The Senkaku Islands without the U.S.

At a Japan-U.S. foreign affairs conference, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that Article 5 of the Japan-U.S. bilateral security treaty is applicable to the Senkaku Islands. However, this is not a reason for Japan to feel relieved.

You should not misunderstand. Article 5 refers to “territories under the administration of Japan.” In other words, Ms. Clinton said that the Senkaku Islands are “territories under the administration of Japan,” but she did not say that they are Japanese territory. She is simply repeating the stance that America has taken until now.

Now, Chinese patrol boats and Japanese patrol boats are in the sea around the Senkaku Islands glaring at each other. Chinese ships are showing that they have the right to be there, provided by their government. If this is to become the normal state of affairs, then the Senkaku Islands will become an exception to the Japan-U.S. bilateral treaty. If this is the case, are the four northern islands and Takeshima Island, which are under the control of Russia and Korea, being exempted too?

If the Japanese and Chinese patrol boats began fighting, would the U.S. deploy it’s forces? It’s not that simple.

At a conference on the Japan-U.S. bilateral security treaty in 2005, it was decided that Japan would independently deal with any military aggression against its islands. This was stressed again on a TV program on BS11 by Ukeru Magosaki, the director general of the Intelligence and Analysis Bureau in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This is the reality of the U.S.-Japan alliance. Trusting in America too much and adopting a simple, firm diplomatic stance is dangerous. We should adopt a stance to be ready without relying on the U.S.

The origin of the territorial dispute over the Senkaku Islands dates back to the handover of the Okinawa Islands in 1971. The U.S. returned control over Okinawa and the Daitou Islands to Japan, and at that point, the Senkaku Islands were included.

At the time, China (although now in fact the area of Taiwan) protested that, geographically and historically, the Senkaku Islands were part of their country. Then, the People’s Republic of China, with whom Japan had no diplomatic relations, claimed that as part of Taiwan, the Senkaku Islands were also its territory. Japan claimed that the islands were part of the Okinawa islands returned by America, and therefore were theirs.

So, what do you think America’s stance was? Regarding the “territories returned to the administration of Japan which include the Senkaku Islands,” the “right of government administration and right to sovereignty are different.” Japan was told that “in the case of confrontation over territorial dispute, the countries involved should reach a resolution amongst themselves” (Post War China-Japan Relations, by Kinkei Rin).

At that time, Kissinger was secretly working to improve relations between the U.S. and China. In February 1972, President Nixon went on a sudden visit to China; then in May, Okinawa was returned to Japan and a nuclear missile on Okinawa that was aimed at China was withdrawn. It was an act of consideration. America’s neutral position on the issue of the Senkaku Islands is also an act of consideration. It seems that since that time, America has a separate face that it shows only to China.