Asia's Worst Nightmare: A China-Japan War

Let's not understate the likelihood of war in East Asia or kid ourselves that the United States can remain aloof should China and Japan enter the lists. It's tough for Westerners to fathom the nature of the competition or the passions it stokes. From an intellectual standpoint, we have little trouble comprehending the disputes pitting the Asian rivals against each other. For example, both Tokyo and Beijing claim sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, a tiny archipelago near Taiwan and the Ryukyus. China covets control of offshore air and sea traffic, hence its new East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and its efforts to rewrite the rules governing use of the nautical commons. Undersea energy resources beget frictions about where to draw the lines bounding exclusive economic zones (EEZs). And so on.

The facts of these cases are outwardly simple. They're about how to divvy up territory and stuff. Outsiders get that. But therein lies a danger -- the danger of assuming that tangible, quantifiable things are all there is to an impasse. That's doubly true when the territory and stuff under dispute command trivial worth. By strategist Carl von Clausewitz's cost-benefit logic, the Senkakus or Scarborough Shoal merit minimal time or resources from any of the protagonists. Hence commentators wonder why compromise appears so hard when the stakes are so small by objective standards. They find it baffling that great powers would risk war over "uninhabited rocks in the East China Sea.” Some Asia-watchers strike a world-weary tone at the willingness of societies to struggle over "intrinsically worthless" geographic features.

Why, they ask, can't the contenders just split the difference -- restoring regional harmony in the bargain, and sparing others needless entanglements and hardships? To cling fast to objects of little obvious value seems obtuse, if not irrational and self-defeating.

Is it? Sci-fi master Robert A. Heinlein might jest that Westerners understand these matters but don't grok them. Great questions encompass not just the concrete interests at issue but also larger principles. Heinlein coined the term grok for his classic Stranger in a Strange Land. It means "to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed." It means feeling something in your gut, not just knowing it intellectually. He appeared to despair at one person's capacity to truly know another. To grok "means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science." But such "deeper understanding," vouchsafes Heinlein, eludes most people as color eludes "a blind man." The result: an unwitting empathy deficit toward allies and prospective adversaries alike.

Yet grok grim strategic realities we must. This competition is about more than islets or ADIZs. Nothing less than the nature of the Asian order is at stake. Making the world safe for democracy, or oligarchy, or whatever regime holds power at home constitutes a basic impulse for foreign policy. From the age of Thucydides forward, nations have spent lavishly to preserve or install regional orders hospitable to their own national interests and aspirations. By surrounding itself with like-minded regimes, a nation hopes to lock in a favorable, tranquil status quo. As it was in antiquity, so it remains today. Imperial Japan upended the Asian hierarchy in 1894-1895, smashing the Qing Dynasty's navy and seizing such choice sites as Port Arthur on the Liaotung Peninsula. It began making Asia safe for a Japanese empire.

More by

Comments

tanboontee (January 6, 2014 - 9:54pm)

 Why would China go to a wasteful war with Japan? The Chinese always prefer trade to conflict.

rdlynch (January 6, 2014 - 10:41pm)

I suspect that the flurry over the Senkakus is an effort by China to guage U.S. resolve.  If we let them grab these little islands, surely we will let them grab Taiwan, eh?

rdlynch (January 6, 2014 - 10:41pm)

I suspect that the flurry over the Senkakus is an effort by China to guage U.S. resolve.  If we let them grab these little islands, surely we will let them grab Taiwan, eh?

rdlynch (January 6, 2014 - 10:41pm)

I suspect that the flurry over the Senkakus is an effort by China to guage U.S. resolve.  If we let them grab these little islands, surely we will let them grab Taiwan, eh?

rdlynch (January 6, 2014 - 10:43pm)

I suspect that the flurry over the Senkakus is an effort by China to guage U.S. resolve.  If we let them grab these little islands, surely we will let them grab Taiwan, eh?

Brett Champion (January 7, 2014 - 8:36am)

I suspect that if the American people were to get behind a US intervention in a Sino-Japanese war, such support would have little to do with navigation of the seas or even with backing an ally. It would instead stem from the idea that by engaging in hostilities with a treaty ally, China is effectively challenging the US (this of course assumes that Japan does not appear in the eyes of the American people to be the aggressor, which would completely kill any possible US support for Japan in a conflict with China). If the US government were to convince the American people of this, then the support it would garner from them would be about as great as it could be short of an actual attack on the US by China.

leokh (January 29, 2014 - 1:53pm)

If Japan and China goes to war, initially US will intervene and help Japan. But if the situation becomes bad for US, US will pull out of the war. US will only help and support Japan in a small conflict but not to the full war since US only cares about its own interests. If you look at history on the wars that US has fought, US only fight wars that is of strategic interests to it like the IRAQ war etc. But US will never fought a war for the Japanese because although Japan is an ally, it is not a strategic ally like UK or France etc.

leokh (January 29, 2014 - 1:53pm)

If Japan and China goes to war, initially US will intervene and help Japan. But if the situation becomes bad for US, US will pull out of the war. US will only help and support Japan in a small conflict but not to the full war since US only cares about its own interests. If you look at history on the wars that US has fought, US only fight wars that is of strategic interests to it like the IRAQ war etc. But US will never fought a war for the Japanese because although Japan is an ally, it is not a strategic ally like UK or France etc.

Follow The National Interest

April 25, 2014