Predictably, his statements invoked protests from China and Taiwan, which also claim sovereignty over the islands. Subsequently, donors in Japan contributed over ¥1.3 billion (US$16 million) to a fund for Tokyo to purchase the islands, essentially forcing the central government’s hand and pushing it to take control. In July, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda declared that the Japanese central government itself would purchase and nationalise the Senkaku Islands in order to maintain them in a stable and peaceful manner. Unsurprisingly, Noda’s statement also drew criticism from China and Taiwan.
Beyond the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands themselves, this politicisation of the issue has potentially broad ramifications for the US−Japan alliance, Japan−China relations, and China’s overall engagement with the region. The defence of the Senkaku Islands is a critical issue for the US−Japan alliance. Irrespective of historical and legal intricacies, the Senkaku Islands are clearly covered under the US−Japan Security Treaty. After World War II, the US took control of Okinawa, including the Senkaku Islands. The Senkakus were mapped out and included as one of the US-administered territories that were returned to Japan as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972.
While US statements reconfirming that the Senkaku Islands are covered by the US−Japan Security Treaty — most recently by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010 — have been warmly welcomed by Tokyo, it will be important that the US maintain a clear stance on the issue going forward.
The US−Japan Security Treaty commits the US to defending Japan. In return, Japan provides military bases in its territory for the US, not just for the defence of Japan but also for the maintenance of international peace in the Far East. This arrangement has been of mutual benefit, keeping Japan secure while also being indispensable to the US forward-deployment strategy. Any failure or perceived weakness in the US commitment to defend Japan, including the Senkaku Islands, would undermine the US−Japan Security Treaty and the foundation of the alliance.
Since 2010, there has been a change in China’s approach to the Senkaku Islands. In September of that year, China responded harshly to Japan’s arrest of a Chinese fishing boat captain who rammed two Japan Coast Guard ships near the Senkaku Islands. The Chinese government upped the ante with a unilateral response that included arresting four Japanese employees of Fujita Corporation (who were based in China) for photographing military facilities, cancelling large-scale tourist trips between China and Japan, and suspending rare-earth exports to Japan. Some Chinese officials have said that protecting China’s territory is a core interest, implying a willingness to use military force in the dispute over the Senkaku Islands. This represents a serious departure from the approach espoused by Deng Xiaoping — which had been China’s de facto policy — of shelving the issue for future generations. A broader shift in Chinese behaviour is also evident in its increasingly assertive posture toward freedom of navigation issues and territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
The way in which the US and Japan respond to China’s increasingly assertive posture over the Senkakus can be seen as a litmus test for the US pivot to Asia and will have spillover effects as the region grapples with the rise of China. For this reason, US−Japan consultations should also include the broader subject of how to best work together to enhance military confidence with China.
In Japan, public opinion polls indicate that nearly 70 per cent of the population is in favour of Ishihara’s proposal for the Tokyo government to buy the Senkakus. This support may have been based on a simplistic understanding of the issue as respondents even cited farfetched concerns that the private owner could have sold the islands to China.
Japan already has effective control of the Senkaku Islands, which have been on lease to the central government for the past 10 years. The plan to nationalise the islands — instead of allowing them to be purchased by the Tokyo government — is consistent with Japan’s established policy of maintaining control of the Senkakus in a low-key manner. At the same time the Japanese government has further to go so as to minimise nationalistic confrontation with China by providing a full explanation of its intentions on Senkaku policy.
Hitoshi Tanaka is Senior Fellow at the Japan Center for International Exchange and Chairman of the Institute for International Strategy at the Japan Research Institute. He previously served as Japan’s deputy minister for foreign affairs. A version of this article first appeared in JCIE’s East Asia Insights Vol. 7 No. 3 August 2012.
The PRC and ROC claim that the islands have been a part of Chinese territory since at least 1534. They acknowledge that Japan took control of the islands in 1894–1895 during the first Sino-Japanese War, through the signature of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. They assert that the Potsdam Declaration (which Japan accepted as part of the San Francisco Peace Treaty) required that Japan relinquish control of all islands except for “the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine”, and they state that this means control of the islands should pass to China. This is the link to another side of the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands#Dispute_over_island_ownership
Unlike Germany, Japan has to this date still failed to pay for its war crimes during the second world war. Korean President is right to point out recently that Japan should compensate the 200,000 victims of sex slave during WWII.
The Diaoyu Islands dispute is no about whether or not China controlled the islands in 1534 but whether or not it controlled them up until 1894. It seems that the current policy of the PRC is to claim any territory historically part of a Chinese dynasty. This is both vague and unrealistic. The current political climate in Asia does not allow for a peaceful reemergence of the Sinosphere. The PRC should act accordingly.
Japan’s own diplomatic and military archives in Toyko show that the Japanese of 1895 believed that the Diaoyu Islands were Chinese, but that they would just force the Chinese out since there was nothing China could do about it.
Forgive me because i am not fluent in English.
Have humans really not learned anything since ancient times? Instead, humans have become more like beasts.
Historically, before japan’s victory in the Sino-Japanese war in 1895, the Japanese government turned down the request for incorporating those islands(senkaku/diaoyu/tiaoyutai/pinnacle) into Japanese territory because they feared the Qing dynasty. The people of the Ryukyu kingdom were not even regarded as japanese even though the Ryukyu kingdom had been conquered by Japan. That means, the status of pinnacle islands(I use the name pinnacle islands because the name seems neutral) was not clear and kept postponed to prevent potential to war.
What’s caused the territorial dispute over the pinnacle islands to rise up again then? It’s just my speculation :
– the potential oil and gas reserves in the vicinity of the pinnacle islands increase the importance of pinnacle islands.
– the reversion of the pinnacle islands to Japan by United States in 1971. What made United States make such a decision when the status of the islands was still unclear? Was it because of the lack of information had the United States has about the status of the islands?
Before there are any more rash decisions, I hope the people of the nations that are involved in the dispute over the pinnacle islands think about it deeper: who benefits most from such disputes? Who suffers most from such disputes? Because it is the people that can stop the government, can advise the government, can remind the government, to stop spilling unnecessary blood or make any regrettable action that can bring more disaster for future generations because of mistakes by their ancestors.
Forgive me for my rudeness for the nations and people that are written here. I am a person that loves peace more that pride, anger, or worldly possession if that means our future generations can forget about war and live as if people from other nations are their families, not like now where many problems arise because we cannot find forgiveness in our narrow hearts.
It’s buddha’s words, I write it here not because of religious reasons, but as an example from the wise : the peacemaker
It is reported that two kingdoms were on the verge of war for the possession of a certain embankment which was disputed by them. And the Buddha seeing the kings and their armies ready to fight, requested them to tell him the cause of their quarrels. Having heard the complaints on both sides, he said:
“I understand that the embankment has value for some of your people; has it any intrinsic value aside from its service to your men?”
“It has no intrinsic value whatever” was the reply.
The Tathagata continued: “Now when you go to battle is it not sure that many of your men will be slain and that you yourselves, O kings, are liable to lose your lives?” And they said: “It is sure that many will be slain and our own lives be jeopardized.”
“The blood of men, however,” said Buddha, “has it less intrinsic value than a mound of earth?” “No,” the kings said, “The lives of men and above all the lives of kings, are priceless.” Then the Tathagata concluded: are you going to stake that which is priceless against that which has no intrinsic value whatever?–The wrath of the two monarchs abated, and they came to a peaceable agreement.
You didn’t mention that the issue was frozen by both sides for 40 years (1972 to 2012). The U.S. was in Cold War mode and did not want to give the islands back to communist China. So Nixon included them to be returned with Okinawa and the Senate ratified the treaty in 1972.
Prime Minister Tanaka agreed in 1972 to freeze the issue since he knew the history of the issue. Deng Xiao Ping later came in and also agreed to freeze the issue. The status quo was disrupted when japan nationalized the islands in Sept 2012.