Diaoyutai Islands Crisis: Acknowledge the Dispute to Shelve the Dispute

Diaoyutai Islands Crisis:
Acknowledge the Dispute to Shelve the Dispute
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A translation
January 19, 2013

Summary: From Taipei's perspective, Beijing and Tokyo's aircraft and ships are traveling back on forth in Republic of China territorial waters and airspace. We cannot "stand atop the mountain and watch horses kick each other below." We must maintain peace in the Diaoyutai Islands.

Full text below:

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made three visits to ASEAN nations. His visits are seen as an effort to "contain" the Chinese mainland. Former Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio visited Mainland China. He went to the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall to issue a sincere apology.

Meanwhile, the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute continues raging. The two very different actions offered a powerful contrast. Members of the Japanese public have different opinions on how to conduct Sino-Japanese relations, and how to respond to the Diaoyutai Islands crisis. The two politicians' conduct merely reflect these differences in public opinion.

Shintaro Ishihara represents the extreme right-wing. He advocates repealing the peace constitution, manufacturing atomic bombs to use against China. On the other hand, Kenzaburo Oe urges the Japanese government to cease alleging that "There is no territorial dispute." Haruki Murakami says "Territorial ambition is like strong liquor. Afterwards one wakes up with a terrible headache and finds oneself stripped clean." Public opinion is divided. This makes political leadership even more important.

After all, China and Japan have a past that no one wishes to repeat. Now they must deal with the Diaoyutai Islands conflict. Mainstream opinion on Japan favors the right-wing. But Hatoyama, Oe, and Murakami also have support among the public. Japanese politicians must cherish democratic freedom and democratic debate. They must correct public misconceptions, not fan populist sentiment. Japan is at a crossroads. The entire country is at risk.

Japan today is a democracy that engages in rational debate. Think back to 70 or 80 years ago. Japan had no room for rational debate. During the 1930s Japanese invaded China and waged a Pacific War.

Japan invaded China. It launched its "Southern Expansion Doctrine," its "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Doctrine," and the Pacific War. There was no shortage of internal dissent. But under the militarist regime, there was no room for rational debate. The military hijacked the cabinet. The Cabinet threatened the Emperor. The Emperor supported the military. The entire country marched down a path of no return. Recall Emperor Hirohito's belated assessment of Prime Minister Konoe Mo: "Without any preparation, he led us into war. Once the war began, we could only pursue it to the end." Recall Harada Kumao's assessment of Konoe Mo. "Prime Minister Konoe Mo is like Mount Fuji. From afar it is beautiful. But up close it is merely a pile of ugly rocks. Having someone like him as Prime Minister sends a chill up one's spine.

That was an era during which rational debate was impossible. Today should be an era of rational debate. Japanese politicians should use democracy to encourage rational thought. They should not use democracy to incite populist sentiment.

The best way to deal with the Diaoyutai Islands conflict is to "maintain the disputed status quo" in order to ensure a peaceful settlement. This is the view expressed in the first editorial this newspaper wrote in response to the Diaoyutai Islands conflict. We still see it this way today. Even the United States says it takes no position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands. It says it gave Japan the right to administer the islands, nothing more. Yet Prime Minister Shinzo Abe insists that Japanese sovereignty over the "Senkaku Islands" is not in question. He insists that there is no room for negotiation, and that Japan will not allow the "Senkaku Islands" to become an object of negotiation. He rejects the "disputed status quo."

Prime Minister Abe insists that "The Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory." He insists that this is a simple matter of fact. But if it is, why did he promise not to station Japanese officials on the island? Could it be because sovereignty over the island remains disputed? By contrast, Beijing says that "We have not overflown Diaoyutai Islands airspace. We have already exercised self-restraint." This is tantamount to accepting "disputed status." Japan should agree not to station officials on the islands. Beijing should agree not to overfly the islands' airspace. To assert that the sovereignty of the islands is not in dispute is irrational. Such a claim is reminiscent of Mount Fuji. It may look attractive from a distance, but not from up close.

The Diaoyutai Islands conflict has turned into a Mexican standoff. It is an explosive situation. The concerned parties should acknowledge the islands' disputed status. They should then shelve the dispute. Neither side should dispatch aircraft or ships to make shows of force or to test the waters to maintain the islands' "disputed status." The politicians must acknowledge the islands' disputed status, either verbally or in writing. This will avoid risk to their aircraft and ships.

One must acknowledge a dispute before one can shelve a dispute. Refusal to acknowledge a dispute will merely make it impossible to end a dispute. Aircraft and ships must then be used to maintain the disputed status. The Abe Cabinet must bear the bulk of the responsibility. Japan has the advantage of "effective management" of the islands. If it refuses to acknowledge the islands' "disputed status," its opponents will not be able to show weakness. Otherwise one wrong move, and all bets are off.

From Taipei's perspective, Beijing and Tokyo's aircraft and ships are traveling back on forth in Republic of China territorial waters and airspace. We cannot "stand atop the mountain and watch horses kick each other below." We must maintain peace in the Diaoyutai Islands.

釣島危機：承認爭議，始能擱置爭議
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.01.19 02:15 am

正當日本首相安倍晉三進行東盟三國訪問，而被視為有策動「圍堵」中國大陸之意時；前首相鳩山由紀夫訪中，赴「南京大屠殺紀念館」致哀，並表示由衷道歉。

正值釣島主權爭議急遽升溫之際，兩人的鮮明動作所反映的強烈反差顯示：日本公眾對如何處理中日關係及如何因應釣魚台危機，存有不同的立場；二人的表現，只是反映了民眾見解的差異。

例如，以石原慎太郎為代表的極右翼，主張以廢除《和平憲法》，製造原子彈來對付中國；但也有大江健三郎主張，日本政府應停止「領土爭議問題不存在」的虛構認知；而村上春樹也說：「領土狂熱，猶如劣酒；醒後頭痛，一無所有。」在這種分歧的民意中，政治人物的抉擇與領導就更為重要。

畢竟，中日兩國曾有一段不堪回首的過去。如今面對釣島事件，即使日本的民意以右傾為主流，但如鳩山、大江及村上的思考亦必定存在於民間。日本的政治人物應當珍惜自由民主的思辨體制，來協助導正國民的認知；而不可利用民粹的氛圍煽風點火，將整個國家引致歧路危境。

因為，日本今日畢竟是一可以理性思辨的民主體制；如果將時間推到七、八十年前，日本就不具理性思辨的空間。此處要說的是，一九三○年代的日本侵華與一九四○年代的太平洋戰爭。

當年，日本在發動侵華、南進論、大東亞共榮圈及太平洋戰爭時，內部不是沒有議論，但在軍國體制下卻不具理性思辨的空間。軍部挾持內閣，內閣脅制天皇，天皇支持軍部，整個國家就踏上了不歸路。如今回視裕仁天皇事後評論首相近衛文?：「毫無準備就帶領我們進入戰爭……一旦開戰了，就只能進行到底。」再看當時的原田熊雄評近衛文?：「近衛首相像富士山，從遠望去很漂亮，但近看全是岩石，粗糙不堪……由這樣的人擔任首相，真是叫人寒心哪。」

那是一個不具理性思辨的年代，但今日卻是應當體現理性思辨的時代。日本的政治人物應當用民主來引導民眾的理性思維，而不是用民主來鼓動民眾的民粹情緒。

釣島事件的最佳對策即是「維持爭議狀態」，以徐圖和平解決，這是本報在此次釣島風潮中所寫的第一篇社論所持的觀點，現今亦作如是觀。其實，連美國亦稱，對釣島的主權不持立場，移交給日本的只是行政權或管理權。然而，安倍晉三首相卻說，日本對尖閣群島的主權無庸置疑，沒有談判餘地，也不會讓尖閣群島成為談判對象。此一立場，是在否定「維持爭議狀態」。

事實卻是，倘若安倍首相以「尖閣群島為日本領土」係理所當然之事，又為何承諾不在島上派駐公務員，難道不是因為「爭議狀態」？相對而言，北京方面稱「未穿越釣島領空，已是自我節制」，亦形同接受了「爭議狀態」。釣島未來的局面，應當即是維持在「日本不派駐公務員／北京不穿越領空」的雙方底線之間；在此種情勢下堅稱「釣島主權不容爭議」，這絕不是理性思考，而會不會又是一座可以遠觀不可近玩的富士山？

釣島問題已成僵局，亦成一觸即發的危局。相關各方，應當經由「承認爭議」，轉至「擱置爭議」。亦即不必用飛機、船艦的相互示威及試探，來維持此種「爭議狀態」；只須以政治領袖的言語或文字承認「爭議狀態」，即可免去用飛機船艦的成本與風險。

承認爭議，始能擱置爭議；不承認爭議，即不可能止息爭議，而必須用飛機、船艦來「維持爭議狀態」。在這一方面，安倍內閣應負較大的責任；因為，日本在釣島既已占有「實際管理」的優勢，若不承認「爭議狀態」，對手自然不能示弱，以免一棋失手，全盤皆輸。

對於台灣而言，中國大陸與日本的飛機、船艦，正在釣魚台「中華民國領海領空」上尬來尬去；我們不能只是「站高山看馬相踢」，而應為維持釣島的「和平爭議」出一些心力。