21 Sep Is the U.S. Obligated to Defend Japan’s Senkaku Islands Against China? Probably
As things continue to get ugly between China and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, the U.S. has tried to stay out of the way. Still, although the U.S. has tried to stay neutral on the territorial dispute, it appears the U.S. is obligated by treaty to defend any incursion by China into the Senkaku/Diaoyu. From Article V of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security:
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.
The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are plainly under the administration of Japan, even if Japan does not have sovereignty over the islands. I don’t know exactly why this “administration of Japan” language is used, nor why it is one-sided (Japan has no obligation to assist the U.S. if U.S. territory is attacked). In the U.S. -Philippines Defense treaty, the area covered by the treaty is “the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties.” The Korea Treaty does have similar language “administrative control” language, although I am assuming it does so in order to exclude North Korea.
So the U.S. is basically on the hook for a defense of the Senkaku/Diaoyu. And what’s worse, Japan doesn’t have to help the U.S. at all in defending its own territory. Looks like the Japanese got themselves a nice little deal here.
A great little deal. Can’t understand why Japan doesn’t have military bases in Iowa. However, having considered the bevy of posts on those embassy attacks, what I’m left pondering is whether this treaty would mean the US could nuke Beijing should a Chinese fishing trawler sail close to the islands and proceed to throw a barrage of eggs and/or bottles at the shore?
Isn’t the “one-sided” nature of the treaty a result of the fact that the US wanted Japan to forsake all military action? I notice that the treaty was signed for the US by a man named Douglas MacArthur who had a little something to do with the peace clause in Japan’s constitution.
Correction: The treaty was signed by Douglas MacArthur 2nd, the general’s nephew. Apologies. I think the larger question, about US support for the peace clause in Japan’s constitution, stands.
Having a security agreement with the U.S does not imply that the United States will defend their allies without condition. (Eg: Israel must have U.S approval before attacking Iran/Lebanon/Egypt etc)
The current terrortorial dispute is clearly driven by Japanese nationalist interest, the U.S has too many to lose and nothing to gain from a full scale conflict with China, not Militarily or Economically. And we all know that NO American Soldier will everdie for a Japanese cause, it can only happen the other way around.
Finally, the U.S – Japan mutural security agreement is more or less designed to restrict Japan’s military capability rather then protecting them. It is a tailor made system that corresponds to Artical 9 of the Japanese constitution, it effectively stops them from re-arming again as long as the agreement stands. It is NOT anything like the U.S – U.K security agreement. One of the VERY last thing an average American cares about is the territorial sovereignty of some Japanese Island near Taiwan.
China is not about to be nuked over Japanese interest, America will ensure their interest is put ahead of anything else.
You don’t seem to know much about post world war 2 Japan. After WW2 the US limited Japan’s military power so it won’t ever start a war again. That is the containment policy the US implemented after WW2 to contain communism. Japan wouldn’t have a large military power in return the U.S. would defend Japan against communist countries. The countries around Japan have nuclear weapons but Japan doesn’t have any, zero. That’s because the U.S. wanted it that way. Even though Japan doesn’t have any nuclear weapons, America’s nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent to anyone who attempts to attack Japan. That’s the security pact between Japan & the U.S., the U.S. would defend Japan in return Japan would be America’s dependable ally in Asia. So the U.S. will most likely not expect Japan to help defend America’s territory(Of course the US military is the mightiest in the world so it wouldn’t need any help to defend itself) but Japan has helped the U.S. in overseas wars especially the war on terror in places like Iraq and Afganistan. You’re saying Japan is getting a good deal here but don’t you know Japan has paid billions of dollars to the US… Read more »
Hi Darth: Thanks for your responds and I will make this short. Your responds are based on analysis of military capabilities, and I will start with what I agree with you: 1) U.S/Japan has far superior military hardware, personal training, combat experience and morale. 2) In any full scale conflict, I would predict the following: If China is fighting a full scale war Japan alone (conventionally), restricting to naval and air battle only, both countries would lose. I would give credit to a 3/1 – 5/1 Kill ratio in Japan’s favour. But China has the number, so eventually it will just break even one way or another. 3) If the U.S backs Japan, Chinese sailors will all have to learn how to swim again. all Chinese air force and naval forces will be wiped. Both U.S and Japan will suffer some casuality but they will live on. 4) U.S will undoubtably back Japan if Japan is under attack from any agressor, period. (That the Japanese mainland, excluding disputed terroritores) I am not going to go through the defense budget and specify specific military hardware such as the 400 F35’s or whatever.. because I already agree that the U.S/Japan force are far… Read more »
[…] something to gain), but not when it does possess the islands (and has something to lose). The US is probably obligated to defend Japan against others, making war between the world’s two greatest military powers more probable […]
Well I just had to respond to the person who wrote this article because it says as though Japan was getting a good DEAL from the US without sacrificing little. Again it says “nice little deal here.” It sounds like Japan wasn’t sacrificing anything and getting alot in return that’s why I had to remind the person who wrote this that Japan had been paying the U.S. billions of dollars in defense so the U.S. was getting a nice deal from Japan too. It says “Defending Japan physically through military strength and fighting for Japan’s interest are two completely seperate topic. While Uncle Sam has came to Japan’s protection militarily, Uncle Sam has never cared about Japanese interest, they’ve never did and never will!!!” Fortunately post WW2 there has not been any attack on Japan so we shall see what happens in the future. This Senkaku situation might be a test between Japan – US relations. You should take a look at this letter. China sent a letter of appreciation to the Japanese in 1920 for rescuing 31 Chinese fishermen around the Senkakus. In the letter it clearly says Okinawa Senkaku Islands admitting Japanese ownership of the Senkaku Islands. This… Read more »