Case Analysis - China and Japan Islands Conflict

by lizihan (student)

Han Li
Case study
September 14, 2012

Case Study – Island conflict

China and Japan have had strained relations post World War II and the islands row stands as the latest conflict between the two countries. Known in Japan as the Senkaku islands and in China and Taiwan the Diaoyu Islands, the ownership of the islands have long been disputed over hundreds of years, with incidents beginning in 1996. Historically under Chinese control, the islands were captured by Japan during Sino-Japanese War, yet no objections were raised by Chiang Kai-shek in the Treaty of San Francisco or Okinawa reversion as he relied on U.S. support. Japan’s claims lie within the same two resolutions, since the islands were returned to Japan by the United States (Q&A). With the recently discovered nearby oil fields and fishing grounds, the islands have resurfaced into the international spotlight as not only a territorial dispute but a race over scarce resources (Q&A). Each action taken by one side is immediately reciprocated with a political move from the other. Yet what rises above the superficial territorial and resource contest is political superiority and dominance of the region. In addition to the United States and Taiwan taking sides in this issue, China attempts to establish its dominance in Asia while the United States wishes to reassert its sphere of influence. Tense relations and differing interests could easily escalate to the dispute into greater conflict, as more than oil and fish are at stake in this disagreement. A massive surge of nationalism on both sides has been triggered, with the PRC and Taiwan representing China as an entity—an unusual sight in the contemporary world (Buerk). An analysis of this conflict allows inference onto other territorial disputes and explanation of government actions. Looking at the conflict through a realist perspective, the possibility of cooperation and compromise is improbable, neither is war.

Realism focuses on states acting in their own interest and defiant of moral consideration. Decisions states make are derived from human nature, which is deemed selfish and competitive. Realism assumes the international system is anarchic, that states are the biggest actors in the international structure (statism), and they are “black-boxed” into like-units when examined through the realism lens. Under anarchy, states must pursue a policy of self-help to ensure survival; under which states are rational actors and power-maximizers that live in constant fear and uncertainty. Hence, for their own security, sovereignty and survival, it is essential for states to amass ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

From this conflict, there are three viable outcomes for this issue, war, negotiated solution, and stalemate. War will most likely produce either a Chinese or Japanese acquisition. If China were to obtain the islands, it dictates a new stage of influence that China maintains in Asia. Conversely, Japanese acquirement infers that China is yet to be the dominate force. A compromise could also occur, perhaps with both sides reaping the benefits of the islands. Japan as of now has already “purchased” four of the islands from its alleged owner, while China has simply been expressing discontent through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—creating a feeble image of the government and distressing popular sentiment in China (Buerk). A last outcome is a stalemate with neither side gaining control over the islands until a third party or new factor comes into play.

Realist theory seems to favor the option of going to war. With two sides in conflict over political power, self-help would edict war in order to protect the nation’s interest and security, ultimately increasing the chances of survival. In Machiavellian terms, this quarrel is justified by the need for gain, safety and reputation—winning the conflict will bring resources and political influence in the region which results in greater security. Similarly, Clausewitz agrees with the necessity of war, for he regards war as a political tool geared towards a political object. When all other political interactions fail to bring a satisfactory agreement, war remains as the final deciding factor.

Although realist dogmas gravitate toward war as the solution, the actual chances of war occurring is miniscule. Despite the assumption of selfish and competitive human nature guiding state policy, realists assume that states behave rationally. In this case, a war waged causes other parties, indubitably Taiwan and United States, to intervene. Under such circumstances, a rational state would recognize that war simply complicates relations further and devoting the state to fight such a war for relatively little gains is irrational. As a result, the implications of war will deter states from resorting to this possibility.

While states are characterized as self-interested and living in constant fear and uncertainty of other states, it does not remove the prospect of cooperation. Oye believes that under anarchy, states are willing to cooperate when mutual gains occur. States pursue relative gains and as rational actors, will cooperate for such advantages. Additionally, mutual gains and multiple iterations of interaction reduce the chances of defection due to reciprocal action. It is certainly feasible that China and Japan can reach a resolution where both sides benefit, yet historical interactions between the two sides have created a crevasse in their relations that greatly hinders such a possibility. Unless new benefits are brought onto the table, neither side would be willing to acquiesce.

Lastly, a stalemate is most expected as neither of the other options appeal to the rational state. The opportunity cost for war is thwarts any military action, while existing relations obstruct any inkling of cooperation. Ultimately, rationality overrides all other assumptions, be it selfish human nature, uncertainty, or the system of anarchy. Any rational state will always choose the best possible option. A stalemate of the current situation will persist until a new factor comes into play that pushes the other two options into a more appealing position.

Overall, realist attitude pushes for war and offers cooperation as a dubious alternative, but current settings mandate a stalemate with little effective options. This case can be generalized to other current conflicts such as the Dokdo Island under dispute by South Korea and Japan, or the Scarborough Shoal between China and the Philippines. In a way, it can even be referenced to the Israel-Palestine argument as a “who-was-here-first argument”. The same clash of interests and remedies generalize territorial disputes.

Works Cited

Buerk, Roland. "Could Disputed East China Sea Islands Be Sold?" BBC News. BBC, 19 Apr. 2012. Web. 02 Sept. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17766257>.

Hu, Sandra. "Taiwan Man Flubs Disputed Islands Protest with Flag Mix-Up." WSJ.com. N.p., 6 July 2012. Web. 02 Sept. 2012. <http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/07/06/taiwan-man-flubs-disputed-island-protest-with-flag-mix-up/>.

"Japan Protests at Chinese Ships near Disputed Islands." BBC News. BBC, 07 Nov. 2012. Web. 02 Sept. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18792556>.

MarcU.S., Jonathan. "Island Disputes Reveal Asia's Evolving Powers." BBC News. BBC, 11 Mar. 2010. Web. 02 Sept. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11687880>.

"Q&A: China-Japan Islands Row." BBC News. BBC, 16 Aug. 2012. Web. 02 Sept. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139>.