China and Japan Should Cease Fights over the Senkaku Islands - Book Report/Review Example

An Argument Critique on a paper agreeing with the suggestion “China And Japan Should Cease Fights Over The Senkaku Islands To Avoid Detrimental Economical And Political Impacts” The supporting opinions presented by my colleague over the suggestion that the two nations should cease fights due to possibility of economic and political detriment are rather weak and unconvincing. Such observations are established from the commencement of the paper. The author proposes that the elemental interest of the islands to China is founded on the discovered oil wealth while Japan is defending its territory. The paper seems to be in favour of Japan over China, thus making the work embrace a biased approach. Irrespective of not having a clear thesis of writing, the paper may be considered to be suggesting that warfare between the two nations would have a superior impact that extends beyond their ambitions as opposing nations. However, the entire paper may be best described to be focusing on the ill perceptions that are promoted by China against the territorial ownership claimed by the Japan regarding the two islets. The arguments presented by my colleague over the possibility of the war leading to detrimental effects in economic and political sphere appear to be rather weak and unconvincing. The principle argument tends to point on the possibility of a political drift between the two nations. However, their structuring only allows for a distant deduction to be developed over such perceptions. The author argues that the ambitions expressed by China over the territorial ownership of the islets are founded on its desire to express its ability as a global powerhouse. Such interests are anchored to the possibility of an economic detriment by the evaluation of the embargo issued against the flights on the Chinese space as captured in a statement by the Japanese premier. The suggestion is not vivid on the possible harms that may result from a war between the two nations in respect to the economies and political interests of the region or the globe at large. Instead, the author argues that the threat by Chinese to disallow the engagement of foreign flights in its airspace as a sign of economic flaws. The distinction associated to such an assumption is founded on the perception that the measure does not insinuate the commencement or engage of war but a mere territorial threat. My colleague desire to focus such arguments along a fortress of tangible evidence that link to the emergence of a war between the considered parties. A valid argument could state that a war between the two nations will affect the airspace thus making it difficult for international flights to conduct their business. Such could lead to an unpleasant effect on the involved economies (Lee, 1). However, the same opinion may be refuted by the failure of enticing a similar observation under the current perception. Apparently, China space is still regarded out of bounds to international flights, and there is little to associate with economic harms (Lind, 55). Additionally, the arguments by my colleague may be said to be fallacious by description. There exists a representation of erroneous assumptions that are driven by the intuitions of the author as compared to the facts at hand. The suggestion that proposes the possibility of third parties participating in the warfare upon its probable outbreak is founded on the fallacious translation of the statement. My colleague argues that indeed the United States had promised Japan of coming to their aid if China attacks. However, the United States never substantiated on their level of participation upon the eruption of a war (Gao, 1). The author suggests fallaciously that their participation will be “obviously” combat oriented. Such a suggestion only allows the aiding of the fallacious intent that advises the reasoning of the author in the development of the paper. A reflection on similar instances that have witnessed the involvement of the United States, including the Israel-Palestine crisis, and the Ukraine-Russia conflict may offer a better advice to the paper (Harmer, 1). The author proceeds with the biased opinion on the topic pointing on the expressions of China against the eventual “involvement” of the United States. The section does not point on the possible political impacts of such a participation but suggests of an active displeasure by China over the suggestion by the third parties. However, the possibility of having the same opinions being shared upon the eventual realization of the war allows for the reflection of the potential crisis in economic and political interests (Pan, 80). It remains apparent that the description of the warfare being a trigger of possible harms along the two aspects is not supported in the argument. Conversely, the structure of the entire arguments provided by my colleague may be announced to be lacking a sense of clarity in their description. The arguments are rather obscured by the intuitions of bias opinions that tend to suggest on why China is wrong on promoting the possibility of warfare. There exist little explicit suggestions on the possibility of the war leading to an adverse perception under the economic and political spheres. The author only argues of how the warfare will lead to the escalation of the existing crisis between the two nations. Such arguments are enforced by the reflection of various angles of the argument, including the perceptions of the citizens with respect to each other. Apparently, such perceptions are represented with a touch of biasness since only the Japanese citizens are accorded an opportunity to express their opinions. The interests and perceptions of the Chinese population are only accredited to the imaginations of the author. The paper does not offer a lucid argument on the position of the Chinese over the war. Instead, the author inclines on assumptions and erroneous perceptions in painting their interests in the war. Additionally, the article is presented in a manner that may suggest the two nations to be in a war status yet the current situation may be best suggested a pre-war altercations. In conclusion, the paper by my colleague does not offer a viable reason on why the two nations should endeavour towards ceasing a warfare on grounds of detrimental effects on the political and economic spheres. Instead, it pursues a biased approach that reflects on the possible actions that may be witnessed in the war. It treats the warfare as ongoing, and proceeds to align a team of allies that are in support of each of the parties. Japan is presented as the innocent victim of the entire crisis with China being painted as an aggressive neighbour. Such perceptions are further cemented by the reflections of the opinions shared by the Japanese population over their neighbours. The author does not substantiate on the economic and political interests that may suffer from the engagement of the warfare, thus discrediting the offered argument as lacking clarity, being illogical and fetching their advice from fallacious assumptions. Work Cited Gao, Victor, “Viewpoints: How serious are China-Japan tensions?” BBC Newa, BBC, 8th Feb 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2014 Harmer, Stephen, “China De-Escalating The Senkaku/Diaoyu Crisis, But Will Abe Respond?” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 21 Aug 2014. Web. 19 Nov. 2014 Lee, Joyman. “Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict.” History Today. Historytoday.com, May 2011. Web. 19 Nov. 2014 Lind, Michael. “The Cost of Free Trade”. American Prospect. 22. 10 (2011): 52-57. Academic search complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2014 Pan, Zhongqi. “Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The pending Controversy from the Chinese Perspective.” Journal of Chinese Political Science 12. 1 (2007): 71-92. Print Read More