(BGF) – In this article from The Japan News discusses China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and the aggressive measures it is taking to enforce those claims. As the article notes, China has had a number of aggressive encounters with the U.S. as a result of China’s aggressive territorial claims, the most recent of which occurred on December 5, 2013 when a Chinese warship nearly collided with the USS Cowpens in an attempt to cut-off U.S. naval passage in the South China Sea. These actions, the article argues, are the result of China’s unusual interpretation its exclusive economic zone. Moreover, China’s aggressive actions in its territorial disputes in the South China Sea result from its efforts to slowly bolster its territorial claims through small actions that ultimately add up to de facto territorial control, also known as the ‘cabbage strategy’ or ‘salami-slicing’. Click here to read the full article.
Japan-China Cold War / China’s maritime aggression distorts international norms
This is the seventh installment in a series on the worsening relations between Japan and China.
On Dec. 5 last year, a dangerous incident erupted in the South China Sea between the USS Cowpens, an Aegis-equipped missile cruiser, and a Chinese warship. The two vessels came close to a collision in international waters.
According to the U.S. Defense Department, the Chinese ship drew near to the Cowpens, as if to cut into the path of the U.S. vessel. The Chinese warship remained on course despite warnings from the Cowpens of a dangerously close approach.
The U.S. vessel heaved to an emergency halt, narrowly averting a collision with the Chinese vessel. The two ships were only about 100 yards, or 90 meters, apart.
The Dec. 5 incident was the third of its kind to be triggered by China in reaction to U.S. military operations in the South China Sea. In April 2001, a midair collision occurred between a U.S. Navy EP (Electronic Patrol) reconnaissance aircraft and a Chinese F-8 fighter. Another incident followed in March 2009 when the USNS Impeccable, an ocean surveillance ship, encountered obstructive conduct by five Chinese warships including a naval information-gathering vessel.
At the time of the Dec. 5 incident, the Cowpens is believed to have been monitoring the Liaoning, China’s only aircraft carrier, which was engaged in a military exercise. According to a U.S. government source, the Chinese Navy vessel involved in the near-collision deliberately attempted to collide with the Cowpens in what was not just a case of a dangerous near-miss.
During a press conference on Dec. 19, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel expressed strong apprehension about China’s aggressive action toward the Cowpens. “That’s the kind of thing that’s very incendiary. That could be a trigger or a spark that could set off some eventual miscalculation,” he said.
China’s aggressive behavior was built on its own interpretation of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Beijing has argued, “We oppose any party carrying out any military acts in our exclusive economic zone without permission.”
The U.N. treaty defines the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, as a zone over which a sovereign state can claim rights over the research and exploitation of marine resources in an area stretching 200 nautical miles, or about 370 kilometers, from the shoreline of the state.
The convention requires signatories to pay “due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State.” However, there is a clear line drawn between EEZs and territorial waters over the freedom of the seas.
Under the pact, a belt of waters extending up to 12 nautical miles, or about 22 kilometers, from the shoreline of a coastal state is regarded as part of the nation’s sovereign territory. Meanwhile, the convention grants any country the freedom of navigation and aviation in the EEZ, as well as the right to conduct such activities as laying submarine electric cables and pipelines. It follows that the pact imposes no restrictions on military activities in the EEZ, including warship navigation aimed at gathering information in the zone.
However, China treats its EEZ in nearly the same way as its territorial waters, declaring it to be “oceanic national land” or “state-controlled waters.” Beijing also defended its obstructive behavior toward U.S. forces by insisting that “the U.S. surveillance missions conducted in our EEZ are the root of military security problems in the sea and in the air space between China and the United States.”
The assertions made by China over its “oceanic national land” are most conspicuously evident in its territorial disputes with some neighbors over the South China Sea. The Paracel Islands are claimed by China, Vietnam and Taiwan, and the Spratly Islands by China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and Taiwan.
China has drawn nine short lines on the map at various points near the edges of the South China Sea. Although these line segments do not touch each other, they effectively add up to a “nine-dashed line” extending from China’s southern coast in a gigantic U shape. China asserts that the area enclosed by the dashed line belong to its sovereign territory. In recent years, China has been aggressive in sending personnel from its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to conduct activities aimed at protecting what it describes as its “territory.”
The Hainan provincial government then enforced a law in January requiring foreign ships operating within the dashed line to apply for permission.
Japan, the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have urged China to abide by international law. However, China cannot be expected to abandon its strategy for expanding maritime activities, based on its seemingly arbitrary interpretation of international regulations. “It’ll be no easy task to persuade such an overconfident major power only through reason,” said Hirotaka Watanabe, director of the Institute of International Relations, an institution affiliated with the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
China’s tendency to interpret international practice in an arbitrary manner is also evident in its abrupt action taken in November to establish an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea, where the Senkaku Islands are located. The move was followed by Beijing’s coercive demand for foreign airplanes to abide by instructions issued by its authorities. These actions are comparable to those taken by China in the South China Sea.
For Japan, the exacerbation of friction between China and some of its Asian neighbors is of grave concern. A report issued by a Defense Ministry research institute warns of such a risk. “The role of the People’s Liberation Army is expanding to areas of ‘military operations other than war’ [MOOTW] and non-traditional security fields, such as the protection of maritime rights and interests,” the National Institute for Defense Studies said in its “China Security Report.”
The report concluded that “the cooperation for protecting China’s maritime interests between the PLA and its maritime law enforcement agencies is likely to strengthen not only in the South China Sea but also in the East China Sea.”
(BGF) –The Eurasia Review recently published the testimony provided by Daniel R. Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, which he presented to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Mr. Russel’s testimony discusses President Obama’s strategy of rebalancing toward Asia, the U.S. relationship with both Japan and The Republic of Korea, and the opportunities and challenges present in both relationships. As Mr. Russel notes, the Asia-Pacific Region is hugely important: “The broader region boasts over half the world’s population, half of the world’s GDP, and nearly half of the world’s trade, and is home to some of the world’s fastest growing economies.” Thus, what happens in Asia-Pacific Region can have global impacts, with significant implications for U.S. interests. Much of Mr. Russel’s testimony is included below. Click here to read the full testimony.
Opportunities and Challenges in U.S.-Japan and U.S.-Republic of Korea Alliances – Testimony
By Eurasia Review
Chairman Cardin and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss this important topic.
Early in his first term, President Obama began implementing his vision for the Asia-Pacific rebalance, based on America’s enduring stake in a prosperous and stable region. The United States has been, we are, and we will remain a Pacific power. In the second term, the Administration is building out this strategy. The Department of State is focused on dedicating diplomatic, public diplomacy, and assistance resources to the region in a way that is commensurate with the truly comprehensive nature of our engagement. And under Secretary Kerry we are intensifying our support for U.S. companies, climate and energy cooperation, people-to-people exchanges, youth and exchange programs, education, women’s empowerment, and other initiatives.
The members of this Subcommittee know well the importance of the Asia-Pacific region to American interests. The broader region boasts over half the world’s population, half of the world’s GDP, and nearly half of the world’s trade, and is home to some of the world’s fastest growing economies. More and more American citizens are now living, working, and studying in the Asia-Pacific region; people-to-people and family ties have witnessed tremendous growth. Growing numbers of American companies are investing in and exporting products and services to rapidly expanding East Asian markets. And, as the region’s economies continue to grow and their interests expand, it becomes increasingly important that the governments and institutions there contribute to upholding and strengthening international law and standards – ranging from human rights to environmental protection to responsible policies on climate change, maritime security, and trade and investment. Simply put, the effects of what happens in the Asia-Pacific region will be felt across the globe and have direct implications for America’s interests.
For all of the changes in Asia, this much is constant: our alliances in the region have been and will remain the foundation of our strategy towards the Asia-Pacific. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as Ranking Member Rubio and the other members of the Subcommittee for your leadership, travel, and public statements which have all underscored the importance of our alliances to our vision of a secure, stable, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region. As you have noted, shared values and a shared history of successful partnership with the United States place Japan and the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) at the center of this administration’s rebalance strategy. The success stories of the R.O.K. and Japan are powerful reminders of the broad range of benefits that accrue from a sustained commitment to free markets, democracy, and close cooperation with the United States. Our alliances with the R.O.K. and Japan contribute significantly to expanded security, stability, and prosperity across the region.
I am pleased to report today that our ties with both countries have never been stronger. Polling shows that the U.S.-R.O.K. relationship enjoys record levels of favorability in South Korea – and the United States has enjoyed this high level of support for the last two years. Polling also shows that 84 percent of Japanese citizens support our bilateral alliance. But we do not take our allies for granted. We are working hard with our Japanese and South Korean partners to adjust our presence and to modernize our alliances to help maintain peace and security and address broader shared interests across the Asia-Pacific and around the globe. The upcoming visit by President Obama to Japan and the R.O.K. will propel our efforts.
U.S.-Japan Alliance
Let me begin with Japan. The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region; we cannot achieve the President’s goals without strong and growing ties between the United States and Japan. Our two countries are coordinating closely on a wide range of issues, including regional security and global hot-spots. As Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Kishida emphasized during their meeting in Washington last month, we are working diplomatically and militarily to strengthen and modernize the U.S.-Japan alliance.
I cannot overstate the importance of our alliance with Japan to continued U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific. Over 50,000 U.S. military and civilian personnel are stationed in Japan under the U.S.-Japan security treaty and the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, under which Japan provides facilities and areas for U.S. forces for the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security. The Japanese government provides over $2 billion annually to off-set the cost of stationing U.S. forces in Japan: including the USS George Washington, which is the only U.S. aircraft carrier in the world that is forward-deployed. This strategic posture means that U.S. forces in Japan are capable of carrying out missions throughout the region and beyond.
U.S. support for the Japan Self-Defense Forces’ humanitarian assistance operations in the wake of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami were demonstrations of the Alliance’s strength and capability and set the stage for U.S.-Japan coordination on Typhoon Haiyan relief in the Philippines in 2013. The unprecedented landing of a U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey on a Japanese ship during the Haiyan response demonstrated our joint capabilities, and highlighted the interoperability of the U.S. and Japanese militaries.
Our security relationship with Japan made remarkable progress in 2013. Two important successes that my colleague from the Department of Defense can discuss in further detail were the October 2013 “2+2” meeting between Secretaries Kerry and Hagel and their Japanese counterparts, which launched the review of our two countries’ Bilateral Defense Guidelines, and Okinawa Governor Nakaima’s signing of the landfill permit for the Futenma Relocation Facility. We hope to use the Defense Guidelines review process to modernize our respective roles, missions, and capabilities for an alliance truly capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
Another key development is the Japanese government’s review of what the UN Charter describes as, “the right of collective self-defense.” Collective self-defense is simply defined as one nation taking action to help defend another nation from attack by a third party.
Japan’s constitution is the only one in the world that explicitly renounces war as an instrument of foreign policy. In the past, Japanese governments have chosen to interpret their constitution as not permitting the exercise of this right to collective self-defense. It is my understanding that the Japanese government is studying this interpretation.
The practical effect of a decision by Japan that it would be permissible to conduct collective self-defense could include enabling its UN peacekeeping troops to defend other UN peacekeepers under attack. Under the current policy, if North Korea were to launch a ballistic missile toward the United States, Japan could not use its ballistic missile defense interceptors to destroy that missile in flight. We recognize this is a decision for the Japanese government and people, and we welcome Japan’s openness and its steps to consult with countries in the region about these deliberations.
U.S.-Republic of Korea Alliance
The U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance is the linchpin of stability and security in Northeast Asia. 2013 marked the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-R.O.K. Mutual Defense Treaty, which serves as the foundation of our alliance and a force for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. Our alliance with the R.O.K. was forged in shared sacrifice in the Korean War, and it continues to anchor security in the region today.
As Secretary Kerry reaffirmed during his meetings with R.O.K. leaders in Seoul last month, the U.S.-R.O.K. alliance is a critical component of Washington’s strategic engagement with the Asia-Pacific. Our open societies, our shared commitment to democracy and a market economy, and our sustained partnership provide a foundation for the enduring friendship that tightly binds the American and Korean peoples. Over the past six decades, our close cooperation has evolved into an increasingly global partnership, encompassing political, economic, social, and cultural cooperation and providing prosperity for both our peoples.
The United States remains dedicated to the defense of the Republic of Korea, including through extended deterrence and the full range of U.S. military capabilities, both conventional and nuclear, as emphasized in the Joint Declaration issued by President Obama and President Park in May 2013.
The United States and the R.O.K. recently concluded negotiations on a Special Measures Agreement (SMA), by which South Korea will increase its contributions to help off-set the cost of stationing of U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula to $867 million in this year alone, demonstrating that both nations are politically and economically committed to making our alliance more sustainable and adaptable.
We are constantly working to improve readiness and interoperability in order to meet existing and emerging security threats. As my colleague Deputy Assistant Secretary Helvey can describe in detail, last week the United States and the R.O.K. began two of our largest annual joint military exercises, Key Resolve and Foal Eagle. Another major annual military exercise, Ulchi Freedom Guardian, is scheduled for August. And even as our alliance continues to counter the threat from North Korea, we are expanding our cooperation to meet 21st-century challenges beyond the Korean Peninsula.
DPRK-related Tensions
Our alliances with the R.O.K and Japan provide deterrence and defense against the threat posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (D.P.R.K.) continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. We will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies in the face of this growing North Korean threat.
Mr. Chairman, over the years we have seen a pattern of North Korean provocations followed by “charm offensives” aimed at extracting payoffs and concessions from the West. Despite the D.P.R.K.’s recent overtures at engagement, we have yet to see credible indications that North Korea is prepared to come into compliance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, or even negotiate on the key issue: denuclearization. The United States remains committed to authentic and credible negotiations to implement the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and to bring North Korea into compliance with its international obligations through irreversible steps leading to denuclearization. We will not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state. We will not reward the D.P.R.K. merely for returning to dialogue. As the President has said, the D.P.R.K. can achieve the security, respect, and prosperity it claims to seek by choosing the path of denuclearization. For our part, the United States pledges to continue working toward a world in which the people of North and South Korea are peacefully reunited, and the Korean Peninsula is democratic, prosperous, and free of nuclear weapons.
In addition to our concern about the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, the United States remains gravely concerned about the human rights situation in the D.P.R.K. The UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry released its report last month, documenting the deplorable human rights situation in the D.P.R.K. We are working tirelessly to persuade the D.P.R.K. Government to release Kenneth Bae, the U.S. citizen who has been held in North Korea for more than a year. We welcome the recent release of an Australian citizen, but continue to urge the D.P.R.K. Government to release the R.O.K. citizen still under detention, just as we seek resolution of the cases of the many R.O.K., Japanese, and other citizens abducted and held by North Korea over the decades.
Challenges: Regional Tensions
Mr. Chairman, the United States takes a clear position with regard to behavior of states in connection with their territorial or maritime disputes: we firmly oppose intimidation, coercion and the use of force. In the East China Sea, we are concerned by an unprecedented increase in risky activity by China’s maritime agencies near the Senkaku Islands. The United States returned administration of the Senkakus to Japan in 1972, and they fall within the scope of the U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty, in particular its Article V. Tensions over the Senkakus have led to a sharp downturn in Sino-Japanese relations. China and Japan are the world’s second- and third-largest economies and have a shared interest in a stable environment to facilitate economic prosperity. Neither of these two important countries, nor the global economy, can afford confrontation and crisis.
We object to unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo or advance a territorial claim though extra-legal or non-diplomatic means. Unilateral attempts to change the status quo raise tensions and do nothing under international law to strengthen claims. Therefore we were also concerned by China’s sudden and uncoordinated announcement of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea last November. One of the problems with the Chinese ADIZ announcement is that it purports to cover areas administered or claimed by Japan and the R.O.K. We have been clear that China should not attempt to implement or enforce the ADIZ and it should refrain from taking similar actions in other sensitive or disputed areas.
I do not believe that any party seeks armed conflict in the East China Sea, but unintended incidents or accidents may lead to an escalation of tensions or a tit-for-tat exchange that could escalate. As such, we wholeheartedly endorse calls for crisis-prevention mechanisms, including senior-level communications to defuse situations before they become full-blown crises.
Our concerns are amplified by the situation in the South China Sea, where we are seeing a similar pattern of coercive behavior, strident rhetoric, and ambiguous claims. This is an issue that senior Administration officials have raised directly and candidly with Chinese leaders.
I would like to underscore for the committee that the Obama Administration has consistently made best efforts to build a strong and cooperative relationship with China. Tangible, practical and visible cooperation between the United States and China is critical to addressing regional and global challenges, from North Korea to climate change. Similarly, the United States seeks good relations between China and its neighbors; we encourage all our allies to pursue positive and constructive relations with China. I want to make very clear that our alliances, in Northeast Asia and around the region, are not aimed at China.
The United States welcomes the rise of a stable and prosperous China which plays a greater role in strengthening regional stability, prosperity, and international rules and norms. A strong diplomatic, economic, and military presence by the United States has helped create the conditions that made China’s extraordinary growth possible and that presence remains essential to regional stability. No country should doubt the resolve of the United States in meeting our security commitments or our determination to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation and overflight. But neither should there be any doubt about the Administration’s desire for constructive relationship with China based on solving regional and global problems as well as managing disagreement and areas of competition.
Strategic Cooperation in the Region and Beyond
One of the strongest signs of the maturity of our partnerships with the R.O.K. and Japan is our cooperation on global issues beyond our respective borders, from humanitarian assistance to climate change. The benefits of our cooperation with Japan and South Korea are not limited to the people of our three countries, but increasingly accrue to citizens around the world.
Yet at this moment, and despite our many areas of cooperation and common interest, relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea are strained. The current tension between our two allies is a cause for concern, and a problem that requires sincere efforts by both parties to address. There is an urgent need to show prudence and restraint in dealing with difficult historical issues. It is important to handle them in a way that promotes healing. We are working closely with our Japanese and R.O.K. partners to encourage them to take the steps needed to resolve tensions caused by the legacy of the last century through patient and persistent diplomacy. The simple fact, Mr. Chairman, is that strategic cooperation among the United States, Japan, and the R.O.K. is essential to developing the security order in Northeast Asia, especially given the threats facing us and our allies from North Korea and other regional uncertainties. No one can afford to allow the burdens of history to prevent us from building a secure future.
That is why it is so important that we have been able to cooperate with Japan and the R.O.K. on relief efforts, development, and other important projects throughout Southeast Asia. For example, we saw the benefits of increased trilateral disaster response capacity just last fall when the United States, Japan, and South Korea were leading contributors of humanitarian and recovery assistance to the Philippines following the devastation left by Typhoon Haiyan. We are working trilaterally with the R.O.K. and Japan to further improve our interoperability and information sharing during a disaster.
Japan and South Korea are models for other nations in the region and around the world. Both the R.O.K. and Japan have transitioned from one-time recipients of foreign aid to important donors. Whereas once Peace Corps volunteers were seen throughout the R.O.K., the Peace Corps and its counterpart recently signed a memorandum of understanding that will enable both parties to cooperate in third countries around the world – in fact, the R.O.K.’s Peace Corps counterpart is now the world’s second-largest after our own Peace Corps. Last December, during Vice President Biden’s visit, the United States and Japan announced the initiation of a U.S.-Japan Development Dialogue between our respective foreign assistance and foreign affairs agencies. The first formal meeting of that dialogue took place last month in Washington.
The Republic of Korea and Japan have been active supporters of international efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. We are working together on Syria, where Japan and the R.O.K. are providing assistance to address the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people and where both have strongly supported international efforts to find a political solution. U.S. and R.O.K. soldiers have served side by side in Afghanistan, where the Republic of Korea and Japan are major donors to reconstruction and stabilization efforts. Japan has provided over $1.35 billion in assistance to the Palestinians since the mid-1990s, making Japan one of the major donors to the Palestinians after the United States. Our cooperative partnerships with Japan and the Republic of Korea enable increased engagement and impact on a global scale. Both Japan and the R.O.K. are invaluable partners on the international stage, as well; both currently promote our shared values while serving on the UN Human Rights Council, and this year the R.O.K. will complete a successful term on the UN Security Council.
(BGF) – In this article, published in The Diplomat, Zheng Wang discusses the role of history in Chinese-Japanese relations. While the role of history is often discussed in Chinese-Japanese relations, Wang’s article focuses on a recent BBC documentary titled Missing Histories: China – Japanwhich takes a different approach. The documentary, as Wang notes, looks at the ways in which students in China and Japan are taught the history of 1931-1945, from Japan’s invasion of China through to the end of WWII. As Wang elaborates, Japan’s actions during WWII are often downplayed, whereas China’s traumatic national experiences during the period are emphasized. This means that there is a significant gap in the ways each nation teaches the history of the period. Most importantly, Wang argues, this gap means that increased dialogue between China and Japan is necessary so that China, Japan, and their citizens can have a better understanding of one another. Only once there is a deeper understanding of the historical relations between China and Japan, can the current tensions be resolved. Click here to read the full article.
‘Missing Histories’: History Education and China-Japan Relations
By Zheng Wang
When treating the ill or injured, doctors are incapable of diagnosing patients unless they know the source causing the condition. Similarly, resolving an international conflict of any magnitude requires the identification of source of the tension. The BBC’s recent documentary Missing Histories: China – Japanis a high-quality piece of journalism with the goal of discovering the sources of the conflict between the two countries. Throughout the investigative report, Japanese journalist Mariko Oi and Chinese journalist Haining Liu together visit schools in their respective home countries to observe the approach both countries take in teaching their shared history, focusing on the treatment of the wartime period (1931-1945, including Japan’s invasion of China to the end of World War II).
From the interviews conducted by Oi and Liu, they discovered a sizeable gap exists between both countries in their dedication and detail as it relates to the history of the wartime period. For instance in Japan, textbooks only use a small number of pages to chronicle the war. The description of the atrocities which took place is very bland. Japanese officials and textbooks editors who received Oi and Liu’s interviews even questioned whether the Japanese military actions in China and Korea could be called ‘invasions” and whether there was a “massacre” in Nanjing. Finding the facts of history education in Japan was a big shock to Haining Liu, the Oxford-educated Chinese journalist. She was shaking and crying after an interview. In the Chinese classroom, however, the curriculum is heavily loaded with the contents of China’s traumatic national experience from the Opium Wars through to the end of the Sino-Japanese War in 1945. State-run national patriotic education is conducted from kindergarten through college. Naturally, the younger generations in China and Japan are getting two completely different understandings of this period in history.
Often in conflicts among two nations, citizenries accuse the top leadership of not doing enough to avoid the tensions that exist. However, conflict often reflects the continuities of social discourses. The phenomenon of violent conflict cannot simply be understood through analyses of leadership; it is necessary to uncover the continuities in social discourses which enable conflict and give it legitimacy. Many individuals, from scholars to journalists, and even the general public, played some role either through intentional or unintentional action to contribute to the conflict, rather than peace. For example, the media in Japan and China have played a large role in shaping the perceptions of citizens by demonizing the other side. In order to stop the conflict, there should be bi-national joint efforts by people at different levels, not just the top leaders.
The BBC’s Missing Histories: Japan – China documentary is therefore a timely action. Joint efforts by journalists are rare, though reports covering discrepancies in history are common in both countries. Through their joint interviews, the two young ladies have been able to help citizens of their respective nations become more cognizant of the other state. Compared to the reports coming out of Japan or China which are often biased, this type of joint effort can help people of both sides pay more attention and listen to the other side’s experience of their shared history, rather than only being exposed to one-sided reports.
(BGF) – The latest installment of the BGF Leader Series featured Robert Desimone, the Director of the McGovern Institute and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and a member of the BGF Board of Thinkers. As a result of Professor Desimone’s work and the McGovern Institute’s accomplishments, the Boston Global Forum is going to recognize and honor the McGovern Institute’s research achievements and Edward M. Scolnick Prize in Neuroscience in the Boston Global Archive, and at a later stage the BGF will add it to the Boston Global Museum. Throughout his talk, which focused on the topic “unlocking the human brain”, Professor Desimone noted the important technological advances that are currently being made which are allowing for new breakthroughs in the field of neuroscience.
In many respects, the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT is at the forefront of these advances and breakthroughs in both technology and neuroscience. Currently, the McGovern Institute has a team of 19 faculty researchers of whom several are members of the National Academy of Science and one, Robert Horvitz, is a Nobel Laureate. Additionally, the faculty at the McGovern Institute features three members who are leading the way in optogenetics – the insertion of genetic material into neurons to make them sensitive to light thus giving researchers control over the neural circuits.
Given its extremely talented faculty, the McGovern Institute is well-placed to both drive advances the field of neuroscience, as well as ultimately translate those advances into beneficial treatments and therapies for patients suffering from brain disorders.
Looking back to his time at the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH), Professor Desimone recalled having a realization that, despite the intelligence, dedication, and commitment of the clinicians and psychiatrists on staff, it was difficult for them to make any progress in developing new treatments for their patient population: “the sad fact was that the pipeline of new ideas – new drugs and so on – was really pretty dry”. It was at this point in his career that Professor Desimone became aware that it was essential to deepen our understanding of the fundamentals of how brains work if there was to be any progress in the development of new treatments.
It was also at this point that Professor Desimone happened to accept the offer to become the Director the McGovern Institute, an institute focused on understanding how the human brain functions and translating that knowledge into beneficial therapies and treatments for patients suffering with brain disorders. Additionally, in recent years, an array of new technological advances have driven the field of neuroscience forward. In particular, Professor Desimone mentioned three technological advances that have had particularly significant impacts on neuroscience research: the sequencing of the genetic code; advancements in brain imaging; and recent efforts at Stanford University to make the brains of animals transparent.
The effort to sequence the human genome was initially an extraordinarily large and expensive feat. However, in the years since the human genome was first successfully sequenced, the price of sequencing the genome has dropped so low that it is feasible to sequence an individual’s genome in order to identify genetic mutations. While direct links between genetic mutations and psychiatric disorders only exist in rare cases, being able to identify genetic mutations can play a crucial role in better understanding and recognizing genetic vulnerabilities that can lead to brain disorders. Moreover, a more in-depth knowledge of genetic vulnerabilities can help further deepen the understanding of how a genetic mutation can result in an abnormally functioning brain circuit that ultimately results in a brain disorder.
As for advances in brain imaging, the use of MRIs and the further developments in MRI technologies have greatly contributed to neuroscience research. MRI technology now allows researchers to image functional changes so that they can “track the activity patterns in the brain – at least on a coarse temporal time-scale – and you can actually see the brain at work as people solve problems, have emotions, understand situations, and so on, and its been applied now to many different patient groups to try and track down sources of abnormal neural circuits.”
Professor Desimone hopes that this technological advance will be merged with the advances in genome sequencing. He holds out hope that, if the advances in brain imaging and genome sequencing are combined, “We might be able to say that the vulnerability involves abnormal activity in certain particular brain circuits that we’ve identified in MRIs by imaging people that we’ve done this genotyping on. Once we’ve narrowed that down between the gene alteration and the abnormal activity in circuits, that is going to put us on the right path to new discoveries.”
Thirdly, researchers at Stanford University’s Karl Deisseroth Lab found a way to render the brains of animals transparent. This advance could make it easier for researchers to more accurately label and track the connections of neural circuits. As Professor Desimone noted: “People are just now gearing up to apply this new technology and human brain material from people who have died but have lived lives where they’ve suffered from schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s Disease, and so on and we will be able, with unprecedented ability, to track the abnormalities in this brain tissue from people who have died with disease.”
Professor Desimone also discussed the potential that neuroscience research could help us better understand cultural differences. As he noted, neuroscience research currently involves scientists working across the globe. Given the global scope of the research, it is possible that we may develop a deeper understanding of how the human brain functions in different cultures. This information could play a crucial role in helping to decipher cultural differences, minimize cultural misunderstandings, and facilitate greater cross-cultural understanding and collaboration.
The discoveries and advances Professor Desimone discussed during his BGF Leader Series lecture have all occurred recently, with some even occurring within the past year. Given the rapid pace of development in neuroscience it is likely that there will continue to be new and exciting discoveries about the fundamentals of the human brain for years to come, with exciting global implications. Although much uncertainty remains regarding the fundamentals of how the human brain functions, it is clear that the McGovern Institute will continue to lead the neuroscience research that will unlock the secrets of the human brain.
In a recent article in the Washington Post, Simon Denyer discusses the U.S. efforts to rebalance its foreign policy toward Asia. In particular, the article notes that the U.S. rebalancing has not been particularly effective in reducing regional tensions. As Denyer notes, the U.S. alliance with Japan means that the U.S. is hardly a neutral party in its efforts to balance its relations with China and Japan. Moreover, the fact that the U.S. was not given much, if any, notice about China’s imposition of an “air defense zone” in the East China Sea or Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the Yasakuni Shrine shows that the U.S. efforts in the region are ineffective. Given these actions by both China and Japan, the risk of miscalculation is particularly high. This echoes a point made by Joseph Nye during his BGF Distinguished Lecture: neither side wants war but there is a risk of miscalculation. Thus the article concludes that crisis management in the region must be an immediate priority for the U.S. An excerpt of the article if provided below. Click here to read the full article.
Obama’s Asia rebalance turns into headache as China, Japan relations spiral down
By Simon Denyer
Beijing recently announced that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was simply not welcome there. At the same time, the media in both countries have stoked the fire with speculation about a possible military confrontation that could even suck in the United States, which is bound by treaty to defend Japan in case of attack.
U.S. officials and experts say conflict between the Asian powers remains unlikely, with both sides keen to preserve economic ties, and neither likely to emerge as a clear winner.
Nevertheless, as naval vessels spar in disputed waters and fighter jets patrol disputed skies, the risk of accidents or miscalculations has risen. Maintaining peace in Asia’s seas has become a major U.S. concern in the year ahead, officials say.
Obama had hoped his foreign policy “pivot” toward Asia would shift U.S. government attention away from trouble spots like Afghanistan and Iraq and toward a region brimming with economic opportunities. It aimed to strengthen longstanding alliances in Asia and bring new resolve to managing the relationship with China.
But experts say the U.S. effort to deepen relations with both China and its traditional Asian allies could become an impossible balancing act.
“In a perfect world you could do both simultaneously without conflict, but in practice, whatever you do with one side, the other side sees it as being done against them,” said Ely Ratner at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.
Daniel Russel, assistant U.S. secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, said the security umbrella provided by Washington had preserved regional peace for decades. The rebalance merely reinforces that commitment to Asia in a time of rising Chinese influence and assertiveness, he argued.
But some experts argue that the current emphasis on strengthening security links with Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and the Philippines could actually be raising regional tensions.
“It is only encouraging those in China who have been saying for some time that Americans have reverted to Cold War thinking, and this is part of a containment strategy,” said Mel Gurtov, a professor of political science at Portland State University, and editor of the Asian Perspectivejournal.
America’s alliance with Japan means the United States is far from a neutral party in the China-Japan spat, “and the most important relationship we have to cultivate, with China, is bound to suffer.
In a sign of the increasing strain in U.S.-China relations, , American lawmakerswarned last week at a House subcommittee hearing that the United States must not tolerate China’s use of military coercion in pursuit of its territorial claims. Beijing’s nationalist Global Times newspaper responded by arguing that U.S. meddling risked “triggering an all-out confrontation with China,” – although the paper simultaneously advocated restraint and cooperation.
Tensions escalated in late November after China imposed an air defense identification zone over vast swathes of the East China Sea, including over islandsadministered by the Japanese. It demanded that all noncommercial aircraft entering the zone identify themselves or face “defensive emergency measures”. Calling China’s bluff, the United States flew two B-52 bombers through the zone within days.
Then, in December, Abe paid a visit to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, where 14 war criminals from World War II are honored. That stoked anger in both China and South Korea, where memories of Japanese wartime atrocities remain fresh, and prompted Beijing’s declaration that Abe had “shut the door to dialogue.”
U.S. efforts to calm tensions have so far had little apparent effect. Indeed, it is not clear either side is paying Washington much attention: U.S. officials say they learned less than an hour in advance about the air defense zone — which came just before Vice President Biden’s visit to the region– and got little notice about Abe’s visit to the shrine
Russel said the roll-out of China’s air defense zone had increased the risk of “miscalculation and an accident” that could lead to conflict.
“This was not simply a failure to communicate,” he said in a telephone interview. “It was an action that bypassed a consultative, collaborative process, and is a type of behavior that is inconsistent with the stature and status that China clearly seeks in the region.”
The Yasukuni visit, he said, was a concern of a much lower order of magnitude, but was nevertheless “very disappointing.”
Russel said Obama’s efforts to build a relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping had improved channels of communication and given Washington the chance “to speak very directly and very candidly to China about our concerns.”
Nevertheless,Beijing is not backing down from its territorial claims. Indeed, this month it announced an effort to exert tighter control over fishing in the waters of the South China Sea, which are contested by countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines: the State Department called that move “provocative and potentially dangerous.”
For Washington, the immediate priority is crisis management — getting both sides to agree to some rules of engagement in contested waters and skies, as well as encouraging them to set up hotlines.
Welcome! I am Tuan Nguyen, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Boston Global Forum. I am very honored to introduce Professor Robert Desimone.
Robert Desimone is the director of the McGovern Institute and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. Prior to joining the McGovern Institute in 2004, he was director of the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Mental Health, the largest mental health research center in the world. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of numerous awards, including the Troland Prize of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Golden Brain Award of the Minerva Foundation.
Governor Michael Dukakis, Chairman of Boston Global Forum visited the McGovern Institute on December 12, 2013. He is very impressed and has a high respect for the achievements of the McGovern Institute and Professor Robert Desimone. He and Kitty Dukakis will visit the Institute again in late April 2014. Today Chairman Michael Dukakis and Kitty Dukakis are in Los Angeles, they send their warmest regards to Professor Robert Desimone and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research.
Boston Global Forum will recognize and honor the McGovern Institute’s research achievements and Edward M. Scolnick Prize in Neuroscience in the Boston Global Archive, and at a later stage BGF will add it to the Boston Global Museum, an initiative we are working on for the future.
Today, We are honored to present to you Professor Robert Desimone on the BGF Leader Series.
Professor Desimone’s Presentation:
Photos from Chairman Dukakis’ visit to the McGovern Institute:
Chairman Michael Dukakis visiting with researchers from the McGovern Institute at MIT, and the McGovern Institute’s Director, Professor Robert Desimone.
Chairman Michael Dukakis learning more about the McGovern Institute’s groundbreaking research.
Chairman Dukakis meeting with a researcher from the McGovern Institute.
Robert Desimone is director of the McGovern Institute and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. Prior to joining the McGovern Institute in 2004, he was director of the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Mental Health, the largest mental health research center in the world. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of numerous awards, including the Troland Prize of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Golden Brain Award of the Minerva Foundation.
This video, provided by the McGovern Institute, provides a brief introduction to Professor Robert Desimone’s background, research, and work at the McGovern Institute.
This video provides further information on Professor Desimone’s work.
For more information on Professor Desimone’s work, click here to read a profile on Professor Desimone contained in the McGovern Institute’s Brain Scan publication or visit the MIT news page to read an interview with Professor Desimone on the Federal BRAIN Initiative.
This brief introduction provides insight into the McGovern Institute’s research, objectives, and overall operating philosophy of linking a better understanding the brain to their efforts to improve the lives of people living with brain disorders.
This video provides a longer, more in-depth introduction to the research being conducted at the McGovern Institute, as well as the researchers who make it all possible.
In an article published in the New York Times on March 8, 2014, Edward Wong discussed recent comments the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi. On March 8th, Mr. Wang made comments that reflected the regional tensions between China and Japan. Mr. Wang noted that there would be no compromise on the issues of territory or history, direct references to China’s territorial dispute with Japan in the South China Sea as well as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s recent visit to the Yusukuni Shine, which honors Japanese war dead including a number of war criminals from WWII. Additionally, Wong discusses Mr. Wang’s comments that China was seeking to engage in negotiations in order to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea, but that China would “never accept unreasonable demands from smaller countries.” Finally, the article touches upon China’s commitment build a new model of relations between the U.S. and China, rather than simply maintaining a competitive relationship. An excerpt from the article is contained below. Click here to read the full article.
China’s Hard Line: ‘No Room for Compromise’
By Edward Wong
BEIJING — The Chinese foreign minister took a strong stand Saturday on China’s growing territorial disputes with neighboring nations, saying that “there is no room for compromise” with Japan and that China would “never accept unreasonable demands from smaller countries,” an apparent reference to Southeast Asian nations.
The foreign minister, Wang Yi, a former ambassador to Japan, made his comments at a news conference on the fourth day of the National People’s Congress, an annual meeting of China’s rubber-stamp legislature. Mr. Wang took questions from foreign and Chinese news organizations on the same morning he learned that a Malaysia Airlines flight bound for Beijinghad disappeared, and he spoke on a range of subjects that included Ukraine, the Korean Peninsula and relations between China and the United States. Mr. Wang stressed several times that China was committed to regional peace.
But Mr. Wang did not mince words on the subject of Japan and its prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who has angered Chinese leaders with recent public remarks on China-Japan relations and with a visit in December to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, where Japanese war dead are honored, including 14 Class A war criminals. In the East China Sea, China refuses to accept Japan’s administration of, or its claims to, islands that Japan calls the Senkaku and China calls the Diaoyu.
“On the two issues of principle — history and territory — there is no room for compromise,” Mr. Wang said in answer to a question from a Japanese reporter on the deterioration of China-Japan relations. “If some people in Japan insist on overturning the verdict on its past aggression, I don’t think the international community and all peace-loving people in the world will ever tolerate or condone that.”
Tensions between China and Japan have been playing out in diplomacy around the globe. In January, the Chinese ambassador to Britain and his Japanese counterpart both wrote op-ed articles for The Daily Telegraph in which they equated the other country to Lord Voldemort, the villain in the Harry Potter series. The two ambassadors even refused to sit at the same table during a televised BBC interview. Also in January, Mr. Abe told an audience at the Davos conference in Switzerland that the rivalry between China and Japan was similar to that between Germany and Britain before World War I, meaning their differences could supersede their close trade ties.
“I wish to emphasize that 2014 is not 1914, still less 1894,” Mr. Wang said Saturday. “Instead of using Germany before the First World War as an object lesson, why not use Germany after the Second World War as a role model?”
He added, “Only by making a clean break with the past and stop going back on one’s own words can the relationship emerge from the current impasse and have a future.”
In the South China Sea, China has been trying to stake sovereignty to islands and waters that are also claimed by Southeast Asian nations. Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia are among the opponents to China’s claims. The United States has said it takes no side on sovereignty issues but will maintain freedom of navigation. More recently, it has asserted that the so-called nine dashes map that some Chinese officials say defines China’s ambitious claims in the South China Sea violates international law because the territorial boundaries are not based on land features.
“As for China’s territorial and maritime disputes with some countries,” Mr. Wang said, “China would like to carry out equal-footing consultation and negotiation and properly handle by peaceful means on the basis of respecting historical facts and international law. There will not be any change to this position.”
“We will never bully smaller countries, yet we will never accept unreasonable demands from smaller countries,” he added.
As for relations with the United States, which is expected to remain the supreme military power in the Pacific for years to come, Mr. Wang said, “We stand ready to work with the United States to uphold peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. We believe the Asia-Pacific region should be the testing ground for our commitment to building a new model of major-power relations, and not a competitive arena.”
Robert Desimone is director of the McGovern Institute and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. Prior to joining the McGovern Institute in 2004, he was director of the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Mental Health, the largest mental health research center in the world. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of numerous awards, including the Troland Prize of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Golden Brain Award of the Minerva Foundation.
The Boston Global Forum is pleased to announce that the next installment of the BGF Leader Series will be taking place at 10:00AM on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 and will be live-streamed at bostonglobalforum.org. The BGF Leader Series will feature Robert Desimone, who is the Director of the McGovern Institute and the Doris and Don Berkey Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and a member of the Boston Global Forum’s Board of Thinkers. Professor Desimone’s current research examines how our brains focus our attention, which is a cognitive fucntion that is often impaired in many brain disorders, in order to advance treatments that can improve attention in individuals suffering from brain disorders and impaired attention. Please attend at bostonglobalforum.org and send your questions to [email protected].
