I must admit to a certain amusement reading Ralph Cossa and Brad Glosserman's hand-wringing, whiny polemic, complete with dire warnings. This piece is typical of the hail of rants emanating from those who are worried that a Democratic Party of Japan-led Japan might actually ask Washington to compromise on several bilateral security issues. This worry is not about preserving the alliance but rather about preserving its unbalanced and unequal nature.

What these neocolonial commentators fail to appreciate is that an unbalanced and unequal alliance — one between a dominant power that imposes the terms on a subservient one — is inherently unstable.

A stable alliance can only be established among countries that independently choose to pursue common objectives and goals based on common values and strategies. In this context we should welcome Japan's incipient attempt to balance the alliance rather than try to bully or threaten it. However, if mutual compromise on key bilateral security issues is unattainable, then perhaps the two no longer share common values and goals, and the alliance in its present form has outlived its usefulness. In this case it would be time to ask whom the alliance is against, whose security it ensures and at what cost to whom?

mark valencia