RT:
‘US casting its net around Asia‘
Published
time: August 04, 2014 11:11
This is
already happening with US backing for Japan’s claim over the disputed
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and in backing the Abe government’s position on “collective self-defense” said Gunn during a discussion on Japan. He
is Professor Emeritus at Nagasaki University and a leading Australian
historian.
Andre
Vltchek: After the visit of the President of the United States Barack
Obama to Asia, what really did change, and what did the West achieve?
Geoffrey
Gunn: The President of the United States was noticeably absent from the summit
in Bali, Indonesia, last year. It seemed that the “US pivot to Asia” was losing its focus, becoming fuzzy.
Simply, Obama had to show his face. This time he had chosen a different
constellation of countries. He visited Japan. We know that he declined to stay
at the official guesthouse, choosing a private hotel, thereby putting a little
distance between himself and Prime Minister Abe. Then he went to South Korea,
again reaffirming the alliance, and the US commitment to holding the fort. And
then, surprisingly, a visit to Malaysia, a country that no US President had
visited for decades. It seems to make little sense, except that the US was
casting its net around, perhaps, for a naval base, or more precisely for base
rights for US warships, perhaps reaffirming solidarity with the so-called
‘moderate Muslim nation’. But again, he did not revisit Indonesia, which is the
largest economy in Southeast Asia and Washington’s best, and most loyal friend.
Manila fits into the equation, too, because here, the US is seeking to
renegotiate base rights; literally to renegotiate the Senate decision to expel
US bases, in the early and mid 1980’s. One can see a pattern in this visit by
Obama, basically, with the“elephant
in the room”,
of course, being China. With Obama probably looking ahead to firming-up the
strategic alliance with Japan, bringing in Singapore, bringing in Malaysia,
bringing in South Korea, and even now bringing in Vietnam.
AV: You mentioned Indonesia, which recently went
through a turbulent election. Results are still being disputed. What role did
the US play in the process?
GG: The
question is; what was the United States doing, right during those elections, in
Jakarta? What was it doing, inside those 300 rooms they have inside the embassy
– the CIA, the Pentagon, the economists? There are huge interests at stake
there, right now! What protagonist would fit best to their interests? Was
Washington favoring old military elites dating back to Suharto, or an unknown
populist? All we know is that Washington and Canberra revoked visa restrictions
on Prabowo. They prepared for his Presidency, in case it would happen. We all
know how closely he is linked to the US, through Kopassus.
AV: Shouldn’t China feel frustrated, given the
situation? There is loud, vocal hostility towards it in US rhetoric, and
especially if you are listening to the verbal attacks coming from Tokyo, or
from Manila.
GG: Well,
the fact of the matter is that China is indignant at this encirclement. China
is indignant that Washington backs Japan, that Washington is ready to support
Japan’s non-negotiation policy over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. So we see, in
this situation, a clearly indignant China, and Japan that is taking a basically
aggressive position in relation to so-called territorial integrity. So Pacific
Asia is increasingly becoming more belligerent, more conflict-prone East Asia.
AV: Is it really wise what both South-East Asian
and North Asian countries are now doing? China is the most important economic
partner for many of them. There is huge economic and trade potential, as well
as cultural links. Why are these countries really following Washington and its
anti-Chinese policies?
GG: We can
see that China has overtaken Japan in GDP, with the sheer size of its economy.
We can see that China is spending more on its military capability. Yet, this
would be the responsibility of any rising power. So we are at a junction in
history, when a new power is challenging the hegemony of a traditional power,
namely Washington, and Japan is feeling the squeeze. But it is not responding
in a way that would resonate with its 70 years post-war pacifist constitution.
It is in fact ripping up its pacifist constitution! It is becoming a so-called
‘normal country’, which is the word for a re-armed and militarist Japan, and
that itself is a destabilizing factor.
AV: Why is Japan betting on the US/West, not on
China/Asia? You began by saying that it “always did”.
GG: Since
Meiji, Japan has always looked over to Asia in its modernization – at that time
under the slogan “strong
army, strong country.”
As an earlier modernizer, Japan then sought to emulate the West by creating its
own colonial zone. To do this, it went to war with both Asia and Europe. Losing
the war, and virtually destroyed by the US, its industrial base was rebuilt as
a platform for America to wage its own wars on Asia (Korea, Vietnam) and with
Japan getting richer in the bargain. From the 1960s Japan was polarized over
the US treaty and base system, but under neo-conservative rule, Japan today –
against all logic and its postwar “peace constitution” – seeks to further ensnare the US and allies
into possibly even waging war in Asia. To re-engage Asia, Japan must come to
terms with its past, something the neo-conservatives cannot contemplate.
AV: Is there a danger that the US policy in Asia
could trigger an arms race and possibly lead to a military conflict, even
WWIII?
GG:
President Obama’s “pivot
to Asia” in
itself is largely rhetorical alongside the natural rise of China, but the risk
is that the US will become ensnared into a military conflict by politically
opportunistic allies. This is already happening in US backing for Japan’s
claims over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.
The US is
also backing the Abe government’s position on “collective self-defense,” and has no objection to Japan selling
weapons. For a country with a dangerous militarist past, any revision of the
status quo surrounding Japan’s “pacifist”constitution
is cause for alarm. The US should be taking the side of the Japanese people – a
majority who reject Abe’s attempts to revise the constitution – rather than
leading this nation into even more dangerous waters.
AV: Where do we go from here? Anti-Chinese
Western propaganda is reaching a crescendo. There have even been several
military skirmishes, recently. What would be the most logical way forward, for
East Asia, in order to avoid military confrontation?
GG: The
international big media notes the “China threat,” yet who is the provocateur? We observe the
Japanese Prime Minister in Singapore (May 30 2014) offering to lead an
international coalition to check Chinese aggression, offering ‘quality’
Japanese naval vessels to obliging clients, as with the Philippines and
Vietnam. This is madness coming from a nation without official contrition,
seeking as well to unpick its “peace constitution.” In the meantime, the neo-con government in
Australia overreaches with matching rhetoric, together snaring the US Defense
Secretary to offer his own“pivot” to the South China Sea. My spin is to let
Asian nationalisms (China, Vietnam, Japan, Korea) resolve their own problems
diplomatically – after all the central kingdom has been in place for several
millennia – outsiders keep out, militarists watch your step, and China rise
peacefully.
Geoffrey
Gun is Professor Emeritus at Nagasaki University in Japan, and is a leading
Australian historian, living in Japan and Macau. His latest book is called Rice
Wars in Colonial Vietnam: The Great Famine and the Viet Minh Road to Power (Rowman & Littlefield).
The
statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
No comments:
Post a Comment