Do You Know Japan Is Having Territorial Disputes With China South Korea And Russia

Why does China have a territorial dispute with almost all of its neighbours? Will it not hamper China's economical progress if it involves itself in unnecessary conflicts?

Because China doesn’t have a territorial dispute with “almost all” of its neighbors. This is a blantant lie.Let’s count.No dispute, ie. settled:North KoreaRussiaMongoliaKazakhstanTajikistanKyrgyzstanAfganistanPakistanMyamarNepalLaosSouth Korea (Sea)Cambodia (Sea)Singapore (Sea)No land dispute:VietnamDispute:IndiaBhutan (Controlled by India)Japan (sea)South China Sea Islands:Vienam, Philipines, Malaysia, BruneiDoes this look like “almost all” to you?And what’s more, at the founding of the PRC in 1949, China had disputes with all of these countries, because pre-modern countries didn’t have the habit of clearly defining border. But through the years, all of the land disputes had been settled through peaceful negotiations.This is no easy accomplishment, if you consider the US-Canada border, the US- Mexico border, the British-French border, the French-Spanish border, the Spanish-Portugal border, the French-German border, the French-Belgium border, the Netherlands-German border, the German-Danmark border, the German-Poland border, the Poland-Russia border, the German-Austrian border, the Austrian-Italian border etc and how they came to be.Currently, China has disputes only at three places, namely with Japan at the Diaoyu Islands, the islands in the South China Sea, and with India(along with Bhutan).Speaking of Japan, most people doesn’t realize that Japan not only has disputes with most of its neigbors, it has disputes with all of its neighbors, Russia, North and South Korea and China(including Taiwan). And I don’t see people asking this same question about Japan.As for the Islands in the South China sea, I’m not here to argue who should own what, just to remind two facts. One, it’s not a “China has disputes with everyone else” scenario, instead it’s a “everyone has disputes with everyone else” scenario. Two, with China’s overwelming military advantage against everyone else in the area, the fact that there is still an ongoing dispute, and China didn’t just drive everyone out proves China’s willingness for peace.

Why is China having so many territorial disputes?

China, since  days of yore, has mostly been looking inwards. Successively the Tartars, Mongols and others have captured the throne. In the 18th century, China was a playground for European powers with the Japanese occupation  of Manchuria being the last huge inbound occupation.Post communist territorial issuesTibetVietnamLaosJapanPhilippinesTaiwanIndiaFormer Soviet Union (the 'stans e.g. Tajikistan)PakistanWhyChina has historically been insulated, connected to the world through the Silk Road, exchanging trade and commerce for pillage and war.Modern communist china, has demonstrated its ability to transform a poor nation into a global economic powerhouse. The reality is that China has the highest number of borders she shares with foreign countries - 14. And when countries share a border, disputes inevitably arise, which can be settled through diplomacy or war.In littoral matters, China's exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles overlaps several countries own exclusive economic zones of 200 nm. The United Nations Convention has established a mechanism for resolving these kind of disputes but China refuses to acknowledge the claims of its smaller neighbours. It must also be remembered that the same international agreement has defined sovereign territory as being 12 nautical miles off the coast of a country. The country has absolute power over all vessels entering the sovereign territory, the rest of the oceans being declared international waters.With its huge facility in Subic, Philippines the US Seventh Fleet performed a strategic role in the South China sea and the Pacific. With the dismantling of the base by Filipino nationalists, a power vacuum has been created, which China has responded by building humongous aircraft carriers and upgrading its fleet, making it the most feared fleet in these waters. This pretty much allows China to rule the waves.In summary, China's disputes are escalating and will continue as it seeks a more influential role in global affairs. As Napoleon once said - China is a sleeping giant. We must all concur that China is now an arising dragon, that could soon belch fire to have its way.

Why is Japan being soft on Russia for the Kuril Islands dispute, whereas Japan is being tough on China for the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute?

Because Japanese claim on Kuril Islands is legally very weak and Russian has defacto control on the Kuril Islands, while Japan’s claim on Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu) is legally quite strong and it exercise defacto control backed by US security guarantees.Japan relinquished its claim on Kuril island under San Francisco Treaty, but claim that 4 islands does not fall into the category of Kuril islands. This claim is bogus because, in Treaty of Saint Petersburg (1875), which Japan signed, the original French clearly state these four islands as part of Kuril islands.On Senkaku/Diaoyu, any China’s “historical” claim has no actual legal force. Sure, it is likely that some Chinese fisherman 1000 or 2000 years ago might have dropped in and may have taken the first ever human dump in that island. That has no relevance to territorial claim, if China can’t show evidence of (1) continuous occupation by Chinese nationals (2) or continuous demonstration of territorial claim, such as sending surveying ship for regular interval. Qing government did none of that. Its claim if it ever existed was long forfeit before Meiji Japan which read up on International (read Western) law over territorial claim embarked on island grabbing to establishing its territorial claims under international (read western) law.Now, there is a separate issue about “moral” claim, which is entirely another matter. But in general, any territorial claim in sea by China is weak, due to Qing being completely oblivious about such matter. This is why current Chinese government keep bringing up “historical” claim.Also, Japan and USA have geopolitical (realpolitik) interest in making sure that China doesn’t establish defacto, if not de jure, territorial control in the Sea lane. From Japanese viewpoint, we have no objection for China establishing new silk road, as it does not interface with Japanese interest.

Does Russia support North Korea or South Korea?

Russia, like the People’s Republic of Korea, counts on the DPRK to act as a geopolitical buffer against the U.S. military interest. They do not like the idea of a Korean unification in which the ROK becomes the successor state (i.e., DPRK being absorbed into ROK) and as a result, the U.S. military presence right on the Yalu River and the Tumen River.This is the primary reason why both PRC and Russia help prop up the Kim dynasty.At the same time, however, both countries see financial benefits in dealing with ROK. Hence South Korea is an important trade partner for both China and Russia.Pragmatically, they support the status quo for this reason. If the Kim regime were to collapse, they would be likely to push for a divided Korea with the north being administered by China or Russia, or both.

Why does Japan have water/islands disputes with all its neighbouring countries?

The last time I checked Japan shares maritime boundaries with 6/7 countries.The United States and the Philippines don't have any territorial disputes with Japan. So it's not 100% of all it's neighbouring countries.The Japanese territories after WW2 were determined by the Allies (read : the U.S.) in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.[1] Both the Senkaku & Takeshima Islands were not specifically mentioned in the treaty, that's why there are disputes today. While the Northern territories were mentioned specifically in the treaty, but Japan and Russia have different interpretations about what islands belong to the Kurile Islands.If I remembered correctly, Takeshima was mentioned in the draft of the treaty as territory belongs to Korea, but later it was removed by the U.S. from the draft (why did they do this? Idk), so the islands were not mentioned as Korean territory in the final draft. It made Syngman Rhee quite pissed off and then he ordered the military to seize control of the islands from Japan.And also in 1950′s, Japan almost solved their territorial dispute with Russia, they were ready to give up half of their claims, but then the U.S. intervened by blocking the move and threatening Japan if Japan abandoned its claims, then Okinawa would not be returned to Japan.I'm not really familiar with the Senkaku islands, but I'm 99.99% sure the U.S. played its “role” there as Okinawa was under American control from 1945 until 1972.So to answer this question you need to ask the U.S. government.Footnotes[1] https://treaties.un.org/doc/publ...