Let a Japanese Professor Explain the East China Sea Dispute

It has come to my attention that a well respected scholar from Japan, Professor Yabuki, has spoken about the dispute involving the Diaoyu/Senkaku controversy. One fascinating pieces of information is that Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been hiding certain facts of the meeting in 1971 between Japan's Prime Minister Tanaka and China's Zhou Enlai. Non-disclosure has allowed Japan to insist on certain denials and perpetuate the difference in China's position vs. Japan's current position.

A Typical Wrong Headed American View of the East China Sea Dispute

A young American entrepreneur based in Shanghai wrote an op-ed piece about the dispute between China and Japan over the islands in the East China Sea that is typical of American hubris and lack of familiarity with recent world history. Like most American pundits, Nance failed to address the US role complicit in creating the origin of the dispute in East China Sea. 

According to the terms of unconditional surrender demanded by the leaders of the Allies and accepted by Japan to end WWII, Japan gave up any claims to the islands in dispute with China, Korea and Russia. Korea and Russia took possession but China was not allowed to do so by the US because of an altered geopolitical landscape after the War.

In 1972, when the US returned administrative control of Okinawa to Japan, which was already contrary to the terms of surrender, the US compounded the wrong by including Diaoyu/Senkaku islands as part of the package. Whether this was done deliberately or not is a debate for another occasion, but the US must accept responsibility for causing the lingering dispute.

If it was in the US national interest to overlook Japan's lot as the defeated nation then, surely it is in our national interest to reconsider what's good for America now. I believe what's right and good for America is to acknowledge and retract a mistake that was made then and that the US will not side with Japan on this issue now. Once that declaration has been made, I am convinced that the tension will die down quickly.

I wrote my views on this matter on an earlier post.

The US must stay out of East China Sea Dispute

Further to my blog at the end of last month, Ignatius Ding, a noted Silicon Valley activist, has elaborated on the historical and legal perspective of the dispute between China and Japan, worth reading by all concerned Americans. This has been posted in the San Jose Mercury News.

The U.S. Must Avoid the Trap on East China Sea

Recently a strange “issue advocacy ad” appeared in the Wall Street Journal paid for by the Tokyo Metropolitan government. The gist of the ad is to tell the American people that the Tokyo government intends to purchase certain islands in East China Sea and is seeking American “understanding and support.”

The islands in question are ostensibly to be purchased from some private Japanese owner so one would wonder why American support is worthy of such attention-grabbing ploy. It turns out that there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye and the person orchestrating this scheme is none other than Shintaro Ishihara, the governor of Tokyo.

Ishihara is a rabid right-wing nationalist previously known for giving America the middle finger salute in the ‘80s when he wrote the book, The Japan that Can Say No. He is despised by China and other Asian nations for prominently denying that the Nanjing Massacre and other WWII atrocities were ever committed by the Japanese imperial troops.

The string of islands Ishihara wants to buy are located north of Taiwan, referred to as Senkaku by the people in Japan and as Diaoyu by the people in China, Taiwan and the Chinese diaspora over the world. These islands are geologically connected to Taiwan and separate from the geological formation that makes up the Ryukyu (or Okinawan) island chain.

Japan claimed possession of the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands since 1894 when the islands were made part of the Okinawa prefecture. But China had, since the 14^th century, administered the islands as a part of Taiwan. These islands were ceded to Japan along with Taiwan in 1895 when the Qing forces lost the war with Japan.

At the end of WWII, according to the agreement struck by the leaders of the victorious Allies, Taiwan was returned to China and these islands should have been included. But for strategic reasons, the U.S. held onto these islands until 1972, at which time, the US handed these islands to Japan along with the Okinawan chain of islands.

There was no historical or geological justification for the regrettable American action. Instead, the action has directly led to the festering dispute between China and Taiwan on the one side and Japan on the other. Ishihara exploited this bone of contention to embarrass his own national government and raise the tension between China and Japan. The ad in the Wall Street Journal was his attempt to enlarge the dispute and bring the US into the boil.

Indeed, Ishihara has raised the temperature of the confrontation between the foreign affair ministries of China and Japan. Japan has had to recall its ambassador to Beijing and change to one less sympathetic to China. Cities in China raged with citizen protests, in some cases overturning Japanese branded police cars and smashing Japanese storefronts. Among the greater China, messages condemning Japan filled the Internet.

A group of activists from Hong Kong recently braved stormy seas to land at one of the islands to plant a flag of China. Their subsequent arrest by the Japanese coast guard was followed by immediate demand for release by the Beijing and Hong Kong governments. Prompt release without formal charges by Japan was then met with vocal disapproval from the Ishihara followers.

The American public needs to know that the Chinese reaction on these islands, whether from China, Taiwan or the diaspora around the world, is deeply rooted from a half century of humiliation suffered at the hands of Japanese imperialism. Since Japan has never formally apologized for the many atrocities committed by their imperial troops, the Chinese people cannot forget.

The squabble may seem trivial to the American policymakers but it is a tremendously emotional one for the Chinese people. Time and again it has been shown that it does not take much for the Chinese to react viscerally to any provocation instigated by Japan. There have been incidents of high seas chicken between fishing boats from China and Taiwan versus the coast guard cutters from Japan, each accusing the other for initiating the hostile bump and run. The incendiary nature of these incidents can quickly get out of hand, escalate into shooting conflicts and rage out of the control of either government.

The US State Department is aware of the sensitivity surrounding the islands but is playing the role of strategic ambiguity badly. The islands should never have been handed to Japan administratively. To this date, State Department spokesperson has to awkwardly demur when asked if the US security pact with Japan includes these uninhabited islands and avoid publicly stating as to which country is the rightful owner.

To make sure that the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands do not become a flash point for escalation into large scale armed conflict, the U.S. must inform Japan in no uncertain terms that America will never go to war over disputes of these islands. By unequivocally taking the US out of the ring, provocateurs like Ishihara will not find the dry flint needed to set the ownership issue aflame. This is an important first step to cooling down the emotions and allows diplomacy between China and Japan to find resolution.

An updated version was posted in New America Media.

Africa is too cozy with China to Suit the West

On July 19, South African President Jacob Zuma opened the 5th Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, held in Beijing, with a warm and effusive address about China's relationship with Africa.

Zuma even cited Admiral Zheng He's visits to the African continent as the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Even though he was off by a few hundred years, Zuma was undoubtedly expressing admiration for the Chinese that came to trade for a few giraffes to take back to Beijing--unlike the Europeans that later came to rape and pillage and kidnap natives for the slave trade.

By simply altering the sequence of Zuma's speech, the Financial Times adroitly changed the tone of his speech into one that "warns" China that all was not well, implying that China was as guilty of exploiting Africa as the European predecessors. The Washington Post shamefully reprinted the FT piece without any revision.

We have been led to believe that major publications in mainstream media have a public responsibility to be accurate and objective. They are supposed to inform their readers and not to pander to known biases nor reinforce preconceived but erroneous notions.

In other words, their job is not to merely tell the reader what they think the reader wants to hear.

Fortunately, in this case President Zuma's speech has been posted in its entirety by the South African government so that the reader can compare what he actually said to how his speech was reported.

There were certain passages in Zuma’s speech that failed to be included in the Financial Times piece.

“We are particularly pleased that in our relationship with China we are equals and that agreements entered into are for mutual gain.  This gathering (referring to the Forum) indicates commitment to mutual respect and benefit.”

Then Zuma went on to declare, “We certainly are convinced that China’s intention is different to that of Europe, which to date continue to attempt to influence African countries for their sole benefit.”

Zuma in the same speech then said, “Over the last decade, and partly because of China’s unrelenting support, the African continent has seen tremendous growth rates, making it one of the fastest growing continents and certainly the next growth pole. Furthermore, global growth estimates suggests that Africa’s growth will continue in an upward trend for years to come.”

Does the above sound like Zuma was complaining about China’s treatment of Africa?

Certainly not, according to what Zuma went on to say, “In particular, we take note of the infrastructure development China has assisted Africa with in the past several years.

“ African continent is now being seen as a major player in global affairs, and is becoming more attractive to investors and development partners.  

“Indeed, this is proving to be Africa’s decade of change.”

President Zuma basically concluded his speech by calling on China to continue to be Africa’s partner in meeting future challenges.

Along with helping Africa build its infrastructure, China has overtaken the US as Africa’s biggest trading partner.

Unlike the US, China does not give foreign aid with or without strings. True to its policy of non-interference, China does not tell the African nations what to do, nor make suggestions on rectifying human rights abuses.

Ironically, a recent op-ed in the New York Times by a Zambian economist argued that foreign aid tend to line the pockets of corrupt dictators while trade and infrastructure investments were more likely to benefit the general population and thus empowering the populace to hold their government accountable.

The same economist reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had warned Africa to be aware of new form of colonialism, an obvious but oblique reference to the presence of China in Africa.

It’s hard to know if Secretary Clinton truly believed that Africans would find her credible or if she were merely mouthing a party line that she knew her American constituents would want to hear.

The End of the Dollar is Neigh

While Congress is wringing their collective hands over US Olympian uniforms that are made in China and incumbent president Obama and presumptive challenge Romney are mud wrestling over who has sent more jobs offshore, along comes another observation on the doom of the dollar. This article gives eleven reasons why the role of the dollar as a global reserve currency is about to end.

I have been tracking currency swaps that China has entered with other nations. The aforementioned article points out that China is not the only country making this trade provision that would by-pass the need to hold onto dollars.

No one in the mainstream media seems to be following this global trend of shying away from the dollar nor examining the consequence to the American economy when the value of the dollar plummets and inflation grabs the consumer by the throat. 

Condemning Olympic Apparel Made in China: Another Tempest in a Teapot Brewed by Congress

Congress is tackling yet another crisis of gargantuan proportions. They are upset that the spiffy outfits the American Olympic team will wear at the opening ceremony while designed by Ralph Lauren are (gasp) made in China.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was outraged and declared that all the uniforms should be burned and just let the athletes wear singlets with hand painted logo of USA. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle jumped in to castigate the Olympic Committee for failing to buy American.

A representative of the American garment industry pointed out that at about $1500 to outfit each athlete, the committee could easily have sourced the apparel from US makers.

What the person did not point out was that a made-in-the-USA outfit would have taken out the entire margin of the opening wear--a margin that the committee undoubtedly intended as part of their fund raising effort.

Just go on to the official website of the US Olympic Committee and one can see all kinds of “official” souvenir gear from berets to shirts and blazers available for fans to purchase. If the apparel were made in the USA and still affordably priced to sell, the committee would not raise much money, if any.

Unlike some countries, such as China, where Olympic participation enjoys state financial support, the US Olympians will go to London through donations and private sector fund raising efforts.

The US government, even if it wanted to, does not have the money to finance the Olympians. Members of Congress surely know all this.

Since much of what Americans wear are made in China, it shouldn’t surprise anyone. But when it became known that the Olympian garb was also from China, it was a no risk, no cost, no downside, and no brainer opportunity to take a pot shot at the Olympic Committee and vilify once again things made in China.

In the meantime, disaster looms as America hurtles towards the “fiscal cliff” at yearend. That’s when tax cuts expire and mandated government spending cuts begin.

While all the economists and pundits are certain that such a combination will result in the next economic disaster for the US, they are also certain that no one in Washington has the political courage or vision to enact anything meaningful that would stop the runaway train.

Such has the state of our democracy become: Terrifically adept at jumping into petty minutia but cowardly absent when it comes to tackling real issues confronting the future well-being of this country.

To conform to Senator Reid’s wishes, the standard bearer leading the US delegation into the opening ceremony in London should wear nothing (made in China), just a G-string with a made-in-USA label emblazoned to the extent possible.

Such a spectacle will convey several concurrent messages to the worldwide viewers: Washington kingmakers have no clothes and no statesmanship, and America is a poor country in more ways than one. 

See another version in New America Media. The LA Times carried the astonished view of the controversy from China.