Small islands, big problem

The U.S. is stuck in the middle between Japan and China

Share with others:


Print Email Read Later

HONG KONG

Of the issues I was interested in learning about on my first visit to China, the country's territorial dispute with Japan over islands in the East China Sea was pretty low on the list. The long-simmering dispute over the islands known as the Diaoyus in China and the Senkakus in Japan -- I'm just going to refer to them as "the islands" from here on -- is one of those international issues that seems absurdly arcane to Americans, despite the passions it arouses in the region.

But in meeting after meeting here, with government officials, businesspeople and think tankers, my group of visiting journalists was given nearly identical disquisitions on why China has a historical right to the islands and how the U.S. government and media are hopelessly biased toward the Japanese position. Interestingly to me, this continued in Hong Kong. Anger over Japan's claim to the islands seems to be a rare issue that unites mainlanders, Hong Kongers and even the Taiwanese.

The official U.S. government position on the islands, as expressed recently by Secretary of State John Kerry, is that Washington recognizes that the islands are "under Japan's administration but doesn't take a stand on their ultimate sovereignty." This is a position that won't really make either side happy, but particularly irritates China which sees it as a betrayal of a wartime ally.

During our week in China, several people we spoke with were incensed by a Wall Street Journal editorial calling on the U.S. government to fully back Japan's position on the islands. (The distinction between the position of the Journal's editorial page and the Obama administration's foreign policy goals seems to have been somewhat lost.)

The fact that the United States is reluctantly a player in this conflict is somewhat its own fault. Both sides cite treaties signed with the United States after World War II to support their positions.

China points to the 1943 Cairo statement issued by Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Chiang Kai-shek, which declared that following World War II, Japan would return all the islands it had "stolen from the Chinese." According to China, this includes the islands in question, which Japan seized along with Taiwan during the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894-1895. (Japan disputes that the islands were under Chinese control in the first place.)

Japan, meanwhile, points to the 1951 peace treaty it signed with the United States, which put Okinawa and its surrounding islands under U.S. administration. Administration of these islands was returned to Japan in 1972. It should be noted that none of these treaties mentions the islands specifically. Tensions over them emerged far more recently. Further complicating matters, the United States has stated that the islands are covered by the U.S.-Japan mutual defense agreement.

There really isn't an upside to the United States taking a strong position on the issue. Though as became clear to me this week, whatever happens, Washington is likely to take the blame for it.

Joshua Keating is a staff writer for Slate currently in China on a reporting fellowship sponsored by the East-West Center and the Better Hong Kong Foundation.


Join the conversation:

Commenting policy | How to report abuse
To report inappropriate comments, abuse and/or repeat offenders, please send an email to socialmedia@post-gazette.com and include a link to the article and a copy of the comment. Your report will be reviewed in a timely manner. Thank you.
Commenting policy | How to report abuse

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here