logo
T-Day in the Senkakus: Is China Planning Tourism to the Senkakus?

T-Day in the Senkakus: Is China Planning Tourism to the Senkakus?

Japan Forward02-07-2025
In recent weeks and months, several seemingly unrelated incidents have occurred in and around the Senkakus, islands historically claimed and administered by Japan for the last 130 years.
These events include the placing (and recent removal) of a buoy in the area and a helicopter flight over the islands. More ominous is the constant presence (224 days straight as of June 30) of armed Chinese Coast Guard vessels ー which are navy-sized ships painted white. Along with these is the recent passage nearby of a Chinese aircraft carrier, CNS Liaoning , and its naval task group. That has been followed by the deployment of another aircraft carrier, the CNS Shandong , in the area.
While they may appear unconnected, these incidents are, in fact, very much intertwined. Namely, the actions by China are all meant to chip away at Japan's administration of the Senkaku Islands. Beijing aims to create precedents that make it look as if the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), often by using the Chinese Communist Party and its military wing, the People's Liberation Army, is the rightful owner of the Senkakus.
Whether it is by lies, the use of force and violence, or other means and measures in between, the PRC has a big toolbox (this, also probably "Made in China") to draw from.
It was not only these recent events that caused me to be concerned. I am a resident of Japan, a specialist on the history of the Senkaku Islands. As a former official in the United States government, I also personally know how woefully unprepared the US-Japan alliance is to defend the islands. And how inadequate the American understanding of the Senkaku issue is.
Recently, I was going through some declassified documents, articles, and clippings about the Senkakus for an ongoing book project. In the process, I came across a note I made to myself more than a decade ago about the islands.
At the time, I was working as the Political Advisor to the US Marine Corps in Okinawa. Belatedly, interest in the islands was beginning to grow there. I noticed an AP story published in the Stars and Stripes newspaper about how China was opening the Xisha Islands, known internationally as the Paracels, to cruises and other tourism. The islands are also claimed by Vietnam and the Philippines. The China Coast Guard 2303, equipped with a 76mm cannon, is pictured here from the China Coast Guard website.
Now in operation, the tours leave from the Sanya Port on the southeastern side of Hainan Island. Visitors sleep on the cruise ship and go onto the islands for sightseeing. There are reports of at least one hotel on the largest island, Yongxing. However, this writer has not been able to confirm the reports.
The early April 2013 story was based on a report by Xinhua News Agency. It cited Hainan government officials, who stated that the tours were to begin before the May Day holiday on May 1 that year.
One of the cruise ship owners, Haihang Group Corporation Ltd, was also quoted. The ship could accommodate 1,965 passengers and was "ready for sailing." A second company was also building another ship.
It is obvious that the plan had long been in the works. Coordination between local government officials was involved, along with cruise and tour operators, and the ship companies. Moreover, it certainly needed the blessing (if not encouragement) of the central government.
The reader should be able to now guess what the note I wrote to myself was:
"What happens when China tries to do this in the Senkakus?"
This is beyond an influence operation that China has sought throughout Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. This would be an attempt to assert its control and sovereignty over the Senkakus, undermining Japan's administration of the islands, perhaps dealing a final fatal blow without raising a fist.
Experts talk about "gray operations." This is a green one. No, not "army" but would be one that would generate money in the process. How many Chinese would pay to visit the Senkakus? A lot. And they would pay a lot of money.
Of course, Chinese authorities would not be doing it for commercial reasons but to finally separate the Senkakus from Japan.
Is Japan prepared for this? If so, how?
The short answers are "no" and "not at all."
Japan should be, however. Indeed, not only was the April 2013 announcement over the Xisha Islands a wake-up call about what could happen in the Senkakus, but a Chinese professor based in Okinawa had called for precisely this a month before in March 2013.
Not surprisingly, he did so in the name of "friendship" and "peaceful development" of the Senkaku Islands. Naturally, he called the Senkakus by the name China has given them, the Diaoyutai Islands.
There have been similar calls in Japan for the islands to be opened up for tourism (which this author strongly supports). However, the difference is that Japan is the administrator of the islands and does so on behalf of the taxpayer. The government also continues to pay rental fees on one of the islands, which is dedicated for use by the US military. A Chinese helicopter violating Japanese airspace on May 3, 2025. (Photo provided by the 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters, Naha, Okinawa)
Japanese people were able to visit the islands for fishing and research for decades. This continued even during the US occupation and administration of the islands from 1945 to 1972. (For details, see Robert D Eldridge, The Origins of US Policy in the East China Sea Islands Dispute: Okinawa's Reversion and the Senkaku Islands , Routledge 2014, especially Chapter 2.) However, this has become difficult, if not impossible, in recent years. The Japanese government is going backwards in its administration of the islands, not forward.
Meanwhile, China is steaming ahead in asserting and acting on its claims, no matter the lack of facts and legitimacy behind them. Japan needs to be ready for when China announces its beginning tours to the Senkakus. I fear the consequences if it is caught unaware and unable to respond.
Is there a bright spot? One way or another, at least the Japanese will be able to visit their islands in the future.
Author: Robert D. Eldridge
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's tariff, trade deals come under fire from experts at home, abroad
Trump's tariff, trade deals come under fire from experts at home, abroad

Canada News.Net

time4 minutes ago

  • Canada News.Net

Trump's tariff, trade deals come under fire from experts at home, abroad

Trump has not only signed an executive order to further modify tariff rates for 69 trading partners, but also announced a few high-profile trade deals that critics dismissed as "exaggerated, wrong, and false." NEW YORK, Aug. 3 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Donald Trump's new round of massive tariff measures and his approach to recent trade negotiations have drawn strong criticism from experts both at home and abroad. Trump has not only signed an executive order to further modify tariff rates for 69 trading partners, but also announced a few high-profile trade deals that critics dismissed as "exaggerated, wrong, and false." "Whatever progress that's ultimately achieved as part of these new trade deals and duty rates will come at the steep price of significant U.S. tariff increases and the erosion of trust with America's key partners," said Jake Colvin, head of the National Foreign Trade Council. "Institutionalizing the highest U.S. duties since the Great Depression, coupled with ongoing uncertainty, is a recipe for making American businesses less competitive globally and consumers worse off while harming relationships with close geopolitical allies and trading partners," Colvin was quoted in a recent Wall Street Journal report. "As of today, U.S. tariff rates are at levels not seen in a century, which will result in hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes paid mainly by American companies and consumers," said Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics and trade at the Cato Institute. Trade policy remains uncertain and the U.S. tariff system has gone from simple and transparent to an impenetrable labyrinth of new requirements that will prove particularly costly for smaller American businesses that can't afford either pricey lawyers and accountants or high tariff bills and fines for noncompliance, The Washington Post reported Friday, quoting Lincicome. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, said that the effective U.S. tariff rate, which started this year at just over 2 percent, looks to settle somewhere between 15 percent and 20 percent. "The economic damage from the tariffs is mounting... The damage will soon be obvious as inflation ramps up and businesses conclude that the higher tariffs are here to stay," said Zandi in The Washington Post piece. "While economists don't agree on much, they nearly universally agree that broad-based tariffs, such as those being implemented, are a bad idea," said Zandi. "Uncertainty is coming down with more trade deals, but tariffs may settle higher than expected, posing risks to our forecasts," said a Friday research note by Claudio Irigoyen and Antonio Gabriel, global economists with Bank of America Global Research. The higher-than-expected tariffs pose upside risks to inflation forecasts and downside risks to growth forecasts, according to the research note. "It's a very high tariff wall," said Deborah Elms, head of trade policy of the Hinrich Foundation. "The cost is going to be significantly higher for American companies and American consumers who will respond surely by buying less," Elms was quoted as saying in a Friday Bloomberg report. "While we haven't returned entirely to a 'law of the jungle' system, we have taken several huge strides back in that direction," said Stephen Olson, visiting senior fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute and a former U.S. trade negotiator, in a Friday CNBC report. "We've seen numerous changes in the U.S. tariff regime to date, and there could always be more. Companies will be wary of investing and setting plans while uncertainty remains," said Jonathan Kearns, chief economist with Australian investment management firm Challenger Ltd. Kearns, a former high-ranking official with Reserve Bank of Australia, expected greater pass-through to the U.S. consumer in the months ahead, according to the Bloomberg report.

Cutting Russia ties has cost EU 1 trillion Moscow
Cutting Russia ties has cost EU 1 trillion Moscow

Canada News.Net

time5 minutes ago

  • Canada News.Net

Cutting Russia ties has cost EU 1 trillion Moscow

The blocs economy is weakening due to reduced cooperation with Russia, Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said The EU's decision to reduce energy and trade cooperation with Moscow over the Ukraine conflict has cost the bloc more than €1 trillion ($1.15 trillion), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said. In an interview with Izvestia on Monday, Grushko said the figure is based on various expert estimates of the economic consequences of the EU's decision to impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia, adding that it accounts for lost profits from energy and trade cooperation. According to Grushko, trade between the EU and Russia dropped from €417 billion ($482 billion) in 2013 to €60 billion ($69 billion) in 2023 and is now "approaching zero." He added that Europe's economy has subsequently taken a hit and is losing competitiveness. "Natural gas in Europe is four to five times more expensive than in the US, and electricity is two to three times higher," he said. "That is the price Europe has to pay for ending all economic contacts with Russia." In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that refusing Russian gas supplies had cost EU countries around €200 billion ($231 billion). In late 2024, Russian officials also estimated that total EU losses tied to sanctions against Russia had reached $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Moscow has said it has acquired a "certain immunity" to Western sanctions. Grushko's comments come after the EU agreed a trade deal with the US, which commits the bloc to purchasing large volumes of American energy - which Moscow says will come at a much steeper cost than that provided by Russia - and imposes 15% tariffs on key EU exports. Numerous EU politicians have described the agreement as lopsided and damaging to the bloc's interests. Commenting on the US-EU deal, Putin claimed that the EU had essentially lost its political sovereignty, and that this directly leads to losing economic independence. The EU began imposing sanctions on Russia in 2014, following the start of the Ukraine crisis, and expanded them drastically in 2022. Measures have targeted banking, energy exports, and other industries. Moscow considers the sanctions illegal, saying they violate international trade rules and harm global economic stability.

EU lost 1 trillion by cutting Russia ties Moscow
EU lost 1 trillion by cutting Russia ties Moscow

Canada News.Net

time5 minutes ago

  • Canada News.Net

EU lost 1 trillion by cutting Russia ties Moscow

The blocs economy is weakening due to reduced cooperation with Russia, Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said The EU has suffered losses exceeding €1 trillion ($1.15 trillion) since drastically reducing energy and trade cooperation with Moscow over the Ukraine conflict, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said. In an interview with Izvestia on Monday, Grushko said the figure is based on various expert estimates of the economic consequences of the EU's decision to impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia, adding that it accounts for lost profits from energy and trade cooperation. According to Grushko, trade between the EU and Russia dropped from €417 billion ($482 billion) in 2013 to €60 billion ($69 billion) in 2023 and is now "approaching zero." He added that Europe's economy has subsequently taken a hit and is losing competitiveness. "Natural gas in Europe is four to five times more expensive than in the US, and electricity is two to three times higher," he said. "That is the price Europe has to pay for ending all economic contacts with Russia." In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that EU countries had lost around €200 billion ($231 billion) by refusing Russian gas supplies. In late 2024, Russian officials also estimated that total EU losses tied to sanctions against Russia had reached $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Moscow has said it has acquired a "certain immunity" to Western sanctions. Grushko's comments come after the EU agreed a trade deal with the US, which commits the bloc to purchasing large volumes of American energy - which Moscow says will come at a much steeper cost than that provided by Russia - and imposes 15% tariffs on key EU exports. Numerous EU politicians have described the agreement as lopsided and damaging to the bloc's interests. Commenting on the US-EU deal, Putin claimed that the EU had essentially lost its political sovereignty, and that this directly leads to losing economic independence. The EU began imposing sanctions on Russia in 2014, following the start of the Ukraine crisis, and expanded them drastically in 2022. Measures have targeted banking, energy exports, and other industries. Moscow considers the sanctions illegal, saying they violate international trade rules and harm global economic stability.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store