The student news site of Guilford College

The Guilfordian

The student news site of Guilford College

The Guilfordian

The student news site of Guilford College

The Guilfordian

China and Japan fighting for ownership of seven islands in East China Sea

Seven uninhabited islands are causing tension between China and Japan.

On Sept. 3, Japan announced the possibility of sending a government official to live on the islands. Both countries have staked claims and declare that they will use force to defend the territory.

The islands are known as the Senkaku in Japanese and the Diaoyu in Chinese. Japan currently administers the islands, but both China and Taiwan have argued for ownership.

Who really has right to the islands? And why are countries proposing such extreme measures? Old treaties, wars and emotions run high in this conflict.

“The Japanese did not consider … (that) the islands had been mentioned multiple times in Chinese records previously,” said Zhihong Chen, assistant professor of history. “Even though the Chinese records did not say ‘this is our territory,’ (Japan) claims that this Japanese man discovered the Diaoyu Islands, which is not really true.

“In the end, it really comes down to how you define ownership.”

Japan administered the islands from 1895–1945. After 72 years of U.S. trusteeship, the islands were returned to Japan.

“There was debate in the U.S. administration,” said Professor of Political Science George Guo.  “Do they give (the territory) to China based on the historical records? But also, Japan is a strong U.S. ally, so the U.S. has avoided taking an explicit position on ownership of the islands.”

Many argue that the Sino-Japanese tensions are fueled by more than current territorial disputes. For example, China holds that Japan has yet to offer an official apology for certain war crimes committed towards the Chinese during World War II.

“One way to deflect people’s pent-up frustrations inside the country is to tread the dangerous line of building up nationalist sentiment against some boogie man — in this case, against Japan,” said Eric Mortensen, associate professor of religious studies.

“Once you let the genie out of the bottle, it’s hard to contain nationalism,” he added.

While traveling in China, Mortensen recounted seeing a sign that said, “No Japanese or Dogs Allowed.” He also said that, for a time, it was dangerous for Japanese citizens to be out on the streets in China.

Jeremy Rinker, visiting assistant professor of peace and conflict studies, proposes a solution to this age-old conflict.

“It might be better if (China and Japan) went to professionals working in the private sector,” said Rinker. “What we don’t want to create is a negative peace, because then conflict is going to reemerge.”

Innovative thinking often prevents war.

“To find creative ways to jointly attend and care for the islands, Japan and China should give up approaching the issue exclusively in terms of the question, ‘Which side, China or Japan, has the legitimate territorial claim over the islands?’” said Hiroko Hirakawa, associate professor of foreign languages, in an email interview.

With so many possibilities on the table, only time will tell whether these islands better or worsen the root of the rift.

View Comments (5)
More to Discover

Comments (5)

The Guilfordian intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are reviewed and must be approved by a moderator to ensure that they meet these standards. The Guilfordian does not allow anonymous comments, and requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Guilfordian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • C

    ChrisSep 28, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    There will never be a war between nuclear powers so we can go ahead scratch that off the list of options. So as long as the United States has a defense agreement with Japan there will be no world war. Likewise, the first thing that should be taught in international law is the fact that there is no such thing as international law. To abide by an honest set of rules among nations is to place your country at a comparative disadvantage as you will be alone in the process. If the geopolitical lessons of the cold war teach us anything let it be that.

    I likewise see comments of Japanese atrocities, which of course, are absolutely and historically correct. However, if one is motivated to go after the youth of today for the sins of their fathers then let’s call it what it is, revenge on the innocent for the actions of the guilty. In any case, and if that is your standard, there was no one better at exterminating the Chinese people than Mao Zedong himself. Historical estimates range from 23-46 million; more than both the First and Second Sino-Japanese Wars combined. Just thought I would throw that out there.

    In any case, if we are to look at the possible motives of the Chinese and Japanese countries respectively we would easily see that the matter goes well beyond the simple issue of right and wrong. This thinking process starts when we ask ourselves why the two countries are squabbling over seemingly vacant islands.

    Indeed, the Chinese alone have land and island disputes with Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bhutan, India, Taiwan, South Korea, North Korea, Brunei, and Japan. In fact, the Chinese are claiming the whole of the South China Sea from their mainland all the way down to Indonesia and everything in-between. Of course, one does not need to look too far into this scheme to discover that 1/3rd of the world’s trade passes through the South China Sea before the light bulb turns on. Exclusive rights over these waterways would be the equivalent of owning the Panama or Suez Canals; not to mention the oil, fishing, and mineral rights. In other words, it would be one heck of a geopolitical playing card!

    I would argue that no one’s intentions in the region are pure and if we dare to mandate that one country play fair we would be condemning them to a set of rules that no one else plays by. Perhaps it is time we stepped back to look at the big picture instead of thinking such issues are plain as a hundred year old map or as clear as right and wrong. For every conflict in any given region there are yet another hundred ones attached that we are unaware of; treaties, waterways, peoples, groups, ideologies, rights, economics, cultures, histories, relationships, wars, religions, and etcetera, and etcetera, and etcetera, among them.

    Reply
  • J

    Justice1215Sep 28, 2013 at 4:02 am

    In June 2004, Japanese professor Tadayoshi Murata of Yokohama National University, published “Senkaku Islands vs the Diaoyu Islands Dispute” (some info is here) and supports that “Since the Ming Dynasty, Chinese maps and documents of many kinds marked Diaoyu Islands, Huangwei Islands, Chiwei Islands as being lying within the territory of China”. His 2nd book in 2013: “Origin of Japan’s territorial issues – Official documents do not reflect the Truth”.

    The island did not appear in the Map of Great Japan in 1876 drew by Japan’s General Staff Office of the Ministry of Army . Japan’s claim of its purported “discovery in 1884” of the Diaoyu Islands contradicts with the navigation map in its own 1783 historical document Sankoku Tsuran Zusetsu published by prominent Japanese military scholar Hayashi Shihei clearly stating the island a part of China . The inconvenient Truth behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands . What does the view of some Japanese scholars tell us ? . Small islands � Big problem: Senkaku/Diaoyu.
    Japanese Professor Murata said, “We tend to take the opinion of the government, political parties and media as being the correct views and accept them readily; however, those opinions do not necessarily represent the truth. To us scholars, what is important is what is real, what is true, not the national interest; over this point, political parties and media have the same problem.”

    Reply
  • J

    Justice1215Sep 28, 2013 at 4:01 am

    On July 14 2012, Sun Kawasaki, international intelligence chief of the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan said Diaoyutai and its affiliated islands is not inherent territory of Japan. He further explained that the Chinese influence in the 14th century, Chinese military had been extended to the Diaoyu Islands and their adjacent waters, while the Diaoyu Islands belong to Taiwan, Taiwan belongs to China, that the Diaoyutai and its affiliated islands belong to China. He believes that maintaining the status quo is the most advantageous method to Japan.

    Reply
  • J

    jaySep 27, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    Potsdam Declaration

    “Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū,Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.” As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests.”The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed””stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners”

    http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Potsdam_Declaration.html

    Reply
  • J

    JamesSep 27, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    The world is divided and has gone through two world wars. Even after committing great human atrocities against China, Korea (both North and South) , and other Asian neighbors, Japan still has yet to atone for the crimes, not to mention make proper apologies. What a contrast in remorse, as shown by Germany. And Germany goes on to be a highly honored nation, both as an economic and military powerhouse. On the other hand, Japan remains an abnormal country. She is living in her own world of lies and depravity.

    The tension in East China Sea is the making of US and Japan, to conjure up a reason to go to war with China. And WW3 will see the confrontations between US and allies (including UK, Australia, Japan, Philippines, etc…) and Russia and allies (including China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc…). And the world will never be the same ever, after WW3. There will be many uninhabitable land around the world.

    Reply