Disputes On Senkaku Islands in The East China Sea

DISPUTES ON SENKAKU ISLANDS IN THE EAST CHINA SEA
Name
Class
Date
Disputes on Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea 1
Abstract
Territorial disputes between countries have been around for a time immemorial. Several
countries, that share these regions tend to fight on who owns them and as such, who should
have the administrative rights and control over such lands, water bodies and islands. Notably,
this has been the same case with Taiwan, Japan and China, who have engaged in quite a lot of
clashes over the years over who owns and should have the control over what in Japan is
called the Senkaku Islands and Diaoyu Islands by Taiwan and China. The islands are found in
the East China Sea a sea that all these countries share. Majorly the ownership of the islands is
contested by Taiwan and China and the islands’ administrative rights are currently under
Japan which were handed over from the US. The major purpose of this paper is to carry out a
comprehensive assessment of the disputes that these countries have been involved in over the
years, the treaties that have been signed as well as the stands taken by different countries over
these islands.
Key words: Senkaku Islands; China; Japan; the United States, Treaties; World War
II.
Introduction: Layout, Geography, Historical Claims, International Law
Layout
This paper will explore the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute of the East China Sea.
These islands have a historically complex background, and with the findings of natural gas
and oil reserves under The Islands have ignited a century long dispute between Japan and The
People’s Republic of China. With high tensions between the two countries’ as well as recent
claims made by Taiwan (Diaoyutai Islands) many are now looking towards the United States
for guidance and/or assistance in regards to this dispute; despite a historical neutrality.
In order to accomplish this the paper will depart be divided into five parts, the first four will
be a breakdown of time periods from 1895 to the present day. Part one will cover the end of
the First Sino-Japanese War beginning with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, end ending with the
conclusion of World War II. Part two will discuss US Occupation of Japan and how they
administered the Islands, to 1972 when The US signed over administrative control back to
Japan. Part three will discuss the control of the Islands under Japanese rule, The Peace and
Friendship Treaty as well as Chinese Biaodiao movement. Part four will address the
reemergence of the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute through issues such as the Taiwanese Fisheries,
the encroachment of Chinese Naval vessels, and what was done under The Obama
Administration. Lastly, part five will be structured like a policy memo addressing the United
States’ historically neutral stance, then offering some recommendations for US Action guided
towards the current Trump Administration.
Geography
The island group are known to consist of five ‘uninhabited’ islets and three barren
rocks. China has identified and named as many as 71 islets that belong to this group after the
Japanese Cabinet released names of 39 uninhabited islands. These minor features in the East
China Sea are located approximately 120 nautical miles northeast of Taiwan, 200 nautical
miles east of the Chinese mainland and 200 nautical miles southwest of the Japanese island of
Okinawa.Uotsuri- shima, the largest of the islands, consists of a pair of rocky gray mountains
with steep, boulder- strewn slopes rising almost straight from the water’s edge. Other, nearby
islands were described as large rocks covered by low vegetation.
In ascending order of distances, the island cluster is located:
● 140 km (76 nmi; 87 mi) east of Pengjia Islet, (Taiwan)
● 170 km (92 nmi; 110 mi) north of Ishigaki Island, Japan
● 186 km (100 nmi; 116 mi) northeast of Keelung, (Taiwan)
● 410 km (220 nmi; 250 mi) west of Okinawa Island, Japan
China
Pre 1898 Historical Claims
Chinese records of these islands date back to as early as the 15th century when they
were referred to as Diaoyu in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind, Record of the Imperial
Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū written in 1534. The name was then adopted by the Chinese
Imperial Map of the Ming Dynasty, the Chinese name for the island group (Diaoyu)
"fishing". Historically, the Chinese had used the uninhabited islands as navigational markers
in making the voyage to the Ryukyu Kingdom upon commencement of diplomatic missions
to the kingdom, "resetting the compass at a particular isle in order to reach the next one.”
Irredentism
These deeply historical claims stemming from the Imperial China during the Ming
and Qing Dynasties in conjunction with the then acknowledged boundaries of the Ryukyu
Kingdom gives China the right to believe that there is a powerful current of irredentism
concerning these islands among Chinese people not only in China proper, but all over the
world. Many Chinese feel that China was unjustly deprived of the Diaoyu Islands and that
they should be a rightful part of Chinese territory. To this day China is adamant that these
Islands were wrongfully taken by the Japanese Empire with overdrawing boundaries of the
Okinawa Prefecture after the fall of the Ryukyu in 1879.
About this time, the Japanese-appointed governor of Okinawa petitioned Tokyo for
the take-over of the Diaoyu Islands. (Another uninhabited island to the south of the Daito
Islands was added to the Daito group as Okino Daitojima in 1900.) The Japanese government
hesitated, but decided to incorporate the Diaoyu Islands in Japanese territory in January 1895
in the midst of the Sino-Japanese War, which ended with the Treaty of Shimonoseki in
November of the same year.
China's answer is affirmative, while Japan insists that these islands were terra nullius
when Japan took over. Japan justifies its position by the international law of how terra nullius
becomes a specific state's territory. The legality of the Japanese occupation of the Diaoyu
Islands on January 14, 1895 as well as the question of how these islands figured in the
negotiation for the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
International Law
Law of The Sea
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines both an Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) and a continental shelf. Japan defines its boundary as the UNCLOS
EEZ extending westward from its southern Kyushu island and Ryukyu islands. China defines
its boundary using the UNCLOS continental shelf, but extends its territorial claims using the
concept of a natural extension of its continental shelf. The overlapping claims amount to
nearly 81,000 square miles, an area slightly less than the state of Kansas. Japan has proposed
a median line (a line drawn equidistant between both countries EEZs) as a means to resolve
the issue, but this has not proven acceptable to China.
Japan claims a division of the EEZ on the median line between the countries'
coastlines. About 40,000 square kilometers of EEZ are in dispute. China and Japan both
claim 200 nautical miles EEZ rights, but the East China Sea width is only 360 nautical miles
causing nearly complete overlap. China claims an EEZ extending to the eastern end of the
Chinese continental shelf which goes deep into the Japanese EEZ beyond the median line.
China also claims almost all of the South China Sea. Chinese claims of the Spratly Islands
(Nansha Islands in Chinese), and occupies several of the islands with its military and navy. In
1974, China seized the Paracel Islands from Vietnam and continues to maintain sovereignty
over the islands. Additionally, China claims the Pratas Islands. China’s claims to the South
China Sea are based on the EEZ and continental shelf principle.
Part One: End of First Sino-Japanese War to End of WWII (1898-1945)
Treaty of Shimonoseki
The Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed on 17 April 1895. The Qing Empire
recognized the total independence of Korea and ceded the Liaodong Peninsula, Taiwan and
Penghu Islands to Japan "in perpetuity". The disputed islands known as "Senkaku/Diaoyu"
islands were not named by this treaty, but Japan annexed these uninhabited islands to
Okinawa Prefecture in 1895. Japan asserts this move was taken independently of the treaty
ending the war, and China asserts that they were implied as part of the cession of Taiwan.
After the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Japanese government placed the Diaoyu Islands
under the jurisdiction of Yaeyama County (comprising the southernmost island group of
Okinawa Prefecture) and leased some of them to a Japanese entrepreneur, Koga Tatsushiro,
who used the islands as a bonito fishing and processing base. The Diaoyu Islands were
uninhabited before Koga came. In 1942, the Koga enterprise folded and all the human agents
left the islands, returning the Diaoyu, now Senkaku, Islands to the earlier uninhabited state.
“The Treaty stipulates, among other things, that China cedes to Japan "the island of Formosa
together with all islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa" [Article II{b}].
Whether the Diaoyu Islands, which were not called Senkaku by Japan until 1900, are implied
in "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa” (Taira, 2016).
1932- The Japanese government sold four of the islands to Zenji Koga 1937- The Second
Sino-Japanese War started.
1940- Zenji Koga abandoned the business and left the islands uninhabited.
Notably, none of the warring nations could admit that from their points of view, the
issue who has ownership over that islands could be questioned. Presumably, this could have
been the only way through which the problem would have been solved through international
arbitration. As such, the absolutist stands that the countries took meant that it was hard for the
issue ever to be solve once and for all. In such a way, the only possible and most practical
solution to the problem was for both countries to keep the issue at a level of tension as low as
possible and pay attention to how they could all benefit from the area without stepping on
each other's toes1. Apparently, even with little to no compromise on ever getting rid of the
sovereignty, the government of Japan restrained from making provocative moves that would
raise the issue and was seemingly ready to sit on a round table with China and come to an
agreement through the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1978.2 It is arguably through this that
China seemed to have conceded that Japan has control of the islands when they accept that
the status quo had to remain as it was and that the solution to the issue would be left to the
future.
Part 2: 1945 - 1971/72
US Administration of the Islands through Okinawa post-WWII
At the beginning of the year 1895, the Government of Japan carefully established that
they failed to establish any other state that was in control of these slands.3 As such, the
1
Anna, Costa. The China-Japan Conflict Over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands: Useful Rivalry. Routledge, 2017.
2
Godfrey, Baldacchino. "The Diaoyu/Senkaku islands saga." In Solution Protocols to Festering Island Disputes,
pp. 44-50. Routledge, 2017.
3
Tim, Liao, F., Kimie Hara, and Krista Wiegand. "Okinawa, Taiwan, and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in US–
Japan–China Relations." In The China-Japan Border Dispute, pp. 49-67. Routledge, 2016.
islands were combined into the territory of Japan following a legal procedure that was
underlined in the international legal framework that was present at this time.4 Nonetheless,
the US was allowed to control the island while they occupied Japan.
The US occupies Japan for Reconstruction lead under McArthur until 1952
After the US had terribly beaten and defeated Japan in the World War II, the US and
all its allies tried to occupy and use that opportunity to rehabilitate Japan. This was done
between the years 1945 and 1952 in which the occupying forces of the US, which were being
commanded and overseen by General Douglas A. MacArthur, introduced several social,
economic, political, as well as military reforms. To note, it was during the war that the initial
activities for the occupation of the beaten and overwhelmed Japanese state was done.5 This
includes several meetings with other notable commanders of the allied powers of the US,
China, SSRU along with Great Britain. In such meetings, these leaders held several
discussions on how best they would avert Japan from being remilitarized in the later times,
stabilize the economy of the country, deal with Japan's colonies, more so Taiwan and Korea,
and at the same time disarm Japan.
An envoy from the US called General Douglas MacArthur worked as the Supreme
Command of Allied Forces (SCAP) in September 1945 and embarked on a journey of the
reconstruction of Japan back to its former glory. The final authority in making all decisions
was given to MacArthur even though China, the SSRU in addition to the Great Britain
worked on giving guidance and advice to him. Ideally, this was due to the notion that they
were part and parcel of the Allied Council. There are three phases in which the occupation of
Japan by the US can be categorized.6 These included the preliminary resolutions to discipline
4
5
Monika, Chansoria. China, Japan, and Senkaku Islands: Conflict in the East China Sea Amid an American
Shadow. Routledge, 2018.
6
and reorganized Japan, attempts to resuscitate the economy of Japan, and concluding a formal
alliance and signing of a peace treaty.
The first phase of the US living in Japan started in 1945 when the war had just ended
to around 1947. This phase was marked with several fundamental changes for the society
along with the Japanese government. There were punishments given to Japan for the
country's past militarism and expansion.7 This was done through having war crimes trials that
were convened in Tokyo. Furthermore, the Army of Japan was dismantled by MacArthur,
and several military officers were banned from taking political roles of leadership in the new
government.
In the same way, MacArthur introduced land reforms that were intended in
restructuring and improving the economy of Japan. The primary intention behind this was to
benefit the majority of the tenant farmers.8 These were done on top of reducing the power of
wealthy landowners more especially those that had braced the Japanese expansionism and
backed the war.
The second phase of the US living in Japan saw several reconsiderations of the
occupation policies of Japan as the economy faced a very sharp fall, which was coupled with
several fears about how much and far Marxism had spread. This second phase of the US
living in Japan went on up to 1950 and was primarily focused on the restoration of the worn
out and torn country.9 There were several occupation policies that were introduced in the
reiteration of the wearying financial system of Japan, and these, among others, included
strategies to limit and control the growing price increases as well as tax reforms. Nonetheless,
Japan faced other very pressing issues, such as the scarcity of resources that could aptly be
used in the industries of the country to manufacture finished commodities. This was
7
Mark Manyin E. "The Senkakus (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Dispute: US Treaty Obligations." Congressional Research
Service Report 42761 (2016).
8
Toshio, Okuhara. "Territorial Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands." (2017): 1-14.
9
addressed by the opportunity that came from the eruption of a war between North Korea and
South Korea which took place in 1950.10 In this, after the Korean War had been joined by the
United Nations, Japan was made the primary supply depot of United Nations’ army and all
other personnel that took part in the war.
At the beginning of 1950, the third phase of the US' occupation of Japan began and it
is around this time that MacArthur believed that both the economic as well as political future
of the country had been rooted and it was now time to secure a peace treaty as a formal way
of putting an end to the war as well as the US' occupation of Japan. At this time, re-arming
Japan was no longer perceived as something that could scare the US. An agreement was
signed and this made it possible for the US to formally maintain its bases in several parts of
Japan as well as in Okinawa.11 There was a bilateral security pact promised to Japan by the
US. Over 52 countries met in September 1951 in San Francisco and held several discussions
concerning the entailments of the treaty, which were later agreed upon by 49 of those who
signed it.12 The countries that protested the entailments of the treaty included Czechoslovakia,
Poland as well as USSR as they turned down the provision pushed forward by the politicians
of the US, which included supporting and doing business with China. One of the most
surprising facts about the Treaty of San Francisco is the fact that during the discussions as
well as the final agreements reached in the treaty, there is nowhere that the Senkaku Islands
were mentioned of.13
Negotiations on Reversion
By reason of the US’ resolve to cease its and its allies' occupation of Japan by signing
the San Francisco Treaty in 1952, yet they failed to pay attention to which country was going
10
Godfrey, Baldacchino. "The Diaoyu/Senkaku islands saga." In Solution Protocols to Festering Island
Disputes, pp. 44-50. Routledge, 2017.
11
Ching-Chang Chen. "The Diaoyutai/Senkaku islands dispute: An ethos of appropriateness and China’s “Loss”
of Ryukyu 1." In Asia in International Relations, pp. 75-85. Routledge, 2017.
12
13
to take over the control of the islands from the departing US, this topic remained a bone of
contention. As such, in 1972, another agreement known as the Okinawa Reversion
Agreement later came into the picture. In this agreement, the administrative rights of the
islands were awarded to Japan. To note, this was an affirmation of the already existent
declaration that the islands intrinsically belonged to the Japanese territory as per the
international order before the war as well as following the international law.
Taiwan expressions claim to Diaoyutai
However, signing this treaty could do near to nothing in stopping Taiwan from
coming back to claim as being the rightful owner of these waters and as such, the one that
deserves to control islands. In recent years, Japan declared that they were planning to include
it in the school syllabus that the country is the rightful owner of these islands.14 This
resurrected claims from Taiwan as the owners of the island as well asserting that even though
Japan includes themselves in the national syllabus as the rightful owners of the island, the
historical fact will never change. However, from the time the World War II came to an end,
the issue of in whose territory the disputed islands are found remained almost unmentioned of
and it looked like the Okinawa Reversion Agreement helped in resolving the major
administrative rights issue once and for all. In an Executive order for the Ryukyus Islands
which also had issues such as those of the Senkaku Islands, President Kennedy asserted that
he recognized the islands as those in the territory of Japan. Because the US did not do
anything to separate Ryukyus from the Senkaku Islands, through the president\s assertion that
that he was expectant of the day when Japanese sovereignty would be restored, it became
more than evident that he intentionally included the Senkaku Islands.15
Part 3: 1972 – 2010
14
Myong-Chan, Lee. "The Similarities and Differences Between Tensions Over the Senkaku Islands and Dokdo
Island." In Self-determinable Development of Small Islands, pp. 101-113. Springer, Singapore, 2016.
15
Hydrocarbons discovered beneath Islands
Many people have come out to assert that even though the two major disputing
countries have for long fought over who should ultimately control the islands in the form of
the national pride that comes with being the possessor of the rocky archipelago, it is rather
more than that. These countries rather fought because of different sources that revealed that
there as uncountable deposits of hydrocarbons beneath the islands.16 As such, this is seen as
an economic opportunity for each of the countries to extract these minerals and thereby
benefit from using or selling them to other countries. In such a way, one can assert that the
dispute is based on strategic interests, economic benefits as well as resources.
Furthermore, this dispute may be about national status in addition to the influence that
this economic opportunity may come with all over the world including Asia and several other
nations near and far away from these two countries. Several international agencies and bodies
to which these countries subscribe membership have for long maintained that there possibly
exist large deposits of hydrocarbon in the waters of these Islands.17 Notably, these findings
raised the expectations of the two countries in the waters of these Islands and have over and
over provoked heated statements and counter-statements from both ends of the disputing
countries.
China raises Issues that Islands belong to Taiwan and thus China
According to China, the disputed Islands rightfully belong to Taiwan. this is so
notwithstanding the decision and ultimate action to award the purported ownership to Japan.18
Furthermore, they assert that the Senkaku Islands are 180 kilometers the northeast of Taiwan,
which implies they are more adjacent to Taiwan than they are to the mainland of the other
16
Takafumi, Sasaki, and Miyazawa Haruhiko. "Problems with the operation and management of Japanese
fishing boats in the fishing grounds around the Senkaku Islands, with a focus on the pole-and-line fishing of
groundfish." 北海道大学農經論叢= The Nokei Ronso: The Review of Agricultural Economics Hokkaido
University 71 (2017): 73-80.
17
18
two countries. This as well would logically hand over the waters surrounding these disputed
islands to Taiwan. In another historical theory, it is claimed that these disputed islands
belonged to the Chinese Qing Dynasty. In 1894, they were handed over to a Qing official
known as Sheng Xuanhuai. For the fact that Qing Dynasty has roots from Taiwan, it as such
makes logical sense to assert that the Islands belonged to a Taiwanese dynasty that ruled
China and thus belonging to China as a country through inheritance.
In the same way, with such a link between the islands, China, and Taiwan, and no
connection with Japan, one would arguably say they belong to China. Nonetheless, the scope
of action of Taiwan concerning the islands is limited because Taiwan does not subscribe to
the membership of the UN. In such a way, Taiwan does not have any right to engage in
negotiations with any of the disputing countries as pertains to the sovereignty issues. As such,
this completely removes Taiwan from the picture and would arguably hand the islands to
China. In the same way, Taiwan has always used these waters to support their livelihoods
through fishing. Nonetheless, the only country with which they can engage in discussions on
how to use these waters is China. As such, this also puts Japan out of the picture of
ownership. There is however no reason that excludes China from these waters and the islands
in between them, which qualifies it as the rightful owner.
In the same way, there are several claims from China that the disputed islands were
for a very long time in their territory and they were primarily used for fishing more so by
Taiwan which they considered to be their province. However, in 1895, the Treaty of
Shimonoseki was signed to put an end to the Sino-Japanese War, and this resulted into
Taiwan being surrendered to Japan. In signing the Treaty of San Francisco, China received
back Taiwan and it was only logical that the archipelago is returned as well.19 According to
19
University 71 (2017): 73-80.
reports from China, the leader of Taiwan's Kuomintang called Chiang Kai-shek did not say
anything about this issue even when the issue of the Islands was raised later in the Okinawa
Reservation Treaty.20 This they assert was because much of his financial and military support
came from the US who were at that time pro to Japan.
Even though the issue of who rightfully owns the islands has been shelves for some
time since 1972 when the Okinawa Reversion Agreement was signed, boiling blood among
the leaders the public from both countries arising out of heated debates and questions the
sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands has been evident.21 These have, as such, engaged in
patriotism and disposed themselves towards behaviors and acts that are considered both risky
and irrational. To note, people from both countries have devoted more in terms of money,
resources and time to affirm their ownership and sovereignty over the islands and has
arguably turned into conflicts and demonstrations that are putting their governments on
pressure. Neither the philological as well as cultural empathies between Japan and China nor
the economic interdependence of the two countries can exclusively rule out the likelihood
that these heated debates and increased movements among their natives as pertains to their
claims over the islands could worsen and even turn into a war.22 Several protests have erupted
in the US under the orchestration of students from Taiwan opposing the stand that the US has
that supports the islands being in the hands and control of the government of Japan.
Furthermore, over the years tension between the two countries has continued to rise as
pertains to who has to take up the control of the eight small inhabitable islands. The US finds
itself as well as part of the conflict due to its former positions played in rebuilding Japan after
it had been terribly torn apart by war. China and Taiwan, which were already independent
countries by then have continually contested control over the archipelago in the hands of
20
21
22
Japan. Going back to the Nixon-typical form of governance, the administration of the US has
made it clear that it has no side on the matter of sovereignty over the islands that possess
different names from each of the disputing countries.23 In this way, it is apparent that the US
upholds a neutral stand concerning the matter. However, many political analysts claim that in
case of any armed conflict between China and either Taiwan or Japan, there are higher
chances of the US chipping in and honor its obligations as underlined in the U.S-Japan
Security Treaty of 1960.
1978 Peace and Friendship Treaty
The relationship between the two major disputing countries which had gone sour due
to the fight over the control of the Senkaku Islands, was normalized through signing the
consensual Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1978. In the treaty, it was arranged that they
would put to shelf all the issues pertaining to the islands and leave the solution to the times to
come.24 However, Japan later came out and asserted that in light of historical facts and based
on international law, it is without a doubt that islands are belong to Japan and for that matter,
under there undisputable control.25 As such, as claimed in the agreement that the solution is
mere postponed, Japan claims that no territorial sovereignty issues that need resolution are
existent as pertains to this archipelago.
Part 4: 2010 – Present
How reemerges as a controversial issue
Even today, the issue of who has to control the Senkaku Islands still remains
controversial and attracts heated debates from all ends of the dispute. For instance, in 2010,
there was a collision between the fishing craft of china with two coastguard patrol boats of
23
24
June Teufel Dreyer. “The Shifting Triangle: Sino-Japanese-American Relations in Stressful Times.” Journal
of Contemporary China 21, no. 75 (May 1, 2012): 409–426.
25
Japan near the islands. The crew and captain of the craft were arrested.26 This sparked off
anti-Japanese protests in different areas in China, inclusive of bigger cities such as Shenyang,
Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing.
In the same way, China recalled all its tourists in Japan and the government arrested
four expatriate employees of Japanese car component manufacture, Fujita. In the same way,
China suspends the exportation of rare earth to Japan and the Prime Minister of China turned
down several requests of meeting with the prime minister of Japan.27 This clearly shows that
the issues of the two countries as pertains to who of the two owns the islands and should have
control over them have not been shelved as claimed by the Peace and Friendship Treaty of
1978.
Another major protest took started in the last quarter of 2012 when reports emerged
that the Japanese government had plans to buy the islands. Even after the formal purchase of
the islands, there were protests that continued through September.28 Notably, the protests
spread to over 85 cities in China, inclusive of the US and Hong Kong. On numerous
occasions, the protests majorly included anti-Japanese arson, vandalism as well as violence.
Taiwanese fisheries issues
For the case of Taiwan, which currently seems to be out of the picture as pertains to
who owns and should have control over the Islands, all they want is their case as relates to
fishing to be answered and dealt with. Several officials from Taiwan have made a firm
standing that they do not at any time plan to cooperate with China on the matters of
ownership of the islands. The based this on the assertion that China considers Taiwan as its
province and this has led to Taiwan facing increasing international isolation. Based on this
26
27
University 71 (2017): 73-80.
28
proclamation, officials and leaders from Taiwan always restrain themselves from
collaborating with China as pertains to disputes of territories.
Furthermore, Taiwan has been significantly limited on how far their trawlers can go
while fishing near the islands, and reports claim that this dramatically affects the fishing
industry of the country.29 On this same note, Japan claims that this is done in the protection of
its own people and the fishing industry of the country. They base this on several calls for the
government of Japan to find a way to deal with the growing presence of fishing boats from
Taiwan in the areas nearer to the country and the islands. They claim that this threatens their
livelihood and safety considering the already bad blood that exists within the people.
The shift in US neutrality
The government of the US has always shown a firm position over these dispute
islands. In this, it has always been made clear by the US that they do not intend to take any
sides as regards to where they stand as pertains to who has to control the islands since the
time the Okinawa Reversion Agreement was signed in 1972.30 Nonetheless, the government
of the US has again, on several occasions, asserted that the government of Japan has all the
rights to control the islands and are within the boundaries of the Japan-US Security Treaty. In
the past years, this same position has been heard several times both from the president and
the secretary of Defense. In the same way, these two have gone ahead to assert that the US is
in direct opposition to any form of action that is meant to put Japan's administrative rights at
stake. They have as well asserted that they are not in support of the efforts of China to create
a gray zone situation.31 This clearly shows that the US stands to protect the administrative
rights of Japan and there are as such no signs of neutrality from the side of the U.S.
Becoming big issues after 2012

29
Shusuke, Murai. “THE CHINA-JAPAN CONFLICT OVER THE SENKAKU/DIAOYU ISLANDS: Useful
Rivalry.” Pacific Affairs. Vancouver: Pacific Affairs. The University of British Columbia, March 1, 2019.
30
Jean-Marc, Blanchard, F. 2000. The U.S. role in the sino-japanese dispute over the diaoyu (senkaku) islands,
1945-1971. The China Quarterly 161) (03): 95-123,
31
Since 2012, this issue has been escalating and growing further. For instance, there
have been planes and ships from the governments of Taiwan and China, as well as their
military agencies entering the disputed area on several occasions.32 Even though at times,
these are escorts of activist and fishing vessels, on other occasions, they have done so with
silent missions. In a period of eight months in 2012 alone, there were over 160 planes that
flew above this area, and over 40 maritime vessels were also sighted. For instance, three
patrol vessels from China were seen manning and entering the disputed area adjacent to the
islands in July 2012.33 In the same way, the government of Japan made a formal protest after
an aircraft belonging to the government of China was seen entering the airspace controlled by
the government of Japan on the 13th of December 2012.
However, there have been more direct confrontations between the official vessels of
the disputing countries. In one of these, which took place in September 2012, ten Coast
Guard vessels from Taiwan escorted 75 fishing vessels, which as well belonged to Taiwan.
This led to clashes between the Coast Guard ships of Japan with those of Taiwan.34 However,
they only used loudspeakers, LED lights along with firing water cannons at each other in a
bid to assert their irrefutable control and power over the disputed islands. Since then, there
have been more military growths with the warring sides involving fighter jets to man over the
fishing vessels of their respective countries.35 In the same way, the governments of these
countries have criticized each other over the several actions the do to show their ownership.
For instance, in 2008 when the collision had just taken place and there were several protests,
the government of Taiwan revoked its topmost diplomat to Japan. In the same way, there has
been evident increasing tension between China and Japan due to several collision incidents.
32
33
34
35
Joanne, Wallis, and Andrew Carr. Asia-Pacific Security: an Introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press, 2016.
Chinese send boats to the islands regularly
After the announcement that the government of Japan had purchased part of the
Senkaku Islands from a private Japanese family, the government of China was purportedly
enraged and this sparked off several civil and diplomatic protests. In one of the
demonstrations, over 1000 fishing boats were sent to sail through the disputed area as a sign
of protest to the purchase move made by Japan.36 Later on, the government sent two patrol
ships to areas nearer to these disputed islands as a sign of the country's indisputable dominion
over the islands. In their statement, the government of Japan asserted that through the
nationalization of the uninhabited islands, which they partially bought at a tune of 26.2
million dollars, there would be stable peace and maintenance of the area that has become the
source of the bad blood between the three countries. Many security and political experts
assert that these countries, more so Japan and China have pushed each other way far, and
such a standoff is likely to turn into an armed conflict between both countries.
Obama and Sec Clinton decide
While still the President of the US, Obama pronounced himself on this matter by
asserting that his government was still committed to upholding the Japan-Us Security Treaty.
In this, he said that the position of the US as pertains to these territorial sovereignty disputes
is subject to Article 5 of this treaty, which requires the two countries to act against any attack
on territories that Japan has administrative rights over.37 This was a bold and unique move
made by the president because in the past regimes, the government always tried to maintain
neutrality over issues to do with territorial disputes. In this, Obama presumably wanted to
clear the air on where the government of the US would stand in the event of a war on the East
China Sea. This was exactly the same case with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton who
36
Unryu, Suganuma. Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations : Irredentism and the
Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands . Honolulu: Association for Asian Studies and University of Hawai’i Press, 2000. Print.
37
Hiroshi, Kakazu. "An Island Approach to the Territorial Disputes over the Senkaku/Diaoyu/Tiaoyutai
Islands." World Environment and Island Studies 6, no. 1 (2016): 21-33.
explicitly opposed China's move to challenges the administrative rights that Japan has over
the islands.38 As a matter of fact, there was an immediate furious protest from China accusing
the US of influencing instead of merely exercising and at the same time, reacting to damage
control towards the souring relationship between China and Japan.
Part 5: Policy Memo
SUBJECT: Options for a U.S. response to the dispute in the East China Sea
This memo will outline potential options the U.S. can pursue in light of recent activity in the
East China Sea. Most recently On August 1, President Xi declared that China “will not permit
any person, any organization, any political party—at any time, in any form—to separate any
piece of Chinese territory from China” On the same day, Japan complained about China after
discovering that China has deployed oil-drilling rigs in the disputed territory.
BACKGROUND: China and Japan have been disputing over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands
since the Sino-Japanese War, where in 1895 Japan seized the Islands from China. The U.S.
occupied Japan after WWII until 1952 due to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Washington
then retained control over the Islands and a group of other islands due to their strategic value
as military bases, and briefly used some of them as bombing ranges. In 1969 vast oil and gas
reserves were found in the area of the disputed land, increasing conflict. In 1971 President
Nixon transferred administrative control of the Islands in question back to Japan. Taiwan and
China now claim ownership to the Islands due to Japan wrongfully taking seizing them in
1895, both countries have since been resisting Japanese control through many means such as:
fishing in the disputed area, people sailing/swimming to the Islands to place Chinese Flags,
and even flying planes through airspace with threats to shoot.
OBJECTIVES: This memo has three principal objectives in this matter:
● Decrease conflict in the are
38
● Maintain some form of neutrality to prevent great conflict
● Maximize U.S. benefit from any solution
OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS: In order to accomplish those objectives, this memo proposes
the following options:
Scenario 1: The U.S. sides with Japan, and assists in gaining the islands. This could lead to
massive China/U.S. fallout, potential war, and economic breakdown for the U.S.. This would
mean increased positive relations with Japan, but more of a burden on our military as we are
bound to protect Japan and its territories per the post WWII agreement. China would not let
these islands go so easy, and it could lead to a huge financial burden on the U.S. for the
following reasons: U.S. defence for Japan, processing, supplying, and placing more troops in
our Japan bases.
Scenario 2: The U.S. sides with China. Almost the exact same can be applied down here. To
add on to those issues, we could potentially get into armed conflict with Japan who is under
U.S. protection. This could get the U.S. in trouble with the UN this would then have
horrendous fallout other UN leaders, with our allies, and show U.S. vulnerability. This would
however, increase relations with China and could lead to better trade deals, and potentially go
towards paying off our debt.
Scenario 3: The U.S. sides with Taiwan. This could be very problematic, as many countries
(mainly China) do not recognize Taiwan as a country. Apply both of the outcomes from the
previous scenarios here in a compounding form. There would be little payoff as U.S. relations
are not as deep with Taiwan, and Taiwan has little benefit to U.S. economy or trade.
Scenario 4: The U.S remains neutral. This can lead to a questionable uncertain future, as
there are so many questions and possibilities looming now, it could only get worse as time
goes on. This also does not increase benefit in any way to the U.S. but at the same time does
not create negative impacts.

Scenario 5: The U.S can attempt to mediate or participate in a proactive/productive
conversation to try and reach a solution that benefits everyone while keeping the U.S. issues
and goals close at hand. This would ensure maximization of U.S. benefits.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS:
I heavily would advise against siding with one particular actor as an “all in” scenario.
This could take the regional conflict and lead to global conflict with countless negative
impacts. I would also advise against the 4th scenario as well. Uncertainty of area leads to
uncertainty for the future, this could be problematic due to rising tensions between all the
actors could lead to armed conflict in the area which would affect the U.S.
Therefore, I suggest the 5th scenario. Any slip of the U.S. in the wrong direction
would be detrimental to the U.S. economy, not only because of trade, but jobs as well. Any
move has to be very well thought out to avoid potential crisis. Mediation is the best way to a
safe solution for all.
As per the Trump administration "America First" the main goal. Mediation is the best
option that would maximize U.S. payoff and benefit as much as possible. The U.S. would
want to have access to any and all resources found (oil) in the territory if we assist any given
country in obtaining the islands, for example.
This would also protect all bilateral trade relationships the U.S. has in the region with
China. As well as all Japanese foreign direct investment in the United States totals around
$454 billion. Japan is also responsible for some 840,000 jobs, and annual trade in goods with
Japan totaled $195 billion in 2016. Thus, increasing and maintaining U.S. economic benefit.
Bibliography
Baldacchino, Godfrey. "The Diaoyu/Senkaku islands saga." In Solution Protocols to
Festering Island Disputes, pp. 44-50. Routledge, 2017.
Blanchard, Jean-Marc F. 2000. The U.S. role in the sino-japanese dispute over the diaoyu
(senkaku) islands, 1945-1971. The China Quarterly(161) (03): 95-123,
Chansoria, Monika. China, Japan, and Senkaku Islands: Conflict in the East China Sea Amid
an American Shadow. Routledge, 2018.
Chen, Boyu. "Sovereignty or identity? Signiﬁcance of the Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands dispute
for Taiwan." In Asia in International Relations, pp. 102-112. Routledge, 2017.
Chen, Ching-Chang. "The Diaoyutai/Senkaku islands dispute: An ethos of appropriateness
and China’s “Loss” of Ryukyu 1." In Asia in International Relations, pp. 75-85.
Routledge, 2017.
Costa, Anna. The China-Japan Conflict Over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands: Useful Rivalry.
Routledge, 2017.
Kakazu, Hiroshi. "An Island Approach to the Territorial Disputes over the
Senkaku/Diaoyu/Tiaoyutai Islands." World Environment and Island Studies 6, no. 1
(2016): 21-33.
Lee, Myong-Chan. "The Similarities and Differences Between Tensions Over the Senkaku
Islands and Dokdo Island." In Self-determinable Development of Small Islands, pp.
101-113. Springer, Singapore, 2016.
Liao, Tim F., Kimie Hara, and Krista Wiegand. "Okinawa, Taiwan, and the Senkaku/Diaoyu
Islands in US–Japan–China Relations." In The China-Japan Border Dispute, pp. 49-
67. Routledge, 2016.
Manyin, Mark E. "The Senkakus (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Dispute: US Treaty
Obligations." Congressional Research Service Report 42761 (2016).
Murai, Shusuke. “THE CHINA-JAPAN CONFLICT OVER THE SENKAKU/DIAOYU
ISLANDS: Useful Rivalry.” Pacific Affairs. Vancouver: Pacific Affairs. The
University of British Columbia, March 1, 2019.
Okuhara, Toshio. "Territorial Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands." (2017): 1-14.
Sasaki, Takafumi, and Haruhiko Miyazawa. "Problems with the operation and management
of Japanese fishing boats in the fishing grounds around the Senkaku Islands, with a
focus on the pole-and-line fishing of groundfish." 北海道大学農經論叢= The Nokei
Ronso: The Review of Agricultural Economics Hokkaido University 71 (2017): 73-80.
Suganuma, Unryu. Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations :
Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands . Honolulu: Association for Asian
Studies and University of Hawai’i Press, 2000. Print.
Teufel Dreyer, June. “The Shifting Triangle: Sino-Japanese-American Relations in Stressful
Times.” Journal of Contemporary China 21, no. 75 (May 1, 2012): 409–426.

Wallis, Joanne, and Andrew Carr. Asia-Pacific Security: an Introduction. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 2016.

Disputes On Senkaku Islands in The East China Sea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Disputes On Senkaku Islands in The East China Sea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disputes On Senkaku Islands in The East China Sea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISPUTES ON SENKAKU ISLANDS IN THE EAST CHINA SEA

Introduction: Layout, Geography, Historical Claims, International Law

towards the current Trump Administration.

islands were described as large rocks covered by low vegetation.

In ascending order of distances, the island cluster is located:

● 140 km (76 nmi; 87 mi) east of Pengjia Islet, (Taiwan)

● 170 km (92 nmi; 110 mi) north of Ishigaki Island, Japan

● 186 km (100 nmi; 116 mi) northeast of Keelung, (Taiwan)

● 410 km (220 nmi; 250 mi) west of Okinawa Island, Japan

Pre 1898 Historical Claims

Okinawa Prefecture after the fall of the Ryukyu in 1879.

November of the same year.

negotiation for the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

Law of The Sea

the issue, but this has not proven acceptable to China.

Part One: End of First Sino-Japanese War to End of WWII (1898-1945)

in "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa” (Taira, 2016).

Sino-Japanese War started.

Part 2: 1945 - 1971/72

US Administration of the Islands through Okinawa post-WWII

commanded and overseen by General Douglas A. MacArthur, introduced several social,

and at the same time disarm Japan.

alliance and signing of a peace treaty.

backed the war.

other personnel that took part in the war.

were mentioned of.13

contention. As such, in 1972, another agreement known as the Okinawa Reversion

Taiwan expressions claim to Diaoyutai

more than evident that he intentionally included the Senkaku Islands.15

Part 3: 1972 – 2010

Hydrocarbons discovered beneath Islands

dispute is based on strategic interests, economic benefits as well as resources.

According to China, the disputed Islands rightfully belong to Taiwan. this is so

China and thus belonging to China as a country through inheritance.

in between them, which qualifies it as the rightful owner.

came from the US who were at that time pro to Japan.

Security Treaty of 1960.

1978 Peace and Friendship Treaty

existent as pertains to this archipelago.

Part 4: 2010 – Present

How reemerges as a controversial issue

Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing.

Taiwanese fisheries issues

collaborating with China as pertains to disputes of territories.

The shift in US neutrality

Becoming big issues after 2012

the government of Japan on the 13th of December 2012.

Chinese send boats to the islands regularly

Obama and Sec Clinton decide

control towards the souring relationship between China and Japan.

Part 5: Policy Memo

and even flying planes through airspace with threats to shoot.

OBJECTIVES: This memo has three principal objectives in this matter:

● Decrease conflict in the are

● Maintain some form of neutrality to prevent great conflict

● Maximize U.S. benefit from any solution

the following options:

Suganuma, Unryu. Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations :