US Would Face a Dilemma Should It Interfere Militarily in the Diaoyu Islands Dispute

Liu Jiangyong

US Would Face a Dilemma Should It Interfere Militarily in the Diaoyu Islands Dispute

Liu Jiangyong

The Boat Collision Incident of Chinese Fishing boat with Japanese Coast Guard patrol vessels near the Diaoyu Islands occurred on September 7, 2010 led to the severe deterioration and even tensions in the bilateral relations for a time. The US called for the two sides to solve the dispute through dialogue; on the other hand, it made the commitment that the US-Japan Security Treaty is applicable to the Diaoyu Islands, and further enhanced the military cooperation with Japan. By the end of 2010, Japan formulated the new National Defense Program Guideline, shifting the emphasis of defense to the Southwestern islands, in an attempt to contain China with the support of the US. From an overall perspective, should the US decide to interfere militarily into the Diaoyu Islands dispute between China and Japan, the US would fall into the dilemma on strategic choices.

I. Evolution of US Position on the Diaoyu Islands

The Diaoyu Islands issue is the territorial dispute between China and Japan that is left over by the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, and is closely related with the US interference. Both theChinese Mainland and Taiwan hold that the Diaoyu Islands and adjacent islets have been China’s inalienable territory since ancient times. Japan seized the Diaoyu Islands by the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895 and coerced the Qing Dynasty government to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Afterwards, Japan had ruled Taiwan and its adjacent islets including the Diaoyu Islands for 50 years. When the World War II was over, the Diaoyu Islands, together with Taiwan, were returned to China in legal terms according to Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation. However, in Cold War era, due to the intervention by the US, the Diaoyu Islands issue turns out to be a pending territorial dispute between China and Japan.

1. The course of US policy changes.

On September 7, 2010, the Japanese action to detain and arrest illegally the captain of Chinese Fishing boat incited unprecedented tensions in Sino-Japanese relations since the normalization of bilateral relations. Afterwards, the Japanese government denied repeatedly the objective existence of territorial disputes between China and Japan, as well as the consensus reached by the two sides on shelving differences in sovereignty disputes on the Diaoyu Islands. Japan even attempted to reinforce the control of related islands and sea field by enacting new National Defense Program Guideline. It is totally unacceptable and is firmly opposed by China.

In this process, the US government expressed several times to Japanese side that the US-Japan security treaty is applicable to the Diaoyu Islands and reinforced the military presence in East Asian region and US-Japan military exercises. According to the popular Chinese translation, in the US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Security and Cooperation that took into effect on June 23, 1960, Article V stipulates that “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security”.

The Okinawa had been under the administration of the US, and the administrative jurisdiction right for the Diaoyu Islands was transferred to Japan when the US returned the Okinawa to Japan in 1972, but the US declared it would not influence the negotiation over sovereignty, and the disputes should be settled peacefully through dialogue. The Northern Islands, or the Kuril Islands, claimed by Japan were occupied by the Soviet Union and later Russia since the World War II. And the US refused to side along with Japan in contention over Dokdo island or Takeshima island in Japanese name between Japan and South Korea. Thus far, the Article V of the US-Japan security treaty only applies to the territories under the administration of Japan, not including the disputed islands between Japan and China, Russia or South Korea.

Until September 1996, former vice US president and US ambassador to Japan Mundell told the journalists that even if the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands were under attack, the US military would not provide protection, the Diaoyu Islands do not subject to the US-Japan security treaty. That attitude gave rise to the opposition from some hawkish anti-China congressmen and introduced the discontent from Japanese government. On the disputes of the Diaoyu Islands, the US Congressional Research Service released the reports of “Jurisdiction Dispute of Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands”, and “Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands: the US Legal Relationship and Obligations” in 1974 and 1996 respectively. Both reports indicated that the US held position of neutrality regarding the Diaoyu Islands claims. However, Japan insisted that the 1996 report mentioned the US-Japan security treaty is applicable to the Diaoyu Islands in line with the Okinawa Reversion Agreement. The judgment is based on the paper of October 20, 1971, written by Assistant Legal Adviser for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Robert Starr on the instructions of Secretary of State William Rogers that states: “The Okinawa Reversion Agreement contains the terms and conditions for the reversion of the Ryukyu Islands including the Senkakus.”Secretary of State Rogers stated in his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee that the Security Treaty “becomes applicable to Okinawa” the same as applied to the Japanese home islands.

From then on, the US position on the Diaoyu Islands was shifting from the apparent neutrality to the intentional interference. But the US officials kept low profile on that issue. For instance, on October 18, 1996, Nicolas Vans, spokesman for the State Department of the US, said the US treaty obligation is clear, but is not intended to be related to the Diaoyu Islands disputes. And on November 15 of the same year, U.S. Secretary of State Winston Lord stated that the US’ willingness to fulfill its treaty obligation does not involve the presumed condition.

This made increasingly uneasy and prompted Japan to draw in the US as the patron for Japan’s acquisition of The Diaoyu Islands, which becomes an important target of Japanese diplomacy towards the US. As a result, Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of Defense responsible for rebuilding the US-Japan alliance in post-Cold War era said on November 17, 1996,“Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is an area under Japanese administration in accordance with the Okinawa Reversion Agreement. The United States has a very strong commitment to Japan under Article V of the security treaty. We abide by that commitment and its terms, requiring the United States to support Japan and its territories, are very clear,” which was interpreted by Japan as the US bearing the obligation to interfere in the conflict regarding the Diaoyu Islands.

From the beginning of the 21st century, the US attitude on The Diaoyu Islands began to change in the direction which is not in the interests of China. In October 2000, Institute for National Strategic Studies of the US National Defense University delivered a policy report entitled “The US and Japan: Advancing Toward a Mature Partnership”, in which the report claims that the US should make the relationship with Great Britain as the model for US-Japan alliance. “The United States should reaffirm its commitment to the defense of Japan and those areas under the administrative control of Japan, including the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands.” The study group was led by Richard L Armitage who was later designated as the deputy Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific affairs in the Bush Administration, and then the policy recommendations were turned into the US policy immediately. The US purpose was to encourage Japan to dispatch Self-Defense Forces overseas to support the Iraqi war launched by the US. And Junichiro Koizumi cabinet, under the US indulgence, decided to sign the rental agreement secretly with the Japanese citizens who claimed the “ownership” of the Diaoyu Islands to initiate the “national management” of the islands-a disguised nationalization of the Diaoyu Islands.

On February 2, 2004, US Deputy Secretary of State Armitage indicated at the Japanese Press Club that the US regarded the attack against the territories under the administration of Japan as the attack against the US. The Japanese media pointed out that it was the amendment to the ambiguity of the US government regarding the Diaoyu Islands, suggesting that the US changed the past neutral position on the Diaoyu Islands disputes and the detachment of defense obligation by the US-Japan security treaty on the Diaoyu Islands adopted by the Clinton administration.

The US declaration that Article V of the US-Japan security treaty is applicable to the Diaoyu Islands is an indirect or disguised form of admitting that the Diaoyu Islands is the territory under the sovereignty of Japan or under the administration of Japan, constituting grave damage to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as national security interests, and serves as an important factor for Japan’s unreasonable attitude toward China on the Diaoyu Islands issue. On February 26, 2009, then Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso responded to the inquiry from lawmaker of Democratic Party of Japan Seiji Maehara by saying that the Diaoyu Islands are Japan’s inherent territory and are naturally become the subject of the US-Japan security treaty. Japan will reconfirm it with the US in near future. It is the first time that Japanese prime minister made public statement on that issue. On the next day, the officials from US State Department also stated that the Diaoyu Islands have always been under the administrative jurisdiction of Japan and therefore are covered by the security treaty between the US and Japan.

As a response, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu iterated China’s position: “China has indisputable sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands and adjacent islets which have been China’s inalienable territory since ancient times. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States, as a bilateral arrangement, should not undermine the interest of any third party including China. Any attempt to cover the Diaoyu Islands under the Treaty is absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese people. We have lodged a solemn representation to Japan once again and urged the U.S. to make clarification over the relevant reports. We hope Japan and the U.S. can realize the great sensitivity of the issue with discretion in words and deeds and refrain from doing anything that may undermine regional stability or the overall interests of China-Japan relations and China-U.S. relations.”

However, the US continued to act flagrantly instead of reining its excessive behaviors. In accordance with the Japanese media, the Bush Administration had said that the US-Japan security treaty is applicable to the territories under the administration of Japan, the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands are under the administration of Japan, and thus the US-Japan security treaty covers the Senkaku Islands. The Obama Administration took prudent attitude on that matter and only stated the first two parts and was reluctant to make clear the third point. But the Obama administration stated publicly the third one after the restrictions made by China on rare earth.

That is utterly unjustifiable. The US and Japan have been adopted strict restrictions on export of dual-use technologies to China; even Yamaha RMAX Unmanned Helicopter for cropdusting is banned from exporting to China. China did not forbid the RE export to Japan, and the RE export to Japan affected by boat collision had already resumed, the US and Japan overreacted and even laid the blame of their policy adjustment impairing China’s sovereignty and security on the Chinese side, which illustrated the utter importance of the RE is for Japan and how unreasonable the behavior adopted by the US and Japan is to endanger China’s sovereignty and territory integrity.

It should be noted that the boat collision incident happened only after the US State Department reiterated that the US-Japan security treaty is applicable to the Diaoyu Islands less one month later. Whether there is causal relationship between the two is worthy of thinking.

2. US actions deserve attention.

After the boat collision occurred in Huangweiyu area near the Diaoyu Islands caused by the Japanese Costal Guard vessels’illegal interception of Chinese Fishing boat on September 7, 2010, the activities of the US troops stationed in Japan increased. On September 21, 2010, US Mine Sweeper Defender with displaycement of 1,312 tons based on the homeport of Sasebo base drove into the Port of Hirara in Okinawa. Though the US warships had been ported in Okinawa in June 2007 and April 2009 respectively, it was the first time that the Warship was driving into the Hirara port. Government of Okinawa prefecture insisted that the US troops should refrain from utilizing the civil port unless in urgent times, and demanded the departure of the warship and the warship left on September 24. On September 23, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Islands are clearly covered by US-Japan security treaty in her talks with Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara. It is the first time that the US Secretary of State made such statement. On September 29, the US Marine Corps stationed in Okinawa conducted military training in Hansen Barracks, dispatched the rapid response troops to rescue the wounded soldiers by use of transport helicopter in Okinawa air base.

The Marine Corps Aviation Plan for 2011 Fiscal Year published by the US Marine Corps pointed out that the US will deploy the MV-22 Osprey Tiltrotor Aircraft in US Futenma air base from 2012, the designation of the troops is No. 561 Tiltrotor Aircraft Squadron. According to the plan, the MV-22 Osprey Tiltrotor Aircraft will be equipped with two squadrons as the supplement for the 24 Sea Knight Transport Helicopters deployed in the Futenma Airbase in October 2012 and 2013 respectively. A flight squadron is usually composed of 12 aircrafts, so around 24 MV-22 Osprey Tiltrotor Aircrafts will be disposed in Okinawa in order to strengthen the operational capability of the US troops in the region.

According to the report from Kyodo News of Japan, Japan and the US had conducted the military exercise in Iwo Jima sea area in 2006 under mock scenario when the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands were under attack. The US aircraft carrier also took part in the exercise. In 2009, Japan and the US designed the joint military exercise between Japanese Self Defense Forces and the US military forces in December 2010. The exercise takes the scenario that Japanese islands were under attack as the assumption.

On October 6, 2010, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan made a presentation in the DIET regarding the Japan-US planned joint military exercise that there is no program of taking military exercise under the assumption of Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands incident. Even so, the Japanese government’s repeated affirm-ation with the US on the application of Japan- US security treaty to Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands after the Obama Administration took office, and the US-Japan joint military exercise in East Sea after the collision incident are unusual in purpose.

3. The US wants to cozy up to Japan while preventing the situation from losing control.

On October 6, 2010, US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell visited Japan and held talks with Japanese Foreign Minister Maehara Seiji. The two sides exchanged views on the tense China-Japan relations after the boat collision and the Korean Peninsula situation, emphasized the importance of US-Japan alliance and reached a consensus to strengthen the bilateral cooperation. Campbell conveyed the US concern that China-Japan relations might lose control after the boat collision, and valued the necessary efforts taken by the Prime Minister Naoto Kan in light of the fact that drastic deterioration of Japan-China relations is in the interests of no countries. The Obama administration first of all tries to avoid being entangled into the conflicts when China-Japan relations got worsening.

On October 11, 2010, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the US would fulfill obligations in line with the treaty of security between the US and Japan as the US did in the past ten years, implying that the US policy of covering the Diaoyu Islands in the applicable area for US-Japan security treaty since 2000 will be continued. The aim for the US military is to force Japan to nod the demands of the US to continue stationing US military base in Okinawa.

However, there are some different opinions in the US. For instance, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristopher made reports and commentary on October 10 and 20, 2011, in which he pointed out that the Diaoyu Islands should be China’s, the US adoption of policy to support Japan’s position on the Diaoyu Islands after the return of administrative jurisdiction of Okinawa in 1972 is absurd, and “in the United States no one to rock the Diaoyu Islands to fulfill these treaty obligations at the risk of the nuclear conflict with China, chances are zero”. Kristopher had been the president of office in Tokyo for the New York Times and won the Pulitzer Prize twice. Japanese Foreign Ministry responded by publishing criticized article, while Kristopher refuted the wording of the Diaoyu Islands are Japan’s territory in terms of both history and international law in Japanese response.

II. Changes in International Configuration and US Strategic Dilemma

The year 2010 is a turning point, when China replaced Japan as the world second largest economy. In China, there is a universal view that no matter what kind of policy as well as system China adopted and no matter how friendly China showed to the US, China would be regarded as the biggest adversary for the US’ No.1 position instinctively by the US, unless the US adjusted its national security conception. The economic leap of China may be exaggerated by the US without any logic to the level of threat to its national security. But on the other hand, the possible emerging of a non-traditional international structure may put the US in dilemma and thus force the US to make some adjustment.

Firstly, the background of US strategic adjustment in the perspective of traditional international architecture.

With China’s further development and strengthening in the next thirty years, it is highly probable of the US countering China with all necessary methods applied to the former Soviet Union as well as Japan in the past to make use of the world No.3 to conquer the world No.2. China would be regarded as the major target for containment and deterrence by the US due to its strategic instinct. That maybe serves as the background for the US to publicly declare the coverage of the Diaoyu Islands into the US-Japan Security Treaty and the incident of boat collision near the Diaoyu Islands.

However, once the contradiction over the Diaoyu Islands were irritated and resulted in the drastic worsening of China-Japan relations, the US would worry about the involvement in the clashes between China and Japan, so it called for dialogue in a seemingly fair manner to facilitate the reliance of both China and Japan on the US. The Diaoyu Islands are the ideal place for the US to sow discord in the Sino-Japanese relations when their ties are warming up, and the US would chuckle to himself if China and Japan were in dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. The US can reap the benefits from the rivalry between China and Japan. That can be seen as the strategic instinct for the No. 1 of the world to contain world No.2 while control the No. 3 by taking advantage of the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan. The trick will be going on if the game is not played unrestrainedly, and the carrot and stick will not be separated in the use.

If China and Japan get close in their relationship, the US may catalyze contradictions between China and Japan by utilizing the Diaoyu Islands dispute with an aim to manipulate the two countries. From the standpoint of US military forces, the military deployment in surrounding area of the Diaoyu Islands and the Southwest region of Okinawa is conducive to monitoring and disturbing the Chinese navy’s action from penetrating the First Island Chain to the Second Island Chain, and also beneficial to the improvement of intervention capability of the US and Japan in the Taiwan Strait to prevent from the deadly threat to Taiwan in Easter Hualian posed by the Chinese mainland.

China-US relations are not a zero-sum game. Confrontations are not the inevitable or only choice for the two countries, since the bilateral relations are not like the US-Soviet relations in the 1950s, and the confrontations do not conform to the interests of the two countries. There are some space for further development of the common interests between China and the US. Therefore, the Sino-US relations are mixed with ups and downs. The commitment by the US to defend Japan on the Diaoyu Islands may pose strategic potential threat for China-US-Japan relations and may even damage the US strategic security interests in East Asia.

Secondly, the dilemma of the US in the perspective of nontraditional international structure.

2011 marks the 20th anniversary of the outbreak of the Gulf War as well as the 10th anniversary of Afghanistan War. In the past 20 years, the international community experienced five salient changes: 1) the advent of the information era; 2) the evolvement of economic globalization; 3) the boom of multilateralism; 4) the highlight of non-traditional security issue, the rudiment of non-traditional international structure is looming; and 5) the apparent rising of international status of the major developing countries like China, India and Brazil.

The so called non-traditional international structure refers to the international system in which the non-state and noninternational organization actors (the international terrorism network, for instance), emerging outside the framework of traditional international relations with sovereign countries and international organizations as the actors, confront the specific countries and exert influence on the relations between sovereign countries. It has established in the recent years, and has influenced the national security strategy of major powers. Recently, the political turmoil and street demonstrations in Middle East and North Africa has increased the uncertainty and instability of the world in future. Once the situation continued to worsen and spiraled out of control, the negative influence of non-traditional international structure on the US would be amplified.

The US superpower status is confronted with double challenges from both traditional and non-traditional international structures, and the influence of non-traditional international structure is on the rise. With the spread of Al-Qaeda terrorist group, the terrorist network is shaping “an invisible pole”, which is not a state or state bloc but a transnational network with non-state and non government actors. The invisible pole is launching challenges to the US all over the world, so the US is immersed in the long-term war. Therefore, for the first time in the first ten years of the 21st century, the non-traditional international structure characterized by “hot wars between two confrontational poles” is taking shape. The US was entrapped in the non-traditional international structure and had to seek help from its allies and call for cooperation with its adversaries in traditional international structure, alleviating to some degree the antagonism of international relations in the traditional international structure.

9/11 Incident and the Emergence of Non-traditional International Structure

In May 2010, the Obama Administration published its first Report on National Security Strategy that emphasizes international terrorism as the major realistic threat to the US national security; the US will maintain its global leadership through multilateralism. To achieve this, the US should consolidate the relations with its European and Asian allies, establish the cooperative relations with Influence centers in the 21st century including constructing positive and comprehensive cooperation relationship with China, building strategic relationship with India and setting up stable, pragmatic and multidimensional relations with Russia, and enhance the capabilities on peace promotion, security protection and opportunity seizure as well as multilateral coordination, with a view to exercise the global leadership in the United Nations, regional institutions, and international financial mechanism as well as other specific organizations.

III. Wrong Decisions May Pose Potential Threats to Its Strategic Security

The US role in the Diaoyu Islands dispute between China and Japan are twofold: inciting and checking. The more the US supports Japan, the more aggressive Japan’s stand toward China becomes; on the other hand, the more the Sino-US relations improve, the more the US will persuade Japan to calm down, and the more Japan has to restrain itself. That is determined by the nature of dominant position of the US and the subordinate position of Japan in US-Japan relations. Japan needs the US support and has to act in accordance with the will of the US; at the same time, Japan may instinctively draw on the contradictions between China and the US to consolidate its position on the Diaoyu Islands.

First, the US attitude is decisive for Japan.

Facts show that how tough Japan’s attitude towards China on the issue of the Diaoyu Islands is positively connected with the US attitude, which means that the better the Sino-US relations are, the lower profile Japan will keep to China since it is more concerned that the US position will become ambiguous. On the contrary, the worse the Sino-US relations are, the tougher attitude Japan will show to China on the Diaoyu Islands issue since it is easier to obtain the military commitment from the US on the Diaoyu Islands issue.

Sino-US contradictions began to rise after the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit at the end of 2009. And in 2010, the confrontations between China and the US on the US weapons sales to Taiwan, Yellow Sea and South China Sea are aggravating. The Japanese government misjudged the situation and attempted to strengthen the effective administration of the Diaoyu Islands by seizing the boat and detaining the captain. As a result, Japan met with strong and effective countermeasures from the Chinese side and was forced to release Chinese captain. The Chinese President Hu Jintao’s successful visit to the US in January 2011 push forward strongly the improvement and development of Sino-US relations, and the definition of Sino-US relationship as partner instead of adversary makes Japan feels uneasy and has to explore the opportunity to improve the relations with China while prohibiting Japanese citizens from landing on the islands.

In the long run, Japan’s actions to capture the boat and captain near the Diaoyu Islands and the release of Defense Program Guideline at the end of 2010 indicate that Japan will resort to the military forces and coercion to achieve its goal on the Diaoyu Islands by counting on the operational capabilities of Maritime Safety Agency and Navy and Air Self Defense Forces as well as the military cooperation with the US, rather than the diplomatic negotiations with China on the disputed territories.

It is an unprecedented phenomenon after the World War II. Although all these moves are shown in “defensive” postures, they are no more than an excuse for Japan’s intention to strengthen the military capabilities and military deployment. The Japanese government is clear that Japan has no ground to claim the acquisition of the Diaoyu Islands no matter from historic documents or international laws, thus Japan is in the disadvantaged position in diplomatic negotiation and international arbitration. Japan’s attempt to establish the effective administration of the Diaoyu Islands by relying on the US and its military power is nothing short of revealing its real intention in the end. In effect, it is not a new invention for Japan to occupy territory backed by military forces and alliance. For instance, the eruption of war between Japan and Russia in 1904 was under the background of Japan’s alignment with the United Kingdom. And during the Second World War, Japan allied with Germany and Italy to form the Anti-Communist Fascist Military Bloc and launched the full-scale invasion war against China. They could date back to the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 initiated by Japan after Meiji government’s secret investigation of the Diaoyu Islands it had coveted.

After the World War II, the Japan-US alliance under the peace constitution bears dual effect：When providing protection to Japan, the US also restricted the resurrection of the Japanese militarism. The problem is that the signals sent by the US to Japan after the Cold War are rather chaotic. The centrifugal force for US-Japan alliance was ascending after the collapse of the Soviet Union. To consolidate the US-Japan alliance, China threat theory had already been hyped for nearly twenty years since the 1990s.

In August 1990, Murai Tomohide, associate professor of Japan’s National Defense University, published an article entitled “China — A Potential Threat” in the conservative Japanese magazine Shokun, depicting China as a potential enemy. From then on, the China threat fallacy was spreading in Japan. Has China posed a threat to Japan in the past 20 years? Not at all. The past 20 years have witnessed China’s peaceful development and great strides forward. In the past 20 years, the United States has launched four regional wars and has been entrapped in Afghanistan war for 10 years without any bright prospects. In the past 20 years, the US has motivated Japan to break the limitation of restricted area. The US deputy secretary of state in Bush Administration Armitage even encouraged Japan to exercise collective self-defense rights by amending constitution so as to pave the way for the joint operation with the US. To this end, the US listed the Diaoyu Islands in the application of article V of US-Japan security treaty by sacrificing China’s interests to exchange Japan’s dispatch of forces abroad to support Iraq war.

Second, the ascending US-Japan conflicts will make a victim of China’s interests.

In September 2009, the Democratic Party of Japan replaced the Liberal Democratic Party as the ruling party and began to revaluate the program of relocating the US forces in Okinawa, and the Japanese government suspended the military assistance in supplying oil and water to the US fleet in the Indian Ocean, giving birth to the rise of the contradictions between Japan and the US. In another view, it might not be good news for China-Japan relations because in the US and Japan, there must be a tendency to exaggerate threat from China in an attempt to solidify the bilateral alliance. When the tensions across the Taiwan straits are moving toward the reconciliation, the history issue in Sino-Japanese relations is relatively assuaged and the event of poisonous dumplings came to a conclusion, the Diaoyu Islands issue turns out to be the only emotional factor to stir the nerves of the Japanese citizens, estranging them from China while enhancing the US-Japan alliance. Since Naoto Kan took office in 2010 after the resignation of Yukio Hatoyama, the power struggle in the domestic politics of Japan will inevitably extend to the adjustment of Japan’s foreign policy. The occurrence of boat collision incident near the Diaoyu Islands is inevitable under such background.

However, the direct consequence for the US commitment to defend the Diaoyu Islands is the serious damage to the strategic mutual trust of China with the US as well as Japan. Secondly, the mutual trust between the US and Japan appears to be enhanced, but the prospect is called into question in the long run. The local government and people in Okinawa are still opposed to the relocation of Futenma airbase to other place in Okinawa, the weak foundation for Naoto Kan government will endow him with less capability to fulfill its promise to the US. In that sense, the mutual trust between the US and Japan is far from being strengthened. Furthermore, once the US reached the goal on relocation of airbase in Okinawa by taking advantage of the Diaoyu Islands dispute and Sino-Japanese contradictions, the US would be reluctant to endorse Japan’s provocation against China on the Diaoyu Islands. The US fully understands that exploiting the Diaoyu Islands dispute runs the risk and has limitations. The Diaoyu Islands is China’s territory and China will not tolerate Japan’s forcible occupation of the Diaoyu Islands backed by military deterrence. The US would be confronted with a dilemma if there were crisis between China and Japan on the Diaoyu Islands dispute. Supporting Japan would worsen relations with China, and may also result in extreme behaviors of Japan and put the US in a passive position. The mainstream of the US public opinion will not support the government in the war with China for the sake of Japan’s takeover of some unmanned islands.

Third, potential crisis in the US-Japan alliance.

Even though the US takes side with Japan on the Diaoyu Islands issue, the US has not made any commitment to Japan for its islands disputes with Russia and South Korea. On Japan’s territorial disputes with Russia, Russia adopted tough measures—the Russian president and other high-level officials for the first time in history landed on the island one after another, and the Russian government also declared to enhance military deployment. The US looked on with folded arms and Japan was over a barrel. So the right wing nationalism in Japan was bound to cast doubt on the credibility and reliability of US-Japan alliance. When the territorial disputes continued with fermentation, the right wing hawkish force’ s call for strengthening military armament and even acquiring nuclear weapons to “defend Japan by Japan itself ” would be echoed by the Japanese public support.

After the boat collision near the Diaoyu Islands in 2010, Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara declared that the event would not have developed into such situation if Japan possessed nuclear weapons. The Under Secretary of State of the US Crowly privately asked Japan to release Chinese Captain, a move that was different from Secretary of State Clinton’s commitment that the Diaoyu Islands is covered by the USJapan security treaty. It is learned from the incident that the US is unreliable; the US has neither intention nor capability to defend the Diaoyu Islands for Japan. In terms of current military strength and economic power, the US cannot afford to engage in conflict with China. Japan na?vely believes in the US protection by nuclear weapons, but China is sure that the US will not guard for Japan. “If Japan decided to embrace nuclear weapons, it would take about only two or three years and the nuclear weapons should be taken into account by Japan in future.” Although the remarks of the right wing hawkish force in Japan are extreme, it would be easy to strike a chord in Japan under the soaring national identification waves stirred up by territorial issues.

The new generation politicians after the WW II have already forgotten the trauma caused by the war, and they have no sense of guilt for launching invasion war. Japan’s nationalism is overflowing in the quarrels over islands disputes with China, Russian and South Korea. The socio-political trend may probably impact the Japan’s future democratic election, resulting in the hardliners coming into power or the territorial disputes becoming the topic of the election and influencing the election. Some decision makers of post-war era generation politicians with less experience may also make false judgment: they attempt to take assertive attitude and behaviors towards China on the Diaoyu Islands with the support of the US.

Facts have proved that making tensions by use of the Diaoyu Islands dispute has not resolved the relocation of US airbase in Okinawa. Once the situation spiraled out of control, it is probable for the US to get involved and even have a military conflict with China. Although that is the scenario expected by the right wing force in Japan, it goes against the interests of China and the US. If Japan failed to win the military support from the US in the future territorial conflicts with other countries, the disappointment and mistrust between the two might further shake the foundation of public support in Japan on US-Japan alliance. Japanese nationals would strongly demand the withdrawal of US troops in Japan. In effect, it is impossible for the US to pull chestnuts out of the fire for Japan for the sake of Japan’s appeal on territory at the risk of military confrontation with China and Russia.

Theoretically speaking, to maintain the alliance by fabricating an external threat is exactly the reflection of the fragility and hypocrisy of the alliance. Supposing that US-Japan alliance would break up in fifty years, the strategic issue that the US would take into consideration was how to prevent the dissolution of alliance from damaging its own security interests. If Japan continues to get along with its neighboring countries as a peaceful country, the dissolution of Japan-US alliance will not lead to Japan’s going nuclear, which is also live up to the interests of the US.

Fourth, the policy option for the US in near future.

For the US, one of the reasonable options is to encourage Japan to resolve the territorial disputes through peaceful consultations with its neighboring countries so as to establish the good-neighborly and win-win friendly relationship. If the US attempts to make use of and even incites the territorial disputes between Japan and its neighboring countries with an eye to maintain the US-Japan alliance, the military confrontation in the region or the abandonment of peaceful development by Japan will become the highly possible outcomes, and then the US will surely be drawn into the pitfalls of military confrontations in East Asia. In a long run, once the US-Japan alliance is disintegrated under the strategic burden caused by Japan’s conflict with its neighboring countries, the militarism in Japan will cast off the control of the US and may even revive in the new form with the revenge mentality to the US. That would be undoubtedly a nightmare for the United States.

The year 2011 marks the 140th anniversary of Ryukyu’s annexation by Japan, and is also the 60th anniversary of the Pacific War launched by Japan. Looking back into the history, we can easily find that the annexation of Ryukyu by Japan is closely connected with its first invasion to Taiwan. During that period of time, Japan received the assistance from US consular to Fujian C. W. LeGendre by hiring LeGendre as the senior adviser and guide to invade Taiwan. The US warships also came to support Japan. But ironically, in 1941, 70 years later, the Pacific War occurred between Japan and the US. History will not repeat itself today after the Pacific war 70 years ago. It is no longer the era of imperialism and colonialism today, the possibility of war resulted by scrambling for colony does not exist, peace and development remain the mainstream of the world.

However, regarding the Diaoyu Islands—the adjacent islets of Taiwan, history seems to retreat to the original point again with some similarities. Japan once again reinforces the surveillance and vigilance toward China under the help of the US. In this regard, Japan’s new National Defense Program Guidelines unveiled at the end of 2010 and its strategic orientation as well as the US role in the Diaoyu Islands dispute will affect the prospects of China-Japan-US relations, and thus deserves close attention.

IV. Conclusion

To sum up, the US has unshirkable responsibility for both the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan and Japan’s wrong policy decision before and after the boat collision incident. The aggressive attitude of Japan over the Diaoyu Islands is related directly with the US. The US mistakenly put the Diaoyu Islands into the scope of Okinawa when it returned Okinawa to Japan in 1972, but with regard to the belongings of the Diaoyu Islands, the US insists all the time that it does not hold certain position, and hopes the settlement can be reached through dialogue and consultation as well as peaceful negotiation by China and Japan. Even before the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the US in 1979, the US had never committed itself to apply the US-Japan security treaty to the Diaoyu Islands. Perhaps it is for that reason that Japan reached the political understanding and consensus with China over shelving differences on the Diaoyu Islands in the process of normalization of China-Japan relations and the signing of the China-Japan Peace and Friendship Treaty.

However, since 1996, Japan began to deny the existence of territorial disputes between the two countries by refusing to admit the consensus of putting aside differences on the Diaoyu Islands reached by two sides, which just coincided with the US open implication for the first time that the security treaty between the US and Japan was applied to the Diaoyu Islands in the same year. Agitated by the US indulgence, Japan turned to bully China with the support of the US. That fact illustrated that the US position on the Diaoyu Islands after the Cold War serves as the important external factor for Japan’s U-turn in its position on the Diaoyu Islands.

Currently, the Naoto Kan administration and the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs are following the position of the former LDP-led administration on the Diaoyu Islands since 1996. The decision to intercept Chinese fishing boat around the Diaoyu Islands is also a reckless behavior based on the wrong position and miscalculation of the security commitment of the US, and the release of Chinese captain is also related to the US fear of being drawn into the conflict once the situation spirals out of control. It can be predicted that Japan will hold back its aggressive attitude over the Diaoyu Islands issue after the restoration of China-US relations by Chinese President Hu Jintao’s successful visit to the US in January 2011. But Japan will not give up its efforts to seek the US military intervention in the implementation of national defense program.

Yet, the Article V in the US-Japan Security Treaty amended in 1960 stipulated that the applied field is the territories under the administration of Japan. On the part of the US, as the US has never acknowledged Japan’s sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. Without sovereignty, there is no mention of territory! The Diaoyu Islands are by no means the territory of Japan. Since sovereignty and territory are inseparable, the administrative jurisdiction is by no means equal to sovereignty. The US government deliberately made the distinction, emphasizing that what returned to Japan is the administrative jurisdiction right instead of sovereignty. Now the US cannot ignore that fact and cannot split sovereignty and territory. Furthermore, China, from the very beginning, has been strongly opposed to the US arbitrary return of administration jurisdiction of the China’s Diaoyu Islands to Japan. So from the US position and the Article V of the US-Japan security treaty, the so called commitment by the US on the application of security treaty to the Diaoyu Islands is short of valid ground and legal support, which is a doublespeak and goes nowhere.

The US-Japan security treaty, as a bilateral arrangement, should not undermine China’s territorial integrity and national security. To maintain the overall situation of China-US-Japan trilateral relations, the US should rectify its wrong position on applying the security treaty to the Diaoyu Islands to avoid the second mistake. The US had proposed to hold formal trilateral dialogue among the US, China and Japan, but it would result in the further damage to China’s interests if the US joined hands with Japan to against China, and the US’ refusal to correct the mistake is equivalent to being both the athlete and the judge at the same time. Whereas, if the US could alter its wrong position on military intervention into the Diaoyu Islands by encouraging China and Japan to undertake peaceful negotiation to solve the disputes and dissuade the use or threat use of force by either side, the US may play a positive role on that issue, which would facilitate China and Japan in dealing with the Diaoyu Islands disputes in accordance with China-Japan Peace and Friendship Treaty, and also would be conducive to the healthy development of China-US-Japan relations to realize the sustainable security in East Asia featuring low-cost, high safety.

Liu Jiangyong is Professor at Institute of Contemporary International Relations, Tsinghua University.