America’s Attitude toward Diaoyu Dispute Will Embarrass Japan

According to a Wall Street Journal web article published Sept. 24, China and Japan could learn from the 1992 consensus between mainland China and Taiwan, using verbal statements from each side to get past this impasse over the Diaoyu Islands.

Perhaps the U.S. has already realized that a problem can only be fixed by the one who caused it. In regard to the Diaoyu Islands conflict, the U.S. cannot easily escape blame. According to the National Defense Academy of Japan’s former President Iokibe Makoto, the U.S. can only gain a foothold in East Asia if a moderate amount of friction occurs between the countries of this region. “This ‘block of ice’ [territorial dispute] originated out of U.S. strategy.”

With this in mind, I believe that Japan should carefully consider the United States’ suggestions and advice for mediating this deadlock with China. Due to Japan’s supposed “nationalization” of the Diaoyu Islands, Sino-Japanese relations have fallen to a “freezing point” over the past year or so. The Abe administration has refused China’s call for negotiated settlement of the disputes, insisting instead that “there is no territorial issue with China.” What is really indisputable is that this has caused damage to both Japan’s foreign diplomacy and international trade.

In terms of foreign diplomacy, Abe has expressed, “Only by strengthening our alliance with the U.S. can Japan have real power in foreign affairs.” However, Japan’s reliance on the U.S. cannot help but expose its “foreign dwarf” image. As Japanese media revealed, during the summit meeting between President Obama and President Xi Jinping in June, Abe had to be rushed to the hospital overnight and use the hyperbaric chamber to “decompress” due to mental strain and stress. In regard to economics and trade, Japan’s market share in China is shrinking due to declining amounts of trade. According to a survey recently released by the Japan External Trade Organization, about 70 percent of Chinese consumers interviewed now choose to purchase fewer Japanese products because of the deteriorated Sino-Japanese relations due to the Diaoyu conflict.

Some analysts believe that Japan has been shifting its foreign economic focus to Southeast Asia, but I do not believe this is the case. According to the Japanese Imperial Database (TBD), which holds the most comprehensive database of enterprises in Asia, a total of 14,394 Japanese companies have entered the Chinese market, including 5,951 manufacturing industries. Can more than 10,000 companies simply step out of China? Does the Japanese government really wish to shoulder all these manufacturing and production costs? According to former Speaker of the Japanese House of Representatives Yohei Kono’s views, “No matter what, the Japanese economy cannot develop and grow without Chinese economic growth.” Perhaps these were words of frustration, but regardless, they reflect the truth of the times.

On Sept. 20, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. that China was prepared to sit down with Japan, but that “Japan must first admit that the dispute exists. The whole world knows that the dispute exists.”* Wang Yi also expressed that once Japan acknowledges the dispute around the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands, China will be ready to discuss Sino-Japanese territorial claims in the South China Sea. However, if Japan continues to stubbornly ignore the Diaoyu conflict that “the whole world knows exists,” then how would it be possible to create an “appropriate atmosphere for conversation”?*

Needless to say, Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s attitude demonstrates both China’s rational approach to settling the Diaoyu dispute, as well as China’s initiative and magnanimity in trying to resolve issues with Japan. Historically, China has always emphasized that “only he who recognizes the intricacies of a situation can act heroically.” Thus, China advises Abe to examine the complexities of the Diaoyu dispute. Otherwise, Japan will suffer great losses in both its foreign diplomacy and international trade.

*Editor’s note: These quotes, accurately translated, could not be verified.