North Korea: 2012-2016

[Ken White]

Why would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China?

Straightforward. Operative word is 'leadership' to which JMA responded

The first would be this: U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement

Also straightforward. Operative word is "mutual."

If someone leads, someone else follows. Is it just me or does that not imply a potential override of the mutual aspect. It would seem that with an agreement of mutuality, neither the US or Japan should try any leading...

Further, does that agreement include response of any type in minor diplomatic quibbles with centuries old less than friends? I don't know but I suspect not...

Dayuhan asks a legitimate question which you did not answer but fobbed off with a not germane comment. You're quite good at that.

[JMA]

Straightforward. Operative word is 'leadership' to which JMA respondedAlso straightforward. Operative word is "mutual."

If someone leads, someone else follows. Is it just me or does that not imply a potential override of the mutual aspect. It would seem that with an agreement of mutuality, neither the US or Japan should try any leading...

Further, does that agreement include response of any type in minor diplomatic quibbles with centuries old less than friends? I don't know but I suspect not...

Dayuhan asks a legitimate question which you did not answer but fobbed off with a not germane comment. You're quite good at that.

As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.

It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off.

It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.

Maybe you would like to take a stab at explaining why it is in the US best interest that it shows some leadership to prevent the current tensions between China and Japan to escalate?

[Backwards Observer]

Dang! Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.

[Dayuhan]

Dang! Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.

Amusing... though of course Japan is historically no skinny 98 lb weakling, and if Japan shows any sign of pumping iron the rest of East Asia goes into immediate anxiety attacks. IMO it's time to let that go, but that's not the way it is.

[QUOTE=JMA;107045]

The first would be this: U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement

And then this: China – Japan strife spotlights a strategic U.S. vulnerability

The mutual defense assistance agreement is irrelevant, because Japan isn't under attack and requires no defense assistance. It would only be appropriate for the US to get involved if Japan were to request it: for the US to barge in and try to assume a "leadership role" without a Japanese request would be far more humiliating to Japan than anything China could do.

Talking about "strife" is hugely overblown verbiage. There isn't any strife. A wee bit of tension, of a sort that's been going on periodically for decades. It's not a big deal and it would be a huge mistake to try and make a big deal of it.

As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.

It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off.

It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.

US commitments and interests in NE Asia have not been at all compromised, and there's no indication that they're likely to be, unless of course the US gets stupid and starts doing a bull-in-the-China-shop act.

Nobody's been humiliated, unless you take the schoolyard perspective and assume anything that isn't confrontation is humiliation.

I wouldn't want to start with accusations of woeful ignorance, which seem to be pushing to the edge of the TOU, but if you're going to lay the expression on Ken I suppose I can use it too: I've lived 30+ years in East Asia, and I pay attention... and as far as I can see the "woefully ignorant" shoes are sitting on your feet.

PS: This seems to be getting off the North Korea subject, possibly a new "China and East Asis" thread is appropriate. Might already be one; I haven't looked.

[Backwards Observer]

Amusing...

You, Sir, have cut me to the quick. Need I remind you that satisfaction is but a stamp away?

[JMA]

The mutual defense assistance agreement is irrelevant, ...

Oh boy...

Talking about "strife" is hugely overblown verbiage.

Someone used the word "strife"?

US commitments and interests in NE Asia have not been at all compromised, and there's no indication that they're likely to be, unless of course the US gets stupid and starts doing a bull-in-the-China-shop act.

"Compromised"? Did someone use that word? More like... challenged... and in both cases the US and then Japan collapsed like a wet paper bag in the face of a Chinese challenge.

Nobody's been humiliated, unless you take the schoolyard perspective and assume anything that isn't confrontation is humiliation.

Denial works for some. It is obvious that if the new bully says "don't do that" or "give that back" and the two being addressed snap to attention and comply that there has been a brace of humiliating back-downs.

This is germane to North Korea because it clearly indicates that the US and ROK are merely posturing while Uncle Hong is really running the show.

[Dayuhan]

Oh boy...

The mutual defense assistance agreement would be relevant if either party was under attack or otherwise required defense. No attack, no need for defense, no relevance to the treaty.

Someone used the word "strife"?

The blog post you cited used the word "strife".

"Compromised"? Did someone use that word? More like... challenged... and in both cases the US and then Japan collapsed like a wet paper bag in the face of a Chinese challenge.

US commitments and interests were neither challenged nor compromised. The US, as I said above, would not get involved in a Japan/China issue without a Japanese request, which did not happen. You're making Himalayas of molehills; nothing of any lasting (or even transient) significance happened and there's nothing to get all puffed up and blustery about, unless of course puffed up bluster is your preferred state.

Denial works for some. It is obvious that if the new bully says "don't do that" or "give that back" and the two being addressed snap to attention and comply that there has been a brace of humiliating back-downs.... This is germane to North Korea because it clearly indicates that the US and ROK are merely posturing while Uncle Hong is really running the show.

Fantasy, but if fear is your default state and you really need someone to be afraid of, I suppose China fills the need as well as anyone. The US really has no need indulge in chest-puffing confrontations over nothing; we know (and the Chinese know) exactly how vulnerable China is and what we could do in a real confrontation and there's no need whatsoever to play games over the meaningless. Posturing is for children.

[JMA]

The mutual defense assistance agreement would be relevant if either party was under attack or otherwise required defense. No attack, no need for defense, no relevance to the treaty.

The blog post you cited used the word "strife".

US commitments and interests were neither challenged nor compromised. The US, as I said above, would not get involved in a Japan/China issue without a Japanese request, which did not happen. You're making Himalayas of molehills; nothing of any lasting (or even transient) significance happened and there's nothing to get all puffed up and blustery about, unless of course puffed up bluster is your preferred state.

Fantasy, but if fear is your default state and you really need someone to be afraid of, I suppose China fills the need as well as anyone. The US really has no need indulge in chest-puffing confrontations over nothing; we know (and the Chinese know) exactly how vulnerable China is and what we could do in a real confrontation and there's no need whatsoever to play games over the meaningless. Posturing is for children.

Pass on this (see my separate post)

[Tukhachevskii]

Dang! Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.

Thta's got to be the best pictoral representation of the "security dillema" I've ever seen. Nice post!

[Ken White]

As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.

Really? Who knew. I thought all those trips I took to exotic places on five continents for forty plus years were just for fun, had no idea I was defending or furthering 'interests.'...

It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off.

"Obvious" to you -- no one else seems to be terribly concerned.

It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.

If you had directed that ''against the rules" personal attack at anyone else, I'd send you to the Penalty Box; since it's directed at me, this time I'll just consider the source and suggest the ignorance apparent here is not mine.

Maybe you would like to take a stab at explaining why it is in the US best interest that it shows some leadership to prevent the current tensions between China and Japan to escalate?

Uh, no I would not -- you are the one who holds the position that we should do that, I agree with Dayuhan; no need for it -- so if anyone should do that, you'd seem to be just the lad who should take on the chore. Asking me to take your position is sort of a misallocation. Yet another simple oversight on your part, I'm sure, no worries.

We've been playing these games in northeast Asia since 1949 and with four tours in Korea, two war and two post war, I pay attention to what goes on there and have for years.

P.S.

Watch the personal stuff. That's a serious statement, generic and has nothing to do with this thread. This is the second time I've passed that suggestion to you.

[JMA]

Uh, no I would not -- you are the one who holds the position that we should do that, I agree with Dayuhan; no need for it -- so if anyone should do that, you'd seem to be just the lad who should take on the chore. Asking me to take your position is sort of a misallocation. Yet another simple oversight on your part, I'm sure, no worries.

The inability to articulate the US interests in the region could be construed that certain positions taken by some are not based on any credible intellectual basis, yes?

Do the Senkaku Islands mean anything to you by any chance?

[Ken White]

The inability to articulate the US interests in the region could be construed that certain positions taken by some are not based on any credible intellectual basis, yes?

Equally, lack of desire to articulate them to someone who lives apparently only to refute disagreements on any pretext can be confused with inability...

Most of us engage in discussions that have merit in our opinion and tend to avoid specious arguments. Most of us...

Do the Senkaku Islands mean anything to you by any chance?

Yep, all those Chineses claims have been of interest since the Quemoy-Matsu discussions here in 1960. The Senkaku / Diaoyu were occupied by us, rightly or wrongly, as the Senkaku and part of Okinawa after WW II until the early 70s. We wisely divested ourselves when the potential for oil and / or gas was first publicly mentioned in 1969 and the 'who owns them' argument, shrouded in a tangled history and muddled perhaps by the Qings began to trickle out. The ongoing claim and counterclaim has been going on ever since then and I've followed it for over 50 years. How about you?

[JMA]

Equally, lack of desire to articulate them to someone who lives apparently only to refute disagreements on any pretext can be confused with inability... Most of us engage in discussions that have merit in our opinion and tend to avoid specious arguments. Most of us...

Ken, I'm not sure you are being forced to participate in this thread, are you?

Yep, all those Chineses claims have been of interest since the Quemoy-Matsu discussions here in 1960. The Senkaku / Diaoyu were occupied by us, rightly or wrongly, as the Senkaku and part of Okinawa after WW II until the early 70s. We wisely divested ourselves when the potential for oil and / or gas was first publicly mentioned in 1969 and the 'who owns them' argument, shrouded in a tangled history and muddled perhaps by the Qings began to trickle out. The ongoing claim and counterclaim has been going on ever since then and I've followed it for over 50 years. How about you?

It doesn't matter what the history of the Islands is as since around 1969 when the gas and/or oil reserves were discovered China/Taiwan/Japan have been claiming the islands. Does anyone really think there will be a reasonable agreement made in this regard? There will be a winner and there will be a loser. Any guesses?

The US declaring neutrality over the status of the islands is by no means wise. As can be seen it has left the door wide open for China to exploit by the creation of a confrontation as is now happening. Not wise... but rather a demonstration of diplomatic ineptitude.

[Ken White]

Ken, I'm not sure you are being forced to participate in this thread, are you?

I merely chime in when the mood strikes. Egregiousness is its own reward.

There will be a winner and there will be a loser. Any guesses?

The first sentence is possibly correct; the second certainly is, it would be a guess -- as you point out, the issue became an issue only in the 70s and its been back and forth ever since. Way too early to tell.

Not wise... but rather a demonstration of diplomatic ineptitude.

Your opinion is noted. Others vary.