Justice and reconciliation for the SenkakuDiaoyu dispute

Scott Shin

Conflict Mapping

Historical views and current stance

Both Chinese and Japanese

Legal Issues

International recognition

Factors impeding resolution

Connecting this issue to peace and conflict reconciliation

Background

Consists of 8 relatively small islands (the largest is only 4.32 kilometers

squared in area)

Originally under the administration of China until 1895, following the

Sino-Japanese War (Treaty of Shimonoseki)

At the moment, it is disputed between the Peoples Republic of China,

The Republic of China (Taiwan), and Japan

Currently under Japans administration since 1972

Administered by Okinawa Prefecture

The US returned administration of Okinawa to Japan in 1972

An outline of Chinas history regarding Diaoyu

1403

Voyage with a Tail Wind

1534

Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryukyu

1895

the First Sino-Japanese War Treaty of Shimonoseki

1945

Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender

1951

Treaty of San Francisco

1969

the ECAFE identified potential oil and gas reserves

1971

the Okinawa Reversion Treaty

1971
the People's Republic of China government officially began to
declare ownership of the islands

Chinas claim

China discovered the islands in 1372, during the Ming Dynasty

Repeatedly referred to as Chinese territory since1534

Was used as a territorial border between the Ming court and the Ryukyu
Kingdom (modern day Okinawa Prefecture)

Japan only began to claim the islands as theirs since 1884

Often quotes the Potsdam Declaration, which states that Japans

territory should be limited to Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu, Hokkaido, and a
few smaller islands that do not include Senkaku/Diaoyu

Japan had to give back territory gained since its imperial period such as
Taiwan, but failed to give back Senkaku/Diaoyu

They see this as prolonged anti-Chinese treatment since the end of WWII

Hence this is a highly nationalistic issue

Senkaku history claimed by the Japanese

Government

In January 1895, after having carefully ascertained that there had been no trace of control
over the Senkaku Islands by another state prior to that period, the Government of Japan
incorporated the islands into the Japanese territory by lawful means under the international
legal framework which existed at that time.

The Ming Shilu of 1617:

A 17th century Chinese document that proves that China was NOT in control over Senkaku

Contradicts Beijings historical claim

After World War II, the San Francisco Peace Treaty placed the Senkaku Islands under the
administration of the United States as part of Okinawa, thereby reaffirming the islands
status as part of Japanese territory

Furthermore, the Senkaku Islands were included in the 1972 Okinawa Reversion Agreement
between the United States and Japan as part of the area over which the administrative rights
were returned to Japan. All these facts point to the Senkaku Islands being a consistent part of
Japanese territory in the post-war international order and in accordance with international
law.

Japans current stance

Japan continues to strive for peace and stability in the region, which is to
be established through the observance of international law

Though the islands were controlled by the United States as an occupying

power between 1945 and 1972, Japan has since 1972 exercised
administration over the islands.

Japanese allege that Taiwan and China only started claiming ownership
of the islands in 1971, following a May 1969 United Nations report that a
large oil and gas reserve may exist under the seabed near the islands.

In other words, this claim denounces Chinas historical evidence as a facade

for economic purposes

Why fight over small islands?

The argument over who owns the islands is far from being historical

For whoever administers the island legitimately

Increased fishing rights (look on the map)

Oil and petroleum

And other mineral resources

The dangers of this dispute

China and Japans relationship has been souring in recent years

following Japans purchase of 3 of the 8 islands in 2012 which led to the
PRC to establish the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in 2013

The increasing tension between the two nations forces the United States
to act upon its obligation to fulfill the promises established in the Treaty
of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and
Japan

President Obamas support for Japan has caused greater problems

between U.S-China relations

Sociological issues

Although I understand that much of this issue falls under the politicaleconomic category, there are still some important sociological aspects to
address.

During Chairman Maos regime, Japan and China actually had very good
relations- The Japan Times

The Tiananmen Square Incident made the Chinese leadership to invest in

nationalism as a means to improve support for the military

At least in the case of China, the view of Japan on a social level has also
drastically dwindled in response to rising tensions in politics
This problem is only fostering further hatred and making newer generations be raised in this
hatemongering society

Anti-Japanese sentiment is on the rise in China in response to historical and territorial

disputes

Legal Issues

Japan claims to have taken possession of the islands officially in 1895,

citing terra nullius, or no ones land

After World War II, the San Francisco Peace Treaty placed the Senkaku
Islands under the administration of the United States as part of Okinawa,
thereby reaffirming the islands status as part of Japanese territory

Was not incorporated into the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895)

As Senkaku was NOT a part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan had no legal
right to give it to China

Since 1972, Japan has been in legal possession of the islands according
to the 1972 Okinawa Reversion

Senkaku is listed as one of the island chains

Legal analysis

The argument here can be summarized as a clash between history

versus legal interpretations regarding the ownership of the set of
islands; mostly historical to China and legal for Japan

What are the necessary conditions for a nation to have proper claim of
territory lost? Is a historical argument strong enough? How far back into
history can you look into to use as a claim?

Claims to territories come and go as history goes on

A number of countries across the world, if not most, have territorial

disputes

International Recognition

Under Articles V and VI, the United States is obliged come to Japans aid
if militarily provoked by an aggressor (in this case, China)

Both Russia and the United States have expressed that both Japan and
China must resolve this conflict through dialogue

India has the same view as both Russia and the US, but have expressed
that the dispute is in favor of Japan

The ASEAN countries which have disputes with China will support Japan
in the Senkaku dispute

Factors that are making this issue difficult to

solve

This dispute is considered by both countries an issue of sovereignty and

territorial integrity

Neither China or Japan show willingness to take into consideration each others
claims or requests

China wants Japan to admit that the islands are a territory in dispute and Japan
wants China to remove its patrol vessels because they consider it a provocation

Diplomacy and Political solutions are not being taken as a prior mean to solve
the dispute

By taking security measures, both States are deepening the existing mistrust
between them

Vessels of Chinas law-enforcement authorities are continuously squaring off with

Japan Coast Guard patrol boats in the surrounding waters of the islands;

Continued

China doesn't consider international law as a way to find a solution for the problem

Not optimistic

China drew a new territorial mark around the islands and submitted them to the UN

The public opinion is becoming more and more supportive of the governmental
narrative

Historical perception between the two States is playing a role in diminishing the
possibilities of reaching consensus anytime soon

Created a hostile perspective

Both nations are nationalistic

The actors see this as a zero-sum outcome

Either China wins or Japan does which makes it harder to achieve a middle ground solution.

Linking the dispute to justice and

reconciliation

Territorial disputes account for 80-90% of all wars with 34% in Asia (CIA
2012)

The importance of the islands

The issue highlights a more robust Chinese attitude to territorial claims

The issue ignites nationalistic passions

Chinas reaction to the Japanese governments move to buy three of the

Islands from its private owners in 2012

The US-Japan security cooperation

Michael OHanlons Six Point Plan to Solve the Senkaku-Diaoyu

Island Dispute
No new territorial disputes beyond this one would be raised by either party in the
future
Ongoing, separate disputes between China and Japan over exclusive economic
zones would be unaffected by the Senkaku-Diaoyu islands; they would be decoupled
from EEZ determinations;
Each side would acknowledge the sovereignty claims over all the islands by the
other
Japan would, however, retain formal administrative rights under international law
But Japan would agree to delegate the administration of the islands to a joint
oversight board with equal memberships on the Chinese and Japanese sides,
rotating chairmanship, and consensus decision making rules

Patrols

for purposes of safety, and tours of the islands for reasons of tourism
or ecology or history, would be organized and conducted together by China
and Japan and regulated by the board

Opportunities for cooperation

Common economic and security interest

Democracies

Strong military

Less valuable territory

Reconciliation
Reflecting on Prof. Raos presentation on Reconciliation in Post-Conflict on
12th December 2015, he said,
Ending of overt violence via a peace agreement or a military victory does
not mean the achievement of peace rather provides a window of
opportunities to opt different mechanism/measures to rectify past mistakes.

Reconciliation for what?

To ease the tension between the two countries and end the dispute
through diplomatic rather than military means and to prevent further
escalation.

To look for possible applicable solutions from Michael OHanlons Six

Point Plan as well as other cooperative opportunities

To prevent further regional territorial clashes and violence.

Strategies employed here could become reference point for resolving

other territorial disputes in the region

To re-establish broken links.

Enhancing both economic and diplomatic relations

Conclusion

Due to the number of legalistic evidence provided, we can conclude that

reconciliation is the best path to resolve this conflict

The ongoing tensions and heightened nationalism that led to increased

military activity can lead to deadly conflict, which we must avoid at all cost

Resolution via dialogue

China, Japan, and the US are some of the biggest economic powers

China and the US are some of the biggest military powers

Thus we can assume that none of these countries want war

All sides must acknowledge each claims for the sake of mutual understanding

Security dilemma: a defensive act by one country can be seen as hostile by

the other

Biblography

Lee, Seokwoo. "Territorial Disputes among Japan, China, and Taiwan Concerning
the
Senkaku Islands." Edited by Clive Schofield and Shelagh Furness. Boundary
and Territory
Briefing 3, no. 7 (2002): 11-12.

Masahiro, Akiyama. "Geopolitical Considerations of the Senkaku Islands."

Studies, 2013. Accessed November 10, 2015. http://islandstudies.oprfinfo.org/research/a00007/.

Sato, Satoru. "Clarifying the Senkaku Islands Dispute." September 21, 2010, Letters
Accessed November 10, 2015.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704129204575505141368553952.

"TREATY OF MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SECURITY BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA." 1960.

West, John. "Chinas Japan-bashing: Is There Any Hope for Goodwill?"

Commentary sec. Accessed November 10, 2015.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/09/28/commentary/japanjapan-bashing-hope-goodwill/#.VkNMbvkrLIU.

Review of Island

sec.

September 15, 2015,

commentary/chinas-

Michael OHanlon, December 2014 The National Interest

www.nationalinterest.org

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139 - How uninhabited

islands soured China-Japan ties 10 November 2014

CIA 2012

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute