So, Japan has enjoyed a long period of safe and peaceful times.

But in the unstable condition it currently is, can we draw a straight line to war?  First of all, I am a pacifist, but I don’t intend to ritualistically dream peace and call it a day. Its hard for me to imagine Japan or China at war, but the point of this exercise is to draw up a simple scenario in which war is possible. Having said that, a violent war that suddenly breaks out is unlikely between Japan and China in the modern age.

However, recently some politicians have suggested to place the self-defense force on the Senkaku islands, an series of uninhabited islands that have been under dispute with china since the 70′s. This proposition can lead to war depending on how its carried out.

While Japan claims the Senkaku islands as its own, and probably intend to use the self-defense force as a deterrent against the Chinese government, this is a naively optimistic plan. Just like the government thought that releasing the detained Chinese captain would conclude the senkaku incident, its not reading beyond the optimistic and ideal outcome of their situations. A normal, functioning government would usually do this, but the current Japanese government cannot be easily trusted.

So, what exactly would happen if the self-defense force is deployed on Senkaku?:

The Japanese Government’s point of view:

By using the self-defense force as a deterrent against China, the Senkaku islands can be secured.  Since the Kan regime is being criticized for its yielding stance in the senkaku incidents, this measure would increase popularity

There are lots of nuances which are aimed to direct public opinion back towards the regime in the statment:

“1: This decision, in the eyes of United States, Korea, and other nations, shows Japan’s defeat in the international community.  The damage that this has brought to the future of Japanese foreign policy is intolerable.

2: The decision has left an impression to the Japanese public that the nation has yielded to foreign pressures. This has negatively affected the public’s trust and expectation towards the regime, while also rapidly cooling the Sino-Japanese relationship that has been nurtured over 40 years.

3: At the same thime, this has dissapointed  Southeast Asian country who also has territorial disputes with China, and shows that our security is deeply reliant on the US. This will severly affect the future of Japan’s diplomacy in China.”

So baisically, although there are three points in the statement, they all say the same thing: “Everyones making fun of Japan because of this”

So, on the last of the necessary next steps lies number five:

“5: Deploy the self-defense force on the Senkaku Islands, and install a node for fishing and economical structures.”

This logic is similar to saying that there will be no bank robbers after having a security guy at the door. What’s dangerous about his statement is that there is no “What if a violent burglar comes knocking the door?”. “Japan is not armed: How can we deter foreign agression in the future?” is the necessary point that is omitted.

The way China would see things:

Japan has claimed Senkaku by denying the territorial dispute. However, China is claiming Senkaku as theirs, and have been vociferous in their assertions. However unreasonable this claim may be, if the Japanese defense force occupies Senkaku, China would have to take this as a territorial invasion.  Japan has released the captain, an act that can be taken as nullifying the Japanese authority in the area.  If Japan establishes some sort of a military base or outpost on Senkaku, this can be seen as an act of invasion, even if Japan has legal validity as far as claiming the said islands.  The chinese military has agressively modernized and grown in the past few years, and it has a lot of military wippower and resourses in its arsenal, as well as exerting increased influence in the governing regime. Along with the economic warfare which China has already engaged in (the trade embargo or rare earth materials crucial for Japanese industries), it now has the grounds for physical warfare in the eyes of its own citizens.  

The US-Japan Security Pact to the Rescue!

“So what if China used military force!” one might say. “We(Japan) can put up a fight too!”

Sure, only under the premise in which the US-Japan Security Pact is valid, and big brother America comes marching in to save Japan from the agressors. This would be the reason China wouldn’t advance on Japan in the first place, unless it wants an all-out war against America.

But what “IF”, the security pact was defunct?

Big brother America, is going through money troubles, and its prolonged involvement in the middle east has diminishing domestic support.  Japan has regressed to the world’s third economy, while China is the second and now major trade partner. China is steppign up its game, while the Japanese population and industry is aging. America doesn’t want to fight with China either.

While the US has repeatedly stated that the Senkaku islands would be covered by the security pact in case of foreign agression, it also has supported the Japanese decision to back down during the Senkaku incident, and has neglected to state a stance on the issue. On September 26, while Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has verified the security pact’s coverage over Senkaku dispute, Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley has also clarified that the US will take no position as far as who is actually in posession of the Senkaku Islands. Looking at this contradiction, in the case of physical conflict between Japan and China, the US is going to intervene. The US is not willing to sacrifice improving ties with the economically giant china at the cost of an 60-year old security pact with Japan. The senkaku incident is not broadcased widely in the states, and I can’t help but have this gut feeling that US is issuing contradicting statements and leaving open an exit plan for the security pact.

The US is usually clever to protect itself in these kind of diplomatic tightropes, and rightfully so. Upon examining the security pact, it is obvious that the security pact does not necessarily guarantee the mobilization and intervention using the US armed forces. With what Crowley clarified, the US can pull its hand from any conflict by saying that the Senkaku islands were disputed territories, or fail to not act against agression until the Senkaku has been fully occupied by the chinese army, at which point the Senkaku islands won’t belong to Japan and therefore won’t be covered under the security pact.

So, going back to the metaphor of hiring a guardman to protect the bank; if the burglar kills or subdues the guardman and occupies the bank, will the police follow through to come to the rescue? They may be strategically too late, or in bed with the burglars.

In the case of senkaku incident, the real problem is that Japan didn’t have its self-defence force protecting the islands, and that Japan’s position in the economic world has regressed.  Japan must, at any cost, prevent opening an window of opportunity for physical foreign aggression.  The world has changed, and the old modus operandi and security pact of the past century won’t work the same. Japan needs to consider how it can operate without an reliable US backing.  The Japanese government has urged China to handle things calmly, but Japan also needs to assess its situations and future calmly, as the system it relies on is outdated.

image from Tokyo Genso