The dispute involving China and Japan over the Diaoyutai (aka Senkaku) Islands appears to have degenerated into a Gordian knot that is becoming more intractable by the day.
If no resolute efforts are made by the protagonists to reduce tensions in the strategic waters of the East China Sea, it is feared that the situation could potentially fester into a full-blown conflict and destabilize regional security.
The disputes pit East Asia’s economic powerhouses, which have been instrumental in powering global economic growth in the past decade, against each other. China, Japan and Taiwan are key trade partners with heavy investments in one another’s economies.
Literature on the subject suggests that most analysts do not feel that the dispute will aggravate into a full-scale armed conflict. Such opinion largely hinges on their belief that the economic fate and strategic interests of the parties involved are dependent upon them maintaining good relations and in preserving peace in the region.
This belief, however, does not negate the fact that tensions in the sea are running high, and the possibility of conflict there should never be dismissed. Such is the intensity of the disputes that the close trade and economic ties and interdependence among them have not prevented the disputes from festering.
The principal actors in the disputes have not shied away from taking strong measures to stake their claims and show that they mean business in safeguarding their interests. China has dispatched government vessels to patrol the disputed waters near the Diaoyu Islands. Japan announced the purchase of three of the disputed islands, and was planning a military exercise with the United States to simulate the retaking of a disputed island in the East China Sea (the drill was cancelled after strong protestation by China).
Water fight
Not to be left out, the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, which also claims the Senkakus and refers to them as the Tiaoyutai (sic) Islands, allowed a huge fleet of fishing vessels to enter the waters near the islands, an act to which Japan responded by sending Coast Guard vessels to spray water at the fishermen with fire hoses. Taipei has strongly stated its position that it will spare no effort to defend its national sovereignty and to safeguard the security of its fishermen.
This chain of action and reaction by the three main protagonists has further stoked tensions in an already edgy maritime area. Quite how these acts can contribute to a peaceful solution to the disputes is anyone’s guess.
Each side is highly distrustful and suspicious of the others. Any action by one party is seen as an affront to the sensitivity and national sovereignty of the others. Under these circumstances, one would not be blamed for taking a bleak view of the prospect of the disputes in the East China Sea to be resolved harmoniously in the foreseeable future.
In international law, occupation has considerable weight in determining ownership. It appears that the parties to the dispute are fully aware of this. They have undertaken efforts to stake their claims by exerting their presence on the islands. This has prompted Japan to nationalize the three islands in the Diaoyutai chain; a move that was branded a “farce” by newly appointed Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who also sternly warned Japan in September 2012 to rein in its behavior and stop undermining China’s sovereignty in the sea.
Rising power
The manner in which Beijing conducts itself in the dispute is very much informed by its rise as an economic, political and military power. During the recent 18th Congress of the Communist Party of China, outgoing Chinese President Hu Jintao called upon the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to modernize and for China to become a maritime power to “safeguard China’s maritime rights and interests.” This call, made amid the power transition and the brewing East China Sea dispute, was obviously meant to prompt the PLA to appear strong in China’s ongoing maritime territorial disputes and as a demonstration of China’s resolve to stand firm on the issue.
The vociferous reaction in China must be seen in the context of the suffering inflicted by Japan’s imperialist past. Their strong reactions toward Japan in the East China Sea disputes are largely informed by the dark chapter in history during Japan’s brutal occupation and by Tokyo’s refusal to adequately apologize and atone for its wartime conduct.
As a result, demonstrations and sometimes violent protests against Japan’s claims on the Diaoyutais have erupted in several Chinese cities. Japanese business interests and Japanese-made cars were attacked and burned by unruly mobs ahead of the anniversary of Japan’s occupation of Manchuria in 1931. Meanwhile, Taipei believes that Japan (which ruled Taiwan from 1895 to 1945) should return the Tiaoyutai (sic) Islands to the ROC, but Tokyo instead sees the islands as terra nullius, or land that belongs to no one. Taipei sees this as an act of aggression and a violation of international law.
It is feared that the flurry of strong statements, provocative actions, and unrestrained shows of force and nationalism will eventually come to a clash. This fear should not be dismissed; one cannot always count on the parties involved in the dispute to exercise patience and restraint in the face of tense situations in crowded, contested waters and when nationalism runs high. In such a situation, bullets can be fired in anger and trigger the kind of full-blown naval conflict that involved China and Vietnam in the South China Sea in the 1970s and 1980s. Any skirmishes involving the economic heavyweights of East Asia in such a strategic waterway would surely be felt by their trade and economic partners and unleash negative strategic implications that will be felt far and wide.
No one is blind to the fact that the disputes are politically delicate issues that will not be resolved overnight. However, taking a defeatist attitude that there is nothing anyone can do to break the impasse is not helpful in advancing the agenda of resolving disputes.
Recommendations
In this regard, the following recommendations could help relieve tensions and set the stage for a durable, practical, and consensually acceptable solution to the dispute.
Compromise and tolerance
The governments of the nations involved in the disputes should set aside hard-line positions and adopt an attitude of compromise and tolerance. Taking absolute, non-negotiable positions is not helpful in reducing tensions, building understanding, or seeking a peaceful resolution.
International law
Those governments should align their claims in accordance and conformity with international law. This will help reduce the areas being disputed and add more clarity to what is being claimed, as well as to the basis of the claims. Outside parties, including world bodies like the United Nations, should exert diplomatic pressure on them to bring the claims in line with international law, especially the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Seeking international arbitration, for example at the International Court of Justice, would show sincerity on the part of the parties involved in the disputes to resolve them through peaceful means and in accordance with international law, and to avoid a conflict breaking out.
Public sentiment
The nations involved in the disputes should minimize the involvement of the public in their discourse on the disputes. Once public opinion on the matter starts to build, the public will demand strong action by their governments to protect national interests. In their efforts to satisfy their respective local constituencies’ calls to act tough and not lose face, governments may run into the danger of letting nationalistic sentiment shape their policies and steer their responses. This will result in stoking tensions even further, and will make it difficult for diplomats to discuss the disputes in a cordial atmosphere. The anti-Japan reaction in China over the Diaoyutai disagreement shows how easily national sentiment can escalate and get out of hand if governments allow unrestrained public protestations over issues that should be discussed and resolved through the diplomatic channels.
Raise awareness
Promoting objective and more critical analyses of the developments in the East China Sea would help the public understand the situation better and open a wider vista of options to the governments of the nations involved in the disputes. This is a task that academia and the research community should take up, with the assistance of governments. Media reports only help the public to build a general understanding of the disputes, which in truth are very complex. The narrative by certain sections of the media that suggests that the outbreak of war in the East China Sea is inevitable must be tempered with a more sober analysis of the issue. Commentaries based on historical and legal facts will help the public understand the broader context of the claims over the islands, instead of being waylaid by one-sided, misinformed views that can fan the flames of uncontrollable nationalistic sentiment. Members of the public who have a good understanding of the disputes will be least likely to overreact and partake in vociferous, violent demonstrations. In fact, they could play a useful role in demanding that their governments find a peaceful resolution.
Track II dialogue
Efforts to fully explore the track II platform to promote dialogue and engagement among all stakeholders must be taken. The objective views and inputs by academics and think-tanks may be useful in helping policymakers understand and view the issue from a broader standpoint and make them aware of the various options available to resolve the dispute.
Practical cooperation
Encouraging all parties to work together on areas that present low-hanging fruit will help build confidence among them. Such areas include carrying out joint exploration and exploitation of resources, conducting marine scientific research, fighting pollution, and protecting the marine environment, as well as boosting navigation safety. By cooperating and collaborating in these areas, the parties can focus their energies on garnering mutual benefits rather than on the issues that divide them.
Explore all options
Exploring all available options to break the impasse and seek a diplomatic breakthrough to the dispute would help bring the parties involved back to the negotiating table. The ROC proposal dubbed the East China Sea Peace Initiative is worth exploring. Japan has only given a lukewarm reception to the proposal, most likely owing to the fact that it does not want to see the ROC and China closing ranks over the Diaoyutai dispute.
Bilateral talks
Reviving bilateral talks stalled between those involved in the disputes would help in finding ways to settle them in an amicable manner. For example, the agreement reached in 2009 between Japan and Taiwan to jointly develop fishery resources in the East China Sea should be revisited. The effort was halted after the Liberal Democratic Party took over the administration in Japan.
The world is watching the actions of the protagonists in the hope that their disputes will be resolved in a peaceful fashion.
So many international economic, strategic, and trade interests rely on peace and stability in the East China Sea and the surrounding region. The last thing a fragile global economy needs is a breakout of conflict involving China and Japan, which would draw in the United States. At a time when the global economy is banking on East Asian economies to continue their growth tangent and help spur its recovery, it cannot afford to have economic growth in the region being derailed by the disputes.
Outlook for peace
It looks unlikely at this point that the parties will abandon their hard-line positions and reach a peaceful settlement in the near future. When one takes into account the fact that, from a legal standpoint, only one party can have sovereignty over a territory, it would be fair to expect the claimants to reason that the best they can hope for under the present circumstances is to maintain the status quo of ambiguity over ownership of the disputed islands. This would, at the very least, allow them to agree that there is a need to initiate dialogues to discuss the disputes.
It is hoped that the parties involved in the disputes live up to their professed commitment to finding a peaceful, diplomatic solution. They owe it to the global community to act responsibly and break away from the constraints of nationalistic interests to untie the Gordian knot in this sea of immense global economic and strategic importance.
______________________________
Dr. Nazery Khalid is a research fellow with the Maritime Institute of Malaysia.
Reprinted in full from Strategic Vision for Taiwan Security published by the Center for Security Studies at National Chengchi University’s Institute of International Relations.
Copyright © 2013 by Nazery Khalid