Is the U.S. Committed to Defend the Senkakus? Text of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty

Forbes ^ | September 23,2012 | Stephen Harner

[Hojczyk]

On Sunday, September 23, NHK news broadcast a video of U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta seated next to and speaking with Chinese Vice Chairman and soon-to-

China's Vice President Xi Jinping (L) and US Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta review a guard of honor before their meeting at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on February 14, 2012. China's likely next leader Xi Jinping said that Beijing will take concrete steps to improve human rights as he admitted 'there is always room for improvement.' (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

be supreme leader Xi Jinping on September 19 in Beijing. During that meeting, reported NHK, Panetta told Xi that U.S. policy is that the Senkaku islands (claimed as Chinese territory by Beijing) are covered by the U.S.-Japan security alliance. If there is military conflict, the U.S. is obliged under the alliance to intervene.

The September 21st Yomiuri Shimbun, cited testimony of Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs Kurt Campbell to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the day before confirming that the Senkakus come under Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. Campbell said that U.S. policy on this has been clear since 1997.

Watching and listening carefully to what the Chinese side has made of the Panetta visit, my sense is very different to what may seem to be the meaning and implications of the above.

First, I have seen no mention in the state-controlled Chinese media of Panetta’s comment on the U.S. obligation under the U.S.-Japan treaty. What the media has prominently reported has been Panetta’s affirmation to Xi that U.S. policy ‘takes no sides’ on territorial disputes in Asia, including that over the Senkakus/Diaoyudao. This is also long-standing U.S. policy.

[GeronL]

Do they have any idea who is in the White House?

A China-Japan clash is so much noise for a little bump in the road to Obama

[Frank_2001]

Well, what does OUR state-controlled media have to say about this?;)

[TheRhinelander]

Biggest story people aren’t paying attention to. Will we defend? HAHAHAHAHA! Nah....

[GeronL]

I haven’t heard much about it at all. I really don’t think it’s even an issue at this point. I wonder if Obama has even heard about it?

[piytar]

(1) Yes. (2) Irrelevant because obastard couldn’t care less...

[Hojczyk]

John Batchelor has been on this for a long time.....all of South Asia
Has pretty much figured there on there own....are starting to form a group to stand up to China.

[Zhang Fei]

Ultimately, if we’re going to fight China, that’s the best place to do it. No issues with collateral damage there.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The US fulfilled any obligation by protecting the world from the Soviet Union for over forty years. The Cold War is over, our budget and republic cannot survive a permanent burden to protect and police the whole world. We’re two decades overdue to return to the principles established by Washington.

[Mister Da]

Given that our current President only obeys those laws with which he agrees at the moment, I'd say Obama would not defend Houston, TX from attack.

Japan had better start building nukes for their own defense, pronto.

[Mr. Silverback]

If the Russians Rolled tanks into Berlin and Hamburg and drove on Paris, Obama would go get a manicure.