{"id":17589,"date":"2012-12-31T10:25:26","date_gmt":"2012-12-31T18:25:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=17589"},"modified":"2012-12-31T10:25:26","modified_gmt":"2012-12-31T18:25:26","slug":"is-us-meddling-making-a-china-japan-war-inevitable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2012\/12\/31\/is-us-meddling-making-a-china-japan-war-inevitable\/","title":{"rendered":"Is US Meddling Making a China-Japan War Inevitable?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Chinese think-tank (via Zero Hedge<\/a>) has predicted<\/a> that military conflict between China and Japan is inevitable now, thanks in part to US meddling in the Asia-Pacific region.<\/p>\n

With the rise of China as Asia’s leading economic power, a Chinese government think tank says the nation’s conflict with Japan over the\u00a0Senkaku Islands\u00a0is inevitable at a time when its bilateral relations are changing as a consequence.<\/p>\n

The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) also said in its annual report that the two countries\u2019 relationship will enter into a highly unstable period.<\/p>\n

While thinking that the conflict over the islands could be prolonged, China is now paying attention to what action the new Japanese government, headed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, will take.<\/p>\n

The \u201creport on the development of the Asia-Pacific region\u201d points out that China\u2019s rapid development is raising anxieties in surrounding nations, forcing them into taking precautions and requiring them to accept the \u201creadjustment\u201d of the power balance.<\/p>\n

As for the Senkaku Islands, the report explained that Japan\u2019s right-wing groups, which have gained strength through the country\u2019s two decades of a sluggish economy called \u201cthe lost 20 years,\u201d regarded U.S. policy of \u201cpivoting to Asia\u201d as the best opportunity to nationalize the islands. In September, Japan purchased three of the five Senkaku Islands, called the Diaoyu Islands in China, from a private landowner.<\/p>\n

…\u201cJapan\u2019s nationalization of the Diaoyu Islands destroyed the framework for keeping a balance, which means \u2018shelving a conflict,\u2019 \u201d a Chinese diplomatic source said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>Aggressive US meddling in the region has long been predicted to have ugly consequences, like bolstering hard-line nationalistic politicians on all sides.\u00a0\u201cSigns of a potential harsh reaction are already detectable,\u201d\u00a0a recent CSIS report said<\/a>. \u201cThe US Asia pivot has triggered an outpouring of anti-American sentiment in China that will increase pressure on China\u2019s incoming leadership to stand up to the United States. Nationalistic voices are calling for military countermeasures to the bolstering of America\u2019s military posture in the region and the new US defense strategic guidelines.\u201d<\/p>\n

The US role in this and various other Asian territorial disputes is not one of a neutral player trying to avoid escalation. Rather, the US has pursued an aggressive posture of\u00a0expanding military assets in the region<\/a>\u00a0and teaming up with all of China\u2019s neighboring rivals to side with them on territorial issues in a\u00a0nationalistic scheme to block China\u2019s rise<\/a>\u00a0as a world power.<\/p>\n

A veteran Chinese diplomat warned back in October that the US is\u00a0using Japan as a strategic tool in its military surge in Asia-Pacific aimed at containing China and is\u00a0heightening tensions between China and Japan<\/a>.\u00a0Chen Jia,\u00a0\u00a0who served as an under secretary general of the United Nations and as China\u2019s ambassador to Japan,\u00a0accused the US of encouraging a militaristic response by Japan.\u00a0\u201cThe US is urging Japan to play a greater role in the region in security terms, not just in economic terms,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Underlying the dispute are two key factors: (1) Washington has reiterated its commitment to its mutual defense treaty with Japan, insisting that it will become involved militarily in the event of an outbreak of conflict; (2)\u00a0Washington sees China<\/a>\u00a0as a rising power and increasing regional influence and is willing to crush that ascent to maintain its own global dominance.<\/p>\n

Technocrats in Washington like to call all this “maintaining stability.” As is often the case, the reality on the ground is the polar opposite of the term used to described it. But Washington isn’t about to have it’s power undermined, is it?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Chinese think-tank (via Zero Hedge) has predicted that military conflict between China and Japan is inevitable now, thanks in part to US meddling in the Asia-Pacific region. With the rise of China as Asia’s leading economic power, a Chinese government think tank says the nation’s conflict with Japan over the\u00a0Senkaku Islands\u00a0is inevitable at a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-17589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17589"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17589\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17592,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17589\/revisions\/17592"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17589"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=17589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}