Japan-China: Time to Climb Down

Source: Getty
Article
Summary
Japan and China should defuse tensions over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.
Related Media and Tools
 

If ever a case were needed to illustrate reasonable intentions producing unreasonable consequences, the current Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute is a strong candidate. Last April, Tokyo’s erratic governor, Shintaro Ishihara, long associated with causes intended to stir anti-China opinion in Japan, announced his intention to acquire three of the islands from their private owner. There is every reason to believe Ishihara wanted to turn them into a platform for activities to provoke the Chinese dragon and alarm the Japanese people into hostility toward Beijing and eventually rearming Japan. So far, Ishihara is moving Japan toward his objective, ironically with the help of China and without actually having to take over the islands.

The good intentions came from Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. Over the past five months he implemented a strategy for the national government to defuse tensions and acquire or “nationalize” the islands in place of Ishihara. Historians will look back on his leadership and find missteps and a failure to anticipate Chinese reactions accurately, but Noda’s general intent to contain the issue seemed obvious. 

According to a Japanese press report, he further decided on a policy option for maintaining the status quo on the islands in order to avoid provoking Beijing by rejecting options ranging from making beneficial improvements to the lighthouse to garrisoning self-defense forces, something Japan’s administration would entitle him to do.

Moreover, Noda approved a diplomatic reshuffle amid rising tensions and ugly, semi-organized anti-Japanese protests in over a hundred Chinese cities to promote seasoned, skillful diplomats to positions where they might provide adult supervision to the management of ties. (Most unfortunately, the new appointee to Beijing, Shinichi Nishimiya, a good friend and especially able diplomat, died suddenly only a few days after his appointment.) 

Noda also dispatched a special envoy to explain to Beijing the background to his management of the issue. To be sure, Noda did not and should not bend to every Chinese demand, but his policy choices demonstrated general sensitivity to China’s concerns. 

Nonetheless, Beijing has chosen to interpret the prime minister’s decisions as part of a conspiracy to change the status quo. The timing of the nationalization, close to the anniversary of the 1931 Mukden Incident starting the Sino-Japanese war and immediately after a personal warning not to do so by China’s President Hu Jintao, further inflamed the Chinese reaction. 

Beijing insists, on the basis of its own records, that Japan agreed to “shelve” the dispute over the sovereignty of the islands in exchanges surrounding the normalization of Sino-Japanese relations in 1972 and their bilateral peace treaty in 1978. Japan insists there was no such consensus and that the islands are indisputably Japanese sovereign territory.

Both Tokyo and Beijing are in the midst of highly charged political seasons. China is coming to the conclusion of its decennial leadership transition, with plenty of hints of rough spots in replacing 70 percent of its top officials. Prime Minister Noda of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) is coming to the end of his time in office. Former prime minister Shinzo Abe has just won election to the presidency of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) on the basis of tough talk about Japan’s neighbors, and he is well positioned to lead the next, likely coalition, government after nationwide elections that are expected “soon.” So leaders on both sides are guarding their patriotic flanks and sacrificing relations with each other to that end.

It is time for China and Japan to take stock of the changed environment and make plans for how they will climb down from the current confrontation. Official Chinese spokesmen have demanded a return to the status quo ante, but they have not so far specifically demanded that Noda undo the deal he made for the purchase of the islands. This may provide a small opening for a rhetorical compromise.

Japan has said that it never acknowledged officially that China has a claim on the islands, but rather rejected the notion. Past bilateral arrangements to return Chinese fishermen who were found in Japanese waters without trial were only about how to handle violations by fishermen after the fact, not an indication that Japan was acknowledging that its law did not apply in the island’s territorial waters. (In the previous flare-up in the islands in 2010, the Chinese became particularly irate that a ship captain was to be tried in a Japanese court, before the captain was released.)

An uncomfortable truth is that after returning the islands to Japanese “administration” in 1972, the United States has consistently stated that it takes no position on the ultimate disposition of the islands, but that since they are administered by Japan, the Mutual Security Treaty would apply to protecting them. Thus, Washington has implicitly endorsed the notion that there is a dispute—something Tokyo is now rejecting—even as it promises to help Japan hold onto the islands.

It is of course quite normal in territorial disputes for the party in control of the territory to deny that it is disputed. A case could be submitted to the International Court of Justice for arbitration, but usually the party in possession will not agree to do so out of concern it would imply doubt about the claim.

In the case of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, there may be one more step a forbearing Noda can take to defuse the current tensions. A senior authoritative figure in the government can publicly reiterate that Japan’s claim and administration are beyond dispute, but note that Tokyo does not deny that others (China and Taiwan) dispute this. Or Japanese officials can assert that they do not believe the status quo has changed, and then conduct Coast Guard and other activity near the islands as they did before the crisis erupted. This may allow Beijing to step back from the daily barrage of tough rhetoric and admit that the status quo ante has been restored. If Beijing rejects the gesture in its direction, then the onus shifts to China.

China, once it is past the sensitive leadership conclaves about to occur, has good reason to stop damaging its relations with Japan through a bullying posture that is undermining its effort to develop “soft power,” and to calm relations in its neighborhood. Moreover, both Japan and China have rapidly expanded their economic interdependence in recent years and neither need to add to the opportunity costs of a deepening political chill, let alone drift into something hotter.

End of document

About the Asia Program

The Carnegie Asia Program in Beijing and Washington provides clear and precise analysis to policy makers on the complex economic, security, and political developments in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Comments (7)

 
 
  • Alex
    1 Recommend
     
    I think Amerian commentators are missing the key point: Japan changed the status quo on an issue of territorial integrity. As Deng stated in 1978, the status of Diaoyu island should be set aside for future generations, and China has clearly not arrived at a point where the public opinion could accept the loss of Diaoyu island. At this stage, Japan should know better than to clearly change the status of the island. And since Japan did change the status, China must severely punish Japan, regardless of economic cost. The reality is China is a Super Power now, and a Super Power cannot show weakness in foreign relations. I expect anti-Japan atmosphere to continue indefinitely unless Japan step back from nationalization. Japan has clearly miscalculated, and now it must either lose face (step back) or lose big (economically).
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Peace
    Why haven't the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration been brought up in all this dispute? The texts limit what Japan can claim for itself post WW2.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
    • Alex replies...
      1 Recommend
      They were not brought up simply because they are irrelevant to the dispute. The Senkaku/Diaoyu were NOT ceded from Qing Dynasty to Japan as a result of Sino-Japan War of 1894.
      Even China had not claimed the islands until the early 1970s. Some Chinese people often cite "history" to support their claim over the islands. However, in the case of Senkaku/Diaoyu, history is clearly with the Japanese side.
       
       
    • Ann Cheng replies...
      I've just discovered three original copies (as part of my late Father’s belongings) of the 1st print of Shing-Seng Newspaper 新生報published in Taiwan dated October 25, 1945 in celebrating the independence of Taiwan from Japan. (The prints to my late Father who happened to passed away in mid September this year). And there's an article regarding the Cairo Conference results in 1943 with the photo of English prime minister Churchill, US President Roosevelt & Chinese President Chiang Kai-Shek above the article. The article detailed some items about the islands that been reverted back to China and some of them related to the disputed islands (Senkaku/Diaoyu) in East China Sea currently among China, Japan & Taiwan. The newspaper prints are in both Chinese (Mandarin) & Japanese (for the fact Taiwan were in control of Japanese for a long time then, therefore, population in Taiwan were educated in Japanese). The contents of the newspaper had also mentioned about the election of French president de Gualle, the King of England was awarding the metal of honour to Sr. Churchill, the Communist Russian leader Stalin handing over the power and more.
      If the publication were printed both in Chinese and Japanese (providing the Japanese still had some control over Taiwan during the conversion) then what would it had been actually meant for the disputed islands currently among it all since 1945?

      http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4677841226498&set=a.1213897790077.2032946.1307777574&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf    the photo of the newsprint can be viewed via facebook
       
       
  • Sam
    2 Recommends
     
    Utter pro-Japanese twaddle. Completely bias towards the Japanese perspective of the dispute. Japan instigated this and they should be the first to make moves to dampen tensions and make concessions. If Noda's intentions were so pure and in the interest of preserving stability, then he should just sell the islands to China. Japan should stop saying one thing and doing another. They contradict themselves and are losing credibility with the rest of Asia. Nobody in Asia is speaking up for Japan because they know they are in the wrong. Yes, by all means, it is time to climb down, but Noda has to make the first conciliatory move.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • ABC
    1 Recommend
     
    "The good intentions came from Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. Over the past five months he implemented a strategy for the national government to defuse tensions and acquire or “nationalize” the islands in place of Ishihara. Historians will look back on his leadership and find missteps and a failure to anticipate Chinese reactions accurately, but Noda’s general intent to contain the issue seemed obvious." . It is just wishful speculations on the author's part. There is no direct evidence supporting the Japanese PM 's good intentions. On the contrary, one could see how he patronize the chinese side by getting them to talk, but in fact had no intention of compromising, as he asserted at UN.    There are plausible evidence to suggest that the purchase and nationalization episode was all scripted to force US's hands.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • thmak
    Since Japan started this conflict, Douglas Paal should suggest Japan to climb down first to the very initial stage. Official Chinese spokesmen have demanded a return to the status quo ante, and they have not so far specifically demanded that Noda undo the deal he made for the purchase of the islands because they don't expect Japan will. Noda could have nullified Shintaro Ishihara's action at the very beginning instead of playing along with his game If Noda did not and should not bend to every Chinese demand, then China will not climb down
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
 
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/09/29/japan-china-time-to-climb-down/dxnz

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。