politics

Panetta's Asia-Pacific visit shows balancing role U.S. hopes to play

31 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

31 Comments
Login to comment

Panetta one minute says the island issue has nothing to do with the US, then the next, when the Ospreys are suddenly given permission by the Japanese government to fly, says the Senkakus are part of the US/Japan agreement and the US stands behind Japan.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

exactly, Smithinjapan - - Obama administrationt talking from both sides of the mouth -------- as usual

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The US is in Japan not because it has any intetes tin protecting Japan's sovereignty . . . it is here for it's own strategic reasons . . . . .Japan is an important rade partner for China. . . . and vice versa. . . . .China and Japan are smart enough to work out the issues between them. They do not need USA doing its "balancing act" - - - - We have witnessed, historically, what happens to countries that depend on US for help.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Re-arm Japan until it's not too late, America will not come to your aid comes crisis with China. China is intended to wipe you out, as soon he is finish building up.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If the US clearly said that these isles are a part of the US-Japan security treaty in return of that Japan accepted Osprey flying over Japan, Okinawa US bases must be strategically the most important base of all in the Pacific for the US rather than to protect Japan. From the beginning, the US wanted to deploy Osprey aircraft on the Okinawa base whatever. Osprey has an enough capability to be able to fly to Senkaku archipelagos, so they would soon all over for military drill/training.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Ospreys to defend Japan, Is this a joke or insult?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It does need a broker to bargain for each other between owner and buyer, especially this broker owe so much money to both of the owner and the buyer. Furthermore, don't be so stingy! we should let more people to make some money for living, isn't it?

kwatt: If the US clearly said that these isles are a part of the US-Japan security treaty...

Don't be silly, a broker'll never let buyers know what's the real bottom!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seriously, you should not have any sort of expectation that our military will bleed for you. I don't know where you got that impression from but Hilary and any politicians in US were talking smokes when they vouched to protect you for something that you initiated (see Ishihara for references). Especially over disputed territories.

You can re-arm yourself and call yourself whatever or even develop your own nuclear weapons. But don't expect our military will fight for you. It won't happen. I have many ranking friends in the military. None of them are fond of this idea of fighting the Chinese. Stop being delusional. Just be happy that we are here to protect you from being invaded on your sovereign territories. Senkaku/Diaoyu islands are obviously not part of the deal. Hilary will step down in a few months, she can say whatever the hell she wants. When it comes to war, Americans and congress have to support it. No sane American will support a war with the Chinese. Stop this non-sense of yours. You are on your own on this spat. Didn't you hear what Panetta said and remember who this guy was, 9 terms congressman from California, former Chief of Staffs in the Clinton years, former CIA head, and now DOD head. This guy is not just a politician like Hilary. He's a technocrat and an inside man. He knows exactly what China has and will have. There's a reason why he said for he said in China that US won't allow its allies to use US military protection as a mean of instigating conflicts. How much more clear can he be? Seriously. Stop being so damn delusional.

You can buy our weapons and we can even station more troops in Japan. That's your money supporting this. Okie dokie with the DOD and the defense industries. Buy our F-15, F-35, and Osprey, Poseidons, Pac III, whatever that's second rate in our military is all up for sale. But don't expect our top weapons and don't expect any blood drawn. IF you do, have your heads checked out, fast.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

China and Japan are smart enough to work out the issues between them.

Yeah, good luck with that. So far, neither has been encouraging.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@semperfi

Not sure why you say this is an Obama issue, 'merkans have been avoiding this problem since 1945. Sooner the yanks leave Japan the better, then let's see who wears the trousers in Asia

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@callmeB - pretty long rant. This issue is not so one-sided as you would like to think, though. For one thing, 'ranking members,' unless you mean ranks above general, have no say in who they shoot. And contrary to what you think, there are lots of Americans who would gladly fight to protect Japan; some because it's an ally, some because it's against China. But one of the main reasons would be that if we let China act militarily against such a close ally, America's balls shrink by about 50% in the eyes of the entire world. That WILL NOT be allowed to happen.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's good to hear Panetta's words. That's the kind of foreign policy that Asia misses.

I was worried about japanese government not giving any pronnunciation about the case.

It was like Japan was waiting for China to come and start a war. This is defenitely not good foreign policy.

Japan have to learn a lot about politics.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We just ended the war in Iraq and going to end the other one by 2014. Syria, Libya , Iran plus a few other " minor " ones are acting up. Our plate is full, can't handle anymore problems.

Fellow readers ( I know you all live in Japan, feel like the local and love the local ways )GET REAL, We are not going to shed blood on your behalf. You are , as CallmeB posted earlier, on your own. We may provide you with weapons but you will have to do the trigger squeezing yourself , a whole different story when you realize you have to do the dirty work yourself, isn't it ?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@oberst

Fellow readers ( I know you all live in Japan, feel like the local and love the local ways )GET REAL, We are not going to shed blood on your behalf.

Who's "we"? Which regiment do you serve in?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Well, the US did fight the Chinese during the Korean War, won't be surprised if history repeats itself and Japanese politicians seem reassured by the US-Japan Security Treaty. Japan should, however, think about what happened to Korea afterwards before they consider pulling the trigger.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This is what Panetta said exactly in Beijing during his recent visit as shown in http://www.defense.gov/

"SEC. PANETTA: Thank you for that question. Before I came to China, I visited Japan. And I made very clear to the Japanese leaders that I met with that they have a responsibility to exercise leadership to assure that these issues are resolved peacefully.

The United States does not take a position with regards to these territorial disputes. But we are concerned that these -- these kinds of disputes could lead to greater conflicts and to greater violence. And, therefore, it is incumbent on both China and Japan to find ways to hopefully resolve these issues peacefully.

I understand the history here. I understand the deep wounds that China suffered during World War II. Nobody understands those wounds better than the United States, because the United States also suffered deep wounds during World War II.

But at the same time, we cannot live in the past. We have to live in the future, the present and the future. And for that reason, the United States, China, Japan have developed relationships that extend on the diplomatic front, the economic front, and, indeed, on the military front. And my hope is that, in order to preserve that prosperity and security that we need in the Asia-Pacific region, that countries will work together to find ways to resolve these issues.

As I said, I understand the history. I understand the pain. I understand the depth of the wounds. I understand how there are those who, because of their particular ideology, can play these issues up in one country or the other. But responsible leadership in both countries has a duty to both countries to assure that we find ways to resolve these differences. And I am confident, after my discussions with both the Japanese leadership, and particularly with the Chinese leadership, that both are concerned about finding ways to be able to resolve these issues."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Fellow readers ( I know you all live in Japan, feel like the local and love the local ways )GET REAL, We are not going to shed blood on your behalf.

Nonsense.

The US will uphold its military treaties. It must, from both a legal perspective - the US Constitution makes such treaties "the supreme law of the land" - and from a practical perspective - If we do not uphold alliance with one of our oldest and most important allies, then all our alliances are rendered worthless and American power and standing in the world is significantly decreased.

This is a hard reality, and lack of public enthusiasm or political will for conflict will not change it. I do not think that many commentators understand the earth-shattering geo-political effect that failing to uphold such treaty will have on the United States and its position in the world.

I strongly doubt that there will be an armed conflict over these disputed territory. I have no doubt that the US will do everything in its power to prevent such a conflict. But, I also have no doubt that the US will live up to its obligations if the worse comes to pass.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The US is in Japan not because it has any intetes tin protecting Japan's sovereignty . . . it is here for it's own strategic reasons .

Semper Fi, you make a valid point. However, that argument bodes well for Japan in this situation. Do you really think that the US wants China to control the Senkaku islands and surrounding waters with the extended naval reach that would provide for the PLAN? Think about this. Of course the US would prefer not to slug it out with China, and therefore prefer that hotheads here in Japan don't provoke the Chinese. It is in the US national interest if this issue goes away, if the status quo returns. But, If the US does not come to Japan's aid if China takes military action, what good is the security alliance? Or the Alliance with the ROK, or any other US bilateral alliance on planet earth for that matter? In other words, Semper Fi, after taking all possible avenues to avoid military confrontation, it will be in the US strategic interest to come to Japan's aid. It appears Panetta made that point in Beijing. Don't confuse trying to defuse a situation with running away.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

. Didn't you hear what Panetta said and remember who this guy was, 9 terms congressman from California, former Chief of Staffs in the Clinton years, former CIA head, and now DOD head. This guy is not just a politician like Hilary. He's a technocrat and an inside man.

CallmeB, yeah, I heard him. I heard him say that as the Senkaku's are currently administered by Japan that they fall under the US Japan Treaty...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

guuzendesu,

When I said ranking member, I exactly mean brigadier general/rear admiral on up. That is exactly what I mean. RANKING MEMBERS.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

We will uphold treatises ONLY if you are not the provocateur. Since Ishihara and Noda are the provocateurs, why should be bleed for you? Your leaders go to do something they shouldn't do and piss off the Chinese and we have to clean up for you? What are you 6 years old?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Administering does not mean ownership of sovereignty. I can administer a school or business but I don't OWN the business. Learn the English language please.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

We will uphold treatises ONLY if you are not the provocateur.

I'm not sure that word means what you want it to mean in this context. If Japan were to attack Chinese naval vessels without cause, that would certainly count as provocation. But, as you point out, Japan administers the islands. To put it more crudely, they hold them. If there is to be an "provocation," it will almost certainly be from China just as a matter of necessity. I do not think you can put the transfer of purported ownership from a Japanese national to the Japanese government in the same sort of category, no matter how galling it is to the Chinese people.

Also, this is an international message board. Please refrain from demanding fellow members "learn the English language." You own posts have not been free from typographical errors, so it behooves you to be charitable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Your average no-good alleycat would be skeptical as well if it saw the possibility for the largest military presence in the world to position itself against the one and only other power that could threaten it (before the russians get back on their feet). Your average no-good alleycat would ofcourse be paranoid since no one thinks like that, there's no such thing as military realities and the world is made of pink clouds and beautiful roses. But, your average no-good alleycat would also very much like to urge all parties involved to find a diplomatic solution to this minor problem before it turns into a big one. But, your average no-good alleycat, living in the shadows and the backstreets wouldn't get a lot to say in it ofcourse

1 ( +1 / -0 )

China and Japan are smart enough to work out the issues between them.

The protest that happened in the last couple of weeks kinda disprove that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

CallmeB, Sorry, guess you done learned me good. Will try to raise my native tongue to your impeccable level. Hillary was just "blowing smokes," eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"you own posts"

Ha! See what I mean?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"The dispute worries Washington because Japan is a treaty ally and the United States could be pulled into the conflict should it disintegrate into violence". The "Cold War" was so named as it never featured direct military action, since both sides possessed nuclear weapons, and because their use would probably guarantee their mutual assured destruction. China having a Nuclear Weapon's capabilities face's this same dilemma. I say again, cut the Island's in half, and share, rather than blow them up, or start a war...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there is to be conflict (which I think is highly unlikely, but for the sake of argument), I imagine it will be confined to some naval skirmishes. I can't see either party escalating to full-scale war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tri, I see your point. I will refrain from telling someone to learn a second language. Sometimes I forget this is an international board.

Nevertheless, since Japanese are quite the detail oriented people. I highly doubt that one can confuse between administering an island and sovereignty over an island. These are 2 completely different entities. There should be no confusion. I keep on hearing Japanese say that hey, we own this, its ours because you gave it to us to administer it. What the heck is that? Its complete nonsense.

Just because you were given the right to administer something doesn't mean you OWN it. So when Hilary was blowing smokes up your ears about oh we'll protect you don' worry about it, ya'll took it like sweet corn. Its a bit naive don't you think? And here comes Leon who gave you a reality check on where we stand and still, most of you don't get it. The alliance is not about disputed islands. Its about status quo and stability. Its about making sure you're undisputed sovereignty is intact and safe from attacks. Key words are undisputed sovereignty.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

mrmalice

Your average no-good alleycat would be skeptical as well if it saw the possibility for the largest military presence in the world to position itself against the one and only other power that could threaten it (before the russians get back on their feet).

Respect!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites