Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands Dispute - Essay Example

? Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute SENKAKU/DIAOYU ISLANDS DISPUTE The dispute on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands concerns a dispute over territorial ownership of these islands between China and Japan, as well as those of Tiaoyutai in Taiwan. China disputed the handover of the islands to Japan by the US after its administration of the islands between 1945 and 1972 ended. The islands’ rich fishing grounds, proximity to vital shipping lanes, and probability of oil reserves, fuel the dispute (Lohmeyer, 2008). While Japan argues that a survey of the Islands has found them to belong solely to them, China claims that documentary evidence indicates that they belong to China and were taken as part of Japan’s imperial conquests. The US has no official position regarding the islands but they are included in the US and Japan’s Treaty of Mutual Security and Cooperation, which ensures that any attack on the island would require the USD to aid Japan. The Government of Japan bought three of the remaining disputed islands from private ownership, triggering a wave of anti-Japan protests in China (Lohmeyer, 2008). In this case, the ESCAP and the ARF should be involved in trying to resolve the issue, even though the conflict has not degenerated into war because the liberal international theory seems to relate best to the situation. What regional and international organizations would or should have involvement? Why? ESCAP, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the pacific is the UN’s regional arm for the Pacific and Asian region. Its establishment was meant to encourage its member states, of which China and Japan are part of, to cooperate economically (Niksch, 2010). Because China and Japan are major trading partners, keeping the peace between them and attempting to resolve the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute can be carried out through the international body under the auspice of its mother organization, the UN. As well as Asian and Pacific countries, it also includes countries like the US, the UK, the Netherlands, and France, which are all trading partners with both Japan and China. Because of this, they could apply economic pressure through the organization to broker a resolution. In addition, the identification by ESCAP of potential gas and oil deposits near the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands puts it in a vantage position in brokering any lasting resolution to the conflict, especially since one of the reasons the islands is under dispute stems from these fossil fuel deposits. They did attempt to mediate rounds of bilateral talks aimed at developing the resources jointly in these disputed territory, although they proved unsuccessful (Niksch, 2010). However, the fact that they were able to get the two countries on the negotiating table indicates their influence in both countries. They also managed to agree to a hotline between the two countries to diffuse any accidental situation, although, this has not also been implemented. The ARF, or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum, is a regional body that could also mediate in the conflict. The US also possesses membership to this organization and participates actively in maritime security cooperation. The US, which has trading relations with both China and Japan, has the ability to mediate in the conflict, which possesses maritime dimensions (Niksch, 2010). The organization also seeks to strengthen earlier efforts aimed at key elements of countering and preventing maritime conflicts and terrorism in the region. Subsequent events, which have been hosted by Japan at one time, also focus on expansion of capacity building cooperation for maritime security (Niksch, 2010). Foreign ministers from the ARF adopted, in 2005, a statement that aimed at sharing of information and exchange of intelligence in the enhancement of cooperation in combating transnational crimes in the region. The provocative actions by China in locking missile guiding systems on Japanese aircraft and vessels should be discussed under this agreement. How does this dispute relate to any one of the theories in international relations? This dispute can be related to the liberalist theory of international relations, which lays emphasis on the broad ties that exist among states that decrease military power usefulness and makes it difficult to define what national interests are. Increasing globalization and transnational trade, as well as communication technology’s rapid rise means that states are not solely reliant on power politics in deciding disputes (Lohmeyer, 2008). The liberalism theory of international relations claims that the world is harsh and dangerous but that the consequences of military power use outweighs its benefits and, therefore, international cooperation is in the state’s interest. In addition, military power is not power’s only form since social and economic power also possesses a great deal of power. The exercise of economic power has more effect than military might. Finally, different countries have varying primary interests, while international organizations and rules aid in fostering trust and cooperation (Lohmeyer, 2008). According to this theory, peace prevails among nations that trade freely, although it is not the only peace criterion. In order to guarantee peace, China and Japan need to trust one another rather than just trade with each other (Lohmeyer, 2008). Even though Japanese products were not boycotted on an extended basis following the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, exporters from Japan suffered serious damages in their bottom line. This could be a major reason for the cooling down of tensions between the two countries. Sino-Japanese economic ties are so vital that China’s national interests dictate that China must keep politics and economics apart. China has acted to protect its foreign policy from a minority of anti-Japan activists. China is Japan’s biggest trading partner and if it was to pull the trigger economically against the Japanese, China’s economy would be hugely disrupted (Lohmeyer, 2008). Do you see prospects for managing or resolving the conflict? The two countries have an opportunity to resolve this dispute if they refer it to the ICJ and allow it to come up with an equitable and peaceful resolution. The two countries could pursue three delimitation options. One, they could pursue a single integrated boundary option where geographical features would be used to achieve equitable division (Niksch, 2010). It would also take into account the historical patterns that each country uses. This approach was successfully implemented by the ICJ in the Maine area where the US and Canada were locked in a similar dispute. Second, they could pursue a multifunctional boundary where multiple boundary types allow both to, over the same geographical space, have exclusive jurisdiction (Niksch, 2010). The EEZ could be established via the principle of the median line while the seabed boundary delimitation could be based on the principle of natural extension. The ICJ used the same approach in helping Australia and Papua New Guinea to compromise in the late 90s on the Torres Strait. Finally, they could pursue a joint business development, joint development and use, and joint jurisdiction zone strategy, although this is the most unlikely (Niksch, 2010). References Lohmeyer, Martin . (2008). The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute : questions of sovereignty and suggestions for resolving the dispute. Christchurch: University of Canterbury. Niksch, Larry A . (2010). Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands dispute : the U.S. legal relationship and obligations. Washington: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Read More