Recently inaugurated Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said he wants to station Japanese troops in Guam, for the first time since 1944. He also wants to realize his vision of an Asian NATO, with the US-Japan alliance as a foundation, expanded to a circle of friendly and like-minded nations. That vision would combine existing diplomatic and security pacts, including the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue of Japan, the US, Australia and India; the AUKUS security pact of Australia, the UK and the US; and the nascent rapprochement between Japan and South Korea.
China is not happy with these disruptive proposals, and Washington is not particularly impressed with the idea of an Asian NATO either, dismissing it as “hasty.” Even recently appointed Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Takeshi Iwaya yesterday told a news conference in Tokyo that it was “an idea for the future,” to consider in the mid-to-long term. Whether the ideas come to fruition, Ishiba’s new approaches to regional security are upsetting the apple cart.
There are two takeaways from the first days of Ishiba’s administration.
First, despite his reputation for being pro-China and intensely critical of the policies of late former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe — who was perceived as pro-Taiwan and instrumental in changing Japan’s constitutional security posture from purely defensive to more pro-active — Ishiba is fully aware of the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and has had a close relationship with Taiwan in the past few years.
For the importance he places on defense, look at his Cabinet picks: Iwaya, with whom Ishiba has previously worked closely, and Japanese Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani are both former defense ministers, as is Ishiba himself. The prime minister is retaining Yoshimasa Hayashi, top confidant to former Japanese prime minister Fumio Kishida, as his chief Cabinet secretary, signaling a degree of continuity with the previous administration. Hayashi is also a former defense minister.
Like Abe, Ishiba has argued for the removal of Article 9-2 of Japan’s constitution, which prohibits the Japanese Self-Defense Forces from having combat power. He also understands the importance of leveraging security alliances and pacts. Ishiba yesterday agreed with US President Joe Biden on a telephone call to continue bolstering the US-Japan alliance and building ties with mutual allies in the region.
The second takeaway is that among the continuity is considerable flux. Concerns that a previously pro-China Ishiba might not be willing to join coalitions clearly designed to address the CCP’s increased aggressiveness appear to be baseless. It is not Ishiba that has changed; it is the regional security situation. The CCP’s actions necessitate the evolution of the Japanese approach. Kishida, too, evolved from his pacifist, China-friendly instincts to consolidating Abe’s controversial constitutional changes on defense posture and on radically increasing Japan’s defense spending as a percentage of GDP.
Writing for Project Syndicate, former special adviser to Abe’s Cabinet Tomohiko Taniguchi said that Ishiba’s idea of an Asian NATO is a nonstarter, as the principle of collective defense encapsulated in NATO’s Article 5 would be unacceptable to the Japanese Diet and to many countries in the region, which would be wary of being locked into an obligation to defend Taiwan should the CCP come calling.
Nevertheless, nobody wants war, and effective deterrence is the name of the game. The trend is toward alliance building, as no one power in the region can stand up to the increasing might of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Close monitoring on exactly how this dynamic evolves is needed; Ishiba’s arrival demonstrates how a new face can throw new complications into the mix, while signaling continuity.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS