Disputed islands will continue to cause headlines

Photo credit: Defence Images

Photo credit: Defence Images

In recent months two island chains have been subject to increasing global scrutiny. Both the Falkland and Senkaku islands are seemingly insignificant; little more than rocks in a vast expanse of sea. A cursory glance would suggest they would be of little interest to anyone – but recent events have proved otherwise.

The islands have made the headlines lately because of disputes over their sovereignty. The Falklands, in the South Atlantic, are controlled by the U.K. but claimed by Argentina (who call them Las Malvinas), while the Senkakus, in the East China Sea, are controlled by Japan but claimed by China (who call them the Diaoyus). The islands, despite being on opposite sides of the globe, share a number of key characteristics aside from their remoteness. One similarity is the way in which China and Argentina both portray themselves as victims of nineteenth century colonial powers (Japan and the U.K.) that took by force islands they claim they have indisputable claims too. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the islands both sit on potentially large, unexploited oil reserves. Their most apparent difference is the fact that, while the Senkakus are completely uninhabited, the Falklands have a population of nearly 3,000 individuals who nearly all view themselves as British.

The Falklanders are the main stumbling block to negotiations between the U.K. and Argentina over the islands sovereignty. The U.K. refuses to discuss the issue of sovereignty without consulting the islanders while Argentina refuses to recognise them as having any right to a say in the matter. Despite this, the Argentinian foreign minister recently claimed that Argentina would control the Falklands within “20 years” an opinion described as a “fantasy” by Britain’s foreign secretary.

The dispute over the Senkakus has provoked more than strong words with Japan accusing the Chinese of locking one of their battleships’ targeting radar onto a Japanese ship near the Senkakus. China has denied the allegations but continues to send battleships to patrol the sea around the islands which Japan claims are its territorial waters.

In the disputes over both the Falklands and the Senkakus it appears that tensions are on an upward trajectory though there are reasons to be hopeful that calm heads will prevail in both cases. The outbreak of conflict is least likely in the case of the Falklands. Since the Argentinians invaded the Falklands in 1982 neither nation has any appetite to come to blows over the islands. The Argentinian military has been left to decay since the conflict and with ever mounting cuts to the military in Britain both have little capacity, as well as interest, in fighting over the islands. This does not, however, mean that the islands will not continue to mar relationship between the two countries for the foreseeable future.

The case for optimism over the fate of the Senkakus is somewhat weaker. Both Beijing and Tokyo have recently experienced leadership changes with the new regime in each nation being characterised by bellicose attitudes and bombastic rhetoric as they seek to cement their position and court public opinion. With both nations continuing to patrol battleships around the Senkaku it seems that both are willing to push the issue right to the edge of conflict, if not over the brink.

However, even here there are reasons to be optimistic. China and Japan are Asia’s largest economies and, if cool heads prevail, will realise they have more to gain through cooperation than conflict. Japan, whose economy is stalling, has a particularly large interest in maintaining relations with its largest trading partner. While, in the case of China it has little interest in provoking the U.S. who is Japan’s most powerful ally.

There is a good argument, therefore, to hope that the doves will triumph over the hawks in the cases of both the Falklands and the Senkakus although it is likely that the two island chains will continue to occupy more than their fair share of headlines in the coming months.

2 comments

  1. Erm, geography isn’t really my strong point but I’m reasonably sure that the Falkland Islands are in the South Atlantic not the South Pacific. And the Senkaku Islands / Diaoyu Islands are in the North Pacific.

    An additional complication is that the Senkaku/Diaoyo Islands are also claimed by the Republic of China (aka Taiwan), who call them the Tiaoyutai Islands.
    As a clarifier, and to make things a bit easier, it might be easier to refer to the Senkaku/Diaoyu/Tiaoyutai Islands as the name given to them by a passing British ship, HMS Sammarang, in 1848 who thought that they’d discovered a new island group: the Pinnacle Islands (a name which China, Taiwan and Japan will all accept as an anglicisation of their names for them).

    The problem is that it of the eight Pinnacle Islands, three are big enough to at least pretend to be inhabitable (so the use of the Rockall arguement – if it’s too small to be inhabitable then it doesn’t count in EEZ terms) but are uninhabited (so the use of the Falklands arguement (where there have been people there for nine generations) – that the occupants should have the final say).

    I personally see the dispute as a very good opportunity for the UN to save the day: simply have UNESCO declare them all a World Heritage Site and prohibit anyone from living there (the Gough and Inaccessable Islands model) and then treat the entire island chain as uninhabitable (so the Rockall model would apply).

    Reply

  2. @Rufus: I found your comment to be uniquely well-informed and level-headed compared to most on nouse.co.uk. It’ll never catch on… ;)

    Reply



Please note our disclaimer relating to comments submitted. Please do not post pretending to be another person. Nouse is not responsible for user-submitted content.

© 1964–2014 Nouse Dashboard | Edit | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Policies |