Why Obama’s visit to Hiroshima matters

On May 27, President Obama will visit Hiroshima. In doing so, he will become the first sitting U.S. president to visit the first city in the world to experience the use of a nuclear weapon during war. It is a momentous historical event and it also represents the continuing working of what this author has previously called the “Iron Quadrilateral.”

{mosads}The Iron Quadrilateral is a geopolitical construct that should act as the foundation for U.S. foreign policy. It consists of four separate but reinforcing geopolitical imperatives designed to prevent the emergence of a single power from dominating the Eurasian landmass. Were this to occur, eventually, such a power would be capable of becoming a global threat to the United States. With the continuing rise of China, they represent the most likely candidate to make a bid for such regional dominance that was previously attempted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The four imperatives are:

1. Conduct a “reverse Nixon to China” with Russia.
2. Embrace a “divide and conquer” strategy in the Middle East.
3. Strengthen Japan.
4. Embrace India.

Obama’s visit to Hiroshima represents a furthering of a strategy to reinforce imperative No. 3.

Of course, the alliance between the U.S. and Japan has long been a cornerstone for U.S. policy in the East Asian region. To this extent, the Obama visit tracks closely along an already well-worn path. However, the specific visit to Hiroshima is critically important for two reasons.

First, it is highly symbolic. While Obama is not expected to apologize for the use of nuclear weapons against Japan at the end of World War II, his very presence there represents an acknowledgement that Japan is the only nation to, thus far, suffer from such an attack and that such a terrible event should permanently be relegated to the pages of history books.

Second, it comes at a unique moment in time.

China’s recent moves in the South China Sea have drawn a great deal of attention. Many in the region are obviously concerned about what these efforts at constructing islands and likely militarizing them means for the future stability of the region. They are also deeply worried about the commitment of the U.S. to the region in the face of such apparent Chinese aggression. Though this fear is palpable throughout the area, particularly in the Philippines and Vietnam (where Obama just lifted a 40-year arms embargo), it is in Japan that fears of potential abandonment are most acute. The Japanese know that the U.S. is the indispensable actor that not only backs them, but can be an effective intermediary to other Asian nations that still remember the aggression of Japan throughout the region during the 1930s and ’40s. If the U.S. abandoned Japan, it would strengthen China’s position in Asia immeasurably and to the intense detriment of Japanese security and geopolitical positioning.

In the wake of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s recent comments about U.S. alliances, these already percolating concerns have become exacerbated. Consequently, such a hugely symbolic trip by a sitting U.S. president is a supreme act of reassurance coming at a time of looming concern and heightening regional tensions.

Will this visit fundamentally change the trajectory of U.S.-Japanese relations? No. But that is not the point. At a time when reinforcing East Asian relationships is as important, if not more so, than at any time in the last 50 years, these kinds of gestures are critical to managing those relationships effectively so that they may weather storms on the horizon.

If only the U.S. were as sensitive in its relations with Russia, then the U.S. could further the first geopolitical imperative in the Iron Quadrilateral. However, that is a policy debate for another time.

Lawson is a contributing analyst at Wikistrat.