War Between China and Japan; A Realistic Possibility?

[jimmy olsen]

So, what do you think? Is war between China and Japan a realistic possibility?

If so, what should the US do.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100020173/china-japan-and-the-worlds-agadir-crisis-1911/

China, Japan and the world's Agadir Crisis (1911)

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Economics Last updated: September 19th, 2012

226 Comments Comment on this article

The German warship Panther, deployed by the Kaiser in the Agadir Crisis

The Senkaku/Diaoyu clash in the East China Sea is the paramount political and strategic story in the world today, although you would not know that from the scant and almost jocular coverage in the British and European press.

It is eerily familiar to anybody who has studied the escalating spat between Wilhelmine Germany and the Franco-British Entente in the lead-up to the First World War. The rise of a new global power is always fraught with risk, and usually mishandled by both sides.

If you think this is a storm in a teacup – the urbane reflex – listen more carefully to US defence secretary Leon Panetta, who warned that China and Japan risk provoking each other into war, drawing in other countries. He meant the US, of course.

The apparent absurdity of the dispute is misleading, although the issue of forward deployment by China's fast-growing navy to the next line of islands is not a trivial matter for Japan.

(I once spent an hour with Japan's vice-minister of defence in Tokyo where he repeatedly banged his hand on maps spread across the table, complaining that Chinese warships – under ever-more skilful crews – were probing deeper into Japanese waters every day)

This is a calibrated crisis to test the strength of the US alliance with Japan. It reminds me of the Agadir Crisis in 1911, when Kaiser Wilhelm sent the warship Panther to Morocco to prevent French annexation, though there were a series of such seemingly preposterous episodes.

In a strict sense, the Kaiser was correct. The French were violating earlier accords. But his real purpose was to probe and weaken the British Entente with France (not quite a formal alliance) by picking on an issue where London had little natural sympathy for French actions.

The Japanese have walked straight into the trap. In fairness to the Democratic Party of Japan, it interceded to buy three of the five disputed islands to head off an even more dangerous move by the nationalist governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara.

And in fairness to Chinese government, they have sent paramilitary vessels to the islands rather than a naval squadron. That is a crucial difference.

I do not wish to take any view on the rightful ownership of the islands themselves. There is no established community living on them so the paramount principle in such matters – the wishes of the inhabitants – is not relevant.

As for historical claims, every border in the world has changed at some point. There no safe frontier left it you open up that can of worms. But there is such a thing as The Hague, perfectly suited to frontier arbitration.

The Agadir Crisis backfired against the Kaiser. The Entente did not break. France was emboldened by British backing, with ripple effects through the Franco-Russian alliance when the Serbian crisis came in 1914

Yet Agadir also proved a curse for Britain. It fed an overwhelming sense of fury in Germany, a feeling that Britain had become an enemy. Hopes of heading off the cataclysmic clash that was come in August 1914 ebbed away. It is a stretch to date the First World War from Agadir, but not a big stretch.

The East China Sea is just as pregnant with risks. The US has an impossible task maintaining "neutrality", and Beijing knows it.

Washington guarantees Japan's defence under its US nuclear umbrella. It uses military bases on Japanese soil as an unsinkable aircraft carrier. It works hand in glove with Tokyo in a tight military alliance.

The question is whether Washington is really willing to uphold the Japanese alliance as the going gets tougher. Will it let America to be led by the nose by Japanese nationalists into a clash that is not obviously – or immediately – in US national interest?

President Barack Obama faces the toughest diplomatic choice of any US leader since John Kennedy. Ultimately, this matters much more than the nuclear posturing of loud-mouth Ahmadinejad and his clerico-Fascists.

Mr Obama will put the world's two superpowers on a collision course if he takes a hard line with China, that is to say if he feeds fears of strategic encirclement and feeds suspicions that America will try to block China's rise as a great power.

He will cause panic Japan and a lurch towards full-blown rearmament – and a dash for nuclear weapons – if he seems to lets down Tokyo as the soon the pressure builds.

Judging by the new anti-missile radar system agreed between America and Japan on Monday, Mr Obama is tilting towards Japan. Whether that is the right policy or the wrong policy, it will certainly have consequences.

As long-standing readers know, my own view is that the West should "appease" China – in the old-fashioned and honourable meaning of the word – until and unless such a policy proves unworkable.

We must be very careful to avoid the "Wilhelmine syndrome", turning a potential enemy into an actual enemy by playing to China's fears – perfectly understandable fears in many ways. Easier said than done, of course.

That means bending some way to accommodate a rising China and to draw it peacefully in the system of world governance as a full stakeholder and respected power. This, broadly, has been the policy Mr Obama has championed: a greater role for China in the G20, the IMF, and World Bank.

Ultra-hawks such as former UN Ambassador John Bolton pushing for a policy of containment and outright confrontation are in my view a danger to humanity.

These latterday MacArthurs are more likely to inflame the feelings of mid-ranking officers in the PLA – easily inflamed, mind you – and strengthen the hand of those in the Standing Committee who want a showdown with the West.

It is a formula for disaster at a time when moderates at the top – and I use that term cautiously in speaking of "two fists" Hu Jintao, the Tibet veteran – are trying to hold back a nationalist tide.

It is especially hazardous during a succession struggle where 70pc of top cadre posts are up for grabs. Nothing is fore-ordained in China. The situation is fluid; Boltonite imperialism risks bringing about the calamity it wishes to avoid.

The Communist leadership is of course riding a tiger that it fattened in the first place. Jiang Zemin stoked revanchist hatred of the Japanese with his "Patriotic Education Campaign" of the 1990s to divert attention from party corruption and the fallout from China's Capitalisme Sauvage.

These feelings now have a life of their own, hard to switch on and off at will.

The immediate flap over the these islands may soon subside – if it has not already – but there will be many more such incidents in coming years. The world is heading into perilous waters.

[Eddie Teach]

Does the Emperor of Japan still have his eye on the Dragon Throne? 

[Razgovory]

What an absurd article.

[Razgovory]

And then I looked at the choices in your polls.  Attack the Philippines?  Why not put Australia there while you are at it.

[Eddie Teach]

Due to the silly poll structure, I have the US defending the Philippines and Taiwan but not Japan. They'll have to fend for themselves. 

[Jacob]

Chatting about the current crisis with my wife. She says one of her parents' friends is in the Air Force - I don't know how high up, but their city is home to a significant airbase. Anyhow, this guy says that China is not going to start any kind of war, because frankly speaking they don't have the infrastructure to actually do so; their military is not as well developed as they project.

So that's a vote for no, from an insider perspective.

Personally, I think China has to go through at least one major upheaval - several orders of magnitudes greater than Tiananmen Square - before it's likely to initiate an actual war, be it with Taiwan, Japan, or even Vietnam.

[Josquius]

Providing the world economy doesn't take a sudden dive, no.
China is just doing it as it plays well domestically.

[Camerus]

I don't think the leadership wants war, at least not any time in the foreseeable future.  War will only come if for some reason the leadership must take steps to maintain its power at home or else if actors other than the current ruling clique manage to influence.

That being said, the latter two possibilities are within the significant realm of possibility.  It's impossible to overstate how much nationalism the average person projects (in public, at least).  Though many individuals may hold different views in private, sometimes public hysteria can take on a will of its own. 

[jimmy olsen]

And then I looked at the choices in your polls.  Attack the Philippines?  Why not put Australia there while you are at it.

They claim lots of islands that are close to the Philippines and are claimed by them. When I was there, all I heard were rants about the greedy Chinese and how they wanted to be America's best friend forever.

[jimmy olsen]

Due to the silly poll structure, I have the US defending the Philippines and Taiwan but not Japan. They'll have to fend for themselves. 

Obviously, you should pick a country for them to attack and then say whether the US should defend them or not.

[Eddie Teach]

Due to the silly poll structure, I have the US defending the Philippines and Taiwan but not Japan. They'll have to fend for themselves. 

Obviously, you should pick a country for them to attack and then say whether the US should defend them or not.

Your last option doesn't fit then. If you think China's going to attack Vietnam and the US should defend Taiwan but not Vietnam you wouldn't vote "the US should stay out of any such conflicts".

[Phillip V]

Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipino women should be encouraged to come to America as refugees.

[Josquius]

Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipino women should be encouraged to come to America as refugees.

Why? It ruins them.

[Phillip V]

Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipino women should be encouraged to come to America as refugees.

Why? It ruins them.

How?

[CountDeMoney]

Due to the silly poll structure, I have the US defending the Philippines and Taiwan but not Japan. They'll have to fend for themselves. 

That's about as silly as saying you'd defend Italy and the Netherlands, but not the UK.  Retarded.