Biden stands up for Japan

This is very good news:

Joe Biden has declared that US security guarantees apply to Japan’s administration of the disputed Senkaku Islands, in the president-elect’s first significant foreign policy move related to China.

Yoshihide Suga, Japanese prime minister, said Mr Biden made the pledge in a 15-minute conversation on Thursday morning local time.

Long time readers of this blog know that I’m a huge supporter of the US defense treaties in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, which have produced the greatest period of peace in world history. Trump would frequently cast doubt on our commitment to NATO.

Trump was especially weak in his dealings with China, even going so far as to endorse Xi Jinping’s decision to put a million Muslims into concentration camps. I hope and expect that Biden will do much better. We should not go to war over human rights in China, but we should also refrain from excusing their outrageous behavior toward their own citizens in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

Trump’s unwise statements have reinforced the Chinese view that Americans don’t actually care about human rights in China, and that official statements that we do care are just posturing, designed to weaken the Chinese regime. That was Trump’s view, but I don’t believe it is true that all American governments are that cynical. Because of the damage done by Trump, the Chinese will now be even more firmly convinced that all American governments just use “human rights” as a stick to achieve other goals.

Biden’s next step should be to make it 100% clear that a Russian attack on Estonia is no different from a Russian attack on Iowa. It’s time to rebuild our alliances.


Tags:

 
 
 

26 Responses to “Biden stands up for Japan”

  1. Gravatar of xu xu
    12. November 2020 at 14:48

    Just more lies from Sumner.

    Biden is only continuing Trumps policy (lets hope).

    It was trump that organized the Quad as a resistance to China. Since Sumner has no clue about foreign policy, the quad includes Japan.

    It was Trump who increased military presence in the Taiwan straight, including the first ever joint drills. (Benefits Japan). It was Trump who helped ease tensions with North Korea. (Benefits Japan).

    Biden is a corrupt politician who made millions selling out the American worker to corporate America. While the most ruthless regime since Nazi Germany was increasing the human rights abuses, it was Biden who supported China’s admission to the Human Rights council. It was Biden who sought to make investments in china through his sons dealings.

    Trump has done more for the Japanese people and American people than Biden has done in 47 years. That is why Trump is loved in Japan. He’s also loved in Thailand, Taiwan, Hong Kong, S. KOREA and Australia, because they are glad someone finally stands up to the CCP instead of “deal” with them.

    It was Mike Pompeo, time and again, who stood up for the Uighers. Press conference after Press conference, Mike Pompeo demanded release, and sanctioned many of CCP members. Indeed, Rubio and Cruz are now sanctioned because of those sanctions. All for the uighers.

    Biden and Obama paid lip service to uighers, but did NOTHING for them. All talk no action. They only care about profit. Not american workers and peace.

  2. Gravatar of jayne jayne
    12. November 2020 at 15:03

    See this is the type of misinformation that should not be permitted.

    There is zero evidence that Trump encouraged internment of uighers. That is a statement Scott clearly took at face value from CNN, which CNN extracted from a terminated John Bolton. Its simply hearsay from a fired employee. Every other cabinet member denies it. And lets be honest, Mr. Boltons track record for credible statements is not very good. Bush had difficulties with him as well.

    Hearsay aside, the policy DJT enacted was clearly in support of Uighers. We now have a number of US senators banned and sanctioned by the CCP because of state department sanctions, so I really don’t understand why Sumner would continue to make these baseless claims.

  3. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. November 2020 at 15:20

    Jayne, Wait, you are saying Trump is more trustworthy than Bolton? Really? Did Trump lie when he said he was only going to pick the “best people” to advise him? Was that a lie? Is Bolton one of the best people?

  4. Gravatar of agrippa postumus agrippa postumus
    12. November 2020 at 15:56

    when will little bo peep sumner come home.

  5. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    12. November 2020 at 15:59

    I probably have a different take on this situation than Scott Sumner, in that I dislike US military entanglements and involvement globally (often counterproductive yet fantastically expensive) think that use of commercial sticks and carrots is preferable.

    Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Japan, Thailand, and India have plenty of money, technical sophistication and manpower to form a Joint Defense Pact.

    I wish I knew how to change the behavior of the CCP. It is evident that sailing aircraft carriers around won’t do it and may even be provocative.

    The CCP is deeply embedded into the Sino economy. Perhaps economic sanctions will be more effective. The NBA-Disney approach is not effective.

  6. Gravatar of Skeptical Skeptical
    12. November 2020 at 16:05

    Going to (potentially nuclear) war over the barren pile of rocks known as the Senkakus would be idiotic beyond belief.

    Let’s hope China doesn’t call this bluff anytime soon

  7. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    12. November 2020 at 16:58

    Article 5 of the U.S. – Japan security treaty is different than NATO’s since there is nothing that states the U.S. must defend Japan. Instead, the U.S. agrees to “act” somehow if Japan is attacked.

    From Clinton to Obama, administrations have worded the pledge as “We will honor our obligations” but Secretary of Defense Mattis was the first in over 30 years to say the U.S. will defend Japan if attacked.

  8. Gravatar of Lizard Man Lizard Man
    12. November 2020 at 18:38

    The US leadership is either bluffing or insane to be getting involved in China’s border disputes with other countries. The sensible thing to do is to let them have their way, and if any US ally objects, tell that ally that they are s.o.l. unless they want to fight China alone. Of course, bluffing can itself be a good strategy, and in slowing China’s military advances on its disputed borders reduce chances for war, as slowing down the process may make it easier for nations in the region to adjust to Chinese dominance. But to think that it is worth the cost of world war three for the US to police those borders is something that would be foolish for countries like Japan to rely upon. Why would the US take such a great deal of upon itself for something that is not all that important to its long term interests?

  9. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    12. November 2020 at 19:55

    I agree that we badly need to reinforce our alliances. I agree that these alliances contributed to the longest period of peace among major powers, in the context of mutually assured destruction.

  10. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. November 2020 at 20:32

    Ben, NATO doesn’t cost us a penny. It’s up to the US to decide how much to spend on defense. We don’t need to spend more because of NATO if we don’t want to. It’s just a joint security pact.

    Skeptical. The entire purpose of these joint security pacts is to avoid nuclear war. We had WWII precisely because we made the mistake of not creating a NATO after WWI. Let’s not make that mistake again. Let’s not have another nuclear war–Hiroshima was bad enough.

  11. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    12. November 2020 at 20:34

    Lizard Man, it’s a bluff and all sides know it.

  12. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    12. November 2020 at 23:42

    Scott: Well, my two cents here certainly will not change US military-intelligence spending.

    But remember, once you give the US federal government a modest mandate—such as global security—you create a range of interest groups attached thereto.

    Those groups have livelihoods and profits attached to the resulting bureaucracy and programs, and are the smartest and most-informed lobbyists, and targeted campaign contributors.

    The citizen-taxpayer is along for the ride.

    With foreign policy issues there is an additional overlay of who it serves. US foreign policy seems to be about being a global guard service for multinationals, who, again, have the largest stake, the most money, the best access and the smartest lobbyist-PR teams.

    In the extremely unlikely scenario that a President said, “I am declaring the US to be Switzerland II, abrogating treaty obligations, and pulling all the troops home,” and then did it, and it stuck, then in about 10 years I think you might see spending go down, as citizens realized we are spending an awful lot to protect our shores from a nil threat of an actual military invasion.

    But rest assured, that will never happen.

    There are also legitimate worries about the attendant intelligence complex created.

    No one could ever get rid of J Edgar Hoover. And the tools he had were limited in comparison to what exists today.

  13. Gravatar of Skeptical Skeptical
    13. November 2020 at 00:35

    The entire purpose of these joint security pacts is to avoid nuclear war. We had WWII precisely because we made the mistake of not creating a NATO after WWI. Let’s not make that mistake again. Let’s not have another nuclear war–Hiroshima was bad enough.

    Yes but we didn’t say “send tanks into Prague and we’ll invade the USSR”. The Senkakus is not the place to draw a line in the proverbial and literal(?) sand. It’s not worth the life of one Pomeranian Grenadier kid from Ohio.

    Yeah let’s reconfirm our security pacts in Asia let’s just not be careless about what we’re promising to defend

  14. Gravatar of Anonymous Anonymous
    13. November 2020 at 03:15

    I still remember the 2016 media reaction to Trump’s hostility against China. Back then, it was seen as him antagonizing an ally and trying to distract from the real enemy, Russia, who was back then bombing allies in Syria.

    At some point during his presidency attitudes changed and China did start being seen as public enemy #1. If Trump has achieved anything, it is that change in the public view on China.

    Whether worsening the relations with China was a good or bad thing remains to be seen. But to say that Trump was *weak* on China and even imply that he was friendly toward them because of a compliment strikes me as massive revisionism. Dude, four years ago, Trump was ridiculed for his anti-China rhetoric, as the only person stirring up a pot that should not be stirred! He started the entire thing!

  15. Gravatar of J Mann J Mann
    13. November 2020 at 06:21

    Trump’s interview with Axios is consistent with Bolton’s account – he doesn’t say that he encouraged the camps, but does say that he didn’t pressure Xi on the camps at that time because he wanted a trade deal.

    https://www.axios.com/trump-uighur-muslims-sanctions-d4dc86fc-17f4-42bd-bdbd-c30f4d2ffa21.html

    I don’t know if Biden will be better than Trump on foreign policy, but obviously I would prefer that to worse. Trump’s foreign policy is like a lot of his policies – he said a lot of questionable stuff, but the blocking and tackling by his administration was often good. There’s room for Biden to do better, or worse.

  16. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    13. November 2020 at 08:57

    Wow—-attack on Estonia is attack on Iowa. Well, that is kind of the NATO idea. Whose troops? NATO troops. Which NATO country’s troops? Pretty neo conservative of you.

    Except that is absurd on its face. Not even remotely close. Regardless of your view of Trump vs Biden on NATO, I trust Trump would be far more persuasive in preventing such an act—-with real threats—-than Biden. Just my opinion.

    No war on human rights in China? What about Taiwan? I do know Trump has armed them up—-or since Taiwan is China—just let them go?

    Your comment on Japan and Trump is idiotic.

  17. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    13. November 2020 at 09:07

    Also as @jayne said, Scott is now a CNN newsreader.His comment on Uiegers. (Sp?) is absurd. 3 degrees of separation—-Bolton to CNN to Scott to us—-context is everything—which we do not know.

  18. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    13. November 2020 at 09:32

    Strengthening alliances is a no-brainer. Agreeing on how any alliance should react to an invasion of Taiwan is a big brainer. The CCP will never yield on Taiwan. War games show that the US military will get mauled trying to defend Taiwan. Losing Taiwan will expose Japanese shipping lanes. China’s neighbors will know that we can vacate the neighborhood in the event of a defeat and they will be left behind to deal with a pissed off giant.

    So, strengthen the alliances, play by the rules in international agreements and find some high profile ways to admit where we were wrong to reinforce our recommitment to the rules, keep gently raising the price of war, keep showing China that the current international institutions benefit them while figuring out ways to recognize the realities of China’s increased military and economic might, strengthen our military communication with China to avoid miscalculations. And, hope like hell that China doesn’t make a grab for Taiwan.

  19. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. November 2020 at 10:20

    Skeptical, You said:

    “Yeah let’s reconfirm our security pacts in Asia let’s just not be careless about what we’re promising to defend”

    That’s what I’m saying. The Senkakus are already behind that line, and have been for decades. Let’s not destabilize things.

    Anonymous, I assure you that the Chinese discount our public statements on human rights. When Trump tells them privately that we don’t care about human rights, that’s what they pay attention to.

    I understand that the perception is that Trump’s been tough on China. Maybe that’s true on trade, but certainly not on human rights, which is the issue that matters. (The trade war was a big failure, BTW.)

    Michael, Trump was Putin’s puppy, he wouldn’t stop Putin from doing anything.

    You said:

    “Your comment on Japan and Trump is idiotic.”

    I made no comment on Japan and Trump.

    As for Bolton, I don’t like his politics. But the claim that Trump’s word is more reliable than Bolton’s is just laughable. You can’t really believe that?

    Carl, I agree that Taiwan is the toughest issue, and I don’t have a good solution. My current view is that we should agree to defend Taiwan as long as Taiwan doesn’t declare independence. In other words, just kick the can down the road and hope that in the very long run cooler heads will prevail.

  20. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    13. November 2020 at 12:50

    Scott: “My current view is that we should agree to defend Taiwan as long as Taiwan doesn’t declare independence.”

    So far, the U.S. hasn’t agreed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

  21. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    13. November 2020 at 13:01

    Scott,

    I agree that a targeted effective manipulation of elections is very difficult and unlikely. In a system with the simultaneous counting of all votes without intermediate results it is almost impossible.

    In order to significantly increase the risk of a targeted effective election manipulation, two things would be needed:

    A divided, highly partisan society in which even moderate libertarian world-class economics professors would stylize the elections as an apocalyptic battle of Good vs. Evil. In such a good vs. evil world, it is the first civic duty of any “good” citizen to count the votes in the “right” way in order to prevent the downfall into barbarism and the end of the world.

    In such an ideologically super-charged world, no more orders would have to be given from the very top, the local election authorities and local elections workers would simply know what to do in their “blue” resp. “red” district or state.

    And secondly, one would need an ineffective, outdated election system that doesn’t count the votes simultaneously, but over many, many days with many intermediate results, so that close to every idiot can calculate quite accurately how many votes one would need to manipulate.

    Thank God both conditions are not met in the US.

    P.S. I am not saying that these elections were rigged in a meaningful way. I don’t think so and I don’t believe in that. I’m just saying that if you wanted to rig an election in a certain way in certain regions and states, then the conditions in the US are surprisingly good. The US should really fix that. Unfortunately they won’t.

    This system makes it easier for Trump to put on his ridiculous martyr act, which might even resonate with his base and beyond.

  22. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    13. November 2020 at 13:03

    Wrong thread, terribly sorry.

  23. Gravatar of TGGP TGGP
    13. November 2020 at 21:40

    “Biden’s next step should be to make it 100% clear that a Russian attack on Estonia is no different from a Russian attack on Iowa. It’s time to rebuild our alliances.”
    That’s an irrational position to take, and the Russians (rightly) wouldn’t believe any U.S politician who claimed that. Estonia isn’t part of the U.S, has never been part of the U.S, and when the Soviet Union grabbed Estonia before we didn’t go to war over it. It’s possible to have defensive alliances without saying such absurd things.

  24. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    14. November 2020 at 06:36

    No, you did not make a direct comment on Trump and Japan

    You did say “Biden stands up for Japan” but your Holmesian non-barking dog was not saying “like Trump”

    You did say you are a huge supporter of our treating in Asia Pacific and Europe. Me too. Trump wanted more fair contributions in Europe—which you called “casting doubt” on our support for Europe. Again, did not hear the dog bark—-you could have said “unlike Japan which he does support strongly”

    So yes, I inferred—-but you implied.

  25. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    14. November 2020 at 09:19

    Todd, That’s true, but they’ve also strongly hinted they would do so, which has a similar effect. And I’m pretty sure they’ve privately told Taiwan that the promise will be withdrawn if they declare independence. So I’m pretty confident that current policy is at least close to my suggestion.

    TGGP, But Estonia was not part of NATO when it was grabbed by the Soviet Union, so your example is completely irrelevant. No NATO country has ever been attacked, so I’d say the credibility of NATO is pretty strong.

    And you are very mistaken if you think we would not respond militarily to an attack on a NATO member. Fortunately, Putin’s not that stupid; he knows we are dead serious. Remember when Saddam Hussein thought we wouldn’t do anything to protect tiny Kuwait? Putin remembers.

    Michael, You said:

    “Holmesian non-barking dog”

    Why don’t you stop making a fool of yourself and respond to what I actually wrote, instead of inventing fantasies.

    You said:

    “Trump wanted more fair contributions in Europe—which you called “casting doubt” on our support for Europe.”

    No I didn’t call it that. Why don’t you stop making a fool of yourself and respond to what I actually wrote. All presidents encourage Europe to spend more, but they don’t cast doubt on our support for the alliance.

  26. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    14. November 2020 at 09:32

    Michael, This Yglesias tweet reminded me of you:

    https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1327661693917335557

Leave a Reply