The Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands, a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea to which China and Taiwan have both made claim, fall within the scope of the 1960 Japan-U.S. security treaty which requires the country to defend Japan in the event of armed attacks, a senior State Department official said Monday.
"The Senkakus would fall within the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security because the Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the government of Japan since they were returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972," the official told Kyodo News.
The treaty's Article 5 states, "Each party recognizes that an armed attack against either party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes."
Seems like the US is treaty bound to protect the Japanese claim to these islands. How long do you think it will take Obama to renege on this?
I swear the whole world would benefit from having Obama removed from office and somebody with some cojones to take over, like West perhaps.
Japan sees an empty suit when they address Obama, he is a nobody to them. And Obama knows that, he will find any way possible to NOT come to the aid of Japan, treaties be dammed.
YIKES. I'm having Déjà vu all over again. Its' a mini SEATO Treaty which got us into Vietnam.
Both the United States and Australia cited the alliance as justification for involvement in Vietnam. American membership in SEATO provided the United States with a rationale for a large-scale U.S. military intervention in Southeast Asia. Other countries, such as Great Britain and key nations in Asia, accepted the rationale. In 1962, as part of its commitment to SEATO, the Royal Australian Air Force deployed CAC Sabres of its No. 79 Squadron to Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. The Sabres began to play a role in the Vietnam War in 1965, when their air defence responsibilities expanded to include protection of USAF aircraft using Ubon as a base for strikes against North Vietnam.Yeas most SEATO members bugged out of Nam. France already lost there and the UK military after WWII wasn't much to talk about even in 1962. And Canada .. well, it's Canada.
The Aussies were our biggest Allies there. And South Korea sent what troops they could even though not a SEATO member.
It sure looks like we have a direct treaty obligation to stand by Japan in defense of these bird-poop islands. It is absolutely imperative that the 0bama regime re-affirm that treaty and publicly state that we will stand by our treaty obligations. So far, he has not.
If we fail to stand by this treaty obligation, then 0bama has completely destroyed the credibility of our foreign policy. Not one single treaty we have signed will be seen as anything more than a scrap of paper. Our enemies will treat us like dirt, our allies will either desert us or become our enemies. Our foreign policy already smacks of sending tribute to other countries, but at least we had a smokescreen of treaty and alliance obligations attached to it. Under 0bama, it’s just going to be plundering and sacking of the federal treasury by the barbarians.
All eyes are on the disaster in the middle east, but no Americans see the real foreign policy disaster looming in Asia. I guarantee all the world’s diplomats do.