How to make sense of the dispute between Japan and China over some half a dozen uninhabited islets in the East China Sea known as the Diaoyu to the Chinese and the Senkaku to the Japanese? <\/p>\n
With a combined area of just a couple of square kilometers, and no permanent human use of any of the islands in recent decades, it is hard to see how the islands could nearly bring the two Asian nations to blows. But from a broad perspective, these rocks are laden with tremendous symbolic and historical significance. <\/p>\n
For China, the status of the Diaoyu islands today constitutes a legacy of a period of Japanese aggression beginning in the late 19th century and continuing until 1945 for which Japan sometimes still fails to show proper repentance. In Beijing's eyes, standing up for what it views as its proper rights upholds the post-World War II international order, which dictates that Japan give up the territories that it took from China in the war of 1894-95. <\/p>\n
For Japan, China's new interest in what had appeared to be a settled matter over the islands suggests a newly assertive China is bent on using its increased power for nationalistic purposes not only over these particular islands, but also in other maritime domains of the western Pacific region. As such, beyond the immediate importance of these islands, the dispute could be a harbinger of unpleasant things to come. <\/p>\n
Nationalistic politics in both countries further compound the difficulty of finding a solution to the quarrel over islands that both sides claim in their entirety. <\/p>\n
We are independent scholars from each of the key countries involved in this dispute. This includes the U.S., which professes no opinion on who owns the islands, but made many of the territorial decisions after World War II that produced the current situation, and which continues to support Japanese claims to be the rightful administrator of the islands today. The following is offered as a framework to spur our governments to try new approaches. <\/p>\n
Two main ideas are at the heart of our proposal, which is designed to respect the core interests and nonnegotiable demands of both claimants to the islands. One pillar is the notion of shared sovereignty, with both Japan and China retaining their claims to all the islands. The second calls for ownership of the islands to be decoupled from ongoing disputes over who has access to parts of the surrounding seas and seabeds. This logic leads to two options that policymakers in Beijing, Tokyo and Washington should consider: <\/p>\n
An interim freeze: The simplest approach would be for each side to not object to the other's claim of sovereignty, and for both sides to forgo any active use, administration or oversight of the islands. In effect, the dispute would be frozen. This would allow time for the Japan-China relationship to return to a calmer state, or perhaps for new ideas to emerge on how sovereignty can be shared more permanently. By decoupling the ownership issue from economic rights around the islands, the situation could be further eased. <\/p>\n
A more binding solution: This approach would employ similar logic but seek a more lasting resolution. It would include six points: <\/p>\n
Each side agrees to not challenge the right of the other to maintain its respective claims to full sovereignty over all the islands. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the article here: <\/p>\n
A framework for resolving Japan-China dispute over islands<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" How to make sense of the dispute between Japan and China over some half a dozen uninhabited islets in the East China Sea known as the Diaoyu to the Chinese and the Senkaku to the Japanese? With a combined area of just a couple of square kilometers, and no permanent human use of any of the islands in recent decades, it is hard to see how the islands could nearly bring the two Asian nations to blows Continue reading