From Sarajevo to the Senkakus

Disputed islands may be the spark that ignites a Sino-Japanese conflagration.

By Eric S. Margolis • February 14, 2013

On 30 January, a Chinese Jiangwei II-class frigate entered the disputed waters around the Senkaku Islands, a cluster of uninhabited rocks in the East China Sea claimed by China as the Diaoyu Islands. A Japanese destroyer was waiting.

When the two warships were only 3 km apart, the Chinese frigate turned on its fire-control radar that aims its 100mm gun and C-802 anti-ship missiles and “painted” the Japanese vessel. The Japanese destroyer went to battle stations and targeted its weapons on the Chinese intruder.

Fortunately, both sides backed down. But this was the most dangerous confrontation to date over the disputed Senkakus. Japan and China were a button push from war.

Soon after, a Japanese naval helicopter was again “painted’ by Chinese fire-control radar. Earlier, Chinese aircraft made a clear intrusion over waters claimed by Japan.

China’s Peoples Liberation Army HQ ordered the armed forces onto high alert and reportedly moved large numbers of warplanes and missile batteries to the East China Sea coast.

A U.S. AWACS radar aircraft went on station to monitor the Senkaku/Diaoyus—a reminder that under the 1951 U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty, Washington recognized the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan and pledged to defend them if attacked. Japan seized the Senkakus as a prize of its 1894-95 war with Imperial China.

China’s state-run media claimed the U.S. was pushing Japan into a confrontation with Beijing to keep China on the strategic defensive.

Japan’s newly elected government led by conservative PM Shinzo Abe vowed to face down with China. Spasms of angry nationalism erupted in both feuding nations. The Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam, who also claim the Senkakus, chimed in with their territorial demands.

A special Chinese crisis group led by new President Xi Jinping has been set up to deal with the Senkakus—meaning any clash there may be more likely to become a major crisis.

Shades of August, 1914, when swaggering, breast-beating, and a bloody incident triggered World War I, a conflict few wanted but none could avoid.

Japan is in a difficult situation over the Senkakus. Its nearest air bases are in Okinawa, 500 km away; Japan’s main airbases are 1,000 km further to the Northeast.

Japan’s F-15J strike aircraft have the combat range to cover the Senkakus but they cannot linger for long with full bomb loads due to the long distances involved. By contrast, Chinese warplanes based on the coast near Fuzhou are well within range of the Diaoyus.

Japan’s defense architecture was built to stop an invasion by the Soviet Union. Its so-called Self Defense Forces are able but not configured for long-range offensive operations. China’s are. They have been redesigned with a major amphibious invasion of Taiwan and a fight with the U.S. Seventh Fleet in mind.

Unless U.S. carrier strike groups intervened, Japan would probably face defeat in a clash with China over the islands, a fact that has Tokyo deeply worried. This latest crisis again reminds Tokyo that it is naked before China’s nuclear weapons. Recent incursions over Northern Japan by Russian warplanes did nothing to calm Tokyo’s nerves.

However, war between China and Japan sounds as crazy and illogical as war between China, and the U.S. Japan is China’s largest foreign investor, having discreetly built much of China’s industry. China is a major export market for Japan. A war against China would shatter Japan’s prosperity and force it to embark on a hugely expensive armaments campaign, including building nuclear weapons—which it has the capability to do in 90 days.

China has no desire to fight the United States unless absolutely necessary, and less to spark a U.S. trade embargo. China holds over $1 trillion in U.S. government debt. Beijing has no desire to panic all of East Asia.

A war over the Senkaku/Diaoyus would be like the 1998-2000 desert war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, described as “two bald men fighting over a comb.” No matter how much fish swim around the Senkakus, or how much oil and gas may be found underwater, nothing justifies a war.

But then again, nothing justified World War I that began by a murder in obscure Bosnia. Pray for cool heads in Beijing and Tokyo.

Eric Margolis is the author of War at the Top of the World and American Raj: Domination or Liberation. Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2012

26 Responses to From Sarajevo to the Senkakus

Mightypeon says:

February 14, 2013 at 5:54 am

I have to add the following corrections:

The Senkakus/Diayu Islands are claimed by Taiwan, China and Japan. The Philipines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and China have ongoing rows between each other over the Spratly island, which are in the South China Sea. Your text as is implies that the Philipines, Vietnam and Indonesia are a party to the Senkaku dispute, which they are not.
A further border conflict is between Both Koreas and Japan over Dokdo, and Japan and Russia over Sakhalin and the Kurils. Vietnam, the Philipines, Brunei and Malaysia have, iirc, competing claims with each other, but all of them regard China as more threatening.

China and India have land claims (not as much as in earlier times) over certain pieces of the Himalayas.
China had outstanding border conflicts on land with Vietnam and Russia in the past, but has chosen to solve all (naval and landborne) conflicts with Russia in addition to all landbased border conflicts with Vietnam.
From the Chinese pov, it made a lot of sense to solve the (not very sizeable) land conflicts with Vietnam, Vietnam has an independent foreign policy and represents military potentials, especially on land, that the Chinese consider credible. The same holds, to greater extents, for Russia and India.
Japan is not seen as politically independent from the USA, and would not stop being a “USA Vasall” just because of Chinese concessions.

Of the Chinese sea border conflicts, the clash concerning the Spratlys is far more significant. Chinese claims in Spratly would turn the South China Sea, up to 3 kms to the ports of Saigon, into Chinese territory, no Vietnamese gouverment could accept this, and Vietnam has historically speaking few concerns when it comes to picking (and winning) fights way out of their weight class.
Vietnam is by orders of magnitude the most “ballsy” nation engaged in border clashes with the Chinese. They actually shoot at each other, and the informal Vietnamese media responded to the Senkaku clash with “Pah, Japanese pansies, come to Spratly, here we go below painting someone with targetting radars!”.
Andrew says:

February 14, 2013 at 10:36 am

Unless U.S. carrier strike groups intervened, Japan would probably face defeat in a clash with China over the islands, a fact that has Tokyo deeply worried. This latest crisis again reminds Tokyo that it is naked before China’s nuclear weapons.

It is a very strange statement since it is very difficult to predict the dynamics of a possible conflict in which, no doubt, nuclear weapons will play no actual combat role. Should this conflict escalate, however, it will be held within conventional framework and will involve a significant element of submarine operations. Even with their limited time on station Japanese F-15-s (and F-2s) have more than enough to provide for the safe deployment of the Japanese submarines into the operations’ area. I have huge doubts about Chinese ASW (and I mean HUGE) and I have a very justified faith in the superbly trained and equipped Japanese submarine force, I cannot say the same about Chinese submarine force, which will be played also as ASW package. While difficult, especially geographically, Japanese situation is by no means preordained for defeat. As for U.S. carrier strike group….well, there is a lot to be said about that.
Nick K. says:

February 14, 2013 at 11:52 am

Mightypeon is quite right to raise the issue of Dokdo. The Dokdo dispute between the Koreas and Japan is of real concern because it weakens the relationship between Seoul and Tokyo, leaving these two nations, which need to show solidarity in the face of Chinese aggression, divided instead. The Dokdo conflict not only acts as a wedge precluding a unified diplomatic and military front against China, it also stokes popular nationalism between the two respective peoples- thus misdirecting each people’s fighting spirit. Every time there is Korean-Japanese flare-up over Dokdo the big shots in Zhongnanhai smile, I’m sure.

How much time over target do Japan’s planes need to attack Chinese surface ships? How crippled is Japan really by the distance to Dokdo? Moreover, even if China did land troops on Dokdo wouldn’t they be exposed? It would be relying on ship-based anti-aircraft capabilities to protect them, wouldn’t it? Does it have those? Japan’s force posture may be defensive in nature, but is its hardware somehow incapable of being re-purposed for offensive use in a taskforce kind of organization? Any milcap analysts out here who can offer some unclass thoughts on this?

Further, since the Senkakus are, by treaty, Japanese, were China to actually seize them it would take an enormous hit politically. First, it be on the wrong end of international law- and opinion- and would likely find itself on the wrong end of the UNSC, too. The myth- the lie, thank you- of China’s “peaceful rise” would be made rather naked, and this would damage China’s efforts to cultivate soft power in SE Asia. These are political realities which Beijing is very much aware of, and wants to avoid.

Mr. Margolis may not fully appreciate the extent to which China is prone to political posturing for domestic purposes, more than international ones. These escalations, though dangerous as Margolis states, may be more calculated than they appear.

Mr. Margolis is right about the catastrophe that a Sino-Japanese war would be, but with respect, I think he may have missed a few angles on this which might warrant a bit more discussion.
Mightypeon says:

February 14, 2013 at 12:08 pm

I am not entirely sure how the Sarajevo murder was “obscure”. The Heir apparent of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was killed in a targeted terrorist attack.

Heir apparent would, in an American context, make him Vice president. He was actually more important than that due to having already taken over duties from his aging father.

While far away from being a first rate great power (that league was seen as “France, UK, Germany, Russia), the Austrian Empire was still seen as a great power by its contempories.

Context of it today could mean something like Hezbollah assassinating the Vice Prime Minister of the UK, you bet someone would go to war with someone over such a thing.
Nick K. says:

February 14, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Pardon me: second paragraph, Senkaku, not Dokdo.
Mightypeon says:

February 14, 2013 at 3:03 pm

Well, Dokdo is also important for another Reason, Russia and South Korea have no oustanding claims on each other, but both have issues with Japanese claims.

While both South Korea and Japan have a joint interest in containing China, South Korea is not threatened/in conflict with Russia at all, while Japan is.

So, if that Anti Chinese Nato become reality, expect Russia (propably in return for some chinese support on other things) to be savy enough of running some high class trolling/interference.
Nick K. says:

February 14, 2013 at 7:30 pm

Mightypeon, you could be right about that slightly dilute Sino-Russian entente forming, but if it did happen then it would be an example of politics making very strange bedfellows indeed, and of the Russians not knowing what is good for them.

If the Russians are too dense to see China as the natural enemy that it is, then they will get what they have coming to it from the Han Empire. I think it is only a matter of time before Beijing begins to eye the lebensraum in Russia’s vast and under-populated eastern regions and make up one of their typical, goofy, historical-revanchist myths to justify the annexation. My point stands: if Korea and Japan comprise what should be a natural alliance, then Russia should just as easily be in that mix.
The General says:

February 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm

“two bald men fighting over a comb.”

That’s about right.

So what if there is oil beneath the seas? What benefit is that to the Chinese or Japanese government?

Multi-nationals will undoubtedly do the actual extracting. What’s the benefit if the corporations are nominally Chinese or Japanese when, in either case, the oil will be sold at market price to both countries.

Jobs? Paltry. License fees? Paltry. Tax revenues? Paltry. Exxon Mobil’s total net income in 2010 was not much more than $30B. That’s a global operation representing many times more revenue and income than could be derived from a single location. Not worth warring over.

If someone can enlighten me as to the tangible benefit that would even come close to being worth a war, I’m curious to understand.

Otherwise, this is nothing but but equating national pride with national interest.
Riki says:

February 15, 2013 at 9:28 pm

Hereby I would like to call your attention to some very finely written articles backed by solid and sufficient historical facts and proofs to show the real white and black side on the issue of Senkaku dispute, its origins, developments, current state and the political dark side and ulterior motives and secrets behind China’s feigned indignation and all swashbuckling posturing.

I would like to introduce a very good and quality website in English, one run and maintained by some decent patriotic and enlightened folks in Japan to counter historical and present political lies of China and other seedy forces on the international stage against Japan, since the government of Japan has been doing virtually nothing in this regard in the last half a century amid rampant and virulent anti-Japanese propaganda by China using concoctions, fabrications, distortions and arrant lies.

First, here is the summary of one of its key articles recently pertaining to the matter of Senkaku:

The Senkaku Islands Constitute an Intrinsic Part of Japan
(Summary)
by Hiromichi Moteki, Director of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

The Senkaku Islands were known since ancient times as markers for navigational purposes but were not inhabited or administered as territory by any country until Japan made a declaration to incorporate them into her territory in 1895. This incorporation was based on the modern international law that any islands terra nullius can be acquired through occupation and by declaring its incorporation.

No objections were expressed at that time by any country, including the Qing Dynasty. Moreover, before 1970, both the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China acknowledged that the islands were the territory of Japan, in official statements, in maps made with government approval, and in the party newspaper, The People’s Daily, as well.

In 1968, the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) published its findings of surveys of the waters surroundings the Senkaku Islands and it stated that there might be the existence of huge natural resources deposits below the seabed. Thereafter, claims emerged from China and Taiwan to the Senkaku Islands as their territory.

China argues that there are many old records in books and other documents which mention the Senkaku Islands. However, descriptions of the Islands alone cannot at all be used as justification to claim territorial rights. It is true that in many old Chinese books, Japan and its geography are described. But these were never meant to say that Japan was Chinese territory. In China’s official documents, not a single mentioning can be found that the Senkaku Islands were Chinese territory. This can be well-verified by the fact that the Qing Dynasty’s highly regarded and official statutory encyclopedia, Qing Huidian, 1889 edition, contains a “Map of Taiwan,” a “Map of Tainan City,” and a “Map of Taitung,” but none of these maps depicted the Senkaku Islands within their numerous attached islands. In the era of the Ming Dynasty, even Taiwan was not regarded as Ming territory, even though it was mentioned in a lot of books of that time.

China even argues that the Ryukyu Islands, today’s Okinawa, was a Ming and Qing tributary state. But this does not at all mean that the Ryukyus were Chinese territory. The tributary system was commonly practiced in East Asia, since China never admitted to equal relationships with other countries. To conduct trade with China, other countries had to accept the tributary system. If tributary countries were under China’s sovereignty, the independence of Korea, Vietnam, and so on are menaced. This is very dangerous thinking that negates the rule of modern international law. Such outdated and Sino-centric thinking sometimes underlies their arguments. Today, this way of thinking is a threat to global stability.

It should be added that China even presents fraudulent material to justify its claim of sovereignty over the Senkakus, such as the Xi tai hou réscript, which bestowed to Sheng Xuanhui the three Senkaku Islands as an award to his submitting tablets made from wormwood and herbs collected from the three islands. This paper exposes the réscript as fraudulent.

Now, here is the concerned part of its website, at:
http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/result.php?word=ZQ&startview=10&endview=20

Note: on the right side of the webpage, you can see many lines of clickable buttons, usually four in a row, displaying names like “abstract”, “summary”, “PDF”, “text”, sometimes with “author”, and sometimes with fewer buttons. In a top-down direction, the 4th row of such white buttons which features the aforementioned four buttons and the 5th row which only features one button “PDF” are the pertinent contents on Senkaku issue. Of course you may take a look at other featured topics if you have an interest. The articles here are all very detailed and meticulously written, with thorough-going contents and telling illustrations and backed by strong evidences and archival facts, almost scholarly, with typically Japanese devotion to elaboration and particularity.

Finally, a relevant and revealing video for your kind reference which is made by a scholar related to the same civil-historical organization:
http://youtu.be/taqsm7L9Q1I
Mightypeon says:

February 16, 2013 at 1:59 am

Let me just say that Chinese and Russian gouverments extract a lot more from their big buisness than the US gouverment does.
Especially in the case of the spratlys, there are strong and totally credible security concerns too.

Concerning the Russian-Sino Alliance from the Russian pov:

1: The west is actively attempting Regime changes in Moscow. China is not. Russia remembers well what happened after the last time “western” (in this case German) support for certain “dissidents” lead to a large scale revolution, it does not want a repeat of it.

2: When Russia was at its Nadir following the collapse of he Soviet Union, the West aggressivly expanded its influence, went as far as to bomb the Russian Embassy in Belgrade (as well as the Chinese one, if you want to have an example of a deliberate international insult/humiliation in modern times, here it is), launched coups against a succession of “non pro western” (it goes to far to call them pro Russian) gouverments and broken solemn promises given with regards to Russias security. China did of course expand her influence in central Asia, Mongolia and North Korea were a large vacuum happened following the Soviet collapse, but it was not even in the same ballpark (and later partially reversed with much less sabre rattling) as what the west did regarding eastern Europe and the Balkans.

3: Russia did deliver very important support to the US-gouverment on a number of important issues (AFG etc), they didnt see much in the way of return.

4: Russias follows a strongly realist foreign policy, they have issues understanding and anticipating foreign policies that are not realist, and a state that doesnt understand another state it will usually (if as powerfull as Russia) react with aggression/hostility. Chinas foreign policy is well explainable by realism.

5: Russians are not very fond of hypocrites. This is to an extent a cultural thing, (that is often associated with reputations for being not very polite, in Russia, it is socially acceptable to be a jerk as long as one is honest about it), the hypocracy being evidenced in US politics breeds contempt, not fear.
China on the other hand is doing pretty much exactly what it claims to be doing.

6: There are violent Russophobes (or people that, because of what they say, are seen in Russia as violent Russophobes) in positions of power in the US or very close to positions of power in the US. This is just not the case in China.

7: Russia is still Chinas strongest neighbour, it has the capacitiy to obliberate China a couple of dozen times over. They simply dont feel a scenario in which China goes after Russia for some choice Siberian tundra as very realistic, especially if the produces of that Tundra are available to them on market prices.
If China wants “Lebensraum” (one child policy by the way does wonders to allivate population pressures), they would just annex Mongolia, doesnt get them nuked.
Nick K. says:

February 16, 2013 at 11:09 am

“So what if there is oil beneath the seas? What benefit is that to the Chinese or Japanese government? Multi-nationals will undoubtedly do the actual extracting.”

In the case of China that is not true. The extraction would likely fall under Sinopec’s purview. For the Japanese the benefit would be a negative: at least it wouldn’t be China’s oil.
Nick K. says:

February 16, 2013 at 1:41 pm

The one child policy trades one set of population pressures for another, but that is a different story. Annexing Mongolia gets China little, besides another place to do nuke tests. Eastern Russia is a big pile of resources.

China is competing with the US for first place in hypocrisy, at least in so far as they repeatedly criticize US imperialism and meddling, while engaging in it themselves often enough. Also, I do not think it would be wise to take past Chinese policy toward Russia as a guarantee against future expansionism. A major power’s concept of what is and is not its near abroad is fluid, and changes somewhat in synchrony with its military power and economic need, both of which will likely increase for China in the coming decades.
Brooklyn Blue Dog says:

February 16, 2013 at 6:50 pm

Maybe it’s not such a bad thing for the US and China to get into a shooting war over the Senakukus as a result of the security treaty with Japan. The US simply cancels the $1 Trillion in Treasuries held by China. Debt problem solved.
Bianca says:

February 18, 2013 at 12:23 am

The issue is not oil,gas or fishing rights — those are obvious. These islands are either rocks or islands. As rocks, they do not extend the new definition of the economic zone to the country they belong to. As islands, they do. For China, the prospect of Japanese claiming the newly defined economic zone (UN Convention on the Laws of the Seas) could mean denial of freedom of shipping. In theory, commercial traffic does not require asking permission — but if a country like Japan is not an independent country — any excuse can be used to stop ships and deny sea passage. This is why China wants those rocks/islands back, and why Japan wants to keep them. Now, the Islands were taken illegaly from China, and just because China was not in UN at the time Japan was forced to return much of the area taken by force — China had no say in the matter.

Economically, Japan will pay steeper price. And it is taking an old, and not so good way out — devaluing its currency. That would make their exports cheaper, but it may lead to devaluing other regional currency, causing chain reaction.

Japan is starting currency wars — and that could be by far worse then a hot war over few rocks that Japan wants to keep to spite China.
Mightypeon says:

February 18, 2013 at 3:35 am

The zone thing is also why the Vietnamese are shooting at the Chinese (and getting shot at) concerning the Spratlys. The resultant economic zones would go until like 3 nautic miles from Hue.
Kiza says:

February 18, 2013 at 7:45 am

Only in the Catholic American history is the killing of the Arch Duke Ferdinand called terrorism. In reality, the Arch Duke was parading through an occupied and annexed territory, as a show of might. This would have been like Sarkozi parading through Benghazi together with the US ambassador in the imperial car. Wouldn’t that make some newly acquired imperial subjects a little unhappy?
Mightypeon says:

February 18, 2013 at 4:18 pm

You know, if you use a linguistic definition of terroism (observe for what kind of behaviour this word is used), then yeah, it is something between terrorism and an assassination.

One should also note that Mr. Principe was Serbian, and the assassination took place in Sarajevo which was at that time de facto Bosnian/Austrian.

Modern analouge MK2: Iran, via Hezbollah, blowing up the Israeli Vice PM when he gives a speech on the Golan heights.

You can be sure that this act would be called terrorism.

The difference between “legitimate self defence using unconventional means” and “terrorism” is often simply a matter of winning or loosing.
Danny says:

February 18, 2013 at 6:49 pm

It’s funny that none of the previous commentators mentioned that the rightwing Abe admin. had strongly expressed support for a revived Japanese militarism prior to its election victory, or that the USA’s “pivot to the Pacific” was a cover to conceal the real current Evil Empire(in Washington)and its unrepentent Imperial aims to retain military superiority over the “American lake.”
allan says:

February 18, 2013 at 7:42 pm

I would like to thank each and everyone of you here. I read all of your comments. I am learning so much. These comments were very enlightened. Thank you again.
Ted Roedel says:

February 18, 2013 at 8:00 pm

This is not a rhetorical question: anyone have any idea what happens to American nationals in China, if war over these islands breaks out, and the U.S. has even an indirect role in supporting Japan – ?
no JoJo says:

February 18, 2013 at 8:51 pm

FYI: These islands were always chinese. USA had no right to give them to Japan. Question: Who said, vast amounts of oil and gas exists? More like Uncle Scam lying again :^(
Nick K. says:

February 19, 2013 at 12:47 pm

Ted, if you are an expat in China, I would sure as the hell have a bug-out plan to get to the nearest consulate or embassy as soon as hostilities look imminent. Once things go hot, you may not be able to safely move about the streets or access the embassies. I was living in Beijing in 1999 when the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Sarajevo and witnessed the government-organized mobs that occupied the embassy district in Beijing. It was ugly.

The popular reaction would be larger and immeasurably more violent in the instance of US involvement in a Sino-Japanese war, let alone a direct Sino-US shooting match. Be careful, especially if you are an American. I got past the mobs by telling them that I was Irish, and then quickly pointing out that Ireland was not a NATO country.
ed says:

February 19, 2013 at 11:34 pm

The Chinese issued a White Paper last year that has provided a much more detailed and credible statement of Chinese sovereignty and historical presence in the vicinity of the islands, than Japan’s claims which arose during the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, especially where all territories seized during that war were supposed to be returned to China. Also, the geographical proximity of the islands to Taiwan vs. their distance from Okinawa, which itself has sought independence from Japan, renders Japan’s claims even more problematic.

The U.S. made a terrible mistake in 1972 when they turned over administrative control of the islands to Japan since the sovereignty issue had not been carefully examined by the Administration, while at the same time Administration officials at the highest level were fully aware that this was a sore spot with Taiwan, which had formally protested to the State Department and was experiencing public demonstrations over the proposed transfer.

Moreover, it would be a mistake to think that the PRC would now back down over an issue of sovereignty such as this, since the Government has repeatedly stated that sovereignty is a core interest of the nation. Although the U.S. specifically stated that it was not taking a position of the sovereignty issue when it was transferring administrative control to Japan, the conflict, nonetheless, implicates the U.S., by virtue of its mutual defense treaty with Japan, and that ultimately is the club that Japan holds over China.

One solution might be for the two countries to agree temporarily to set aside their sovereignty claims, and instead jointly share in the development and extraction of the reserves, especially since the value of the islands to Japan is not from their ownership per se, but instead from the oil that can be extracted, given that Japan desperately needs independent sources of energy, now that it is less able to rely on its existing nuclear power plants.
Mightypeon says:

February 20, 2013 at 8:20 am

Hmm, during the Sino Soviet Split some Russians in China got away by claiming to be Polish.

Concerning the Sarajevo bombing: It was seen as a calculated deliberate and lethal insult (for both Russia and China), and a fierce reaction is to be expected.
I am personally more amazed that nobody (iirc) got lynched. If the Russians in 2008 would have blown up the US embassy in Tiflis, things would have gotten heated in the US too, count on it.
David says:

March 24, 2013 at 8:15 pm

Why should China accept that its territory taken by force by Japan during its imperalist days should remain in Japanese hands? No country in Europe has not taken back land taken during Germany’s expansion. At least Germany had the good sense to come to terms with its past. Here in the Far East we have the US backing Japan, a brutal and unrepentant aggressor who caused the deaths of 30 million Chinese during their war of aggression to hold on to its ill-gotten gains during its imperialist period. How this is in the US national interest beggars belief.
Mikee China says:

May 3, 2013 at 11:11 am

If it suits the US,the pentagon could provoke a war between China and Japan with US warships involved.The Pentagon as is std practice will say US ships in international waters were attacked by PLA boats.They will not say the Chinese were provoked into shooting from being sunk by US bombers.
Then a US warship will be destroyed calling for US destruction of PLA navy.Fortunately the US is not dealing with a Vietnam type of military. The Chinese can hit back although the US can prevail.Of course China could be bombed back to the stone age or totally destroyed.
The US will suffer massive and unacceptable damage .I believe Obama aint that naive to be conned into a war but you never know.