Camp David message~II

Even in the present situation if a crisis erupts, the responses of both Japan and South Korea are not likely to be the same. For example, if there is an attack from China on Japan, South Korea‘s response might not be aligned with that of the US. Japan might view things similarly if South Korea comes under attack from North Korea. In any such operational situation in the future and if such a situation unfolds, the frailties of US diplomacy would have been exposed

- RAJARAM PANDA

The overriding principles in the Camp David document were to secure “a free and open Indo-Pacific based on a respect for international law, shared norms, and common values”. It also opposed “any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion”. It was a veiled jab at China.

In the great power competition, as Sino-US ties have plummeted to a new low, both Japan and South Korea as allies of the US were caught in the cross-fire and had to make critical choices. Both these countries had to strike a balance with China as China is a key trade partner while at the same time working out an understanding with their mutual ally Washington.

Japan has disputes with China over the Senkaku Islands and is also concerned over Beijing’s aggressive postures on many issues in the region. Japan’s discomfort is understandable.

Japan was therefore compelled to take a more aggressive stance and endorsed the US initiatives to impose controls on the export of critical semiconductors to China as part of a bid to curb Beijing’s access to advanced technology which it could use for military purposes.

This has not stopped Japan from looking for other ways to stabilise ties with China as further deterioration would be against Japan’s interests.

Like Japan, South Korea has its own vulnerabilities. Being aware that South Korea is the world’s No.2 producer of chips and one of China’s biggest partners in the industry, it has strategically avoided joining the US export controls to avoid antagonising Beijing.