Senkaku/Diaoyu

The prompt for this post was to write about a word, so why choose two words?

Well, Diaoyu and Senkaku mean the same things, in different languages. Senkaku is Japanese and Diaoyu is Chinese for (wait for it...) a group of islands!

Geography

Here's a map for those of you not intimately familiar with East Asian geography.

As you can see, the islands are in-between China, Japan, and Taiwan, due west of Okinawa, and for those of you who still haven't got your bearings, due north of the southwest end of the Ryukyu Islands. Helpful right?

The ownership of these islands has been disputed (primarily between China and Japan, but also Taiwan, ironically itself a disputed island) for a long time (going on 40 years), and this territorial dispute has been a source of tension in the alliance.

A Dispute

Recently, tensions have flared up, because of the arrest of a Chinese fishing boat captain by Japanese coast guard ships after the fisherman collided with the Japanese ships. If you're less familiar with the dispute, here is an excellent summary.

The discussion of the implications surrounding the incident has been pretty interesting. Initially, many writers, (primarily right-wingers) thought the incident would increase US power in the region, as Japan and other countries realized they needed each other and the US to check back an aggressive China. To some extent, this has been the case, as countries have grown more wary of China. Yet at the same time, China has rejected the US offer to act as mediator, denying the US credibility as a peacemaker, showing China isn't willing to cede that much ground, even if other countries turn to the US to balance China.

I've taken it upon myself to find various solutions and resolutions to the problem. For those of you who didn't click the links, neither Japan nor China have given up their claim to the territory, and offer the same solution: the islands are theirs. The populations of the countries feel the same way, which has only furthered the problem in the form of numerous protests and spilled over to affect diplomacy by creating tensions.

About the Words

Now back to our word(s). Senkaku, Diaoyu? Does it make a difference? It is probably telling that the members of the media (see links above) all refer to the islands by both names when reporting the dispute, unless they are being blatantly partisan. Each name represents a side on the issue, a stance on which country the territory rightfully belongs to. If Obama were to come out and say "The Diaoyu islands belong to China," it would be a lot more powerful than, "The Senkaku islands belong to China." The second, in fact, would be pretty confusing. This demonstrates the surprising power words and names have in shaping current events. They carry a lot of meaning, and the entire dispute could even be seen as a fight over the right to have the islands be called by a certain name.

So next time you refer to this particular island chain, make sure you call it by two names, unless you want your conversation to become an international incident.

Obama and Japan

Stephen Walt recently posted about President Obama's foreign policy successes, or lack thereof. His thesis relates to Obama's failing (to this point) to successfully address the main issues he set out to deal with, especially in light of mounting public dissatisfaction with the administration due to the economy. Moreover, Walt explores the idea that you don't get credit for preventing crises - like an economic collapse, Israeli strike of Iran, or global war. Obama's lack of success on big-ticket items- like Afghanistan, Middle East Peace, and Iran, also makes it harder for him to get credit with the public.

Walt doesn't mention Japan. When seen in light of two wars, a collapsing economy, and tanked soft power, Obama's inheritance in Japan doesn't seem too bad. The US has underwritten Japan's security, and that of the Northeast Asian region, since the end of World War II, and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Obama recently reaffirmed the value of the alliance as a "cornerstone of security." It isn't that simple. A recent dispute over a set of islands between China and Japan actually may have provided an opportunity for the US to increase it's influence in the region, but at the same time the dispute may also be a prelude for an increasingly belligerent and assertive China, as it grows its sphere of influence. The US-Japan alliance will obviously need to adapt to or accommodate China's rise in some way, and therefore will become even more integral. Still, there are major issues like relocating the Marines stationed at Futenma that need to be resolved before the alliance can begin to deal with newer issues.

Here we come back to Walt. Although he never addresses the issue of Japan in his post, I think it would be interesting to apply his argument to our relations with that country. The exmaple supports his thesis. While Obama has made some progress in figuring out what to do with the Marines, his administration has already seen one prime minister resign over the issue, Congress threaten to defund relocation efforts, and now a reaffirmation of the original plan by the new administration. Obama definitely has an agenda, he's definitely been working on it. When it comes down to it, Obama has avoided a collapse in relations (however significant the risk of that ever was), but he hasn't really helped the cause.

To be fair, it's been a full 15 years since we first began discussing relocating Futenma, but a promise of change shouldn't translate to the continuation of a progress-less status quo.