Role of the United States
The United States has several interests in the East China Sea. The United States has agreed to defend Japan when territories under the latter’s administration are threatened. The United States has maintained a military presence in Japan since its occupation of the country after World War II. As of 2016, some 54,000 troops were stationed in and around Japan, contributing to the U.S. position as an Asia-Pacific power. The bulk of these forces have been stationed in Okinawa Prefecture, close to the disputed islands. The U.S. military command in Japan has maintained a close relationship with the country’s Self-Defense Forces and often conducted joint exercises with it.
U.S. policy on the territorial dispute between China and Japan has focused on a de-escalation of military tensions and has sought a peaceful settlement of differences. The United States has also sought to address Japan’s defense concerns about the increasing activity of Chinese forces in waters near Japan. Although the United States has maintained its position of neutrality on the issue of sovereignty, it has also stated that the U.S. commitment to defend Japan includes any threat to the islands. In April 2014, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to state that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands fall under the protection of the U.S.-Japan security treaty.
Nevertheless, as tensions flared in 2016, the United States had an interest in a peaceful resolution. Japan remained a close ally, but stable relations with China were also a significant interest. Washington had sought to expand cooperation with Beijing in the previous years on other issues, such as nuclear proliferation, climate change, and the global economy.
Both China and Japan wield influence on the U.S. economy. The United States conducted nearly $500 billion in trade with China in 2015, and China invested more than $60 billion in the U.S. economy from 1990 to 2015. Similarly, Japan was responsible for some 846,000 jobs in 2015, and annual trade in goods with Japan totaled nearly $200 billion in 2015. Equally important, China and Japan each held more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities as of September 2016.
A miscalculation or use of force between Asia’s two largest powers therefore bore the risk of destabilizing the region, and disrupting the global economy. This would likely draw the United States into the dispute.
The United States also had an interest in maintaining and strengthening its presence in the Asia-Pacific region more broadly. In 2012, President Obama called for a “pivot to East Asia,” seeking to heighten foreign policy focus on the region. To this end, the United States developed closer military ties with countries in the region, including Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Vietnam, in an attempt to counter China’s emergence as a great power. At the same time, the United States sought to bolster its relationship with China, supporting an array of confidence-building measures. The United States also invited the Chinese navy to participate in joint military exercises in 2014.
In Asia, the pivot was seen as a response to China’s growing influence in the region. Many countries had raised concerns about China’s rising power and the potential for China to use its regional dominance to restrict other countries’ access to trade routes. China’s Ministry of National Defense criticized the U.S. pivot as an effort to contain China. The Chinese foreign ministry repeatedly asked the United States to play a more neutral role in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute. However, U.S. policymakers have seen Chinese behavior in and around the islands since 2010 as provocative.
Policy Options
The United States had a number of options as it considered its role in trying to help resolve the East China Sea dispute.
Using diplomatic measures to reduce tensions
Washington could use its leverage to try to persuade Beijing and Tokyo to reduce their military forces in the region or to encourage greater military-to-military communication. It could further urge the two parties to return to negotiations to resolve the dispute peacefully. If China and Japan cannot come to a peaceful resolution alone, the United States could attempt to persuade the parties to accept international arbitration and bring the matter before the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ). It could also express greater vocal support for either China or Japan, in hopes that this support would prompt the other party to stand down. However, if the United States were to lean in favor of China, Japan and other allies in the region could question their close relationships with the United States. And if Washington were to express support for Tokyo, Japan could interpret the support as a blank check to behave recklessly even if it escalated the conflict.
A diplomatic approach has several advantages. If successful, it could peacefully achieve a lasting de-escalation of tensions in the region. It could also entail the least risk of drawing U.S. military forces into conflict and would help maintain stability in the region. Further, a diplomatic approach also posed a lower risk of damage to the United States’ economic relationships with China and Japan. The United States could not be certain, however, that China and Japan would come to the negotiating table. Meanwhile, Japan could criticize the United States for failing to enact a robust response that signals its commitment to Japan’s defense.
Using U.S. military forces to prevent escalation
The United States could use its military and naval forces to try to contain the incident and prevent escalation. Those efforts could involve increasing naval and air patrols in the East China Sea and conducting military exercises with Japan to increase readiness and demonstrate U.S. commitment to Japanese defense. Such action could keep Chinese and Japanese military forces separate, possibly avoiding further incidents, and deter escalation on the part of the Chinese. It would further signal U.S. resolve in the face of China’s military growth.
At the same time, involving U.S. military personnel in the dispute carried significant risks. The increase of military presence in the region could raise the chances of an accident or miscalculation; any U.S. military response would need to be effectively communicated to both Chinese and Japanese military forces in the area to minimize the risk of an unintended incident. Moreover, any escalation in the situation could put U.S. military personnel at risk. This response could also damage the U.S. relationship with China.
No action
The United States could simply maintain its neutrality and allow China and Japan to resolve the incident on their own. This option would avoid the risks that the other options pose, both to U.S. military personnel and to U.S. relations with China and Japan. However, taking no action could also signal a weak U.S. commitment to its presence in the Asia-Pacific region. Further, if China and Japan fail to come to a peaceful resolution and the situation escalates, the United States could face more forceful calls to honor its treaty commitment to defend Japan, requiring greater U.S. involvement than before.