China-Japan Territorial Disputes

Territorial disputes result from disagreements between states, frequently about who has the right to control or own the territory. Islands that are inhabited in the East China Sea are the cause of international tensions between Japan, China, and Taiwan (Kaur 1). The Islands were governed by the United States for the most of the 19th century. When the nations recognized that the islands were on ship routes and had fishing grounds with the potential for oil riches, however, fighting erupted. Activities like shipping, fishing, and resource exploitation in the marine environment were not regulated for a very long time. When the coastal States realized its importance, they increased the national security and enforced laws to cordon the aquatic resources and commerce. A recent disagreement was between China and Japan arose when Japan purchased the disputed island from a private owner causing tension and protests in China. This paper gives the analysis of political, economic, military and legal conditions surrounding the territorial disputes, as well as evaluation of perspectives by both countries to attain a resolution of peace and cooperation from the real confrontations.







Background

The sovereignty of the five uninhabited Islands, situated in the west Okinawa Islands in Japan and east of China, came into the public domain after the oil reserves were discovered in 1968. Even then, the ownership of territories did not catch the attention of the public until September 2010 when the two vessels owned by the Japanese Coast Guard collided with a Chinese fishing trawler. Since then, neither China nor Japan has been able to agree on the dominion of the Islands, that is Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan. There were more protests in China when the government of Japan purchased at the cost of $26.2 million the three of the Islands in September 2012 from its private owners (Drifte 12). The major stalemate is about the flaring up of the territorial disputes over the recent years. The tensions over the Islands should have surged in the last four decades, especially when the gas and oil were discovered if indeed the China and Japan’s conflict was ultimately about the natural resources and the fishing rights. Possibly, the growing of the national pride by both countries could be the reason for these battles, where the rapid expansion of China has led to a sudden increase in militarization and patriotism. Similarly, the fear to lose the position of Asian power by Japan and the worries of slipping away from its international community’s foothold could also be the reason for the existing conflicts. These claims of the Islands in dispute have set a point where both the two countries reinforce their national identity and patriotism rallying.

Legal Features

The two East China Sea (ECS) disputes spin around the Senkaku Islands’ sovereignty and the drawing method of the Japanese and Chinese Marine boundaries in the sea of East China. The interconnection of both cases is considered as the aspect that complicates this compromise. Japan lays claims of incorporating, in January 1895, the Islands as a territory which is vacant ten years after its discovery. The republican China, imperial China, and the People’s Republican China’s authorities didn’t dispute the ownership of Japan. The war of Sino-Japanese turned in favor of Japan in January 1895, but legally the acquisition of the Islands of Senkaku cannot be connected to the acquiring of Taiwan by Japan in the Shimonoseki peace agreement, which hit a conclusion in April 1895. Given the possible reactions by China which are harmful, Japan hesitated to acquire of the Senkaku Islands for ten years, and this decision was concealed from other countries and only disclosed to the public in the year 1952 (Lee 27).

The distinction between the official interest of China in the Islands of Senkaku and the interests in the Islands of Spratly and Paracel in the Sea of South China is worthy of attention. On the hindmost occasion, the Chinese government claimed the ownership in the early nineteenth century, even before any other country took the interest. In spite of the fact that the United States asserts that the Islands territories are covered under the US-Japanese scrutiny treaty, no statement has ever been made by the US administration regarding the legal ownership of the Islands, but, only mentioned Japan as the acting administrator of them (Chau 143). In May 1970, China claimed the ownership of the Islands, after the Taiwan and Japan had begun talks on a joint exploration of Senkaku Islands' energy resource. These Islands were to be released back by the United States, alongside the Okinawa, according to the US-Japanese agreement (Blanchard 8). China raised claims of the ownership of the Islands in May 1970, followed by the Foreign Ministry of China publishing an official statement in December 1971claiming the Islands. This claim came after a joint coordination committee had carried out a geophysical survey of mineral resources in the offshore areas of Asia in 1968. The report by the committee projected that the shelf of the continent between Japan and Taiwan could be rich in petroleum reserves. Based on these old and legal arguments, the People’s Republican of China adduced the sovereignty to the Islands (Kaur 7).

The Perception Gaps

There exist no doubts that the public of Japan and China have understandings which are diverging on the disputes over the ownership of the Islands. Multiple sources can be used to identify the interpretations of the same issues and key events which are varying. The dialogues between the participants drawn from China and Japan and news reports of both countries from August 2015 to February 2013 have tried to contribute to the understanding of these two issues. Scholars from both divides have attributed the collision of the 2010 fishing boat as the turning point of the bilateral relations between the two countries; however, their interpretations of the issue are entirely different. When the collision occurred, the Japanese arrested the captain of the fishing boat and made an intention to put him on trial. This incident was perceived in Japan as though China is beginning to act more forcefully over the issue of Senkaku/Diaoyu. Some also observed that this behavior was a long-term plan by Chinese to change the status quo of the Sea in the East China (Drifte 19). On the other hand, China perceived the arrest of the captain as an indicator of Japan's departure from the unwritten policy governing the mutual understanding on the area of Senkaku’s fishing activities. Arresting the captain and sentencing him to jail was viewed by Chinese as an aggression to change the long-term agreement practice by the two countries (Swaine 9).

The perception of the decision by the Japanese government to nationalize the Islands of Senkaku is another lead issue in this tension. The purchase of the Island by the state of Japan has explained that it was only an intention to prevent the governor of Tokyo Ishihara from buying the Islands (Manyin 3). The Tokyo’s governor wanted to send people in the Islands to build a lighthouse; an action that could have provoked China to respond vigorously and create a considerable problem of diplomacy between the two countries. The government of the Japanese believed that the preventive measure lied on nationalization. The Japanese explanation was however not accepted by China since it thought that the Islands of Diaoyu belonged to China and the nationalization of a sovereign state by another country is untenable. Some Chinese postulated that Japan had an intention to change from being a de facto administration to exercising de jure sovereignty. Others perceive that it was a conspiracy by both the government of Japan and Ishihara for the justification of the public purchase of the Islands. China cannot believe the possibility of the national government influencing or controlling the local or provincial governments. The nationalizations by Japan led to demonstrations of anti-Japan across the country of China (Drifte 18). The crimes and violence that occurred during protests were received with shock by Japanese, with some terming the Chinese’s response as irrational and crazy because it was difficult to conceive precisely the anger being expressed by the Chinese.

Term Plans Perception

Another gap of perception is the length of the term plans by each side of the two countries for Senkaku Islands. Each side suspects the other of having a hidden agenda to change the status quo on the Islands. The Chinese views the Islands as crucial for Japan, considering the abundant natural resources in the region. Again, China speculates that Japan has the intention to claim the maritime territory using the Islands between Japan and China (Kaur 17). The Japanese also holds similar beliefs.

Political Difference

The political system difference has also contributed to the gap of perceptions by both Japan and China. As a society that is based on democracy, the Japanese hold diverging opinions on many issues. Even the idea by the prime ministers is not necessarily a representation of the mainstream view by the public. Meanwhile, in China, on matters of the society having diverse opinions, even the decision by the ruling party and the basic political system has not undergone any major change but displays a strict top-down structure full of autocracy (Christensen 15). As a result, perception gap between Japanese and Chinese is extended.

Historical Clashes

The territorial disputes between the China and Japan can also be conceptualized as a clash between two historical senses; or rather people of two countries with distinguished approaches and attitudes towards history. One reason that has caused the emotionality of China is the way many people have connected the historical grievance with the issue at hand (Chau 144). The memory of invasions and wars that China suffered many years ago are being reactivated by the current issue. On the other hand, the Japanese believe that the wars in history belonged to the ancestors from both countries and the people today cannot control the issues of history. This alludes that the Japanese do not connect well with the history and the current issue of its territorial disputes with China. The numerous monuments, museums, and the established sites of history in the cities of China were in memory of historical wars, making it impossible to forget some historical clashes between China and Japan.

Clash of National Identities

The disputes between the two countries can also be viewed as the clash of two national “dreams” and identities. In China, the new leadership of Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China have repeatedly stressed on the main agenda or objectives of the rejuvenation of the government’s identity or the dream of China. Again, the political party by Ishihara Shintaro is the Party of Restoration. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the rejuvenation and restoration refer to going back to the former status or position. It can be viewed that many in Japan and China share a motivation that is common to return their country to its former glory or condition, except that there is the difference in the motivational contents of the two countries. China’s primary objective is to rejuvenate or grow the country back to its former position, regarding strength and riches, and regaining its previous central place in the world, free from interference and bullying by foreigners. The Japan’s objective is to restore the country by drafting a new constitution to replace the current one which was written by the United States after the World War II which is used as a tool for renouncing war. The new constitution would also strengthen the capabilities of marine defense and elimination of the virtual chapter in the law which allocates only one percent of the country’s gross domestic product to go to defense expenditures. Despite the fact that the Japanese Restoration Party serves as the minority in Japan, it has some policies which are held popularly by some Japanese (Lee 26). The two discourses of restoration and rejuvenation are closely related historically, as they both want to eliminate the shadows of history. However, their difference in contents tends to create this clash of identities. Typically, this brings a real danger of conflict where each side ends up blaming the other for impeding the path to restoration or rejuvenation.



Evaluation of Perspectives and Resolution

The concepts memories based on history are empirically and theoretically among the least advanced stalemates in the International relations mainstream. The events that occurred in East Asia have again suggested that the historical memories can be the cause of the security dilemmas, divergent perceptions and territorial disputes between the countries, like the case of China and Japan. These memories are not just psychological issues, but the essential elements which construct the identity of a nation. The memory and history rarely do they lead to conflicts, but their lens is commonly used by the elites and the masses to decide the future policies of a country. When both countries view each other as the obstacle to their identity or dream, then the conflict between the two becomes inevitable. Conversely, by seeing each other as a partner for their shared and collective interest of peace and prosperity, then the expectation of peace and development between China and Japan can reach an advanced stage (Christensen 38).

Conclusion

A further investigation of the territorial disputes between China and Japan over the East China Sea exemplifies the change in the approach of Japan and China's attempts to create a balance. Considering both perspectives there is a relative power decline towards China. On the other hand, China tends to deviate from the centralized disputes control to a process of making a decision where companies are drawn from individuals, oil companies and mostly the navy to gain an increased anatomy (Manyin 231).Without the knowledge of the cause of relationship issues between China and Japan, it is difficult to resolve some of these territorial disputes. Japan and China should bring to the surface the perception of suppressed differences and get to know the other country’s reasoning behind the perspective. Even though agreeing could be quite tricky, recognizing the main reasons for their differences behind each other’s claims can prevent the conflict and enhance the establishment of a sustainable relationship between China and Japan.

Works Cited

Blanchard, Jean-Marc F. "The US role in the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu

(Senkaku) Islands, 1945–1971." The China Quarterly 161 (2000): 95-123.

Top of Form

Chau, Donovan C, and Thomas M. Kane. China and International Security: History,

Strategy, and 21st-Century Policy. , 2014. Internet resource.

Christensen, Thomas J. "Chinese realpolitik." Foreign Affairs(1996): 37-52.

Bottom of Form

Drifte, Reinhard. "Japanese-Chinese territorial disputes in the East China Sea–between

military confrontation and economic cooperation." (2008).

Kaur, Dhan Partap. "TERRITORIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN CHINA AND JAPAN."

Top of Form

Lee, Seokwoo. Territorial Disputes Among Japan, China, and Taiwan Concerning the

Senkaku Islands. Durham: Univ. of Durham, 2002. Print.

Manyin, Mark E. "Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Islands Dispute: US Treaty

Obligations." Current Politics and Economics of South, Southeastern, and Central

Asia 21.3/4 (2012): 231.

Swaine, Michael D., and M. Taylor Fravel. "China’s assertive behavior–part two: The

maritime periphery." (2011).



Bottom of Form