A New Washington Naval Conference for Asia?
Japanese destroyer
Image Credit: Official U.S. Navy Imagery via Flickr

A New Washington Naval Conference for Asia?

0 Likes
37 comments

Following the end of World War I, Asia was a theater witnessing some worrying developments, particular the rise of Japan and associated tensions. In response, then U.S. President Warren Harding convened a peace conference in Washington, between November 12, 1921 and February 6, 1922, which would later be referred to as the “Washington Naval Conference” or the “Washington Disarmament Conference.”

Nine countries attended: the U.S., Japan, China, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Holland, Portugal and Belgium, but not the USSR. Negotiations were primarily geared towards naval disarmament in the Pacific Ocean and East Asia, and gave way to three major treaties. These treaties helped to curtail the naval buildup in the region for a period and supported a fragile peace throughout the 1920s and 30s, up to their renunciation by Japan in 1936. Although the conference’s outcomes and effectiveness remain the subject of debate, it is nonetheless considered by many a successful milestone in disarmament. Almost a century later, could a modernized version of the Washington Naval Conference be useful, or even necessary, to deal with the competing programs and patterns of naval modernizations being witnessed in the region?

Another Arms Race in Asia?

Since 2000, China’s military spending has grown by 325.5 percent, to reach $166 billion in 2012, according to SIPRI’s estimates. Much of this spending was on the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), the reform and modernization of which, begun in the 1980s, accelerated rapidly in the 2000s. The creation of a nuclear submarine base in Sanya, on the island of Hainan, and the commissioning of China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, provided powerful symbols of China’s swelling capabilities and ambitions in the maritime domain. Capability development were not limited to the PLAN, however. Maritime and law enforcement agencies, those most active in the territorial disputes that pit China against a number of its neighbors, have also been given greater means, and an enlarged mandate. This simultaneously demonstrates the significance of the maritime domain in Beijing’s plans and strategic outlook, and contributes to the image of a more assertive China. Both elements have a profound impact on its relationship with its neighbors, which are now also committed to military modernization programs.

The balance of power between China and Taiwan is now long gone, and Taipei is no longer seeking any kind of parity, in terms of missiles, aircrafts of tanks, with a continental China whose military budget is eleven times as high as its own. Given the level of forces it continues to amass on its side of the Taiwan Strait, Beijing appears more and more capable of denying the U.S. Navy access to the Strait, especially in the event of a non-pacific reunification with the island. In reaction, despite a more accommodative diplomacy towards Beijing, Taipei is committed to the maintenance of a strong deterrent force, through more asymmetric capabilities (most of them geared towards the maritime domain).

In the East China Sea, the rise of the PLAN constitutes a major issue for South Korea and Japan, two other maritime powers extremely dependent upon their access to the sea for their security and prosperity. The South Korean navy recently went through an important upgrade, with the acquisition and indigenous development of submarine, combat and amphibious capabilities that go far beyond the needs of confronting the North Korean threat.

Japan has also expressed preoccupation at Beijing’s growing military might, labeling China a concern for the international community and the region in 2010. Tokyo shifted the focus of its strategic outlook from the North and the Russian and North Korean threats, where it was traditionally geared, to the South of the archipelago, and the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, where the number of incidents with Chinese ships and aircrafts have skyrocketed since 2010. The Japanese Navy unveiled in August of this year one of the two Izumo-class destroyers it will operate by 2015. Such ships will be the largest Japan has built since World War II.

Meanwhile, in Southeast Asia, military spending increased by 62 percent between 2002 and 2012, based on SIPRI’s estimates, and parts of that – at the very least that in Vietnam – can be attributed to the multiplication of incidents in the South China Sea.

Of course,  territorial tensions and China’s naval buildup are far from the whole story; many other factors have to be taking into account in any consideration of military developments in Northeast and Southeast Asia. That shrouds the regional context in even great uncertainty and anxiety. No one country can keep pace with the PLAN expansion. A generalized movement toward the U.S. and – to a lesser extent – other regional powers such as Japan, India or Australia therefore appears to complement the many different and often competing modernization efforts underway in national contexts. And yet, although Washington’s so-called pivot, or rebalancing, has been noticed and welcomed by most regional actors, the U.S. is struggling to reconcile its ambitions and the needs of its Asia-Pacific strategy with budgetary constraints and domestic politics.

Increased competition in the maritime domain, the parallel buildup of naval capabilities by most regional states, the ambiguity surrounding the scope and aims of China’s military modernization process, and the perceptions of threat that can derive from it, all add up to create uncertainty and potential destabilization that demand an international response.

A Cue from the Past

This situation is all the more worrying because there is no international arms limitation regime in the region. Is it possible to prevent regional security dilemmas from spiraling into costly and destabilizing arms races? There is no diplomatic magic formula to adequately address and resolve this question. What is certain though is that international collaboration is essential. To date, multilateral forums such as ASEAN and its offshoots have demonstrated an uneven commitment by regional actors to institution-building and to the multilateral management of security issues.

Is a new version of the Washington Conference therefore possible, or even desirable? Perhaps not. Resistance would certainly be strong. In pursuing such an agenda, the U.S. would appear to be both judge and jury, and a revamped Washington Conference an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Asian countries that would also run counter to the ASEAN centrality principle of Southeast Asia. Worse, it could easily be interpreted as part of a China containment strategy.

Nevertheless, conventional wisdom offers little help in tackling the challenges of what are mutually reinforcing processes of military modernization. Is it not time to think again about what should be done, what can be done, and who wants to do what? The results of the Washington Conference, its very limitations and weaknesses as much as its successes, offer a valuable source of information and inspiration.

Bruno Hellendorff is a Research Fellow at GRIP (Group for Research and Information on Peace and Security). Thierry Kellner is a Lecturer at the Department of Political Sciences of ULB (Université Libre de Bruxelles), member of REPI, and Associate Researcher at GRIP and BICCS.

Comments
37
Keys
December 4, 2013 at 20:21

No to anything US in Asia. Political whores in Washington should keep their sorry behinds out of Asia. The world will be a better place without corrupt, incompetent US (and Japanese) politicians messing around.

KE
December 5, 2013 at 12:39

I guess that whole global economy that lifted 100′s of millions of people out of poverty, and the democratization of Japan, ROK and Taiwan is corrupt and incompetent? The best thing that ever happened to us in East Asia was the projection of US power post-1945. Imagine if Russia or China dominated the region…not so pretty.

Little Helmsman
December 6, 2013 at 05:32

@KE,

True statement but I think our neo-Maoist commentators will not endorse your view though. The benign policy the US pursued towards post-WWII Japan was a great example of rehabilitating militaristic dictatorship into a prosperous democracy. The intervention in Korea also allowed for ROK to rise from the ashes of war, poverty and backwardness. ROK is an example of Washington influence to plant the seeds of democratic order in Korea. Taiwan is also the beneficiary of the US willingness to provide security for the island nation from the communist menace and laid the foundation of a democratic order.

The only setback was in Vietnam. The shortsightedness of the members of Congress in 74-75 by slashing vital military and economic aid to South Vietnam while Communist North Vietnam were still receiving substantial military aid provided by the USSR, PRC, Eastern bloc was a decisive failure in leadership. Instead of South Vietnam becoming a shining example of a prosperous democracy it became part of the communist toilet like North Vietnam. At least other Southeast Asian countries were spared the communist toilet because Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia were able to resist their own commie troublemakers. The only places communist toiletry expanded was Cambodia and Laos. The main troublemakers in Asia for the past 60 years have been Asian commies. Imagine if Asia was free of commies?

Helton
December 7, 2013 at 10:45

You are right. Without the US; South Korea, Japan and Taiwan would be poor third world dictatorships, like North Korea. These “keys” guy must be an irrational loser who can’t get a girlfriend, so he spends his time barking about the evil americans.
China must be simply contained by a group of countries like the soviet union was, before it becomes a new imperial japan. The world’s mistake in the pacific ocean was, in the 20th century, to be tolerant of japan’s territorial expansion, which should be stopped from its start. It seems to me that this same scenario may happen again, this time with China.

megan
December 9, 2013 at 12:57

The US is a pig but China is a double pig – steals & sells it back to the source. All the countries of that region : the SE Asia, Japan, South Korea, India & Australia should unite militarily so that the Chinese can not just walk leisurely & steal all their resources. We’re talking about the trillions $ underwater oil & gas reserve between Vietnam & Philippines, billions$ fish, etc.

Mike China
December 1, 2013 at 10:18

The Washington naval conference will be an attempt to lock in US naval dominance which is a no go from the Chinese point of view.No matter what the does,the PLA is determined to build up China’s military so that it won’t be subject to US blackmail.Any US attack won’t be cost free or minimal damage to US interests.
The US can’t stop China from building more nw and subs .The PLA ,as said,many times aint surging for parity with US forces,but to maintain a secure retaliatory conventional/nuclear strike force.
Building subs is the way. Sometime ago Rumsfeld ask why China was spending so much on the military. He shd ask why the Pentagon is spending so much .Oh to defend America. Stop the fucking bull shit .
As for gunboat diplomacy ie intimidation,it will soon come to an end.China aint taking over Taiwan or Asia but rather to make it safe from US attack.

steven
November 29, 2013 at 11:22

sorry in advance for my crude english. you dont know what china really is because you dont leave in asia. my country, the philippines and others are always being bullied by china. they dont want to talk, they resort to naval bullying. even now we are worried that they will establish adiz on west ph. sea that will effectively choke us. sokor and japan together with our country are protesting. for us here, its china or u.s. we choose u.s who treat us as human not china who looked down at us as if we are slave animals. go to asia before commenting to see the true situation if china is really a friend or japan is indeed an enemy.

James China
November 28, 2013 at 16:47

So Japan has said China is an international concern with its build up. China aint taking over Taiwan or the whole of Asia. So stop the bull shit.
The Japs with their US masters are trying to provoke a war with China when the US has all the aces. The US will prevail but at massive cost. As for Japan,it will be sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

KDL
December 4, 2013 at 07:19

If we’re talking one on one, the US will smoke China back to the Ming Dynasty. The only thing china has over the US at all is their manpower but their soldiers can’t be nearly as good as the United States. Not only would our morale be so much higher but our soldiers would actually be fed. The United States has some of the best special forces units in the world, the strongest Navy in the entire world, and superior military technology in every aspect. It is actually impossible to invade the United States. There’s an ocean between the US and China and once again, we have the best Navy in the world. Canada and Mexico are buffers for land invasion too, it just wouldn’t happen. Not only would China not be able to get through Mexico because we’d just meet them to fight down there but, Canada has a good military too. For an American Invasion of China we have Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea to bound off of. Not to mention China’s entire western have is shitty rural area that we could easily just set up in.

On a global perspective, China would still be stuck. US has the entire western world on it’s back. The combined force of NATO could take on the entire world; all of the world’s most advanced militaries against third world armies. While China would have Laos, Russia (maybe, US-Russia relations are constantly improving, they’d probably abstain if things continue), Vietnam, and Venezuela, we’d have Germany, Britain, and Canada amongst the other twenty-sum countires that are NATO members + Japan, SK, Taiwan, Israel, and then other decent powers like Kuwait and Suadi Arabia.

China would take the L, god bless the United States.

KDL
December 4, 2013 at 07:19

If we’re talking one on one, the US will smoke China back to the Ming Dynasty. The only thing china has over the US at all is their manpower but their soldiers can’t be nearly as good as the United States. Not only would our morale be so much higher but our soldiers would actually be fed. The United States has some of the best special forces units in the world, the strongest Navy in the entire world, and superior military technology in every aspect. It is actually impossible to invade the United States. There’s an ocean between the US and China and once again, we have the best Navy in the world. Canada and Mexico are buffers for land invasion too, it just wouldn’t happen. Not only would China not be able to get through Mexico because we’d just meet them to fight down there but, Canada has a good military too. For an American Invasion of China we have Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea to bound off of. Not to mention China’s entire western have is shitty rural area that we could easily just set up in.

On a global perspective, China would still be stuck. US has the entire western world on it’s back. The combined force of NATO could take on the entire world; all of the world’s most advanced militaries against third world armies. While China would have Laos, Russia (maybe, US-Russia relations are constantly improving, they’d probably abstain if things continue), Vietnam, and Venezuela, we’d have Germany, Britain, and Canada amongst the other twenty-sum countires that are NATO members + Japan, SK, Taiwan, Israel, and then other decent powers like Kuwait and Suadi Arabia.

China would take the L,

God bless the United States.

Steve
December 6, 2013 at 17:13

Seriously most people in the US are ignorant and arrogant. Being from the US makes me want to sneak over the boarder and claim some other country.
1 to 1, we tend to have superior tech per soldier (For now). We are also spread thin. Our military tech is usually better because we spend more, but don’t think that China is incapable, that would be a major folly. They were one of the 4 first countries to develop nuclear weapons. Currently their computer abilities rival if not exceed those of the US. We cut education and research funding because Tea Party members have no foresight or ability to think while China is growing economically, tactically, and gaining ground.
The US is lagging behind not just in comparison to China, but several countries are becoming more progressive while we believe we are special or chosen, short bus anyone?
If things don’t change, we wont have a college educated work force worth mentioning, nor advanced technology much longer.
Things change quickly, Russia went from our biggest foe to a collapsed nation, and back around to a growing power in 20 years. Americans need to realize we are only going to be a top dog if we continue to devote the resources to research and education, and stop NASA and education cuts.
Rome, Spain, England, all vast empires that got lazy thinking they were on the top, but by the time they realized their superiority was merely an illusion from the past, it was too late.
Stagnation is hard to recover from and can take decades to turn around, stupidity is fatal. Even if we reassert ourselves after we get passed by, all we can hope for is not falling further behind and hoping that in a few decades the leaders of the new world become arrogant.

Michael Junge
November 27, 2013 at 23:49

That picture is of USS Stockdale (DDG 106) not a Japanese destroyer…

Kanes
November 27, 2013 at 10:07

Change is inevitable. All empires fall.

It is time to accept these facts and learn to live in a changing world. There will be a new superpower sooner or later. It is a certainty.

Bankotsu
November 27, 2013 at 14:22

If a states rises, let it rise. If a state falls, let it fall. Don’t try to oppose or aid it, just let nature take its course.

What will rise will decline, what will decline will recover.

YiJiun
November 27, 2013 at 18:23

Though sounded nice, do you actually believe in that? But, I do have a piece of advice for everyone (yes, practically everyone from Israel to Iran, the US/Japan to China, Russia to the US, Europe to Russia, etc…)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The US must realize that God will punish it if it side with Japan against the most obvious moral conscience of the Asia-Pacific. It will do harm, if not utter destruction to everyone, including Japan and the US. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….What is the meaning of ‘winning’ this world if the price you pay at the end is your life, your soul and your spirit? In a competition to dominate the world, what is the significance if the ‘prize’ you get is the very destruction of it? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Chinese always believe in that a true hero is one who knows when to bend and when to stand tall. Flexibility is not a sign of weakness, but versatility that powers you forward a long, long way. That’s exactly how the Chinese civilization repeatedly managed to pick itself up when others simply faded away for good in the long course of history…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… As Man, we do not only calculate with logic, by logic. We also need to listen to the voice coming from our heart…what it’s telling us about what’s right and what’s wrong…Afterall, “In God we trust”. Keep that in mind and the US will be blessed forever.

Little Helmsman
November 27, 2013 at 08:07

Whatever Communist China decides to do with its built up navy, other neighboring countries are already making preparations to counter the build up. China is already effectively creating conditions for its own containment. The world already knows how Chinese commie rulers treat its own people, so they are making sure that they will not be treated the same way as Chinese peasants are accustomed to by their commie rulers. There will be some kind of conflict in Asian waters in the foreseeable future because of the type of government China has.

YiJiun
November 27, 2013 at 17:34

but i do foresee chaos (much much more than now) in western politics in the not-so distant future…while centralization could also likely appear within some western countries……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

China even if it becomes dominant, will still place internal governance central coz its simply mammoth task to govern such vast and complex country…It will take a much keener interest externally but will be very limited relative to its power then…Thus, China will not ‘rule this world’ according to how it governs its people and this creates room for diversity in the world…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The west keeps thinking that because China rules its people in that way, it will export that to other countries but this is a big flaw because even if China loosens its grip on its people, it will still need to unite a population bigger than the entire West (US, Europe, etc..) and that’s just behemoth…so China will be focused on keeping that internal order instead of expanding as in the US mentality because China sees no point in military adventures without much control and China has not much interest also in less developed areas which are large parts of the world….China also believes in 文治武功 (academia governance before military achievement) and文治 (governance by academia) always comes ahead of 武功 (military achievement)……………………………………………So, China doesn’t essentially believe in effectively ruling a people by fighting others to create diversion or what…………………………………………………Using the military (what I am saying here is widescale and prominent use of the military, not like the ‘blip’ in Tiananmen) is not a means to effective governance and that’s firmly set in the Chinese mindset………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Chinese will be kept very busy uniting its people basically …that’s the fundamental Chinese mentality but it would still be able to dominate the world, just not in the sense of military conquests mainly…

TDog
November 27, 2013 at 03:18

The Washington Naval Conference is perhaps the most pertinent example of how we in the West think things should be handled: we say, they do. Left out of the author’s review of history is the fact that Japan was told that they would be treaty bound to maintain less tonnage than the US and UK – it was a treaty institutionalizing the supremacy of the US and UK over everyone else in Asia. So why in the world would any modern nation agree to those terms? Would we agree to a treaty wherein China was allowed to maintain a larger navy than we were?

A Chinese Proposal
November 27, 2013 at 05:58

The restriction on the navy size based on either the population or the GDP is fine with me.

Kakapo
November 27, 2013 at 01:35

“Washington Naval Treaty” type treaty will never work, especially if it is only localised to Asia, because there is an elephant in the room called the US. China’s goal is to achieve parity with the US in the Pacific, so the treaty must limits the number of ships operated by the US and Russian Navy.

The original Washington Treaty put limit on capital ships tonnage and numbers. Carriers is the capital ship of today. Limit can be place on the number of flat-tops carrier, but USA operates 19 flat-tops, which is more than the rest of the world combined, so a limit on flat-tops will not work, because no one planned to match half that number. However, a treaty limit that says Chinese and Russian carrier fleet cannot be larger than 50% of the US’s will be politically unacceptable, even when neither planned on building that many.

YiJiun
November 26, 2013 at 22:15

No firepower in ALL disputed maritime territories…while countries can continue civilian shipping in these areas and military build-up….Joint (among the contested parties) or no development of disputed territories……………………………………………………

Joint development was the idea put forward by Deng but was blatantly violated when countries started developing on their own……………………………………………………………….

Chinese always have some of the best peaceful ways to try to work around things, but too bad, it’s often the other parties who were unwilling…………………………………………………….

With China being portrayed as the aggressor by the West and the other claimant parties being instigated by the US particularly, how is there gonna be real peace in the region?

And, China has real global maritime concerns other than just regional disputes……………………………………………………….The only one crucial party who can make peace is the US…But peace is not about military build-up. Rather, it’s more about military use in disputed territories and waters…………………………………………..

I meant, it’s clear…..The facts on the ground being, China has been extremely tolerating, especially to Vietnam and Japan for ages……………………………………………………………Just ask the US what it will do if some country violently violates its interests OVERSEAS (not even in disputed territories)……………………………………………….

In America, if one disputes with the US, one not only just suffers in silence, but has to put up with a broad smile with the US…Look just what happened to Canada and many other countries in America………………………………………………………….

Like I said, it truly hinges on the US…

Oro Invictus
November 27, 2013 at 02:28

*Folds hands together, rests chin on them*
You have my full attention good sir! What exactly did happen to Canada? Please, do tell me how my place of birth and citizenship is suffering under the cruel, cruel fist of the US.

A Concerned Canuck
November 27, 2013 at 06:47

1. The cruel, cruel fist of the US imposed NAFTA destroyed the whole high tech industry area (hours of driving) in Etobicoke, those hi-tech factories are now the warehouses of American big box retailers.
2. The cruel, cruel fist of Target, Home Depot, Staples, Starbucks, … have squeezed our Canadian stores out of market, so that Canadians are now only earn despicable wages from them and filled up our stomachs with food from food banks.
3. Canadian oil is forced to sell at 40% discount to the USA instead of fair price on the free open market, because some of the Canadians regarding the cruel, cruel fist of the US as an inclusive honour, so we must ensure US energy supply before ours.
4. Quebecer’s independent aspiration was crashed by the Anglo-American’s cruel, cruel fist interference.
5. Canadiens were striped their properties and freedom then shipped to Louisiana to be suppressed by the cruel, cruel fist of the Anglos in the US.
6. …
7. It is just not fair not only we cannot air our grievance, but there are Canucks actively gloss over the cruel, cruel fist of the US for them.

Oro Invictus
November 27, 2013 at 13:17

Well, “A Concerned Canuck”, you’re points would be alot more convincing if A) They weren’t clearly the product of a quick Google search and B) Half of them weren’t non-nonsensical and the other half wasn’t patently false (i.e. Etobicoke has never been host to “high-tech factories”, the factories present have been and are related to textiles, furniture, food processing, etc, and those factories that have closed down have by and large been converted into residential properties).

YiJiun
November 27, 2013 at 18:08

As for Canada, this is about disputed territorial waters, right? Just kindly use your imagination, just a little please and you will know what the US has been doing all the while :)……………………………………………………………………………………………..But, it’s rather funny that a Canadian didn’t even know the disputes his/her own country has with the US and this itself spoke louder than words :)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Looks like China still has lots to learn from the US :)

A Sadden Canuck
November 28, 2013 at 00:17

I didn’t realize a Quebecer can stoop that low in front of the cruel, cruel fist of the Anglo-American by denying the harm that Canada has suffered in the hands of the cruel, cruel fist of the USA. Fortunately old stock French Quebecers is dwindling in Canada, one day rest of the Canada will able to stop the old stock French Quebecers from dragging us down so low to let the American kick our behind for granted.

Oro Invictus
November 28, 2013 at 02:42

@ YiJiun

Actually, I was just asking in general; territorial dispute-wise, other than the Arctic, there hasn’t really been a real dispute in almost a hundred years. Mind you, you clearly didn’t actually know that, given your syntax. Also, before you try and go attacking me on my nationality, I should let you know I am utterly without patriotism for Canada and hold the belief that the very concept of nation-states is a childish, simplistic, and harmful one. So, nice try.

@ A _______ Canuck (for whatever your next permutation of your name may be)

Well, thanks for making it apparent you are almost certainly not from Canada. Without even getting into how I’m clearly not a Québécois (not “Quebecer”, as you put it), given my diction, syntax patterns, and, oh yeah, the fact that a Québécois would (given the sociocultural climate in Quebec) probably be more recalcitrant about the US.

I also like how you sidestepped the issues of how what you wrote in your previous post were either nonsensical or false; particularly how, in your original post, you painted the Québécois in a sympathetic light but, now that you tried to assign me to said group, suddenly they’re a pox upon Canada.

banana
November 27, 2013 at 03:17

This dictatorship country with its nationalism is not only a threat to all of its neighbors but eventually to the US and the world. The US allied with Japan against expansionist China is a fact against the so called “China Dream”, created by the communist Party of milionaires of China, with its stupidity of communist mindset they are preparing for war, but it will be an all-out war, if they have the balls.

propaganda monkey
November 27, 2013 at 03:44

Who invaded and illegal occupied Paracel islands from Vietnam in 1974?

Reeve97
November 27, 2013 at 08:50

The main issue here Yijiun is… Does a dispute really exist with Japan?. China says a dispute exists with Japan about the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands… But it’s not recognized world-wide. Even all maps available world-wide put the Senkaku area under legal japanese sovereignty… China is using their ”carrot-style” tactics just to make Japan surrender to their term: Recognize that the Senkaku Islands are a disputed territory.
But today, Japan is just defending their islands against chinese incursions… no more, no less. So, why Japan should agree to your idea… if it’s not recognized by almost the whole world?.

Reeve97
November 27, 2013 at 09:17

*Correction: It’s ”Stick-style”… not ”carrot-style”.

Nipponese Fallacy Debunker
November 27, 2013 at 12:46

*Correction: Japan is not the world, please do not claim credit where credit is not due. Nobody authorized an unapologetic war criminal to speak on behalf of the world.

YiJiun
November 27, 2013 at 18:00

Actually, I had already answered many of the questions in my original essay, if you bothered to just read it, perhaps plus a little understanding if you don’t mind………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

As for Canada, this is about disputed territorial waters, right? Just kindly use your imagination, just a little please and you will know what the US has been doing all the while :)……………………………………………………………………………………………..But, it’s rather funny that how a Canadian didn’t even know the disputes his/her own country has with the US and this itself spoke louder than words :)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….If the international community doesn’t include China, forcing it to accept terms largely unfair to it, well then, who can you blame for this mess we are/will be in?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..The fact is, the so-called international community dictated by the West now will not be able to hold for long as long as it continues to blatantly disregard legitimate Chinese claims………………………………………………………………………………………Remember, China is only asking for a compromise here and who is the one firmly standing his ground ?

KL
November 27, 2013 at 23:38

Diaoyu /Senkaku islands should belong to Taiwan as Japan only laid claim to the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands when they annexed and colonised Taiwan in 1895.

After WW2, Japan was required to return all their colonies to ROC by the San Francisco treaty. The US failed to invite the Government of China (The Republic of China) and Taiwan to the SF treaty and thus had disadvantaged them. Since Taiwan was liberated by the ending of WW2, those islands should revert back to the ROC (Taiwan).

NA
December 3, 2013 at 14:06

the world map put the disputed island under the Japanese name? Really? see I’ve done a lot of research on maps in Asia published by Spain/UK/France/Russia. Their maps display under the Chinese name. Nice try. I also look the old Japan map and current one, for every single island/territories Japan occupied, they renamed them in Japanese. That way, bc their names are Japanese, so people think they belong to Japan. What a cunning fox!

NA
December 3, 2013 at 14:12

Even your favorite Japanese history professor from one of Japan top universities claims the disputed island belong China. I am not kidding. Go check it out.

Bankotsu
November 26, 2013 at 21:46

“A New Washington Naval Conference for Asia?”

What are they going to discuss? U.S. ending its pivot to asia?

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief