The confrontation between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands has lasted for 14 years, and the United States has been indifferent throughout the whole process. How likely is it that retired U.S. troops are urging the U.S. to take action and drive all Chinese ships out of the Diaoyu Islands? As the two confrontations in the East China Sea and the South China Sea continue, why is the United States so "restrained"?
After 14 years of Sino-Japanese Diaoyu Island game, someone can't sit still?
The Diaoyu Islands crisis around 2011 was clearly a key watershed moment in the regional situation around China, and since then, both Sino-US and Sino-Japanese relations have taken a sharp turn for the worse. It was not until Trump took office in 2016 that the United States' China policy began to shift to a comprehensive containment strategy, frequently creating a series of incidents around China, consuming China's energy while buying a window of time for its own return to the Asia-Pacific strategy.
However, with the passage of time, the Diaoyu Islands crisis, which was originally the "atomic flashpoint" of Sino-Japanese relations, has gradually taken a back seat in terms of its dangerousness, and the increasingly fierce dispute in the South China Sea has become the focus of the world's attention. In the 14-year-long game, China's growing naval and air forces have survived generations of Japanese Self-Defense Forces and achieved normalized de facto control over the Diaoyu Islands and their surrounding waters.
On June 29, Asia Times published an opinion piece written by Grant Newsom, a former retired officer of the U.S. Marine Corps, which further analyzed the current situation in the Diaoyu Islands, and seemed to be a little unable to sit still.
Grant claimed that over the past decade or so, China has also developed a pattern around the Diaoyu Islands, sending a large number of fishing boats to "flood" the surrounding area, while using coast guard ships to escort them, while naval warships are on the horizon not far away, which is to show the outside world that China can exercise "administrative control" over the islands as long as it wills.
By contrast, the Japan Coast Guard, which disparities in power with China, appears helpless, because the U.S. is limited to areas under the U.S.-Japan security treaty that limit the U.S. to areas "under Japan's administrative control."
Japan is far stronger than the Philippines in terms of self-defense capabilities and can counter China on an economic level, which Grant believes may explain why China is less "aggressive" on the Diaoyu Islands.
Therefore, Japan's activities around the Diaoyu Islands are also quite "patient", but this is very "tiring", and Japan has been "persistent" for nearly 15 years.
On this basis, there is also the view that Japan will eventually decide to use force, but it will be "too late", when China will face a large number of Chinese naval forces stationed near the islands, and the landing force will land on the islands and issue a full-scale war deterrent to Japan.
The former U.S. military officer begged the U.S. to intervene and drive out all the Chinese ships
Therefore, for this prospect, Grant believes that the United States needs to play a greater role in the issue of the Diaoyu Islands. The United States should work with Japan to defend the Ryukyu Islands and the Diaoyu Islands, and send U.S. warships and aircraft to conduct regular coordinated operations with Japan's Coast Guard and Self-Defense Forces, and expel any Chinese vessels that enter the waters of the Diaoyu Islands. This is more effective than the frequent claims by the United States that the Diaoyu Islands are applicable to the US-Japan military alliance treaty.
Moreover, from a factual point of view, on the Philippine issue, the United States has repeatedly reaffirmed the US-Philippine military alliance treaty, but similar actions have not imposed any constraints on China's actions around the Diaoyu Islands.
Grant also conclusively claimed that from China's point of view, it is one thing to "bully" the Japanese, but it is another thing to "bully" the Japanese under the premise of having US troops stationed.
Obviously, this former official of the US Marine Corps believes that the current US government has not done enough, and hopes that the US side will give Japan more support and show more determination on the Diaoyu Dao issue, and even directly intervene in the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu Dao through military means, so as to become Japan's "backing" for taking the Diaoyu Dao, and regard China's regular patrols on the Diaoyu Dao as a kind of "bullying" of Japan.
But this is a completely black and white rhetoric, China's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands has a strong historical basis, and according to the Potsdam Proclamation, Japan's territory is limited to the four large islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku, and Hokkaido.
This is also the main scope of the US-Japan military alliance treaty, and even for the four northern islands, Japan has no relatively reasonable sovereignty claims, and the only historical document that can be traced is the "commitment" made to Japan during the Soviet period.
Therefore, there is no possibility of "helping Japan defend the Diaoyu Dao" itself, because the Diaoyu Dao does not belong to Japan in the first place, nor does it belong to Japan's administrative division. If the US military goes out to "protect the fishery," it will be almost equivalent to the US military assisting Japan in "expanding its territory," which is not in line with Japan's status as a defeated country, still less in the interests of the United States.
If you want to take the Diaoyu Islands by force, Japan and the United States are not qualified to join forces
On the other hand, from a military point of view, the feasibility of the United States helping Japan to seize the Diaoyu Islands is not high.
The main reason is that not only the Diaoyu Islands, but even the entire territory of Japan are located in the second island chain.
This means that the PLA is currently equipped with large-scale hypersonic weapons that can be fully covered, and if the Japanese Self-Defense Forces cause trouble in the Diaoyu Islands and the US military chooses to fully support, then the US military targets in the entire region will be devastated, and the United States will also lose its bridgehead in the Asia-Pacific region and can only retreat to the western Pacific.
What is even worse is that if the US military loses valuable strategic assets such as aircraft carriers during the war, then it will only be a matter of time before a full-scale war breaks out between China and the United States.
But then again, is a small Diaoyu Island, which is neither the core strategic fulcrum of the United States nor the territory of Japan, worth the US military to pay such a heavy price and take such a big risk to go to war against China? Presumably, every American policymaker already has the answer in mind.
The same logic can also be applied to the South China Sea issue, although the United States has repeatedly reaffirmed the validity of the US-Philippine military alliance treaty, but in the event of a full-scale conflict or even confrontation between China and the Philippines, the United States has only provided "all support except actual support", and the United States has long ceased to be the superpower that "can fight whoever it wants", and the idea of this former US military official is just an unrealistic fantasy.