Japanese-American Leaders’ Telephone Conference: Why Omit ‘China’?
Published in Sankei News
(Japan) on 29 January 2021
by (link to original)
(Japan) on 29 January 2021
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Sylvan Hancock.
Edited by Michelle Bisson.
Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide and U.S. President Joe Biden held their first telephone conference.
The two leaders agreed to work closely together to further strengthen the Japanese-American alliance and on rigorous cooperation in implementing a "free and open Indo-Pacific." They also confirmed cooperation on the topics of the North Korean nuclear missile program, Japanese citizen abduction incidents, COVID-19 countermeasures and climate change.
Biden also announced his determination to provide "extended deterrence" centered upon the nuclear umbrella to the Senkaku Islands, as stipulated in the provisions of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, which stipulates the defense of Japan by the U.S.
Although this is welcome, some things are extremely unsatisfactory.
What stance should both these governments take regarding the highly problematic case of China? It appears this issue was omitted.
Being newly inaugurated, the Biden administration has not yet decided on a policy regarding China.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has followed the approach of the Donald Trump administration in calling the Chinese government's oppression of the Uighur people in the Xinjiang-Uigur Autonomous Region "genocide." He has also said "there is a hostile side"* to the Chinese-American relationship.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated that the plan was "starting from an approach of patience" with China. Yet the Barack Obama administration also followed a policy of "strategic patience" and allowed the North Korean nuclear missile program to develop as a result. Have they not learned their lesson?
The telephone conference with Biden came after calls with Britain, France, Germany and Russia, leaving Japan trailing behind. If Biden truly finds Chinese issues to be of the utmost importance, it is hard to believe he would postpone a meeting with an ally that is a neighbor of China.
Even before his inauguration, Biden showed signs he wished to cooperate with allies in confronting China.
Given these factors, the stance Suga should have taken with Biden in this conference is obvious. He should have immediately brought up the issue of Chinese hegemony, called for cooperation in suppressing its influence and announced this position both domestically and abroad.
Yet, although the Japanese government's statement alluded to discussing China while exchanging views on the Indo-Pacific region, it did not disclose the specifics, stating they were "withholding the details."
Did Suga fail to explain matters to the country because he is nervous about China, or did he want to discuss matters but had little information to share? It makes me anxious either way. As prime minister charged with handling national policy, Suga has an obligation and a responsibility to engage with the issues in China head on.
*Editor's Note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be independently verified.
The two leaders agreed to work closely together to further strengthen the Japanese-American alliance and on rigorous cooperation in implementing a "free and open Indo-Pacific." They also confirmed cooperation on the topics of the North Korean nuclear missile program, Japanese citizen abduction incidents, COVID-19 countermeasures and climate change.
Biden also announced his determination to provide "extended deterrence" centered upon the nuclear umbrella to the Senkaku Islands, as stipulated in the provisions of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, which stipulates the defense of Japan by the U.S.
Although this is welcome, some things are extremely unsatisfactory.
What stance should both these governments take regarding the highly problematic case of China? It appears this issue was omitted.
Being newly inaugurated, the Biden administration has not yet decided on a policy regarding China.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has followed the approach of the Donald Trump administration in calling the Chinese government's oppression of the Uighur people in the Xinjiang-Uigur Autonomous Region "genocide." He has also said "there is a hostile side"* to the Chinese-American relationship.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated that the plan was "starting from an approach of patience" with China. Yet the Barack Obama administration also followed a policy of "strategic patience" and allowed the North Korean nuclear missile program to develop as a result. Have they not learned their lesson?
The telephone conference with Biden came after calls with Britain, France, Germany and Russia, leaving Japan trailing behind. If Biden truly finds Chinese issues to be of the utmost importance, it is hard to believe he would postpone a meeting with an ally that is a neighbor of China.
Even before his inauguration, Biden showed signs he wished to cooperate with allies in confronting China.
Given these factors, the stance Suga should have taken with Biden in this conference is obvious. He should have immediately brought up the issue of Chinese hegemony, called for cooperation in suppressing its influence and announced this position both domestically and abroad.
Yet, although the Japanese government's statement alluded to discussing China while exchanging views on the Indo-Pacific region, it did not disclose the specifics, stating they were "withholding the details."
Did Suga fail to explain matters to the country because he is nervous about China, or did he want to discuss matters but had little information to share? It makes me anxious either way. As prime minister charged with handling national policy, Suga has an obligation and a responsibility to engage with the issues in China head on.
*Editor's Note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be independently verified.
Previous article![]( "Trump Leaves, but Trumpism Continues: What Should We Expect from the Opposition?")
Next article![]( "Poet Amanda Gorman Opens Super Bowl")
