China-Japan Relations In East Asia: Great Power Rivalry Or Peaceful Interdependence - Essay Example

School: Topic: China-Japan relations in East Asia: Great power rivalry or peaceful interdependence Lecturer: Submission: Introduction The question of the study seeks to find a position on Sino-Japanese relations in East Asia as to whether the relation amounts to a great power rivalry or a peaceful interdependence. Sino-Japanese relations can be defined as a bilateral relationship between China and Japan that is accepted on the grounds of international relations practice (Moravcsik, 2004). East Asia is also known to be an internationally recognised regional bloc in the Asian continent, forming the eastern sub-region of the continent. East Asia makes 28% of the Asian continent and comprises major countries such as China, Hong Kong and Japan (Richards, 2012). Great power rivalry as used in the context of the question refers to the Struggle for international dominance that is backed by various international relations theories. Peaceful interdependence on the other hand explains a situation where two countries can be said to be having a mutual relation where they each benefit from the other (Ikenberry and Mastanduno, 2003). In order to find a well positioned answer to the question, there is an approach to set out major themes around which the international relations between China and Japan over the years will be critiqued. These three themes have been strategically selected to cover several areas of international relations discourse including politics, balance of power, economics, and territorial dominance. More specifically, the themes are in the areas of World War II legacy left behind by the two countries and as the legacies affect each of the countries, the economic rivalry between the two countries and how the rivalry impacts on the larger East Asia region, and the longstanding Senkaku Island dispute which remains unresolved between the two countries. Basing on the critical facts in history, the main argument that will be defended in the paper is the fact that there is a great power rivalry between China and Japan instead of a peaceful interdependence. The position is taken by acknowledging that there might have been some levels of interdependence between the countries before but these do not merit an overall position of peaceful interdependence. In the next section of the paper, the methodological approach to be used in building the arguments will be presented. On a generalised basis however, it will be said that the arguments will be built from a qualitative perspective. What this means is that there will be an attempt to understanding the behaviour of both countries as far as the three themes are concerned and how the behaviour have affected international relations theories. Because of the use of qualitative approach, there will major emphasis on the use of secondary data from sources including academic journals, books and historic archives. The structure of the essay follows a typical essay structure with the methodological approach coming after the introduction. After the methodological approach, there will be the arguments which will be given to the effect that there is great power rival. The arguments will be given according to the three themes stated earlier. Finally, there will be a conclusion which will restate the position of the writer and why the position was taken. Methodological Approach The study is going to be conducted based on the use of the liberal international theory, otherwise known as liberalism. Liberalism is a major aspect of international relations theory which has been used as the major methodology or investing the kind of relationship that exists between countries and the impact of the relational outcomes for the countries (Slaughter, 2004). As a theory, liberalism seeks to address the issues of perpetual peace and cooperation in international relations (Moravcsik, 2004). When used as a methodology therefore, liberalism will be used in a manner that finds specific thematic issues between China and Japan that can argued as either focusing lasting peace or cooperation of refusing the peace and cooperation that already exists between the two countries. When used as a methodology, liberal theory makes it possible to identify very specific interests, processes and mechanisms in history that serve as qualitative evidence to peace and stability and how they have been promoted by the countries involved. This means that several references will be made to historic events between China and Japan that makes it possible to draw conclusions on their impact on the larger East Asia Region There are a number of reasons and factors that make the selection and usage of liberalism appropriate for this study. The first of this is the fact that liberalism has specific areas of study within the broader international relations theory that can easily be pointed to for conceptual and theoretical debate. What this means to the current study is that there will be specificity of method whereby specific themes that fall under the identified areas of study shall be used. Some of the common areas of study include commercial peace theory, institutional peace theory, international law, liberal norms, and cosmopolitanism (Ikenberry and Mastanduno, 2003). Putting all these areas together, three broad themes will be used to approach the study namely World War II legacy between China and Japan, economic rivalry between China and Japan, and the Senakaku dispute going on between China and Japan. Another reason the use of liberalism is considered ideal for this study is that it is highly evidence based. The reason this is said is that it makes reference to specific events in history and those that are currently taking place as the basis for justifying whatever position is taken on the subject matter. There are a number of ways that theoretical approach of liberalism responds to the question asked. Mainly, it responds by allowing a qualitative technique to collecting data on the topic. As reference is made to qualitative data, the implication is that liberalist concepts will be used to interpret the behaviour of the two countries and also find answers to reasons for which they act in the way they do. Once this is done, it will be possible to attain very detailed and analytical understanding of the three major themes, based on which a position will be taken as to whether the relationship between Japan and China is a peaceful one or a rivalry one. One other way in which liberalism responds to the question is that liberalism fails to take specific position on an issue until critical analysis of the issue has been performed. This way, it is possible to engage in theoretical debates rather than jumping to conclusions on one side of the argument. Arguments for great power rivalry World War II Legacy National approach to security is a major concept that is often used in political science to determine the relational climate between two countries. This is because Askew (2002) found that when countries disagree on the approach to security management, this could be a major source of tension between the two because one may consider the approach of the other as threatening or unacceptable. Meanwhile the World War II was a platform for various countries to stage their political position on approach to security. As far as liberal theory is concerned, there have been academic debates that focus on the distribution and manipulation of coercive power and how such power relates to war, peace and international alliance partnership (Suganuma, 2000). Indeed based on this perspective of liberalism, it is possible to use the World War II legacy of both countries, which are China and Japan as a basis for arguing that there is great power rivalry between the two countries. In the opinion of Brook (1999), there are major actions that the two countries involved themselves in during the war, which set plausible historical basis to arguing that there is reason to argue that the relations between the two countries is ripe for rivalry. One major legacy that clearly defines a moment of power rivalry is the Nanjing massacre where episodes of mass murder and rape were recorded at Nanjing by Japanese troops (Segal, 2006). Writing about the Nanjing massacre from a liberal political perspective, Higashinakano (2005) argued that there is more to the massacre than the six week period of rampaging of residents of Nanjing by Japanese troop from December 13, 1937 to January 27, 1938. This is because the massacre which led to the murder of between 40,000 to 300,000 Chinese civilians was actually noted to have been carried out by the Imperial Japanese Army as a political showoff about the supremacy of the army’s overall security approach (Katz, 2013). This is because between 1871 and 1945 when the Empire of Japan operated the army as its official ground-based troop, it had an international opposition from China’s supreme commander who was the Emperor of China (Askew, 2002). The supreme commander of China is noted to have questioned the legality behind forcing young men into the army, which was the result of the army’s vast population of 6,095,000 men (Brook, 1999). The Nanjing massacre therefore came as a showmanship and confirmation of international supremacy with security approach because the capture of Nanjing could clearly have one without the excesses in the form of murders and rape. Another important World War II legacy that serves as a basis for arguing that there is power rivalry between Japan and China is Japan denial of wartime crimes. Regardless of the evidence from the Nanjing massacre and other forms of war related crimes that were committed by the Imperial Japanese Army, it is interesting to note that Japan took an international position by denying any wartime crimes (Richards, 2012). Katz (2013) explains that till date, there are Japanese textbooks and history that fail to offer any account of Japanese wartime crimes or only do so briefly. Some writer have actually explained that the basis for Japan’s denial at the time was there are clearly different international laws on war crimes and Japanese law on war crime (Higashinakano, 2005). But arguing from a liberalist perspective, liberal theories hold that there is a direct relationship between war and peace and that even though war today does not mean there cannot be peace tomorrow, actions that prolong tension after the war must be avoided (Brook, 1999). Meanwhile, Japan’s denial of wartime crimes can be mentioned as an act which prolonged tensions between Japan and China even after the Second Sino-Japanese War. Based on this, evidence cannot be denied that there continues to be power rivalry between the two countries. Economic Rivalry The East Asia region can be described as a very unique demographic location in international discourse. One of the attributes that distinctly set the region apart from other places of the world is its rapid economic change, where the region is fast growing to become a dominant hub in the global economic drive (Ross, 1999). Barnouin and Changgen (1998) however noticed a very interesting situation where regardless of the consensus efforts that can be associated with the overall Asia Pacific, there continues to be country-based competitions which are ripe for rivalry. What this means is that each of the countries within the region would want to fight for its own economic growth and development agenda before coming to think of the collective interest of the East Asia region. The result of this is “prestige contests, territorial dispute, national resentments, and economic conflicts” which have often characterised the region (Friedberg, 2013, p. 22). Meanwhile, China and Japan are clearly two power houses in the East Asia region, having the two largest nominal gross domestic products (GDP) (Dent, 2008). If from a liberalism perspective, economic dominance can lead to rivalry, then it would be try to argue that there is economic power rivalry between Japan and China. As far as theoretical lenses in international relations are concerned, liberal internationalism is directly related to economic interdependence. A very true measure of peaceful interdependence between China and Japan would have economic bilateral relations that are only defined by the output of what the two nations derive. However, Hagström (2005) observed a trend where both forms of trade and economic relations between China and Japan has had a third party involvement, defeating the liberal internationalism doctrine of economic interdependence. For most of the time, what is seen is that the two countries resort to triangulation which brings in either South Korea or the United States to shadow Sino-Japanese trade relationships (Segal, 2006). This point will however not be made without admitting that there are some typical China-Japan bilateral economic relations such as the fallout of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People’s Republic of China which was signed after the Prime Ministers of the two countries met in 2006 (Barnouin and Changgen, 1998). In the absence of such isolated cases, what is often seen is diminishing bilateral investment such as Japan’s decision to invest less in China as a result of a movement to cease Official Development Assistance (ODA) support (Hagström, 2009). In the opinion of some liberal analysts, Japan’s continual investment in China amounts to a subsidy of China’s military, which pose security threat to Japan (Hagström, 2005). This has also become a basis for which investments from Japan to China has mostly been opposed. There is another level to which the economic rivalry between these two countries can be argued and this has to do with internationally documented economic disputes between China and Japan. Typical example of this is dispute settlements that have been made between China and Japan at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Dispute DS433 is such typical case where on 29th August 2014, Japan was a complainant and China the respondent over measures related to the exportation o rare earths, tungsten and molybdenum (WTO, 2014). Krauss and Pempel (2003) argued that there have been several such disputes between the two countries which go very long way to affect economic interdependence. This is because with most of these issues, each country have tried to show a form of independence with what they produce, for which reason they do not need to depend on importations from the other country. Consequently, there have been frequent changes made to globally accepted standards of cross-border trade between Japan and China. The changes come so as to make it more unattractive to use the other country as a market destination (Hagström, 2009). Senkaku Island dispute There are several sensitive bilateral issues between Japan and China that make several liberal analysts argue that there could never be a peaceful interdependence between the two countries, regardless of the outward show that the two countries may make (Shaw, 1999). It is known for example that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China has an official list of sensitive issues between that country and Japan which range from issues of history to Japanese chemical weapons which were discarded in China (Seokwoo, Shelagh & Schofield, 2002). By referring to these issues as sensitive, the indication they give is that they may explode at any given time without much provocation. It was based on such debates that a number of liberal theorists have stated that balance of power cannot be really used to explain the source of stability and change in East Asia (Ross, 1999). To this end, instead of looking at the argument from the point of balance of power, Junwu (2013) suggested that the issue be debated based on national identities. This is because it is only based on the national identities that individual countries such as China and Japan give themselves that the region can collectively be identified. The Senkaku Island dispute between China and Japan is not only one of the sensitive bilateral issues between the two countries but one that also explains why balance of power cannot be used to explain the source of stability and change in East Asia. This is because as long as the Senaku Island dispute exists between the two countries, predicting stability in the region is simply impossible. The Senaku Island dispute has a background as a territorial confrontation over some uninhabited island in Senkaku Islands in Japan, the Diaoyu in China and Tiaoyutai Islands in Taiwan (Katzenstein & Shiraishi, 1967). Major arguments between Japan and China started when in the 1970s, evidence of possible oil reserves at the islands surfaced. The islands also are considered as being very rich in other forms of resources useful for trade and economic engagements for whoever gains legal sovereign control over the area. For example the Senkaku Islands is known to be ideal for shipping lanes and fishing grounds in addition to its oil reserves (Shaw, 1999). Knowing how important sovereign control over such territory will be to their economic success, Japan and China have continued to use arguments of location of the islands to claim legal ownership and occupancy. There are historical records that trace the beginning of territorial dispute about Senkuka Island to periods as far back as 1879 when the Japanese government officially annexed Ryukyu Kingdom under its control (Suganuma, 2000). Meanwhile, the Senakaku Island rested between the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Qing Empire, making the Japanese claim territorial possession. China also claimed possession of the island due to its proximity to the Qing Empire and claimed to have given it Chinese names (Krauss & Pempel, 2003). Not even the First Sino-Japenese War in 1895 could resolve the issue of legal ownership, leading to the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki which served as a form of peace accord to suspend litigation on the island. But because the treaty failed to assign any formal ownership, it was suspended in 1945, starting fresh disputes (Seokwoo, Shelagh & Schofield, 2002). Since the time, several events have gone on about the island, including United States position through the 1953 U.S Civil Administration of the Ryukyus Proclamation 27 which also failed to name a true owner but only set geographic boundaries (Katzenstein & Shiraishi, 1967). This situation leaves long standing unresolved issues between China and Japan that makes it difficult to speak of a peaceful interpersonal dependence between the two countries. The latest account of protest about the island is the 2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations following news that Japan was considering purchasing the island (Junwu, 2013). Conclusion So far, it has been argued that there is a great power rivalry between China and Japan in East Asia. This power rivalry has had a number of effects and impacts on the region, including the fact that it makes the two countries put their individual interests and quest for dominance ahead of the overall development of the region. The paper has helped in establishing that the current form of power rivalry dates back to the periods when the two countries were still under emperor rule. Again, the power rivalry between the two countries cuts across all levels of liberal international theory including power, economics and territorial powers and dominance. This position has been argued with specific reference to the legacies that the two countries, particularly Japan left behind with the World War II when it invaded Nanjing and totally massacred the city. The position has also been argued with reference to continued economic competition between the two countries. It has also been noted that territorial rivalry continues to exist between the two countries because the Senkaku Island dispute remains unresolved. Even though the position taken has been backed by major theories, examples and cases in history, there are a few limits to the claims that have been made. A typical example of this is some ongoing Sino-Japanese relationships which have been put in place with the aim of fostering economic growth between the two countries. Again, the US has been a major third party for the promotion of bilateral peace and development between China and Japan and there are many who have a feeling that such attempts have yielded some positive results over the years (Slaughter, 2004). These counter arguments notwithstanding, the stand will still be taken that such few instances of showmanship cannot be generalised to be evidence for peaceful interdependence. This is especially so as some critical international issues between the two countries remain unsolved even though the issues are highly sensitive and can be likened to a time bomb. Reference Askew, D. (2002). "The International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone: An Introduction" Sino-Japanese Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 34-66. Barnouin, B. & Changgen, Y. (1998). Chinese Foreign Policy during the Cultural Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press. Brook, T. (1999). Documents on the Rape of Nanjing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Dent C. M. (2008). East Asian regionalism. London: Routledge. Friedberg A. (2013). "Ripe for Rivalry: Prospects for Peace in a Multipolar Asia," International Security, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 5‑33. Hagström, L. (2005). Japan’s China Policy: A Relational Power Analysis. London and New York: Routledge. Hagström, L. (2009) “Sino-Japanese Relations: The Ice That Won’t Melt,” International Journal, vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 223–40. Higashinakano, S. (2005). The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction: A Historians Quest for the Truth. Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan. Ikenberry J. and Mastanduno M. (2003). International Relations Theory and the Asia Pacific. New York: Columbia University Press. Junwu P. (2013). Toward a New Framework for Peaceful Settlement of Chinas Territorial and Boundary Disputes. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Katz, R. (2013). "Mutual Assured Production", Foreign Affairs, Vol. 92 No. 4, p. 22. Katzenstein P. J. and Shiraishi T. (1967). Network Power: Japan and Asia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Krauss E. S. and Pempel T.J. (2003). Beyond Bilateralism: U.S.-Japan Relations in the New Asia-Pacific. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Moravcsik A. (2004). Liberalism, Realism and the Future of World Politics. Washington, DC: Cosmos Club. Richards K. B. (2012). “Wealth, Power, and Instability: East Asia and the United States after the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 18, pp. 23-47. Ross R. S. (1999). “The Geography of the Peace: East Asia in the Twenty-First Century,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 81-119. Segal G. (2006). “East Asia and the Constrainment of China,” International Security, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 107-35. Seokwoo L., Shelagh F. & Schofield C. (2002). Territorial disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands. Durham: University of Durham. Shaw, H. (1999). The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the P.R.C., R.O.C., and Japan. Baltimore, Maryland: University of Maryland School of Law. Slaughter A. (2004). A New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Suganuma, U. (2000). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. WTO (2014). China — Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and Molybdenum [Online] available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds433_e.htm [January 2, 2014] Read More