Tag Archives: China

Asia, China, Japan, Politics, Society, United States

The embroilment over the Senkaku Islands between Japan and China…

SENKAKU ISLANDS

Intro: Japan and China, and America’s delicate balancing act

The row between Japan and China over the Senkaku islands is escalating. It has implications for almost everyone.

The Senkaku (or to China the Diaoyu) is an obscure archipelago comprising a tiny chain of five uninhabited islets and three barren rocks, located hundreds of miles from land. To an outside observer this might seem an unlikely prize given the awkwardness of the island’s geographical position, but with everything from oil revenues to regional clout at stake, the dispute in Asia is cause for grave concern.

The history concerning ownership of the islands is important to understand. Whilst Beijing maintains that the islands were claimed by China in the 1300s, Tokyo insists they were classed as an international no man’s land until Japan seized control and took them over in 1895. The political dispute has been rumbling on since the 1970s, but the pressure has steadily increased in recent years as a newly rich and empowered China has sought to flex its regional muscles by attempting to extend its influence in the US-dominated Pacific.

Last year, Japan stoked tensions with the announcement by the Governor of Tokyo of plans to use public money to purchase the islands from their private owner. That hardly gave notice of Japan’s intention to defuse ongoing tensions. Now, though, it is China that has upped the ante. Last week, Beijing declared a new ‘air defence identification zone’ covering a swathe of the South China Sea, including the disputed islands. The order from China requires all aircraft entering the sector to submit flight plans or face ‘defensive emergency measures’. This was always going to be contentious, if not provocative for Tokyo, as the area overlaps with one of Japan’s own air defence zones.

Indeed, Tokyo’s response was swift and uncompromising. The Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, derided the plan as being ‘unenforceable’ and of having ‘no validity’. Two Japanese long-haul airlines which initially complied with Beijing’s demands were soon persuaded to withdraw their co-operation.

The reaction of the United States, however, has been imperative here. Because Washington has a post-war commitment to the defence of Japanese territory (which includes the Senkaku Islands), and given its recent foreign policy ‘pivot to Asia’, Beijing’s moves are increasingly being interpreted as a test of resolve for Barack Obama and of Mr Abe. America’s orientation towards Asia has stemmed from China’s rising power.

The U.S. has acted decisively. This week, it sent two unarmed B52s through the zone without notifying the Chinese authorities.

In an attempt to pacify tensions being inflamed still further, the Pentagon quickly claimed the flight was a long-planned training mission. For many analysts, though, the message is crystal clear – particularly given that it came days after the Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, denounced Beijing’s move as a ‘destabilising attempt to alter the status quo in the region’. Mr Hagel stated, too, that American military operations or its foreign policy on Asia would not change.

America’s intervention and move has been the right one, simply on the premise that China cannot be allowed to throw its weight around. If Beijing has a case then it must be sought through the correct legal channels, not implemented and administered unilaterally because of its desire to control.

Japan must also bear some responsibility in provoking tensions as flashpoints have become commonly frequent. In equal fashion it has shown itself too ready to indulge in rhetorical chest-beating with Mr Abe at times exhibiting disturbingly nationalist leanings. For the U.S., maintaining regional balance is paramount, and it should not been seen to be endorsing posturing from either side.

The diplomatic task facing the US in Asia is as difficult and perilous as any it is currently faced with. The Senkaku Islands may be just a few distant and remote rocks, but the chances are they could become the fulcrum upon which one of the greatest challenges of 21st century geopolitics lie. With both Beijing and Tokyo under growing domestic pressure for a show of strength abroad, and with the inevitable disruption that China’s economic rise will cause, America must be sure of its approach in maintaining regional balance.

At the heart of the dispute are eight uninhabited islands and rocks in the East China Sea. They have a total area of about 7 sq km and lie north-east of Taiwan, east of the Chinese mainland and south-west of Japan's southern-most prefecture, Okinawa. The islands are controlled by Japan.

At the heart of the dispute are eight uninhabited islands and rocks in the East China Sea. They have a total area of about 7 sq km and lie north-east of Taiwan, east of the Chinese mainland and south-west of Japan’s southern-most prefecture, Okinawa. The islands are controlled by Japan.

Related issue:

In response to an article published on The Economist, dated 20 October, 2012, entitled: ‘Rattling the supply chains’, MD wrote:

‘The simmering tensions between Beijing and Tokyo over the Senkaku islands has prompted questions over what the high-profile dispute could mean for proposed trade talks between Asia’s two largest economies and South Korea, as well as for regional trade overall.

An announcement in May of this year was made of plans to open formal trade negotiations between Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing. They agreed to begin the talks by the end of 2012 but this deadline has lately been called into question, with many analysts believing that two of the three parties might not even make it to the negotiating table.

The tensions between China and Japan stem from a territorial dispute over a series of tiny islands in the East China Sea, an area to which both countries have now laid claim. The islands – known as Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China – have symbolic significance, with their surrounding waters said to be rich in natural gas deposits.

The row, which has intensified rapidly in recent weeks, reached new heights in the past few days when Chinese finance officials pulled out of attending annual meetings with the IMF and World Bank that were being hosted by Tokyo. How the disagreement will be resolved remains unclear, as well as what the broader trade implications could be. The tri-lateral trade agreement with South Korea, for instance, might be under threat.

However, despite their disagreements, Chinese and Japanese officials have made clear that the proposed free trade agreement could have major benefits for both economies. Regardless of his insistence that his country will not cede sovereignty of the disputed territory, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has openly acknowledged the value of eliminating trade barriers with Asia’s most powerful country. In the last decade alone, trade between the two nations has tripled, reaching more than $340 billion. A continuing row is not only likely to damage what has been a healthy relationship over the past ten years but could prove troublesome for the wider Asia region. Regional trade could be affected; ties between many countries could radically change because, invariably, any major trade relationship will always involve Japan and China.

Some of the predicted effects are beginning to surface. Japanese car exports to China have suffered since the dispute began and according to the latest JPMorgan Chase projections, could decrease by as much as 70 per cent in the final quarter of this year.’

Standard
China, Economic, Environment, Government, Politics, Society, United Nations

United Nations: ‘Greenhouse gases have reached a record high’…

MORAL DUTY TO ACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

It comes as a complete surprise to hear the United Nations announcing that greenhouse gases have reached a record high. This is nothing but disheartening given the increase in environmental awareness over the past decade when we consider the amount of effort that has been made by our own country and others to cut down on carbon emissions.

While strenuous and laborious efforts have been made by many developed countries in reducing their carbon footprints, these incremental shifts have not been enough to offset the vast industrialisation of emerging economies such as China, where growth is now so rapid that green and environmental considerations are far down the list of government priorities.

The Chinese, of course, want the amenity and luxury of what we in the West take for granted, but do not take kindly to being told by already developed nations that they must achieve this more ‘sustainably’. Veering away from the higher costs involved is perhaps understandable given the size of China – costs which would undoubtedly run into trillions if it were to rapidly convert to more sustainable programmes.

The net effect of the global greenhouse gas menace has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to warn that, without further remedial action, global temperatures will rise by 1.1°C by the end of the century, and sea levels will rise.

A cynic’s response would be to urge the UK government to abandon what would seem to be a hopeless cause. Realistically, though, we cannot allow ourselves the pleasure of such cynicism. The UN report is hardly an excuse to do nothing.

The assertion made that efforts by developed countries is not having any tangible effect is impossible to prove, given the number of extraneous variables involved. If we can do something extra to reduce carbon emissions, then we should at least try. One of the most compelling arguments for refusing to be deflected from reducing our greenhouse gas emissions that we have embarked upon is a moral one. How will we ever persuade others to act on climate change unless we continue to act on our own convictions?

Standard
China, Economic, Government, Politics, United States

The shifting tide of global power…

CHINA VERSUS AMERICA

A week of global economic peril, concluded late last week with a sigh of relief that reverberated around the world. America’s Republican Party zealots finally backed down following President Obama’s steadfast refusal to compromise on his signature healthcare bill. Life in Washington has returned to what passes for normal, but for the risk and uncertainty of a U.S. default deferred until January.

Late last week, too, came the news that China’s economy – the world’s most important locomotive – has recovered from two lacklustre quarters to report annual growth figures of 7.8 per cent. The good sense of the UK Chancellor, George Osborne, to engage as keenly as possible with China should be self-explanatory.

Yet, these two different events portray in the simplest terms the widening gulf and relative performance of the world’s two most powerful states. That in turn is reflecting the rather expeditious way in which global power is shifting. The Obama administration made a pivot to Asia a central tenet of its term in office, a policy that was made in response both to the economic opportunities on that side of the world and the brisk growth in China’s economic muscle. China’s geopolitical ambitions are a direct threat and challenge to the United States.

Mr Obama’s tactical approach was a sound one. The fact that Washington’s bitter political stalemate has led the president to cancel two planned Asian summits this month speaks loudly for the limits on the actual power of the man – often described, erringly, as the most powerful in the world.

China, meanwhile, continues to surge ahead, its peculiar and atypical political architecture proving to be more than adequate in hauling the rest of the world out of recession.

The economic data released from Beijing has received a muted greeting from many economists: the wild and extraordinary years in which China’s economy grew at double figures are undoubtedly over, and China’s new leadership certainly does not want them back. The Chinese challenge is to keep the economy growing fast enough to maintain a strong employment market and to avoid any prospect of incomes stagnating. Protecting domestic consumption on which future growth will inevitably depend is an important factor. Dramatic growth figures, however, will make it much harder for the Chinese government to push through their plans to curb inefficient and highly polluting industries. They need just enough growth to allow the economy to become leaner and more contemporary, but not much more to allow the unreformed parts to inflate more than they already have.

In achieving this, China has the advantage, and one that is shared by all authoritarian regimes, that all the political controls and levers are in their own hands – at least notionally. And it has to be said they are managing them with impressive competence: Xi Jinping’s self-congratulatory tune that China’s economy is basically doing very well, and that the slowdown was the result of its own adjustment initiative, is largely correct.

China is still growing, and the geopolitical power is increasingly pivoting to the East. The U.S. has tied itself in knots which it will struggle to untangle if a clear budget blueprint is not now delivered.

The implications may be stark enough, but this does not necessarily mean that we should resign ourselves to a new kind of dominion in our dealings with the Far East. For centuries, foreigners who have lived in awe of China’s size and revered age performed a pandering act. We should be careful in repudiating the idea that anyone should not be nervous about doing business with say the Chinese firm Huawei, a company that is frequently accused of industrial espionage, or by embracing Chinese management of our nuclear power stations, and saying nothing of a controversial nature. Dictatorial regimes have brutal histories, and in the case of China persecuting religious minorities and suppressing Tibetan autonomy are well documented.

Standard