Although the sovereignty dispute between China, Japan and Taiwan over the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands in the East China Sea has always had its military component, from the 1970s onwards the three sides generally refrained from engaging in behavior that risked exacerbating tensions to the point where armed clashes could occur.
Recent developments, however, indicate that this self-restraint might be over, and that the conflict may be about to enter a new — and possibly far more perilous — phase.
Without any of the underlying causes of the conflict having been resolved, the two principal claimants, Japan and China, seem to have concluded that the time has come to move beyond political rhetoric and to take action, something hardliners on both sides have been requesting for years. (Although a claimant, Taiwan’s role remains marginal and relatively non-threatening to Japan and China; Taipei has also made it clear, despite claims in Chinese media, that it will not side with China in the dispute. One reason is that military-to-military relations between Taipei and Tokyo, though not publicized, remain stable, and both sides have no interest in seeing that changed.)
Negotiations and half-hearted attempts to set aside political disputes and jointly develop the area, with its large, albeit unproven, oil and natural gas reserves, having stalled, we are now witnessing a rapid militarization of the conflict, which could have serious implications for regional security.
To many observers, the road to the military phase of the Senkaku/Diaoyutai dispute was akin watching a train wreck in the making: everybody knows this will end in disaster, and yet no one does anything to fix the tracks while it is still possible to do so. As the diplomacy phase died tortuously from broken promises, neglect, conflicting legal interpretations, and flare-ups of nationalism on both sides, mistrust and resentment grew. This was accompanied by increments in the military capabilities both sides were willing to dispatch to the area to protect their interests. Consequently, fishing boats navigated by self-made patriots were replaced by coast guard and maritime security vessels and surveillance aircraft, not only adding firepower to the mix, but also bringing the antagonists within greater proximity of each other, thus increasing the likelihood of accident.
Still, as long as dialogue and cooperation continued to provide a possible way out, the armed forces on both sides played only a marginal role in the dispute, at least in terms of deployments and signaling of intentions by Beijing and Tokyo. Up until recently, China’s military buildup and exercises remained focused on a Taiwan scenario, and Tokyo responded in kind, preferring to rely predominantly on civilian agencies to fortify its claims to the islets and surrounding waters.
The first sign that the military could now play a more prominent role in the dispute emerged in late May with reports that the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) was nearing completion of an Air Force base in the mountainous areas of Shuimen, along the coast of Fujian Province. Satellite imagery has revealed the presence of J-10 and Sukhoi Su-30 aircraft, as well as S-300 long-range air defense systems, at the base, which is situated a mere 380km (or 12 minutes flight) from the Diaoyutais. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) will also likely be deployed there, providing additional surveillance and combat capabilities to the PLAAF in the East China Sea.
Then, less than two months later, the PLA announced large-scale military exercises in the East China Sea between July 10 and July 15. Although Beijing argues the drill was routine and not aimed at any specific country, the most important exercise was one in which units were to simulate an amphibious assault on the Diaoyutais. All fishing activities around the Zhoushan Islands off the coast of Zhejiang Province were ordered suspended on the orders of a PLA unit. Interestingly, the drill occurs as China’s first aircraft carrier, the refurbished ex-Varyag (which some Chinese ultranationalists recommended should be renamed Diaoyutai), embarked on a 25-day sea trial — its longest ever — at Dalian, in Liaoning Province. Chinese media reported that carrier-based J-15 aircraft could conduct takeoff and landing exercises during the sortie, though such claims have been made ahead of previous sea trials. The carrier could enter service as early as August 1.
Amid such demonstrations of capabilities, if not intent, a growing number of Chinese editorials have called on the government to move beyond diplomacy and to “take action” to make Japan “think twice.” Such claims were made in previous years, but their frequency and stringency is unprecedented (so far commentators have refrained from calling on the PLA to create a “sea of fire” in the East China Sea, a term used last year to describe a potential scenario regarding the South China Sea).
While the immediate trigger for the belligerent rhetoric was ostensibly the announcement by the Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda administration in early July of its intention to purchase the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands, it is important to understand that the current tensions are the logical outcome of years of failure by all sides to address the underlying causes of the conflict. In other words, even if Japan and China managed to dodge the current speed bump, another one will arise at some point, when the two countries have further strengthened their military deployments to the area.
China’s recent brinkmanship in the South China Sea, where it has overlapping sovereignty claims with five other claimants, is being closely watched by Tokyo. Whether Beijing settles its disputes peacefully or through bullying — and so far there is little cause for optimism — will have direct repercussions on the extent to which Japan’s military becomes involved in the Senkaku conflict. In this regard, a link exists between the East China Sea and the South China Sea; the outcome in each will influence, in feedback-loop fashion, how conflict is resolved in the other.
Beijing and Tokyo are both aware that going to war against each other would carry a huge cost. However, it is not unusual for wars to start as a result of accident or misunderstanding over escalating local disputes. The current militarization of the Diaoyutai/Senkaku area is creating additional frictions while increasing proximity, which makes such accidents, and potential triggers, more likely.
So far the conflict in the East China Sea has failed to attract the kind of international attention that has been paid to the South China Sea, probably because the claimants have not sought to internationalize it in the way Vietnam and the Philippines have. Ongoing mediation in the South China Sea, though a long shot, nevertheless has a mitigating effect on the tensions there, and ASEAN participation could eventually create the necessary conditions for resolving the underlying causes of the conflict.
No such mechanism exists in the East China Sea, where claims, fueled by growing competition for energy sources and rising nationalistic sentiment, could drag the region, and possibly the United States, into a devastating war. Given the impact that war between China, Japan, and possibly the US, would have in Northeast Asia, it would be in everybody’s interest that a multilateral forum be created to address the grievances before it’s too late.

Ben Ben USA
The root of the problem goes back even before the end of WW2. One would have to trace back to the mid-19th century when the decaying Qing dynasty lost the Opium War that exacerbated the decline of the Chinese empire. Historians refer to China's weakness from the mid-19th century as "century of humiliation" where it lost huge track of territories, some became colonial possession, some were outright annexed while a number of Chinese cities were divided up under foreign control.
Take the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu island, it is likely most logical to conclude that prior to the 19th century, it belonged to the Qing empire (supported by Qing dynasty map and accordingly, a Japanese map before the 18th century shows that being the case as well). Most of all, the Qing empire was definitely the most powerful empire in East Asia prior to the Opium War and it is inconceivable that Japan could even attempt to challenge the Qing prior to its decline. Japan surpassed China as the more powerful state only after Meiji Restoration – marked by its victory in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95 – and gained control of Taiwan along with the surrounding areas. Japan has administered the island pretty much ever since. As we all know, the ambiguous aspect of post WW2 agreement made the issue more complex. Further complicating the matter is that the PRC (mainland China) and ROC (Taiwan – both by geography and likely historically should have jurisdiction over Senkaku/Diaoyu) issue is still unresolved. Claiming lost territories is inherently messy. Put it into perspective, of all the Chinese territories that were annexed by foreign powers, it was Russia (not Japan, the UK, etc) who gained by far the most.
Domestic politics play a huge role for both countries. Sino-Japan relations have its share of animosity – understandably from WW2 – but fundamentally, China and Japan are not true intense historical rivals that the media (or the general perception) portrays them to be. Surely not comparable to the old European historic rivals seen between the UK, France and Germany. A few barren rocks in the western pacific are not going to change that. As the old saying in foreign policy goes, "countries do not have permanent friends or enemies, just interests at the time".
Japan must realize that the world is changing and most of the last two centuries were likely an anomaly in the region's grand history. Most of all, Japan's economic well being going forward depends very much on the Chinese economy. Such trend will not only accelerate but deepen. For China, it must realize that to truly displace the US and reclaim its long historic leadership in the region, it must develop trust and ensure friendly relations with its neighbors, especially those in East Asia. No one in Asia will respect the region's inherently most powerful nation as a bully.
Given the historical and current reality, perhaps a pragmatic Senkaku/Diaoyu solution is — "One Island, Two Countries"!
Tamagawa_D9
Either the Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory, or Beijing is sitting idly by while the US Air Force conducts routine bombing runs on sovereign Chinese soil. If the former is true, then why is China attempting to claim foreign property as their own? If the latter, then why doesn't China confront the US regarding Kabu Island ordance drops?
The PLAN is hijacking Chinese foreign policy to an extent not seen since Japan's Imperial Navy… hopefully Beijing's more pragmatic civilian leadership has more success in reigning in this dangerous, belligerent breed of nationalism than the Japanese.
Mr. Why
Why does anyone think it will come to armed conflict on the high seas? People, please. China and Japan will not engage each other out there. Mabye on the U.N. Complaint foum. But never at sea. Much too expensive. For one thing those islands have potential but have failed to wield profit yet, so there really is no real motivation for any hypothetical china sea dog fights, missile, torpedo, or even pee shooter exchanges. So just throw your war mongering on the shelf, put your fog of war thoughts to rest, because that’s not going to happen. It’s all show, and no one wants to waste a drip of oil, especially with the way the middle east is shaping up. It doesn’t even make sense to start something like that.
Chris Upao
The end of this present civilization is so near, it will be replace with the Kingdom of God. Please ladies and gentlemen read the bible and believe the gospel.
vic
Yes, those who do not have today, dream of tomorrow, and the really desperate dream of the hereafter.
Stefan Stackhouse
A gentle, humble suggestion:
These islands are uninhabited by people. Only animals live there. These islands could serve well as a wildlife refuge in a region that has all too few of them.
The Antarctic treaty might serve as a useful model to copy. In both cases, we have an uninhabited territory claimed by more than one nation. With the Antarctic treaty, those claims are set to one side but not abandoned, and the territory instead reserved by mutual agreement for purely scientific uses. The same thing could be done with these islands, thus eliminating the possibility of war. Are these tiny, uninhabited rocks really worth fighting over?
Errol T
A nice idea, but unlikely to happen.. It's not the rocks themselves but what's under the ground that has everyone hot and sweaty. Fossil fuels tend to do funny things to people.
vic
Yes, see what the Western Powers, specially USA , are doing to the Middle East.
Errol T
And China's jumping onto the bandwagon too.