its whole-hearted support to Japan's bid, although it has claimed it does support it.
The reason is that Uncle Sam does not really want Japan to enjoy an equal privilege in the powerful club.
In the eyes of the United States, Japan's current subordination to itself serves its fundamental interests.
Just like its precautionary attitude towards China's development, the United States also holds a similar attitude towards its ally's aggressive ambitions.
Back to the 1990s, the "Japan threat" tone ran high in the United States, just like today's "China threat" rhetoric. In fact, Washington has never regarded Japan as an equal ally.
US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's recent Asian trip is still alive in people's memories.
Rumsfeld was to make Japan his last stop. However, the scheduled visit suffered a setback because the two countries' failure to reach a consensus on the relocation of a military airport for Japan-based American forces. The episode testifies to Japan's status in the minds of those in power in the United States.
It is well-known that Britain has suffered a lot of disapproval and criticism at home and abroad due to its excessive diplomatic compliance with the United States.
Now Japan has shown increasingly obvious signs of following on the heels of Britain in the diplomatic dimension. Someone even called Japan the "Asian Britain."
Nevertheless, Japan does not enjoy as high a position as Britain in US strategic thinking. Due to their similarities in kinship, language, culture and religion, Britain and the United States hold a natural sense of affinity and mutual trust towards each other in official and non-official dimensions. However, Japan does not have such similarities with the United States.
The United States also holds different attitudes towards the two allies. It has a friendly approach towards Britain, but Washington holds complicated and ambivalent feelings towards Japan.
Under such circumstances, it is possibly Japan's wishful thinking to believe it can turn itself into an eastern Britain.
The author is a professor at Nanjing University. The article was originally carried in the International Herald Leader.
(China Daily November 28, 2005)
|
