U.S.-China-Japan Trilateral Coordination Mechanisms Are Illusions

Published in China Times
(Taiwan) on 4 March 2009
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Kwok Wai-Yin. Edited by Katy Burtner.
Professor David Shambaugh of the George Washington University proposed to the American government that the Obama administration should consider convening a trilateral summit meeting between the United States, China and Japan every one or two years, which would serve as setting up trilateral coordination mechanisms. This is a good idea, as it would be beneficial to the prospect of stabilizing the situation in Asia. Yet it is difficult to achieve because these three countries have their own interests, and it is impossible to harmonize their interests properly. It would be difficult for them to cooperate seriously.

The U.S. is certainly the key to this barrier: they have a close alliance with Japan as well as a strategic dialogue with China, and America needs both countries on different aspects. For example, the U.S. requires China’s help on the North Korea, Iran and Afghanistan nuclear issues and global economic crisis. Japan cannot meddle in these affairs. However, the U.S. needs Japan on the military security strategy, in which China is the potential opponent of America. Not to mention that the U.S. and Japan mean to stand against China in their security strategy. Therefore, the role of the U.S. is very confusing.

In terms of mentality, the U.S. and Japan still regard China as a dangerous communist country and there is a long-term threat. Whereas China considers Japan as an aggressive militarist and immoral country, Japan would attempt to allow the revival of militarism at any time simply by ignoring history. China has not changed its view on the nature of American imperialism; the U.S. advocates democracy and human rights because they attempt to subvert China. Although Japan has allied with the U.S., they do not trust the U.S. and always fear that the U.S. will abandon them and ally with China. These worries would be very difficult to eliminate in the foreseeable future and the big difference in the reality between the three countries is serious enough to hinder trilateral cooperation. Japan certainly is worried about the rapid development of the Sino-U.S. relationship and America does not prefer better Sino-Japanese relations, as it would be difficult to obtain benefits from the contradictions.

What sort of Asian issues would the leaders of the three sides discuss while sitting together? The Taiwan issue? Diaoyutai Islands issue? Korean Peninsula issue? East China Sea issue? Japan's "Northern Territories" issue? South China Sea problem? Do the three countries have common interests on these issues? The stance on the Diaoyutai Islands stated by China and Japan these few days and the ambiguous position of the U.S. has clearly illustrated everything.


美國喬治華盛頓大學教授沈大偉曾向美國政府建議,歐巴馬政府應考慮每一、兩年召開一次美國、中國、日本三邊高峰會議,其意在建立三邊協調機制。這構想不錯,對穩定亞洲局勢有好處,但卻是很難辦到的事,因為這三國各有其自身的利害,不可能將利害協調妥當,就難以認真合作。

 美國當然是其中關鍵,美國與日本有密切的同盟關係,與中國也有戰略對話,它需要這兩者,但是需要的項目不同。譬如在朝核問題、伊朗及阿富汗問題、全球經濟危機上,美國都需要中國幫助,日本是插不上手的,但是在軍事安全戰略上,美國卻需要日本,而在這方面中國反而是美國的潛在對手,何況美日的安全戰略還有共同對付中國的意義,美國的角色非常混淆。

 在思維上,美國及日本仍然把中國視為是危險的共產主義國家,存在著長遠的威脅。中國則視日本為侵略成性的軍國主義者,隨時圖謀讓軍國主義復活,根本無視歷史的無德國家。而中國對美國的帝國主義本質的看法也未改變,美國鼓吹民主人權只是企圖顛覆中國而已。而日本雖然與美國結盟,但卻對美不放心,時時有被美國拋棄的恐懼,總怕美國棄它而傾向中國。這些思維上的陰影很難在可見的將來消除,而這個現實上的大分歧足以阻撓三者認真合作。日本固然恐懼美中關係的快速發展,美國也不願中日關係搞好,怕難以從他方矛盾中取得利益。

 試問三方領導人坐在一起討論亞洲問題時會談些什麼?台灣問題要談嗎?釣魚台島問題要談嗎?朝鮮半島問題要談嗎?東海問題要談嗎?日本「北方領土」問題要談嗎?中國南海問題要談嗎?三方就這些問題有共同利害嗎?這幾天中日對釣魚台島的表態及美國在其間的曖昧就說明一切了。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Iran: US Strategy on Iran: From Sanctions to Perception Warfare

Germany: Trump’s Peace Plan: Too Good To Be True

Austria: The Showdown in Washington Is about More Than the Budget

Turkey: Cost of Trumping in the 21st Century: Tested in Europe, Isolated on Gaza

South Korea: Trump: ‘I’ve Never Walked into a Room So Silent Before’

Topics

South Korea: Trump: ‘I’ve Never Walked into a Room So Silent Before’

Iran: US Strategy on Iran: From Sanctions to Perception Warfare

Germany: A Sensible Plan for Gaza*

Germany: Trump’s Peace Plan: Too Good To Be True

Mexico: The Kirk Paradox

Turkey: Cost of Trumping in the 21st Century: Tested in Europe, Isolated on Gaza

Austria: The Showdown in Washington Is about More Than the Budget

Singapore: Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan – Some Cause for Optimism, but Will It Be Enough?

Related Articles

Taiwan: Can Benefits from TikTok and Taiwan Be Evaluated the Same Way?

South Korea: Trump Halts Military Aid to Taiwan, and It Concerns Us, Too

Taiwan: Trump’s Japan Negotiation Strategy: Implications for Taiwan

China: Trump’s Tariff Policy Bullies the Weak, Fears the Strong and Applies Double Standards

Taiwan: Trump Stacks the Deck: EU-Canada Trade Talks Forced To Fold