M. Serajul
Islam
An anti-Japanese rage of anger funneled by nationalistic fervor is
blowing in China over the former’s action to buy 3 islets from private owners in
the island chain that the Chinese call Senkaku and the Japanese, Diayou. Japan’s
provocative action led China to send a flotilla of naval and fishing vessels to
the island chain that brought the two neighbours closer to a military conflict
for the first time in its tumultuous bilateral relations since diplomatic ties
were established in September 1972 surpassing the tension of 2010 over the same
island chain.
The island chain, located
in the East China Sea, is uninhabited; potentially rich in hydrocarbons and
fisheries and is claimed by both the neighbours and by the Republic of China
(Taiwan). Historically, China’s claim over the island dates back to the 14th
century. However, after Japan’s surrender in the Second World War and its
occupation by the United States, the islands came under US control. In 1972, the
United States handed over the islands to Japan as a part of the Okinawa
Reversion Agreement.
China however did not give up its claim over the islands but
preferred not to enforce it militarily.
Japan also did not physically possess the islands. Both sides preferred
a status quo over the island chain till the 2010 incident when the status quo
came close to be broken but was reinstated. China was more concerned at consolidation
of the fruits of the communist revolution and thereafter in its economic
development. In that development, Japan became a major partner of its erstwhile
foe with its FDI after 1979. In fact, China’s economic miracle has been largely
the result of FDI coming from Japan, Hong Kong, USA, South Korea and overseas
Chinese.
China embraced Japanese investment wholeheartedly and the benefits
of economic cooperation with it following normalization of relations.
Nevertheless, once ties were established, China brought into the bilateral
relations the past, particularly the Japanese invasion and occupation during
the Second World War. The Nanking Massacre of 1937 in which by Chinese claim,
300,000 men, women and children were butchered by the Japanese Imperial Army became
a major issue of contention where the Chinese demanded a full and formal apology for the invasion and the massacre. The
Nanking War Crimes Tribunal tried and some of the perpetrators were also
executed.
Unfortunately, the 1970s was also the period when there was a
resurgence of nationalism and national pride in Japan. That resurgence was
encouraged by the economic miracle in Japan that made it the second strongest economy
of the world. Under the resurgence, small and vocal minority in government and
society in Japan argued that the Nanking massacre was exaggerated and what happened was
necessary for military reasons. In fact, the denial of the massacre became the
basis of the resurgent Japanese nationalism that was supported by the new
generation that saw no reason for accepting the pacifism that was imposed upon
Japan by the United States and accepted by a post-war leadership that felt
guilty for Japan’s militarism that they thought brought pains to Japan and
those who were victims of Japanese militarism.
Thus while China demanded formal apology from Japan for its
wartime crimes, the demand fell on deaf ears. In his 5 years as Prime Minister
from 2001-2006, Junichiro Koizumi epitomized the Chinese predicament. He not
only refused to apologize; he instead ignited Chinese contempt and hatred for
Japan by making yearly visits to Yasukuni
Shrine in Tokyo where 13 Class A war dead are enshrined whom China
considers war criminals responsible for
committing atrocities during Japanese occupation of China. Junichiro Koizumi’s
successors refrained from the yearly visits to the controversial shrine, but
they have not rendered the official apology that China demands to resolve the
historical conflict.
It is this deeply rooted anti-Japanese sentiments that Japan’s provocative action to buy the 3
islets has incensed. There are nevertheless a number of new elements in the recent
conflict over the island chain. International politics has in the meantime
shifted dramatically. Regional realignments are again taking new shape. The
initiatives taken by the United States last year, particularly its decision to
relocate 60% of its naval fleet in the Indian Ocean has raised fears in China
of a new “Return to Asia “policy by the US. Such fear in China has potentials
of negative repercussions on the United States that while wanting to contain
China from expanding its influence in the region cannot also afford to be seen
as taking an openly anti-China policy without endangering its economy that is
deeply susceptible to China’s ability to influence it.
The US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was in Beijing for his
first visit after taking charge of the Defense Department last week. The
outcome of his visit flagged some of these new realities. The Chinese, aware that the visit was being
watched more intensely in Japan than anywhere else, used the visit to show the
US visitor more of the anti-Japanese sentiments. The Chinese Defense Minister
used the visit to underscore that China would go to any length to assert its
sovereignty over the island chain; even to military conflict if need be. The US Defense Secretary, who witnessed the
anti-Japan riots/demonstrations and rhetoric of the Chinese leadership, did not
react. Clearly, times have changed and the United States that is obliged to
defend any external aggression/threat on Japan as an attack/threat on its own
territory by the USA-Japan Defense Treaty of 1960 did not show its willingness
to take stand by its treaty obligations preferring the two sides to resolve
their differences mutually. Nevertheless, it is still far from abandoning Japan
and has only recently installed a defense missile system there.
Thus the way the actors are playing out their hands signal that
there is no imminent danger of a military conflict over the Diayou/Senkaku
islands. China, that has now surpassed Japan as the number 2 economy of the
world with distinct possibility of becoming number 1 in the not too distant
future, is using the conflict to assert its new status as the dominant regional
and a leading world power. It is also using it to find out how far the USA
would be willing to back Japan based on the Defense Pact of 1960. On these
options, the conflict has helped China to assert its regional dominance through
the silence of the United States to react to the threats to Japan.
The curious issue is why Japan started this conflict by buying the
3 islets. Perhaps, it did so to find out where it stood in the emerging
regional equation, fearful that it is losing its power and stature in the
region. If it is so, then the outcome of the recent tension is not likely to
favour it. It has failed to evoke the type of response from the United States
that would have given it strength vis-à-vis China and the region. In the
bargain, it has given China a chance to show its emerging strength in regional
and world politics.
China showed that strength by the riots and demonstrations that
had tacit official approval in more than 100 Chinese cities where Japanese
companies and interests were attacked. The riots/demonstrations together with
USA’s lack of interest to be drawn into the conflict would no doubt encourage
Japan to revert to the status quo and try and settle the conflict in the
negotiating table instead of provoking China further towards a military
conflict.
As Japan’s number one trading partner, China also has the economic
leverage to influence Japan to opt to settle its claim in the negotiating
table. More importantly, Japanese companies have thousands of billions of
investments in China that have already been targeted strategically by China.
China also has significant influence in the Japanese bond market. It could use
these leverages to convince Japan towards negotiation. Thus, the latest outbreak of conflict and the
developments to date have clearly been to China’s advantage. Despite the fears
in some quarters, China has no reason to go for war because the Japanese have
already been pushed back on the defensive.
The writer
is a retired Secretary and Ambassador to
Japan
No comments:
Post a Comment