In China-Japan island clash, a peaceful diversion

A dangerous confrontation between China and Japan over the Senkaku islands can be deflected if China returns to the idea of laying aside sovereignty claims in favor of seeking joint development of any seabed wealth.

Reuters/file
The islands known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China are seen in this photograph taken on a surveillance plane on Dec. 13, 2012, and provided by the State Oceanic Administration of the People's Republic of China.

With China and Japan appearing close to a conflict over a few small islands, it’s time to pull out a practical tool of peacemaking: Divert the contending parties toward a shared interest. That tactic often calms the waters, creates trust, and buys time.

Since 2010, either by mishap or design, Tokyo and Beijing have escalated a confrontation over ownership of the uninhabited Senkaku islands (known in China as the Diaoyu islands). What has largely been forgotten is that the two Asian giants were talking only a few years ago about joint exploration of potential oil wealth in the South China Sea. They played down the issue of sovereignty in favor of common economic goals.

To deflect the current tensions, China must return to the idea of seeking a joint effort in tapping the oil and gas around the islands rather than assert its dominance in the region. The idea isn’t new. The late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping set down the wise policy regarding the islands of “shelve rivalry, jointly develop.” And last September, Taiwan – which also claims the islands – officially proposed joint petroleum exploration.

Other Asian nations have considered joint ventures in offshore drilling, often to avoid a flare-up of territorial claims. In 2009, Brunei and Malaysia settled a boundary dispute and then tied it to joint development of oil. Vietnam and Malaysia agreed in 1992 to seek joint development without settling rival claims of seabed sovereignty. Last year, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III suggested that all the nations that lay claim to various islands in the South China Sea –  such as the Paracels, the Spratlys, the Scarborough Shoals – should benefit from the seabed wealth.

Achieving such agreements isn’t always easy. After decades of work, for example, the United States and Mexico finally agreed last month to manage one of their maritime boundaries through joint regulation of oil drilling in the area. Britain and Argentina have been hot and cold about joint development off the Falkland Islands.

Perhaps one of the best examples of this type of peacemaking was the secret talks in 1992 between Israelis and Palestinians over issues of sharing water resources. Mediated by a Norwegian group, those talks created enough trust that they helped pave the way for the 1995 Oslo peace accords.

Indeed, countries often avoid official talks over a contentious bilateral issue by quietly or indirectly allowing private parties, such as an eminent group of scholars, to first come up with an agreement on the matter. If those initial talks fail, officials suffer no public shame. Conflict can be avoided.

Few experts on China expect Beijing to back off anytime soon in its campaign to assert sovereignty over islands in its surrounding seas – some even hundreds of miles from its shores. But with its need for oil growing – demand is expected to double by 2030 – China does have common ground with its neighbors, such as Japan. Sharing the wealth in their own watery backyards is far preferable to risking war over some deserted islands. What binds neighbors is greater than what divides them.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.