APAN

Vol.4 No.1
Summer 2020
ISSN 2433-4456

REVIEW

China’s Maritime Ambitionsin the First Island Chain and Beyond
The Challenges and Responses toJapan’s Maritime Security
Masashi Murano

Beijing’s Reach in the South China Sea
Collin Koh Swee Lean

China’s Growing Presence in the South Pacific
Jonathan Pryke

International Law as a Tool to Combat China
Atsuko Kanehara

China’s “Nine Gates” and Security Policy in the
Indo-Pacific: Challenges for Japan
Tetsuo Kotani

Pacific Islands: A Regional Edifice forJapan and India’s Collective Footprint
Monika Chansoria
THE J A P A N
I NS T I T UTE O F
IN T E R NA TI O NA L
A F FA I R S

The Name “Sea of Japan” Is the Only
Internationally Established Name (The
Debate Concerning the Naming of the Sea
of Japan ―Analysis of the South Korean
Government’s Arguments based on
Historical Materials and Maps―)
Masao Shimojo

The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA), founded in 1959, is an independent nonpartisan
policy thinktank specializing in foreign affairs and security policy. On top of a wide range of
research programs, the institute promotes dialogues and joint studies with other institutions
and experts at home and abroad, and makes foreign policy proposals to the government, anddisseminates information on international relations to the public. The institute, together with alarge network of affiliated scholars, aims to serve as an indispensable resource on international
affairs in a complex world.

Publisher : Kenichiro Sasae, President, JIIA
Editor in Chief : Kensuke Nagase, Director of Research Coordination, JIIAThe opinions expressed in the articles in Japan Review do not necessarily reflect the opinions
or positions of the Japan Institute of International Affairs. No article or any part thereof may be
reproduced without the express permission of JIIA.

For subscription (subscription fee may apply) and any other inquiries, please write to:
Japan Review, the Japan Institute of International Affairs,
3rd Floor Toranomon Mitsui Building, 3-8-1 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Japan 100-0013

ISSN 2433-4456

Published by the Japan Institute of International Affairs
Designed and Printed in Japan by Taiheisha.Ltd

APAN

Vol.4 No.1
Summer 2020

REVIEW

China’s Maritime Ambitions in the First Island
Chain and Beyond
1 The Challenges and Responses to Japan’s Maritime Security ��������04

Masashi Murano
Masashi Murano is Japan Chair Fellow at Hudson Institute. His research areas include U.S.Japan defense cooperation and nuclear/conventional deterrence analysis. Prior to joining
Hudson, he was a Fellow at the Okazaki Institute (a Tokyo-based think tank). For the pastnine years, he has been involved in research, analysis, table-top exercises and facilitation ofnumerous classified products related to strategic intelligence assessment and policy planningfor the Japanese government.

2 Beijing’s Reach in the South China Sea��������������������07

Collin Koh Swee Lean
Collin Koh Swee Lean is research fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies which
is a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, based in Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. He has research interests on naval affairs in the IndoPacific, focusing on Southeast Asia. Collin has published several op-eds, policy- and academic
journal articles as well as chapters for edited volumes covering his research areas. Collin has
also taught at Singapore Armed Forces professional military education and training courses.
Besides research and teaching, he also contributes his perspectives to various local andinternational media outlets.

3 China’s Growing Presence in the South Pacific����������������11

Jonathan Pryke
Jonathan Pryke is Director of the Lowy Instituteʼs Pacific Islands Program. Jonathanʼs researchis interested in all aspects of the Pacific Islands, including economic development in the PacificIslands region, Australiaʼs relationship with the Pacific, the role of aid and the private sector
in Pacific Islands development, growing geopolitical tensions in the Pacific and Pacific labour
mobility. Jonathan holds a Bachelor of Commerce from The University of Sydney, a Mastersof Public Policy (Development Policy), Masters of Diplomacy and Graduate Diploma inInternational and Development Economics from the Australian National University.

14 International Law as a Tool to Combat China����������������16

Atsuko Kanehara
Atsuko Kanehara is Professor of Public International Law at Sophia University. President of
the Japanese Society of International Law. Member of Governing Board of IMO International
Maritime Law Institute. Councilor of Advisor y Council for the National Headquarters for
Ocean Policy of Japan, appointed by Prime Minister. Member of the Board of the Bar Examof Japan, appointed by Minister of Justice (2006–2015). Advocate for the Government of Japanin “Southern Bluefin Tuna” Cases (Australia and NZ v. Japan). Counsel for the Governmentof Japan in “Whaling in the Antarctic” Case. She delivered a special course of lectures at The
Hague Academy of International Law in 2017.

5 China’s “Nine Gates” and Security Policy in the Indo-Pacific Challenges forJapan ������������������������������������21

Tetsuo Kotani
Tetsuo Kotani is a professor of global studies at Meikai University and a senior fellow at theJapan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA). His research focus is Japanʼs foreign/security
policy, the US-Japan alliance, and international relations and maritime security in the IndoPacific region. He won the 2003 Japanese Defense Minister Prize. He has published numerous
articles both in English and Japanese, and his recent English publications include “Crisis
Management in the East China Sea” (SIPRI Policy Brief, 2015) and “Chinaʼs Militar y andParamilitary Activities in the East China Sea: Implications for the U.S.-Japan Alliance” (National
Bureau of Asian Research, 2020). He received a masterʼs degree from Doshisha University.

6 Pacific Islands: A Regional Edifice for Japan and India’s Collective Footprint���������������������������������������31
Monika Chansoria
Dr. Monika Chansoria is a Senior Fellow at The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA)
in Tokyo. She specializes in contemporary Asian security and weapons ʼ proliferation issues
and great power politics and strategy in the Indo-Pacific with a special focus on China. Dr.
Chansoria has authored five books which include her latest work, China, Japan and Senkaku
Islands: Conflict in the East China Sea amid an American Shadow (Routledge © 2018), Nuclear
China: A Veiled Secret (2014) and China: Military Modernization and Strategy (2011) among
others.
Previously, she has held appointments at the Cooperative Monitoring Center, Sandia National
Laboratories (U.S.), Hokkaido University (Sapporo, Japan), and Fondation Maison des Sciencesde lʼHomme (Paris). Dr. Chansoria has contributed numerous peer-reviewed research papers
and articles in various edited book volumes and academic journals. She is a regular participant
in Track 1.5 & 2 diplomatic dialogues on international security issues and also contributes
frequently in national and international dailies.

7 The Name “Sea of Japan” Is the Only Internationally Established Name (The
Debate Concerning the Naming of the Sea of Japan ―Analysis of the South
Korean Government’s Arguments based on Historical Materials and Maps―)���������������������������������������41
Masao Shimojo
Masao Shimojo was born in 1950 and is a native of Nagano Prefecture. He earned his doctoral
degree at Kokugakuin University. In 1983 he traveled to Korea, where he was head lecturer at
the Samsung Research Institute and visiting professor at Incheon National University. In 1999,
he joined the faculty of Takushoku University. He retired from Takushoku University in 2021
2

and is currently a visiting professor at Tokai Universityʼs Institute of Oceanic Research andDevelopment, and at the University of Shimane. He is a leading expert on Takeshima Island,and serves as the chairman of Shimane Prefectureʼs Takeshima Dispute Research Council.
Among his many publications are Japan and Korea: How to Overcome History (Tendensha)
and Does Takeshima Belong to Japan or Korea? (Bunshun Shinsho).

3

The Challenges and Responses to Japan’s Maritime Security

The Challenges and Responses to Japan’s Maritime Security*
Masashi Murano**

Abstract
The challenges of maritime security facing Japan are extremely complex. During peacetimeand gray zone, the Japanese Coast Guard and the Self-Defense Force must conduct
intermittent presence patrols to dynamically deter the adversavyʼs opportunistic expansion.
However, when considering seamless escalation from low-intensity aggression to highintensity conflicts, the forward presence to address Chinese anti-access/area denial (A2/
AD) threats needs to be deployed by distributed manner. These competing operational
demands complicate how to combine the best mix of defense posture and por tfolio
direction. The assessment of Japanʼs decision to introduce F-35Bs and modifying the Izumoclass helicopter carrier is emblematic of this complexity. Their combination of high anti-ship
attack capabilities can complicate the Peopleʼs Liberation Armyʼs fleet operations. At thesame time, however, high-value assets such as light aircraft carriers carrying latest stealthfighters will also be a priority target for China, which may in turn impose costs on Japan.
In recent years, China and Russia have also begun to conduct strategically coordinatedoperations, such as the joint patrol of Russian and Chinese bombers around Takeshima, adisputed territory between Japan and ROK. This behavior is seen as an attempt to probe theresponse of Japan and ROK and to further stimulate the deteriorating relations between thetwo countries. The U.S., Japan, and ROK need to work closely together on how to respondto these challenges.

Thank you very much for inviting me here. As some of you may know, the current Japanand China relationship is improving. For example, President Xi Jinping is scheduled
to visit Japan as a state guest next year. However, looking at the East China Sea, theactivities of the Chinese Coast Guard and Peopleʼs Liberation Army (PLA) Navy and
PLA Air Force have become increasingly active rather than restrained. In other words, diplomatic
relations between Japan and China have been irrelevant to Chinaʼs behavior in the East China
Sea.
So, what kind of activities especially is China doing in the East China Sea? I would like toat first talk about the low-intensity activities, which means these activities are not regularly
undertaken by armed forces. They are often of closed focus on the Chinese Coast Guard andmaritime police vessels.
The activities of the Chinese government vessels in the East China Sea, especially around the
Senkaku Islands, have become more active and regular since Japanʼs decision to nationalize the*This article is based on a presentation made by the author at the symposium “Chinaʼs Maritime
Ambitions in the First Island Chain and Beyond” held by JIIA and Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) on November 18, 2019. For more information, please visit JIIA website at https://www.
jiia-jic.jp/en/events/2019/11/chinas-maritime-ambitions-in-the-first-island-chain-and-beyond.html.

** Masashi Murano is Japan Chair Fellow at Hudson Institute.

4Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Masashi Murano

Senkaku Islands in 2012. The Chinese Coast Guard vessels navigate the contiguous zone almost
every day, when the weather is fine, and they enter into Japanese territorial waters three times amonth on the average―in the security and intelligence community in Tokyo, they have informallycalled these activities “3-3-2 Method.”This means that three Coast Guard vessels enter into the Japanese territorial water aroundthe Senkaku Islands three times each month, remaining in the water for two hours. But, since
September 2016, this method was upgraded to “3-4-2 Method.” In other words, the Chinese Coast
Guard increased the number of vessels from three to four.
In my understanding, the long-term Chinese objective is to create change in the status quo
and making it a fait accompli through their regular activities nearby the Senkaku and in the East
China Sea.
So, why has the Chinese Coast Guard been able to increase the number of the vessels in
the operation? This is because they are rapidly building the Coast Guard ships. For example, in
2012, the Chinese Coast Guard had just 40 vessels weighing more than 1,000 tons, but now―now
meaning in 2019, this number has increased to 135.
At present, the average weight of the Chinese Coast Guard vessels operating in the East China
Sea is 3,000 tons while that of Japan Coast Guard vessels is 1,500 tons. It is obvious that Japan
Coast Guard is inferior to the Chinese Coast Guard, both in quality and quantity in the East China
Sea.
In addition to the hardware, another important point is the software, which means thecommand and control. In July 2018, the Chinese Coast Guard was placed under the commandof the Chinese Peopleʼs Armed Police Forces, under the Central Militar y Commissions. The
Peopleʼs Armed Police is a paramilitar y group, and the Chinese Coast Guard is expected tobe more closely coordinated with be the PLA than before. Japan has long sought to make thedefense posture seamless, but it cannot be overlooked that China is making progress in updating
its defense posture to be seamless and integrated.
Now, letʼs move on to the upgraded PLA forces and its characteristics. First, the intelligencegathering vessels and aircrafts are operating in the area closer to the Senkaku Islands. Second, as
the Pentagon annual reports pointed out, the over-water presence of the PLA Air Force bombers
is increasing. In particular, they are conducting joint exercise with PLA Navy vessels, including
aircraft carriers, more frequently, and most of these joint exercises go around Taiwan via Miyako
Strait and Bashi Channel.
In my understanding, those kind of strategic collaborations and operations between China andRussia had been expected as a near term potential by Japanʼs security and intelligence community.
From that perspective, couple of months ago, I had an opportunity to participate in Japan,
the U.S., and the Republic of Korea (ROK) trilateral track 1.5 and track 2 dialogue. At that time,
I mentioned and made recommendation about the potential that Chinese or Russian air force fly
over to Japanʼs air defense identification zone (ADIZ). In terms of the ADIZ in in the East China
Sea, a part of the area in Japanʼs ADIZ is overlapped with South Korean ADIZ, and Chinaʼs ADIZ.
So in that context, I recommended the ROK colleagues that Japan and South Korean air force
should have more prior discussion on how to deal with such contingencies and what the rule ofengagement would be like for our air forces if that occurs.
With some political struggle between the two countries, my perspective about the current
Japan–South Korean relationship is not so optimistic, but I think that is one of the possible areas
to cooperate with each other.
And third, the PLA operational area extended far beyond from the East China Sea. This
includes not only Kyushu, Shikoku, and Honshu of Japan. The concern is that most bomber,
like H-6Ks and Chinese surface ships and submarines bound for the Sea of Japan and the PacificIslands, Pacific side, can carry long-range cruise missiles.
5
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

The Challenges and Responses to Japan’s Maritime Security

These activities are conducted in the peace time, and not necessarily in the wartime, but weneed to be aware that not only ballistic missile attack from mainland China, but also saturation
attack with the cruise missile from the mobile platforms of land, sea, and air, is becoming an
emerging threat for Japan and the forward presence of the U. S.
So that is one of the major perspectives from the lower-intensity and the high-intensity
operations.
In that context, I would like to add in some other challenges. In my initial remarks, I pointed
out the low-intensity challenges and high-intensity challenges―I think it could be paraphrased as
the combination of the gray zone challenges and A2/AD challenges. The problem is how to deal
with such combination. When we face such kind of challenges, we have to consider the balance
between maintaining presence through patrol in the peacetime and reducing the vulnerabilities in
the wartime.
The issue of the gray zone has already been recognized in the security communities ofJapan by 2010. As a result, the 2010 version of the National Defense Program Guideline alreadydescribed the importance of the dynamic deterrence concept as one of the solutions for gray zone
challenges.
In my understanding of this concept, it increased the number of the intelligence, surveillance,and reconnaissance (ISR) activities or the presence patrol by Japan ʼs Coast Guard and Self
Defense Forces in the area with concerns for gray zone challenges. It tried to prevent the makingof physical windows of opportunities.
I think that the 2018 version―the latest version of the National Defense Program Guideline―
basically followed the same directions. The problem is, however, that our resources are limited,
so we need to prioritize the defense investment for the most effective means. In that context arise
the challenges which I already mentioned―how do we deal with the combination of the grayzone challenges and A2/AD challenges.
So, why am I concerned especially about this area? It is because of the importance for Japanʼs
Coast Guard vessels and Self Defense Forces to continue their activities in order to prevent the
Chinese side from attempting to create a fait accompli or engaging in the probing activities.
I think that those kind of efforts as the refurbishment of the Izumo-class helicopter carriers,
and the potential combinations with the F-35B, which have been decided to the latest National
Defense Program Guideline, will enhance Japanʼs capabilities necessary for the presence patrols
in the peacetime and during the gray zone situations.
However, given Chinaʼs anti-access/area denial capabilities, it is extremely risky to deploy
these high-value platforms forward, as some contingencies happen at once. In particular, Beijing
has some incentive to use anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles carried by variety of platforms
early in the confrontation to counter Japanʼs advantages.
For instance, the stealth assets like F-35, are hard to detect and intercept in the air, andtherefore, the detection and neutralization have much higher probability of success while theseassets are on the ground or on ships. So, the forward presence in the peacetime and the reductionof its vulnerability, through some dispersal measures in the wartime, are very competing demand.
It is extremely difficult to balance them. So that is one of my current major concerns about
dealing with this combination.

6
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Collin Koh Swee Lean

Beijing’s Reach in the South China Sea*
Collin Koh Swee Lean**

Abstract
This presentation posits that notwithstanding the phenomenal island-building andmilitarization efforts of Chinaʼs outposts in the Spratly Islands, their future is far fromabsolutely certain given Chinese military plannersʼ cognizance about their strategic andoperational utility. That aside, however, there is much greater certainty about Chinaʼsbuildup of long-range kinetic weapons and offshore-capable mobile platforms and perhaps
as significantly, noteworthy inroads made in Beijingʼs steady enhancement of its maritime
domain awareness in the South China Sea, especially in the underwater realm. This aspect,which has in recent times gained more attention, would significantly expand Chinaʼs
military reach into the South China Sea, helping cement its physical control and dominationof the area―especially when its Southeast Asian rivals contrast sharply with their shortfalls
in both kinetic projection as well as maritime domain awareness capabilities. In view ofthese developments, the role of allies and partners becomes even more important from bothmilitary and non-military perspectives.

T

hank you. I think Greg has more or less covered so much, and I donʼt really see how
I could value add except probably touch on a few salient points and I think perhaps I
will first answer the question about what exactly is the South China Sea to China, andwhether we could shape Chinaʼs behavior in the South China Sea. I will go back to myoriginal argument, that instead of we trying to shape Chinese behavior, I think it is the other way
around. Beijing wants to shape our behavior instead, in the South China Sea.
But first of all is perhaps to acknowledge that the South China Sea is basically what the
Chinese will call “the blue territory.” It carries, strategic, economic, emotional, as well as historicalsignificance, and that gives rise to how China looks at the South China Sea on the whole. It is notjust about protecting your sovereignty and your rights but also to create what I will call a strategic
depth that can promote greater security for mainland China.
So it carries all these significance such that these are―cannot be viewed as interests to theother parties, but again, I would look at mostly the military aspects of the South China Sea―what
China has been doing over the past few years. We look at largely the projection of military assets
over the course of the past decade, and youʼll find that, on the whole, the number of ships, say forexample in the South Sea Fleet, and right now the Navy of the Southern Theater Command has
generally been hovering around the same numbers.
This article is based on a presentation made by the author at the symposium “Chinaʼs Maritime
Ambitions in the First Island Chain and Beyond” held by JIIA and Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) on November 18, 2019. For more information, please visit JIIA website at https://www.
jiia-jic.jp/en/events/2019/11/chinas-maritime-ambitions-in-the-first-island-chain-and-beyond.html.
** Collin Koh Swee Lean is research fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies which is aconstituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, based in Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore.

*

7
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Beijing’s Reach in the South China Sea

But even that, it is important to look at the qualitative improvements that the Chinese Navyand Air Force has achieved over the past three years. Numbers may have remained static, but thetype of capabilities that have been infused into service has become increasingly more capable.
And we cannot forget also, in concurrence with the buildup of mobile assets, we are looking at
the buildup in missile arsenal that can allow force projection further afield, even beyond the South
China Sea.
And in the most recent years we have been seeing some ver y interesting developments
when it comes to the Peopleʼs Liberation Army (PLA) services trying to promote more jointness
amongst themselves. For example, the Rocket Force coordinating with the Support Force andcoordinating with the Navy in offshore training exercises, so that is of great significance.
And lastly the one other ver y important aspect would be the artificial islands that werebeing built so far. And suffice to say is minus a way to Scarborough Shoal, I think basically theconstruction has been done, and has been consolidated as well. And what we are seeing here in anext five to ten years will be the maintenance of these outposts and to beef up their capabilities.
Then I have some more nuanced argument towards that. There is news that talks about the
deployment of electronic warfare systems, such as HQ-9s, surface-to-air missile systems, antiship missiles. What is suffice to say is that those are essentially mobile systems. Very often we
imagine that you put those systems on the islands and they stay there forever, but if you lookat the general Chinese military modernization, youʼll find that there has been greater emphasison essentially mobile and readily deployable systems. The fact that those artificial islands haveairstrips and harbors could allow the rapid deployment of these systems and in converse, rapid
withdrawal of these systems, allow the Chinese more flexibility in terms of areas like escalation
control as well as signaling.
So what is actually more important is not so much about the weapon systems which werebeing put in place, but more because of the existing infrastructure that allows China the freedomof options to pursue. And that of course raises a question of what we mean by militarization. If you
are talking about mobile systems that can be put into place and withdrawn anytime that you want,
how do you find ways to tackle that particular aspect?
Say, for example, I always want to argue in the current context of the negotiation over the
Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. And of course for the Chinese, I wanted to just raisesome counterpoints to what most would see as the islands that could never go away down right―
unsinkable aircraft carriers.
I would be more uncertain to that. I think what is suffice to say is PLA officials privately andpublicly acknowledged that in a wartime situation these islands are practically close to useless.
They will be taken out almost immediately on onset of any conflict in the South China Sea. But
what we see here will be largely those islands being used for peacetime utility, for example, being
used for blockading actions, some limited forms of offensive operations, but more likely defensive
operations.
And the bigger question that I think the Chinese are facing right now is how to viably
and sustainably operate those islands and ensure that they remain there. And currently, it isinteresting to note that the Chinese do actually have some questions as to whether those artificial
islands are geomorphologically stable in the longer term. Right now they are conducting studies,for example, looking at how coral and concrete can actually glue together properly so that they
will not be washed away, or they will not be corroded over time, by the natural elements of theweather and the climate.
China is also studying the whole big question of military assets operating in essentially saline
maritime environment. The one interesting thing is that the PLA acknowledges, and they are very
proud to say, that they have reached a stage where they could reduce and mitigate corrosion forairframes, but they have also acknowledged that in terms of preventing or mitigating corrosion
8
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Collin Koh Swee Leanon electronic systems, the situation is very separate.
We look at platforms not just in terms of the frame itself, but also electronics. For electronics,
the Chinese find themselves rather not so capable in terms of preventing and mitigating
corrosion, so they are trying to find ways and means to do that. In the next five to ten years there
is a high chance that the Chinese will find a way to get around with these challenges, but thenagain the bigger question will be how those islands or features will play a bigger role in the future
conflict or a limited conflict scenario in the South China Sea.
But what is certain to me is, if you put aside the question of whether those islands do exist in
the five to ten yearsʼ time, whether they get sunk by a natural disaster, or they just get corroded
naturally away, that the one area we have forgotten and we might not have been too focused on
is the area of what we call maritime domain awareness. That is part of a bigger picture of what
we call intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The Chinese have been
moving very resolutely into these directions, and the one area that I thought was interesting isthe very dual-use, sometimes very innocuous-sounding term called ocean observation network.
That ocean observation network has been acknowledged to be used not just to mitigate or
prevent natural disasters at sea, but more ostensibly used for military purposes. In that regard weare seeing here in the next five to ten years tremendous amount of effort by the Chinese in termsof improving especially the area of underwater observation.
The one area that has so far evaded much of the scrutiny is a collaborative R&D arrangementswith various key institutions that somehow indirectly fits into these programs. The Chinese could
actually benefit from a whole slew of these arrangements. These arrangements could allow themto have what I will call, not just domain awareness, but dominant awareness in the South China
Sea in the next five to ten years.
I am not so sure whether we can reach an equilibrium position. I think much of it depends
on a lot of things. Assuming that those islands will not get washed away by any geologicalphenomenon and the Chinese finally find a way to strengthen them and make them stay forever,I think much of it depends on a few factors. One is that I think in the next five to ten years we will
be envisaging the promulgation of a Code of Conduct, I mean because they were talking about
three years, right?
So letʼs assume that in the next five years―give them two years more―they have a Codeof Conduct. My very, not so sanguine thought is the moment they sign it, they will have theurgent handshake together, take the picture of it, and have the headlines being splashed withthe achievement; in less than one year time, youʼre going to see the Code of Conduct rendered
to be useless. And that, largely will be because the one big question we ask, and probably also
the Chinese are going to ask, once we sign the code of conduct is, “Would that be the end of
foreign military activities in the South China Sea?” And I donʼt think we are going to envisage that
happening actually because all of us agreed the South China Sea was an international medium,and the mere operation of military vessels in even the international waters within the South China
Sea could still be deemed as potentially provocative to China.
The point is that the Code of Conduct will never hold or will not hold at all. And that actually
may lead to a whole new round of potential escalation and crisis altogether. I am not trying toapportion any particular blame to anyone, but what I am tr ying to say is that the envisioned
structure of the Code of Conduct is not likely going to entail agreement that makes everybody
happy and yet makes everybody unhappy at the same time.
So that is one issue. The second is to have the equilibrium, we may need to ensure that
there is policy consistency on the part of Southeast Asian countries. If we are looking at certain
Southeast Asian Countries, like Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia, you really have to look atelection cycle―the leaders that will be in power, and whether they change the policy in the firstplace. I think a lot of it is to have mercy to that aspect.
9
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Beijing’s Reach in the South China Sea

I think, perhaps, what is more important in this context is to empower the Southeast Asian
countries, and this is nothing new. I think what we are seeing here is basically a continued
enhancement of existing initiatives that help boost the Southeast Asiaʼs maritime awarenesscapability.
And I think perhaps close US allies and partners who have common interest in the South
China Sea, should at least to try coordinate or to synergize efforts in capacity building because
what we are seeing here right now is a hodgepodge of very different initiatives that are being
implemented. So, find the South China Sea and how we are going to harmonize all them together
to ensure there are no duplication and no overlaps in those capacity building. I thought that wasprobably the one area to at least try to minimize the adverse impact of, you know, responding tosuch a situation in the South China Sea.

10
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Jonathan Pryke

China’s Growing Presence in the South Pacific*
Jonathan Pryke**

Abstract
Over the last two decades China has been steadily building its influence in the South Pacific.
The pace and scale of this engagement has created significant anxiety in the Pacific as wellas Western capitals about Chinaʼs potential ambitions in the Pacific. In this address Jonathan
Pryke details Chinaʼs presence in the region, identifies what potential risks this newfoundinfluence poses, and discusses how Western nations are pushing back.

It is great to be back in DC. As a Pacific analyst, we donʼt have the luxury of leaving ourhemisphere too often, so forgive me if thereʼs any jet-lag stumbles in my talk, but it is adelight to be back here in Washington nonetheless.
Now, when we talk about the Pacific, it is good to start by defining what is the South
Pacific. So, the South Pacific―I wouldnʼt expect too many people in the room to spend too muchtime thinking about the South Pacific region, but when you do, you often think of it as a pretty
homogenous place filled with smiling indigenous communities, pristine beaches and endless palm
trees. While there is all that, the reality is that the Pacific is an exceptionally diverse part of theworld. Its fourteen sovereign nations of a cumulative population of 13 million people span across
15% of the worldʼs surface.
This is a very diverse part of the world. These countries span from the 11,000-person atoll
nation of Tuvalu, to the 10-million-person population of Papua New Guinea (PNG), that has alandmass the size of California. So thereʼs not actually much that is homogenous in the PacificIslands region, but one thing that is homogenous across all Pacific countries, except―with the
exception perhaps of Fiji, is that of vulnerability.
For these smaller countries, vulnerability comes from small size and remoteness fromtraditional markets. This vulnerability is further exacerbated by rampant population growth on
already overcrowded islands and the multiplier effect of a warming climate that will affect theregion through rising sea levels and increasing frequencies of natural disasters such as droughts
and cyclones. In the larger countries like Papua New Guinea, vulnerability is driven by natural
resource dependence that is reinforcing endemic patronage systems and corruption. One way
or another these are all vulnerable countries, an important point to reinforce when we talk about
increasing geopolitical activity in the region.
I am going to focus largely on China because that is what the theme of this conference isabout. This century, the Chinese footprint in the Pacific has certainly been profoundly growing.
While there have been pockets of ethnic Chinese in the Pacific for more than a century―I wasThis article is based on a presentation made by the author at the symposium “Chinaʼs Maritime
Ambitions in the First Island Chain and Beyond” held by JIIA and Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) on November 18, 2019. For more information, please visit JIIA website at https://www.
jiia-jic.jp/en/events/2019/11/chinas-maritime-ambitions-in-the-first-island-chain-and-beyond.html.
** Jonathan Pryke is Director of the Lowy Instituteʼs Pacific Islands Program.

*

11
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

China’s Growing Presence in the South Pacificjust two weeks ago in northern Papua New Guinea in a place called Wewak where I met Papua
New Guinea Chinese family that were now on their 5th generation of being in Papua New Guinea―but in the past 15 years these numbers have exploded.
Chinese state-owned enterprises have led the change here, in pursuit largely of economic
opportunity, and fueled by Chinese lending. These state-owned enterprises have put down
deep roots and are engaged in commercial activity across the board in almost ever y PacificIsland countr y. Chinese labor has arrived through these projects and also through fishingvessels, and has discovered paradoxically because of their size and remoteness that most PacificIsland countries are actually really high cost economies despite their relatively poor states ofdevelopment. In the Pacific, the Chinese have found economic opportunity.
If youʼre a Fujian laborer―that is if youʼre a laborer from Fujian province, coming over ona state-owned enterprise project, or on a fishing vessel, if you set up a trade store in the Pacificwhere there is very little to no competition, you can make a heck of a lot more money than you
could in Fujian province competing with a million other people setting up trade stores. So there
is a big economic pull to the region that we do not see with the West, where the private sector
largely sees the Pacific as devoid of economic opportunity because of its relative size and risk.
So, anyway, this Chinese labor has arrived, and remained in the region, setting up tradestores across the region, so we have this spread of Chinese engagement from the top end of town
through high-end infrastructure investment, but then all the way down into the provinces, down
to small towns.
To illustrate, this year my colleague at the Lowy Institute was observing the Solomon Islands
election this year in a place called Makira, which is an island of about 6,000–7,000 people. Evenon that little island in the Solomon Islands, there was a Chinese trade store. So, I do not want toundersell how profound the footprint of China is in the Pacific Islands region, but I also do notwant to be an alarmist. I think it gives China far too much credit to say that since 2006 there has
been some grand Machiavellian politburo and central committee endorsed Pacific strategy. It
has been far messier than that and largely been driven by economic opportunity, and the humandesires of greed from these state-owned enterprises and other actors. For most Pacific countries
it seems that China has almost by mistake built its trade, aid and investment ties to emerge as asignificant geopolitical power in the Pacific―which in many ways should not come as a surpriseas it mirrors Chinaʼs global ascent.
So, China has really stumbled into this influence it finds itself having in the Pacific Islands
region. But when you talk to strategic analysts about the motive or when this motive started,or when this strategy began, they will tell you this does not really matter. Strategic analysts
identify the risk through the lens of capability and the lens of intent, you add those two together.
Capability is the thing that takes time to build, and China has built capability really by accident in
the Pacific. Intent can change overnight.
And so in Western capitals, particularly in Canberra but also in DC, there is now absolutecertainty that there is strategic intent from Chinaʼs new-found leverage in the Pacific Islands
region. A starting assertion here is that no one, not in the public domain at least, can tell you what
Chinaʼs ambitions are in the Pacific. There is no White Paper strategy for the Pacific devised by
Beijing. China asserts that it has no ambitions in the region and operates as a benign power. The
West is not so convinced.
But what are the risks of Chinaʼs engagement in the Pacific, both to the West and the PacificIsland countries themselves? I break down the risks of Chinese engagement in the Pacific into
two categories.
The first risk is what I see as being low probability, but of high-impact risk, is that China willuse its leverage, be it debt, diplomacy, trade, to establish some form of permanent military facility
somewhere in the Pacific. I say high impact because this would profoundly change the way
12Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Jonathan Pryke

Australia would look at our own national security.
A permanent facility could enable China to more effectively disrupt our east coast traderoutes. As of today, we only have 21 days of fuel reserves in Australia, and that is not a picture thatlooks like it is going to dramatically change anytime soon. It would also create a wedge between
Australia and our strategic anchor in the United States. Such a facility would be quite expensive
for China to establish and operate―both economically and reputationally. But it may be deemedworth it if it would generate a profound shift in Australian defense settings―forcing us to rapidly
scale up our military and move away from an interoperability model with the United States andother allies.
The probability of this occurring in the region is low, however, largely because of theagency of the Pacific Island countries themselves. These are sovereign nations that wield theirsovereignty liberally, and defend it passionately.
The Pacific do not want further militarization in the region. They didnʼt have a good go of it in
the Second World War, or nuclear testing, and so there is a lot of pushback to this idea that theywould just surrender some piece of sovereignty in exchange for some form of debt forgiveness orother political compromise. So, it is a low probability risk, also because the West, led by Australia
have taken notice and have been more vigilant on this issue, and Iʼll come back to that in a
moment.
The second risk, and as one that I see as being of much higher probability but lower impact, isthe way in which China is engaging in the Pacific, mostly through these state-owned enterprises,
and is undermining already weak and vulnerable institutions in the Pacific. Through elite captureand high-level corruption, largely again being driven by individual greed, these countries are
becoming even more vulnerable. We run the risk of complete state failure in a Pacific country if
trends continue.
So, the Lowy Institute has produced a paper on this if you want to know the whole history of
the Bougainville march towards independence that you can find on our website. There is a 30year history that has led us to this impending vote for independence. There is a bit of nuance inthe vote. So, itʼs based on longstanding conflict between Bougainville―the people of Bougainvilleand the people of Papua New Guinea about the royalty rights behind one of the largest gold
mines in the world that resides in Bougainville, and how these revenues were shared.
Now, some nuance around the referendum itself. There will be a referendum forindependence, and I can 99.9 percent guarantee it is going to be over whelmingly forindependence.
But this leads us into a process of negotiation with the PNG government about what theprocess towards independence will look like and then the final step is to be ratified by the PNG
Parliament. Now, PNG Parliament is ver y anxious that this will lead to a domino effect, or afurther unravelling of the tenuous state that is PNG. There are other islands that may feel likethey are more viable as a state apart from PNG than as a part of PNG.
So you might see this unravelling of the PNG state, which has 830 distinct cultural groups. It
is not a homogenous society. This is just the start of a new process. I do not think we are going tosee a new UN voting nation emerge in December. But we have heard that China is very interested
that there have been offers put on the table on the ground.
But we do not know if those offers are genuine. There are a lot of carpetbaggers in the Pacific
who read the tea leaves of Beijing and go out and try to act upon Beijingʼs behalf. But who arethey actually representing? There are a lot of business interlocutors who say they represent
someone. We do not actually know who they do represent. So, it is one more front to be anxious
about, but I think there is a lot more to play out in this Bougainville independence process before
we get to that point of China making proper inroads there.
I do not say this, sitting in my ivory tower in Sidney. This is the concern I hear from the more
13
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

China’s Growing Presence in the South Pacificenlightened colleagues and members of parliament I engage with throughout the Pacific on myfrequent travels into the region.
This would be a problem for Australia. We want the Pacific region to be prosperous, and wewould be the first to step in to help pick up the pieces if a state were to collapse in the region.
But it would not profoundly change Australiaʼs macroeconomic security settings, so higher
probability, but lower impact.
I was at last yearʼs APEC leadersʼ summit in Port Moresby observing the whole thing, andXi really left a lasting impression on the region with his charm offensive. China, to be blunt,they are not great diplomats. They shoot themselves in the foot all the time. Xi did not do that.
He was so generous with his time. I could not believe at the PNG parliament when his Secret
Service actually let the parliament mob him and he shook hands with everyone and he just wascompletely, you know, there was no time pressure. He talked to every single parliamentarian. It
was really quite amazing.
At the APEC leadersʼ dinner, that night, he sat there, yakking away with the Prime Ministerof Papua New Guinea after every other world leader had left. And this is not lost in the Pacific.
They recognize that the most valuable commodity of the leader of the Peopleʼs Republic of China(PRC) is time. And then it was also in such sharp contrast to Pence, who, because of Secret
Service demands, they even said that, right up until before arrival, he was not even going to stayovernight in this third-world country because of security concerns. And then he ended up staying
overnight. And, so, you know they just completely undermined any goodwill they could have built
from that.
And he walked around in a bubble, and the only time you could get a local person near him
was for a prearranged photo-op. It was quite sharp contrast, and this is something that China has
been doing well for quite a while. This respect for equivalence, no matter what the imbalanceof the size of the countries really does pay in spades, particularly when you have in contrast,
Australia, where we give more than half of aid to the Pacific region in any given year but wehave never had a bilateral guest or government visit from the Australian Prime Minister to thesecountries like Vanuatu or Fiji. Australian Prime Ministers just typically have not seen it worth
their time. I can guarantee you that all Pacific leaders that recognize China make the near annual
pilgrimage to Beijing and get the fully feted red-carpet treatment. We used to send middling level
diplomats to meet with Pacific leaders in airports―hardly a sign of respect.
But if this is a comparative advantage that China has built over ten years, the good news is, it
is an easy one to counter. We can just start doing this as well, and Australia has shown that you
can catch up really quickly. The US has also stepped in here, I think, the Trump administration
has done a great job with the North Pacific, with the compact states. If you cannot go there,
bring them to you. All the leaders are very happy to come to DC to have facetime with President
Trump. I think that played really well with the North Pacific.
Fortunately no one here is standing idle. Western nations are scrambling to reengage. We
have had announcements of step-ups, resets, uplifts, pivots and pledges. This engagement has
been spearheaded by Australia, where our new Prime Minister Scott Morrison has made the stepup his flagship policy initiative. It is great for me personally and professionally―being a Pacificanalyst at the Lowy Institute has never looked better. So, thank you, China.
The step-up from Australia is by no means tokenistic. We are doing more of everything―aid,
diplomacy, high-level political engagement. The most profound shift is within the structure ofour bureaucracy, giving more profile to the Pacific at our departments of foreign affairs, defense,
intelligence, everywhere, but also in the attention that is being given to the region by our mostsenior politicians. In 2019, weʼve had more than 50 ministerial-level visits in either direction todate, and in his first year in office, Prime Minister Morrison has visited the Pacific more times
than any of his predecessors in the histor y of Australia have in their entire tenure as Prime
14
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Jonathan Pryke

Minister.
So, by no means tokenistic. Where does this take us? I think this renewed vigilance is helping
reduce the risks, but it needs to be consistent to be effective. Australiaʼs history and the USʼshistory in the Pacific go a long way further back than Chinaʼs, and so, there is a lot of memoriesof neglect. The institutional memory in the Pacific goes back a lot further than in Australia, andso consistency moving forward is what is going to be the key.
China is going to have to work harder―and in different ways―if it wants to continue to build
influence. But with some recent diplomatic defections in Kiribati and Solomon Islands they havegot a bit more scope to play with in the Pacific. They are not backing down, and they are notbeing flat-footed in their engagement. So, geopolitics looks to have come home to roost in the
Pacific, and is here to stay. China is not going anywhere.
We do have the specific aid map too that the Lowy Institute has produced that tracks all aid
flows into the Pacific Islands region. The latest numbers we have for 2017 show that Australia
gave 45% of all aid to the region, in 2017, New Zealand gave 9%, China gave 8%, the US gave about
8% as well.
Total aid to the Pacific region is dominated by 6 donors―80% of it comes from Australia, New
Zealand, China, the United States, Japan and the Asian Development Bank. So, China has nottaken over. But the point I try to make in my presentations these days is the China aid picture―
China aid has done its job. It has got certain enterprises into the region.
These certain enterprises have put down deep economic roots. They are now competingin commercial activity across the board. They are winning in more government contracts
and in other, just pure, commercial investment than they are relying on Exim Bank or China
Development Bank. Exim Bank did its job, it got these businesses in the door and they can now
sur vive without the Chinese loans. So we really shouldn ʼt be talking about aid anymore, weshould be talking about what theyʼre doing in the commercial space.

15
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

International Law as a Tool to Combat China

International Law as a Tool to Combat China*
Atsuko Kanehara**

Abstract
It is quite frequently said that China cannot unilaterally change the status quo by forciblemeans. This is perfectly true vis-à-vis international law. No States can change internationallaw unilaterally in order to justify their violations of existing international law rules. We
can find three elements here. First, “unilateral,” second, “international law,” and third,“forcible means.” First, regarding unilateralism, China has unilaterally claimed its historicalrights over extravagantly wide sea areas encircled by the so-called nine-dash line in theSouth China Sea. Second, concerning international law, China has been violating theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the most important treaty
for regulating maritime issues. In a world-famous case, namely The South China Sea Case,the arbitral tribunal definitively denied the validity of the Chinese historic rights under
UNCLOS. Third, by various aggressive conducts, China has posed a serious threat to othercountries not only in the South China Sea but also in the East China Sea. Based upon suchan understanding of the situations that China has created in the international dimension,
first, I will explain what wrong China is doing from the perspective of international law,which is my field. Second, I will consider a possible way to combat China from a Japaneseperspective.

M

y name is Atsuko Kanehara, Professor of Public International Law at Sophia
University, Tokyo, Japan. It is a great honor for me to have the opportunity to makea brief presentation on this occasion.

Introduction: What is Wrong with China from the Perspective of International
Law?

It is almost the general recognition among all the participants here that “China has been engaged
in wrong-doing.” But, precisely speaking, what wrong is China doing? The starting point forconsidering the ways to combat China should be to establish an exact understanding as to what
wrong China is doing. Doctors need to diagnose first, before they treat their patients. The same
holds true with us.
Therefore, first, I will make clear the wrong that China has been doing. I will do this from a*This article is based on a presentation made by the author at the symposium “Chinaʼs Maritime
Ambitions in the First Island Chain and Beyond” held by JIIA and the Center for Strategic andInternational Studies (CSIS) on November 18, 2019. For more information, please visit the JIIA website
at https://www.jiia-jic.jp/en/events/2019/11/chinas-maritime-ambitions-in-the-first-island-chain-andbeyond.html.

** Atsuko Kanehara is President of the Japanese Society of International Law. She teaches internationallaw at Sophia University, Faculty of Law.

16
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Atsuko Kanehara

perspective of international law, which is my field.
It is quite frequently said that “China cannot unilaterally change international law by forciblemeans.” We can find three elements here: first, “unilateral,” second, “international law,” and third“forcible means.”
From the perspective of international law, I will take up these three points in this order.

1. “Unilateralism” under International Law

First, regarding “ unilateralism, ” China has unilaterally claimed its historical rights overextravagantly wide sea areas encircled by the so-called nine-dash line in the South China Sea.
In principle, international law is created based upon the agreements of sovereign States.
Sovereign States are not allowed to unilaterally create international law.
Sovereign States exist as part of international society and they are equal and independent.
Thus, there is no legislative authority that has the competence to enact laws with legally binding
force on all sovereign States. In place of an authoritative legislative organ, sovereign States create
international law by their mutual agreement. International law takes the forms of treaties andcustomary laws. We find the element of agreement among sovereign States in treaties and, to acertain degree, in customary laws, as well.
There are, however, some cases in which international law allows sovereign States to act
unilaterally. A typical example is as follows.
Coastal States are allowed to unilaterally establish the limits of their jurisdictional sea areas,such as territorial seas, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and continental shelf. Nonetheless,I have to immediately add that in order to obtain validity with respect to other States, the limits
unilaterally set by coastal States should be in accordance with the relevant international law rules.
I can introduce to you a very famous part of the judgement rendered by the International Courtof Justice in the 1951 Fisheries Case.
Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act, because only thecoastal State is competent to undertake it, the validity of the delimitation with regard to otherStates depends upon international law.” (emphasis added)
In a world-famous case, namely, The South China Sea Case, the arbitral tribunal definitively
denied the validity of the Chinese historic rights under the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS is the most important treaty on the law of the sea. The
decision by the tribunal has a legally binding force on China. South Asian countries and othersin the world have not recognized any validity to the Chinese claims of historic rights in the South
China Sea. Accordingly, legally speaking, there is no room for the Chinese historic rights that are
unilaterally claimed by China to survive under UNCLOS. This unilateral claim by China and its
attitude to regard the decision as null and void are totally reproachable and, therefore, “wrong.”

2. “International law”
The second element for which to criticize China is its acts contrary to international law. As I
already mentioned, the most important international law currently for regulating maritime issues
is UNCLOS.
UNCLOS determines the width of jurisdictional sea areas and sea-bed, such as territorial seas,
EEZs, and continental shelf. The so-called nine-dash line encloses extravagantly wide sea areas
over which China claims historic rights. This is totally contrary to UNCLOS and, thus, “wrong.”

3. “Forcible Means”
Third, international law prohibits both the use of force and the posing of threats by force. The
most important provision, in this regard, is Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter,a multilateral treaty.
17
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

International Law as a Tool to Combat China

Letʼs look concretely at Chinaʼs acts both in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea.
China has frequently dispatched its Coast Guard vessels to the territorial seas of neighboring
States. This is for the purpose of overtly demonstrating Chinaʼs sovereignty over those sea areas.
The Coast Guard vessels have been recently incorporated into the Chinese military under thecountryʼs legal system. Chinese fishing boats have also come to the territorial seas of neighboring
States, in some cases escorted by Chinaʼs Coast Guard vessels. The Chinese fishermen havesuddenly become militias. Even Chinaʼs militar y vessels enter the territorial seas of othercountries, including Japan.
In the East China Sea, particularly in the Japanese territorial sea surrounding the Senkaku
Islands, these kinds of conducts by China have been repeated almost periodically.
It is not always easy to precisely define what “the use of force” is, and what “the posing of
threats by force” is, under international law. Thus, it is not an easy decision to make that Chinaʼs
acts fall under the categories of the use of force and/or the posing of threats by force.
But, in reality, as a matter of fact, nobody can deny that these Chinese strategies of making
use of its Coast Guard vessels and fishermen as militias, and even its military vessels, have posedserious threats to neighboring States. South Asian countries and Japan share common criticism
against China. The tense situations produced by China have been maintained over more than adecade in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, as well.
I strongly believe and I can safely say that those Chinese strategies are regarded as uses of“forcible means.” This is so in considering the actual threats posed by China to Japan and South
Asian countries. Thus, the Chinese acts that I have just explained are no doubt reproachable, and,
therefore, “wrong.”
In this way, we have reached a common understanding as to the precise meaning of “whatwrong China is doing.”
Before moving onto the next point, let me explain the usefulness of international law evenwhen faced with such wrong-doing by China. I would like to emphasize this point to demonstrate
the solid validity of international law.
It is true that China has been violating international law. Regarding the arbitral tribunalʼs
decision made on the 12th of July 2016, China regards that decision as null and void, and totally
disregards it. But, I can give you one typical example of reliance even by China on internationallaw. From the beginning to the end of the tribunalʼ s procedure, China was totally absent.
Nonetheless, China issued an excessive number of national statements to criticize the tribunalʼs
procedures. In addition, China also explains its position concerning its historic rights by sayingthat Chinese historic rights are “based upon customary international law.” While China violates
UNCLOS, a multilateral treaty, it seeks legal justification for its historic rights based upon“customary international law.” In that sense, even China needs legal justification based upon
public international law. Therefore, in relation to China, a rule breaker, international law solidly
maintains its validity.
Then, based upon a common understanding of what wrong China is doing, next, I willconsider possible ways to combat China from a Japanese perspective.

4. Rule of Law“The rule of law” has been the main pillar of Japanese diplomatic policies for more than a decade.
It contains three principles: first, any claims of rights should find legal justification, second, no
forcible changes of law are allowed, and third, disputes should be peacefully resolved.
The Chinese strategies, as we have just confirmed, are definitely contrary to “the rule of law.”
Therefore, Japan, as a responsible player for maintaining world order, should take measures torecover and maintain the said order. Japan should respond to China in order to make it comply
with international law.
18
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Atsuko Kanehara

Then, how is Japan to make China obey international law? In this regard, needless to say,Japan should itself adhere to “the rule of law.”
In international society, sovereign States exist with equality to and independence from eachother. There are no authorities above sovereign States. As a result of this, in international society,no compulsory enforcement measures can be taken to maintain the effectiveness of internationallaw. In this sense, international law, critically, lacks teeth.
Under this reality of international law and international society, with respect to the ways tocombat Chinese wrong-doings, two points may be emphasized.
First, with regard to China in the East China Sea, Japan must respond without escalating
the tense situation between the two countries. The Japan Coast Guard, rather than the Japanese
Maritime Self-Defense Force, copes with the Chinese vessels approaching and entering Japanese
territorial sea. This has become almost a permanent situation for a decade in the Japanese
territorial sea surrounding the Senkaku Islands. These islands are definitely Japanese ones fromlegal and historical perspectives. Nevertheless, China has claimed its sovereignty over themand has tried to overtly demonstrate its sovereignty even by using “forcible means” in the sense
explained before. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force is already ready for cooperation
with the Japan Coast Guard. But, Japan, with the highest prudence, has tried to prevent the tense
situation from growing into a military situation. This policy of non-escalation is important forJapan to avoid forcible means as much as possible.
This Japanese policy is to be taken mainly in bilateral relations with China.
Second, Japan has been taking advantage of the “ interplay ” of bilateral, regional andmultilateral dimensions.
The most important thing is for States around the world to form a strong legal circle around
China from which it cannot escape. For that purpose, bilateral, regional, and multilateralmeasures that may have cumulative effects should be taken. This is not an instant method thatwill have instant results. It will take time, but enclosing China in the legal world is very important.
I said “ interplay,” as Japan expects “ synergy” to be produced by bilateral, regional andmultilateral measures. For instance, a regional measure taken in the South China Sea would work
not only in that sea area, but also in the bilateral relationship between China and Japan, and in theregion of the East China Sea, as well. Multilateral voices criticizing China would have impacts on
its behaviors regionally in the South and East China Seas. Thus, “synergy” means the functions
produced by the measures taken at these different levels. The functions are also found at different
levels, namely the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels.
At a regional level, for instance, Japan is expecting a code of conduct to be established by
ASEAN countries. The code of conduct needs to be effective enough to make China comply withinternational law. At a world-wide level, Japanʼs policy of “the rule of law” has been sufficiently wellrecognized. Japan strongly urges other States to take the same stance toward China in order tobuild a strong circle in the legal world from which China can find no escape. With respect to thefreedom of navigation, the US, Australia, and Japan, as well as other countries, have cooperated tomaintain the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea where China claims its historic rights
over extravagantly wide sea areas. Furthermore, EU countries might not have as keen an interestin relation to the South China Sea situations as the US, Australia, and Japan. Nevertheless, they
have criticized Chinaʼs negative attitude toward the decision rendered by the arbitral tribunal.
It is true that regional cooperation is ver y important, but in addition to that, multilateral
cooperation is also expected and required. Multilayered cooperation is indispensable to strongly
establish a legal circle from which China cannot escape.
These ways that I have mentioned so far will not have instant results. They will not
immediately work, either. Without a strong and solid attitude for a certain amount of time, itwill be difficult to reach our desired outcome. Nonetheless, as responsible players that abide by
19
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

International Law as a Tool to Combat China

international law, Japan, along with other cooperating countries, should solidly continue suchmeasures to combat China in a very “patient” manner.

20
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Tetsuo Kotani

China’s “Nine Gates” and Security Policy in the Indo-Pacific
Challenges for Japan*
Tetsuo Kotani**
Abstract
China has been conducting forays through nine straits into the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
It is imperative for China to secure free use of these routes and gain the ability to preventrival powers from using them. Of the nine straits that China is aiming to use, five lie
within Japanese territorial waters, and the Self-Defense Forces are constantly carrying out
monitoring and surveillance in these areas. The remaining four straits lie in the territorial
waters of other nations, and since Chinaʼs anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities
are improving rapidly, keeping all nine straits constantly under surveillance, and closing
them in the event of a contingency is now impossible. Challenges Therefore, in addition tostrengthening its defense of the southwestern region and boosting the Self-Defense Forcesʼ
presence in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, Japan is also responding to Chinese
forays by seeking to establish the rule of law in the seas and by helping capacity building inlittoral states, based on the ideas set out in the free and open Indo-Pacific.

IntroductionOn December 27, 2010, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper carried an analytical article under
the headline “Oyogi-deru kyor yū: Kokonotsu no mon” (A Mighty Dragon Swims
Out: Chinaʼs Nine Gates), arguing that China was aiming to expand into the Indianand Pacific Oceans through a series of nine “exit gates.” In the Pacific, these were aroute from the Sea of Japan through the Sōya (or La Perouse) Strait, one from the East China Sea
through the Miyako Strait and the southwestern Nansei Islands, and another from the Taiwan
Strait through the Bashi Channel. In the Indian Ocean, the routes ran from the South China Sea
through the Strait of Malacca, Sunda Strait, and Lombok Strait. The article quoted a Chinese
military source who said it was imperative for China to secure free use of these routes and gain
the ability to prevent rival powers from using them, since the routes were “kept under constantsurveillance in times of peace, and could be closed in the event of a contingency.”1
In fact, China has been conducting forays through these nine straits into the Indo-Pacific since
it first sent its navy into the Indian Ocean to help suppress piracy off the coast of Somalia in 2008.
Chinaʼs navy routinely carries out exercises and intelligence gathering in the East China Sea, andin the South China Sea China has carried out extensive reclamation projects on islands and shoalsthat are gradually being fitted for military purposes. At the same time, it regularly sends ships,*

This essay was originally published on Kokusai Mondai [International Affairs], No.687, Dec. 2019.

** Tetsuo Kotani is a professor of global studies at Meikai University and a senior fellow at the Japan
Institute of International Affairs (JIIA).
1“Oyogi-deru kyoryū: Kokonotsu no mon” (A Mighty Dragon Swims Out: Chinaʼs Nine Gates), Asahi
Shimbun, December 27, 2010.

21
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

China’s “Nine Gates” and Security Policy in the Indo-Pacific
Challenges for Japan

including submarines, into the Indian Ocean. China already possesses what is effectively anoverseas base in Djibouti, and is generally assumed to be looking to build further overseas basesin the island nations of the Indian and Pacific Oceans as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. China
also continues to carry out actions aimed at changing the status quo in the East China Sea andSouth China Sea, through a hybrid strategy using government ships and civilian fishing vessels.
This maritime expansion is an issue of shared concern for littoral countries throughout the IndoPacific region. It is also a major challenge for Japan, from the perspective both of defending its
territory and securing the safety of its sea lanes.
This paper considers the measures that Japan should take to respond more effectively to
Chinaʼs expansion into the Indian and Pacific Oceans through these nine straits, and the policies
it should take to maintain the stability of its sea lanes and the international order based on thelaw of the sea. First, it reviews the current situation with regard to Chinaʼs forays into the Indianand Pacific Oceans through these nine straits, then evaluates Japanʼs maritime security policy in
the Indo-Pacific region. Lastly, it considers some of the ways in which Japan can respond more
effectively to Chinaʼs maritime intrusions and attempts to expand its influence.

1. China’s Forays into the Indian and Pacific Oceans

In recent years, the naval branch of the Chinese People ʼs Liberation Army (PLA) has been
increasingly active in maritime regions of the Indo-Pacific.
In the East China Sea, the PLA now routinely carries out intelligence gathering and exercisesby air and sea, and is carrying out forays into the Pacific Ocean with increasing frequency. The
point most often used as an “exit point” on these forays is the Miyako Strait. In December 2016
and June 2019, a Chinese carrier passed through the Miyako Strait with a fleet of accompanying
warships, and in January 2018 submarines were confirmed to have navigated submerged throughthe Miyako Strait into the East China Sea, demonstrating that the navy has increased its blue
water operational capability. Additionally, Chinese warships are known to have passed through theŌsumi Strait and Tokara Strait, confirming that the Chinese navy now uses various straits among
the southwestern Nansei Islands as ways out into Pacific. In the skies, reconnaissance aircraft,fighters, bombers, and electronic warfare aircraft have also flown above the Miyako Strait into the
Pacific.2 In August 2017, six bombers flew through the Miyako Strait before approaching close to
the Kii Peninsula. The US Department of Defense evaluates these flights as demonstrating that
China has the capability to attack facilities belonging to the US Armed Forces and Japanese SelfDefense Forces on Honshu.3
These incursions by the PLA into the Pacific are related to increasing Chinese pressure on
Taiwan since the government led by Tsai Ing-wen came to office in 2016. The PLA has carried out
frequent flights around Taiwan with bombers and fighters, and there have also been increasingly
frequent forays from the Bashi Channel through the Miyako Strait into the East China Sea, andfrom the Miyako Strait into the Bashi Channel.4 There have also been circumnavigations throughthe waters surrounding Taiwan by Chinese warships, including aircraft carriers. For example,
in December 2016 a Chinese carrier passed through the Miyako Strait then navigated throughthe Bashi Channel and entered the South China Sea, before passing through the Strait of Taiwan
and sailing toward the East China Sea.5 In April 2018, a Chinese carrier navigated from theSouth China Sea through the Bashi Channel into the Pacific, and from the Miyako Strait into the2Ministry of Defense of Japan, Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, September 2019, pp. 70–73.

3

US Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China 2018, May 16, 2018, p. 119.

4

Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, p. 73.

5

Ministry of National Defense of Taiwan, National Defense Report 2017, December 2017, p. 44.

22
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Tetsuo Kotani

East China Sea.6 In June 2019, a carrier navigated from the East China Sea through the Miyako
Strait, then passed through the Bashi Channel into the South China Sea and through the Strait of
Taiwan, according to a report by Taiwanʼs Ministry of National Defense.7
The PLA is also moving its ships and aircraft with increasing frequency from the East China
Sea through the Tsushima Strait into the Sea of Japan. Incursions by ships into the Sea of Japanare nothing new, but in August 2016 and January 2017, navy ships and aircraft carried out naval
exercises in the Sea of Japan. Since 2017, bombers, fighters, and reconnaissance planes of theChinese air force have flown over the Tsushima Strait and entered the airspace above the Sea ofJapan, and the frequency of these incursions is increasing rapidly. The navy has also increased
its forays through the Tsugaru Strait and Sōya Strait into the Sea of Japan and the Pacific.8 In July
2019, Chinese and Russian bombers carried out joint patrols, in which planes passed from theEast China Sea over the Tsushima Strait.9
China is moving ahead with militarization in the South China Sea, where it has territorial
disputes with several neighboring countries. In the Paracel Islands, we know that China has
been extending existing runways and deploying surface-to-air missiles to the region, and there
have been confirmed take-offs and landings of fighter and bomber aircraft. Since 2014, China
has undertaken large-scale land reclamation projects at seven locations in the Spratly Islands.
It is known that China has constructed major runway facilities here, deployed surface-to-air
and surface-to-ship missiles, and installed radar jamming equipment, as well as constructing
port facilities, helipads, and radar and communications facilities.10 Although there have not yet
been confirmed take-offs or landings of fighters or bombers on the Spratly Islands, there havebeen confirmed sightings of “combat air patrols” by bombers in the South China Sea.11 If China
converted the Spratly Islands to use as a base for bombers, it would gain the ability to operate into
the Indian Ocean.12 China has also deployed strategic nuclear submarines to Hainan Island,13 andis believed to have carried out numerous submarine operations in the South China Sea.
The PLA is also active in the Indian Ocean, from the perspective of what it calls “far sea
defense” (yuanyang huwei). It has been involved in anti-piracy measures in the Gulf of Aden since2008. In 2017, China opened a de facto overseas base in Djibouti, which it is actively using forlogistics support. Under the Belt and Road Initiative, China is actively working on developing
ports throughout the region, including Kyaukphyu in Myanmar, Hambantota in Sri Lanka,
and Gwadar in Pakistan, and has taken a 99-year leasehold on Hambantota from Sri Lanka,
after that country defaulted on loan repayments. It is likely that China regards these ports as

6Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, p. 72; Joint Staff Press Release, “Chūgoku kaigun kantei nodōkō ni tsuite” (Regarding movements of ships belonging to the Chinese Navy), April 21, 2018, https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2018/press_pdf/p20180421_01.pdf.

7“Chūgoku kūbo ga Taiwan isshū: shunō kaidan-mae ni Bei kensei ka” (Chinese carrier circles Taiwan:
Possibly signaling a warning shot to the US on the eve of summit), Nihon Keizai Shimbun, June 25,
2019. https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO46556010V20C19A6910M00/.

8

Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, pp. 73–74.

9

Joint Staff Press Release, “Chūgoku-ki oyobi Roshia-ki no Higashi Shina Kai oyobi Nihonkai ni okeru
hikō ni tsuite” (Regarding flights by Chinese and Russian planes in the East China Sea and Sea ofJapan), July 23, 2019, https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2019/press_pdf/p20190723_01.pdf.

10

Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, pp. 75–77.

11

Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, p. 77.

12

US Office of the Secretary of Defense, op. cit., p. 62.

13

US Office of the Secretary of Defense, op. cit., p. 66.

23
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

China’s “Nine Gates” and Security Policy in the Indo-Pacific
Challenges for Japanpotential future military bases.14 A Chinese submarine presence in the Indian Ocean has also
been confirmed, and Chinese submarines are known to have entered several ports in the region,
including Colombo, Sri Lanka in 2014 and Karachi, Pakistan in 2017.15 Information is lacking on
what route the Chinese Navy is using to enter the Indian Ocean, but surface shipping at least is
believed to pass through the Strait of Malacca. However, the Strait of Malacca is too shallow to besuitable for submarines, and it is likely that its submarines use either the Lombok or the Sunda
Strait.
Chinaʼs forays sometimes contravene existing international laws and rules, and represent
a threat to the freedom of navigation and freedom of the skies. Official government vessels
belonging to the Chinese Coast Guard linger in waters surrounding the Senkaku Islands on an
almost daily basis, and incursions into Japanese territorial waters happen on average aroundthree times a month.16 These incursions into Japanese territorial waters by government vessels
cannot be regarded as “innocent passage.” Similarly, navigation in the waters adjacent to the
Senkaku Islands by Chinese reconnaissance vessels, combat ships, and submerged submarines,
are provocative acts that serve to increase tensions, even if they do not count as breaches ofinternational law. The Air Defense Identification Zone that China has set up in the skies overthe East China Sea is an attempt to place all aircraft passing through the zone under the controlof the Chinese authorities; this could therefore easily impinge on freedom of overflight andother freedoms of the sky.17 Indeed, there have already been incidents in which the warningand sur veillance activities of the Self-Defense Forces and the US Armed Forces have been
obstructed.18 In June 2016, when a Chinese intelligence-gathering vessel passed through theTokara Strait in Japanese territorial waters, China argued that it regarded the strait as one
commonly “used by international navigation,” and asserted its right to pass through the waters
by right of transit passage, which involves a higher degree of freedom than innocent passage.19 In
July 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea handed down an award denying Chinaʼs “historical rights” in the South China Sea according
to its “nine-dashed line.” China refused to recognize the award, undermining the international
order based on the law of the sea.20
14

See, for example, Nicholas Szechenyi, ed., “Chinaʼs Maritime Silk Road: Strategic and Economic
Implications for the Indo-Pacific Region,” CSIS, March 2018, https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.
com/s3fs-public/publication/180404_Szechenyi_ChinaMaritimeSilkRoad.pdf.

15

Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, pp. 77–78.

16

On the activities of Chinese government ships around the Senkaku Islands, see “Senkaku shotō shūhenkaiiki ni okeru Chūgoku kōsen-tō no dōkō to wagakuni no taisho” (Movements of Chinese government
ships in the waters around the Senkaku Islands and Japanʼs response), on the website of the Japan
Coast Guard, https://www.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/mission/senkaku/senkaku.html.

17

Website of the Japanese Ministry for Foreign Affairs, “Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on
the announcement on the ʻEast China Sea Air Defense Identification Zoneʼ by the Ministry of National
Defense of the Peopleʼs Republic of China,” November 24, 2013. https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/
release/press4e_000098.html.

18

Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, p. 72.

19

Nagai Ōki, “Kagoshima-oki no Tokara kaikyō, Chūgoku no ʻKokusai Kaikyōʼ shuchō ga hidane: Nihon
seifu wa ʻmitomerarezu,ʼ Gunkan haken no keizoku o keikai” (Chinaʼs claims that the Tokara Strait
off Kagoshima is open to “international navigation” creates sparks. Government of Japan refuses torecognize Chinaʼs claims, and remains on guard against continued dispatch of Chinese warships tothe area), Nihon Keizai Shimbun, digital edition, June 21, 2016, https://www.nikkei.com/article/
DGXLASFS20H6A_Q6A620C1PP8000/.

20

Kotani Tetsuo, “The South China Sea Arbitration: No, Itʼs Not a PCA Ruling,” Maritime Issues,
November 17, 2016, http://www.maritimeissues.com/south-china-sea-arbitration-ruling/the-southchina-sea-arbitration-no-its-not-a-pca-ruling.html.

24Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Tetsuo Kotani

As the above examples show, China is strengthening its anti access/area denial (A2/AD)
capabilities in the East China Sea and South China Sea, and is acting with increasing confidence
and brazenness based on its own unique interpretations of international law, even when atpeace. In the case of a crisis involving Taiwan, it is reasonable to assume that China now has
considerable ability to delay access to the US military and other forces. In the Indian Ocean, theestablishment of bases for maintaining long-term military operations is an issue for the future.
In the immediate term, China is likely to continue with the development of port facilities alreadyunderway in littoral states of the Indian Ocean, while expanding operations using submarines,
with their high degree of invulnerability.
Additionally, China has started to include the South Pacific in its Belt and Road Initiative, andis increasing its influence through aid to the island nations of the Pacific. China is involved in thedevelopment of four ports that observers suggest offer a high potential for military use in the
future: at Suva, Fiji; at Anewa Bay and Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea; and at Luganville,
Vanuatu.21 If these ports do come to be used by the PLA, that might lead to an increase in forays
from South China Sea via the Sulu Sea and Celebes Sea in the Western Pacific, where monitoringand surveillance by littoral states and US Armed Forces are more difficult.

2. Evaluation of Japan’s Maritime Security Policy

What steps is Japan taking in response to Chinaʼs forays onto the high seas through these ninestraits?
Firstly, Japan is strengthening its defensive capability around its southwestern Nansei Islands,
to defend against forays from the East China Sea into the Pacific. The 2010 revisions to the
National Defense Program Guidelines shifted the basic emphasis of Japanʼs defensive posturefrom the north to a new posture with an emphasis on defending against a potential threat fromthe southwest. The 2013 edition of the Guidelines defined Japanʼs objective as being to defend
the southwestern islands using a dynamic joint defense force. The plan prioritizes strengthening
Japanʼs intelligence, sur veillance, and reconnaissance capabilities in the air and seas around
Japan, and developing the ability to rapidly deploy land-based units while maintaining maritime
and air superiority. At the same time, steps were taken to increase fighter strength and deploy anairborne early warning squadron at Naha, as well as introducing stand-off missiles, increasing
submarine strength, and establishing an amphibious rapid deployment brigade and rapid
deployment units for defense of remote islands, as well as deployment to the southwestern regionof airborne early-warning units and surface-to-ship and surface-to-air guided missiles.22
These measures effectively boosted Japanʼs intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissancecapabilities against PLA activities on sea and in the air around Japan. For example, units fromthe Air Self-Defense Force scrambled on 999 occasions through FY2018; of these, a total of
638 were in response to Chinese planes.23 However, the rapid increase in scrambling incidents
has meant that Air SDF pilots are no longer able to secure sufficient training time to prepare
for an emergency contingency. Also, Chinese aircraft flying from the Bashi Channel toward
the southwestern Nansei Islands, or along the Pacific coast of Japan, can be difficult to detect

21

Yatsuzuka Masaaki, “Chūgoku no Taiheiyō tōshokoku e no shinshutsu to ʻIttai ichiroʼ kōsō (Chinaʼs
expansion into the island nations of the Pacific and the Belt and Road Initiative), NIDS Commentary, No.
73, May 25, 2018, http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/publication/commentary/pdf/commentary073.pdf.

22

Government of Japan, “National Defense Program Guidelines for FY2014 and beyond,” December 2013,
pp. 17–24.

23

Joint Staff Press Release, “Statistics on scrambles through fiscal year 2018,” April 12, 2019, https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2019/press_pdf/p20190412_06.pdf.

25Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

China’s “Nine Gates” and Security Policy in the Indo-Pacific
Challenges for Japanby ground-based radar, and this area is becoming something of an air defense blind spot.24
Additionally, China is rapidly modernizing its aircraft, ships, and submarines, and the qualityof the guided missiles carried by these units is also improving. It is therefore thought that a
response to an emergency contingency is becoming more difficult.
To respond to the overall improvement in Chinaʼs military strength, the 2018 revisions to the
National Defense Program Guidelines defined the nationʼs defense objectives as being to build a“Multi-Domain Defense Force” capable of executing cross-domain operations, not only on landand sea and in the air but also in the new domains of space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic
spectrum. The thinking is that combining capabilities across domains generates synergy;
therefore, even when inferiority exists in the air or at sea, this inferiority can be overcomeand defense objectives accomplished. To this end, the guidelines included such measures asincreasing the numbers and capabilities of fighters, introducing units of hyper-velocity gliding
projectiles for defense of remote islands, strengthening monitoring and surveillance along the
Pacific through unmanned aerial systems, refurbishing the destroyer Izumo to allow operationsof short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) aircraft, building integrated air and missile defense
capability, establishing a new squadron specializing in space domain missions, establishing acyber defense unit, and establishing a new unit to enhance defense capability in the use of theelectromagnetic spectrum.25
Japan is also strengthening its cooperation with the United States. In the 2015 revisions to
the Guidelines for Japan-US Defense Cooperation, peacetime cooperation was expanded, andmany new fields incorporated, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, maritime
security, training and exercises, and defense against ballistic missile attacks. In the event of anarmed attack against Japan, new areas of cooperation were added, including repelling attacks
against remote islands and cross-domain operations (including in the space and cyberspacedomains). In defending attacks against islands, the Self-Defense Forces will have primar y
responsibility for preventing and repelling ground attacks, with the United States militar y
supporting and supplementing the Self-Defense Forcesʼ operations. To ensure the effectivenessof cooperation between the allies, a new alliance coordination mechanism was establishedto strengthen policy and operational coordination, along with an upgraded bilateral planningmechanism.26
In the vital sea lanes of the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, Japan is mainly working
to support capacity building in littoral countries and to establish a stronger presence in theregion. In November 2016, Japanese Defense Minister Inada Tomomi released the Vientiane
Vision, outlining principles for defense cooperation between Japan and ASEAN. These included
consolidating order based on the rule of international law, strengthening maritime security,and support for capacity building in ASEAN in various fields. Based on this, a seminar oninternational law was held in June 2017 onboard a destroyer in the waters close to Singapore.
Japan has also offered 10 patrol vessels and two large patrol vessels to the Philippines, as wellas five TC-90 training aircraft.27 Japan altered the TC-90 deal from a lease to a free transfer, andhas also provided education for pilots in the Philippine Navy and support for maintenance staff in

24

Interview by the author with Self-Defense Forces official, April 5, 2019.

25

Government of Japan, “National Defense Program Guidelines for FY2019 and beyond,” December 2018,
pp. 10–30.

26

Ministry of Defense of Japan, “Guidelines for Japan-US Defense Cooperation,” April 27, 2015, https://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/anpo/shishin/shishin_20150427j.html.

27

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “Japan-Philippines Summit Meeting,” October 26, 2016, https://www.mofa.go.jp/s_sa/sea2/ph/page3e_000608.html.

26
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Tetsuo Kotani

the countryʼs navy and elsewhere.28 The Self-Defense Forces do not participate in the freedomof-navigation operations of the US military, but since 2017 the Maritime Self-Defense Force has
sent ships including destroyers carrying helicopters into the Indo-Pacific, and has participated in
exercises and friendship-building courtesy visits to ports in various countries around the region.29
In September 2018, a submarine from the Maritime Self-Defense Force visited Cam Ranh port in
Vietnam.30 Additionally, the Self-Defense Forces have been involved in cooperation in capability
building and exercises in the Indo-Pacific together with the armed forces of the United States,
Australia, India, the United Kingdom, France, and other countries, including in island regions of
the Pacific.
In response to the threat facing the international maritime order based on the law of the sea in
the Indo-Pacific, the National Security Strategy adopted by the Japanese government in 2013 calls
for “open and stable seas” based on international laws and conventions. To provide more concrete
substance to this vision, at the Shangri-La Dialogue (Asian Security Summit) in May 2014, Prime
Minister Abe Shinzo proposed the “three principles of rule of law,” namely: (i) making andclarifying claims based on international law, (ii) not using force or coercion in trying to drive
claims, and (iii) seeking to settle disputes by peaceful means. In August 2016, Japan launched theFree and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) vision, built around three main pillars, namely: 1. Promotionand establishment of the rule of law, freedom of navigation, and free trade; 2. Pursuit of economic
prosperity (connectivity, and strengthening of economic cooperation through EPAs/FTAs andinvestment agreements), and 3. Commitment to peace and stability (establishing maritime law
enforcement, humanitarian assistance, and emergency disaster relief.31 The FOIP has beenendorsed by the United States, India, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, ASEAN, and othercountries, confirming the importance of maintaining a law-based maritime order.
Challenges remain for Japanʼs maritime security policy, however. Firstly, the Bashi Channel
remains a blind spot in the countryʼs surveillance and reconnaissance. The ability to respond to
the Chinese missile threat in the East China Sea and the Western Pacific is also a major issue.
In the South China Sea, support for capability building must inevitably be limited to the nontraditional security sphere, but considering Chinaʼs maritime activities in this area, strengthening
the maritime domain awareness (MDA) capabilities of littoral states is a pressing task. Also
crucial are measures to allow monitoring of Chinese submarine movements in the Lombok andSunda Straits. There is also a need to consider a response to a possible high-end conflict in theSouth China Sea. Japan also needs to ensure that the PLA does not gain the ability to monopolize
the port facilities that China is building in island nations in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In thelong term, the main challenge will be to maintain the rules-based maritime order in the IndoPacific, while working to change Chinaʼs distinctive interpretation of international law.

3. Issues that Japan Needs to Address for the Future

Before considering the responses Japan should take in the future, letʼs first recall what happened
during the Cold War era. When Britain withdrew its troops from East of Suez at the end of the
1960s, it created a power vacuum in the Indian Ocean. The Soviet Union advanced into the Indian
Ocean from the Pacific, threatening the sea lanes of the Western alliance. This prompted the28

Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, p. 364.

29

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, “Goeikan Izumo, Sazanami no chōki kōdō (2017)” (Longterm
movements of the destroyers Izumo and Sazanami, 2017), no date, https://www.mod.go. jp/msdf/
operation/cooperate/izumo-sazanami/.

30

Defense of Japan 2019 Annual White Paper, p. 362.

31

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Summary Page: “Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” December 20, 2018, https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000430632.pdf.

27
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

China’s “Nine Gates” and Security Policy in the Indo-Pacific
Challenges for Japan

United States to widen the area of responsibility of its Pacific Command in 1972, to encompass
the Indian Ocean as well as the Pacific.32 With the US Armed Forces expanding their duties
to the Indian Ocean, Japan was pressed to strengthen its defensive capabilities in the Western
Pacific. Japan boosted its monitoring, sur veillance capabilities in the Sōya, Tsugaru, andTsushima Straits, and strengthened its anti-submarine defensive capabilities and anti-warship
attack capabilities, effectively keeping the Soviet Pacific Fleet pinned within the Sea of Japan, andthereby successfully contributing to securing the safety of the sea lanes.33
Of the nine straits that China is aiming to use, five lie within Japanese territorial waters, andthe Self-Defense Forces are constantly carrying out monitoring and surveillance in these areas.
In this sense, the Cold War experience of having sealed the three straits to the Soviet Navy is
still somewhat effective as a way of warding off Chinese incursions. However, the remaining
four straits lie in the territorial waters of other nations, and since Chinaʼs A2/AD capabilities are
improving rapidly, keeping all nine straits constantly under surveillance, and closing them inthe event of a contingency is now impossible for practical purposes. For this reason, in addition
to strengthening its defense of the southwestern region and boosting the Self-Defense Forcesʼ
presence in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, Japan is also responding to Chinese forays by
seeking to establish the rule of law in the seas and by helping capacity building in littoral states,
based on the ideas set out in the FOIP.
The first challenge for Japan in the years to come will be to improve its monitoring andsurveillance capabilities in the Bashi Channel. In particular, it is vital to be able to monitor the
movements of Chinese aircraft coming from the South China Sea through the Bashi Channel
and approaching the Nansei Islands of the southwestern region. For this, cooperation with thePhilippines and Taiwan will be essential. In the Philippines, Japan is already giving assistance
together with the United States to build MDA capacity, and cooperation is underway both within
a bilateral Japan-Philippines and a trilateral Japan-US-Philippines framework. 34 On the other
hand, security cooperation between Japan and Taiwan is politically sensitive, and the reality isthat almost no progress has been made on this so far. However, it seems likely that the PLA
will be increasingly active in the areas around Taiwan in the future, and it will be necessary toconsider a framework for sharing intelligence at the very least, perhaps with the United States asintermediary. If this could be extended to exchanges between units of the Self-Defense Forces
and the Taiwanese military, so much the better.
To respond to Chinaʼs missile threat, Japan is looking to build a comprehensive missile
defense. However, further measures will be necessary to respond to a saturated missile attackfrom China. In addition to increasing the resilience of existing facilities and dispersing themaround the country, from the perspective of making the targeting of a Chinese missile attack
more difficult, Japan should consider the joint development with the United States, which
has withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, of a new ground-based
intermediate range missile and its deployment to Japan. Ground-based intermediate-range cruise
missiles in particular, offer cheap means of deliver y, and can easily be controlled remotely,
making them suitable for meeting the threat from Chinaʼs potential missile strength.
In the South China Sea, to boost the MDA capabilities of littoral states, Japan should help
32

Kotani Tetsuo, “Chūgoku to Taiheiyō-gun” (China and the Pacific Command), in Tsuchiya Motohiro, ed.
Amerika Taiheiyō -gun no kenkyū : Indo-Taiheiyō no anzen-hoshō (Studies on the US Pacific Command:
National Security in the India-Pacific) (Tokyo: Chikura Shobō, 2018), pp. 121–140.

33

For more on this, see Kotani Tetsuo, “Shīrēn bōei: Nichibei dōmei ni okeru ʻhito to hito no kyōryokuʼ notenkai to sono genkai” (Sea Lane defense: person-to-person exchanges in the US-Japan Alliance, theirdevelopment and limitations), in Dō shisha Hō gaku (Doshisha Law Review), Vol. 58, No. 4 (2006).

34

Interview by the author with US Armed Forces official, March 4, 2019.
28
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Tetsuo Kotani

these countries to acquire and deploy radar and patrol planes. For this, it would be preferable
to cooperate not only with the United States but also with countries like Australia, the United
Kingdom, and France. In addition, a maritime monitoring system using satellites is also being
considered. This would make it possible to monitor not only the maritime areas around Japanbut global maritime areas including the South China Sea in real time.35 Rather than relying on
satellites alone, this should be made into a more comprehensive system using a variety of sensors,
including ocean buoys, and reconnaissance planes and unmanned patrol aircraft operated fromlittoral states. Japan should also cooperate with the United States, Australia, and India to boost
the anti-submarine capabilities of littoral states, to make it easier to monitor Chinese submarines
in the Lombok and Sunda Straits. Drills and exercises with Indonesia to improve operational
ability against submarines would also be effective. To prepare for the contingency of a high-end
conflict in the South China Sea, exercises should be carried out based on the assumption of USJapan cooperation, with the SDF providing rear-area and other logistical support in the event of a“situation that will have an important influence on Japanʼs peace and security.”
On Chinaʼs port developments in the island nations of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, Japan
should carry out strategic port visits in cooperation with the United States and other friendly
nations, as well as providing economic assistance to littoral states that are in danger of falling
into the “debt trap.” The Solomon Islands bent to Chinese pressure, breaking off diplomatic
relations with Taipei and recognizing Beijing, but when a provincial government tried to lease anisland to China for 75 years, the central government stepped in and rendered the deal invalid.36
This example shows that there are countries receiving Chinese aid that fear the debt trap, andillustrates the need to assist vulnerable littoral nations. In cooperation with the United States andAustralia, Japan should strengthen its presence in the Sulu and Celebes Seas that link China with
the island nations of the Pacific, and at the same time should also strengthen its maritime security
cooperation with nations like the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
Finally, to maintain the maritime order based on the law of the sea, as well as working toestablish the FOIP on a firm footing, it will be important not to accept any double standards
from China regarding its interpretations of maritime law. In the East China and South China
Seas, China limits the freedom of navigation and overflight rights of other nations through its
own distinctive interpretations of international law, but in the Indian and Pacific Oceans enjoys
navigation rights based on the law of the sea. The United States is carr ying out freedom ofnavigation operations, and exercising its own rights within the bounds allowed by internationallaw, and is thus resisting Chinaʼs excessive jurisdictional claims. Other maritime states including
Australia, France, and the United Kingdom have also started to undertake similar operations.
Japan has been increasing the presence of the Maritime Self-Defense Force in the South China
Sea, but should also undertake operations in more sensitive maritime areas too. In particular,
given that China is increasing its activities in the East China Sea based on its own claims there,
Japan likewise needs to exercise its rights of navigation in the waters around the Paracels andSpratlys and also in the Taiwan Strait, to demonstrate clearly that it does not accept Chinese
double standards, in the event of a Chinese intrusion into Japanese territorial waters or otherunacceptable acts in waters adjacent to Japan.
35

Headquarters for Ocean Policy, Cabinet Office, “Wagakuni no kaiyō jōkyō haaku no nōryoku kyōka ni
muketa torikumi no gaiyō” (A summary of measures to strengthen Japanʼs ability to gather intelligenceon maritime conditions and developments), Minutes from the fifteenth meeting of the Headquarters for
Ocean Policy, July 26, 2016, https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/kaiyou/dai15/shiryou1_1.pdf.

36“Soromon-shotō no shima marugoto chintai, Chūgoku kigyō no keiyaku wa ʻmukōʼ genchi seifu” (Local
government in Solomon Islands declares contract to lease entire island to Chinese company “null andvoid”), AFP, October 25, 2019, https://www.afpbb.com/articles/-/3251380.

29
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

China’s “Nine Gates” and Security Policy in the Indo-Pacific
Challenges for Japan

Conclusion
This paper discussed several issues that need to be addressed in response to Chinese forays into
the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In the Pacific, China has come a considerable way to improving
its A2/AD capacity, but in the Indian Ocean, Chinaʼs navy is still relatively weak. However,China is aiming to complete its modernization of its armed forces by 2035, and looks to become
the worldʼs leading power by the middle of this century. Sooner or later, it will surely look tostrengthen and augment its military power in the Indian Ocean too. For this reason, from a longterm perspective, it will be necessary to force China to divide its military spending between the
Indian and Pacific Oceans, to prevent it from becoming too strong in either sphere. To this end,
Japan needs to deepen strategic discussions with the United States, India, Australia, the United
Kingdom, France, ASEAN, and other countries.

30
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Monika Chansoria

Pacific Islands:
A Regional Edifice for Japan and India’s Collective Footprint
Monika Chansoria*
Abstract
The rapidly transient politico-strategic developments across the Indo-Pacific are witnessing
its regional architecture getting challenged by virtue of capacity constraints, alternative
forms of regionalism and security, new versions of “aid” paradigms and the far-reaching
implications of them all. Despite their limited national landmass, the Pacific Island nations
have huge exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and remain an important route for transporting
products and natural resources. The Pacific Islands being an important partner in theregional maritime paradigm provides India and Japan with a “Third Regional Avenue”
following South Asia and Africa, in providing cooperative security and collaborating towards
its sustainable growth and development. This would not only be beneficial to limit theoverwhelming detrimental impact of “influence aid,” but also provide viable and tangible
alternatives to accentuate bilateral benefits and reciprocity as a model case. Japan and Indianeed to focus on specialized projects while responding to the needs of the Pacific Islands.
A robust and targeted approach focusing on niche projects tailored to the interests of the
Pacific Islands would be ideal. The fields of joint exploration and research for access todeep-sea minerals and renewable energy initiatives should be of congruent interests toboth Japan and India. This consequently falls in line with the vision to create a free andopen Indo-Pacific region linking the African continent with India and countries in South,
Southeast Asia, and Oceania via sea corridors.

T

he rapidly transient politico-strategic developments across the Indo-Pacific are
witnessing its regional architecture getting challenged by vir tue of capacity
constraints, alternative forms of regionalism and security, new versions of “ aid ”
paradigms and the far-reaching implications of them all. By and large, it will be these
determinants that are likely to place the Indo-Pacific region at a crossroads. A pertinent question
thus arising is: Is the contemporary aid paradigm being put in place [by China] seemingly driven
by the donorʼs national interests? This is being reinterpreted often as “influence aid” that isfast taking over the Pacific Islands. Going by statistics, the answer is tilting rapidly towards anaffirmative yes̶thus calling out regional players/stakeholders to balance out the phenomenon.
Rise of the Chinese influence and involvement in the Pacific Islands became noteworthy during
the decade of the 2000s, following the previous phase [1980s and 1990s], when Japan was, in fact,
the second-highest donor for the region.
A decade later, the field was teeming with China, Russia, and the Middle Eastern countries̶
thereby witnessing a relative decline in Japanese aid. The top most priority for the Pacific Islands
remains the dual demand for infrastructure and poverty alleviation. Nations including Japan andIndia need to focus on specialized projects while responding to the needs of the Pacific Islands.
*

Dr. Monika Chansoria is a Senior Fellow (non-resident) at The Japan Institute of International Affairs,
Tokyo.

31
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Pacific Islands:
A Regional Edifice for Japan and India’s Collective Footprint

A robust and targeted approach focused on niche projects tailored to the interests of the PacificIslands would be ideal. This would not only be beneficial to limit the overwhelming detrimental
impact of “influence aid,” but also provide viable and tangible alternatives to accentuate bilateralbenefits and reciprocity as a model case.

Developmental Challenges of Smaller Island Nations:
Case of the Pacific
Despite their limited national landmass, the Pacific Island nations have huge exclusive economic
zones (EEZ) and remain an important route for transporting products and natural resources.
Japanʼs imports from Australia1 and its exports to Australia and New Zealand pass through thissea area̶thereby underlining the vitality of maintaining stability in the region.
Socio-economic developmental problems are extensive when an island associated with its
smallness and isolation is located at international borders. By far, Australia remains the largest
donor to the Pacific Islands, with Japan falling in the third place, just behind New Zealand. Tokyo
is not alone in seeking to shore up its influence in the Pacific Island region, with both Australia
and New Zealand too having announced increased aid to the Pacific Islands in their most recent
fiscal budgets. However, noteworthy, is China becoming an increasingly important source offinancial aid and assistance to these island nations in recent years. The growing engagement of
Beijing in the region raises concerns. This is primarily due to the nature of financial assistanceprovided, much of which comes in the form of concessional loans, rather than aid grants favoredby Japan, Australia and New Zealand.2
Australiaʼs International Development Minister, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, warned in January
2018 about the ability of some Pacific Islands to repay their debts to China. According to the
Lowy Institute in Australia, China has provided around US $1.8 billion in financial assistance(including concessional loans) to the region. Tonga, Vanuatu, Samoa and Papua New Guinea haveall borrowed significant sums from China in recent years, often raising apprehension that Beijing
could use the debt owed by the cash-strapped Pacific Islands to its strategic advantage 3 at any
given point. This is particularly relevant for debt related to important infrastructure such as ports,
which could be put to use for military purposes.4
It is well documented that small island economies with limited resources and markets do
not necessarily mean low per capita income economies.5 They, on the contrary, are richer thanmany big developing economies. For instance, the per capita incomes of Hawaii, Guam, andOkinawa are higher than the average per capita income of the OECD (Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development) countries.6 Guam̶one of the regionʼs small islands has been
enjoying the highest per capita income in the South Pacific. The Caribbean Islands of Bermuda,
Cayman and the British Virgin Islands enjoy the highest per capita income in the world withbooming offshore banking businesses. The size of land area and population are not consistently
related to the level of per capita income.7 A case in point is Papua New Guinea, the largest island
1

Australia supplies almost half of the iron ore, coal, and raw cotton that Japan imports.

2“Japan deepens its commitment to the Pacific Islands,” The Economist, June 11, 2018.

3

Ibid.

4

Ibid.

5

Hiroshi Kakazu, Island Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunities for Okinawa and Other PacificIslands in a Globalized World, (Victoria, Canada: Trafford Publishing, 2007), pp. 15–33.

6

Hiroshi Kakazu, “Challenges and Opportunities for Japanʼs Remote Islands,” Eurasia Border Review, vol.
2, no. 1, Summer 2011.

7

Ibid.

32
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Monika Chansoria

in the South Pacific, although its per capita income is the lowest in the region.8
The ongoing trends of Japan, i.e., globalization, decentralization (or greater regional
autonomy through localization), rural depopulation, a knowledge-based and environmentallyconscious society could be push factors for the future course of island societies if appropriate
policy and strategies are adopted and put to practice.9 Despite the new opportunities it brings,
globalization is feared by many islanders because it exposes local workers and small enterprises
to global competition. Globalization and localization should not be traded off against each other,instead should be considered essential and complementary factors for the islandsʼ future growthand development.10 Without efficient and value-added use of location factors such as labor, nichetechnologies, culture and natural resources, the local economy is unlikely to withstand the tidesof changes brought about by globalization. Undoubtedly the urgency of integrating national
as well as island economies into the international economy shall be heightened in the coming
decades.11

Japan and Pacific Islands:
A Model for Highlighting “Bilateral Benefits and Reciprocity”
When the former South Pacific Forum (SPF) was renamed Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in
November 2000, Japan was among many that attended the Post Forum Dialogues held between
the Pacific Island nations and non-member countries, since 1989, even before the renaming ̶underscoring that regional support for peace and security in the region is flowing by means ofexisting regional mechanisms such as the Biketawa Declaration. Besides, the chairman of the PIF
continues to be invited to Tokyo annually for constructive talks with involvement of the PacificIslands Centre (PIC) in Tokyo. The PIC is jointly run and hosted by Japan since it was establishedin October 1996 with the primary objective of the set-up being that of assisting the Forum Islands
Countries (FICs) in achieving sustainable economic development through the promotion of trade,investment and tourism. During the recently concluded Second Japan-PIF Policy Dialogue heldat Tokyo in March 2019, the need for promoting cooperation between Japan and PIF in the AsiaPacific was highlighted, especially in the field of maritime security, climate change and fisheries.
It is often perceived that the Pacific Island nations are in a one-way relationship vis-à-vis Japan,
where the latter exists to assist the Pacific Islands with their limitations.12 The contrarian view tothe above makes the argument that although the primary objectives of enhancing and stimulating
economic growth, sustainable development, and security, for the Pacific Island nations, Japan
has also been supporting ongoing efforts towards developing robust monitoring, control andsurveillance regimes for sustainable and effective management.13
Tokyo appears determined to deepen its commitment to the Pacific Islands by increasing
support given their vast development needs as part of its official Free and Open Indo-Pacificstrategy (FOIP) that seeks to promote the rule of law and freedom of navigation in the region.
The aim of the strategy, first mooted by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2016, has been
to broaden the scope of Japanʼs foreign policy with a focus on improving connectivity between
Asia and Africa through a free and open Indo-Pacific. Key motivations behind the strategy
include raising Japanʼs profile in the Indo-Pacific region, amid competition and assertiveness
8

Ibid.

9

Ibid.

10

Ibid.

11

Ibid.

12

Kaituʼu ʻI Pangai Funaki and Yoichiro Sato, “Wanted: a strategic dialogue with Pacific island countries,”
The Japan Times, January 28, 2019.

13

Ronni Alexander, “Japan and the Pacific Island Countries,” Revue Juridique Polynesienne, 2001, pp. 164–175.

33
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Pacific Islands:
A Regional Edifice for Japan and India’s Collective Footprint

especially regarding territorial claims.14 The FOIP makes a direct reference of the Pacific people
as guardians of the ocean through their Pacific Ocean identity15̶the reference was welcomed by
the Pacific Island leaders by means of issuing a joint declaration. The name accorded to the 2000
Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting Initiative was “Frontier Diplomacy”̶proclaiming thereby thatJapan identifies the oceans and space as the last frontier.16 In this reference, the Pacific, really, isthe last frontier for Japan.
Japan is among the traditional four major bilateral donors to the Pacific Island nations, alongwith Australia, New Zealand and the US. The Pacific Islandsʼ perception of their relationship withJapan being unidirectional has been long-standing with Japan taking the initiative to develop its
relationship with the Pacific Islands as a group through the establishment of the summit-level
Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting (PALM) in 1997. Ever since, Tokyo has been hosting the PALM
summit, every three years. The Fifth PALM summit was crucial in underpinning of economic andmarine resource linkages and maintaining close, constructive and mutually beneficial relations
with nations lying in the Pacific region.17 In the context of addressing the unique challenges
facing the Pacific Island nations, the Leaders of Japan and the PIF underlined the importance ofpromoting human security, with a particular focus on capacity-building to ensure greater accessto health, education, clean water supplies and bolstering food security.18
The Pacific Islands Forum calls for development of sustainable economies in the region,
by asking for assistance in growth of key economic sectors, transport, telecommunications
infrastructure, shipping and aviation. Held exactly a decade ago in 2009, the Fifth PALM summit
had stressed upon the importance of infrastructure development, noting that infrastructure wasvital in establishing the foundation for productive industries and commercial activities, keeping
in mind the particular needs of Smaller Island States.19 In the sector of infrastructure particularly,
development of airports, roads, bridges, harbors and the provision of passenger and cargovessels, as well as technical cooperation for the operation and maintenance of vessels and port
facilities was highlighted.
The Eighth PALM summit, held in Fukushima in May 2018 was co-chaired by Japanʼs Prime
Minister, Shinzo Abe, and the Prime Minister of Samoa, Tuila ʼepa Saʼilele Malielegaoi. The
summit was attended by representatives from 18 other countries, including Australia, Fiji, New
Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu, while the Frenchoverseas territory of New Caledonia attended for the first time, having become a full member of
the Pacific Islands Forum (the main regional body) in 2016.20 During the summit, Japan declared
the FOIP strategy as a cornerstone of its foreign relations with the Pacific Islands in reference tothe development of human and non-human infrastructure.21

14

The Economist, n. 2.

15

Funaki et al., n. 12.

16

Gaiko Forum, May 2000, no. 141.

17

“PALM 5: Islandersʼ Hokkaido Declaration, 22–23 May 2009,” Press Release, Embassy of Japan in Fiji
Islands.

18

Ibid.

19

Ibid.

20

The Economist, n. 2.

21

The PALM Summit is considered the main venue for Japan to hold dialogue with leaders of the PacificIslands and its members include Japan, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji,
Kiribati, Republic of Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

34
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Monika Chansoria

Maritime Fulcrum of Japan and the Pacific Islands
Unsurprisingly, maritime security remains the fulcrum of key discussions involving the PacificIsland nations and the Pacific Island leaders expressed their commitment to a “free, open andsustainable maritime order based on the rule of law in the Pacific. ”22 PALM also expressed
suppor t for Japan ʼ s commitment to economic cooperation and development in the Pacificregion by means of the FOIP initiative. The leaders also signaled their intention to “pursue thepossibility of greater defense and security exchanges and co-operation.” According to the PALM
communiqué, FOIP comprises three strands:•••

Promotion and establishment of the rule of law and freedom of navigation;
Pursuit of economic prosperity through strengthened connectivity; andCommitment to peace and stability, with cooperation in the fields of maritime safety anddisaster risk reduction.

As part of this strategy, Abe announced a new initiative to strengthen the maritime lawenforcement capacity of the Pacific Islands. The scheme will include personnel training and closer
cooperation on vessel surveillance and control, as part of a clampdown on illegal fishing, which
deprives Pacific Islandsʼ governments, the much-needed revenue and threatens sustainability offish stocks.23 Besides, 2019 is also the year of Japan hosting, for the first time ever, a three-weeklong seminar for capacity-building against ship-to-ship transferring of illicit cargo, and inviting
maritime officers from 14 the Pacific Island nations to University of South Pacific in Fiji. In
addition, it was agreed to expand the scope of trade between Japan and the Pacific Islands withincreased Japanese investments in the region.24 Specifically, Prime Minister Abe held multiple
bilateral meetings with individual Pacific Island leaders which saw the announcement for financial
assistance for disaster risk reduction projects in Vanuatu, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Morespecifically, some significant pronouncements included:•••¥ 3.5 billion in proposed funding for port development in Samoa;¥ 4.4 billion for improvements to the Honiara Airport in the Solomon Islands; and¥ 2.8 billion grant for Tonga to develop a wireless natural disaster early-warning system.25

India’s Engagement with the Pacific Islands:
So Far, Yet, So Near
While the geographies of India and the Pacific Islands might seem very divergent from eachother, in reality, India with its 7,500 km long coastline, around 1,000 small islands nurtured bymonsoon rains and Himalayan glaciers holds a lot in common with the Pacific Island nations.
India is, and has always been, a maritime country.26 It is for this reason that the reach of Indiaʼscivilization has extended to much of Southeast Asia̶the near neighbourhood for both India, and
the Pacific Islands.27
The issues faced by the Pacific Island nations have consistently shaped Indiaʼs policy towards
22

Communiqué, The Eighth PALM Summit Leadersʼ Declaration, Iwaki, Fukushima, 18–19 May 2018,
Japan.

23

The Economist, n. 2.

24

Ibid.

25

Ibid.

26

Keynote Address, Minister of State for External Affairs, India-Pacific Islands Sustainable Development
Conference, Suva, May 25, 2017.

27

Ibid.

35
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Pacific Islands:
A Regional Edifice for Japan and India’s Collective Footprint

the region, which has been in the form of aid, grants, soft loans, and capacity-building over the
past decades, although at a modest level.28 It has been said that Indiaʼs relationship with the
Pacific Islands has, at times, been adrift. The cooperation should have been much stronger than itwas. As the “Indo-Pacific” concept gained in geostrategic importance, and the “Act East” policy ofIndia became more results-oriented and pragmatic, the relationship between India and the PacificIsland nations became sharper and focused.29 Addressing the “adrift” deficit precisely, India has,of late, begun working towards renewing its old relationships and laying foundations for strong
partnerships in the future. While addressing the 2018 Shangri La Dialogue, Prime Minister
Narendra Modi recalled Indiaʼs push for its “Act East” policy initiative with a new phase ofengagement with the Pacific Island nations. This initiative was one among many other significant
measures including a robust set of exchanges and visits across the Indo-Pacific region.30 An
unusual element of PM Modiʼs Indo-Pacific outreach was the November 2014 visit to Fiji in the
Pacific Islands where he addressed the Fijian Parliament and led India in the Pacific Islands
Leaders Meeting. Modi became the first Indian prime minister, and the first world leader toaddress the Fijian Parliament. Prior to Modi, it was former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
who visited the Pacific Islands in 1981.31
India is working towards becoming a close partner of the Pacific Islands and collaborates
closely to advance the developmental agenda of the Pacific Island nations. New Delhi assesses
this region to having unlimited potential in an interconnected world.32 The fortune of the tworegions is linked to two oceans̶the Indian and the Pacific. Oceans are critical to the future andthere is a huge potential for cooperation in this area. In the 21st century, oceans have once again
reclaimed their role as vital drivers of growth and economies.33 Besides trade, oceans remain asource of clean energy, food security, climate regulating factors, medicines, etc. At the same time,
it is essential to utilize their bounty sustainably̶for which ongoing in-depth discussions on blue
economy shed more light on the solutions and progress achieved in this area.
Gone are the days when nations thought of each other as distant lands separated by oceans
and seven time zones. Today, fiber optic cables and satellite links have rendered distanceparameters nearly irrelevant.34 For instance, the divergence between India and Fiji begins withthe thousands of oceanic miles, and the fact that India is a nation of more than a billion whilst
Fiji a nation of a million. These notwithstanding, what unites the two countries are democracy,commitment to liberty, dignity and rights of every individual amid diversity of societies.35 Among
the Pacific Islands, Fiji has used its economic resources well and remains a strong voice on behalfof the region. Amid expanding defense and security cooperation, including assistance in defense
training and capacity-building owing to shared interests in peace and cooperation in the interlinked ocean regions, some of the important announcements made by PM Modi at the Fijian
Parliament were as follows:36
28

Anil Wadhwa, “India and the South Pacific,” Institute of South Asian Studies, ISAS Insights, Singapore,no. 562, April 29, 2019.

29

Ibid.

30

Prime Minister Narendra Modiʼs Keynote Address, Shangri La Dialogue, June 1, 2018.

31

Satu Limaye, “India-South Pacific/Fiji relations,” available at http://cc.pacforum.org/2015/01/actingeast-prime-minister-modi/

32

India-Pacific Islands Sustainable Development Conference, n. 26.

33

Ibid.

34

Prime Minister Narendra Modiʼs Address to the Fiji Parliament, Speeches & Statements, Ministry ofExternal Affairs, Government of India, November 19, 2014.

35

Ibid.

36

Ibid.

36
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Monika Chansoria

•
•
•

•

A Parliament library
Grant of US $ 5 million to strengthen and modernize Fijiʼs village, small-scale and mediumscale industries
Provide a Line of Credit of US $ 70 million for establishment of a co-generation power
plant at Rarawai Sugar Mill. This will expand the scope of bilateral cooperation in thesugar sector by enhancing value addition and addressing climate change concerns
Provide another Line of Credit of US $ 5 million for upgrading the sugar industry in Fiji37

Indiaʼs cooperation with the Pacific Islands remains focused on strengthening the smalland medium-scale industries which are the source of enterprise and employment. Agriculture
supports a majority of the population in India and the Pacific Islands, and palpably therefore, India
has extended its expertise and assistance in increasing productivity in the agriculture sector,
amid other trade and investment initiatives in areas such as fisheries, textiles, and precious stones
and gems. Besides, India is to set up a centre of excellence in information technology in Fiji inorder to equip and integrate Fiji into the global information technology network.

India and the Pacific Islands Leaders’ Meeting
Serving as a vital hub for stronger Indian engagement with the Pacific Islands, Fiji rightly proved
the platform for the first ever interaction between India and Pacific Islands in 2014. During thismeeting, India announced its hope to become a close partner of the Pacific Islands and work
towards advancing the regionʼs development priorities. This includes establishing a trade office inIndia and exploring new ideas for strengthening a mutually beneficial economic chart. India also
signed several Memoranda of Understanding with the Pacific Island nations namely Fiji, Cook
Islands, Nauru, Samoa and Niue to deepen co-operation in the field of information technology andrenewable energies. Some of the vital announcements made by New Delhi include:
•
•

•

•

Setting up of a Special Adaptation Fund of US $ 1 million, by means of which, India would
provide technical assistance and training for capacity-building to its Pacific Island partners
Pan Pacific Islands Project
Given the distances between islands and poor connectivity, e-networks are an effectivemeans for coordination. In keeping with the success achieved in the pan-Africa Project,
Indiaʼs proposal to develop the Pan Pacific Islands Project will benefit tele-medicine
and tele-education
Increase in Grant-in-Aid to the Pacific Island nations
Increasing the annual Grant-in-Aid to US $ 200,000 provided to each Pacific Island
country for community projects selected by each recipient nation. This would be rolled
over annually38
Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC)
Perhaps the most outstanding initiative has been that of establishing the FIPIC thathas bridged the geographical distances through shared interests and action
The FIPIC-I summit was held in November 2014 in Suva, Fiji, followed by the FIPIC-II
summit held in August 2015 in Jaipur, India.

India and Pacific Islands’ Sustainable Development
In keeping with the growing ties between the Pacific Island nations and India, a sustainable
development conference for the Pacific Islands was organized in May 2017 in Suva, Fiji. Held37

MOUs signed between India and Fiji during the visit of Prime Minister to Fiji, November 19, 2014.

38

Prime Minister Narendra Modiʼs remarks, Pacific Island Leaders Meeting, November 19, 2014.

37
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Pacific Islands:
A Regional Edifice for Japan and India’s Collective Footprint

under the aegis of the Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation,39 the conference focused on
environmental threats and challenges (climate change) facing the small island developing states
so as to foster cooperation and collective action. The need to encourage formation of regionwide strategic policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change was highlighted. Interactingwith the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF), the Indian expertise was made available
through its key partner institutions including, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI),
National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Ministr y of Environment, Forest andClimate Change, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industr y (FICCI), and theConfederation of Indian Industry (CII). The focus of the conference was on subjects including
blue economy, adaptation-mitigation practices for climate change, disaster preparedness, health,the International Solar Alliance as well as finding practical solutions to Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDC) implementation.40

Common Objectives: Climate Change and Renewable Energies
The health of the oceans, in many ways, is synonymous with the health of planet Earth. Oceansoffer a fulcrum for the next stage of shared, and thus, sustainable growth.41 India commitment
to Small Islands Developing States is instrumental for a sustainable future. Facing the searing
impact of climate change, New Delhi is spending more than six percent of its economyʼs Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) in adapting to environmental consequences. India has chalked out acomprehensive national plan and strategy to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In the saidreference, an essential area to be concentrated upon is renewable energies, especially solar
and wind energy. Work on a solar energy project with the Pacific Islands at the community
level has been initiated by India for which the regional hubs will be developed in the PacificIslands. A Memorandum of Understanding between Ministry of New and Renewable Energyof the Government of the Republic of India and Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of theGovernment of the Republic of Fiji on Co-operation in the field of Renewable Energy has beensigned as part of the concrete actions undertaken to create a sustainable world.
Moreover, India has also embarked upon a partnership project with partners from the PacificIslands̶including Kiribati, Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Tonga, Solomon Islands andCook Island̶in association with the UN Office for South-South Cooperation. This is the firsttime that India has entered into a triangular cooperation partnership with the UN with fellow
developing countries̶in tune with its commitment to South-South Cooperation and the spirit ofglobal partnership embodied in the SDG17 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.42
This project aims at strengthening capacities in terms of sharing data that could be used formonitoring climate change, early warning systems, disaster risk reduction management, andresource management for the Pacific Island nations.

India’s Mars Mission: The Fiji Connect
Harnessing the potential of Space technology for governance, economic development,
conservation, climate change and natural disasters is a global common. The Pacific Islands holda special place in Indiaʼs journey to Mars, following the decision by Fiji to host Indian space
program scientists in Fiji for tracking Indiaʼs Mars Mission, named Mangalyaan following its
39

Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation was created in 2014 during the visit of PM Narendra Modito the Pacific Islands in order to deepen cooperation between India and the 14 the Pacific Island nations.

40

India-Pacific Islands Sustainable Development Conference, n. 26.

41

Speech by Minister of State for External Affairs at the launch of India-UN Development Partnership
Fund for Pacific Islands, New York, June 08, 2017.

42

Ibid.

38
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Monika Chansoria

launch. It is globally acknowledged that India made history by becoming the only country in theworld to succeed reaching Mars in the first attempt. In the digital age, every nation can be partof the global information technology industry. Closer engagement in areas like Space technology
applications will remain a critical avenue. Keeping in line with this vision, the Indian Space
Research Organization announced its plan to open a new space research and satellite monitoring
station on the Fiji Islands. Presently, India relies on the US and Australia for assistance inmonitoring its satellites over the Pacific.43 Establishing a monitoring station in Fiji would be amajor breakthrough for Indiaʼs space program, providing it with an independent satellite-tracking
capacity.44

Conclusion“Broad-based diplomacy in Asia” is often discussed and debated within Tokyoʼs policymaking
circles wherein itʼs argued that the major challenge for Japan-India relations going forward will
be to find avenues through which the two countries can elevate their ties to newer levels. India
and Japan should reassert their involvement and influence in the Pacific Islands region throughcombined efforts that are likely to provide alternative options for funding to critical infrastructure
projects in the Pacific Islands. The presence of Japan and India is likely to maintain pressure onother players to conform to international best practices regarding foreign aid and investment.45
Aimed largely to propel growth and investment, infrastructure projects such as building
institutional, industrial, and transport corridors shall be a boon for better integration of the PacificIslandsʼ economies in the long term. Japanʼs expertise in providing quality infrastructure andstate-of-the-art technology should be a clincher in this case, coupled with Indiaʼs emphasis on
infrastructure to further propel Indiaʼs economy̶especially by attracting investment in industry
and manufacturing to support the “Make in India” campaign and infrastructure.
The Modi-Abe leadership combine exhibits showmanship, content, and cognitive consistency
by means of converging themes of nationalism, coupled with motivated eagerness to initiate action
driven towards ushering in an era of policy-oriented change, both domestically, and regionally.
Signing the Japan-India Vision Statement in Tokyo on 29 October 2018, the Prime Ministers ofJapan and India reviewed cooperation on development of connectivity via quality infrastructure
and capacity-building carried out bilaterally, as well as, with other partners. More so, the needto do this in an open, transparent and non-exclusive manner based on international standards,
responsible debt financing practices, and in alignment with local economic and development
strategies and priorities was highlighted.46 Modi and Abeʼs call for greater cooperation to promote
entrepreneurship and collaborative infrastructure development in third-party countries namely
Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and others in Southeast Asia and Africa are fine examples of
their decisional latitude.47 Pacific Islands provide them another avenue for exercising equitable
and reciprocal collaborative mechanisms.
An increasingly globalized and networked cyber world calls for more and more relianceon international joint ventures, strategic relationships, and information-sharing partnerships.
43“India to Set Up Space Research and Satellite Monitoring Station in Fiji,” Space Daily, August 21, 2015.

44

Ibid.

45

The Economist, n. 2.

46

Monika Chansoria, “Development of Sri Lankaʼs East Container Terminal Port: Japan & Indiaʼs Regional
Cooperation in South Asia Shaping Up,” Policy Brief, The Japan Institute of International Affairs, June
28, 2019; also see, Japan-India Vision Statement, Tokyo, October 29, 2018.

47

For more details see, Monika Chansoria, “India-Japan Relations under Modi and Abe: Prospects andChallenges for a Novel Bilateral Asian Dynamic,” India Foundation Journal, vol. VII, no. 3, May-June
2019.

39
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Pacific Islands:
A Regional Edifice for Japan and India’s Collective Footprint

Investments in hard and tangible infrastructures such as roads, bridges, ports, monumentalbuildings, etc., to investments in soft infrastructures such as human resource development andinformation networking, are crucial as well as urgent in achieving the true ends of development.48
Instead of a propensity for informing the Pacific Island nations of policies impacting or involving
them, there is a need for tangible attempts to co-create such policies. It has been observed thatmany the Pacific Island nations have reached a point of endangering their strategic autonomy
owing to heavy debts incurred from China.
In Africa, the Indo-Japanese proposed Asia-Africa Growth Corridor holds promise forcollaborative progress and benefits. In South Asia, the May 2019 decision to jointly develop
Sri Lankaʼs East Container Terminal of the Colombo Port is a vital step in the said direction.49
The potential for New Delhi and Tokyo to establish a stronger collective footprint in South Asia
and Africa remains huge. Asiaʼs present geopolitical and geostrategic setting makes it nearly
obligatory for two of its most prominent and responsible powers, India and Japan, to step forward
and stabilize the balance of power and provide a platform for collaborative and sustainable
development for the Pacific Islands. The Pacific Islands being an important partner in theregional maritime paradigm provide India and Japan with a “Third Regional Avenue” following
South Asia and Africa, in providing cooperative security and collaborating towards its sustainablegrowth and development. The fields of joint exploration and research for access to deep-sea
minerals and renewable energy initiatives should be of congruent interests to both Japan andIndia.50 This consequently falls in line with the vision to create a free and open Indo-Pacific region
linking the African continent with India and countries in South, Southeast Asia, and Oceania via
sea corridors.

48

The Economist, n. 2.

49

Ibid.

50

In Februar y 2000, an agreement for deep ocean mineral exploration in the EEZs around the Cook
Islands, Fiji and Marshall Islands was signed between the mentioned countries, the South Pacific
Applied Geo-science Commission, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Mental Mining
Agency of Japan; also see, “PALM 2000: Japan-South Pacific Summit,” Pacific News Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 5,
May 2000, pp. 10-11.

40
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Masao Shimojo

The Name “Sea of Japan” Is the Only Internationally
Established Name(The Debate Concerning the Naming of the Sea of Japan―Analysis of the South Korean Government’s Arguments
based on Historical Materials and Maps―)
Masao Shimojo*
Abstract

Disagreement about the name of the Sea of Japan has persisted between Japan andSouth Korea since 1992. The basis for the South Korean assertion that the term
“East Sea” has been used for 2000 years to refer to the Sea of Japan is a passage
from a work known as Samguk sagi ( 三国史記 , History of the Three Kingdoms)that actually refers to the Yellow Sea, or the East China Sea. References to the East
Sea in historical maps such as the Pʼalto chʼongdo ( 八道総図 , complete map of theeight provinces) and the Aguk chʼongdo ( 我国総図 , complete map of Korea) havebeen distorted by South Korea to support its position. This paper points out theerrors in the South Korean interpretation of historical documentation and showsthat the term “East Sea” lacks the qualifications to replace the name Sea of Japan.
South Korea has repeatedly criticized Japan, alleging that use of the term East
Sea was excluded from the International Hydrographic Organizationʼs 1929 Limitsof Oceans and Seas because Korea was under Japanese rule at that time and was
deprived of the opportunity to assert the legitimacy of the name East Sea. A 1926
newspaper article in the Dong-A Ilbo ( 東亜日報 ) and the 1915 publication Painful
History of Korea ( 韓 国 痛 史 ) treated the “East Sea” as part of the Sea of Japanbecause the “East Sea” was then a designation for coastal waters off the Korean
Peninsula. Attempts to fabricate history and change the status quo will only cause
confusion in the international community and should not be tolerated.

D

1. Introduction

isagreement about the name of the Sea of Japan has persisted between Japan and South
Korea since the sixth UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names(UNCSGN) in 1992. During this time, the Japanese government has consistently
maintained that the name “Sea of Japan” is the only internationally established name.
The name “East Sea,” which the government of South Korea has insisted on using instead of “Seaof Japan,” has historically referred to only the coastal waters off the Korean Peninsula, not thewhole area of the Sea of Japan, and it does not qualify as an alternative to the name “Sea of Japan.”
However, Seoul continues to object to the use of “Sea of Japan” and insist on “East Sea.” This isbecause the South Korean government, which has occupied the Japanese territory of Takeshima*

Masao Shimojo is a visiting professor at Tokai Universityʼs Institute of Oceanic Research andDevelopment, and at the University of Shimane.

41
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

The Name “Sea of Japan” Is the Only Internationally Established Name(The Debate Concerning the Naming of the Sea of Japan—Analysis of the South Korean Government’s Arguments based on Historical Materials and Maps—)(Korean name: Dokdo) since 1954, has associated this territorial issue with the naming of the Sea
of Japan. The issue has been taken up diplomatically by the South Korean government.
Part of the South Korean logic for justifying the name “East Sea” is that, if Dokdo (Takeshima)
is in the Sea of Japan, then it inappropriately appears as if Dokdo is in Japanese territorial waters.
In this regard, the South Korean government has claimed that “East Sea” has been used for 2000
years and should be used instead of “Sea of Japan.”
The basis for the claim that “East Sea” has been used for 2000 years is the phrase “beachesof the East Sea” from the Book of the Sage King Tongmyŏng of the Koguryŏ1 Annals ( 高句麗本紀
始祖東明聖王条 ) in the Samguk sagi ( 三国史記 , History of the Three Kingdoms). The South
Korean side also argues that “East Sea” was excluded from the International Hydrographic
Organizationʼs 1929 Limits of Oceans and Seas, in spite of the nameʼs use for 2000 years before
that, because Korea was under Japanese rule at that time and thus deprived of the opportunity toassert the legitimacy of the name “East Sea.”
Probably because of a belief that it would be difficult to reach an agreement on using only “EastSea,” Seoul has argued since the 1997 conference of the International Hydrographic Organizationthat both “Sea of Japan” and “East Sea” should be used simultaneously.
However, as discussed in detail below, the word 東海 (Donghae, Dong means East andHae means Sea) that appears in the Samguk sagi, the Kwanggaet’o Stele (広開土王碑 , a stonemonument erected in 414), the P’alto ch’ongdo ( 八道総図 , complete map of the eight provinces),the Aguk ch’ongdo ( 我国総図 , complete map of Korea), and other pieces of evidence2 that havebeen identified by the South Korean government do not refer to the Sea of Japan. The word 東
海 (Donghae) appearing in these pieces only refers to the eastern coastal waters off the Korean
Peninsula (not the whole Sea of Japan) or the Yellow Sea or the East China Sea and has nothing
to do with the body of water called the Sea of Japan today.

2. “East Sea” in the Aguk ch’ongdo
For example, it is true that the Aguk ch’ongdo mentions the Donghae (East Sea) to the east of the
Korean Peninsula, but the western and southern coastal waters off the Korean Peninsula are also
indicated as Seohae ( 西海 , West Sea) and Namhae ( 南海 , South Sea), respectively. Seohae is apart of the Yellow Sea and Namhae is a part of the East China Sea, so they are names for stretchesof the Korean Peninsulaʼs coastal waters. In light of the South Korean governmentʼs argumentthat “East Sea” should be used instead of “Sea of Japan,” it would also be natural for Seoul toclaim that “Yellow Sea” and “East China Sea” should be replaced with “West Sea” and “SouthSea” respectively, but Seoul is making no such demands. The only reason why the South Korean
government takes issue with the Sea of Japan is that is where Takeshima (Dokdo) is located.
Moreover, the fact that the East Sea in the Aguk ch’ongdo refers to only the stretches of water
off the eastern coast of the Korean Peninsula can be verified by the Map of Liaodong and Korea (遼東連朝鮮図 ) in the Haifang zuanyao ( 海防纂要 , Compilation on Maritime Defenses), compiled
by Wang Zaijin of the Ming. There, the western coastal waters off the Korean Peninsula are
indicated to be the Korean West Sea ( 朝鮮西海 ), the southern coastal waters the Korean SouthSea ( 朝 鮮 南 海 ), and the eastern coastal waters the Korean East Sea ( 朝 鮮 東 海 ). They only
mean the coastal waters off the Korean Peninsula. Thus, the South Korean governmentʼs claims
that “East Sea” in the Aguk ch’ongdo refers to the whole area of the Sea of Japan are nothing otherthan an arbitrary interpretation of the map.
1

Koguryŏ is one of the three kingdoms whose historical record is compiled in the Samguk sagi. It wasestablished in the area north to the Yalu River in the 1st Century BC and expanded its territory to partsof both the Korean Peninsula and northeast China.

2

For the views of the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, see http://www.mofa.go.kr/www/wpge/
m_3838/contents.do

42
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Masao Shimojo

Aguk ch’ongdo ( 我国総図 , complete map of Korea)
In the Aguk ch’ongdo, in addition to “ Donghae (東海 , East Sea)” to the east of
the Korean Peninsula, the western and southern coastal waters off the Korean
Peninsula are indicated as “Seohae ( 西海 , West Sea)” and “Namhae ( 南海 , SouthSea),” respectively. In light of the logic by the South Korean government, it shouldhave taken issue with Seohae and Namhae, too. But it has not done so.

The Map of Liaodong and Korea ( 遼東連朝鮮図 ) in the Haifang zuanyao( 海防纂要 , Compilation on Maritime Defenses)

3. The “Beaches of the East Sea” from the Samguk sagi

We can see another example of the South Korean governmentʼs arbitrar y interpretation ofliterature in its claims regarding the phrase “beaches of the East Sea” from Koguryŏ Annals of the
Samguk sagi, which is taken as evidence that “East Sea” has been used for 2000 years. The South
Korean government does not doubt that Koguryŏ is a part of Korean history, but China perceives
Koguryŏ to be a regional Chinese kingdom. From the perspective of the Chinese, “East Sea” in thephrase “beaches of the East Sea” refers to the Yellow Sea or the East China Sea.
Now, where were the “beaches of the East Sea” located? In the Samguk sagi, the phrase“beaches of the East Sea” was used to refer to the area where the Sage King Tongmy ŏng, the43Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

The Name “Sea of Japan” Is the Only Internationally Established Name(The Debate Concerning the Naming of the Sea of Japan—Analysis of the South Korean Government’s Arguments based on Historical Materials and Maps—)

founder of Koguryŏ, moved to establish his new state. If so, we should be able to infer where theEast Sea was based on the territory of Koguryŏ at the time of its founding. Looking at information
about Koguryŏ in books such as the “Treatise on Geography ( 地 理 志 )” in the Hanshu ( 漢 書 ,Book of Han), the “Treatise on Geography” in the Hou Hanshu ( 後漢書 , Book of the Later Han),
and the “Records of Wei: An Account of the Easterners ( 魏志東夷伝 )” in the Sanguozhi ( 三国3
志 , Records of the Three Kingdoms), Koguryŏ was founded near the upper reaches of the Yalu
River in the 1st Century BC. The area to the east of Koguryŏ was occupied by Eastern Okchŏ ( 東沃沮 ). In other words, at the time of its founding, Koguryŏ’s territory was not adjacent to the Sea
of Japan.
In fact, according to the Kogury ŏ Annals of the Samguk sagi, Koguryŏ did not defeat EasternOkchŏ, expand its territory eastward, and reach the Sea of Japan until the reign of King T’aejo( 太4祖 ), the sixth ruler after the Sage King Tongmyŏng. The “East Sea” in the Samguk sagi, based on
which the South Korean government asserts that the name “East Sea” has been in use since 2000
years ago, was not the Sea of Japan.

Records of Wei: An Account of the Easterners( 魏 志 東 夷 伝 ) in the Sanguozhi ( 三 国 志 ,Records of the Three Kingdoms)“ Eastern Okch ŏ is to the east of the Kaema
Mountains in Koguryŏ, by the eastern shore[facing] the great sea.”

The Koguryŏ Annals (高句麗本紀 ) of the
Samguk sagi ( 三国史記 , Histor y of theThree Kingdoms)“They attacked Eastern Okchŏ, took theirland, towns, and villages, and expanded
their borders to the Blue Sea in the east.”

3

According to “an Account of Kogury ŏ” of the “Records of Wei: An Account of the Easterners” in
the Sanguozhi, and “An Account of the Easterners” in the Hou Hanshu, “Kogury ŏ lies to the east of
Liangdong, with Korea and the Yemaek to the south, the Okchǒ to the east, and Puyǒ to the north ( 高句麗在遼東之東、南與朝鮮、濊貊、東與沃沮、北與夫餘接 ).” According to “an Account of EasternOkchǒ” of the “Records of Wei: An Account of the Easterners” in the Sanguozhi, “Eastern Okchŏ is to theeast of the Kaema Mountains in Koguryŏ, by the eastern shore [facing] the great sea ( 東沃沮、在高句
麗蓋馬大山之東、東濵大海 ).”4

According to the Record of 7th month in the fall of the 4th year of the reign of King T’aejo ( 太祖大王四年秋七月条 ), Koguryŏ Annals, Samguk sagi, “They attacked Eastern Okchŏ, took their land, towns, andvillages, and expanded their borders to the Blue Sea in the east ( 伐東沃沮、取其土地為城邑、拓境、
東至滄海 ).”

44
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Masao Shimojo

4. The “Donghae Merchants” on the Kwanggaet’o Stele
Now, what about the word Donghae on the Kwanggaet’o Stele, erected in 414? The Kwanggaet’oStele was erected by King Changsu (長寿王 ) of Koguryŏ to extol the accomplishments of his father
King Kwanggaet’o, so it is inscribed with tomb keepers to protect the tomb of King Kwanggaet’o aswell as their numbers. Among those keepers were the “Donghae Merchants.”5 The South Korean
government took notice of the word “Donghae” in the phrase “Donghae Merchants” and assumed
that it signified the Sea of Japan.

The “Donghae Merchants (東海賈 )” on the “Kwanggaet’o Stele (広開土王碑 ,a stone monument erected in 414)”
The South Korean government pays attention to the word “Donghae ( 東海 )” in the“Kwanggaet’o Stele” and assumed it to signify the Sea of Japan without taking into
account the context in which the word Donghae was used. The passage around theword Donghae on the Kwanggaet’o Stele is “Of the Donghae merchants, three arekugyŏn households and five are kanyŏn households ( 東海賈國烟三看烟五 ).” It has
nothing to do with the Sea of Japan.
However, the Chinese character “ 賈 ” means merchants, therefore the Donghae Merchantsmeans only merchants in the place called Donghae ( 東海 ). It is unclear where Donghae was, but
it is rather arbitrary to assert that the Donghae merchants were merchants in the Sea of Japan
without further evidence.

5. The word “Donghae” in the P’alto ch’ongdo

The South Korean government regards the name “Donghae” in the P’alto ch’ongdo as the Sea
of Japan. Yet this is another distorted interpretation. The P’alto ch’ongdo is a map of all of Korea
included in the Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam ( 東 国 輿 地 勝 覧 , Survey of the Geography of Korea). It
shows large rivers like the Han River and the Yalu River as well as the names Donghae, Namhae (南海 ), and Seohae ( 西海 ) on the land. Seoul interprets this Donghae to mean the Sea of Japan, but
this is unfounded speculation, because the afterword of the Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam specifies thefollowing regarding the P’alto ch’ongdo:
5

The passage around the phrase “Donghae Merchants” on the Kwanggaet’o Stele that the Korean
government has cited as evidence is “Of the Donghae merchants, three are kugyŏn households and five
are kanyŏn households ( 東海賈國烟三看烟五 ).”45
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

The Name “Sea of Japan” Is the Only Internationally Established Name(The Debate Concerning the Naming of the Sea of Japan—Analysis of the South Korean Government’s Arguments based on Historical Materials and Maps—)“The comprehensive map in the beginning of the book (the P’alto ch’ongdo) is a record ofsacred peaks, famous mountains and large rivers listed in the Ritual Codes ( 祀典 ).”The large rivers and the Donghae depicted in the P’alto ch’ongdo referred to the locations
where state rituals took place as prescribed in the Ritual Codes. In fact, the Donghae shown in theP’alto ch’ongdo marks the location of the Donghae Shrine ( 東 海 神 祠 ) in the Yangyang District
Section ( 襄陽都護府条 ) of the Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam. The Donghae Shrine was rebuilt in recent
years as the Donghae Sanctum ( 東海神廟 )” shown in the photo below, and the P’alto ch’ongdoʼs
Namhae was also the Nanhae Sanctum ( 南海神廟 ). The Donghae in the P’alto ch’ongdo marked
the location of the Donghae Shrine, where state rituals took place, as specified in the afterword of
the Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam. This Donghae Shrine cannot be interpreted to be the Sea of Japan.

The word “Donghae ( 東海 )” in the P’alto ch’ongdo ( 八道総図 , complete mapof the eight provinces). The word “Seohae ( 西海 )” and “Namhae ( 南海 )” are also inthis map.

The “Donghae Sanctum ( 東海神廟 ),”that was rebuilt in recent years

The “Nanhae Sanctum ( 南海神廟 )”Moreover, regarding this Donghae, the afterword of the Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam states that
“Each map of the eight provinces records the mountains guarding each area as well as its fourboundaries.” The maps depicting the administrative divisions bordering on the Sea of Japan,“Hamgyŏng Province ( 咸鏡道 ),” “Kangwŏn Province ( 江原道 ),” and “Kyŏngsang Province ( 慶尚道 ),” all show their “four boundaries ( 四至四到 )” and specify adjacent areas.
46
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Masao Shimojo

At the eastern edges of the maps of “ Hamgy ŏ ng Province, ” “ Kangw ŏ n Province, ” and“Kyŏngsang Province” there is the notation “Great Sea to the east ( 東抵大海 ).” This is because,at that time, Korean differentiated between coastal waters and the open sea, which was called theGreat Sea. This distinction between coastal waters and the open sea comes from the fact that the
Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam was compiled according to the same editorial policy as the Da-Ming yitongzhi ( 大明一統志 , Records of the Unity of the Great Ming).
This tradition of differentiating between the two has continued into modern times. Pak Ŭnsik
( 朴殷植 ) wrote the following in his Painful History of Korea ( 韓国痛史 , published in 1915):“Korea is a peninsular nation sticking out from southeast Asia. Its borders are the Blue Sea (滄海 ) and are separated from the Sea of Japan to the east as well as the Yellow Sea facing the two
Chinese provinces of Shandong and Jiangsu to the west.”“Kangwŏn Province ( 江原道 )” in the Tonggukyŏji sŭngnam ( 東国輿地勝覧 , Sur vey of theGeography of Korea)
At the eastern edge of the map, there is the notation“Great Sea to the east ( 東抵大海 ).”47
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Painful History of Korea ( 韓国痛史 , published in 1915)
written by Pak Ŭnsik ( 朴殷植 )The Name “Sea of Japan” Is the Only Internationally Established Name(The Debate Concerning the Naming of the Sea of Japan—Analysis of the South Korean Government’s Arguments based on Historical Materials and Maps—)

The Dong-A Ilbo ( 東亜日報 ), dated July 1, 1926
This was fourteen years before the International Hydrographic Organization determined thenames of the oceans and seas. This shows that the Blue Sea was considered to be the coastal
waters off the Korean Peninsula and the Sea of Japan was considered to be the open sea offshoreat that time. This is also indicated by the wording “the East Sea, also known as the Blue Sea,a part of the Sea of Japan” in an article in the Dong-A Ilbo (東亜日報 ), dated July 1, 1926. The
South Korean government argues that Korea was unable to assert in 1929 that the name of thesea was the “East Sea” because it was under Japanese colonial rule, but at the time of the Sea ofJapanʼs inclusion into the Limits of Oceans and Seas, “East Sea” was used in Korea as a name forthe coastal waters off the Korean Peninsula. It was only after WWII that “East Sea” came to mean
the Sea of Japan. The headline of an article in the Dong-A Ilbo, dated June 15, 1946, was “East Sea
or Sea of Japan?” but that was because the debate about whether to call it the Sea of Japan or the
East Sea had just emerged.

6. The Name “Sea of Japan” was Used also in the Korean Peninsula in theSecond Half of the Nineteenth Centur y

Seoul repeatedly argues that the names “Sea of Japan” and “East Sea” should be used side by side
because “East Sea” has been used for 2000 years. But it was not until around the mid-twentiethcentury that the Sea of Japan came to be called the East Sea in the Republic of Korea.
As mentioned above, the Korean patriot Pak Ŭnsik differentiated between the Sea of Japanand the Blue Sea in his Painful History of Korea, because the name “Sea of Japan” had been also
used on the Korean Peninsula since the second half of the nineteenth centur y. The Yŏlchae
ch’waryo ( 輿 載 撮 要 ) from 1896 states that Korea “is in eastern Asia. It borders the Bohai Seaof the Qing to the west. It is connected with Manchuria to the north, and is demarcated by the
Sea of Japan to the east.” Also the Tae-Han chiji ( 大韓地誌 , Atlas of the Great Korean Empire,
published 1899), translated, edited, and compiled by Hyǒn Chʼae ( 玄采 ) of the Korean Empire,states that Korea is “demarcated by the Sea of Japan in the east and the beaches of the Yellow Sea
in the west.”
48
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Masao Shimojo

The Yŏlchae ch’waryo( 輿載撮要 )The Tae-Han chiji ( 大韓地誌 , Atlas of theGreat Korean Empire, published 1899)

As the South Korean government demands the name “Sea of Japan” be changed to “East Sea,”
they emphasize the inappropriateness of “Sea of Japan” in light of Japanʼs colonial rule. Yet, “Seaof Japan” was not decided solely by Japan. The Complete Map of the Land and Sea of Great Japan,
Along with Korea and Karafuto ( 大日本海陸全圖聯接朝鮮樺太 ) made in 1876 by Ōjiri Hidekatsu( 大後秀勝 ), a cartographer in the Japanese Navy, also says “日本海 /JAPAN SEA,” but that is
because it was drawn based on British sea charts. Subsequently, the Taiwan suiro shi (寰瀛水路誌 , published 1883) and the Chosen suiro shi ( 朝鮮水路誌 , published 1894) were also compiled
by referring to British nautical charts, maintaining the name “Sea of Japan.”

7. Conclusion

The Japanese governmentʼs statement that “Sea of Japan is the only internationally establishedname” is based on consideration of the above history. The South Korean emphasis of Japanesecolonial rule is totally irrelevant here. Moreover, as I have discussed at length, the word 東 海(Donghae) that the South Korean government brings up as evidence in their challenge against
the name “Sea of Japan” was either the coastal waters off the Korean Peninsula, names of places
on land, the Yellow Sea, or the East Sea of China. We should not refer to the Sea of Japan as theEast Sea. It is also inappropriate to use the names “Sea of Japan” and “East Sea” side by side asinternationally established names.
Finally, I sincerely hope that the South Korean government is able to realize that its
persistence in this naming issue even to the point of distorting historical facts has become asource of confusion in the international community.
49
Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

The Name “Sea of Japan” Is the Only Internationally Established Name(The Debate Concerning the Naming of the Sea of Japan—Analysis of the South Korean Government’s Arguments based on Historical Materials and Maps—)

The Complete Map of the Land and Sea of Great Japan, Along with
Korea and Karafuto( 大日本海陸全圖聯接朝鮮樺太 ) made by Ōjiri Hidekatsu ( 大後秀勝 )50Japan Review Vol.4 No.1 Summer 2020

Published by the Japan Institute of International Affairs
3rd Floor Toranomon Mitsui Building, 3-8-1 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo Japan 100-0013
Te l: +81-3-3503-7261 (International)
Fax: +81-3-3503-7292 (International)More information about the Instituteʼs activities and publications available at: https://www.jiia.or.jp/en/

TH E JA P A N
I N S TI TU TE O F
I N TE R N A TI O N A L
A FFA I R S