{"id":14790,"date":"2014-07-17T12:15:33","date_gmt":"2014-07-17T02:15:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=14790"},"modified":"2014-07-18T09:16:31","modified_gmt":"2014-07-17T23:16:31","slug":"response-to-the-road-to-tokyo-via-washington-dc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/response-to-the-road-to-tokyo-via-washington-dc\/","title":{"rendered":"Response to ‘The road to Tokyo, via Washington DC’"},"content":{"rendered":"
If I understand Iain Henry correctly, he says<\/a> that it\u2019s okay for Australia to have a \u2018limited\u2019 defence relationship with Japan, which includes buying submarines, but nothing more should be done out of a concern that this would buy us into a conflict with China over the Senkakus. However, a \u2018military alliance\u2019 with Japan \u2018might be wise\u2019 \u2018if America fully commits to using diplomatic and military means to coerce China into accepting an international society governed by rules and laws.\u2019 He isn\u2019t sure though that the US is as committed to the defence of Japan as all that, and on those grounds Australia has to sit on its hands.<\/p>\n It takes a little while to sort through this argument. What I understand is that Canberra and Tokyo have signed an agreement on defence industrial cooperation similar to agreements Japan has with the US and the UK. Submarine cooperation may emerge from that, but it\u2019s some way off. Other defence engagement will continue much along the lines it has for years. The only people talking about alliances\u2014a formal treaty commitment to act in each other\u2019s defence\u2014are those who apparently don\u2019t want them.<\/p>\n Australia\u2019s positive engagement with Japan over the last half century helps to provide some context for understanding why and how it\u2019s possible for the two countries to decide to work more closely on defence. That bilateral relationship isn\u2019t a football to be kicked between Beijing and Washington or amended to take account of every change of tone in Chinese editorials or John Kerry\u2019s commentary.<\/p>\n It\u2019s equally important to see this development in the context of Australia\u2019s broadening relations with China and South Korea. Too much \u2018China-choice\u2019 thinking may incline some to treat every Australian policy move as a move on the China-choice chessboard. It\u2019s not that black and white. Australia has good relations with China and will continue to build defence and strategic cooperation with Beijing. Iain\u2019s tweet<\/a> is blunt: \u2018It’s not even that they’re trying to quiet debate\u2014they’re implying dissenters secretly want Chinese rule of Asia\u2019. I\u2019ll pass over who the \u2018they\u2019 refers to and simply note that policy debate in Australia is robust and all the better for it. That doesn\u2019t involve disparaging anyone. The grown-ups can handle it.<\/p>\n Peter Jennings is executive director of ASPI.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If I understand Iain Henry correctly, he says that it\u2019s okay for Australia to have a \u2018limited\u2019 defence relationship with Japan, which includes buying submarines, but nothing more should be done out of a concern …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[40,17,52,51,135,31],"class_list":["post-14790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-alliance-2","tag-australia","tag-china","tag-defence-cooperation","tag-japan","tag-united-states"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n