Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands Dispute: Japan, China, and Taiwan (Research Paper Sample)

NAME
TUTOR
COURSE
SENKANKU/DIAOYU ISLANDS DISPUTE
The islands are central to a longstanding dispute involving Japan, China, and Taiwan. The conflict threatens to heighten tension in the region and can culminate into a war if an amicable solution is not sought in a timely manner (Koo, 2009). The San Francisco Treaty that resolved the Asia-Pacific War should have resolved the boundary issues too six decades ago, but the dispute was not sorted conclusively. Therefore, the question of sovereignty over tiny islands has been troubled in the region especially recently after prospects showed that the region was rich with natural resources. This paper aims at explaining factors surrounding the conflict, how it has evolved over the years, the associated consequences, and possible solutions. The conflict surrounds disputed islands; therefore, it is subject to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (Hu, 2010). This paper will, therefore, outline the principles of UNCLOS in solving disputes pertaining to sea sovereignty and solving maritime conflicts.
The UNCLOS principles are designed in rules considering several factors in maritime territorial regulations. These factors include the continental shelf, exclusive economic zone, the contiguous zone, and territorial sea in regard to distance into the sea as the territorial sea baseline principles. The convention considers a distance of 370 km from the shoreline as an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of a particular country (Hu, 2010). The respective country is allowed to undertake its economic activities in the zone as well as safeguarding it from intruders. A conflict can arise when the distance sea distance between countries is less than two EEZs. In such cases, there is a provision of designing the boundary equidistant from the shoreline of each of the countries. Sometimes offshore markers, such as recognized and legitimate islands, can be used to determine the EEZ boundary. The convention outlines that the marker should be natural, permanent, of minimum size and above the presence of high tides, and has resources capable of sustaining human life (Hu, 2010).
Some states are archipelago. In such circumstances, the principles of UNCLOS dictate that the total area should measure collectively including the seas. The convention defines an archipelago as a collection of islands and components of water closely interrelated making an intrinsic economic, historical, political, and geographical entity (Tsuruta, 2009). Further provisions of the convention clarify that the ratio of water components to land in these collections of islands should be less than 9 to 1 in order to avoid the intentions of countries extending their EEZ with remote islands, which are distant apart. The UNCLOS members opt to resolve boundary disputes peacefully because the convention has proper mechanisms that are appealing to the member states. The convention also has the power and mandate to make decisions that bind effectively (Tsuruta, 2009). Despite the mechanisms, UNCLOS has no full power to enforce its resolution, but depend on each country, to safeguard its territory, parties should be willing to get into the binding decisions, and states are free to hold out when their sovereignty is at stake (Tsuruta, 2009). Although the International Seabed Authority (ISA) controls the seas beyond EEZ, the seas are open to all the countries.
The regulations contradict each other, for example, when the continental shelf goes beyond the 370 km of the EEZ. Some countries also claim territories on the basis of long use evidence. These contradictions have made Senkanku/Diaoyu islands dispute complicated due to the factors surrounding the conflict. The issue of the islands has been magnified through the media as a high profile dispute involving Taiwan, China, and Japan (Lee & Fang, 2013). It is perceived that China’s territorial claims are a form of bullying and some people point out that the dispute can ignite a war between Japan and China. The islands are significant historically due to their position and prospects that have shown the presence of rich natural resources. In comparison to the EEZ owned by former colonial powers in the region, the islands are insignificant but have recently sparked fierce exchanges (Leszek, & Sazlan, 2007). China intends to increase its EEZ, claims that the islands are part of its continental shelf, and has evidence of long use. These reasons according to the UNCLOS support the china’s ownership of the islands. Japan, on the other hand, claims that the islands are within 370km of its territory, had occupied the islands since the colonial period, and experienced no dispute from china when it first claimed the ownership of the islands (Liao, 2008). The uncertainty of the territorial boundary surrounding these islands originates from the failure of colonialists to outline clearly where the islands belong.
Factors surrounding the dispute on the islands include failure to resolve the longstanding conflict, the current significance of the islands in regard to state sovereignty, pride, and natural resources. While china claims that the islands are within her continental shelf, Japan is mobilizing her citizens and using all the possible avenues to claim back the islands insisting that they are not subject to negotiations with either China or Japan (Liao, 2008). Japan further asserts that the islands were not ceded to her as spoils of war, but as her rightful possessions and she exercised administrative control over them as an intrinsic territory. China has pointed out with evidence that she has used the island over a long time of the Ming and even Qing’s dynasties as part of the Ryukyu chain of islands. According to the UNCLOS, both countries have merited to be awarded the islands resulting in a very cumbersome conflict (Liao, 2008). The people of Okinawa argue that the more the issue escalates, the more they get uncomfortable for a repeat of the war witnessed in the Second World War. The people of Okinawa will, therefore, like to witness a permanent resolution of the conflict rather than the involvement of the military (Zhongqi, 2007). Okinawa people have struggled for demilitarization in the region; therefore, they are disappointed with the concern accorded to minerals and resources instead of the needs of the community.
The Western does not want to come clear in support of Japan over the dispute while accusing China of trying to expand its overseas bases to gain control over the purported natural resources in the disputed islands (Mitter, 2013). The assertion of the Western countries is hypocritical considering that they possess an enormous proportion of the EEZ in total, and did not bother to outline a clear boundary in the islands. The USA is suspected of failing to demarcate the islands intentionally in order to continue keeping its naval forces in the region. The tension between Japan and China is also to blindfold the world not to realize the vast amount of EEZ owned by western countries overseas acquired during the West’s colonization Asia-Pacific region. USA has benefited from the conflict because Japan will depend on the US for defense in case she is attacked by China over the islands enabling the USA to continue keeping its forces in the region and forcing Japan to abide by the previous agreements (Yann-Huei, 2005).
Japan is perceived to be reading the international law carefully due to its self entitlement of the islands. However, China has a valid claim on the basis of both geography and history of the islands (NOLAN, 2013). Despite the international laws contradicting in the dispute, colonialism records, imperialism, and to some extent previous wars in the region has been held responsible for the dispute. As such there is no international law to adjudicate over the matter because the UNCLOS laws provides the countries with the option to safeguard the territory, and no single state involved in the conflict is prepared to come out of the resolution without gains (Tsuruta, 2009). Therefore, Japan and China are unlikely to seek arbitration from the international laws, which reflect dominant global power.
The conflict has several associated consequences affecting Japan and China mostly. The dispute has shown ineffectiveness the UNCLOS in dispute resolution. The rules and international laws are designed to promote relations in global power and express the interest of global powers instead of conflict resolution. In a nutshell, the UNCLOS principles have failed to adjudicate conflicting claims in order to provide an amicable solution to the issue (Hagström, 2005). No state is ready to sign an agreement without benefiting from the islands in contention resulting in a procrastinated conflict for decades. The attitude makes it also difficult to find any solution to the problem, despite the fact that the islands are not inhabited by people, no economic activities have been established, and the shared economic interests between China and Japan (Peterson, 2009). The natural resources purported to exist in the area, which have not been confirmed, cannot be exploited amidst the hostility from other parties as it will be an extreme risk taking due to the possibility of war erupting. For Japan, the exploitation will not be cost effective due to the fact that it is economically viable to transport the natural resources to the continental China rather than to Japan through the Ryukyu trench (Hagström, 2005). These consequences necessitate a cooperation of both financial groups and governments of Taiwan, China, and Japan to negotiate an agreement that will ensure peaceful coexistence and economic viability despite the political considerations causing the conflict to worsen.
The dispute has resulted in mistrust, in the region. Japan has felt that China is exercising its current economic power to bully t...