iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Rep. Mike Honda

GET UPDATES FROM Rep. Mike Honda
 

Preventing a China-Japan War Over the Islands: What America Must Do

Posted: 10/05/2012 8:49 am

Despite the fact that China and Japan brought their Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute grievances to the U.N. General Assembly last month, there has been little traction at the negotiating table. In fact, the world seems preoccupied with conflicts in the Middle East.

Yet given the level of intensity escalating around the East China Sea island dispute between China and Japan -- with both countries ramping up military presence at sea, engaging in violent protest, pulling out businesses and heckling U.S. diplomatic presence -- it is worth the United States getting more involved. It is worth it for them, too.

The conflict could be devastating to their economies. Trade between Asia's two largest economies has tripled over the past decade to more than $340 billion. China is now Japan's major export market.

As a Japanese American who is one of the members of Congress serving on the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, I think it is imperative we keep this conflict from escalating. That doesn't mean we take sides.

In sensitive situations like this, biasing one party helps little in de-escalating potentially violent conflict. It does mean, however, that we need to understand both perspectives before mediating a way forward.

Why should America engage? Not simply because we said we would as we pivoted our foreign relations focus toward the Asia Pacific, but because it's in our financial and diplomatic interests.

First, with economies slowing in China and Japan and shipping routes affected, the effect will be felt soon in the United States.

Second, this is a preventable conflict and a third party is needed before bluster becomes bombings.

So what does engagement look like? For China, these are the "Diaoyu" islands. They were in China's hands long before Japan laid claim to the islands in the late 1800s. For Japan, these are the "Senkaku" islands. Their recent purchase by the Japanese government from a private owner has sparked protests. This conflict is primarily about historic grievances, identity and nationalism.

The U.N. General Assembly would have been the best forum for a conversation on how the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea might apply, but it was not used.

The United States, however, along with several of its European Union allies, is well positioned to convene a constructive conversation on resolving this conflict. If China objects to having the United States do the convening, then Washington can help find another interlocutor. Either way, the dispute is not going away.

If the United States is going to take sides, it would be wise to take both sides.

If this conflict becomes violent on the East China Sea, then we will see shipping thwarted, more factories closed, costs of imports climb and other foreign policy decisions affected.

The time is now for the United States to sit down with China and Japan to chart a way out of this dispute. Waiting is not an option.

Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Peace and Security Task Force. This article first ran in San Francisco Chronicle.

 

Follow Rep. Mike Honda on Twitter: www.twitter.com/repmikehonda

FOLLOW WORLD
Despite the fact that China and Japan brought their Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute grievances to the U.N. General Assembly last month, there has been little traction at the negotiating table. In fact,...
Despite the fact that China and Japan brought their Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute grievances to the U.N. General Assembly last month, there has been little traction at the negotiating table. In fact,...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 78
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
06:36 PM on 12/04/2012
c'mon people, just get out a map or search the web to see where these islands actually are. Japan should be behind a queue of countries which are much nearer. This isn't the first time that Japan sees fit to change their history books to favour themselves. The US has no option but to back the bullies that will benefit them the most.
11:43 AM on 10/10/2012
Dear Representative Honda,
Today I found an interesting analysis of the Senkaku/Diaoyu situation written jointly by two Canadian academics, one analyzing the China perspective, one analyzing the Japan perspective. Perhaps you will find it useful as you try to suss out what role (if any) the US can play to facilitate a peaceful resolution. Here is the link: http://www.asiapacific.ca/canada-asia-agenda/diaoyusenkaku-dispute-analyzing-chinese-and-japanese-perspec
04:41 PM on 10/12/2012
I read the two Canadian academics arguments, with Yves winning clearly with is argument as to why China has a case over the Japanese for those islands. On the other hand, Tsuyoshi made no such clear case. Instead he took the position with the assumption that those islands already belonged to Japan and hence their political actions were valid and hence those islands belonged to Japan.
11:46 PM on 10/08/2012
Should the US become involved in the process of settling t his dispute? MAYBE. I think due to past experiences with US imperialism there is a certain amount of suspicion by both parties that the US may try to insert its own interest. And certainly because of the US peace treaty with Japan, China may feel the US will favor Japan. On the other hand, as one poster said, the US has developed negotiating to a fine art. Negotiators work extremely hard to win the best deal for the client (whether the client is a good guy, bad guy, country, corporations, etc). There are also mediators whose job it is to reach a win-win outcome between disputing parties. The general methodology is 1) introductory remarks, 2) statement of the problem by the parties, 3) information gathering time, 4) identification of the problems, 5) bargaining and generating options, and 6) reaching an agreement. Ideally, the process of negotiation or mediation could take place in the United Nations or ICJ and ideally it could be multi-lateral with other Asian countries. But in the absence of those possibilities, if the US can be a disinterested party and let a professional negotiation play out I’d say yes. Neither party may be familiar with the process and may not trust it, so maybe it could be mock or non-binding up to a certain point in the process.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maclfam
09:32 AM on 10/08/2012
Arguing here over who's right or wrong is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the US should get involved as mediator. Because these are two of our largest trade partners, and two of our largest economic competitors, it should at least be clear that we have a stake in the direction the dispute takes. The Falkland Island dispute ended in military action, but that had little impact on America. If this one went that route, we would feel it; you think $5/gal. gas is bad! Whether we act as mediators or help in some form of international group, we cannot hide our heads in the sand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeff Forsythe
09:29 AM on 10/08/2012
This is just the Chinese Communist Party's dirty Propaganda Bureau's newest creation. An obvious attempt to avert its people's hatred away from itself and towards Japan. It is a very old political ruse.
In the case of the CCP, it is much too late for the cruel CCP to save itself. It is not from any outside enemy that the Party will destruct, it will self destruct because it is rotten from the inside out. This is just my understanding, thank you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johnny Vineyard
Apply logic to everything.
02:11 AM on 10/08/2012
It would be nice if people would stop saying that America should only worry about America. The world we live in, the world we helped create, is not one that can exist without international cooperation. Part of cooperation is conflict management. It exists everywhere, and people have jobs dedicated to solving disputes that have nothing to do with them--they're called Lawyers.

War is no longer profitable like it once was. We know that from our current and recent engagements. Peace is how we need to proceed from here, and not because we're so wonderfully advanced in morality, but because peace is how we make money now. Maybe China and Japan won't go to war in the traditional sense of death and destruction, but an economic war is no less damaging overall.
03:13 PM on 10/07/2012
Mike, China and Japan are not going to go to war over the islands. Neither are stupid. Let's keep our sticky fingers out of what is none of our business, perhaps for once.
06:47 PM on 10/07/2012
I agree!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johnny Vineyard
Apply logic to everything.
01:54 AM on 10/08/2012
Wars have been started for much less. Escalation makes the original spark seem small in comparison, but the same thing is happening between Japan and South Korea, and it's getting pretty heated there, too.

Mediation is necessary. We should try to resolve this situation diplomatically, and the US is a good mediator, seeing as how all three countries need us and our money for their prosperity. I'd much prefer we involved ourselves in peaceful solutions to global conflicts, to be honest.
11:29 AM on 10/07/2012
Japan took the islands hundreds of years ago. China has no claim on the islands! It's that simple! The U.S. should stay out of it. However, the U.S. has crippled Japan's military after our little run in. Due to this we have to live to our treaty and defend Japan! If China wants to force a war here. They only need fire the first shot. The U.S. has already sent 2 nuclear powered aricraft carriers into the area, and a nuclear powered sub was in route last I knew. This should be a sign that the U.S. intends on entering this war on the side of Japan. This could be the start of a long over due battle to provide equilibrium to the planet.
05:24 PM on 10/07/2012
I would like to remind you of the tragic prices that United States paid in Korea conflict and Indo-China war. These two military confrontations between the Unted States and China were not strongly supported by their respective peoples because of their ideological roots. The war over Diaoyu Islands between Japan backed by the Unted States on one side and China on the other would be a totally different senario. If war starts between China and Japan over our ancestor's land like Diaoyu Island, the Government in beijing will not need to mobilize our Chinese people to fight the Japanese invaders. I can confidently assure you that every single Chinese person in China will immediately and voluntarily report to their local governments for military duties to fight the Japanese invaders.
After China turned red in 1949, United States, instead of punishing Japan for its war time atrocities committed against peace loving people during the Japanese occupations, disregarded what the Cairo Declaration and Postdam Delaration called for as the post second world war order and started treating Japan as its junior partner in Asia in order to contain the then Communist China. We Chinese never had a chance to punish those savage Japanese soldiers who had massacred over 30 million Chinese during its 8 years of millitary occupation of most of China including over 300,000.00 unarmed civilians in Nanjing where I was born and grew up.
02:49 PM on 10/10/2012
Ahh, pettiness and vengeance, the sign of a truly enlightened people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jfoste3
06:11 AM on 10/07/2012
During the era when China was weak many powerful countries took advantage as to the weakness of China and seized territories that belong to China. Now China has decided to reclaim what belongs to China and has the military might to enforce their demand. In the end China will prevail.
06:52 PM on 10/07/2012
If their military arsenal is made in china, nobody has to worry. It looks good but it will break as soon as they try to use it. And anyways, they will never band together for a fight against Japan. That's how Japan walked right over them the last time, and will again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jfoste3
11:00 PM on 10/07/2012
Perhaps in the past but remember the Korea war when they pushed US forces from North Korea. Today Japan is no match for China military capability. Remember this is the country that today has become the Factory of the World. I am no great lover of China.
04:16 PM on 10/08/2012
Actually all the automatons that Chinese communist rule have produced since the destruction of China during the rebellion will be glad to fight for "their country" even though they would really be fighting for their communist overlords and not for themselves. Generations of Chinese have been brainwashed for so long that they no longer know what freedom would actually look like.
01:49 AM on 10/07/2012
As with most disputes with China, and all territorial disputes (23 separate disputes involving China in 2005) the policy is ignore and sweep under the rug and hope it goes away. However, these disputes don't go away because of two thiings - nationalism (which cannot be negotiated away) and territorial benefits (in which one party must lose). The USA not taking sides is remarkably stupid, and all those countries with border disputes with China should have negotiated collectively with China and applied costs collectively. Policymakers here and in Japan should keep in mind that China, with its state-owned dominated economy and export sector and non-democratic status, is better able to apply costs to Japanese policies than they are to China. Success against Japan will probably weaken the will to resist Chinese claims to the South China Sea as well, so much wider forces are at play.
09:05 AM on 10/07/2012
A multi-lateral negotiation of countries with territorial disputes in Asia might make a great deal of sense. Maybe at first it could be run as a mock negotiation or non-binding great experiment to set ground rules and goals and objectives, and iron out the kinks of the process itself and get parties familiar with the process. The broad goal would be peace and cooperation in Asia. Parties would prepare by reflecting on long and short term goals for their country and for Asia. They should state their hopes and fears clearly and honestly. They should leave sloganeering and dogmatism at home. Representatives of each country should be super good communicators. The process would require highly skilled facilitators, negotiators, experts in international law, historians, maybe sociologists, and an excellent translation process. And feed everyone well so they don't get grumpy!
11:59 PM on 10/07/2012
Indeed, it is such a good idea that it has already been done. it is called the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), but the problem is that these "non-binding" agreements and statements of principle often go nowhere. In the early 1990s this exact formula was first attempted, with China being seen as the main stumbling block, as China refuses to negotiate multilaterally with smaller powers out of fear of their collective pressure outweighing its bilateral leverage. Consequently, there have been no binding resolutions, only aspirational statements. The real issue is that at some point a decision needs to be made which will leave one or all the players without a desired outcome. How do we reach that point if no one wants to risk anything or pay the costs of making other "grumpy" (by the way, love your suggestion of feeding the ambassadors plenty to placate them)
08:37 PM on 10/06/2012
A Japanese family privately owned these islands with no Chinese jurisdiction. Old maps mean nothing. At any time they could have been purchased by China or Japan. Chinese officials have been quoted saying "it will hurt the Chinese people's feelings." That is childish. Not a reason for war. This is China on another one of many ego trips.
05:00 PM on 10/07/2012
How can a Japanese family privately own it to begin with? So, if someone sells your house to your neighbor, you don't own it anymore? Let me go see if your neighbor wants to buy your house from me.

These little rocks have always and will continue to belong to China, regardless of what the US will or will not do. The US will not be willing to risk a nuclear strike on its mainland for sticking its nose into this situation. We're talking about a superpower that has been bullied and wronged in the past, and will no longer step back. The Japanese will just have to give their toys back, and say sorry.
05:09 AM on 10/08/2012
I'm not sure why you think the islands cannot be privately owned. Private ownership and sovereignty are two different things. The Japanese government had claimed the islands for Japan in early 1895 (before the Treaty of Shimonoseki).. The Koga family bought or leased the islands from the government and circa 1900 they set up a small bonito factory and also albatross feather, coral, and other businesses. At one point they had 200 employees. The land continued to be Japanese territory, it was just owned privately by the Kogas. Those businesses lasted till around 1940. In 1970 the Kogas sold the islands to the Kuriharas. Then in 2012 the Kuriharas decide to sell and the government of Japan decided to put in a bid, reportedly to pre-empt a sale to the Tokyo major. The fact the gov't bought the islands from a private owner in 2012 doesn't mean Japan was claiming them for the first time.. They had already done that in 1895. They just made it state property instead of private property.
02:18 PM on 10/06/2012
With regards to Daioyu Island dispute between China and Japan, China's policy was to put aside disagreement on soverignty and develop the resources in that area jointly with Japan.What Japan has been doing is exclude China from Daioyu island area which has always been our Chinese ancestors' territorial water.From now on we Chinese will start a long journey, regardless of how difficult this journey may be, to recover our ancestors' Diaoyu Island and restore complete independence to the people of Okinawa. American government has no right to sacrisfice the indepence of Okinwa people to Japanese invaders.
03:37 PM on 10/06/2012
It's one thing to talk about the dispute between China and Japan and how to resolve it peacefully. It is quite another to say the people of China will restore the complete independence of Okinawa. Is that really the agenda here? To "export revolution?" If the people of Okinawa want independence let them decide by themselves. They can fight for their own self-determination. They don't need another country fomenting dissension or claiming to be the savior of the Pacific. This is kind of shocking to me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johnny Vineyard
Apply logic to everything.
02:03 AM on 10/08/2012
Ah, but they do. A nation has to be officially recognized by the world as independent and self-governing. Otherwise they'll be ignored and, in this world, that is a death sentence.

And many (maybe even most) Okinawans do want to be a free nation as they originally were. Pat Morita (Mr. Miyagi from The Karate Kid) was a huge advocate of Okinawa's freedom. Without international backing, they have no chance. China being on their side would be a huge boon to their struggle.
09:35 PM on 10/06/2012
It is one thing to talk about ownership of remote Islands with no people on them. It is another thing entirely to talk about Okinawa. Nor does it make sense for China to stir up trouble in Okinawa. It has some vulnerable areas of its own.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Holly Smoke
Humor is the best defense for absurdity.
02:08 PM on 10/06/2012
This is an excellent opportunity for PRC and Taiwan to collaborate on a common financial and nationalistic interest. Once America is involve. The conflict become Japan/USA against Taiwan/PRC.
I am not sure America want to put herself in this position.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
godsamyth
01:58 PM on 10/06/2012
As an eastern pacific nation the US should look after the eastern side nearer to its own shores
12:37 PM on 10/06/2012
"That doesn't mean we take sides"

We should use diplomacy now. But if a war does break out, of course we should take sides. Japan is our ally, a democracy, and we have a treaty to protect that nation from aggression. China is a communist nation and our continued dealings with them are driving us into debt while growing their military.

This should underscore how Americans need to stop being reliable on Chinese manufacturing and and debt. We are weakened in our ability to deal with China because our reliance on their manufacturing. Free trade doesn't work when your trade partner has very little in common.
08:06 AM on 10/07/2012
I agree. Now if someone would listen.
05:26 PM on 10/07/2012
China has changed dramatically since the opening of its door to the rest of world over 30 years ago, got rid of its communist characters, and reformed its country into a free market oriented society. Unlike American native indians who are conquered people and whom US government can pacify by giving them a few casinos, today We Chinese are confident in safeguarding our territoies and want all countries to observe the world oders as stipulated in the Cairo Declaration and Postdam Declaration. It is stupid for Japan to believe that it can challenge China militarily because it has a treaty with the United States. When it comes to the point where United States has to ask itself whether it wants Los Angeles and San Francisco or Tokyo, the answer will become obvious for the Americans. The United States will choose Los Angeles and San Francisco over Tokyo and abandon Japan. Chna has the capablity of paralizing military infrastructures of any country in outer space. China knows how to sideline Unted States before it starts operating Japan. For the nationalist government in Taiwan and communist government in Beijing, the war between China and Japan had stopped years ago. By oberving the massive demonstrations all over China against barbaric Japanese occupation of our Diaoyu Islands, however, you will easily realize that our ordinary Chinese people never feel that the war between China and Japan has ever ended. The Sino anti-Japanese war goes on in the hearts of our Chinese people.
09:02 PM on 10/07/2012
China obviously still has many "communist characters", Mr Internet Water Army. You are clearly one of them.

Do not bring up old western colonialism problems in false arguments. You live in a propaganda world and do not see the whole hypocritical truth in front of your eyes.

Maybe China could also open some casinos in Tibet so the monks will stop burning themselves? Maybe the Uighurs feel similar to the native Americans when countless Han people move into their lands and push them out? Not so different to the terrible imperialist colonialism of the West, is it?

Also, be careful with your naive cheerleading for war. You just might get what you ask for, only to tragically realise that it won't unfold as miraculously as you so confidently predict. What you say about effortless space war is optimistically mythical nonsense. Remember instead the very real Japanese crimes in Nanking, and do everything you can to avoid war.

In reality the West actually fought modern Japan and won, but China never has.

Maybe if you stopped boasting about how you can "operate" Japan and "sideline" the United States, you could open your eyes to the actual truths of history. If war happens, many innocent Chinese and Japanese people, including children, will die because of some islands uninhabited by anything except national pride.

War is awful, not glorious.

Only a fool wishes loudly for his own destruction.