Japan’s refusal to accept that the islands are disputed rules out negotiations leaving China little option.
Dr. Jenny Clegg is senior lecturer in Asia Pacific Studies at the University of Central Lancashire. She is also the author of ‘China’s Global Strategy: toward a multipolar world‘
No sooner had China declared an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea area on November 23 than the airspace became filled with military aircraft – Japanese, South Korean, American B-52s, then Chinese.
With such heightened tensions, the fear is that a minor incident could spark a larger crisis bringing not only China and Japan but also China and the US, two nuclear-armed superpowers, into collision.
From reading the Western media, anyone would have thought that the next world war was about to break out, with China the instigator.
Yet China is doing nothing unusual let alone illegal: the US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam have all had ADIZs in operation in the region for many years.
Some background is necessary. The area in question includes a number of uninhabited islands – known as the Diaoyu to the Chinese and the Senkaku to the Japanese – which are located 140km from Taiwan, 330km from China and 440 km West of Okinawa. They are under Japanese administration but are also claimed by China and Taiwan, who regard the current arrangements as a legacy of Japanese imperial rule.
The islands were ceded to Japan in 1895 following China’s defeat in the first Sino-Japanese War. At the end of World War 2, the US took over their control until 1972 when they were returned to Japan, at which point the Chinese asserted their claim.
Oil reserves were discovered in 1968 but the situation is not so much a ‘scramble over resources’ as, for China, a matter of equal treatment: the 1945 Potsdam Declaration stipulated that the ownership of minor islands claimed by Japan was to be defined by the wartime allies, of course including the Republic of China at that time.
In denial over its past war crimes, Japan has resolutely refused to recognise that the islands are disputed. Last year, it swapped some of them at will from private to government hands amidst a clamour of right-wing nationalist fervour.
This provocation to China received not a word of reprimand from the West.
Indeed, when in 2010 Japan unilaterally doubled the size of its own ADIZ to within 130 km of China’s coast, this was in effect endorsed just a few months later by Hillary Clinton, then US Secretary of State, who declared the islands to be covered by the US-Japan security pact and confirmed US commitment to opposing any unilateral action that would undermine their administration by Japan.
Rather than being driven forward by an expansionist nationalism, China’s latest move may well be a calculated test of US intentions in the region. The recent easing of tensions in the Middle East has left the US free to concentrate on its ‘Asia pivot’ whilst at the same time the US retreat from military intervention in Syria followed by Obama’s the cancellation of his visit to the Asia Pacific during the US government shutdown has raised questions about US commitment in the latter region.
Despite dispatching the two B-52 bombers, the US stopped short of calling for China’s ADIZ to be scrapped, much to the chagrin of the Japanese government. Has China succeeded in dividing the US and Japan? Or is it rather that the US seeks the role of ‘honest broker’ here between an increasingly assertive China and Japan’s unapologetic hawks.
In this way Obama might reclaim US authority as world leader, a role it has just been denied in the Middle East by Russian diplomacy.
With control over the key regional shipping lanes in its hands, the US has the power to cut off world trade with China. If China seeks to change this status quo, it does not mean that its aim is to replace American with Chinese hegemony.
Xi Jinping has repeatedly stated that the Pacific Ocean has enough space for two large countries. China’s serious commitment to power-sharing in North East Asia is clearly indicated by its dogged efforts to get the six party talks on Korean denuclearisation going again.
The failure of the US to take the opportunity this year, the 60th anniversary of the Korean war armistice, to open the way to a peace treaty equally suggests that the US is not ready to make way for a multipolar determination of East Asian security.
The mixed signals from the US could lead to an even more dangerous confusion within the region.
There is still, however, a way back from conflict if the China-India border defence cooperation agreement, signed in October, were to be taken as a model. Both sides here seek to avert an escalation of tensions by committing to avoid the use of force or threat of force, to refrain from provocative actions and not to tail each others patrols.
Japan’s refusal to accept that the islands are disputed rules out negotiations leaving China little option. What would be the reaction if China declares further ADIZ’s over the seas that bear its name? For the region to descend into a downward spiral of conflict would be a disaster for the world economy.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
25 Responses to “Crisis in the skies: China, Japan, the US and the East China Sea dispute”
Moodoo
I am a progressive hence why I read this website. You are a disgusting apologist for crimes against humanity. I will be equally critical of Abe and his visit to the Yakusuni Shrine or his proposals to radically change the Japanese constitution to create a “harmonious society” I suspect the reason you have not criticised him for that or for his new state secrecy law is because you support those kind of things in commie China.
You even admit that China has sent troops across the line of actual control into India administered territory, just as they have made aggressive armed incursions in the South China Sea. I would love to see them make the same move against the Senkaku Islands and see the Japanese Self Defence Forces humiliate the CCP and bring about a new China. Attempting to resolve these disputes with force shows the mindset of China’s rulers. Britain has a maritime dispute with the Republic of Ireland and has the brute force capability to act unilaterally but does not, this is what civilised nations do. You have not seen any attempt by the Japanese to develop the Senkaku islands or rebuild their ancient settlement there. Many many countries have territorial disputes and chose to settle them peacefully often with international arbitration. The Philippines has referred its dispute to the UNCLOS tribunal and China has gone ballistic over it as it would rather attempt to force an unequal treaty. It is funny really that China aspires to be a colonial power itself despite all the nonsense taught in its compulsory political education classes about a “century of humiliation”.
Moodoo
You should tell “Hands of China” to remove your name from their website then if it really has nothing to do with you.
Hein.Q
I don’t see any progressive on you with saying others are paid for so easily. In another word, aren’t you an apologist for your nation? “You are a disgusting apologist for crimes against humanity.” I can give back these words to you. If one person denied Japanese crime in WW2, he has no credential to be a prime minister. Because if he can deny the crime of the past and regards it as great pride, he can also deny what he will crime in the future. Alright, honesty and responsibility are my basic principles to comment a governor, for most of Japanese, it’s totally opposite. Abe still has more than half of Japanese supporting him after visiting Yakusuni Shrine which means more than half of Japanese don’t care their prime’s behavior of that. So I think most of your countrymen really don’t care what their fathers or grandfathers did right or wrong 80 years ago. I don’t think you can talk about “humanity” with me even though you criticize Abe in some points because Abe’s behavior has reached a level of state action and represented most of you. You can’t seperate his personal action from Japan. I remember some of former Prime Minister and deputy Prime Minister now Taro Aso’s speech like, “Nanjing Massacre had never occurred”, “Japan should follow the example of the Nazis”, and “the old should die ASAP” and so on. Another inhuman incumbent governor, right? If you want, I can list a third, a fourth of your cabinet member who hold the similar view points. I’m just curious how these people are elected into government. One should be accidental but… Yes, state action.
New state secrecy, wow, I nearly forget it if you don’t remind me. Isn’t it like the military protection law that Japan made before WW2? It’s another sign that Japan is going back the way of militarism. You just help me to prove it. And as a defeated country who has criminal record and didn’t plead the guilty, such a law should be ware of. Yes, it must be not equal. And see how Americans do with PRISM. How can you criticize China? I admit that China wasn’t that open before 2000 but now is much better. We are making progress on speech freedom just like what we are promoting on human rights. More and more people can talk about national policy on micro-blogs or somewhere as long as your words are not about treason acts to split the country incite rebellion or steal secrets, which all countries will forbid. And how do you know constitution are banned to discuss in China? I get 182,978 results of papers of Chinese constitution including cons and pros on CNKI. And human rights protections were written in constitution in 2004. If you get no facts please do not comment.
I think I’ve said too much of how disputes occurred between China and other countries and the history of these territory but you don’t see. In your logic, A occupies the territory of B, and B has no right to cross the line if A controls, right? That’s a real pirate logic. In this logic you should abandon the effort on the sovereignty of four northern islands because Russia “administers territory”. If you want international arbitration why don’t you submit the dispute of the four northern islands to international arbitration? Because according to the Potsdam Proclamation which you have accepted, “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.”So, you have no rights on either four northern islands or Fishing Island on court. Could you tell me that Japan nationalized Fishing Island is not an unilateral act？ Even the USA doesn’t recognise your sovereignty. Clear the logic then talk about this issue with me. We just want to get back what we were robbed and lost in WW1&WW2 if you think it’s wrong. The difference between the textbooks is that Chinese indeed endured these humiliation, but Japan would like to deny their invasion as the liberation of Asia.
You stress the people’s rights and the humanity environment of China is really terrible. You should understand Japan is not that clean. What I see is that China is more and more open while Japan is getting worse and worse. You’d better check out human rights reports from Japanese justice ministry of these years. As I can see, the crime in Japan is on the increase especially in school. Owning child pornography is legal and crimes are still flourishes. That’s really “protects people’s rights”. So according to Japanese report, the situation of Japanese human rights is not that good as you say. I think it’s even like some developing countries. I still remember a piece of news in the summer of this year. Japan’s UN special envoy for human rights issues claimed that Japan is one of the best countries in human rights on a conference, which was ridiculed by other diplomats. Your special envoy was almost out of control then(videos are online). Two steps back, a country who denies his crime has no right to accuse others whatever he does well on surface. Watch how your alliance of WW2 German wins the respect.
I reply each of your opinion one by one, but you just ignore some of my responses such as the history of Ryukyu Kingdom, the testify of China abandoning Fishing Island, the legitimacy of McMahon Line and Treaty of Peace with Japan, whether Japan apologize for its crime, and so on. Can I regard it as that you give up the position of them? Because I think they are important to judge the attributions of Fishing Island but you just change the topic into attacking Chinese human rights which is really far from the origin topic.
What’s more, no personal attack, please. Show me your quality of a democratic society. The more insulting words you speak out, the more you help me to prove my position. And I’ve said I don’t care what my government says because I have my own opinion. Media is served for nation interests not only in China but also in other countries. See how Ameircan media are queit in Occupy Wall Street and . I suggest you go back to the facts and extend your resource.
Moodoo
I am not Japanese I am British.
I ignored your opinions on the Senkaku Islands because you are simply making things up but the Communist regime in China is based on lies. How can you say China is more open than it was in 2000? There were no internet controls in China in 2000, compare that to today. At least Jiang Zimin was prepared to do TV interviews with foreign journalists, China’s leaders today do not speak to foreign media the only leaders of any country who do that. Being an overseas reporter is pretty dangerous in China why? Because the party do not believe in the truth, just like their brothers in North Korea they want to control all information and not just what is written in China but around the world. If a company writes something they do not like somewhere else in the world they will punish that firm’s business interests in China, global censorship is the aim of the Chinese Communist Party. Bringing down this evil regime is not just in the interests of 1.3Bn Chinese it is in the interests of all the free peoples of the world.
Talking of Chinese humiliation, the humiliation is not that China was weak in its dealing with foreign powers. It was not that it was forced to hand over Hong Kong and Macau, the humiliation was not that it was forced to create treaty ports the humiliation was that so many Chinese people wanted to live in the treaty ports as they offered a far better life than in the rest of China. That people to this day still queue up to buy baby formula at the Hong Kong border because they trust the British system far better than their own. Even with the new wealth in China today the first thing anyone with money wants to do is ditch the “motherland” and get foreign citizenship.
Shinzo Abe visiting the Yakusuni Shrine is a disgrace, his attempts to change the constitution doomed as they are also are a disgrace but on the 26th of this month we saw Chinese leaders lining up to visit the shrine of Mao Zedong who killed many times more Chinese than any Japanese leader ever did and was a far bigger criminal against humanity than anyone with a death toll higher than Hitler or Stalin. If Chinese people cannot respect themselves and punish their own leaders for crimes against them how can they call on others to do that same?
Hein.Q
As long as you are a British, everything will be much more simple.
You said my opinions are based on lies. That is to say, what I see the map that Fishing Islands belong to China drawn by Japan, documents, reports, papers that Fishing Islands belong to China written by Japanese, are all based on lies, right? They are all made in China, right?
When it comes to Chinese open, before 2000, can you know what weapons are now in the development and in what progress in China? As for interview, I watched video of the English interview of Jiang Zemin in university, which showed a changing circumstance and strength of a chairman. I also admire his English because in his time learning English is not easy. I’m very surprising that later Chinese leaders fear interview after you saying that. Because I remember former Premier Wen Jiabao’s translator always feels very difficult to translate cited poetry from premier. So I found that, Hu Jintao during his term of office has received many joint interviews with various foreign media, answered reporter’s questions face to face, including exclusive interviews from the Russian media in 2005 and 2007, special interview from Washington Post and the Wall Street journal written in 2011, etc.. Of course, Premier Wen accepted interviews from foreign media more in previous government. He accepted a variety of interviews, including an exclusive interview with Washington Post in Beijing in 2003, an exclusive interview from Newsweek International Edition editor&CNN news presenter Fareed Zakaria in the USA in 2008, and so on. Do you want the video? I have to remind you to return to the facts, at least you should check the facts that support your opinions. I hope this is the last time I say these words because I was taught that British are famous for their rigorousness with so many famous rigorous scientists.
Since you want to talk about freedom and human rights, then we talk about it.
I can’t imagine how you are taking that justice tone to say those words. In my opinion, what you said that Chinese signed unequal treaties to open ports because Chinese would like to is very absurd and unreasonable. Maybe you used to see the submissive expression of the Indians who used to be ruled. It is still an ideology of colonialism , which some countries have been holding from the end of World War II to now nearly 70 years, just like the ideology 100 years ago. Of course, this is the legacy of thought when Columbus discovered the new continent, but also the western general idea – powers aggress against the weak is legal. So It is not difficult to understand why the British Empire waged Malvinas War with Argentina in 1982. It’s also not difficult to understand why when mentioned Hong Kong you get excited. Whether to open trading port is the interior of Qing Dynasty. Is it not aggressive when you forced Chinese to open ports through the war? In the first Opium War of 1840 and the second Opium War of 1856, British government forced the Chinese to open treaty ports, pay reparations, cede territory, and they burned Old Summer Palace, plundered the wealth. Is this your way to provide Chinese a better way of life? For the population trade, Chinese labors were brought back to England for the construction of the railway, but the British then didn’t provide the basic guarantee of human rights, which made many Chinese dead. Is this a better way of life for Chinese? In fact, in other words, the British in the nineteenth Century had nothing different to Japan in World War I&II, except that British did not slaughter civilians, that’s it. Oh, I forget, can you tell me who did American Indians massacre in the 18-19 century and Africa black triangular trade? UK waged the first Opium War in order to reduce the trade deficit, relying on exporting drugs to China and destroying Chinese physique. In fact, a series of wars like the Opium War led to economic aggression, Chinese living standard declined. Hong Kong, Taiwan and the mainland history textbooks are basically no difference on this part, so don’t say I’m based on communist lies, or you can have a look on Victor Hugo’s comments of the Opium wars. I also “thank” these aggression, because without these aggressions China wouldn’t have ideological emancipation, but we wish a better way not being aggressed. Of course, if someone denies these aggressions, I think he has no difference with Abe.
I also don’t see Britain play a positive role from the living standards of India now. After all, it is the colony where British ruled hundreds of years. So, if the British rules China now, I don’t think we will be better than India. The function of Hong Kong is to facilitate trade of UK. If it is for freedom or human rights, Hong Kong government official corruption will not reach that level in 1970s, Hong Kong people will not be only second-class citizens in Hong Kong. So you don’t care that Hong Kong and Hong Kong people will be, you used to care about how much interest from Hong Kong you can get, and now is how much the dignity of the British empire you can keep. So the development of Hong Kong is a special case, if Hong Kong has some achievements, it is the efforts of Hong Kong..
I really don’t understand why the war, drug trafficking, slavery, genocide, aggression then become peace, freedom, democracy, justice and civilization. For a colonist, national defense of rich countries is the weaker the better. The UK prime minister recently visited China to win trade orders, I did not feel the insistence of western democratic society for human rights. Is it the British unprincipled in front of the interests? If we don’t think like this, I would think the British government has approved Chinese efforts on human rights. I prefer to believe the latter one. Never again hang the human rights in the mouth. Have a look at how Britain obtained Northern Ireland in history, and the “bloody Sunday” of Northern Ireland in 1972. Moreover, if the British government will allow the independence of Scotland after a successful referendum on independence the next year , I would be in favor of western governments protecting civil liberties. Otherwise, these are surface formalism.
I admit that in the past 20 years, a large number of Chinese immigrants move to foreign countries, especially the rich. But I also see this situation is changing, many immigrants are also in return. A very simple example, the laboratory supervisor I work with was a lead researcher in GM, won many awards and a subeditor of IEEE TVT, then gave up the treatment abroad and returned to China. If we are a developed country with better environment, I think westerners also want to move to China. Pollution, food safety are very serious problems, it is the responsibility of the government, as a Chinese it calls my concern and criticism. But you can’t ask China after Western plundering wealth nearly 100 years, to establish an environmental protection and quality system same as you, which you built with the money of plundering the weak, especially in the case of trade protection. In fact the British and American had the same problems before, Los Angeles in 1942, London in 1952.
Talking about freedom, I still remember the 2011 Murdoch’phone-hacking scandal is really hot. And before the Iraq war, the British government instructed the media hyping that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, many reports then were false news. After the war, allied forces did not find any weapons of mass destruction, has any media answered for what they said? And during the war, the British government press officer also strongly criticized the BBC anti-war reports. Is this the freedom which western countries are advertised? Only in BBC, the similar thing is not happened the first time. If you like you can do the search of yourself. And in October, 2013, your council also announced a news specification. Isn’t it a kind of going backwards. Also, Britain was also involved in the PRISM scandal of America. Unauthorized government departments monitor citizens’ communication large-scalely, I don’t see what is different with Chinese network control in your mouth. Instead, I think it’s hypocrisy.
And how British government control the news about Snowden, as a British you should know much more than me. Don’t tell me that the British have no censorship mechanism and sensitive words. I hate China forbidding the Facebook which makes me take time to visit it in a complex way, but it doesn’t mean you can’t visit. I think it’s necessary to control because Chinese are easily provoked to do stupid things, like 1989. If not, there must be color revolutions more than ten times in China. And I don’t see any color revolution brings economy interests to the countries. And the real control of information is the USA and his allies, I haven’t seen one like American PRISM plan of worldwide information monitoring control system so far.
What is commendable that you did not choose the wrong side on the issue of Libya, though only a little bit close. It’s still a kind of progress.
Mao Zedong did make many mistakes in his old, however, at least he is also a leader who fought against Japanese invaders. The topic of Cultural Revolution is still sensitive now but not forbidden. At least it’s not a sensitive word on search engines. If you memory Cromwell on the side of that he massacred the catholic in Ireland, just like to memory Mao on the side of Cultural Revolution, is really funny. Besides, I think the number of people dead of his mistake is much smaller then the people died in North America and Africa.
I know there are many social problems in Chinese society and government, but why can’t you see the progress that China has made but only keep the eyes on the darkness? Just like I will never say riots in London in 2011 were caused by racial discrimination.
Finally, you still haven’t told me why the peace treaty that America signed with Japan which involving Chinese interests but not invited China to sign is legal, and why it does not violate the United Nations Declaration, Potsdam declaration and Cairo declaration. Isn’t it an unilateral action?