There are four serious island disputes in East Asia: from north to south, the Southern Kurile dispute (Russia vs. Japan), the Liancourt dispute (two Koreas vs. Japan), the Pinnacle dispute (Japan vs. two Chinas) and the Paracel-Spratly dispute (two Chinas vs. Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei). All of these territorial disputes involve a perception of historical injustice by one of the parties. Japan's territorial claim against Russia is closely linked to the rancor over the Siberian Deportation (1945-56); Korea's territorial claim against Japan reflects the rancor over Japan's colonization (1910-45); Chinese territorial claims against Japan are rooted in the response to Japan's major invasion of mainland China going back to the Manchurian Incident (1931-45); and Vietnamese passion for the territorial claim against China is linked to the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979-89), among other things.

In this talk, the speaker will argue that the four territorial disputes over relatively unimportant islands in East Asia have persisted for such a long time not because of the contest for natural resources or the inherent importance of those territories but because of perceived historical injustice. If these disputes are to be settled now, the solutions therefore have to be political, taking perceived justice and injustice in consideration

Tetsuya Toyoda, has been teaching international law and constitutional law at Akita International University since 2007. Before that he was a project researcher at the University of Tokyo (2006-2007) and an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1994-2000). He graduated from the University of Tokyo (Faculty of Law) and obtained his Diplôme d’Etudes Approfondies from the University of Paris II-Panthéon-Assas. He is also a Visiting Professor at the Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia. 

In his annual testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in March 2006, then - Pacific Commander Admiral William Fallon characterized Southeast Asia as "in the front line of the War on Terrorism." While some in the region welcomed this indication of official American interest, many would have wished to be singled out for more positive reasons. Yet, for many Americans, it took an event as dramatic as the Bali bombings of October 2002 to realize that there were more Malay-speaking Muslims in Southeast Asia than Arabic-speaking ones in the Middle East. Using the little-known sultanate of Brunei as a point of departure, Ambassador Christy will analyze how political Islam in the Malay Muslim world has changed, and how one American diplomat went about shaping US policies to respond to these changes.

Ambassador Gene Christy is a career foreign service officer. At the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI, he teaches in the National Security Decision-Making Department, including courses on Asian security perspectives and on Southeast Asia. In Washington D.C. he worked in the State Department on island Southeast Asia issues (2001-02 and 1985-89) and as director for Asia at the National Security Council (2000-01). His diplomatic posts in Southeast Asia prior to serving as ambassador to Brunei included Kuala Lumpur in the 1990s, Jakarta in the 1980s, and Surabaya in the 1970s.

This is the Southeast Asia Forum's eighth seminar of the 2006-2007 academic year.