The Obama administration launched its first-term foreign policy with the president making his historic speech at Cairo University. Some experts cite that speech as the spark that ignited the Arab cleansing. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton headed to Beijing and other Asian capitals on her first foreign overseas trip in 2009, putting the world on notice that America was interested in developing a closer relationship with China – and did – at the expense of Europe and the Middle East, the leaders of which complained they were being ignored and neglected by America.
President Obama decided to refocus America’s attention on Europe and the Middle East in his second term, sending Secretary of State John Kerry to nine capitals in both regions immediately after Kerry took office in February 2013, as the president headed to Israel in March 2013 in the hopes of restarting the Middle East peace process, instituting economic reforms in Egypt, and saving the eurozone.
With China and Japan staring each other down their gun scopes over the Diaoyu Islands, isn’t that where America should be focusing its attention to avert a potentially devastating war instead of wasting more political capital in the Middle East?
China announced the creation of an air defense identification zone over most of the East China Sea last month, drawing protests from Seoul, Taipei, Tokyo and Washington. The zone includes the disputed Diaoyu islands. Seoul has now done the same.
China’s initial response to Japan’s nationalization of the islands was to announce its territorial coordinates – base points and baselines – for waters off the islands and its intention to patrol those waters.
Japan’s seizure of the islands resulted in a nationalistic public outcry, not just in China, but in Chinese communities around the world – and especially in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The furor showcased how highly explosive an political issue the islands are.
Hong Kong Diaoyu activists sailed to the islands in August 2012 and planted a Chinese flag on one of them. They were arrested by the Japanese coast guard and taken to Japan before being sent back home. The activists promptly filed a lawsuit in Beijing against Japan for their illegal “capture” and false imprisonment in Japan.
For over a century, political, economic and military supremacy over the Asia-Pacific region has been the preoccupation of Japan and the U.S. In the absence of a serious challenger, the two have gone through major military conflicts to establish their dominant position. Japan’s defeat in World War II ended its claim to a preeminent position in the region, leaving the U.S. as the unrivaled power.
China will never bargain over what it deems to be “core” territorial and security interests, Xi said in his first published speech setting out his foreign policy views in January 2013. “No foreign country should ever nurse hopes that we will bargain over our core national interests,” Xi said. “Nor should they nurse hopes that we will swallow the bitter fruit of harm to our country’s sovereignty, security and development interests.”
Xi will press territorial claims more determinedly than his predecessors. He has already told Chinese military forces to focus on training for possible conflict.
Meanwhile, new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately repeated Japan’s undisputed territorial claim to the Diaoyus and repeated that he may map out a new statement appropriate for the 21st century about the country’s historical perspective on World War II, effectively reviewing a 1995 statement apologizing for Japan’s wartime actions.
Abe appears determined to force through constitutional changes that will allow Japan to become an offensive military force, and not merely a self-defense force. A nationalist Japan with Abe leading the charge harks back to militaristic Japan pre-World War II and imperialist Japan during the war.
Giving up the disputed islands would be tantamount to caving in to Chinese threats. It would be unacceptable to most Japanese and probably also to Japan’s protector, the U.S. Why? The U.S. and Japan know the islands belong to China and the Cairo Declaration signed by all three parties after World War II confirmed this reality.
The aggressive stands each country is taking means that the issue is unlikely to be resolved peacefully in the foreseeable future – and may well become the flashpoint of a Sino-Japanese war of the 21st century.
A military accident could easily result from miscalculation or mis-communication and a conflict between the two Asian military powers would unfortunately break out. Behind the combative rhetoric, both Beijing and Tokyo understand very well that war would be the worst imaginable outcome, economically for both, and politically for the loser. Yet the rhythm of war beats on.
China no longer accepts America’s role as the sole power in the region and is prepared to flex its economic and military muscles to make its point. Shouldn’t America be refocusing its alliance with China, its World War II ally against Japan instead of their former enemy?