As a campaign of government-condoned
anti-Japanese violence continues for the third weekend in China's
cities, Chinese naval and research vessels continue their "survey
and exploration" activities in the waters of Japan's exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) around the Senkaku islands (which China calls
"Diaoyutai") in the western end of the Ryukyu chain.
China has harassed Japanese commercial vessels in the area for over
a year, and in January the Chinese Navy began to patrol areas
adjacent to Japan's waters with new Russian-made
Sovremennyy-class destroyers. These destroyers are newly
built versions of a 1980s design. Each carries a
SS-N-22 "Sunburn" supersonic anti-ship cruise missile, which
makes them very dangerous. On April 13, after failing to get the
Chinese government to cease its activities in the area, the
Japanese government announced that it would no longer dissuade
Japanese firms from filing their own exploration
applications.
Misinformation
in the U.S. and international media describes the matter as
"frictions over disputed waters." But it is a "dispute" that China
raised only in 1972, and only after a report indicated there may be
seabed natural gas deposits in the region. China's aggressiveness
in the area is no longer about energy because more recent surveys
cast doubt on the size of the deposits. China's sole aim now is
territorial. If Washington hopes to maintain respect for
international legal traditions or maintain its alliances in the
Western Pacific, then the United States must support Japan against
China's unreasonable claims.
China Has No
Claim
The status of the Senkakus is clear. Under the
international legal doctrine of terra nullius, Japan first
claimed the uninhabited and unclaimed islets in 1895 to use their
rocky outcroppings for maritime navigation aids. From that time
through the end of World War II, they were administered as part of
Japan's Okinawa prefecture. Upon the Japanese surrender, the United
States administered the islets under a military occupation
authority. In 1972, when the United States returned Okinawa to
Japanese administration, the Senkakus were explicitly included in
the reversion. There is no doubt that the United States has always
regarded the islands as Japanese.
China and Taiwan have expressed interest in
the islands since only 1968, when a United Nations Economic
Commission For Asia development report was released that suggested
there may be large seabed hydrocarbon deposits near the islands. On
June 11, 1971, the Republic of China on Taiwan formally claimed the
Senkakus. Since then, both Taiwan's "Republic of China" government
and the People's Republic in Beijing have made assertions of
sovereignty over the islands based on undocumented ancient texts.
After the United States returned the islands to Japan in the 1972
Okinawa Reversion Agreement, China lodged a formal protest with the
U.S. government. Eager not to alienate Beijing just as President
Nixon was beginning his opening to China, the U.S. State Department
announced that the Reversion Agreement "did not affect the
sovereignty" over disputed islands.
However, as recently as March 24, 2004, the
U.S. Department of State, via a State Department spokesman, has
reasserted that the Senkaku islands fall within the ambit of the
U.S.-Japan Security Treaty:
The Senkaku
Islands have been under the administrative control of the
Government of Japan since having been returned as part of the
reversion of Okinawa in 1972. Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan
Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security states that the treaty
applies to the territories under the administration of Japan; thus,
Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku
Islands.
Sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands is
disputed. The U.S. does not take a position on the question of the
ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Diaoyu Islands. This has been
our longstanding view. We expect the claimants will resolve this
issue through peaceful means and we urge all claimants to exercise
restraint.
U.S. officials have said the U.S.-Japan
Security Treaty covers "all territories under the administration of
Japan," and there is no question that, as a matter of law-whether
under the Reversion Agreement, the alliance treaty, or the terms of
the U.S. military occupation of the Ryukyu island chain-that the
Senkakus are indeed "under the administration of Japan." As such,
any hostile activities against the islands would trigger the
treaty. But Washington's ambiguous stance on "sovereignty" sends a
message to Beijing that the United States views both Japan's and
China's claims as equally valid. Clearly, though, the history of
America's quarter-century occupation of the Senkakus and
international law are powerful evidence that the U.S. considers
Japan's claims to sovereignty as having merit.
The United States should view with alarm
China's increasing aggressiveness in the Western Pacific and its
continuing challenges to long-established territorial sea
demarcations. The Senkaku seabeds that China now claims have been
under the "sovereign" administration of either Japan or the United
States for over a century. The United States should make this point
firmly and thereby confront China's provocations with clarity
instead of ambiguity.
John
Tkacik, Jr., is Research Fellow in China Policy in
the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.