Bridging Troubled Waters: China, Japan, and Maritime Order in the East China Sea

Chapter One: Cooperation and the Value of Maritime Space

C H A P T E R O N E Cooperation and the Value of Maritime Space TH I S I S A B O O K about the ebb and flow of cooperation between two rivals over disputed maritime space. The analysis compares five attempts at cooperation in the East China Sea in the areas of disputed sovereignty, fisheries management, marine surveys, and hydrocarbon resource development , and it draws lessons for remaining challenges in the Sino-Japanese maritime relationship. The theoretical concern relates to the impact of the value of disputed space on cooperative efforts between rival states. The findings may shed light on some of the most pressing issues in East Asian international relations. Why are disputes over tiny rocks seen to be intractable ? Why does cooperation over fisheries endure and cooperation over resource exploitation stagnate? The answers to these questions can inform expectations and policies about ongoing dispute management processes and cooperation over emerging issues in the Sino-Japanese maritime relationship. This focus on cooperation represents a new approach to the study of China–Japan maritime relations. Recurrent political tensions and several close calls between Chinese and Japanese ships are oft-cited evidence that China and Japan cannot cooperate over disputed maritime space.1 Although Chinese and Japanese leaders face powerful economic disincentives for conflict, this does explain why the two have actively sought to cooperate over different aspects of disputed maritime space. Maritime tensions between the two are related to the growing importance of the ocean to both states’ development goals.2 In addition to the material value of the sea brought by living and nonliving resource exploitation, the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands have taken on a domestic political relevance that is built on nationalist discourses between the two states, which extends to constituencies within government. Moreover, in recent years, the East China Sea has 1 5 1 6 C H A P T E R 1 become a strategically vital area for policymakers in Beijing and Tokyo. China’s strategy for the ‘‘near seas’’ is inextricably linked with Beijing’s posture toward Taiwan and the question of national reunification.3 Japan by contrast does not trust that its economic fortunes, which rely on open seas, could be assured if China were the dominant regional navy. In light of this Sino-Japanese rivalry, the fact that the two have managed to avoid overt conflict over their maritime boundary dispute is noteworthy.4 As is illustrated below, many analysts interpret this importance as creating incentives for conflict between the two. In light of these apparent incentives for confrontation, an explanation of Sino-Japanese maritime behavior must be rooted in the salience of disputed space to policymakers. The theoretical framework outlined in this chapter links the importance of disputed space with policymakers’ objectives for that space. Questions of territoriality are of utmost importance to states in an anarchic international system. Contested boundaries also raise issues that do not threaten the integrity of the state, but that may threaten the interests of constituencies within the state, as well as the domestic political prerogatives of leaders themselves. As a result, there is a great degree of variance in the salience of disputed maritime space to policymakers. Furthermore, this salience may not be identical between two states. States may both have an interest in a material aspect of a disputed space, but for reasons of onshore resource wealth, or trade relationships with other states, may have a less acute need. This would surely affect the salience of this material issue to policymakers. Likewise, policymakers who have invested a great deal of their domestic credibility in the resolution of a symbolic political issue are more likely to take risks to ensure that comes to pass than policymakers who have not. Any assessment of the salience of disputed space to state leaders needs to be able to account for these differences . The importance of space, filtered through the domestic and international framing exercises conducted by both parties, informs policymakers’ interpretation of the territorial status quo and in turn affects their reaction to perceived challenges to it. Debates over the Salience of Maritime Space According to Jean-Marc Blanchard, states derive both material and ideational functions from disputed territories, which are derived from how they perceive its value. These functions, in turn, inform state objectives C O O P E R A T I O N A N D T H E V...