 |
Rising tensions in Northeast Asia. Surveillance overflights triggering scrambled fighter jets. Trade boycotts and sometimes violent street protests. Dueling diplomatic demarches. Angry recriminations about history, colonialism, and national identity. An energized community of netizens and a blogosphere on steroids. Sadly, this is not the stuff of movie thrillers, but one aspect—today, an especially prominent aspect—of the frequently contentious and always complex relationship between the governments and the peoples of Japan and the People’s Republic of China. Wait a minute, the various East Asian disputants might reply. How typical of westerners—specifically Americans—to simultaneously sensationalize and trivialize serious matters by conjuring up overwrought film images. At issue here, Chinese analysts contend, are unresolved issues of Japanese imperialism. To the contrary, many Japanese respond, the real issue is one of Chinese aggression and bullying. These disputes and conflicting perspectives provide the backdrop for an extraordinary initiative by scholars from Japan and China worried about the escalating tensions between East Asia’s two giants. The Woodrow Wilson Center’s Asia Program and George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (S-CAR) take great pleasure in joining forces with these scholars, led by Dr. Zheng Wang of Seton Hall University and Dr. Tatsushi Arai of S-CAR and the School for International Training Graduate Institute. Drs. Wang and. Arai recruited U.S.-based scholars from China and Japan to exchange ideas and explore options on how their two countries might better manage their disagreements, including and especially the current conflict over the eight small scraps of rock in the East China Sea—in total not much more than 2 ½ square miles—known in China as the Diaoyu Islands and in Japan as the Senkaku Islands. (The Taiwanese also claim these islands, and call them Diaoyutai.) As difficult as it sometimes is for the foreign friends of these two countries to fathom, the Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute, if not handled wisely, could erupt into a truly dangerous situation holding the serious possibility for armed clashes. he essays in this collection are one product of this engagement between these Japanese and Chinese scholars. Collectively they represent an effort to use the tools of history, political science, economics, and other disciplines to explore the roots and dynamics of the Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute, and to suggest how this conflict might be resolved not only peacefully, but in a manner that will help the two sides fruitfully deal with the other issues that stand in the way of genuine reconciliation between these two proud nations. This, however, is not simply a matter that involves Japan and China; the United States is also something far more than merely a passive spectator here. True, in a legal sense the United States is not a party to this dispute-Washington takes no position on where ultimate sovereignty over the five islets and three rocks lies. But in fact, the United States has a real stake in seeing that events do not spin out of control in the East China Sea. Partly this is because the United States has an obvious interest in stability and prosperity in East Asia. But beyond that, the Obama administration has made it clear that the United States is bound by the terms of its mutual defense treaty with Tokyo to come to Japan’s aid should China use force to challenge the status quo in the Senkakus/Diaoyus. It does not need to be said that virtually no one in Washington would welcome the prospect of an armed clash with China. Nor would most Americans wish to see an escalation of U.S.-Chinese tensions even short of armed conflict; too many important American interests would be compromised should Washington and Beijing fail to keep their inevitable rivalry within bounds. One can, then, hardly imagine a more timely initiative than this scholarly dialogue, or one with a greater potential payoff. The manner in which a conversation occurs is frequently very relevant to its outcomes. A tense, public, and increasingly hostile environment breeds a tone of voice, an intensity of expressions, and a rigidity in the delivery that can be avoided when the exchange occurs in a welcoming, respectful, and relaxed atmosphere. This is what happened in the days before the public session that concluded this dialogue, through a series of meetings at a location, Point of View, that has been defined as a “private Camp David,” a place where it was possible to meet confidentially and explore options in a climate of mutual respect. The Point of View process is part of the design, implementation, and purpose of the meetings and this report. It is not an empty promise, but a commitment to explore responsibly areas of disagreement with an honest and open attitude. All of us are constantly co-authoring our trajectories. We define each other all the time; we can do that aggressively and disrespectfully, or cooperatively and effectively. Engagement requires patience and respect, competence and attention. The Point of View process has been so far very fruitful in this case, and we are grateful for this. We also feel the responsibility for what has to come. S-CAR and the Wilson Center’s Asia Program have been gratified to have played a small role in bringing Drs. Wang and Arai’s initiative to fruition. Our two institutions are also pleased to acknowledge all those whose dedicated support has made this partnership possible. Heading that list, of course, are Tatsushi Arai and Zheng Wang, and the splendid group of scholars they recruited for this effort. The Wilson Center’s Asia Program also thanks Joshua Spooner for his able assistance in arranging the January 2013 Wilson Center forum where these scholars shared some of their conclusions and recommendations with a broader public. S-CAR is particularly grateful to the Lynch family, who made it possible for Point of View to be offered as a place in which thinking, cooperative alternatives could be fostered, and to the Center for Peacemaking Practice (CPP), which took this initiative under its auspices. Last, but surely not least, we take pleasure in recognizing Ms. Shihoko Goto, who worked with Drs. Arai and Wang and their team of scholars to shepherd this collection from conception to print.
As tensions between Japan and China continue to bubble over islands in the East China Sea, scholars from the two countries outline not only the origins, but also the policy options to resolve the territorial dispute. Together with George Mason University, the Wilson Center hosted a conference on how the ongoing conflict may be resolved in late January. Clash of National Identities: China, Japan, and the East China Territorial Dispute is a compliation of essays by the conference participants.