The disagreement between China and Japan over five very
small islands in the East China Sea again reared its head on September 11th,
when the Japanese government purchased three islands that it did not already
own from their private owner for the price of ¥2 billion ($26 million). China
responded with offensive posturing, as we discussed during this week’s class, sending
patrol vessels into the region. The Japanese purchase, which was made over a
vocal Chinese opposition, stirred up a number of protests throughout Chinese
cities including Beijing, Shenzhen, and Luoyang, that have continued into this week.
These protests were the topic of discussion in a recent
article, “The Dangers of a China-Japan Trade War” (The Diplomat), that outlined some of the more ominous economic
consequences that may result from the squabble over the islands. According to the article, angry crowds have
attacked and destroyed several Japanese branded products during the protests,
and companies have closed facilities in the area. Also troubling, as
author James Parker suggests, is the consumer boycott of Japanese products that
some Chinese are calling for.
Of course, formal economic sanctions of the Japanese by the
Chinese are a possibility (and considering that China accounts for nearly 20%
of Japan’s export this could severely damage the Japanese economy). However,
while not impossible, these sanctions are complicated by WTO obligations and
can cast an unfavorable light on the Chinese. China, because of the power of
its State Owned Enterprises, could also call for an unofficial boycott, which
will do considerable damage while dodging those pesky WTO obligations.
Nevertheless, trade
rarely flows one way. Any sanction on the part of the Chinese will almost
certainly result in a tit-for-tat reaction by the Japanese. The ensuing “boycott
war” will damage both sides, and might work to dissuade companies from
countries outside China and Japan from investing in China.
Negative effects on trade, of course, are just one potential
consequence of the dispute. While the United
States has claimed that it will remain neutral in the disagreement, we’ll see how
long that will last. The BBC reported
that on the 18th that US Ambassador Gary Locke’s car was attacked by
protesters in Beijing while they chanted anti-America slogans and assertions
that the islands were Chinese territory as they attempted to prevent the car
from entering the embassy.
Earlier this week, the United States also sealed a new missile deal with Japan. The announcement that the United States would be
sending another advanced radar system to the Japanese, ostensibly to bolster Japanese
defense against North Korea, has predictably worried China. The Chinese,
despite overtures by the U.S., are likely to see Washington’s growing missile presence
in the area as a threat to its own interests and not the defense of Japan that
it claims to be.
The issue is complicated, potential U.S. involvement notwithstanding.
Japan and China are facing their own unique internal complications: nationalist
agitation is present on both sides and Japan is about to face a general
election. The opposition hopeful for the next prime minister is the son of Tokyo
governor Shintaro Ishihara. Ishihara,
who has been described as a “crusty, China-baiting nationalist” launched a
campaign for the islands to be bought by the Tokyo metropolitan government in April. Japan’s recent purchase of the islands by
current Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda could have been meant to foil Ishihara’s
plan. Noda seems to be trying to soothe tensions with the Chinese, as he’s
pledged to keep the Japanese from setting foot on the islands—but the probability
remains that China will see this as an attempt by Japan to increase their already
extensive maritime scope, and not to diffuse a potentially explosive situation.
Class, what do you think? What is the likelihood and what
are the consequences of potential U.S. involvement in the Sino-Japanese dispute
over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands? How will Japan and China continue to address
the dispute, taking into consideration the upcoming Japanese general elections?
Additionally, do you believe that the Sino-Japanese trade
relationship be enough to keep the conflict from spreading or violence from
breaking out? Parker, at the end of his
recent article in The Diplomat,
ominously points out that: "strong economic relationships before WWI didn't stop the march to war." Or, as he hopes, will cooler
heads prevail?
1 comment:
1.) Class, what do you think? What is the likelihood and what are the consequences of potential U.S. involvement in the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands? How will Japan and China continue to address the dispute, taking into consideration the upcoming Japanese general elections?
Answer: I think China and Japan will not continue onto a more violent path because it is far more likely that the US (and possibly other major regional actors like Australia, South Korea, Russia, etc.) will diplomatically address the issue via small party talks, much like the nuclear issue in North Korea. The economic consequences for a violent conflict affect so many people that it seems unlikely a real conflict will ensue. As for the last question, I doubt much will change, even with the Japanese election question. This dispute will continue to have domestic demonstrations in the PRC and Japan, and a Japanese election will have little to no affect on the dispute resolution.
Additionally, do you believe that the Sino-Japanese trade relationship be enough to keep the conflict from spreading or violence from breaking out? Parker, at the end of his recent article in The Diplomat, ominously points out that: "strong economic relationships before WWI didn't stop the march to war." Or, as he hopes, will cooler heads prevail?
Answer: The Sino-Japanese trade relationship is incredibly inter-connected, and I believe this relationship is at the forefront of the debate. Also, the economies of Japan and China have a great number of stakeholders from around the world, and their self-interests and investments are an important piece to resolving this conflict. As always, the UN can provide mediators for this conflict.
Post a Comment