Seems the tensions are ratcheting up again, with China imposing a so-called “air-defence zone” (‘Engrish’ for no-fly zone…?) over the disputed, scapegoat du jour, Senkaku / Diaoyu islands —
My questions are these:
Is conflict between these two nations inevitable and if conflict does break out, who else will be dragged into the melée? Will the U.S.'s treaty with the Japanese be enacted in the event of aggression towards or from China? What level of escalation would denote the tipping point when the U.S. jumps in? What of the U.S.'s allies (Australia being a pertinent regional example) — will they be summoned, Iraq / Afghanistan style, too? Economically speaking, who’s poised to benefit / suffer from a conflict between these two regional powers? Will the U.S.'s debt to China be wiped clean in the case that the two nations were to butt heads?
Conflict is inevitable, but an actual shooting war? Let’s hope not. China is playing the Salami slice game, making slow creeping movements to assert its dominance over the East China Sea. Each tiny step is not enough to provoke a war, they wait a few years for the protests to fade, then take another tiny step. And so far, they never retreat.
Japan will probably ignore the zone and continue to fly military planes over the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands. China will then presumably have their own military planes meet and escort the Japanese planes.
As long as no-one is trigger happy thats where it should stand. The reality is that Japan has more to lose than China does. China is the largest export market for Japan and every time China ramps up its anti-Japanese rhetoric, it hurts the Japanese economy since Chinese businesses stop buying Japanese imports.
Japans economy is on shaky enough grounds that they really can’t afford the slump that a mass Chinese boycott of Japanese goods would cause… until that changes Japan is likely to make lots of noise in protest but do very little.
If it does happen it’ll pretty much be World War III, I believe. There’s no way we (US) let China take over Japan without a fight.
I wonder how South Korea would fit into such a war. As well as Europe. Maybe it wouldn’t be a world war but I can easily see the major powers of the area, if not the world, all getting involved.
I don’t believe it will happen, and I don’t think it’s inevitable. I think China will continue its path towards democratization and capitalism and become less imperialistic towards Japan and Taiwan.
I don’t think anyone is expecting an attack by China on the main Japanese islands, in that case the US-Japan defense treaty would be invoked. The more relevant issue is, what would Japan and the US do if China was to seize control of the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands?
On the one hand the US has said it has no position on who owns the islands. On the other hand there is this quote:
“Hagel repeated that the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands — which the Chinese and Taiwanese claim as Diaoyu and Tiaoyutai, respectively — are covered by the U.S.-Japan security treaty, meaning the U.S. would defend its ally if the area is attacked.”
Seems pretty clear cut… the next few weeks could be interesting.
The US does a lot of saber rattling without much action. North Korea has gotten away with a lot of shit like sinking ships and lobbing artillery shells that killed South Koreans at “disputed” islands, and the US didn’t really do crap.
I imagine the same thing will happen with China. They’ll let China institute their takeover of this little island, blow a lot of hot air about how they won’t tolerate it any more, and then when it happens again it’ll all just repeat.
Except the Norks never actually seized the islands (and ideally we should have lobbed a few Patriot missiles at the North). If the Chinese did, the US ought to as a defender of democracy support Japan in a military operation to retake its islands for moral reasons along with fulfilling our treaty obligations with Japan and standing up to Chinese imperialism.
But I doubt this will happen. China may sabre-rattle but they aren’t stupid enough to attempt military seizure of the islands.
They wouldn’t have to seize them, because as far as I am aware, Japan does not have a permanent military presence on the islands, they just send patrol boats from time to time. China’s style would be for their fishing boats to just gradually encroach more and more in the area, then one day Japan finds a few Chinese fishermen have built a shack on one of the islands and they dare the Japanese coast guard to remove them.
They’ve been using similar tactics to grab reefs and islets in the Spratlys from the Philippines and so far they’ve got away with it.
Okay. I get that the general consensus is that if Japan were attacked by China (unlikely), the U.S. would play the blowhard for a while and hope things settle; failing that, join in. But, what about elepaphant in the room ― Japan itself. What if Japan instigates something; say, as a push back against China’s constant regional posturing, in order to demonstrate strength to its people?
IMHO, I believe Japan to be a more realistic provocateur in any potential ‘meaningful’ conflict. For the above reasoning and also because, if the Japanese have had such a hard time even acknowledging their past wartime atrocities (e.g., Nanjing c.1937), then they will certainly not want to “lose face” if China were to enforce this seeming creeping annexation of the disputed islands. Not now. Not in their current economic, political and ‘isotopic’ climate.
My shekels are on Japan dragging the U.S. and co. into a messy Asiatic conflict - not because the U.S. will necessarily feel compelled to honour its treaty obligations, but more for economic reasons - with the Kim Kulx Clan bringing up the rear to do some of their own, long spoiled for ‘requisitioning’. re-cloaks Palantir
China hasn’t had the ability to project power even that far out until recently. Japan isn’t another Philippines or Vietnam and has the military ability to shoot back. Whether they have the political will is yet to be seen.
I don’t see either side setting out to start a fight, but I can easily see a minor incident escalating into some local shooting. I have a harder time seeing an all out war, as both sides stand to lose far too much economically with less to gain.
You often hear that countries have a lot to lose economically by going to war but I’m not sure it is ever thought of in such practical terms. I imagine France and Germany were significant trading partners before each of their several major wars.
Has there ever been a war over an uninhabited part of the world? This sparring is over the rights sovereignty over the islands gives rather than, as is usually the case, the administration of a populace. I wonder will Iceland, Britain, and Ireland ever come to blows over Rockall.
The level of interdependency between France and Germany was considerably less than between Japan and China. Japan imports 50% of China’s rare earth elements which are critical to Japan’s hi tech manufacturing, for example.
The last flare-up between them resulted in a temporary export ban of these materials, until Japan gave a concession. Under Abe, they may not back down as quickly. We’ll see.
I think there are some key points here that need to be considered:
● The islands themselves are meaningless ― what’s potentially under the floating rocks is certainly what a resource ravenous China would be more interesting.
● The nationalistic posturing inherent in laying claim these islands plays perfectly into the politburo stratagem of populous distraction from domestic issues that could threaten another Tienanmen '89. If it came to a choice between democratisation or a war with Japan, I don’t think we need Samuel L. Jackson to tell us which outcome has the better odds.
● The animosity between Japan and China (particularly in the direction of the former) is something many Westerners would not fully appreciate because of a wholly European centric indoctrination on wartime ill-doing ― the most abject examples of which still pale in comparison to what has gone on between some of these Asian adversaries. I spoke to a Chinese ex pat not so long ago who told me that, although the Chinese don’t like Anglos (Opium Wars, Boxer Uprising, sacking of the Forbidden City et al), they still respect ‘us’; insofar as when Europeans engage in war, it still within the corral of the rules of war and generally with modicum of civility. I found this statement most telling, coming from the horse’s mouth. The film City of Life and Death comes highly recommended for anyone interested in said subject matter.
● China - ‘The Middle Kingdom’ - consider themselves an older, wiser and more righteous(?) people. This is buttressed in some respects by the sheer number of technological innovations that stemmed from the nation in the past and the fact that had the Confucian eunuchs not taken control at the end of the 15th century and turned the nation’s focus inward (in-keeping with Taoist philosophical thinking), their inimitable ‘treasure fleets’ of the period would have surely colonised much of the planet; as they effectively left the Anglo-Saxon peoples to do later, in their stead.
● Japan’s economy is rubbish and has been for decades. Fukushima, continual natural disasters, the quandary of how to generate energy in a natural resource poor country, all conspire to keep Nihon-san down. I can’t see how their current economic status would somehow deter them from conflict. If anything, a war may stir the region up and cause Japan to float closer to the top, à la The United States post WWII.
IMHO, the most important thing for Western analysts and commentators of Asia to eschew is viewing ‘their’ politics through ‘our’ political prism. It’s tantamount to using current climate forecast modelling to give weather prognostications in an Ice Age and will only result in miscalculations. Lest we forget that the much venerated military cowbo… tactician, MacArthur, was dumped by Truman because he almost pressed the button on Beijing during the Korean war. Something to brood on, methinks.
REE aren’t only critical to Japan and its Playstations ― they’re even more critical to the U.S… So much so in fact, that a National Security paper was drawn up a few years back about China’s monopoly of these unsubstitutable elements and how it could impact U.S. military effectiveness. As such, a war with China could also mean the re-divvying of this mineral wealth in a more, erhm… ‘Western friendly’ distribution model.
So… dons tin foil hat there could more to gain than lose with a war with China; IF China’s intent is indeed to push for regional and then global supremacy.