Why China, Japan dispute islands once home to just albatross feathers and fish

Aside from national pride, ownership could give Japan or China control of oil and gas resources.

Kyodo News/AP/File
Pictured in this Sept. 2 file photo are Minamikojima, foreground, Kitakojima, middle right, and Uotsuri, background, the tiny islands in the East China Sea, called Senkaku in Japanese and Diaoyu in Chinese.

For most of human history, the five rocky islets in the eye of the current diplomatic storm between China and Japan have sat in remote and irrelevant obscurity, lapped by the tropical waters of the East China Sea.

Today, leaders in Beijing are calling the barren islands "China's sacred territory since ancient times," and in Tokyo they're calling them "clearly an inherent territory of Japan."

But for generations of humbler folk on both sides, the islands have meant one thing: fish. The Chinese name for the island group, Diaoyu, means "catch fish." The Japanese name for the largest island, Uotsuri, means "fish catch."

There may be oil and gas in nearby waters, according to some surveys, making ownership of the islands – and their adjacent exclusive economic zone – even more attractive.

But all the tiny islands themselves have ever been good for is albatross feathers (for the fashion trade) and a Japanese-owned fish-processing plant that operated for the first 40 years of the past century.

Japan bases its claim to the islands, which it calls the Senkaku, on a cabinet decision in January 1895 whereby because there was no trace of anyone else controlling them they were deemed "terra nullius," nobody else's, and Tokyo incorporated them into its territory.

China disputes that claim, pointing to 15th-century accounts of sea voyages by Chinese envoys and a 17th-century map of China's sea defenses, among other documents, to show that "the Diaoyu islands were first discovered, named, and exploited by the Chinese," in the words of a Foreign Ministry statement.

Beijing says that Japan seized the islands as it was winning the Sino-Japanese war in 1895, and that they were part of another territory that Japan won in that war, Formosa (now Taiwan). At the end of World War II, Japan was forced to return Formosa to China, and Beijing has argued that it should have handed the Diaoyu/Senkaku over as well. (Taiwan also claims sovereignty over the islands.)

Tokyo says the disputed islands had never been administered from Formosa and so were not part of the "spoils of war" that Japan had seized in its imperialist expansion and that it had to give back after World War II.

Instead, Tokyo says the islands were governed from Okinawa, which the Americans took over after the war. And when Washington returned Okinawa to Japanese rule in 1972, the Senkaku/Diaoyu came with it.

At the time, nobody in China made much fuss about this. Indeed, Japan points out that Beijing did not challenge its claim to the islands for some 75 years, until a United Nations survey suggested oil and gas might be in their vicinity.

Though China did then lay formal claim to the islands, it did not press its case, preferring to cultivate good relations with Japan – a generous aid donor – and to shelve the territorial dispute. "Let the next generation resolve this issue," said supreme leader Deng Xiaoping at the time. That is something the next generation has signally failed to do.

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.