Abridged—click for the complete article.
Taiwanese President wants Japan to play bigger security role in East Asia
11/10/2005Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian on Wednesday said Japan should shoulder a bigger responsibility in East Asia—including a larger security role—to maintain order in the region and keep China in check. “I want Japan to play a more positive role in Asia and the Pacific to deal with the growing power of China,” Chen said.
According to Chen, the regional security environment in East Asia is drastically changing because of China’s increasing economic and military might. He warned that China’s security strategy is aimed not only at unification with Taiwan, but also to advance into the Pacific. But he said China knows that it will have to compete with Japan and the United States to expand its influence in the region.
Chen said a more positive Japanese involvement in regional security is needed. “Japan can take a leadership role in the political and military fields,” he said. “Japan will be able to become a balancer,” Chen said. [I thought that was South Korea’s role, at least according to Mr. Roh.]
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
sun bin
November 10, 2005
8:34 pm
you could try, "Risk on google map".
but 'diplomacy' does not really matter much in those games.
Lucca2000
November 10, 2005
10:20 pm
J.Kende
November 11, 2005
1:34 am
Chief Wiggum
November 11, 2005
6:10 am
He says Taiwan should be a chip on the table in the larger goal of co-opting the Chinese in a wider economic and political alliance. The U.S. needs Chinese assent to deal with North Korea. He opines the long-term goals of China and the U.S. coincide.
There is a link to the interview on Barnett's web site:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/
Michael Turton
November 11, 2005
7:27 am
Sure, I believe Barnett's thesis that intertwining of economies will bring those nations into the Chinese orbit.
Michael
sun bin
November 11, 2005
10:00 am
please do some research and get the numbers :) your claims do not hold once you look at the numbers. you can say there was trade in 2000BC as well.
"Over the period from 1950 (when the process of trade liberalization through the early GATT Rounds got under way) to 1994 the volume of world merchandise trade increased at an annual rate of slightly more than 6 per cent and world output by close to 4 per cent. Thus, during those 45 years world merchandise trade multiplied 14 times and output 5 1/2 times."http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres95_e/pr029_e.htm
so in 45 years trade/output increased by almost 3 folds!
1994 is definitely more intertwined compared with 1950, and more so against 1941, and agaist 1914.
in fact, in 1941, one of the reason Japan went to bomb pearl harbor was because the oil trade was stopped and it wanted to go into SE Asia to rob the oil!
sun bin
November 11, 2005
10:01 am
sun bin
November 11, 2005
10:13 am
you can see how much trade has grown, and how much trade/output also grew.
and if that is not enough evidence, look at the decline in trade between thw 2 wars, as many historians correctly concluded, WWII was a result of failure to re-establish trade back to pre-WWI level!
Globalization and likelihood of war
November 11, 2005
10:53 am
Trade increase 7%/25 years: war
Trade increase 60%/25 years: no war
Chief Wiggum
November 11, 2005
1:02 pm
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/
Then click on the "blog" link.
Barnett says if China and the U.S. went to war, both would be reduced to "second-rate" powers.
The big difference between the wars Michael cites and now is nuclear weapons.
sun bin
November 11, 2005
5:50 pm
someone showed this graph in an earlier comment (sorry I couldn't find who I should thanks this for)
!http://img346.imageshack.us/img346/1686/warcostly8bn.jpg!
Kushibo
November 12, 2005
2:09 am
Taiwan doesn't want to be caught with its pants down--again--and so it is looking for a back-up date to the prom. But this may be making a deal with the devil, because rising Japanese military might has gone terribly wrong in human memory.
The U.S. security guarantees for Taiwan, Korea, and Japan have kept the PRC at bay, while also calming Chinese fears of a re-arming Japan. If Japan is no longer the constitutionally pacifist neighbor it once was, the Chinese will see their fears as justified and step up their efforts to show they are the top dogs in the neighborhood.
For Korea, the math is simple, the sixty years prior to the end of the Korean "Conflict" saw FOUR wars raging on or from Korea: the Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Pacific War, and the Korean War. The fifty years since, during the Pax Americana, saw ZERO wars involving Korea, and none involving neighbor Japan (which was an aggressor or at least major player in all four of those).
sun bin
November 12, 2005
8:44 am
char shao bao is just playing games.
these politicians in taiwan sometimes jave their brains really messed up.
Michael Turton
November 12, 2005
4:20 pm
so in 45 years trade/output increased by almost 3 folds!
Hey, no shit. That's how long it took to get back to the relative levels enjoyed in 1914. There's no contradiction between your figures and my claim. You're right, research is nice, but knowledge of logic is even more important.
994 is definitely more intertwined compared with 1950, and more so against 1941, and agaist 1914.
Sure, but I was talking about the period from 1914 -1970.
in fact, in 1941, one of the reason Japan went to bomb pearl harbor was because the oil trade was stopped and it wanted to go into SE Asia to rob the oil!
What? No, really? *sigh*
Let's go through this again: one aspect of Barnett's thesis is that trade draws nations closer together. Reality: Japanese dependence on US for many of its most important industrial goods and resources did not bring those two nations together. In fact as Japan's dependency grew, so did frictions between the two -- due to factors that had nothing to with trade. Japan did not bomb the US because we stopped the flow of oil (as the Minister for Natural. Resources pointed out, a coal gasification program would have had Japan on its feet in a couple of years) but because it was unwilling to engage in the kind of thoughtful, circumspect, restrained and controlled foreign policy necessary to have the embargo lifted. It went to war because it wanted to. And this decision was not restrained by the history of close trade relations between the two nations.
But let's test Barnett: Want to see two nations trade like crazy and not become closer? How about Taiwan and China? Since 1990 Taiwanese investment in China has skyrocketed. Everything cheap here comes from China...Now...do Taiwanese want to join China more or less because of this investment? I would bet that the attitude of the Taiwanese toward being annexed has little or nothing to do with the volume of trade, and everything to do with things like China's growth rate, shared culture and language, and the number of missiles China is threatening us with. Barnett's view of the world is not just wrong, it is naive because it is so unrobust.
But if Taiwan and China don't make a hash of Barnett, how about Hong Kong and China? How about those Tibetans, eh? Think economic integration and trade have made them delighted at the prospect of having ID numbers issued in Beijing?
Trade and econ are nice, but they are not the only national interests.
Vorkosigan
Michael Turton
November 12, 2005
4:23 pm
Michael
Aaron
November 12, 2005
6:46 pm
sun bin
November 12, 2005
10:02 pm
1. trade reduces the opportunity of war. trade alonge cannot stop a war. so you have been trying to prove that trade along can stop war, of course not. furthermore, you tried to discredit barnett by disproving something barnett didn't say.
2. back to your example of trade (or more precisely, economic interaction) across the taiwan strait. of course the risk of war has been significantly reduced, and this contribute to the amount of popular support for maintaining status quo.
if there were no such economic relationship.
a) support for status quo will be greatly reducced
b) the risk of war is much higher than it is today! (the hawks in china would have been much louder, so would the extremists in Taiwan - this is precisely what LTH and CSB tried to promote when discouraging investment in the mainland, but failed miserably)
3. Japan in 1940. the economic relationship then is MUCH MUCH smaller than that of today. at least 30-40 folds if you read "Irwin's chart":http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/6748/trade21yi.jpg
sun bin
November 12, 2005
10:12 pm
gain= occupy SE Asia and get the resources
lose= lost in american machinery/equipment/trade, and have to fight a war.
the amount of trade at stake, is obviously very low. therefore japan thought the benefit was much higher and attacked pearl harbor.
HOWEVER, if there were a lot more to lose, e.g. Japan's weapon industry and people's economic well-being relies on US much more (and that the people and merchants were more influential int he decision making), pearl harbor would have been much less likely.
One thing you (Westerner) have ignored, is that a great war in Asia started in 1937, not 1941. Part of the reason for the embargo was because US was not happy at Japan's aggressive war in China.
But if China/Japan/US traded were as interwined as today, US might have stepped in and stopped Japan from invading China in 1937!
Mutantfrog
November 13, 2005
12:55 pm
Kushibo
November 13, 2005
1:18 pm
J.Kende
November 13, 2005
1:54 pm
Kushibo, do you think rising Japanese military might would go terribly wrong today?
Kushibo
November 13, 2005
2:06 pm
But if the U.S. were to back out of the role it has played that has successfully led to peace in Northeast Asia for fifty years, then Japan would likely re-arm, China would feel justification to re-arm further, the Koreas would pick a side (maybe the same side, maybe not), Taiwan would have to pick a side, and while waiting for the dust to settle, the potential for war would be considerably higher, especially with flashpoints like the Senkaku-shoto (Diaoyutai Islands), the Kuriles, Tokto/Takeshima, etc. More so if Japan were ruled by a group whose mindset was that Japan had no choice but to go to war against China and that it was forced to attack the United States.
J.Kende
November 13, 2005
4:33 pm
sun bin
November 13, 2005
6:15 pm
Japan will not be satisfied at lying under US umbrella all the time. sooner or later it will be 'assertive'.
note:
1. japan can get nuclear over night, it has enough purified plutonium to make 4000 "bombs":http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/09/two-birds-with-one-stone-how-to-solve.html
2. it was US which humiliated japan 60 years ago. the far right in japan are still bitter about it
!http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/5818/slanted3jw.jpg!
Curzon
November 13, 2005
8:03 pm
Japan has valid concerns about the longevity of America's security umbrella. China's rapid militarization is the reason they are so worried.
Kushibo
November 13, 2005
10:56 pm
So you agree, Curzon, that Roosevelt's real reason for the embargo against Japan was to force Japan to go to war against the United States so the United States could have the opportunity to crush Japan and save the American economy?
Curzon
November 13, 2005
11:02 pm
sun bin
November 14, 2005
2:29 am
Curzon
November 14, 2005
2:34 am
sun bin
November 14, 2005
3:15 am
1. Japanese (the right wing) believes getting to war is a legitimate way to get out of recession. they did it in mid-1930s on China when their own econ was in trouble.
They believe US did that as well.
2. They would have done it again in the 1990s doldrum, had it not been checked by US.
3. Once they finished re-arming and kicking US out from okinawa and yosuka, they are ready to get even :)
they= the right wing.
---
about rooselvolt. there are conspiracy theories that US wanted to get into the war. there are even theories that US deliberately let pearl harbor be bombed (i.e., anticipating the attack ahead of time).
he knows if the axis win, US would be the next and it would have to fight a much stronger axis powers alone.
so yes, he has reasons to enter the war before the brits and the russians succumb. but a better excuse would have been made in the west front. US embargo on Japan was not to provoke Japan to attack US, it just wanted to "CONTAIN" japan.
so the conspiracy theory does't really hold. rooselvolt did not do it on purpose. otherwise, the pearl harbor damage would have been much smaller.
Curzon
November 14, 2005
3:46 am
Forget economics -- it's about energy. Read this book, then we'll talk.
!http://www.cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/old_uploads/0671799320.jpg!
J.Kende
November 14, 2005
4:46 am
sun bin
November 14, 2005
6:44 am
yes, in normal curcumstances, like today. there is no reason for japan to go wild. japan has many bright people and they are not crazy.
energy is one big variable in the equation of economics. but remember there are also other variables. moreover, 70% of the earth is covered by ocean, and there are the polar areas which are more or less unexplored (siberia and north canada). so we MIGHT not neccessarily be squeezed by energy and everybody might be happy for another millenium.
the main problem about japan is (i say this with my limited understanding about japan, and i hope i am wrong), it is a bipolar nation.
the pacifist detest any war and anything nuclear, but they are not in power.
the right has strong influence on politics, and they are no different from those in 1930s.
the middle are educated to be "pragmatic" about war and they are willing to conform, if the right wing becomes strong. THIS represents the biggest risk. Such 'middle' group is very unique, they do not think like the american, nor the chinese/korean, not any country in this world. the korean/chinese may go to war for pride, even if there is no value to gain. the japanese will go for resources and land. This is the main reason that its neighbors never got to trust japan to be peaceful.
the value of war for these people in japan (the right wing and a significant % of the middle bandwagoning) is that war is justifiable if there is economic needs and survival.
note that japan, as an island, has limited natural resources, and has been willing to push the limite on fishing (whale, e.g.)
---
conclusion (for america),
until you until really understand that japanese society (the "middle") really share your value about war and peace (i will still take hints from their attitudes toward yasukuni and textbooks, plus others), don't re-arm it, and take away their plutonium.
enlisting japan to the world police force may save you some costs in the short and medium term. but it could be playing with fire.
J.Kende
November 14, 2005
5:59 pm
sun bin
November 14, 2005
8:49 pm
there are many countries which will try to avoid aggressive war even if short term self interest may indicate so, or feeling there is no need to go to other people's territories, including un-democratic countries.
J.Kende
November 15, 2005
2:22 am