This year, from March 31 to April 1 in Washington the forth Nuclear Security Summit took place, which has been held every other year since 2010. The main objective of this political platform according to the plans of Washington was to adopt concrete measures to prevent acts of terrorism by using various kinds of nuclear devices. It was assumed that some perpetrators could manufacture such devices, using nuclear materials stolen from the warehouses of the countries that use these materials for different purposes, for example, in the atomic energy industry.
The said summit was convened on the initiative of the U.S. President, Barack Obama, who during his first term showed keen interest in the issue of nuclear weapons exclusion from the arsenal of nuclear weapon states.
It is hard to say how effective this Summit is in terms of prevention of nuclear terrorism. However, there is no doubt that this summit became a suitable political platform (along with many other ones) for state leaders to meet there and discuss issues that have nothing to do with the theme of the Summit.
For example, in 2014 during the regular (the third) meeting in The Hague, the U.S. tried to achieve a breakthrough in solution to the problem of complicated relations between the two most important American allies in Asia: Japan and the Republic of Korea. The existence of these problems itself impedes implementing an old project of Washington on establishment of a trilateral (The U.S., Japan and South Korea) military-politic
Then in the American Embassy in The Hague a trilateral meeting was held. Among the participants were Presidents Barack Obama, Park Geun-hye and Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. This meeting, however, did not lead to any significant result for Washington.
Until recently, the stumbling block to improving Japanese-South Korean relations has been the matter of different attitude to the first half of last century, when units of the Japanese Imperial army were placed on the Korean territory, which came with (what is fairly typical for such cases) a cost. The main cost was the problem of the so-called “comfort women”, repeatedly discussed in NEO. A breakthrough solution to this problem was in the offing at the end of December 2015, when Ministers of both countries signed an Agreement, which is believed in Tokyo to be the one to “finally and irrevocably” end the problem. However, the people of the Republic of Korea met the Agreement without enthusiasm, and the question of improvements in the bilateral relations “stuck” once again.
And again, as two years ago, the US administration decided to use “a fortunate opportunity” of the arrival of both Asian allies’ leaders to one place at one time. Along with the (seeming) resolution of the problem of “comfort women” another deterioration of the situation on the Korean Peninsula contributed to the convening of the trilateral meeting. This deterioration was provoked by North Korea in early 2016 with new missile-nuclear tests, the reaction to which of the U.S., Japan and the Republic of Korea was equally negative.
Judging by reports from news agencies and Obama’s speech at the subsequent press conference, a common position has been achieved only on the question of “deterring and defending against North Korean provocations”.
At the same time, Park Geun-hye, apparently, tried to retain some freedom on the situation in South China Sea, a question of utmost importance for both the USA and Japan, and for their opponent, China. In any case, at a joint press conference there were no phrases, so typical for American and Japanese officials, on “the need to respect freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.” This phrase has a lot of hidden meaning. In particular, it implies that the US and Japan negate the right of China to construct in South China Sea artificial Islands and build their military facilities. In fact, both of the main opponents of China do not agree (more or less explicitly) with the claims of Beijing’s possession of 80% of the waters of South China Sea.
Yet, judging by the results of the last trilateral meeting, there is no reason to believe that Washington has made any tangible progress on the path to the formation of a military-politic
A one and a half hour meeting of the US and Chinese leaders was another significant event on the sidelines of the nuclear security Summit. It should be recalled that it took place only six months after detailed negotiations on all the problems in relations between leading world powers during last year’s official visit of XI Jinping to the USA and only three months after the conversation between them on the sidelines of the conference on climate change held in Paris in December 2015.
China paid attention to both this fact and the fact that the topic of the latest meeting became a hot news in the American media, which covered the progress and results of the nuclear security Summit. On the basis of these facts, a conclusion is made “about the extreme significance” of China in all aspects of the USA.
As for the substantive side of the negotiations, the main focus of the US-Japanese-Sout
Silver tongued wording of the official statement describing such meetings will fail to hide the rise of serious problems in relations between the two leading world powers. In this respect, it was notable that representatives of the Defense Departments of both countries heavily criticized the possible introduction by China of the so-called “air defense Identification zone” (ADIZ) over the South China Sea, similar to that which was introduced over the East China sea at the end of 2013. It was the day of the meeting of XI Jinping and Barack Obama, when mutual hard words on this occasion were uttered.
Only three days after that meeting, regular US-Philippine military shoulder to shoulder (Balikatan) exercises started in the South China Sea. The scenarios, the scale and the format of participation of Japan and Australia (for the first time) deserve separate consideration.
Vladimir Terekhov, an expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.