What's new

Japan Caves to China on Senkaku Island Dispute

LeveragedBuyout

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
60
Country
United States
Location
United States
A return to status quo ante bellum. Now let's see if China twists the knife, or instead takes the opportunity to try and draw Japan closer.

---

Japan Caves to China on Senkaku Island Dispute | The Diplomat

Japan Caves to China on Senkaku Island Dispute
To secure a meeting with Xi, Japanese PM Abe caved to China’s long-standing demand on the East China Sea dispute.

zachary-keck_q-36x36.jpg

By Zachary Keck
October 18, 2014

In order to secure a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe agreed to a significant concession in Tokyo’s ongoing dispute with China over the Senkaku Islands, according to Japanese media outlets.

As Shannon noted earlier today on China Power, Japanese officials now expect there to be a brief meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe during next month’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Beijing. The meeting would be the first between the two heads of state since they took their current positions. It comes after a prolonged Japanese charm offensive towards China, which resulted in extensive behind-the-scenes negotiations aimed at securing a heads of state meeting at APEC.

The meeting, which Japanese officials acknowledged would be more symbolic than substantive, did not come cheaply for Japan. Indeed, if Japanese media reports are accurate, Tokyo appears to have caved on the major issue that prevented a heads-of-state meeting to date.

On Thursday, Mainichi reported that Japan made a three-prong proposal to China in order to secure the meeting between the two heads of states next month. According to the report, which cited “Japanese government sources,” Japan proposed that during his meeting with Xi, Abe would first reassert that the Senkaku Islands are an inherent part of Japanese territory, but then “acknowledge that China has a case as well” to the islands. He would then propose that China and Japan seek to settle the issue through mutual dialogue over time. None of this would be included in a joint statement or any other documents officially released after the summit meeting.

Still, if the report is accurate, Abe’s acknowledgement that a territorial dispute exists and proposal to settle the issue through mutual dialogue represent huge concessions to long-standing Chinese demands.

The Japanese government has always refused to acknowledge that a territorial dispute even exists with China over the Senkaku Islands, which Beijing refers to as the Diaoyu Islands. “There exists no issue of territorial sovereignty to be resolved concerning the Senkaku Islands,” Japan has said on numerous occasions.

China’s main precondition for agreeing to a heads of state meeting between President Xi and Prime Minister Abe has long been Japan’s acknowledgement that the territorial dispute exists. As Kyodo reported in June 2013, “Even after the change of government last December with the inauguration of the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, China has continued to call for Japan to acknowledge that a territorial dispute exists as a precondition for holding a summit.” That same report noted that Japan had refused to do this, and thus that a leadership summit appeared unlikely for the foreseeable future.

The two sides also publicly fought over the issue during the UN General Assembly meeting in September of last year. First, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at a think tank speech before the UNGA opened that China was willing to reopen dialogue with Japan, but first “Japan needs to recognize that there is such a dispute. The whole world knows that there is a dispute.”

Prime Minister Abe appeared to respond to Wang in a press conference following his appearance at the UN summit. “Senkaku is an inherent part of the territory of Japan in light of historical facts and based upon international law, and the islands are under the valid control of Japan,” Abe said at the press conference. While Tokyo would not escalate the situation and wanted to open dialogue with China to avoid an armed conflict, Abe insisted that “Japan would not make a concession on our territorial sovereignty.”

Some in China are already taking the concession as a sign of Japanese weakness. Specifically, the Global Timesquoted Yang Bojiang, director of Japanese studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, as saying: “Abe is under economic pressure to resume talks with China and advance the bilateral relationship, so he has to show the world his willingness to talk.”
 
Good step in the right direction. :cheers:

A return to status quo ante bellum. Now let's see if China twists the knife, or instead takes the opportunity to try and draw Japan closer.

Hard to say what will happen.

It's just too easy for politicians to make an "appeal to nationalism" in order to provide a quick boost to their political capital.

I don't think any of the sides involved would give up that card easily. So the status quo is likely to remain.

Interesting note, the Diaoyutai dispute is something that unites all Chinese. For example, the only person to have died over the island dispute is a fellow Hong Konger. Even Taiwan (ROC) strongly shares views with the Mainland on this dispute.

It is something that unites Chinese, regardless of politics. Same with the Japanese for their dispute, same with the South Koreans. Thus it is a very powerful political card.
 
Last edited:
首脑会面也许有可能,我认为中国和日本就钓鱼岛问题不会达成任何协议
Summit may have, I think China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands issue will not reach any agreement
 
Eh, it is better than nothing.

I still maintain that the China-Japan East Asia conflict is merely a small part of the much broader global conflict and Japan is simply a proxy. As long as the larger conflict still exists, any agreement reached between China and Japan is only going to be superficial.

However, this is not to say nothing will come out of this meeting. China and Japan are geographically close and both are large economic entities. The dynamics of their interaction will shift as power balance shifts, but eventually it has reach a new equilibrium.

首脑会面也许有可能,我认为中国和日本就钓鱼岛问题不会达成任何协议
Summit may have, I think China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands issue will not reach any agreement

Let me translate that for ya.

J20 said "It is entirely possible for the leaders to meet, but I do not believe China and Japan will be able to reach any tangible agreement regarding to Diaoyu island".
 
Finally, a rational move from Abe. China won't twist the knife, IMO - China just wants to re-shelf the issue and go back to making money as usual. Remember, it was Ishihara who started the whole mess. That Japanese equivalent of a Holocaust denier was the one who wanted to purchase the islands in the first place thereby igniting the whole mess. He's rich and could not care less if Japan on the whole suffers from his idiocy. As long as he scores some "nationalism" points. Western "analysts" conveniently forget that when they write articles about the dispute.
 
A return to status quo ante bellum. Now let's see if China twists the knife, or instead takes the opportunity to try and draw Japan closer.

Japan is the Austria to our Prussia, we won't twist the knife, we won't set foot in Japan, and if it can be avoided, we won't go to war with Japan period.

Japan is an important ally, in China's push for a new balance of power.

Unfortunately for SCS, they, like the German states, are inconsequential, and will be dealt with in due time.


If Japan is ready for this step, China will acknowledge this dispute with them and solve it when the timing is right. This issue can be complicated or easily avoided. The main issue isn't resources, freedom of navigation, to a degree not even about their sovereignty. It's Japan holding onto a dream of Asia supremacy, as seen in the Asian development bank leadership and the unwillingness to share power with THE economic power in Asia if not the world sans US. But that perception will change in time. And so too will any need for this.


But this seems to be too quick I was expecting maybe 4-5 years down the line.
 
@Chinese-Dragon @j20 @tranquilium @AgentOrange @Genesis

Agreed on all counts. I don't intend to over-analyze the situation, but one school of thought holds that if China can convert Japan into the same kind of shallow ally to the US that Turkey represents, then China's dominance of Asia will be complete. Japan is the lynch-pin, with South Korea and the Philippines as mere side-shows. If Japan "falls," game over for the US, but even if SK and PH fall into China's orbit, the US has a foothold as long as Japan stays on-side.

China's CCP is famous for its long-term perspective. It's easy to play up the nationalism card over the Senkakus/Diaoyu for short-term popularity, but using this opening as momentum to draw in Japan would provide for a long-term victory. That said, the recent conflict with Vietnam seemed to favor the short-term over the long-term, so we'll have to wait and see.
 
How can the simple act of acknowledging the fact of this dispute be a "concession" or "cave in"? Everyone knows the ownership of these islands are disputed. Only the Japanese have begun to think about stop lying to themselves.
 
@Chinese-Dragon @j20 @tranquilium @AgentOrange @Genesis

Agreed on all counts. I don't intend to over-analyze the situation, but one school of thought holds that if China can convert Japan into the same kind of shallow ally to the US that Turkey represents, then China's dominance of Asia will be complete. Japan is the lynch-pin, with South Korea and the Philippines as mere side-shows. If Japan "falls," game over for the US, but even if SK and PH fall into China's orbit, the US has a foothold as long as Japan stays on-side.

China's CCP is famous for its long-term perspective. It's easy to play up the nationalism card over the Senkakus/Diaoyu for short-term popularity, but using this opening as momentum to draw in Japan would provide for a long-term victory. That said, the recent conflict with Vietnam seemed to favor the short-term over the long-term, so we'll have to wait and see.

IMO, It's possible for China to play the long game with Japan and the short game with Vietnam. Economically, the former matters much more than the latter and I see the power disparity between China and Japan widening with time, in China's favor. There's no need to do anything other than maintain the status quo or force things back to the status quo as Japan ages and weakens economically. Japan can do more damage to China now than in say, 20 years - both militarily and economically.

Vietnam doesn't matter economically and China has deemed it a good time to put pressure on all of Vietnam's territorial aspirations with moves that are assertive but not aggressive enough to trigger an actual military response. And if there were to be armed conflict, it would be a situation such that China can respond and win with muted international opposition and even less economic fallout. Hence oil rig and coast guard vessels - unarmed, but an entire fleet of them. China's short term moves also have the added bonus of casting doubt on the strength of the US's pivot to Asia, seeing as how the US is preoccupied with the Mid-East (yet again).
 
@Chinese-Dragon @j20 @tranquilium @AgentOrange @Genesis

Agreed on all counts. I don't intend to over-analyze the situation, but one school of thought holds that if China can convert Japan into the same kind of shallow ally to the US that Turkey represents, then China's dominance of Asia will be complete. Japan is the lynch-pin, with South Korea and the Philippines as mere side-shows. If Japan "falls," game over for the US, but even if SK and PH fall into China's orbit, the US has a foothold as long as Japan stays on-side.

China's CCP is famous for its long-term perspective. It's easy to play up the nationalism card over the Senkakus/Diaoyu for short-term popularity, but using this opening as momentum to draw in Japan would provide for a long-term victory. That said, the recent conflict with Vietnam seemed to favor the short-term over the long-term, so we'll have to wait and see.

you have to look at the Vietnam situation above the rhetoric, and see the actual end product. It's easy to draw a conclusion that China Vietnam war 2.0 is going to happen and I seen it multiple times, but what's the actual situation on the ground?

China has not fired, neither has Vietnam, no island has changed hands, the oil rig is in a OVERLAPPING EEZ, and NOT the exclusive economic zone, and this claim is due to Hainan and not a disputed island.

High level exchanges still happening, economy still going well, and more factories will be moved there in due time.


These rhetoric are sometimes important, they have their purpose, and that is to bring them to the table for talks on the subject to begin.

Now on the other hand you can also see what we are doing to Philippines is not like Japan and Vietnam, and that's because even some Western journalists sees China needs a Chicken to scare the Monkey, guess who the monkey is.
 
I don't see the concession. Japan used to have an extremely arrogant viewpoint, and it is now merely less arrogant - far from reasonable. However, for Chinese, it is only reassuring that Japan is moving away from the brinksmanship edge.
 
IMO, It's possible for China to play the long game with Japan and the short game with Vietnam. Economically, the former matters much more than the latter and I see the power disparity between China and Japan widening with time, in China's favor. There's no need to do anything other than maintain the status quo or force things back to the status quo as Japan ages and weakens economically. Japan can do more damage to China now than in say, 20 years - both militarily and economically.

Vietnam doesn't matter economically and China has deemed it a good time to put pressure on all of Vietnam's territorial aspirations with moves that are assertive but not aggressive enough to trigger an actual military response. And if there were to be armed conflict, it would be a situation such that China can respond and win with muted international opposition and even less economic fallout. Hence oil rig and coast guard vessels - unarmed, but an entire fleet of them. China's short term moves also have the added bonus of casting doubt on the strength of the US's pivot to Asia, seeing as how the US is preoccupied with the Mid-East (yet again).

With no insult intended to Japan, Japan isn't important to China by itself, Japan is important because it provides a strategic entry point for the United States. True, China is growing economically and militarily, but not growing so fast that it can simply dismiss the US + Japan, which means it is better served by driving a wedge between the two. Look at Japan's hesitation with Russia--shouldn't China try to achieve the same? The relatively unimportant (to China) Daioyu could be leverage towards that end.

Vietnam is the same as Japan, but even more so. Vietnam is not a threat to China, but if China drives Vietnam into our arms (thanks, by the way), it becomes a threat. Therefore, everything is a long game, and the short game is, for lack of a better term, short-sighted.

Finally, China knows better than anyone that history has a way of introducing inflection points. Everything is looking up for China at the moment, but who knows what the world will look like in 20 years. Why not buy some insurance?

@Genesis I am afraid the chicken/moneky analogy went over my head. Can you explain it in more simple terms, please?
 
Vietnam is the same as Japan, but even more so. Vietnam is not a threat to China, but if China drives Vietnam into our arms (thanks, by the way)

Whatever small advantage you're able to get from Vietnam has been more than nullified when you drove Russia into China's arms. Thanks, by the way. :lol:

Russia, China Sign $400 Billion Gas Deal After Decade of Talks - Bloomberg

Russian public think USA is No.1 enemy – poll — RT Russian politics

China, Russia sign $25 billion local currency swap| Reuters
 
It is all "PR" gestures
Nothing will fundamentally change the stalemate
I think Abe has to listen to his boss' directive of not to escalate the tension to a breaking point becasue if a war should break out between the 2 countries, it will be embarrassing for America not to actively help the Japanese under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security when the American's plate is very full right now :p::coffee:
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom