TURNING JAPANESE…OR CHINESE

GodzillaBrits say Falklands; Argentines say Malvinas; Japan says Senkaku; China says Diaoyu. Territorial claims are funny old things, often inciting the most fervent of passions over the least obviously appealing lumps of rock. Most such claims stretch back centuries and only acquire sudden value when ownership is threatened by a rival claim, usually provoked by the discovery of something with a far greater value lurking in the neighbourhood. In the case of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, these uninhabited locations resembling the landscapes upon which Godzilla battled his fellow mutant beasts are currently at the centre of a dispute between Japan and China, a dispute placing one of the most fragile fault-lines of the Far East in peril.

The waters encircled by Taiwan, China, South Korea and Japan boast a proliferation of tiny islands that even outnumber the similarly scattered little landmasses dotted around the tip of Scotland; for Japan, the most prominent served as a convenient barrier between it and the US Army during the Second World War, though the Senkaku Islands are more distanced from the Japanese mainland, closer to Taiwan. There were no real territorial claims made upon them in the eras of the ancient Chinese and Japanese Empires; British ships referred to them as the Pinnacle Islands and their value was solely as navigational markers.

The success of Japan in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894/5) saw the dominance of the East Asian region shift from China to the victor, marking Japan’s beginnings as a major military power that would ultimately carry it all the way to Hiroshima. Although Korea was regarded as the main prize of the conflict, it was the Senkaku Islands that were first claimed as imperial possessions in the aftermath of the War, and China didn’t seem particularly concerned. A Japanese fish processing plant was established on one of the islands, Uotsuri-shima, which remained active until WWII; the very presence of the plant on the island appeared to certify the claims that it and the neighbouring islands had been incorporated into Japan’s sovereign territory.

Even when the Senkaku Islands fell under American control following Japan’s surrender in 1945, China wasn’t especially vocal about ownership claims. China only really began to make a fuss at the end of the 1960s when the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East discovered oil and gas resources situated around the islands. Despite this potentially profitable future for the vicinity, the US returned ownership to Japan in 1971, something that prompted Chinese territorial claims to become official Peking policy. Taiwan had also been ceded to Japan in 1895, and it was the return of Taiwan into Chinese hands after the Second World War that China now retrospectively says should have gone hand-in-hand with the acquisition of the Senkaku Islands. History is certainly a flexible friend when it comes to territorial claims.

Bizarrely, some of the islands are privately-owned and are rented by the Japanese Government, though each outright purchase by Japan is regarded as a provocative gesture by China. One of the islands is used as a practice range by the US military, maintaining the presence America has had in the region ever since it funded the post-war financial reconstruction of Japan. That part of the demilitarisation of Japan involved the US taking on the role of the country’s defender in the event of any attack places America in a difficult position during the current dispute. Add the unstable spectre of North Korea to the equation and it’s plain to see how delicate the situation in the Pacific really is.

Strategically, the Senkaku Islands are situated in significant shipping lanes as well as fruitful fishing grounds, not to mention the oil and gas reserves, of course; but they also serve as a microcosm of the battle for control of the region between China and America. Over the last four years, China has deliberately flouted Japan’s ownership of the islands by sailing its ships into Japanese territorial waters and has also created the ‘East China Sea Air Defence Identification Zone’ in an area covering Senkaku, one that the penetration of by non-Chinese aircraft apparently requires adherence to rules laid down in Beijing. Neither Japan nor the US have adhered to these rules.

Old enmities between China and Japan have been revived by this dispute, ones that rouse nationalist passions on both sides and ones that politicians of the respective nations seek to appease in the eternal quest for popularity. But while the world’s attention appears perennially focused on the Middle East, it is perhaps the Far East we should be keeping a closer eye on, especially when one considers that a couple of months ago three Russian warships – accompanied by a Chinese Navy frigate – sailed past the Senkaku Islands in what could well be perceived as an act of choreographed provocation. Any Russian intervention in disputes between nations rarely bodes well for a peaceful resolution.

© The Editor

https://www.epubli.co.uk/shop/buch/48495#beschreibung

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “TURNING JAPANESE…OR CHINESE

  1. If China and Russia and Japan decide to get military with each other over the islands that’s their business, as long as we and the U.S. stay out of it.

    But the U.S. wouldn’t and then, would we?

    I’d hope any PM would realise wars abroad that pose no threat to us are none of our business. Would that we had maintained that position pre-Iraq.

    Like

    1. I think the problem for the west in this particular case is the US’s commitment to Japan’s defence. There is a potential powder-keg scenario for the wider world in the Far East at the moment, and one hopes it can be resolved sooner rather than later.

      Like

      1. Well, none of the US “protectorates” (S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Phillipines) are in NATO, so that should be OUT get-out clause…

        Like

  2. It’s on issues such as this that you wish the United Nations really worked, but instead it proves the sheer impotence of that body to take any action to stabilise such troublesome, yet really trivial, parts of the world or impose solutions to such disproportionately combustible disputes. So the UN just prattles on about CO2 and World Heritage sites, while we all carry on killing or stealing from each other with impunity.
    It’s easy to say that nations need to grow up and sort out these things amicably, but one can also anticipate the reaction here if the UN had the power to rule emphatically on Gibraltar, Falklands, Channel Islands etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. One could argue the UN has been no more effective in securing peace in any troubled region post-1945 than the League of Nations was before it. An organisation born of good intentions, but ultimately impotent.

      Like

      1. Agreed, but how should we create a global body which could effectively resolve/avoid these disputes in a way other than ‘my bomb’s bigger than your bomb’ or ‘come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough’ ? Because that’s where we still are now.

        Like

  3. I’m just about old enough to remember the Falklands war.

    Me and my friends were convinced that the Argentines were going to give the Brits a good bashing.

    By contrast, my English born maternal grandmother and my Irish (but Anglophile) father were horrified – not so much by the war per se, and certainly not by the views of my friends and I, but by the potential for large scale loss of life on the British troops side, and the possibility, albeit remote, that the British might lose that war.

    I still don’t know (and probably never will) if the part of me that was rooting for the Argies was something I’d absorbed at school from friends, or from the media, or if it was a case of race memory, as it were; or a combination of all three.

    Like

    1. I remember my father getting rather carried away when the taskforce sailed to the South Atlantic, claiming I could be ‘drafted’. As a 14-year-old living in a country without conscription, I think it was something of an overreaction coming from someone who missed National Service by a couple of years and perhaps inherited the guilt of not having participated in a conflict. Needless to say, it was all over and done with before I turned 15 at the end of that year.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s