The framework that both sides would like to remain in is through the historical pathway that Deng Xiaopeng and Takeo Fukuda both agreed upon in, "setting aside disputes and pursue joint cooperation and joint development of the whole." Both Japan and China have national concerns, but the point that you're focusing on, which inclines towards a nation-specific focus of development rather than a region-wide specific. What we NEA members have been discussing about in this thread is focusing not on nation-specific concerns, but more so on a greater region-specific framework. You see in the myopic sense of national maritime issues such as the Senkakus / Diaoyutais --- by focusing on national claims , proves to be a barrier to the wider paradigm. What I have tried to assuage with other patriots here is that both Japan and China should consider the Senkakus / Diaoyutais as a 'shared' maritime region of Greater East Asia Union. In doing so we can re-establish the consensus of the East China Sea that both Japan and China had agreed to joint-develop. In fact there is actually a legalist framework that Beijing and Tokyo can refer to , which is actually in operation: the 2013 Tokyo-Taipei Maritime Fisheries Agreement. This agreement establishes a fisheries zone of operation where both Chinese Taiwanese fishing boats can fish with Japanese fishing boats and have both maritime surveillance ships from Japan and Taiwan collaborate in security interdiction and joint rescue operations. It has been a success, actually.
Ultimately,
@William Hung , the barrier to creative dialogue has been on the onus on secluded nation specific arguments of territoriality. This closed ended dialogue style of the past actually is used by strategic threats to Japan and China as a means to sow division onto the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world; and the two most prolific East Asian societies. Ultimately I would like to see , through bilateral security communication systems, that Japan and China learn to synergize each other's ADIZ's, and to re-create a wider Regional ADIZ that can further reach into the Western and Central Pacific. Focus should be on complementing each other's strategic potential energy, instead of resisting.
I hope that can help clarify our position.
Let Great East Asia Rise ... like a Golden Phoenix as the cherry blossom falls unto the wet earth.
Examining Intergovernmentalism in Northeast Asia: Shaping Distrust to Cooperation
By: @Nihonjin1051, PH.D.
I also wanted to note that Japan, South Korea and China have been exhibiting a growing interest in political and economic cooperation since the 1990s. Japan , South Korea and China were able to develop economic and political cooperation through the use of the concept of multilayered Intergovernmentalism.
I want to make it known that political and economic cooperation within the framework of Northeast Asia is absolutely possible if we refer to the literature regarding European integration. I would like to cite the two dominate schools that theories the European integration process which include: 1) Neofunctionalism and 2) Intergovernmentalism. There are existing dichotomies between Intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism.
Neofunctional processes emphasize that the high and rising levels of economic and technological interdependence, the spillover effects created by them, and the growing role of supranational institutions in the process of integration. Neofunctional approach espouse that any integrative action in one sector steps down actions in related sectors, and this integration process would create new problems that could only be solved by further cooperation. Therefore, the beginning of cooperation in high politics areas and eventually general integration would be achieved by a whole new entry of supranational entities. We saw this in Europe in the form of the six European states founded the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 and also the European Economic Community (EEC).
The second theory, the Intergovernmentalism Theory, identifies the heads of state and government as key central players. The theory states that regional integration can best be understood through series of bargains between the heads of government , which would then be supported by small ministerial and advisory board. The beauty of this Theory is that the heads are not enforced to accept any policies that would be considered unacceptable. This theory is based on the fact that decision making amongst the partners would be done by unanimous consent. The outcomes will converge on what political scientists would deem as “the lowest common denominator”. The reason why I think that China , Japan and South Korea can solve core interest issues through Intergovernmentalism is because it allows consensus agreement and direct communication with heads of state. Right now, Intergovernmentalism is perfect for Japan, South Korea and China because Northeast Asia has not yet reached the stage of integration as seen in the European context.
Reference:
Aminian, N., & Calderon, C. (2010). Prospects for Closer Economic Cooperation in Northeast Asia.
Review Of Development Economics,
14(3), 417-432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9361.2010.00562.x
Yoshimatsu, H. (2005). From Distrust to Mutual Interests?: Emerging Cooperation in Northeast Asia.
East Asia: An International Quarterly,
22(4), 18-38.
Yoshimatsu, H. (2010). Understanding Regulatory Governance in Northeast Asia: Environmental and Technological Cooperation among China, Japan and Korea.
Asian Journal Of Political Science,
18(3), 227-247. doi:10.1080/02185377.2010.527209
