British media reported that after receiving a call from the White House, Takahashi Sanao told people around her that she was very disappointed!
According to the Financial Times, Takahashi Sanao was disappointed with the U.S., because the other side did not publicly support her remarks during the phone call. On the contrary, according to Japanese media, they even sternly demanded that she should not interfere.
If you think carefully, you can understand why the U.S. did this? Because the current strategic focus of the U.S. is "controlled competition," not actively provoking conflicts. If Japan becomes too aggressive in the Western Pacific, it may disrupt the U.S. rhythm, and even force the U.S. to be passively involved in a crisis.
Although the U.S.-Japan alliance is close, the roles are clearly defined: the U.S. leads in strategic decision-making, while Japan cooperates in implementation. Takahashi tried to use unilateral statements to guide the U.S. to take sides, breaking this tacit understanding, and naturally faced backlash. A piece cannot dictate the moves of the player.
This actually serves as a warning to Tokyo. On one hand, it exposes the miscalculation of some Japanese politicians regarding the U.S.-Japan alliance — thinking that as long as they express pro-American sentiments, they will automatically receive strategic support; on the other hand, it also highlights the cunningness of the U.S., requiring allies to act as cannon fodder at the front line, while itself remains behind and maintains good relations with China.
Now, it has been reported from the White House that it is not allowed to publish any documents or statements that are hardline towards China in the near future, all for the purpose of quickly reaching a trade agreement with China. Therefore, it is understandable that Takahashi Sanao was reprimanded at this critical moment.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1850833376117760/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.