U.S. Response to Crimea Worries Japan’s Leaders
When President Bill Clinton signed a 1994 agreement promising to “respect” the territorial integrity of Ukraine if it gave up its nuclear weapons, there was little thought then of how that obscure diplomatic pact — called the Budapest Memorandum — might affect the long-running defense partnership between the United States and Japan.
But now, as American officials have distanced themselves from the Budapest Memorandum in light of Russia’s takeover of Crimea, calling promises made in Budapest “nonbinding,” the United States is being forced at the same time to make reassurances in Asia. Japanese officials, a senior American military official said, “keep asking, ‘Are you going to do the same thing to us when something happens?’ ”
For Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who arrived in Tokyo on Saturday for two days of talks with Japan’s leaders, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, America’s longstanding promise to protect Japan against hostile nations — read China and North Korea — has suddenly come under the microscope. The American response to the Russian takeover of Crimea, which President Obama has condemned while at the same time ruling out American military action, has caused deep concern among already skittish Japanese officials.
“The Crimea is a game-changer,” said Kunihiko Miyake, a former adviser to Mr. Abe who is now research director at the Canon Ins ute for Global Studies in Tokyo. “This is not fire on a distant shore for us. What is happening is another attempt by a rising power to change the status quo.” He pointed as an example to China’s challenge to Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands, the uninhabited rocks in the East China Sea that Beijing claims under the name Diaoyu Islands.
One Japanese official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said, “We are just looking for a commitment from the American side.”
Obama administration officials say they stand by the American commitment to protect Japan, while refraining from explicitly stating that the United States would intervene militarily in the Senkakus dispute.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/06...?from=homepage

Reply With Quote