Japanese start to talk preemptive strike
The Japanese are making even more noise about the possibility of stretching their pacifist constitution to justify a "defensive" preemptive strike against North Korea.
Repeating yesterday's thoughts, I really think this is an effort at indirect pressure on the Chinese. The regional balance of the China/Japan relationship is critical to China, and a threat by Japan to militarize shifts Chinese interests.
State Department Undersecretary Nicholas Burns claims the US has the votes to pass sanctions on N. Korea, but that vote counting leaves out the possible veto votes of Russia and China. So, we'll have to wait and see if Japan's sabre rattling continues after the Security Council vote.
And, if the US is behind this, I think we can put to bed all those claims of a new, "non-cowboy" foreign policy. Maybe I'm wrong, but indirectly threatening a regional proxy war with the world's second superpower seems pretty "cowboy" to me.
UPDATE: It may have worked. The UN vote was delayed at Chinese request to the Japanese until a Chinese delegation leaves Pyongyang.
Also, thinking about it a little more, I would guess the Indian nuclear capable missile test was probably a part of this as well. After all, India is our newest BFF since we freed them from any nuclear development and trade restrictions, and the Chinese don't want them militarizing either.
While looking at pressure points, let's add the largest US carrier excercise since Vietnam and another huge multinational naval excercise in the "western Pacific."
Repeating yesterday's thoughts, I really think this is an effort at indirect pressure on the Chinese. The regional balance of the China/Japan relationship is critical to China, and a threat by Japan to militarize shifts Chinese interests.
State Department Undersecretary Nicholas Burns claims the US has the votes to pass sanctions on N. Korea, but that vote counting leaves out the possible veto votes of Russia and China. So, we'll have to wait and see if Japan's sabre rattling continues after the Security Council vote.
And, if the US is behind this, I think we can put to bed all those claims of a new, "non-cowboy" foreign policy. Maybe I'm wrong, but indirectly threatening a regional proxy war with the world's second superpower seems pretty "cowboy" to me.
UPDATE: It may have worked. The UN vote was delayed at Chinese request to the Japanese until a Chinese delegation leaves Pyongyang.
Also, thinking about it a little more, I would guess the Indian nuclear capable missile test was probably a part of this as well. After all, India is our newest BFF since we freed them from any nuclear development and trade restrictions, and the Chinese don't want them militarizing either.
While looking at pressure points, let's add the largest US carrier excercise since Vietnam and another huge multinational naval excercise in the "western Pacific."
posted by mikevotes at
8:34 AM
4 Comments:
I've always though China was the key to the NK problem.
Without Chinese sponsorship (or tacit support) they are truly isolated.
But it has served China's purpose to have a junk yard dog around.
I hope it does put pressure on the 'new' China to put a muzzle on their dog.
By
Cartledge, at 9:57 AM
Isn't there something a wee bit oxymoronic about a defensive pre-emptive strike?
And wouldn't it be prophetic if our fearless leader were to leave office having mired us in not just another Vietnam, but another cold war with the world's other superpower?
Hold on - I think I'm having an acid flashback...
By
Anonymous, at 11:46 AM
I agree, Cartledge, the road leads through Beijing. And, really, it's a very logical step from their viewpoint for the Chinese to push the N. Koreans out there. While they're establishing trade relationships over the region, the US is forced to spend any goodwill it has trying to get cooperation on N. Korea.
Rachie, the preemptive, defensive strike has a long history in wars of aggression, from the Romans up through Iraq.
And, as for conflict with China, that was pretty much called for in the New American Century documents which said that all means should be employed to keep regional powers from becoming world powers. That's part of the reason that the US was trying so desperately to get their hands on the oil taps.
There is a school of thought which views conflict with China, at least of a cold war type, as inevitable as we alternate places over the next century.
Although I have drifted afield with events, that was one of the original ideas behind this blog, that as the US falls relative to China, it would take extremely shrewd leadership to manage the shift. And that without it, the US could end up in a disaster.
The goal should be to establish a very strong international system of laws and agreements to rein in China as it rises. Now is the time to build those constructs because when the Chinese have ascended, the will be the ones writing them.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:46 PM
The Japanese have spent way too much time in Iraq.
By
Anonymous, at 2:42 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home