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.
25 Responses to “Crisis in the skies: China, Japan, the US and the East China Sea dispute”
Moodoo
Because the Senkaku Islands were not Chinese so why should China, who was not even a member of the UN at the time be invited to to sign a treaty on them? They were Terra Nullius when Japan annexed them in 1884 and China made no protest about this until the 1970s when gas and oil were found there. It is a shameless lie by China to maintain they claimed those islands.
You seem very outraged by what I said on colonialism, I am not a supporter of colonialism but my point was to draw you out. How can you claim to oppose such injustices when you are prepared to support far worse ones against other people? Against the Tibetan people who are burning themselves to death in protest, against the Falun Gong practitioners whose only crime was to create a spiritual movement not controlled by the communist party, against all the people killed or beaten in “mass incidents” every year, the brutality of building schools out of tofu so children die in earthquakes and officials can swallow money, the brutality of allowing poison baby formula and vaccinations to be sold because of official corruption.
You bring up Hong Kong, if Britain had given HK residents full British Citizenship there would have been an exodus from the colony. Nobody would have wanted to stay, the people there were given no choice as to their future. They did not want to return to China and 1 million emigrated between the declaration and the handover, the lines of people queuing to get a British Overseas Passport shortly before the handover showed the true feelings. Again now we today tens of thousands of protesters on the streets flying the colonial era flag in Hong Kong demanding Universal Suffrage, the type they had in 1995 which was abolished with the handover. Lets not forget there were almost no Chinese people in Hong Kong when it was established, the millions who came to populate it fled there after the revolution.
I am not defending Colonialism but taking one bad thing and using to justify another never works either. Colonialism was evil, the Communist Party of China is even more evil.
Bobby
http://twitpic.com/b6xjov An official government letter stating that, all maps prior to 1971 also had them listed as Japanese and the border with Japan drawn accordingly.
Answer me this, if you are so certain then which province of China do they belong to?
Hein.Q
I’m really happy that it seems you can read Chinese especially in traditional Chinese characters. Can I speak Chinese then?
I’ve seen the picture of the link and found nothing strange. Because according to the treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, Fishing Islands had been ceded to Japan as part of Taiwan Islands. So the official of China then used the name of Japanese “Senkaku” not Chinese “Diaoyu”. Japan occupied the whole Taiwan Island then not to mention Fishing Island.
There are also maps that from Japan in 1951 and 1967 show Fishing Islands belongs to China, here are the urls:
http://doiop.com/h6aeam
http://doiop.com/b1m6hk
It should be governed by Yilan County of Taiwan area exactly. On the issue of Fishing Islands, the mainland and Taiwan area are on the same side, it belongs to China.
Hein.Q
Happy new year first.
The peace treaty of Japan did not just include Fishing Islands. It was about ALL Chinese interests from Japan as a victor of WW2. So I can’t help laughing when you say “Because the Senkaku Islands were not Chinese so why should China…be invited to to sign a treaty on them.” Read the items of treaty, please. And not only P.R.C was not invited to join the conference but also R.O.C.. On the other hand, was China not a member of the anti-fascist alliance? China was the first to sign the Charter of UN in alphabetical order of name. In the context of history and the react of the USSR & USA, the treaty should be regarded as a kind of counter-measures of the Korean War. Besides, if Liuqiu Islands and Fishing Islands are really the territory of Japan, why the USA just gave them the jurisdiction but not sovereignty? Actually the USA has said they can’t expand the right when Fishing Island was transferred from Japan to the USA, and can’t weaken it when transferred from the USA to Japan.
Fishing Islands was first found and named officially in Ming Dynasty. There was a map named of “Atlas of Qing Dynasty” which was drawn in 1862 by Qing government, has shown Fishing Islands were part of China then. And according to the maps drawn by the Royal Navy in 1877, Fishing Island is marked as part of China. So your words of “Terra Nullius” are totally wrong.
So, the point is not that whether China had claimed the sovereignty or not but whether Japan had Credentials to claim the sovereignty or not. And when the USA took sovereignty from Japan, we did make protest. And even what Chinese newspaper said cannot change the fact that Fishing Island is part of Taiwan Islands but not Ryukyu Islands. It cannot change the fact that Japanese occupied the islands by force but not found “Terra Nullius”. Even just like you said we wanted the resource, it cannot change any fact of all declarations in WW2 that the islands belonged, belong and will belong to China.
If I burn myself in front of British Museum to protest that British government refuse to return the antiquities they robbed, is it the fault of British government? You just said the Tibet people in protest burned themselves but you don’t point out they also burned others and others’ property, like what the mobs did in London in 2011. These mobs are organized by TYC and many police officers and civilians are dead or injured these years because of them. I think they have nothing different with IRA just they haven’t been armed by weapons yet which soon they will be.
The founder of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi was born in the city I’m living in, where he created Falun Gong. I think I can comment it in a better position. I’ve never seen a religion abets or forces others to burn themselves to realize the interests of the religion，unless it’s a cult such as Branch Davidian, Aum Supreme Truth, the Order of the Solar Temple. So mundane affairs and spiritual affairs should be separated, and religions should not be involved in politics. Falun Gong is guilty because it lies to believers it can heal disease and forbid them going to hospital, not because it wanted spiritual movement. I still remember my uncle had a book of how to practice Falun Gong to cure, totally unscientific. And so-called spiritual movement, I’ve seen that 10 years ago and I think you wouldn’t like to join it. At that time, most believers were in the generation like my uncle who are lack of education and easy to be cheated. The believers didn’t work but dragged others to join the
rally, painted slogans all over the community, printed slogans on paper money, knocked your door and forced you to accept their publicity materials. It’s a kind of brainwashing not belief. Also Li was donated by NED，the org which is supported by US government and CIA and gives the money or free as long as you fight against the government. He is just a joke if you know QiGong and Chinese history more. And I’m really happy he went to America because he has no chance to persecute Chinese anymore.
Actually, as far as I can see ,some of what you said are based on the lies of western media. Just like what they did before Iraq War to win the moral high ground. One man may steal a horse while another may not look over a hedge. I’ve already seen the double standard of you from PRISM and Chinese network control.
I’m happy to see many officials were arrested in the past 2013 because of corruption, and with the determination of Chairman Xi there will be more in 2014. I thought it would be big news in international news. The culture of Chinese officialdom is not that simple. I can say if you line up the officials and shoot them one by one, there will be no people wronged. I also noticed that the ending of the allowance scandal of British parliament is only the resignation of the speaker. So, it’s same in all countries, never be too hurry or there will be unrest.
And I don’t believe in western food safety after the tainted milk of Fonterra, Nescafe, HiPP. And such as mad cow disease, foot-and-mouth disease, dioxin, Lester Bacillus, Salmonella in meat and food. I think I have to grow and feed myself, haha. Just close your eyes and eat. I’m not defending my government, I think the person liable should be sentenced and go to jail.
As for Hong Kong, please see Official White House Response to Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government. You’d know it was signed by more than 100000 people. And as I was told by my classmates in HK, the people who want independence is not that many. I wouldn’t say without mainland HK is nothing but HK is benefit from it. And I see how western would like to destroy HK in 1998.
Governments are all dirty including CCP and British government. What left is just interests.
Bobby
Yes I can speak Chinese but sorry maybe I misunderstood your English. Did you just say it is part of Taiwan? You are making yourself look rather silly.