ashley sheppard honours thesis 2014 - is 499

University of Regina IS 499 – Honours Thesis

Cross Border Media Analysis of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute

Maritime Territorial Dispute Case Study: Japan and China

Ashley Sheppard

4/18/2014 Abstract: The purpose of this study is to provide a sophisticated interpretation of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute and its underlying causes as perceived by the media of four different countries; Japan, China, America, and Britain. To accomplish this, a cross border media analysis of eight newspapers will be conducted based on the following seven main issues or topics that appeared repeatedly in the initial research for the paper: Nationalism/Public Sentiment, Bilateral Relations, Historical Tensions, Natural Resources, Chinese Assertiveness, Future Military Conflict, and Sovereignty. The newspapers will be analyzed on their objectivity and or biases, as well as their perceived relevancy of each of the seven topics.

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………….3

I. Background Information………………………………………………………….…4II. Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………….………..9

Literature Review………………………………………………………………..10

Methodology………………………………………………………….…………..20

Results and Observations ……………….….…………………………………...22

I. Comprehensive Results……………………………………………………….……23II. The Japan Times (Japan)…………………………………………..…....……..…...29III. Mainichi Shimbun (Japan)………………………………………………….……...30IV. The Global Times (China)………....…………….…....………………….………...31V. The People’s Daily (China)…………………………………………….…………..32VI. The New York Times (USA)……………………………………….……………....33VII. CNN (USA)…………………………………………….…………....……………...34VIII. The Guardian (UK)……………....………………....………….…………………...35IX. The Economist (UK)……………………………………………....……………….36

Discussion and Analysis…….…..…………………………………………….…37

I. Japan…………………..…….. …………………………..………………..………..39II. China……………..……….……………………………..…………………........…..39III. America………….……………………………………….…………………...…......40IV. Britain…………..…....………………………..………….…………………....…….41V. Further Points…………………………………………………..…..…….…………..41

Conclusions……………………………………………………………………….43

Bibliography………………………………………………….…………………..45

Introduction

Territorial disputes between sovereign states are, and have always been, a critical part of

International Relations, and more specifically International Security. Island nations in particular

2

have a significant interest in maintaining, and at times expanding, their territorial boundaries.

Recently, there has been an upsurge of activity in Asia related to disputes over various islands in

the region; several of these disputes involving China and Japan. This research paper will

examine a conflict between these two major economic players over a small group of islands

referred to as the Diaoyus by China and the Senkakus by Japan. In order to accomplish this, a

cross media newspaper analysis of the issue will be conducted by examining the content and

biases of eight newspapers from four different countries. The first two countries will be China

and Japan as they are the main actors in the conflict; the second two will be America and Britain,

who in this study will represent the mainstream opinion of western media. Analyzing these four

countries in particular will provide both insider and outsider perspectives on the dispute as well

as insight into how newspapers of different countries regard the conflict based on their own

national interests. Specifically, the study will examine nine articles from each of the eight

newspapers for a total of seventy-two articles dating from April, 2012 to March, 2014. This two

year period allows for a strong focus on the most recent information and events relating to the

conflict, in particular the nationalization of the islands by Japan in September, 2012, and will

provide an up to date exploration of the issue. It is this author’s hypothesis that this cross border

media analysis will reveal two main results. Firstly, that certain topics and biases will transcend

national boundaries and therefore will be consistent across each newspaper analyzed. Secondly,

that each newspaper, due to its national environment, will indicate a stronger interest in certain

topics rather than others, as well as certain biases in each of those topics.

It is important to note that this paper makes several basic assumptions about the media

and why it is an important analytical tool that must be understood before meaning can be derived

from the results of the study. The first is that ordinary citizens get their information about

3

complex global issues and events from the media. Secondly, that the media are experts in

deciphering and giving meaning to these issues and events based on the advantages that their

profession offers. Thirdly, that the media are not always neutral and can be biased based on the

interests of the governments of their nation of origin, or based on their own personal cultural

biases. Two further points relating to this research are that although Taiwan has also laid claim to

the islands, this paper will focus solely on Japan and China as the main actors in the dispute, as

this author does not wish to delve into the issue of Taiwanese sovereignty. Lastly, the outcome of

the dispute between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands can only be determined

by the national decisions and actions of each of those countries. The purpose of this study is not

to predict that outcome but rather to provide a sophisticated interpretation of the Senkaku/Diaoyu

islands dispute and its underlying causes as perceived by the media across several continents.

The question this paper seeks to answer is, how are the media of different countries portraying

the conflict to not only the public but the decision makers of those countries and what issues do

they perceive to be of the most importance for the conflict overall?

I. Background Information

At first glance, the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands appear to be a group of small and

insignificant group of islands located centrally between Taiwan and Japan’s southernmost

islands, Okinawa. Yet despite their unassuming image, these islands have been the source of a

major controversy, and quite possibly conflict, between two of Asia’s most prominent economic

powers going as far back as 1895. Although China is involved in several other disputes with its

neighbours, most prominently with the Philippines in the South China Sea, in the past two years

this particular dispute has come to the forefront of the policy agenda of not only Japan and

China, but the United States as well as the International community.

4

The islands in question are made up of “five main islets with a total area of just over six

sq km (2.3 sq miles), covered in rock, scrub brush and seabird habitat. They have been

uninhabited since 1940, when a fish processing plant on the main island closed, and were under

US administration from the end of the Second World War until 1972, when they were returned to

Japanese control” (The Guardian, f). “The islands are surrounded by fisheries and potentially

valuable energy resources, but the dispute has been fuelled further by long-running historical

tensions over Japan's brutal occupation of China in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as Japanese

anxieties over China's growing might” (The Guardian, d). During the 1972 normalization talks

that led to the successful bilateral relationship that Japan and China share today, the two

nations had agreed to “shelve the issue relating to sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands”

(Mainichi, Shimbun, a). The event that took this conflict ‘off the shelf’ so to speak was Japan’s

nationalization of the islands in September of 2012.

On September 11th of 2012 the Japanese government announced that it had purchased

three of the five islands in the chain for approximately $30 million dollars from their previous

Japanese owners (The New York Times, c). Japan’s reason for nationalizing the islets was to

head off a “potentially explosive attempt” by right-wing nationalists, most prominently former

Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara, to purchase them, “with the intention of developing them and

using them to prove Japan’s rightful territorial sovereignty”. (The Japan Times, g).This purchase

incensed the Chinese population and government and since that time Chinese planes and ships

have been making increasingly number of trips out to the islands in order to exert their

dominance and to maintain their territorial integrity. Since then, there have been three more

crucial ‘hotspots’ or events that have been the source of ever increasing tensions between the two

nations.

5

The first was in 2010 when “a Japanese Coast Guard arrested the crew of a Chinese

fishing trawler that rammed them in the waters near the disputed rocks. This arrest sparked

widespread angry protests and attacks on Japanese businesses in China as well as caused Beijing

to withhold exports of rare earth metals that were, and still are, vital to Japanese industries;

Tokyo capitulated by releasing the crew and captain” (CNN, d). The second was when, at the

end of November 2013, the Chinese government announced the creation of a new Air Defence

Identification Zone (hereby known as ADIZ). The zone can be seen in the figure below and

extends over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and into both Japanese and South Korean territory. The

Chinese government accompanied their new zone with a set of aircraft identification rules that

China stated must be followed by all aircraft entering the area, under penalty of intervention by

China’s military. “Aircraft are now expected to provide their flight path, clearly mark their

nationality and maintain two-way radio communication in order to respond in a timely and

accurate manner to identification inquiries from Chinese authorities” (The Japan Times, h). The

new zone however, remains largely a symbolic move as U.S. Secretary of State, Chuck Hagel

“felt compelled to assert that the implementation of the ADIZ will not in any way change how

the United States conducts military operations in the region” and “reaffirmed that Article V of

the U.S. Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands” (CNN, f). In spite of

China’s establishment of the ADIZ however, Japanese and American planes continue to operate

as usual in the area and so far the Chinese government has not taken any military action to

enforce it or stop them from doing so.

6

Figure 1.0

The third, and most problematic, was Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan’s visit to the

Yasukuni Shrine on December 26th, 2013, which has caused a complete halt in diplomatic talks

between the Japanese and Chinese governments. The Yasukuni Shrine is an old and infamous

Shintō shrine located in Tokyo, Japan that is, to many people, not just a spiritual place but a

symbol of Japan’s wartime history. Although the shrine was originally built in around 1869 “to

enshrine those killed in the Meiji Restoration” (DuBois, 2011, 185), it has become Japan’s main

shrine for housing the spirits of war dead and “has been an important symbol of Shintō

nationalism in Japan” (Reader, Andreasen, Stefánsson, 1995, 165). The main controversy

revolving around the shrine is that of the Class A war criminals that are enshrined there; such as

“Prime Minister Tōjō Hideki who led Japan to war, and Generals Matsui and Muto, who

commanded the Imperial Army in Nanking and the Philippines respectively” (Breen, 2007, 144).

The Tokyo War Crimes Trial where these men were convicted however, remains “highly

controversial” and “non-Japanese as well as Japanese scholars of different persuasions have

7

argued its shortcomings for over fifty years” (Inken, Prohl and Nelson, 2012, 403). Yasukuni

Shrine in fact, takes the official stance that “the charges of ‘war crimes’ were false indictments

imposed unilaterally by the Allied victors of the Second World War” (Breen, 2007, 112).

Although some government officials have thought to transfer the spirits of the war

criminals to another site in order to placate the international community, the

Shrine in its capacity as a private institution has outright refused, stating that “in

theological terms, spirits once enshrined can never be dislodged” (Breen,

2007, 5-6).

Overall, there are two main underlying issues regarding the Prime Ministerial visits that

have caused such a stir in the International community and in China and South Korea in

particular. Firstly is that “when a Japanese Prime Minister goes in his official capacity to

Yasukuni shrine where Class A War Criminals are honoured as glorious spirits, it inevitably

invites the interpretation that the state of Japan is denying its war responsibility” (Breen, 2007,

112). Secondly is the fear that the visits are “reviving the unity of state and religion that gave rise

to ultra nationalism and militarism in Japan before and during World War II” (Earhart, 2004,

208). Furthermore, Prime Minister Abe’s visit to the shrine in December has been

the first official visit to the shrine since former Prime Minister Koizumi in

2001 and has “led to a stalemate in high-level relations between China and

Japan” (Breen, 2007, 23). In addition to this issue are the textbook

controversy, in which Abe plans to change the middle school and high school

textbooks to reflect more patriotic views of Japan’s history, and also the

Prime Minister’s plans to remove Article 9 from the Japanese constitution

which stipulates that Japan is not to have any military forces. The

8

commonality in all of these issues is the fundamental problem that Japan has

shied away from dealing with their wartime past. Until such time as they

choose to fully recognize their actions and properly teach future generations

of Japanese children about those actions, these issues will continue to be a

source of extreme tension between Japan and its neighboring countries, as

well as the international community.

II. Theoretical Framework

There are four main theories utilized in this study. The first two are the interlinked

theories and concepts of agenda setting and framing. Agenda setting in the media relates to what

issues the public thinks about based on what we see in the news, whereas framing relates to how

we think about those issues. Both of these are important frameworks for this study as they set up

the basis of why media is an important tool in analyzing the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication, agenda setting is

when “media agendas are set by ‘authoritative sources’ in government and industry upon which

news organizations rely. The primary concern is that those in power thus call attention to issues

that suit their agendas and distract attention from those that undermine them. It is usually argued

that this influences or determines the terms and scope of public debate—not by telling people

what to think but by telling them what to think about and influencing the salience for them of

particular issues.” (Daniel Chandler and Rod Munday, 2012). Additionally, the Oxford

Dictionary refers to framing as “The formats, categories, and criteria acting as selective filters,

formal contexts, and modes of informational organization in the reporting of current events.

News coverage by national media is generally framed with reference to categories such as

politics, the economy, foreign affairs, domestic affairs, and sport. Within such categories, some

9

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001/acref-9780199568758-e-0902




events are framed as more newsworthy than others, as reflected in the time or space devoted to

them, and in their ordering” (Daniel Chandler and Rod Munday, 2012). These frameworks

provide the connection between the public, the media, and decision makers that is necessary in

understanding the underlying contextual meaning of this study.

The third and fourth theories that play an important role in this study are soft and hard

power politics theory. Joseph Nye defines soft power as “A state may achieving the outcomes it

prefers in world politics because other states want to follow it or have agreed to a situation that

produces such effects” and is a type of diplomacy where “one country gets other countries to

want what it wants” usually through cultural or ideological means (Nye, 1990, 166). In contrast,

hard power is when a state coerces another state into doing something through the use of

economic sanctions or military action. In the case of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute, China

and Japan are currently using hard power politics to attempt to gain the upper hand over each

other. This was the case when China suspended its supply of rare earth metal to Japan, as

mentioned previously. If China and Japan were able to step away from this hard power rhetoric

and begin to move towards a more cultural connection, peace and stability in the region would be

much easier to maintain. Unfortunately, as will be seen later in the study, nationalistic sentiment

and poor public perceptions are the current status quo between the two nations, Japan and China.

Literature Review

In order to provide a basis for the cross border media analysis that is at the heart of this

study it is also important to have a basic understanding of the current academic discourse

surround the issue. Therefore, a brief literary review of nine journal articles, three by Japanese

authors, three by Chinese authors, and three from other sources, will be conducted. Academic

literature on this issue appears to focus almost exclusively on the legal framework and historical

10


ownership of the dispute and in particular the issue of who has sovereignty over the islands. In

order to establish viewpoints from each of the Chinese, Japanese and international perspectives I

have reviewed three papers written by authors from each of these categories. Although nine

articles is only a small subset of the larger academia on the issue, the main purpose of this

research paper is to analyze media content and so preference has been given to that section for

size and depth. That being said however, I have endeavored to provide as much information on

the dispute as possible so that the reader may have a better understanding of where the media

analysis conducted in this paper is situated within the current academic literature on the dispute.

The three Chinese journal articles used in this review were Zhijian Liang’s, Study of the

Diaoyu Islands: A Continuation of Document-Based Research in the Style of Jean-Marc

F.Blanchard (2011); Zuxing Zhang’s, A Deconstruction of the Notion of Acquisitive

Prescription and Its Implications for the Diaoyu Islands Dispute (2012); and Zhongqi Pan’s

Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The Pending Controversy from the

Chinese Perspective (2007). The following will be an examination of the Chinese perspective of

the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute. The first author, Zhijian Liang argues that “based on the

international law and the historical records from China, Japan, Europe, and the United States,

many researchers have argued that the Diaoyu Islands belong to China” (Liang, 2011, 6). He also

points out that “In 1885, Japan surveyed the Diaoyu Islands secretly with the intent of

constructing national markers but then indefinitely delayed these plans in the face of Chinese

objection published in the Chinese media. On 14 January 1895, the resolution concerning the

incorporation of the Diaoyu Islands was adopted internally by the Cabinet Meeting of Japan

shortly before the signing of the Shimonoseki Treaty, in which China ceded Taiwan and adjacent

11

islands. This information was made public only in March 1952 in Japan Foreign Affairs

Documents, volume 23.6 (Liang, 2011, 3).

Liang’s argument is furthered in the work of Zuxing Zhang who states that “From

1885 on, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly made by the

Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by

way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the

Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been

under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of

Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895 to erect a marker on the

Islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of

Japan” (Zhang, 2012, 13) Thus, China claims that Japan illegally procured the islands and

failed to return them during the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 after World War II, and as

China was not part of that treaty they failed to catch the omission. Zhang however, makes an

important argument that “For the claim of occupation by Japan, the year 1895 is a critical date

because if the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands belonged to China at that time, then the

claim of a title by occupation will be defeated. For the claim of ancient title by China, 1895 is

also critical because even if it can be established that the Diaoyu Islands belonged to China in the

period of, or prior to, the Ming dynasty, it might still be necessary for her to establish her

sovereignty in 1895, as abandonment before then is not impossible” (Zhang, 2012, 14). He

concludes that “In this dispute, even if the historical title can be established, there may still be a

possibility of a transfer of sovereignty after 189. During 1971–72, when the dispute arose, both

China and Japan declared their legal positions on the sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands/the

Senkaku Islands. After this date, nothing could change the legal position of the disputed area.

12

Thus the 1971–72 period is the second critical date in this dispute, in the sense that it is when the

dispute was crystallized” (Zhang, 2012, 14).

Zhongqi Pan takes these points further by pointing out that “Japan rests

the legitimacy of its claim to the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands not only on their so-called being terra

nullius when it extended the claim in 1895, but also on China’s keeping silent to Japanese claim

until in the 1970’s. Japan argues that China did not object when Japan incorporated the islands

into Japanese territory in 1895 and posits that: The fact that China expressed no objection to the

status of the islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the

San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly indicates that China did not consider the Senkaku Islands as

part of Taiwan. It was not until the latter half of 1970, when the question of the development of

petroleum resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea came to the surface, that the

Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku

Islands” (Pan, 2007, 8). Finally, Pan argues that there are three main points regarding the

sovereignty of the islands that China and Japan cannot agree upon; they are “whether the islands

were terra nullius when Japan claimed sovereignty in 1895, whether Japan returned the islands to

China after the Japanese defeat in WWII, and how their maritime boundary in the East China Sea

should be demarcated according to international law” (Pan, 2007, 72). Pan discusses these three

issues from “historical and legal perspectives” (Pan, 2007, 73) but finally concludes that “there is

no ready solution to the longstanding stalemate, but the pending dispute could be shelved and

managed from escalating into a military conflict” (Pan, 2007, 1). An additional, but unrelated

point that Pan makes that will be useful for this study is that “in1968, a report of the United

Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East suggested possible large hydrocarbon

deposit in the waters off the shores of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Although the potential oil

13

reserves have not yet come to fruition, this survey fueled the dispute between Japan and China

since its publication (Pan, 2007, 72).

The three Japanese journal articles used in this review are Kentaro Sakuwa’s A Not So

Dangerous Dyad: China’s Rise and Sino-Japanese Rivalry (2009); Hiroki Takeuchi’s Sino-

Japanese Relations: Power Interdependence and Domestic Politics (2014); and Shin

Kawashima’s The Origins of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Issue (2013). It is also important to

note that literature on this subject written by Japanese authors was fairly difficult to find, which

might be due to a large portion of the literature being written in Japanese with no English

translations. The following will review the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute from the Japanese

perspective. The first author, Kentaro Sakuwa, discusses the dispute in relation to more recent

issues, such as China’s recently established Exclusive Economic Zone and what must be done in

the future to avoid a conflict between the two nations. “The territorial dispute over the Senkakus

and the issues of the EEZ in the East China Sea are two of the most important ongoing disputes

between China and Japan. Although it is premature to conclude that those disputes will lead to

‘threat to use force’ or ‘use of force’, the possibility cannot be excluded. Territorial disputes may

exacerbate the Sino–Japanese diplomatic tension as theorists predict, and there are China’s rise

and Sino–Japanese rivalry some foreboding signs. Also, the issue of maritime border

delimitation and resource development in the East China Sea is a potential source of instability in

the Sino–Japanese relationship. The delimitation of the EEZ is still being negotiated, and both

China and Japan acknowledge economic, strategic, and political importance of the area. The

possibility that the dispute causes future instability cannot be thoroughly refuted” (Sakuwa,

2009, 23). Overall, he states that “In order to avoid exacerbating the overall Sino–Japanese

relationship in the possible case of a further shift in the power ratio favoring China, both Japan

14

and China must refrain from escalating the dispute over the Senkakus by engaging in additional

military actions and make further diplomatic effort to implement the principles for cooperation in

the East China Sea. Also, both governments must avoid linking those issues with other issues,

such as rising nationalism in domestic politics” (Sakuwa, 2012, 28).

Takeuchi continues this more political side of the dispute, and focuses on how

nationalism has been an influencing factor in bilateral relations between China and Japan. “ I

argue that political leaders have emphasized nationalism in the context of the power struggle in

Chinese politics, and how nationalism has been used to strengthen the position against the

leadership seeking a conciliatory relationship with Japan” (Takeuchi, 2014, 28). He argues that

“it is not patriotism but nationalism that has a clear impact on public opinion formation on

foreign policy. Therefore, once the government has enmeshed citizens into a particular

nationalist ideology, it is hard for China’s authoritarian regime to change public opinion by

sending elite cues” (Takeuchi, 2014, 12). Finally, he discusses how “as the nature of China’s

leadership turned from non-nationalistic to nationalistic, the equilibrium of Sino-Japanese

relations shifted to one where China challenges the balance of power against Japan, rather than

appreciating the benefits from economic interdependence” (Takeuchi, 2014, 30). This idea that

nationalism has influenced bilateral relations and is therefore a fairly important topic in relation

to the islands dispute is a point that comes up fairly often in the media analysis of the issue as

well, which we will see later on.

Shin Kawashima’s article, similar to the Chinese articles previously discussed, focuses

more specifically on the legality and ownership of the islands and he states that “the Japanese

government claims possession of the Senkaku Islands based on the fact that they were specified

as part of the Nansei Islands during the process leading up to the San Francisco Peace

15

Conference” (Shin Kawashima, 2013, 6). Kawashima also points out a statement made by the

ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs on May 9, 1972 that contains the sentence “The Diaoyutai

Islets are a part of the territory of the Republic of China. The Republic of China’s claim to this

territory is indisputable in every respect—in terms of the islets’ geographical location and

geological structure, historical circumstance, their continuous use over a long period of time, and

the law. The Republic of China strongly opposes the handover by the USA to Japan of

administrative authority over these islets in combination with the return of administrative

authority over the Ryukyu Islands. Given its sacred duty to protect its territory, the Republic of

China will never, under any circumstances whatsoever, renounce its claim to the Diaoyutai

Islets” (Kawashima, 2013, 19) He continues by stating that “As described above, the

Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands issue had already become a diplomatic issue before the normalization of

diplomatic relations between Japan and the People’s Republic of China in September 1972. In

light of the fact that the PRC had not actually been involved with the process out of which the

issue had arisen, it is understandable that there was no particular focus on the issue during the

negotiations preceding the normalization of diplomatic relations” (Kawashima, 2013, 20).

Overall he focuses on reviewing the diplomatic documents produced by both the Japanese and

Chinese governments in order to “reveal how this issue has evolved historically on both the

political and diplomatic fronts” (Kawashima, 2013, 2).

Lastly, the three international sources used in this review are Ming Gyo Koo’s The

Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute and Sino-Japanese political economic relations: cold politics and hot

economics? (2009); Krista Wiegand’s China's Strategy in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute:

Issue Linkage and Coercive Diplomacy (2009); and Linus Hagstrom’s ‘Power Shift’ in East

Asia? A Critical Reappraisal of Narratives on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Incident in 2010

16

(2012). Ming Gyo Koo’s article focuses on the political interdependence of the two nations and

how that has led to continued peaceful and diplomatic relations despite the many ‘flare ups’ that

have caused increased tensions over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. “The first flare-up of the

dispute started in late 1968 when the findings of a high probability of oil and gas deposits near

the disputed islands made everyone scramble for energy. Yet the island issue gradually took a

back seat by the end of 1971. The second round surfaced in a more serious manner in spring

1978, but both China and Japan successfully shelved the island issue towards the end of the same

year. Catalyzed by lighthouses built on the islands by an ultra-nationalist Japanese group, the

third and fourth rounds of dispute took place in September 1990 and in July 1996, respectively.

However, by the ends of the respective years both governments once again sought to defuse the

tension. Finally, the latest round in 2004 was catalyzed by a group of Chinese activists and

further exacerbated by intense resource competition in the East China Sea throughout 2005.

Although the latest flare-up effectively brought Sino-Japanese diplomatic relations to the lowest

ebb, both countries again chose to exercise restrained policies for fear of escalating the

sovereignty and resource issues out of control” (Koo, 2009, 6).This topic of bilateral relations

and economic interdependence conflicts with the Japanese perspective in Takeuchi’s article that

bilateral relations between Japan and China have been taking a down turn due to nationalist

sentiments in both countries. We will find out more about this topic and how the media perceives

it for the conflict overall in the results section of this paper.

The second author, Krista Weigard, focuses more on the historical side of the issue,

discussing how “Japan first legally acquired the disputed islands from China as surrounding

islands of Formosa (Taiwan) as part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki after the Sino-Japanese War of

1895. China made its formal claim for the islands and surrounding waters on December 30,

17

1971, six months after the US and Japan had signed the reversion treaty. In the official claim, the

Foreign Ministry office claimed usurped ownership and encroachment of China’s sovereign

territory, which had been part of China’s territory since the fifteenth century. The Japanese

reacted to China’s claim by stating that “the Senkaku islands have been consistently a part of

Japan’s territory of Nansei Shoto” (Weigard, 2009, 4). In continuation, she states that “The status

quo remains just as it was in 1971 –Japan maintains occupation of the islands, claiming there is

no territorial dispute, while China claims the islands as part of its national sovereignty”

(Weigard, 2009, 4). Finally, she concludes that “until the dispute is finally settled, there will

always be some degree of risk of harming critical economic and diplomatic relations in a region

where these two states are the major movers and shakers” (Weigard, 2009, 23). Once again the

legality and ownership of the issue appears as the driving force behind the conflict in this article.

In addition however, Weigard also discusses the possibility of escalation, or future military

conflict; a topic that will also be appearing in the study later on.

The last author, Linus Hagstrom, focuses on one of the major flare ups in the dispute, the

collision between a Chinese fishing vessel and a Japanese patrol ship, how it affected the power

relationship between Japan and China and has influenced bilateral relations overall. “The

aim of this article is thus to revisit the incident in September 2010, when a Chinese fishing

trawler collided with two Japanese patrol ships in disputed waters” (Hagstrom, 2012, 3).” Since a

territorial dispute is essentially a dispute over the interpretation of the historical background and

the legal context of a piece of territory, data tends to get entwined with interpretations right from

the outset” (Hagstrom, 2012, 4). “China’s ‘rise’ is most commonly represented in this discourse

by the enormous increases in its gross domestic product (GDP) and defence spending since the

launch of the reform and opening-up agenda in 1978. Calculated in USD, Chinese GDP more

18

than doubled in nominal terms between 1991 and 2000 (from $371.20 billion to $794 billion),

and in the following nine years until 2009 it increased by 557% calculated in USD (to $4.42

trillion). The Chinese defence budget in 2009 was moreover 485% larger than that of 2000 (an

increase from $14.5 billion to $70.3 billion), and the defence budget in 2000 was 237% larger

than that of 1991 (when it stood at $6.11 billion). ‘Japan’s decline’, in contrast, generally refers

to the economic malaise that has haunted Japan for well over two decades—a combination of

low economic growth, high public debt, deflation and serious problems related to demography

and governance. ‘Power shift’, finally, refers to the combined effect of these two developments,

most potently symbolised by China’s succeeding Japan in 2010 as the world’s second largest

economy. In other words, the relative distribution of regional power is believed to be shifting in

China’s favour, and thereby greatly affecting East Asian affairs. (Hagstrom, 2012, 26). This topic

of Chinese Assertiveness in the region is another issue that will appear in the study as it has been

a source of major concern for the media; as we will see later on.

Overall, the literature provides a thorough and well examined analysis of the legal

framework and historical issues of ownership over the islands, on both sides of the dispute. What

has only been examined in passing however is the question of the real value of the islands

beyond just the legal ownership and history of the territory. Several authors mention this issue

briefly in their articles but do not go into any detail regarding it and appear to be mentioning it

only to indicate that Japanese and Chinese interest in the islands increased after it was suggested

that the islands contained natural resources; although to this day it still has not been confirmed

whether or not there are any valuable resources beneath the islands. Therefore, the purpose of my

study is to work towards closing this gap in the literature by examining what deeper causes lie

19

behind the dispute and how they have been perceived and deciphered by the media for the

public.

Methodology

The intent of the research conducted for this paper was to produce a structured content

and bias analysis of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute from the perspectives of eight different

newspapers, using nine articles from each paper for a total of seventy-two articles. The articles

date from the beginning of April, 2012 to the end of March, 2014 so as to cover a full two year

period of the dispute. In order to collect even samples, two Japanese newspapers, two Chinese

newspapers, two American newspapers, and two British newspapers were used. They are as

follows: The Japan Times, Mainichi Shimbun, The Global Times, The People’s Daily, The New

York Times, CNN, The Guardian and The Economist. The study was conducted based on seven

main issues or topics that appeared repeatedly in the initial research. The topics are as follows:

Nationalism/Public Sentiment, Bilateral Relations, Historical Tensions, Natural Resources,

Chinese Assertiveness, Future Military Conflict, and Sovereignty.

The three main objectives of the study were to identify first, the objectivity of the

newspapers themselves; second, the biases present in the topics both on a comprehensive level

and based on each individual newspaper; and third, the relevancy of the topics, also on a

comprehensive as well as individual basis. The coding used for determining the objectivity and

or biases present is in the form of the following categories: N for Neutral, C+ for pro-China, C-

for anti-China, J+ for pro-Japan, and J- for anti-Japan. These categories are qualitative and were

determined by careful examination of the tone of the paper each time one of the keywords of the

20

seven topics was used. The procedure used to achieve the three main objectives is as follows.

The first point, overall objectivity, was determined by identifying how many times each

newspaper used one of the previously mentioned categories when mentioning a topic throughout

all of the nine articles combined and comparing those results to the other newspapers. The

second point, each newspaper’s objectivity towards individual topics, was analyzed by

examining the number of times a topic was mentioned and with which of the aforementioned

categories. This was also evaluated on both a comprehensive scale, meaning all seventy-two

articles; and case by case by using the nine articles for each newspaper. Finally, the perceived

relevancy of each of the seven topics was determined across the eight newspapers, as well as for

each individual newspaper, based on which particular set of keywords were predominantly used.

For additional information it has been noted in the reference section whether or not the articles

are editorials (marked by an ED) as well as if they contain a graph or diagram depicting disputed

territory (marked by a *). These two factors are important to note as they indicate a specific

opinion on the issues at hand as well as the tendency that graphs have to steer the reader in the

direction the author is thinking rather than allowing them to reach a conclusion independently.

Finally, the titles of each of the seventy articles have been included in the reference section at the

end of this paper so as to provide the readers with a more accurate knowledge of what material

specifically was analyzed in this study.

While there are certain facts or details from the articles that are left open to the

interpretation of the reader, there is of course always the possibility of personal bias skewing the

results of the analysis. That being said however, I have endeavoured to be as objective as

possible in my examination and the subsequent outcome of the study in order to reduce this

possibility and present fair and unbiased results. There were two main limitations to the study;

21

the first was the difference in the lengths of the articles, which caused disparities in the number

of times keyword were used and resulted in differences in the overall numbers of each

newspaper. The second was the timeline for the articles used in the study, which might have

caused discrepancies in the number of times a topic was mentioned throughout all nine articles in

each individual newspaper. This was because some of the newspapers analyzed either did not

have older articles from 2012 or did not have up to date information on the dispute and as such

did not have articles for 2014.

To mitigate the first issue, I have included the total number of mentions at the bottom

corner of each of the graphs so that the reader will be able to see the disparities and adjust their

own personal conclusions accordingly. While it is not possible to mitigate the second issue, it is

possible to fully disclose the information. As such, the number of articles analyzed for each of

the three years is as follows: 24 articles for April to December of 2012, 33 articles for the full

year of 2013 and 14 articles for the first three months of 2014. The number of articles is

relatively even to how many months of each year were analyzed; meaning that the overall results

will be based on a fair amount of information from each of the years. However there is a

possibility that the individual newspapers will have slightly skewed results due to certain years

being missed in the case by case examinations. In spite of these limitations however, the study

overall has been undertaken with every consideration to scientific method and as such can be

reproduced by following this methodology, and quite possibly improved in future research by

expanding and filling in the gaps in the timeline.

Results and Observations

22

This segment of the paper is dedicated to summarizing the data collected in the study on

both a comprehensive and individual basis. As previously mentioned, in order to portray the

significance of these results in relation to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute, three main points

will be analyzed. First, each newspaper’s overall objectivity; second, whether there are any

biases present in each of the individual topics, both comprehensively and case by case; and

finally, how relevant the newspapers portray each topic to be, also on a comprehensive and case

by case basis. Each of these points will be represented by visual summaries in the form of graphs

and charts.

The first section will detail the comprehensive results based on all seventy-two articles

from each of the eight newspapers and each section after that will detail the individual results of

the newspapers in the following order: The Japan Times, Mainichi Shimbun, The Global Times,

The People’s Daily, The New York Times, CNN, The Guardian and The Economist.

I. Comprehensive Results

23

The Ja

pan T

imes

(Ja...

Mainich

i (Jap

an)

The Glob

al Tim

es (C

...

The Peo

ple's D

aily (

...

The New

York Tim

es...

CNN (USA

)

The Gua

rdian

(UK)

The Eco

nomist

(UK)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Comprehensive Objectivity/Bias by Newspaper

Neutral

Pro-China

Anti-China

Pro-Japan

Anti-Japan

Newspapers

Freq

uenc

y of

Men

tion

On a comprehensive scale, most of the newspapers presented their material objectively,

meaning with a strongly neutral lens, however there were several exceptions Firstly, the two

Chinese newspapers, The Global Times and the People’s Daily, had lower numbers in their

neutral categories than in their anti-Japan categories. Secondly, the anti-China categories of The

Japan Times, CNN and The Economist were all significantly higher than their anti-Japan

category. If these newspapers were completely objective they would have presented more equal

numbers in their anti-China and anti-Japan categories, which happens in the case of the New

York Times and The Guardian. Another important note related to neutrality is that the Chinese

newspapers displayed significantly high numbers in their pro-China categories, while every other

paper except for The Japan Times had almost none. Lastly, the two Japanese papers, The Japan

Times and the Mainichi Shimbun, as well as The Economist displayed the highest numbers in the

24

pro-Japan category, while The New York Times and CNN had half those numbers and the

Chinese papers and the Guardian had none. Overall, the two British papers, The Guardian and

The Economist, displayed the highest levels of neutrality with an 87 and an 82 respectively. The

two American papers, The New York Times and CNN, followed with slightly lower levels of 72

and 76 respectively. The Japanese papers were close behind with a 58 for the Japan Times and a

68 for the Mainichi Shimbun. Lastly, the lowest levels of neutrality were those of the two

Chinese papers, with a 37 for The Global Times and a 45 for The People’s Daily.

Nation

alism

/ Pub

lic Sen

timen

t

Bilater

al Rela

tions

Histori

cal Ten

sions

Natural

Reso

urces

Chinese

Asse

rtive-

ness

Future

Milit

ary C

onflic

t

Sovere

ignty

020406080

100120140160

Comprehensive Objectivity/Bias by Topic

NeutralPro-ChinaAnti-ChinaPro-JapanAnti-Japan

Topics

Freq

uenc

y of

Men

tion

25

This section will detail the results of the biases present in the chosen topics on a

comprehensive basis, meaning that of all eight newspapers (individual newspaper results will be

discussed in subsequent sections). The first topic, Nationalism/Public Sentiment, presented a

strong anti-Japan bias, followed closely by an anti-China bias; neutrality was low. The second

topic, Bilateral Relations, was strongly neutral with a slight anti-Japan bias. The third topic,

Historical Tensions, presented close numbers in neutrality and an anti-Japan bias. The fourth

topic, Natural Resources, was almost entirely neutral. The fifth topic, Chinese Assertiveness was

strongly anti-China in its bias, however presented only slightly lower neutral results. The sixth

topic, Future Military Conflict, was mainly neutral with a slight anti-China bias, and the last

topic, Sovereignty was overwhelmingly neutral with no overall biases present. The topic with the

overall highest pro-China numbers was Chinese Assertiveness, however it is important to note

that these numbers were almost entirely from the two Chinese papers, The Global Times and The

People’s Daily. In direct contrast to these findings, the highest anti-China numbers also came

from the Chinese Assertiveness topic, however these numbers were relatively equal across the

26

Comprehensive Objectivity/Bias by TopicTopics N C+ C- J+ J- Total Overall

RankingNationalism/Public Sentiment 28 4 60 1 69 162 4th Bilateral Relations 88 8 13 5 21 135 5th

Historical Tensions 97 0 2 3 115 217 3rd

Natural Resources 39 5 8 0 4 56 7th

Chinese Assertiveness 76 25 100 5 28 234 2nd

Future Military Conflict 61 1 26 3 12 103 6th

Sovereignty 136 15 34 21 34 240 1st

Total 525 58 243 38 283 [1147]

six non-Chinese newspapers. The highest pro-Japan numbers were found in the Sovereignty

topic and came mainly from the two Japanese newspapers, The Japan Times and the Mainichi

Shimbun. The topic that held the highest anti-Japan numbers was Historical Tensions, with the

highest numbers coming from the Mainichi Shimbun, The New York Times and the two Chinese

papers.

As stated in the methodology, the perceived relevancy of the topics will be determined

based on the number of times that topic was mentioned. On a comprehensive level, meaning

across the 72 articles, the topic with the highest numbers was Sovereignty with a 240, followed

closely by Chinese Assertiveness with a 234 and Historical Tensions with a 217. In fourth, after

dropping down by 50, was Nationalism/Public Sentiment with a 162, followed by Bilateral

Relations/Trade with a 135. In sixth, dropping by 47 was Future Military Conflict with a 103,

and finally with the lowest numbers overall was Natural Resources with a 56. Individually, four

newspapers, including the two Chinese newspapers and the two American newspapers, displayed

the highest perceived relevancy in the Chinese Assertiveness topic. It is important to note

however, that The New York Times had only slightly less numbers in the Historical Tensions

topic than that of Chinese Assertiveness, so these two topics were fairly close in perceived

relevancy. The Japanese paper, The Japan Times, and the British paper, The Guardian, displayed

the highest perceived relevancy in the Sovereignty topic. The other Japanese paper, Mainichi

Shimbun, perceived the Historical Tensions topic to be the most relevant. Finally, the British

paper, The Economist, had the highest perceived relevancy in the Nationalism/Public Sentiment

followed relatively closely in number by the Future Military Conflict topic. (Chart on next page).

27

Number of Mentions by Topic and Newspaper

Main IssuesThe

Japan Times

Mainichi

Shimbun

TheGlobal Times

The People’s Daily

New York Times

CNN The

GuardianThe

Economist

Total#

Overall

Ranking

Nationalism/Public Sentiment

12 6 15 10 33 22 26 38 162 4th

Bilateral Relations 29 12 12 18 15 22 10 17 135 5th

Historical Tensions

16 48 28 26 39 17 15 28 217 3rd

Natural Resources 12 2 6 5 5 5 10 11 56 7th

Chinese Assertiveness 19 9 32 34 45 39 28 28 234 2nd

Future Military Conflict

5 9 10 5 18 18 8 30 103 6th

28

Sovereignty 45 42 26 25 18 23 43 18 240 1st

Total # 138 128 129 123 173 146 140 170 [1147]

29

The following are the results for each of the eight individual newspapers.

II. The Japan Times (Japan)

Top

ics

The Japan Times (Japan) Objectivity/Bias Total

Keywords N C+ C- J+ J-

Nationalism/Public Sentiment/Right-Wing 0 0 6 0 6 12Bilateral/ Diplomatic/Trade Relations 17 5 2 0 5 29

History/1972 Normalization/WWII/Yasukuni 14 0 0 0 2 16

Natural Resources (Oil/Gas/Fishing/Minerals) 5 3 2 0 2 12

Chinese Assertiveness: Air/Coast Guard Patrols/ADIZ 6 0 12 1 0 19

Future Military Conflict/War/Escalation 2 0 3 0 0 5

Sovereignty/Territory 14 0 17 9 5 45

Total 58 8 42 10 20 [138]

The Japan Times is currently Japan’s only independent English Language Newspaper and

is also the oldest, being founded in 1897 (The Japan Times Website, 2014). In this newspaper,

the first topic, Nationalism/Public Sentiment, held equal numbers in the anti-China and anti-

Japan bias. The second, third and fourth topics, Bilateral Relations, Historical Tensions and

Natural Resources were strongly neutral, with no particular bias present. The fifth topic, Chinese

Assertiveness presented a strong anti-China bias. The sixth topic, Future Military Conflict, was

mainly neutral with a slight anti-China bias. The last topic, Sovereignty, was split almost evenly

between neutrality and an anti-China bias. Overall, The Japan Times displayed its highest

numbers in the neutral category with a 58. This was followed by a 42 in the anti-China category,

a 20 in the anti-Japan category, a 10 in the pro-Japan category and an 8 in the pro-China

category. The strongest neutral topics for this paper were Bilateral Relations, Historical

Tensions, and Sovereignty. The strongest pro-China topic was also Bilateral Relations. The

strongest anti-China topic was Sovereignty, followed by Chinese Assertiveness. The strongest

30

pro-Japan topic was also Sovereignty and finally, the anti-Japan category was mainly split

between Nationalism/Public Sentiment, Bilateral Relations and Sovereignty.

III. Mainichi Shimbun (Japan)

Top

ics

Mainichi Shimbun (Japan) Objectivity/Bias Total








Total 68 1 20 11 28 [128]

Mainichi Shimbun is one of Japan’s top three daily newspapers and “with its thorough

coverage and generally progressive editorial outlook, Mainichi has appealed to a largely middle-

class readership Japan” (Mainichi Website, 2014). In this newspaper, the first topic,

Nationalism/Public Sentiment, held a mainly anti-Japan bias. The second, fourth and sixth topics,

Bilateral Relations, Natural Resources and Future Military Conflict were strongly neutral, with

no particular bias present. The third topic, Historical Tensions, was split almost evenly between

neutrality and an anti-Japan bias. The fifth topic, Chinese Assertiveness, presented a strong anti-

China bias, and the last topic, Sovereignty, was mainly neutral with slight anti-China and pro-

Japan biases. Similar to The Japan Times, Mainichi Shimbun’s category with the highest

numbers was also neutral, with a 68. However unlike the other paper, it was followed by a 28

in the anti-Japan category and then with a drop of 8, by a 20 in the anti-China category. It

31

showed only an 11 in the pro-Japan category and even less in the pro-China category with a

1. The bulk of the neutral category was split between the Historical Tensions and Sovereignty

topics. However it is important to note that the anti-Japan category of the Historical Tensions

topic had almost equal numbers to that of the neutral category.

IV. The Global Times (China)

The Global Times (China) Objectivity/Bias Total








Total 37 25 3 0 64 [129]

Founded in April 2009, The Global Times is “one of the most dynamic players among

Chinese media, and has rapidly become the major English newspaper in the nation” (The Global

Times Website, 2014). In this newspaper, the first, third and last topics, Nationalism/Public

Sentiment, Historical Tensions and Sovereignty held a strongly anti-Japan bias. The second and

sixth topics, Bilateral Relations and Future Military Conflict, were split almost evenly between

neutrality and an anti-Japan bias. The fourth topic, Natural Resources was mainly neutral, with

no particular bias present; and the fifth topic, Chinese Assertiveness presented a strong pro-

China bias. This paper’s highest numbers were in the anti-Japan category with a 64. This was

followed by a 37 in the neutral category, a 25 in the pro-China category and a 3 in the anti-China

32

category. There were no numbers in the pro-Japan category. The highest individual numbers

were found in the anti-Japan category of the Historical Tensions topic followed by the

Sovereignty topic. The neutral category was relatively even through each of the seven topics.

The anti-China category held a 1 in the Bilateral Relations Topic and a 2 in the Chinese

Assertiveness topic.

V. The People’s Daily (China)

Top

ics

The People’s Daily (China) Objectivity/Bias Total








Total 45 23 0 0 55 [123]

The People’s Daily was founded in the People’s Republic of China in 1997 and is a daily

newspaper that reflects the views and “advocates the beliefs” of the Communist Party of China

(The People’s Daily Website, 2014). In this newspaper, the first, third and sixth topics,

Nationalism/Public Sentiment, Historical Tensions and Future Military Conflict held a strongly

anti-Japan bias. The second topic, Bilateral Relations, was strongly pro-China. The fourth topic,

Natural Resources was split almost evenly between neutrality and an anti-Japan bias. The fifth

and seventh topics, Chinese Assertiveness and Sovereignty were split almost evenly between

neutrality, a pro-China bias and an anti-Japan bias. Overall, the People’s Daily showed its

33

highest numbers in the anti-Japan category with a 55, however closely following was the neutral

category with a 45. Following that was a 23 in the pro-China category and nothing in either the

anti-China or pro-Japan categories. As was the case in The Global Times, this paper’s highest

individual number was in the anti-Japan category of the Historical Tensions topic. Following that

however was the neutral category of the Bilateral Relations topic, and then equally high numbers

in the neutral, pro-China and anti-Japan categories of the Chinese Assertiveness topic.

VI. The New York Times (USA)

Top

ics

The New York Times (USA) Objectivity/Bias Total








Total 72 2 45 4 50 [173]

The New York Times is an American daily newspaper founded in 1851, although the

online edition has only been active since 1995 (The New York Times Website, 2014). In this

newspaper, the first topic, Nationalism/Public Sentiment, held equal numbers in the anti-China

and anti-Japan bias. The second, sixth and last topics, Bilateral Relations, Future Military

Conflict and Sovereignty were strongly neutral, with no particular bias present. The third topic,

Historical Tensions, held a strongly anti-Japan bias, but had relatively high neutrality as well.

The fourth topic, Natural Resources was split evenly between neutrality and an anti-China bias.

34

The fifth topic, Chinese Assertiveness, presented a strong anti-China bias, however also had

relatively high neutrality. Overall, The New York Times presented its highest numbers in the

neutral category with a 72, followed by almost equal numbers in the anti-China category, with a

45, and the anti-Japan category, with a 50. This was followed by only a 2 in the pro-China

category and a 4 in the pro-Japan category. In this paper there was a tie for the highest individual

number between the anti-Japan category of the Historical Tensions topic, and the anti-China

category of the Chinese Assertiveness topic. Following that were equally high numbers in the

neutral categories almost all of the topics; the exception to this being the equally high numbers in

the anti-Japan and anti-China categories of the Nationalism/Public Sentiment topic.

VII. CNN (USA)

Top

ics

CNN (USA) Objectivity/Bias Total








Total 76 0 47 4 19 [146]

CNN, or Cable News Network, is an American news network that started broadcasting in

1980 and has expanded internationally, with headquarters all over the world (CNN Website,

2014). In this newspaper, the first and fifth topics, Nationalism/Public Sentiment and Chinese

Assertiveness, held a strongly anti-China bias with relatively high neutrality as well. The second,

fourth and last topics, Bilateral Relations, Natural Resources, and Sovereignty/Territory were

35

strongly neutral, with no particular bias present. The third topic, Historical Tensions, held an

anti-Japan bias with relatively high neutrality as well. The sixth topic, Future Military Conflict,

was mainly neutral with a slight anti-China bias. As was the case in the New York Times, this

paper presents its highest overall numbers in the neutral category with a 76. Following that is a

47 in the anti-China category, a 19 in the anti-Japan category and a 4 in the pro-Japan category,

although nothing in the pro-China Category. The highest individual number was in the anti-

China category of the Chinese Assertiveness topic. Although following this, the second and third

highest were in the neutral category of the Sovereignty and Chinese Assertiveness topics.

Following this were numbers in the neutral category of the Bilateral Relations and Future

Military topics, as well as in the anti-Japan category of the Historical Tensions topic, and the

anti-China category of the Nationalism/Public Sentiment topic.

VIII. The Guardian (UK)

Top

ics

The Guardian (UK) Objectivity/Bias Total








Total 87 0 32 0 21 [140]

The Guardian is a British newspaper, originally founded in 1821, with the online version

becoming available in 1995, which also has a strong online presence in America (The Guardian

Website, 2014). In this newspaper, the first topic, Nationalism/Public Sentiment, was mainly

36

neutral but also had equal anti-China and anti-Japan biases. The second, fourth, sixth and last

topics, Bilateral Relations, Natural Resources, Future Military Conflict and Sovereignty were

almost entirely neutral. The third topic, Historical Tensions, had an anti-Japan bias, and the fifth

topic, Chinese Assertiveness, presented a strong anti-China bias. The Guardian’s highest overall

number is in the neutral category, with an 82, and is the highest of all eight newspapers. It

follows with only a 32 in the anti-China category and a 21 in the anti-Japan category. There are

zero numbers in the pro-China and pro-Japan categories. Its highest individual number was in the

neutral category of the Sovereignty dispute, and it exceeded the second closest number by two

times, the second being in the anti-China category of the Chinese Assertiveness topic. Following

that were equally high numbers in the neutral categories of four of the topics; Nationalism/Public

Sentiment, Bilateral Relations, Natural Resources and Chinese Assertiveness. Equally high was

the anti-Japan category of the Historical Tensions topic.

IX. The Economist (UK)

Top

ics

The Economist (UK) Objectivity/Bias Total








Total 82 1 52 9 26 [170]

The Economist is a “weekly magazine of news and opinion published in London and

generally regarded as one of the world’s preeminent journals of its kind” and was founded in

37

1843 (The Economist Website, 2014). In this newspaper, the first topic, Nationalism/Public

Sentiment, presented a slightly anti-China bias. The second, fourth and last topics, Bilateral

Relations, Natural Resources and Sovereignty were strongly neutral, with no particular bias

present. The third topic, Historical Tensions, was relatively neutral, with a slight anti-Japan bias.

The fifth topic, Chinese Assertiveness presented a strong anti-China bias with relatively high

neutrality as well. In contrast, the sixth topic was strongly neutral but also held a slight anti-

China bias. The Economist’s highest number, as in the two American papers and The Guardian,

was in the neutral category, with an 82. Following that was a 52 in the anti-China category, a 26

in the anti-Japan category, a 9 in the pro-Japan category and a 1 in the pro-China category. The

highest individual number was in the anti-China category of the Nationalism/Public Sentiment

topic. Following that were equally high numbers in the neutral categories of the Historical

Tensions and Future Military Conflict topics. After that were also equally high numbers in the

anti-China category of the Chinese Assertiveness and Future Military Conflict topics.

Discussion and Analysis

This section of the paper will be discussing the contextual meaning behind the results and

observations provided by the data and how they might provide answers to the two main

questions this paper seeks to answer. First, it is important to mention that the usefulness of this

exercise has gone beyond the initial scope of what I had expected to discover, especially relating

to the role that newspapers play in interpreting complex world events for the general public but

also with regards to decision makers. Media functions not only as a reflection of decision

making, as seen in this study, but also informs decision makers; an example being press clipping

services, where organizations and governments monitor the media by receiving daily clippings

from various newspapers. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cross border media analysis

38

of eight newspapers from four different countries in order to obtain information on what issues

regarding the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were perceived to be the most relevant as well as what

biases appeared for each of those issues. In particular the views analyzed were from the Chinese

perspective, the Japanese perspective, as well as the mainstream opinion of western media,

represented by the American and British perspectives. This author’s hypothesis was that the

analysis would reveal two main results. First, that certain topics and or biases would transcend

national boundaries and therefore would be consistent across each newspaper analyzed.

Secondly, that each newspaper, due to its national environment, would indicate a stronger

interest in certain topics rather than others, as well as certain biases in each of those topics.

In answer to the first part of the original hypothesis, after examining the results of the

study, there were in fact three topics that received the highest overall results; Historical Tensions,

Chinese Assertiveness, and Sovereignty. These topics are therefore the issues that have the

highest relevancy relating to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute as perceived by the newspapers

analyzed in the study. Additionally, the Historical Tensions topic is dominated across the board

by strong anti-Japan biases and the Chinese Assertiveness topic by strong anti-China biases. The

anti-Japan bias in the Historical Relations topic is of course related to Japanese militarism during

the Second World War and it is not only the country that was arguably the most affected by

these actions, China, where we find this bias. In addition to the Chinese newspapers, the

American and British newspapers as well as the Japanese newspapers themselves hold an anti-

Japan bias. With regards to Chinese Assertiveness, all of the papers, except for the two Chinese

papers, appear to observe the patrols that China has been repeatedly sending to the islands as an

aggressive act that could possibly lead to a confrontation between Chinese and Japanese forces.

As such, they are viewed negatively by not only the Japanese newspapers, but the American and

39

British newspapers as well. The final topic, Sovereignty, is referred to consistently in almost all

of the seventy-two articles used in the study, and most often from a neutral standpoint; the only

exceptions being a slight pro-China bias in the Chinese newspapers and a slight anti-China bias

in the Japanese newspapers. As a topic it appears to be most strongly related to

I. Japan

With regard to the second part of the hypothesis, there were in fact certain topics that

were perceived as more relevant than others by each of the countries, as well as certain biases

attached to those topics. The Japanese newspapers, The Japan Times and Mainichi Shimbun,

showed a high interest in the topic of Historical Tensions, with a strongly neutral tone.

Hypothetically, this could indicate that as a nation, Japan is interested in opening a discussion

with regards to history and their past actions. They also showed a high interest in the topic of

Chinese Assertiveness, with a strongly anti-China tone. This clearly indicates that Japan

perceives the continued Chinese advances in the area around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands

negatively, and when we look at Japan’s recent interest in increasing their national defence it

also indicates that they are threatened by China’s actions.

II. China

The Chinese newspapers, The Global Times and The People’s Daily, showed a high

interest in the topic of Nationalism/Public Sentiment; however with a strong anti-Japan bias. This

most likely stems from what they perceive as the right-wing or nationalist agenda of Japan’s

most recent Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. In particular, his visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, his

announcement that the Senkaku islands will be declared as Japan’s territory in middle school and

high school text books, and his interest in doing away with the article in the Japanese

constitution that prevents Japan from having an established military. The second topic the

40

Chinese newspapers references quite often was Historical Tensions, also with a strong anti-Japan

bias. As mentioned previously, this is due to Japanese militarism during the Second World War,

but also because of how China perceives Japan’s current attitude towards their actions during the

war. The Chinese newspapers point out the fact that Japanese nationalism proves that Japan is

not apologetic over its actions and that this is a direct insult to those who suffered at their hands

during the war. This, more than the actions themselves appears to be what incenses China the

most about the two countries shared history. The third and final topic that appears quite often is

Chinese Assertiveness, and is almost equal in a pro-China bias and an anti-Japan bias. The pro-

China bias most likely indicates defensiveness towards negative Japanese and western attitudes

towards their actions, and the anti-Japan bias appears due to the Chinese assertion that the

Senkaku/Diaoyu islands are Chinese territory and therefore they can send as many patrols as they

deem necessary. It is also important to note that The People’s Daily, in its roles as a

representative of the Communist Party of China, is influenced directly by the government and

thus strongly reflects the official position of the country.

III. America

The American newspapers, The New York Times and CNN, differed slightly in the fact

that CNN portrayed more of a pro-Japan, anti-China bias than the New York Times. Overall

however, both papers showed high interest in the Chinese Assertiveness topic. Although they try

to remain neutral, both papers shows a slight anti-China bias which likely stems from the fact

that America interest in the region revolves around maintaining peace between the two nations so

as to encourage economic relations, and the patrols that China repeatedly sends into the area

threaten that peace. Additionally, both newspapers discuss Chinese Nationalism, with regard to

the anti-Japan protests and riots that have occurred due to flare-ups in the conflict, and as such,

41

they also reflect a slight anti-China bias. Lastly, as we saw previously, the Historical Tensions

topic holds a slight anti-Japan bias, due to Japanese militarism during World War II.

IV. Britain

Lastly, the British newspapers, The Guardian and The Economist, also showed high

interest in the topic of Chinese Assertiveness, with a significant anti-China bias that was once

again due to China’s repeated patrols near the islands. These two papers were significantly

neutral in almost all of the topics, although The Economist did display a high anti-China bias

than the Guardian. The only other topic that they both mentioned more than any of the other

papers did was that of Natural Resources. These two papers focused strongly on the oil, gas and

mineral deposits that have been suggested to exist around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, although

there is no concrete proof that there are deposits. Overall, Britain has less national interest in the

islands, mainly because they are not tied to either of the countries as America is tied to Japan,

and as such these two newspapers do not appear to have the same biases of the other six and

remain highly objective overall.

V. Further Points

In addition to these main points, there were several other surprising results of the study

that were significant for the conflict overall. The first is that of the Natural Resources topic,

which surprisingly had the lowest number of mentions of all of the seven topics, and therefore

the lowest perceived relevancy of all the topics. It was also almost entirely neutral, indicating

that there were no strong biases and therefore emotional ties, attached to the issue. The natural

resources of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands represent the assets and overall economic value of the

land. This topic holding the lowest perceived relevancy overall by all eight newspapers indicates

42

that none of the four countries examined in the study consider natural resources to be a main area

of concern in the dispute.

The second point of interest was with regard to the topic of Future Military Conflict

between Japan and China. The eight newspapers examined placed this topic as second to last for

overall numbers of mentions, and therefore its perceived relevancy was only above that of

Natural Resources. In addition, the bulk of those numbers came from the two American

newspapers, The New York Times and CNN, and the British newspaper, The Economist. For the

rest of the newspapers it was one of the lowest scoring in perceived relevancy overall. This

indicates that the American newspapers and The Economist have a tendency to overstate the

possibility of escalation of the conflict compared to the other five newspapers. This could be

caused by the tendency of American media to dramatize news in order to obtain higher ratings.

The last point of interest was the topic of Bilateral Relations between Japan and China which

ranked fifth for overall relevancy by the eight newspapers examined and was strongly neutral,

with only a slight anti-Japan bias. This indicates that the economic relationship between the two

is not an important factor or major point of concern for the dispute overall. This in itself is

indicative of the fact that although the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute has been a major source

of contention between the two nations, it has not yet become an important enough issue to affect

bilateral relations and trade between them.

43

Conclusions

As we have seen from the findings of this study, the true value of the islands does not

appear to be that of their natural resources or assets, of which there are little, or in the actual

ownership based on historical fact, as neither side can agree on which country legally owns the

islands. In fact, the islands themselves have no apparent value beyond that which has been

attributed to them by the two nations involved in the dispute. The research conducted in this

study can only provide the perspective of the newspapers examined; however as the study has

found, the media in many cases can be influenced by or even influence decision makers and

government officials. Therefore, the media perspective is one I believe holds great value in

determining the underlying causes of this territorial dispute between China and Japan. Overall,

the newspapers analyzed in this study indicated that Sovereignty held the highest perceived

relevance of the seven topics examined, and this is the topic that is also most thoroughly

examined and analyzed in the academic literature in the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands issue. However,

what the newspapers also found to be highly relevant to the dispute that the academic literature

does not discuss in any great detail, are the topics of Historical Tensions between the two nations

and Chinese Assertiveness in the region. It is based on this data that I can conclude that although

the legality and historical ownership of the islands is an important subject related to the conflict,

we cannot ignore the fact that the history of these two great nations and the current strength of

China in relation to its neighboring countries are factors that have greatly influenced the course

this dispute has taken.

In addition, this study has discovered that the newspapers, in their reporting on these

issues, have certain biases that influence or are influenced by their national environments. The

Chinese papers exhibit pro-China biases but also tend to try to maintain a neutral position where

44

possible, so as not to exacerbate pre-existing tensions with Japan and aggravate already low

public opinions towards their neighboring country. The Japanese papers are generally diplomatic

and try to be as neutral as possible; however they hold a surprising anti-Japan bias when it comes

to their own country’s history. The American papers, possibly influenced by their country’s role

as Japan’s military protectors, show a slight pro-Japan bias in everything but history and an anti-

China bias in Chinese Assertiveness. Lastly, the British papers are strongly neutral in almost

every topic or hold equal anti-Japan and anti-China biases; this is likely influenced by the fact

that their country does not have any strong national interest in the region and can therefore

approach the topic from more of a bystander’s perspective. These biases are important to

understand because the media are the experts that the general public look to in order to decipher

and give meaning to complex global issues. When they present certain facts with particular

biases it is likely the case that the public and decision makers that they are providing this

information to also come to holds these biases, knowingly or not. Finally, by analyzing both the

relevancy of certain topics and how these different media sources are presenting the conflict we

are given a unique opportunity to view the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute through the eyes of

four very different countries. In the end, this media analysis has brought forward some important

observations about the gaps in the previous discourse on the conflict that, in the future, might

bear further investigation. For now however, the only thing that this author can be certain of is

that no one can truly predict the outcome of any territorial dispute and in the end, all we as

academics can do is to try our best to understand and interpret the actions and interactions of the

great nations of the world.

45

Bibliography

Newspaper Sources

The Japan Times (Japan) - www.japantimes.co.jp

a) (July 3, 2012). Show Restraint Over Senkaku Islands (ED). Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2012/07/03/editorials/show-restraint-over-senkaku-islands/#.UmUn-_msiSo

b) (Sep 28, 2012). Media in Japan and China Urged to Help Close Perception Gap. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/09/28/business/media-in-japan-and-china-urged-to-help-close-perception-gap/#.UmTJDfmsiSo

c) (Nov 27, 2012). Senkaku Purchase Weakened Japans Claim to Exclusive Sovereignty. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/11/27/national/senkaku-purchase-weakened-japans-claim-to-exclusive-sovereignty-experts/#.UmUn6PmsiSo

d) (Dec, 29, 2012). China 1950 Paper Says Senkaku’s are Japan’s. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/29/national/china-1950-paper-says-senkakus-are-japans/#.UmUpwPmsiSo

e) (Aug 8, 2013). China Envoy Summoned Over Lengthy Senkaku Incursion. Retrieved December 2013from, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/08/08/national/china-envoy-summoned-over-lengthy-senkaku-incursion/#.Uqtk6PRDuSo

f) (Sep 10, 2013). China Urged to Stop Drone Flights near Senkaku Island’s. Retrieved December 2013from, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/10/national/china-urged-to-stop-drone-flights-near-senkaku-islands/#.UqtlCfRDuSp

g) (Sep 11, 2013). Japan on High Alert Year after Senkaku Nationalization. Retrieved December 2013from, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/11/national/japan-on-high-alert-year-after-senkaku-nationalization/#.UqtkkvRDuSo

h) *(Nov 11, 2013). China Sets up Air Defence ID Zone above Senkaku’s. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/23/national/china-sets-up-air-defense-id-zone-above-senkakus/#.UqtTo_RDuSo

i) (Dec 14, 2013). China’s ADIZ Steals Show at Japan ASEAN Celebratory Summit. Retrieved January 2014 from, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/14/national/chinas-adiz-steals-show-at-japan-asean-celebratory-summit/#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_tot=8&at_ab=-&at_pos=6

Mainichi Shimbun (Japan) – www.mainichi.jp/english

a) (June 12, 2013). China Should Pursue Best Way to Settle Senkaku Islands Dispute (ED). Retrieved December 2013 from, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20130612p2a00m0na008000c.html

46

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20130612p2a00m0na008000c.html

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/14/national/chinas-adiz-steals-show-at-japan-asean-celebratory-summit/#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_tot=8&at_ab=-&at_pos=6

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/14/national/chinas-adiz-steals-show-at-japan-asean-celebratory-summit/#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_tot=8&at_ab=-&at_pos=6

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/23/national/china-sets-up-air-defense-id-zone-above-senkakus/#.UqtTo_RDuSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/23/national/china-sets-up-air-defense-id-zone-above-senkakus/#.UqtTo_RDuSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/11/national/japan-on-high-alert-year-after-senkaku-nationalization/#.UqtkkvRDuSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/11/national/japan-on-high-alert-year-after-senkaku-nationalization/#.UqtkkvRDuSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/10/national/china-urged-to-stop-drone-flights-near-senkaku-islands/#.UqtlCfRDuSp

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/10/national/china-urged-to-stop-drone-flights-near-senkaku-islands/#.UqtlCfRDuSp

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/08/08/national/china-envoy-summoned-over-lengthy-senkaku-incursion/#.Uqtk6PRDuSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/08/08/national/china-envoy-summoned-over-lengthy-senkaku-incursion/#.Uqtk6PRDuSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/29/national/china-1950-paper-says-senkakus-are-japans/#.UmUpwPmsiSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/29/national/china-1950-paper-says-senkakus-are-japans/#.UmUpwPmsiSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/11/27/national/senkaku-purchase-weakened-japans-claim-to-exclusive-sovereignty-experts/#.UmUn6PmsiSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/11/27/national/senkaku-purchase-weakened-japans-claim-to-exclusive-sovereignty-experts/#.UmUn6PmsiSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/09/28/business/media-in-japan-and-china-urged-to-help-close-perception-gap/#.UmTJDfmsiSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/09/28/business/media-in-japan-and-china-urged-to-help-close-perception-gap/#.UmTJDfmsiSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2012/07/03/editorials/show-restraint-over-senkaku-islands/#.UmUn-_msiSo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2012/07/03/editorials/show-restraint-over-senkaku-islands/#.UmUn-_msiSo

b) (Aug 15, 2013). History Has A Weight That Must Not Be Compromised (ED). Retrieved December 2013 from, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20130815p2a00m0na006000c.html

c) (Jan 2, 2014). What is the Dispute over the Senkaku Islands with China? Retrieved March 2014 from, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20140102p2a00m0na004000c.html

d) (Jan 19, 2014). China's Top Leaders Agreed to Avoid Military Clash with Japan. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140119p2g00m0dm037000c.html

e) (Jan 28, 2014). Japan OKs Teaching Manuals Calling Senkakus and Takeshima its Territory. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140128p2g00m0dm031000c.html

f) (Jan 29, 2014). China, S. Korea Denounce Japanese School Teaching Manuals Over Isles Claim. Retrieved March 2014from, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140129p2g00m0dm016000c.html

g) (Feb 6, 2014). China asks Russia for Support on Senkakus in Return for Northern Territories Backing. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140206p2a00m0na008000c.html

h) (Feb 22, 2014). U.S. Army chief Calls for Sino-Japan Dialogue to Ease Tensions Retrieved March 2014 from, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140222p2g00m0dm076000c.html

i) (Mar 3, 2014). Japan and U.S. Should Not Forget Shared Historical Values (ED). Retrieved April 2014 from, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20140303p2a00m0na007000c.html

The Global Times (China) – www.globaltimes.cn

a) (Aug 20, 2012). Japanese Politicians Land on Diaoyu. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/727887.shtml

b) (Sep 27, 2012). Diaoyu Islands Fish are Chinese. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/735775.shtml

c) (Jan 12, 2013). China Urges Japan to ‘Face Reality’ as Abe Rejects Talks on Diaoyu Dispute. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/755268.shtml

d) (July 18, 2013). Abe Pays Visit near Diaoyu. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/797032.shtml#.UziMAvldWSo

e) (Nov 13, 2013). Continuous Provocations a Losing Battle for Tokyo. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/824441.shtml#.UuQU-BDnbDc

f) *(Jan 7, 2014). Japan Set to Nationalize Offshore Islets. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/836116.shtml#.UuQQ7BDnbDc

g) (Jan 13, 2014). Japan Threatens Use of Force. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/837116.shtml#.UuQQ6RDnbDc

47

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/837116.shtml#.UuQQ6RDnbDc

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/836116.shtml#.UuQQ7BDnbDc

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/824441.shtml#.UuQU-BDnbDc

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/797032.shtml#.UziMAvldWSo

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/755268.shtml




http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140222p2g00m0dm076000c.html

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140206p2a00m0na008000c.html






h) (Feb 19, 2014). Respect Will Serve Chinese Diplomacy Best in Long Run. (ED) Retrieved March 2014 from, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/843498.shtml#.UxrBwvldWSo

i) (Feb 23, 2014). Abe’s Nationalist Recklessness Leading Japan Down Strategic Dead End (ED). Retrieved March 2014 from, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/844228.shtml#.UziDjPldWSo

The People’s Daily (China) - www.english.peopledaily.com.cn

a) (June 3, 2012). Dialogue is the Way Forward in Asia. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8268034.html

b) (Sep 14, 2012). China Will Not Be Soft in Countering Japan. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://english.people.com.cn/90883/7948198.html

c) (May 10, 2013). Experts slam U.S. Report Regarding China's Diaoyu Islands Baseline Announcement. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8240425.html

d) (May 31, 2013). China Corrects Japan on Treaty’s Diaoyu Implications. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8265411.html

e) (June 8, 2013). Japan – Trying to Re-Write History? Retrieved December 2013 from, http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8278301.html

f) (Nov 1, 2013). China Dismisses Japan’s Claims on Military Activities. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://english.people.com.cn/90786/8443257.html

g) (Dec 9, 2013). China’s ADIZ makes its Point. Retrieved January 2014 from, http://english.people.com.cn/90786/8479098.html

h) (Dec 12, 2013). Containing China’ a Japanese Strategy. Retrieved January 2014 from, http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8482213.html

i) (Dec 13, 2013). Japan Told to Stop Diaoyu Island Provocation. Retrieved January 2014 from, http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8483522.html

The New York Times (USA) – www.nytimes.com

a) *(Aug 20, 2012). Japanese Activists Display Flag on Disputed Island. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/japanese-activists-display-flag-on-disputed-island.html?pagewanted=2

b) *(Aug 22, 2012). Dispute Over Islands Reflects Japanese Fear of China’s Rise. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/world/asia/dispute-over-islands-reflect-japanese-fear-of-chinas-rise.html?_r=0

c) (Sep 19, 2012). The Inconvenient Truth behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/?_r=0

48

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/world/asia/dispute-over-islands-reflect-japanese-fear-of-chinas-rise.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/world/asia/dispute-over-islands-reflect-japanese-fear-of-chinas-rise.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/japanese-activists-display-flag-on-disputed-island.html?pagewanted=2

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/japanese-activists-display-flag-on-disputed-island.html?pagewanted=2

http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8483522.html









http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/844228.shtml#.UziDjPldWSo

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/843498.shtml#.UxrBwvldWSo

d) *(Sep 23, 2012). Islands Dispute Tests Resolve of China and Japan. Retrieved December 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/asia/islands-dispute-tests-resolve-of-china-and-japan.html?pagewanted=1

e) *(Dec 2, 2013). In the East China Sea a Far Bigger Test of Power Looms. Retrieved January 2014 from, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/world/asia/in-the-east-china-sea-a-far-bigger-test-of-power-looms.html

f) (Dec 9, 2013). Who Owns the Skies? Retrieved January 2014 from, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/who-owns-the-skies.html?hpw&rref=opinion (ED)

g) (Dec 18, 2013). Japan Moves to Strengthen Military amid Rivalry with China. Retrieved January 2014 from, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/world/asia/japan-moves-to-strengthen-military-amid-rivalry-with-china.html?

h) (Dec 29, 2013). Japan Fights a Political Battle Using History Texts. Retrieved January 2014 from, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/world/asia/japan-fights-a-political-battle-using-history-texts.html?

i) (Jan 27, 2014). Anxiety Rising Over Relations between Japan and China. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/anxiety-rising-over-relations-between-japan-and-china/?

CNN (USA) – www.cnn.com

a) (Sep 17, 2012). How a Remote Rock Split China and Japan. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/17/world/asia/china-japan-islands-dispute-explained/

b) (Sep 20, 2012). Chinese Outrage Over Islands Troubles Japanese Public. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/asia/japan-chinese-protests-reaction/

c) (Sep 20, 2012). Dangerous Rocks: Can Both Sides Back Off Peacefully? (ED). Retrieved December 2013 from, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/china-japan-dispute-kingston/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

d) (Dec 13, 2012). Japan Scrambles Fighter Jets after Chinese Plane Seen Near Disputed Islands. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/13/world/asia/japan-china-disputed-islands/index.html

e) (Oct 21, 2013). Yasukuni Shrine Visits: Japan Honoring the Dead or Insulting the Neighbors. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/21/world/asia/yasukuni-japan/index.html

f) (Nov 27, 2013). Why China’s New Air Zone Incensed Japan, U.S. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/25/world/asia/china-japan-island-explainer/

g) (Nov 28, 2013). China Flies Fighter Jets Into Disputed Air Defence Zone; Japan Remains Defiant. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/28/world/asia/china-japan-us-tensions/index.html

49

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/28/world/asia/china-japan-us-tensions/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/25/world/asia/china-japan-island-explainer/

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/21/world/asia/yasukuni-japan/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/13/world/asia/japan-china-disputed-islands/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/china-japan-dispute-kingston/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/china-japan-dispute-kingston/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/asia/japan-chinese-protests-reaction/

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/asia/japan-chinese-protests-reaction/

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/17/world/asia/china-japan-islands-dispute-explained/

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/17/world/asia/china-japan-islands-dispute-explained/

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/anxiety-rising-over-relations-between-japan-and-china/

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/anxiety-rising-over-relations-between-japan-and-china/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/world/asia/japan-fights-a-political-battle-using-history-texts.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/world/asia/japan-fights-a-political-battle-using-history-texts.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/world/asia/japan-moves-to-strengthen-military-amid-rivalry-with-china.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/world/asia/japan-moves-to-strengthen-military-amid-rivalry-with-china.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/who-owns-the-skies.html?hpw&rref=opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/who-owns-the-skies.html?hpw&rref=opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/world/asia/in-the-east-china-sea-a-far-bigger-test-of-power-looms.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/world/asia/in-the-east-china-sea-a-far-bigger-test-of-power-looms.html

h) (Dec 3, 2013). China’s Air Defence Zone: What You Need to Know. Retrieved January 2014 from, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/03/chinas-air-defense-zone-what-you-need-to-know/?iref=allsearch

i) (Jan 7, 2014). Japan in 2014, Can Abe Manage China Tensions? Retrieved March 2014 from, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/07/japan-in-2014-can-abe-manage-china-tensions/?iref=allsearch

The Guardian (UK) – www.theguardian.com

a) *(April 19, 2012). Tokyo’s Right-wing Governor Plans to Buy Disputed Senkaku Islands. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/19/tokyo-governor-senkaku-islands-china

b) (Sep 14, 2012). China and Japan Relations Tense after Standoff over Disputed Islands. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/14/china-japan-senkaku-diaoyu-islands

c) (Sep 23, 2012). China Cancels Diplomatic Events with Japan Amid Islands Row. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/23/islands-row-china-japan

d) (Sep 26, 2012). China and Japan Meet Over Disputed Islands. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/26/china-japan-meet-disputed-islands

e) (Feb 26, 2013). Shinzo Abe Accuses China’s Rulers of Using Island Disputes to Retain Power. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/26/china-japan-senkaku-islands-dispute-abe

f) (Mar 12, 2013). China to Send Surveyors to Disputed Senkaku Islands. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/12/china-surveyors-disputed-senkaku-islands

g) (May 15, 2013). China Lays Claim to Okinawa as Territory Dispute with Japan Escalates Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/15/china-okinawa-dispute-japan-ryukyu

h) *(Nov 29, 2013). China’s Dispatch of Jets Ratchets up Tension Over Air Defence Zone. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/china-tension-air-defence-zone

i) (Jan 28, 2014). Japan: Teachers to Call Senkaku and Takeshima Islands Japanese Territory. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/28/japan-teachers-call-senkaku-takeshima-island-japanese-territory

50

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/28/japan-teachers-call-senkaku-takeshima-island-japanese-territory

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/28/japan-teachers-call-senkaku-takeshima-island-japanese-territory

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/china-tension-air-defence-zone

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/china-tension-air-defence-zone

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/15/china-okinawa-dispute-japan-ryukyu

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/12/china-surveyors-disputed-senkaku-islands

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/12/china-surveyors-disputed-senkaku-islands

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/26/china-japan-senkaku-islands-dispute-abe

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/26/china-japan-meet-disputed-islands

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/26/china-japan-meet-disputed-islands

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/23/islands-row-china-japan

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/14/china-japan-senkaku-diaoyu-islands

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/14/china-japan-senkaku-diaoyu-islands

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/19/tokyo-governor-senkaku-islands-china

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/19/tokyo-governor-senkaku-islands-china

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/07/japan-in-2014-can-abe-manage-china-tensions/?iref=allsearch

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/07/japan-in-2014-can-abe-manage-china-tensions/?iref=allsearch

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/03/chinas-air-defense-zone-what-you-need-to-know/?iref=allsearch

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/03/chinas-air-defense-zone-what-you-need-to-know/?iref=allsearch

The Economist (UK) – www.economist.com

a) *(Sep 22, 2012). China and Japan: Could Asia Really Go to War Over These? Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.economist.com/node/21563316

b) (Sep 17, 2012). Anti-Japan Protests: Outrage, To a Point (ED). Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2012/09/anti-japan-protests

c) (Oct 6, 2012). Nationalism in Japan, Beware the Populists. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.economist.com/node/21564263

d) *(Dec 22, 2012). The Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands: Narrative of an Empty Space. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568696-behind-row-over-bunch-pacific-rocks-lies-sad-magical-history-okinawa-narrative

e) (Jan 19, 2013). The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands: Dangerous Shoals. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21569740-risks-clash-between-china-and-japan-are-risingand-consequences-could-be

f) *(Nov 25, 2013). East China Sea Dispute: Troubled Skies over Troubled Water (ED). Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/11/east-china-sea-dispute

g) *(Nov 30, 2013). East China Sea: Regional Turbulence. Retrieved December 2013 from, http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21590974-china-escalates-dispute-angering-japan-and-unnerving-its-neighbours-regional-turbulence

h) (Dec 3, 2013). Who Really Owns the Senkaku Islands? (ED). Retrieved January 2014 from, http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-1

i) (Jan 18, 2014). Defence in Japan: Don’t Look Back. Retrieved March 2014 from, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21594299-japan-should-be-able-defend-itself-any-other-country-honouring-war-criminals-makes

Notes:

* - Indicates that an article includes a graph or diagram depicting the islands or disputed territory.

(ED) – Indicates that an article is written by a member of the newspaper’s editorial staff.

51

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21594299-japan-should-be-able-defend-itself-any-other-country-honouring-war-criminals-makes

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21594299-japan-should-be-able-defend-itself-any-other-country-honouring-war-criminals-makes

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-1

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-1

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21590974-china-escalates-dispute-angering-japan-and-unnerving-its-neighbours-regional-turbulence

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21590974-china-escalates-dispute-angering-japan-and-unnerving-its-neighbours-regional-turbulence

http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/11/east-china-sea-dispute

http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/11/east-china-sea-dispute

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21569740-risks-clash-between-china-and-japan-are-risingand-consequences-could-be

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21569740-risks-clash-between-china-and-japan-are-risingand-consequences-could-be

http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568696-behind-row-over-bunch-pacific-rocks-lies-sad-magical-history-okinawa-narrative

http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568696-behind-row-over-bunch-pacific-rocks-lies-sad-magical-history-okinawa-narrative

http://www.economist.com/node/21564263

http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2012/09/anti-japan-protests

http://www.economist.com/node/21563316

Academic Sources

Breen, John. (2007). Yasukuni. HURST Publishers Ltd, London, England.

Daniel Chandler and Rod Munday. (2012). Agenda Setting. A Dictionary of Media and Communication. Oxford University Press. Retrieved online March 2014 from, http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001/acref-9780199568758-e-0061

Daniel Chandler and Rod Munday. (2012). News Frames. A Dictionary of Media and Communication. Oxford University Press. Retrieved online March 2014 from, http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001/acref-9780199568758-e-1862#

Dubois, Thomas D. (2011). Religion and the Making of Modern East Asia. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.

Earhart, H. Byron. (2004). Japanese Religion: Unity and Diversity, 4th Edition. Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., CA, USA.

Hagstrom, Linus. (2012). ‘Power Shift’ in East Asia? A Critical Reappraisal of Narratives on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Incident in 2010. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 5, 2012, 267–297, doi:10.1093/cjip/pos011. Retrieved Online March 2014 via University of Regina Summon

.Ian Reader, Esben Andreasen, Finn Stefánsson. (1995). Japanese Religions: Past and Present. Japan Library/Curzon Press Ltd, Kent, England.

Inken, Prohl and John Nelson. (2012). Handbook of Contemporary Japanese Religions. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Kawashima, Shin. (2013). The Origins of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Issue. Asia-Pacific Review, 20:2, 122-145, DOI: 10.1080/13439006.2013.874619. Retrieved Online March 2014 via University of Regina Summon.

Koo, Min Gyo. (2009). The Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute and sino-japanese political-economic relations: Cold politics and hot economics? The Pacific Review, 22(2), 205-232, DOI: 10.1080/09512740902815342. Retrieved Online March 2014 via University of Regina Summon.

Liang, Zhijian. (2011). Study of the Diaoyu Islands: A Continuation of Document-Based Research in the Style of Jean-Marc F. Blanchard. The China Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 113–138. Retrieved Online March 2014 via University of Regina Summon.

52





Nye, Joseph, S. (1990). Soft Power. Jr. Foreign Policy, No. 80, pp. 153-171. Published by Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive, LLC. Retrieved March 2014 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1148580

Pan, Zhongqi. (2007). Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The Pending Controversy from the Chinese Perspective. Journal of Chinese Political Science, vol. 12, no. 1, DOI 10.1007/s11366-007-9002-6. Retrieved Online March 2014 via University of Regina Summon.

Sakuwa, Kentaro. (2009). A Not So Dangerous Dyad: China’s Rise and Sino-Japanese Rivalry. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific Volume 9, 497–528, doi:10.1093/irap/lcp011. Retrieved Online March 2014 via University of Regina Summon.

Takeuchi, Hiroki. (2014). Sino-Japanese Relations: Power Interdependence and Domestic Politics. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific Volume 14, 7–32, doi:10.1093/irap/lct02. Retrieved Online March 2014 via University of Regina Summon.

Wiegand, Krista. (2009). China's Strategy in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute: Issue Linkage and Coercive Diplomacy. Asian Security, 5:2, 170-193, DOI: 10.1080/14799850902886617. Retrieved Online March 2014 via University of Regina Summon.

Zhang, Zuxing. (2012). A Deconstruction of the Notion of Acquisitive Prescription and Its Implications for the Diaoyu Islands Dispute. Asian Journal of International Law, 2, pp. 323–338 doi:10.1017/S2044251312000136. Retrieved Online March 2014 via University of Regina Summon.

Images and Graphs from Outside Sources

Figure 1.0 - http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/29/1385719647553/ef2edc37-5e17-4c49-adca-85c41b0f4b1a-460x447.png

53

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/29/1385719647553/ef2edc37-5e17-4c49-adca-85c41b0f4b1a-460x447.png

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/29/1385719647553/ef2edc37-5e17-4c49-adca-85c41b0f4b1a-460x447.png

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1148580