뉴스레터

1. Charles K. Armstrong (Professor of History, Director for Korean Research, Columbia University)

Regarding South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's visit to Dokdo, I believe that Korea and Japan should avoid provoking each other and that it cannot be the best policy for them to push each other too much. In my opinion, President Lee's visit to Dokdo was motivated primarily by reasons of domestic politics, considering the upcoming presidential election later this year. Regarding the territorial disputes in the East Asian waters, Washington places emphasis on both avoiding military clashes and "counter-balancing" the rise of China. I think that great caution should be taken in considering and executing the idea of resolving the Dokdo and Senkaku disputes by combining the two.
The United States may not deal with the Dokdo dispute without considering its relationships with the ROK and Japan. I believe that both relationships remain important to the United States though their relative importance is showing signs of change, and are improving without either weakening. The importance of the ROK has increased, of course. but both the ROK and Japan are, after all, crucial to the United States. The third Armitage-Nye Report is due to be released, but I don't see such a figure yet in the ROK-US alliance. I'm not sure about the military importance of Japan to the United States.
With the South China Sea becoming important, the key point is how the United States will define its relationship with China. In doing so, the United States is considering both China's concerns and its neighbors' concerns about China. As I see it, the U.S. interest in the Senkaku Islands is not sudden, but has steadily increased to have reached the flash point.

2. Dr. John Park (Harvard/MIT Joint Research Team)

In China, there are about seven interest groups (including governmental agencies) concerning the Senkaku Islands. They are subject to little, if any, control of the central government. If Japan achieved what they want in Dokdo, it would likely encourage China to take a tougher approach to Senkaku. I can see that Japan's foreign policy is in a state of paralysis. What I mean is that Japan is not a normal country yet. Therefore, Japan may have a sort of inferiority complex, which, one may assume, is at work with Dokdo. As I see it, the paralysis is "self-induced."
Any approach to the Dokdo dispute should be based on specific step-by-step political objectives and action plans rather than argument in generalities. For example, one should approach with the perspective of "inclusive recalibration of Dokdo." In other words, rather than seeking exclusive and short-term gains over Dokdo, political calibration for the common good is needed at this point. The point of the U.S. efforts for "rebalancing" in the Asia-Pacific "is not to resolve" the territorial disputes in East Asia "but to manage and minimize the problems." Accordingly, if Korea presented what could help their rebalancing efforts with specific action plans, the United States would likely show interest and appreciate it.

3. Taylor Fravel (Associate Professor of Political Science at MIT)

The United States has been taking largely two approaches to maritime territorial disputes: "access" and "stability." Rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific still remains at symbolic levels, with specific policy details expected to be laid out later. In the mean time, maintaining relationship with China, of course, would be the biggest variable and an important consideration. Therefore, it could be a mistake if the United States gave the impressions of taking the side of the Philippines and Vietnam, countries in opposition against China.
The issue of territorial disputes can be highly volatile because it eventually evokes the issue of sovereignty, which becomes more highlighted if combined with the issue of natural resource development, and is likely to end up as a typical action-reaction security dilemma if nationalist reactions are added, The line of argument that combines Dokdo with Senkaku seems impractical. South Korea President Lee Myung-bak's visit to Dokdo does little good because it significantly diminishes the importance of foreign relations. Although I don't think that direct clashes around Senkaku are highly probable, it could be a different story if China launched regular petrol. It is true that the Chinese navy is benefiting from the Senkaku dispute, but it doesn't seem to be the case that the Chinese military are initiating such conflicts. While Beijing is exercising control at strategic levels, it may be slightly different at operational levels. China's characteristic central control still exists, but effective policy coordination from a holistic perspective has not been established yet. In other words, the relevant players are "very reactive." Therefore, if the central authorities defined the problem differently, I think it could lead to changes in the execution of policies.

4. Michael D. Swaine (Senior Associate Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment)

Regarding the territorial disputes in the East Asian waters, the United States is concerned, first of all, with avoiding the use of military force, with focus on deterring instability and the escalation of conflict. At the same time, the United States does not want conflict among its allies, either, and intends to avoid unwanted intervention in relation to the disputes. Secondly, the United States is concerned with being guaranteed the freedom of navigation and, thirdly, with maintaining its credibility. In this connection, the United States is trying to maintain its influence in the course of the incident. In particular, the U.S.'s direct mention of the South China Sea lately may raise questions about the credibility of its word in its relationship with China. Fourthly, the United States is concerned with approaching the issue with the perspective of "pivot" and balance within a slightly larger framework. The maritime territorial dispute issue is complex in nature, and very sensitive because all the nations involved are making legitimate sovereignty claims. And if the dispute invoked nationalism and turned into a security issue, it would only become more complex.
That China, with its economic growth, has the capacity to send out more vessels recently is a matter of concern. It seems to me that China does not have effective control over the relevant issues. What I mean is that its policy might lack rationality. There are cases where many institutions act independently. The same goes for Japan, of course. In a nutshell, although there is a lack of coordination at the highest policy decision-making level, no direct armed conflict is expected between China and Japan because armed conflict is not in the interests of the two countries.
The United States will not take any position on the Dokdo dispute because there is also a lack of coordination within Washington. This is why the United States often appears to deliberately support the opponents of China. I don't think it is a good idea for the United States to directly mention the launch of the Sansha local government of China. As a result of Clinton's dominance, balance is absent from foreign policy. Therefore, identifying the key figures well is now considered important.
Because of China, the United States has to strengthen its position over the next five to ten years. In the long term, however, such a situation may not necessarily be good because bipolar "dynamic" is likely a catalyst for "overplay," and therefore dangerous. The fundamental problem is that the United States and China have different definition of security. The United States will not leave completely. The Japanese authorities are also aware of the US' relative reduction in capacity.

5. Richard C. Bush Ⅲ(Senior Fellow, Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies of the Brookings Institution)

Regarding the recent territorial disputes in East Asia, the United States is focused on peace and security. Maintaining good relationship with relevant neighbors is at the heart of the interests of the United States, since the North Korean nuclear issue is currently more important in relation to East Asia.
I think that the recent territorial disputes were caused by the dispute over using natural resources, including fishery resources, oilfields, and gas, and the exalted nationalism in China and Japan, and China's strategic moves to increase its gains. In particular, China is increasing its capacity as well. Incidentally, China and Japan have "collective leadership," but with relatively weak control. Recently, the Chinese coast guard is acting tougher than its navy, but the central government is having a hard time controlling it. There are individual groups seeking budget, latest equipment, and honor, and there is ambiguity in the central government's policy. And the individual agencies are taking advantage of this situation. Japan is in a similar situation.
Of course, the United States, which has maintained consistency in its policy, doesn't seem to take either side, except for the Northern Territories, in which case it took the side of Japan. In pursuit of fundamental interests, the United States is striving to promote the rules of good game for reciprocal relationship among the nations concerned, although recently, of course, the United States may appear to take the side of other Southeast Asian countries.
It seems unlikely that the United States will make the strategic use of the neighbors' concerns about China because blockading China is not the strategic target of the United States. Rebalancing could also be a problem, if China acted too aggressively. Therefore, (the United States) intends to prevent hostile relationships within the region from being prolonged, and does not appear to be considering taking advantage of conflict. In the case of direct clash between China and Japan, of course, the United States will intervene "decisively and quickly" to sort it out. The Chinese believe that Senkaku is 100% their territory.

6. Charles B. Salmon, Jr.(Ambassador) / 7. Jeffrey Hornung(Associate Professor, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies)

Salmon_ The strategic concerns of the United States regarding the territorial disputes in East Asia are to maintain the freedom of navigation and to resolve the conflicts amicably without taking sides. The United States has special interest in Senkaku, of course, which explains why Article 5 of the Security Treaty between Japan and the United States of America is mentioned. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's visit to Dokdo is disappointing. A good relationship between Korea and Japan is of extreme importance to the United States. While the United States has special interest in the South China Sea, it intends to maintain a good relationship with China as well. Of course, it is true that Japan has not made major repentance for its past wrongdoing against Korea. But I believe that Korea should also adopt a future-oriented attitude.

Hornung_ The United States is trying to avoid taking sides when it comes to the territorial disputes of other countries. But I should say that the ROK-US-Japan relationship is worse than ever since the Koizumi administration of Japan in 2003. The United States has not made any major official repentance or apology for its past wrongdoing, either, in its relationship with other countries (e.g. Vietnam among others). Nor has Germany to France. Getting along and cooperating with each other would be a good policy. On the other hand, it has been often the case that once Japan made an apology, it was either forgotten or rendered meaningless due to domestic protests (e.g. Yasukuni Shrine visits). With the recurrence of this case, the meaning of Japan's apology has been devalued. This is a "dominant view" within the United States. Therefore, losing support from the pro-Korean group within the Democratic Party would not be a good idea and it would also give the American government officials a hard time. Maintaining good ROK-US-Japan relationships is of extreme importance to the United States. Conflict between the ROK and Japan is problematic because it undermines both the ROK-Japan relationship and the ROK-US-Japan relationship. But the South China Sea dispute could be more serious than this from the American perspective.

Salmon_ I think it important to make sure that the opponents of China will not miscalculate. How the Philippines and Vietnam should be treated matters. China is also about to have a change of governments. How one's relationship with China should be defined is becoming important. If any problem occurs in Senkaku, the United States will intervene "decisively and quickly." I think that a bigger variable is the Sino-American relationship from the Chinese perspective, or the US-China relationship from the American perspective, and the issue of supremacy in East Asia.

Charles B. Salmon(left) / Jeffrey Hornung(right)