Senkaku Who? – USA Gov Policy

The Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea may not sound familiar to many people in the US, but they could end up ground zero in the new Cold War brewing with China. Last week US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Japanese officials, a day before he held discussions in Alaska with representatives from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). While in Tokyo, Blinken reaffirmed the US security commitment to Japan, including its Senkaku Islands.

China has been increasingly belligerent toward the island chain over the last decade despite America’s explicit reassurance by President Obama in 2014 that the islands are part of the US security guarantee to Japan under Article V of our security treaty. The US and Japan “remain opposed to any unilateral action that seeks to change the status quo or to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands,” according to US officials. Despite Chinese propaganda claiming otherwise, the islands have been under Japanese control most of the time since the late 19^th century. After WWII ended the US held the islands until they were returned to Japan in the 1970’s.

Mostly uninhabited or dotted with flourishing fishing villages, the islands have taken on a new significance as advanced undersea mining technology may be able to extract valuable oil reserves in the area. The Jamestown Foundation estimates that China currently smuggles in up to 40 million liters of oil daily from Iran. The Daqing oilfields in northeast China produce low quality oil and are almost out at a time when President Xi Jinping is calling for increased domestic manufacturing during the 100^th anniversary celebration. China needs more petroleum resources to grow its domestic economy. The Senkaku are one potential answer. They have the added benefit of connecting the East China Sea to other sea lanes making them a prime target for China’s expansionist maritime plans.

“The United States and Japan acknowledged that China’s behavior, where inconsistent with the existing international order, presents political, economic, military, and technological challenges to the Alliance and to the international community,” according to the American statement released recently by the State Department. Washington and Tokyo are committed to maintaining the international rules-based international system that has kept the region stable in recent decades. Last year the Japanese Ministry of Defense outlined, in a detailed White Paper, the extent of Chinese incursions in waters surrounding the islands and throughout the Japanese archipelago.

If you really want to give up this dysfunction then order cheap viagra you should try Careprost eye drops and we know that you will be satisfied with your performance in bed. With multinational hospital chains, state of the art infrastructure and affordable long term accommodation, skilled surgeons and compassionate staff, India wholesale viagra online prove to be bang for the buck for overseas patients. But people with side effects of levitra erectile problems feel inability to do this. Many researchers believe that positive sibling relationships play an important role cheap cialis in canada in a child’s development and dysfunctional ones are, just as destructive for them.

In November 2013, when Chinese set up its East China Sea ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) it claimed the islands as Chinese on its maps. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies points out that this is significant because China “requires aircraft flying” in the “East China Sea ADIZ” to “abide by rules set by its Ministry of National Defense and claims to take military ‘defensive emergency measures’ against aircraft failing to do so, unduly infringing on the principle of freedom of overflight.” In 2018 submerged Chinese submarines and destroyers pierced the contiguous zone around the island chain multiple times. In 2019 the Russians and Chinese held Joint Sea 2019 naval exercises in the East China Sea. Last year the PLAN sailed through Japanese waters along with a flight of carrier-based military aircraft. During the last two years increasingly large, Chinese vessels have transited the Japanese territory on an almost daily basis. Add Chinese drones and military aircraft violating Japanese airspace to the equation and a dangerous pattern emerges.

As recent Chinese claims of sovereignty intensify, along with increasingly provocative naval operations around the island chain, the likelihood of a maritime accident or other conflict also increases. Beijing appears ready to make this the new norm in 2021. “China relentlessly continues in its attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by coercion in the sea area around the Senkaku Islands,” according to Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow and senior editor of Long War Journal. In what is also becoming more common, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian accused Japan of “acting as a strategic vassal of the United States, going so far as to break faith, harm relations with China, invite the wolf into the house, and betray the collective interests of the whole region.” The CCCP will celebrate its 100^th anniversary next July. The world already is witnessing China’s increasingly confident aggressive moves throughout the region. The Sekaku appear to be the latest hot button item on China’s list. Quite possibly it could become the site when the new Cold War turns hot.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Friday, she presents key updates on China.

Illustration: Several target aircraft take off successively from the amphibious dock landing ship Wuzhishan (Hull 987) during the actual combat training in late February, 2021. The amphibious dock landing ship is attached to a naval landing ship flotilla under the PLA Southern Theater Command. The flotilla organized its vessels to conduct main gun firing, close-in weapon system firing, landing craft air-cushion formation maneuver in late February, 2021. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Qiao Chenxi)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.