US
eyes spoiler role in Japan-China
dispute By Jian Junbo
SHANGHAI - The Tokyo metropolitan
government's decision to dispatch a team of 25
surveyors to the disputed Diaoyu islands (known in
Japan as the Senkakus) on Sunday has further
complicated a territorial dispute which is now
stretching into its fourth month.
The team
from Tokyo carried out their research activities
from a boat as the central government had denied
their request to land
on the islands. However, the
mission was seen in China as a new provocation.
Tensions over the islands were first
rekindled by the Governor of Tokyo, Shintaro
Ishihara, during a visit to Washington in April,
when he offered to buy the islands from private
owners.
At the time, because Ishihara's
statement was not initiated or authorized by the
central government, it initially caused some
confusion in Tokyo. Some top officials were
shocked while others supported the idea.
While Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko
Noda said in April that his administration would
take appropriate measures on the issue without
talking about "nationalization", in July he
changed his tune, announcing that the central
government was indeed considering nationalizing
the disputed islands.
It was no surprise
to hear such a person as Ishihara, well known for
his extreme right-wing views, nationalistic
position and anti-China attitude, talk about such
a purchase. It wasn't to be expected that remarks
by a single official could lead Tokyo to create a
diplomatic crisis between two East Asian giants.
The dispute over the Diaoyu Islands
between China and Japan has resulted from complex
maneuvers in international relations. The United
States is deeply involved in, if not the original
source, of the dispute.
There is little
dispute that the Diaoyu Islands were Chinese
territory until 1895. Defeated in the first
Chinese-Japanese War in 1894, China's Qing Dynasty
had to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki and cede
Taiwan and its subordinated islands to Japan in
1895. China and Japan today still hold different
views on whether Diaoyu Islands were included in
the treaty. Nevertheless, even if the Diaoyu
Islands were ceded to Japan under the Treaty of
Shimonoseki, they should have still been returned
it to China after the end of World War II,
according to the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam
Proclamation signed by US, Britain and China in
1943 and 1945 respectively.
However, Japan
at that time claimed the Diaoyu Islands were under
jurisdiction of its Okinawa before the end of the
Pacific War, so it didn't transfer the Diaoyu
islands to China but to the US since the US was
given the trusteeship over Okinawa by the United
Nations's San Francisco Peace Treaty.
So
the Diaoyu Islands were governed by the US after
the end of World War II until early 1970s.
Nonetheless, it's should be noted that both
Beijing and Taipei do not recognize the legality
of San Francisco Peace Treaty since neither had
sent any representative to attend this conference
nor signed the treaty.
In 1971, the US
decided to transfer the Okinawa and Ryukyu Islands
back to Japan according to the San Francisco Peace
Treaty, regardless of China's protests.
Intentionally or mistakenly, the US also decided
to transfer the administration of the Diaoyu
Islands to Japan, which prompted spontaneous
protests by Chinese in various places. In 1972,
Japan resumed its control ling power over Diaoyu
Islands. [1]
In the face of Chinese
protests, Washington later said it had only
transferred the administrative power of the Diaoyu
Islands to Japan, and it took no side in the
sovereignty dispute.
Today, the US
reiterates this position, but insists on calling
the islands the Senkakus and proclaiming that the
US-Japan Security Treaty applies to the Diaoyu
Islands. It seems the US is glad to see this
sovereignty dispute escalate, which is in its best
interest. Washington is also happy to see China
runs into conflicts with neighboring countries on
South China Sea. Particularly right now, there are
talks about the possibility of China replacing US
as the world's No 1 economic power in the next
couple of decades. Surely territorial disputes
would divert China's concentration and hopefully
slow down on its development. Moreover tensions in
the region serves a further "justification" for
US's "return to Asia".
On September 3, one
day before US State Secretary Hillary Clinton's
visit to Beijing, China's state-run Xinhua News
Agency dispatched an editorial saying the US's
position on the disputed Diaoyu Islands "was very
dangerous" and "not in favor of security and
stability in the Asia-Pacific region." The
editorial says that although the US proclaims it
does not take side on the (Diaoyu Islands)
dispute, it adopts the Japanese name and claims
the US-Japan Security applies to the issue. "In
international relations, such a position bears the
serious meaning of recognition (of the disputed
islands as Japanese territory)."
Therefore, it says, there are reasons for
China to worry about America's forceful
intervention in the Diaoyu Islands issue, and be
concerned that US's backing of Japan will
strengthen the hardline stance of the Japanese
government and encourage Japanese right-wing's
anti-China arrogance. This will jeopardize the
security and stability in the whole Asia-Pacific
region.
On the other hand, an escalation
of tensions over the Diaoyu islands does no good
to either China or Japan. As the second and third
largest economies in the world, these two
countries are also deeply interdependent
economically, not to mention their cultural
linkages. For instance, China is the biggest
economic partner of Japan, and Japan is the
biggest trade partner of China as an individual
state. If the current tensions escalate into a
Cold War-like crisis or even armed conflict, the
two countries could possibly suffer setbacks in
economic development. This would also cause and
instability in this region. Mutual distrust in
this region would jeopardize efforts to foster
East Asia's integration.
In the 1980s and
1990s, there were no provocative activities over
the Diaoyu Islands and no serious tensions in this
region. A peaceful environment ensured smooth
economic development in this region.
To
ease the current tension, it is necessary for
Beijing and Tokyo to make efforts to cool down
growing nationalistic sentiments in their own
countries, which in fact have "hijacked" the
national interest.
Although nationalism in
East Asia is rising for many reasons, such as
lasting economic recession in Japan and unequal
distribution of wealth in China, both Japanese and
Chinese leaders should cautiously control the rise
of nationalism in their countries, and be aware
that stability, peace and development in the
region are far more important than any
nationalistic provocative activity. Such efforts
must be made mutually, because one side's goodwill
and concession would be useful only when they are
positively responded by the other side.
In
consideration of this, the best approach to deal
with the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands is still
the one both sides had agreed before - to shelve
the dispute for joint development, which was
proposed by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979
and seconded by then Japanese leaders.
Given the current escalating tensions,
join development seems to remain a remote
possibility, even if both sides would agree to
shelve sovereignty dispute. But at least, both
sides could refrain from taking further
provocative moves, such as attempting to land on
the islands and change their status quo.
In view of this point, it is puzzling to
see Yoshihiko Noda government to ban Japanese
citizens from landing on the Diaoyu Islands on the
one hand, but to talk about nationalizing these
disputed islands - on the other hand.
For
the sake of regional stability, peace and
development and for the sake of better China-Japan
relations, it's better to leave this sovereign
dispute to be resolved through slow regional
integration or by future generations' wisdom,
rather than in today's environment of nationalism,
unilateralism and international interference.
Note: 1. Details about
the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands dispute and relevant
historical documents such as the Cairo
Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation and San
Francisco Peace Treaty, can be found, on Wikipedia.
Dr Jian Junbo is an assistant
professor of the Institute of International
Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, China
(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online
(Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
