Obama’s Support for India and Japan for U.N. Security Council, an Empty Promise

Published in Wenweipo
(Hong Kong) on 19 November 2010
by Kuai Zhe Yuan (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Huifang Yu. Edited by Gheanna Emelia.
Obama's Support for India and Japan for the U.N. Security Council, an empty promise

Kuai Zhe Yuan Senior Commentator, Member of Baijia Strategic Think Tank Council

The purpose of Obama's 10-day trip to Asia is expediency, that is, not only to convince people to buy U.S. products, but also to lay the foundation for an alliance to contain China. He also gave empty promises supporting India's and Japan's applications for permanent member status into the United Nations Security Council. The political and media corps of India and Japan were extremely excited, particularly in India where there is a lot of hype. Yet Obama's supposed support of India and Japan are just empty promises. They simply will not materialize.

Are President Obama and the U.S. government really sincere in supporting India’s and Japan's applications to become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council? An outside observer would question such support, but participants like India and Japan are too involved to realize that President Obama's support is in fact hypocritical.

Using Political Diplomacy as Bait

Historically, those involved were usually unable to read the situation well and were blind to the truth. This is especially true when one is extremely anxious for something that it has been chasing for a long time. Therefore, it becomes really easy to be deceived and carried away by sweet nothings and empty promises. Of course, such verbal promises to India and Japan by the U.S. are enough to get them excited, grateful and indulging in one's feelings. If one is to maintain a certain degree of level-headedness and analyze the whole situation logically, it is not difficult to find out that Obama's verbal promise to support India and Japan is just hot air.

In all honesty, Obama's supposed support for India and Japan was just verbal. It is completely insincere and unserious. Obama is well aware that although such support is beneficial to Obama's Democratic Party in the short term, this will threaten the long-term benefits of the U.S. and its position as a world leader. One should never dig his own grave. How can anyone take Obama's words seriously when his open support for India and Japan is only brilliant political language, just a nice way to express things? Also, Obama's open declaration is not a sincere, but rather, a hypocritical display of political diplomacy. There is an ulterior motive, and that is to win over India and hold onto Japan. In inciting India’s and Japan’s hatred toward China, that alliance achieves the goal of containing China. The U.S., India and Japan are all well aware that China's engagement toward India regarding regional hegemony. And Japan, which is a potential threat to the security of China and Asia, is not resigned to its World War II failure. Therefore, it is only natural that China will not support India and Japan before any fundamental change takes place. Obviously, Obama's support is only diplomatic bait.

India's and Japan's One-Sided Affair

Even if one is to take U.S. support for India and Japan to become permanent members of the Security Council seriously, it is not just the U.S.’ decision. Permanent members like the U.S., China, Britain, France and Russia must come to a consensus, but two-thirds of the approximately 190-member United Nations also need to support the motion. This is not only a tedious process but it’s slow. It is also difficult to coordinate balance. How can India and Japan rely on Obama's lip service and think that everything he said would happen? Although U.N. reform is certain and necessary, the degree and timing of reform are still uncertain with many variables. India and Japan may not necessarily be selected as permanent members. The U.S. Department of State is more aware of the old and new India than Obama. The old India had never been on the U.S.’ side when it came to fighting to become the leader of developing nations or to be a leader itself. It is impossible that India will support the U.S. from now on. Supporting India's entry into the Security Council is a last resort where the risks outweigh the gains. In fact, withholding all support would be best.

Therefore, Obama made an empty promise, supporting India in exchange for a huge arms order of 11 billion U.S. dollars from India. At the same time, a spokesman from the U.S. Department of State publicly added (in regards to Obama's support for India to become a permanent member) that India's application requires consultation between the U.S. and members of the Security Council and the General Assembly. The process itself will be long; this will be done to warn India that its application cannot be decided by the U.S. alone. What is more certain is that Obama's support for India's application into the Security Council is not to be confused with Obama's support for India's entry into the Security Council. The truth is, India relishes Obama's support, misinterpreting it as support for entry into the Security Council. Otherwise, it could be that India just wanted to indulge in this Americanized scam temporarily.

Japan's Attachment to the U.S. Would Change as Permanent Member
 
Let's talk about Obama’s Democratic Party's support for Japan to become a permanent member of the U.N. As mentioned above, Obama is supporting Japan’s application to become a permanent member but not supporting Japan as a permanent member. In this respect, perhaps Japan is more realistic than India. During the APEC meeting in Yokohama, Obama expressed his support for Japan, which, compared to when he expressed support for India, did not create much of a buzz. Japan had already received such support from President George W. Bush; therefore, it was natural that Japan did not get as excited and fanatic over having the U.S. president's support in applying to become a permanent member of the Security Council. Also, Japan is well aware of its current status, clearly understanding that it is under U.S. military occupation and has yet to fully establish its status as a normal country. To be a permanent member requires overcoming this obstacle. To be on par with the U.S. is an extremely difficult task. During the reign of former Prime Minister Hatoyama, the current Democratic Party made every effort to protest (this occupation). Eventually, it was suppressed by Obama's government and the party lost its important prime minister position. As a result, internal and external difficulties occurred. Besieged on all fronts, the current prime minister, Naoto Kan, learned from the mistakes and is now willing to let the U.S. take the lead. Obviously the only and most practical thing to do is support the U.S. so that Japan can retain its position. If this continues, rather than advancing to permanent member status, Japan is furthering itself from it.

From the standpoint of U.S. strategic interests, it will never let Japan become a permanent member. Japan becoming a permanent member only means that the U.S. military occupation and political foreign control would come to an end, and this means that there will be no end to [America’s] troubles. This also means that the balance between Asian military affairs and politics would be ruined. The U.S. would lose control of its leadership in Asia and containment of China. What is noteworthy is that even after Germany has completely rid itself of fascism, the sediments still continue to surface from time to time. So how about Japan, which has yet to disentangle itself from its Japanese militarism? There is bound to be danger in [militarism] restoration, and Japan would criticize and expose the U.S. for its atomic bombing crime. The U.S. would definitely not want to see it. As much as the U.S. is manipulating Japan, there is still a bottom line to manipulating Japan against China. How can the U.S. allow Japan to have the same status and create conditions and opportunities for Japanese militarism? The U.S. will definitely not do something so foolish unless the current president has gone mad. Not until Japan has truly repented, put an end to militarism and become a true real world power will it have hope of receiving the whole world's recognition to become a permanent member. To put it more bluntly, Obama's claims to support Japan's application to become a permanent member is just an empty promise and serves no purpose.


奧巴馬支持印、日入常是空頭支票

蒯轍元 資深評論員 百家戰略智庫理事

 奧巴馬總統歷時10日的亞洲之行,出於權宜之計,既為籠絡人心以推銷產品,又為拉幫結盟以牽制中國,先後給印度、日本開出兩張支持它們申請成為聯合國安全理事會常任理事國的空頭支票。印度、日本政界、媒體為之興奮,歡呼雀躍,尤其印度再次把其入常問題炒得火熱。但奧巴馬所謂支持印度、日本入常的口頭許諾原本就是兩張空頭支票,是根本無法兌現的。

 奧巴馬總統、美國政府真的誠心誠意、竭盡全力支持印度、日本入常嗎?冷眼旁觀者為之質疑,即便當局者印度、日本,或許清醒之後也會悟出代表美國的奧巴馬總統所謂支持云云,實乃虛情假意、口是心非。

政治外交誘餌,願者上釣

 然而,歷史的經驗是往往當局者迷,越是急於得到自己心儀已久、追求已久的東西時,越容易被甜言蜜語、虛假許諾所忽悠,所迷惑。當然,對印度、日本而言,求之不得的入常能得到當今世界老大美國口頭許諾,為之振奮,感激不盡,投桃報李,自在情理之中。但若能保持一份冷靜清醒,且略作一番客觀求實的分析,不難發現奧巴馬總統所謂支持印度、日本入常的口頭許諾原本就是兩張空頭支票,是根本無法兌現的。

 說實在的,奧巴馬總統所謂支持印度、日本入常的口頭表態,完全是言不由衷的逢場作戲而已。奧巴馬心知肚明,若是真的支持印度、日本入常,雖然對陷入內外交困的奧巴馬民主黨政府有暫時的利好;但從長遠來看,卻會對美國長期利益、世界領導地位帶來困擾和威脅。豈能如此養虎為患,自討苦吃。由此看來,奧巴馬所謂公開支持印度、日本入常只不過是絢麗的外交辭令而已,漂亮話說說而已,豈可當真。再者,奧巴馬如此公開、高調宣稱美國支持印度、日本入常,根本不是真心的立場的宣示,而是虛偽的姿態的政治外交秀。正可謂醉翁之意不在酒,而在於借此拉攏印度,套牢日本,並挑撥印日仇恨中國,從而漁翁得利,以實現其與印日結盟圍堵遏制中國的戰略目的。美印日都非常清楚,中國對印度搞地區霸權、日本不甘心二戰失敗,潛在威脅著中國和亞洲安全,中國自然不可能在印日未出現根本性改變之前支持其入常。顯然,奧巴馬支持印日入常,實際上是政治外交誘餌,願者上釣,自食其果。

印度與日本一廂情願

 其實,即便把美國支持印日入常的恩賜當真的話,印度、日本能否入常也不是美國一家說了算。這不僅需要聯合國安理會常任理事國美、中、英、法、俄的協商一致,還需要聯合國190多個成員國三分之二以上的投票支持。這不僅是一個艱難的過程,也是一個漫長的過程,更是一個難於協調平衡的過程。印度、日本僅憑奧巴馬口惠而實不至的空頭支票豈能兌現。儘管聯合國安理會的改革是確定的、必然的,但如何改革、何時改革,則是不確定的,充滿變數的。印度、日本未必就是不二入選的常任理事國。美國國務院比奧巴馬更了解印度的過去、現在,過往的印度為爭當發展中國家的領袖,或以領袖自居,從未同美一條心,今後也不可能同美一條心,支持其入常是下下策,風險大於利益,實際不支持才為上上策。

 因此,就在奧巴馬以支持印度入常的「空頭支票」換得印度110億美元的軍火大單的同時,美國國務院發言人就奧巴馬支持印度入常的表態做了補充或曰修正的公開說明,印度申請入常問題需要美國同安理會和聯合國成員國協商,而且過程是漫長的。這是在告誡印度其申請入常問題並非美國支持就能解決;更為明確無誤的是,奧巴馬支持的是印度「申請入常」,不應同「支持入常」混為一談。由此看來,印度津津樂道的奧巴馬支持其入常的真相,不過如此而已。印度把奧巴馬「支持申請入常」解讀成「支持入常」,實在是一廂情願,或許印度暫時需要陷入這種美式騙局而獲得自我陶醉吧。

日本依附美國離入常更遠

 再說奧巴馬民主黨政府支持日本入常的問題。由上述可知,奧巴馬對日本也是「支持申請入常」,而並非「支持入常」。在這方面,也許日本比印度更多一點清醒。儘管奧巴馬在橫濱出席APEC會議時也表示支持日本入常,日本對此就沒有像印度那樣地熱炒。因為類似的支持,日本已從奧巴馬前任小布什總統口中得到過,自然就沒有首次得到美國總統支持申請入常的印度那樣興奮和狂熱。再者,日本非常清楚其自身目前的國家狀態仍然牢牢地被置於美軍的佔領之下,日本連一個正常國家的地位都尚未完全確立,要入常首先自身就得先邁過這道坎,爭得與美國平等關係的地位,而這是十分艱難的。當今的民主黨政府在前首相鳩山在位時就為此竭盡全力抗爭,最終卻在奧巴馬政府的壓制下敗下陣,丟掉首相大位,而今內外交困、四面楚歌的菅直人首相記取前車之鑒,也已心甘情願惟美國馬首是瞻。顯然,最為現實的是,日本當政者唯有獲得美國支持才能保住大位。如此繼續下去,日本離入常不是更近了,而是漸行漸遠了。

 從美國的戰略利益和根本立場來看,美國絕不會真的讓日本入常的。日本入常不僅意味著美國對日的軍事佔領、政治外交控制的終結,且意味著放虎歸山,後患無窮;也意味著打破亞洲的軍事、政治的平衡,更意味著美國對亞洲的主導、對中國的遏制將失控。須知,得到了徹底清算的德國法西斯主義,時不時還會有沉渣浮現;更何況至今尚未得到真正清算的日本軍國主義,更存在著復辟的危險;翻二次大戰的案,清算美國的原子彈轟炸「罪行」;這一切肯定是美國不願看到的。由此看來,儘管美國縱容日本,操縱日本與中國作對也是有其底線的,豈能讓日本入常,與之平起平坐,給其軍國主義復辟創造條件和機會。這是美國決不願幹的蠢事,除非那屆美國總統發瘋了,才會如此。對日本來說,做到真正且徹底的歷史悔過,杜絕軍國主義,做一個老老實實的世界強國,才真正有希望獲得全世界的認可而入常。說得直白點,奧巴馬宣稱支持日本申請入常是空口打白條,根本不頂用。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Malta: The Arrogance of Power

Austria: Trump Is Only Part of the Problem

Topics

Ecuador: Monsters in Florida

Austria: It’s High Time Europe Lost Patience with Elon Musk

Singapore: The US May Win Some Trade Battles in Southeast Asia but Lose the War

Ethiopia: “Trump Guitars” Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

China: 3 Insights from ‘Trade War Truce’ between US and China

United Kingdom: We’re Becoming Inured to Trump’s Outbursts – But When He Goes Quiet, We Need To Be Worried

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Related Articles

Hong Kong: Foreign Media Warn US Brand Reputation Veering toward ‘Collapse’ under Trump Policy Impact

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?

Hong Kong: What Makes US Trade War More Dangerous than 2008 Crisis: Trump

Hong Kong: China, Japan, South Korea Pave Way for Summit Talks; Liu Teng-Chung: Responding to Trump