North Korea: 2012-2016

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 Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.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 Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.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

Pass on this (see my separate post)

Sir, I get the feeling you were one of those kids who "didn't play well with others". That was me too, once. I forget how rightously grumpy I could be, for a teen.

[JMA]

The following article from Al Jazeera has a similar take on the China-Japan stand-off as I do. I take no joy in the proof that my position is not a lone voice in the wilderness but continue to be saddened that so many people for one reason or the other were unable to accurately read the situation as it developed.

And the winner in the China-Japan feud is ...

I have used the term humiliating climb down for both the US/ROK move of the naval exercise and the Japanese release of the Chinese fishing boat captain but would now like to borrow the word capitulation from the Al Jazeera piece.

In summary then:

Not only did China get its way, everyone else saw it, and saw how it was done, too. You can't imagine Vietnam, with its own territorial dispute with China, feeling any safer. Or the rest of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations). Or South Korea. Or the people of Japan, as they watch their leaders capitulate.

Now we wait for the little matter of the Chinese demand for an apology and compensation to be resolved.

[Tukhachevskii]

I have used the term humiliating climb down for both the US/ROK move of the naval exercise and the Japanese release of the Chinese fishing boat captain but would now like to borrow the word capitulation from the Al Jazeera piece.

Now we wait for the little matter of the Chinese demand for an apology and compensation to be resolved.

Sir, I agree with your usage of words like "humiliating" but only in the sense that I understand the deep resonance things like "face" and "shame" have in the Orient. But I think, though this may be a "victory" for china in the short term (whatever "victory" may mean in this case that is) that actually in the medium term it is Japan that comes up smelling of roses. Japan was yesterday's foe and China is what people are more worried about (esp. in ASEAN which was an AntiChiCom org to begin with). Vietnam, amongst other countries, will be reassenign their strategey and will move, more likely than not, to bandwagon with Japan, having seen this as another example of Chinese revanchism (which, of course the Chinese don't see that way, the ChiCom gocvernment and the majority Han that is, nod to Backwards Observer there). Japan, already allied to America, looks an awful lot more attractive given her pacifist stance these last few decades than does Red China. However, I also suspect that recent events have also been blown out of proportion even thogh the general direction of Asian politics seems to tend toward what I've described avbove, IMO.

[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!