What's new

Sino-Japanese Rift is part of US is part of US strategy, says an ex diploma

Well I don't think China is a busy body like the US and is pragmatic enough to care too much for those artificial glories. She likes to mind her own business, not interfere with others' and since she's still relative poor development from within in the top priority. But I'll tell you one thing though, because of past experiences, she'll fight for every inch of land that belongs to her.

America is on a down trend, those warmongering leaders, soon or later, are going to bankrupt the nation and will lose many friends while they're at it. http://www.defence.pk/forums/americas/216209-us-empires-changing-face-masks-old-ambitions.html


Well, judging the history of China, then one must fear that a confrontation between China and Japan is inevitable!




The Dangerous Math of Chinese Island Disputes
OPINION ASIA
October 28, 2012, 12:11 p.m. ET - The Wallstreet Journal

If history is any guide, there's a real risk Beijing will use force against Japan over the Senkakus.

By M. TAYLOR FRAVEL

OB-VD217_fravel_G_20121028085527.jpg


China's standoff with Japan over the rocky Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands has entered its second month. The current confrontation, however, is more dangerous than is commonly believed. China's past behavior in other territorial disputes demonstrates why the Senkaku standoff is primed to explode.

Since 1949, China has been involved in 23 territorial disputes with its neighbors on land and at sea. Seventeen of them have been settled, usually through compromise agreements. Nevertheless, China has used force, often more than once, in six of these disputes. And it's these cases that most closely parallel the Senkaku impasse.

To start, China has usually only used force in territorial disputes with its most militarily capable neighbors. These include wars or major clashes with India, Russia and Vietnam (several times), as well as crises involving Taiwan. These states have had the greatest ability to check China's territorial ambitions. In disputes with weaker states, such as Mongolia or Nepal, Beijing has eschewed force because it could negotiate from a position of strength. Japan is now China's most powerful maritime neighbor, with a modern navy and a large coast guard.

China has also used force most frequently in disputes over offshore islands such as the Senkakus. Along its land border, China has used force only in about one-fifth of 16 disputes. By contrast, China has used force in half of its four island disputes. Islands are seen as possessing much more strategic, military and economic value because they influence sea-lane security and may hold vast stocks of hydrocarbons and fish.

In addition, China has mostly used force to strengthen its position in disputes where it has occupied little or none of the land that it claims. In 1988, for example, China clashed with Vietnam as it occupied six coral reefs that are part of the Spratly Islands. China had claimed sovereignty over the Spratlys for decades—but had not controlled any part of them before this occupation.

In cases where China already possessed some of the contested territory, such as a border dispute with Kazakhstan, China had a strong bargaining position and little reason to use force. But in the East China Sea, China does not currently hold any of the Senkaku Islands, which are under Japanese control.

Most importantly, China has used force in territorial disputes during periods of regime insecurity, when leaders have a greater incentive to show resolve: They believe that opposing states seek to take advantage of China's domestic woes, and that a weak or limited response might increase popular discontent.

China's leaders today may feel on the ropes for several reasons—elite conflict at the highest levels of the ruling Chinese Communist Party; a slowing economy that undermines the legitimacy of the CCP; and a delicate transition of power from one generation of leaders to the next. These factors increase the value of using firm action to signal resolve to both Japan and the Chinese public. They also decrease Beijing's willingness to compromise or be seen as backing down.

To Chinese eyes, Japan's Senkaku moves look like attempts to capitalize on Chinese difficulties. The current standoff began in April, when nationalist Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara announced a plan to buy three of the islands from their private Japanese owner. Mr. Ishihara's announcement came just days after Beijing suspended Politburo member Bo Xilai from all his positions in the CCP—arguably the biggest upheaval in elite Chinese politics in more than two decades.

Diplomatic positions hardened as China's economic growth slowed much faster than expected, an increasing source of worry for Beijing's leaders. Then Japanese Premier Yoshihiko Noda announced his decision to buy the islands on the July anniversary of the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident, which marked Japan's bid to conquer all of China. Finally, the sale was completed in September just days before the anniversary of the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

The final destabilizing factor in the Senkaku standoff is that both sides are simultaneously engaged in other island disputes. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak recently broke with tradition and became the first Seoul leader to visit the disputed Dokdo (Takeshima) Islands, which are occupied by the Koreans but also claimed by Japan. Meanwhile, China has been dueling with Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea. Tokyo and Beijing may both conclude that whoever prevails in the Senkakus will have a better chance at prevailing in these other disputes.

History is not destiny. China has not used force in a territorial dispute for more than 20 years. Escalation over the Senkakus may be avoided. Nevertheless, the current situation is fraught with danger. Should a fatal incident occur involving government ships from either country, a real crisis may begin whose end cannot be foretold.

Mr. Fravel is an associate professor of political science and member of the Security Studies Program at MIT, and author of "Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China's Territorial Disputes" (Princeton, 2008).
 
.
Well said buddy, but I think you mean: It is in America's best interest to keep friction between China and every one of its neighbors!

You mean its in China's best interest to bully the Asian nations to U.S. side without even having to bat an eye by Uncle Sam.

Well I don't think China is a busy body like the US and is pragmatic enough to care too much for those artificial glories. She likes to mind her own business, not interfere with others' and since she's still relative poor development from within in the top priority. But I'll tell you one thing though, because of past experiences, she'll fight for every inch of land that belongs to her.

America is on a down trend, those warmongering leaders, soon or later, are going to bankrupt the nation and will lose many friends while they're at it. http://www.defence.pk/forums/americas/216209-us-empires-changing-face-masks-old-ambitions.html

Oh so China is getting ready to invade to get those ancient lands back. Manchuria, Korean Peninsula, South East Asia, etc. Good point buddy. She will definitely fight every inch of land that belongs to her alright.
 
.
Well, judging the history of China, then one must fear that a confrontation between China and Japan is inevitable!


The history of China vis a vis against Japan? Actually there weren't that much rivalry between the two as China was always the Middle kingdom and Japan was mostly submissive albeit did rebellious at time. However she never had ambitions of lording over China except the brief period of early 1900s when China was at its weakest.

China doesn't want any confrontation with Japan but if Japan insists, with or without Uncle Sam on her side, she's not going to back down and ready for it. China has more than 1.3 billion people, unlike in the 30s where ten people share a gun with a few bullets, there's no way Japanese troops can land on the mainland any more. In another word China can not lose if such confrontation comes but for Japan it's a different story and is up to her whether she want a confrontation or not. :coffee:
 
.
The history of China vis a vis against Japan? Actually there weren't that much rivalry between the two as China was always the Middle kingdom and Japan was mostly submissive albeit did rebellious at time. However she never had ambitions of lording over China except the brief period of early 1900s when China was at its weakest.

China doesn't want any confrontation with Japan but if Japan insists, with or without Uncle Sam on her side, she's not going to back down and ready for it. China has more than 1.3 billion people, unlike in the 30s where ten people share a gun with a few bullets, there's no way Japanese troops can land on the mainland any more. In another word China can not lose if such confrontation comes but for Japan it's a different story and is up to her whether she want a confrontation or not. :coffee:



Well, Japan has a capable Navy and is backed by a superpower. The Japanese think they cannot affort to back down. In doing so, China would continue its ambitions and start to claim Okinawa and so forth...taking South China Sea by force.

Japan still administers the Senkaku islands. It is happy with the current status quo. It surely does not want confrontation and does not have any intention to invade China.
 
.
Well, Japan has a capable Navy and is backed by a superpower. The Japanese think they cannot affort to back down. In doing so, China would continue its ambitions and start to claim Okinawa and so forth...taking South China Sea by force.

Japan still administers the Senkaku islands. It is happy with the current status quo. It surely does not want confrontation and does not have any intention to invade China.

Just because Japan has a capable Navy doesn't mean they stand a chance against China. Whether Japan wants a confrontation or not depends on how they handle the Diaoyu Island so called purchase. About Okinawa, now that's pretty much your way of trying to portray China as aggressive. Why would China claim Okinawa in this age when Japan had annexed it in 1872 through military incursion?
 
.
Well, Japan has a capable Navy and is backed by a superpower. The Japanese think they cannot affort to back down. In doing so, China would continue its ambitions and start to claim Okinawa and so forth...taking South China Sea by force.

Japan still administers the Senkaku islands. It is happy with the current status quo. It surely does not want confrontation and does not have any intention to invade China.


I think you have judgmental flaws here because both your claims are not based on facts but reading too much bias media (propaganda). Even your: "taking South China Sea by force" is baseless but I'll give you allowance because you're too emotional involved. A few days off from the screen might straighten you mental state, I suppose.
 
.
I think you have judgmental flaws here because both your claims are not based on facts but reading too much bias media (propaganda). Even your: "taking South China Sea by force" is baseless but I'll give you allowance because you're too emotional involved. A few days off from the screen might straighten you mental state, I suppose.


We can make a deal: we both take a few days off from this forum...let say for a week.
It is allowed to check for updates but either does not post any new posts.

Deal? :enjoy:
 
.
Watch your words son, don't sound like a jap...it is DIAOYU island, not the sht you called it.
LIUQIU once was our vassal state just like you viet used to be, we ain't claim a sovereignty of you now right? We'd also like to see it becoming an independent country like you do:)
Well, Japan has a capable Navy and is backed by a superpower. The Japanese think they cannot affort to back down. In doing so, China would continue its ambitions and start to claim Okinawa and so forth...taking South China Sea by force.

Japan still administers the Senkaku islands. It is happy with the current status quo. It surely does not want confrontation and does not have any intention to invade China.
 
.
Watch your words son, don't sound like a jap...it is DIAOYU island, not the sht you called it.
LIUQIU once was our vassal state just like you viet used to be, we ain't claim a sovereignty of you now right? We'd also like to see it becoming an independent country like you do:)


You fool!

How old are you that you called me son?
I can call the islands either DIAOYU or Senkaku based on my mood. :D
It´s just boring to hear the Chinese version of the story as there is obviously no Japanese here in the forum. I defend on their behalf :rofl:

And wake up dude, the time of Imperial China is long over!
 
.
You fool!

How old are you that you called me son?
I can call the islands either DIAOYU or Senkaku based on my mood. :D
It´s just boring to hear the Chinese version of the story as there is obviously no Japanese here in the forum. I defend on their behalf :rofl:

And wake up dude, the time of Imperial China is long over!

Amen brother this person is smoking too much of opium
 
.
Both Japan and China fall into US trap. That's just so obvious even kids can see that so I wonder how stup1d those politicians in both nations are.
 
.
I don't blame you for your stand but I should say what you can observe is definitely crystal clear for those politicians, still they choose this way means there are something more important to maybe both of us. If China want to rise up, the break of islands chains set up by USA is the barrier we can never bypass. Either break it or being trapped forever, what would you do if you are the Chinese leader?
Both Japan and China fall into US trap. That's just so obvious even kids can see that so I wonder how stup1d those politicians in both nations are.
 
.
Both Japan and China fall into US trap. That's just so obvious even kids can see that so I wonder how stup1d those politicians in both nations are.

You sir, despite living in Japan are not knowing the environment there at all. It is a surprise.

Japan and China were enemies much much before US even talked to the Japanese straight.
 
.
The US would surely benefit if Sino-Japanese relation is getting strained. This way Chinese consumers would stop buying Japanese products and might choose American brands. The direct yuan-yen exchange deal would fall apart due to the ongoing dispute. The Diaoyu island issue is literally an invitation for the US navy to conduct training missions with Japan, giving the US an excuse to meddle with the issue. Japan's future economy isn't looking too bright not only because of the Diaoyu island issue but due the the large population decline and extremely low birth rate, the population has been aging for years. With 3 to 4 tectonic plates underneath them natural disasters is not a rare phenomenon causing major economic loses see the Kobe earthquake and Fukushima. Still Japan has no other choice but to continue the use of nuclear energy despite protests.

Just look at the American presidential election, business people bribe officials too so when the candidate win they will get benefits later on. Don't be surprised if American politicians bribe the right wingers to stir up Diaoyu dispute. China is Japan's biggest trading partner so why would they suddenly want to "purchase" the islands when trade relations is very cozy especially right after making the deal of direct currency trading without the US$?

Actually i agree with some of your point (points like the yuan-yen and bribe in politics, only we don't call them bribe, we call them"Contribution") but there are some point i think you are wrong. But i don't really think Damaging Sino-Japanese Relation ahve anything benefiting America.

You said if Chinese boycott Japanese Product then they may switch to American Product. The problem is, American are makeing an entirely different product than the Japanese. While Japanese are making Low-Medium Commerical Appliance, the America are into Heavy and Leisure item.

To be more precise, when and where will you see an American made TV set, American made Rice cooker, American made Car in China, American make small electronic (Beside Computer and Ipod which the Japanese have low to no market)?? What make in Japan most likely will not be make in America, unless you are telling me the China is buying Aircraft from Japan and now that their relationship is strained, they will buy them in America :)

I see the Korean are set to gain more, a lot more than the US, if Sino-Japanese relationship gone sour.

About military intervention, The protective agreement are sign LONG BEFORE the dispute of Senkaku island, or Diaoyu Island as you chinese call them. If i remember correctly the Mutaual Protection pack was signed in 1952 at the height of Korean War (That time the American was afriad the red chinese will invade Japan) The whole Senkaku(Diaoyu) issed was unfold in the late 60s and the early 70s after America gave back the island to Japan.

Now, unless the America can see into future, the protection pack is not signed because of the Senkaku island and since it was signed and Japanese make it claim they were their territories and Japan did govern these territories at this very moment. The US have to oblign to the treaty they signed LONG BEFORE the dispute. The only way the US will back off from this issue is Chinese get the ownership from the UN, then the Senkaku cna change its name to Diaoyu and US will back off. Then you will have no reason to fight annway

Japan and US hold annual training mission(5-7 large scale) whether or not there were Senkaku issue, we have been doign them since 1953, they have not make more training exercise because of the issue, i was in the US Military, my father was in the US military, my brother was in the USAF, my sister is still in the USAF, i was post to Japan, i know these kind of stuff. Infact, some Trainning Exercise are called off this year, unless you have concrete evidence that Japan and US have more training exercise than all previous year, then your point is not valid.

Dude, you need to put yourselve in Japanese Mentality rather than Chinese and then you will see why they do what they do, they are Japanese, they do thing if they think they are right, you remember the kamikazi right? Who in the right mind would do such things like that? You wouldn't, i wouldn't and almost certainly sure only the japanese would.

The yuan-yen deal is what really hurting the American, but the thigns is, only Hogn Kong are hooked to the US Conversion rate, RMB is not, and the world continue to use US Dollar and gold for their trading, so the damage is actually limited (US have not have a big Chinese market in China) Unless you tell me if after Yuan-Yen deal, the Japanese would have to use Yuan to trade, then i can tell you this will be a big problem with the American. :D

That's why i do not convince the US have anything to do with it, you can still think they do, but that doesn't change the fact one bits. In some sense you are right, America is big and they like to poke their nose to other people backyard, but i don't see there are any benefit to America if the China and Japan gone to battle with the issue. Nor stir up the whole thing would benefit the American society or leadership in anyway. If the American are actually meddling the issue, they are doing it for no reason.
 
.
You said if Chinese boycott Japanese Product then they may switch to American Product. The problem is, American are makeing an entirely different product than the Japanese. While Japanese are making Low-Medium Commerical Appliance, the America are into Heavy and Leisure item.

To be more precise, when and where will you see an American made TV set, American made Rice cooker, American made Car in China, American make small electronic (Beside Computer and Ipod which the Japanese have low to no market)?? What make in Japan most likely will not be make in America, unless you are telling me the China is buying Aircraft from Japan and now that their relationship is strained, they will buy them in America :)

I see the Korean are set to gain more, a lot more than the US, if Sino-Japanese relationship gone sour.

I was referring to American cars actually. General Motors passed Toyota Motor in the first half of 2011 to become the largest automaker in the world. It is also the top-selling brand in China. GM’s presence in the country is still expanding. In the first half of 2010, the company sold more vehicles in China than in the U.S. for the first time ever. At that time, China accounted for a quarter of the company’s global sales, according to the New York Times. Since 2000, the company’s market share in China has grown from 3.4% to 12.8%. In other words EU and US brands sales can increase further now that their competitors are being ignored by the consumers.

I don't know why you even bother to explain it to me as if we don't know that US have been stationed there after WW2 and that they have the obligation to protect Japan and holding joint military drills with JSDF. Perhaps i should have been more specific that they were holding exercises near Diaoyu Island recently at a time when tensions are running high.

Go read these 2 articles for the following quotes.
Cairo Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Japan shall be stripped of all islands she has seized or occupied in the Pacific since the beginning of World War I in 1914."

"All the territories Japan has stolen from China such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China."

"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943."

Because Diaoyu island and the surrounding small islands were not mentioned by names in the declarations China and Japan are still in dispute which both nations agreed to freeze this issue in the 70's to re-establish economic relation. Hopefully you can see the US is part of the mess.

You don't convince me if US is not gonna benefit if the yuan-yen deal is off. China is Japan's largest trading partner. In 2011 bilateral trade grew 14.3 percent in value to a record $345 billion. US wouldn't want to loose their influence in Asia.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom