Jordan has so far weathered the political storm that has engulfed much of the Middle East since late 2010. However, several emerging challenges have the potential to develop into serious threats to the stability of the Hashemite Kingdom. While Jordan's moderate, nonideological, and revolution-adverse political culture is a strong mitigating factor, the risk of domestic instability is greater today than at any time since the country's bloody 1970–71 period. For the United States, systemic political change that is the product of instability—which, for example, would result in the abdication or removal of King Abdullah, a dramatically altered monarchical system, or the demise of the monarchy, replaced by an anti-Western form of government—could lead to Jordanian policies inimical to U.S. interests. Given Jordan's pro-West strategic orientation, commitment to peace with Israel, and cooperation on counterterrorism and security matters, the United States has a strong interest in helping Amman manage potentially destabilizing change. Instability in Jordan is by no means inevitable, and prudent steps taken now can prevent undesirable developments.

The Contingencies

Jordan's King Abdullah faces a combination of rising external and internal challenges. The main external sources of instability are the spillover effects of Syria's civil war, including possible military entanglement in the border zone, the spread of Salafist radicalization, the heavy cost of sustaining a large refugee population, and the potential interference inside Jordan of Islamist movements from other regional countries. Internal sources of instability include rising public anger resulting from economic austerity, insufficient political reform, and perceived government tolerance of corruption, as well as growing confidence in the country's Muslim Brotherhood and burgeoning Salafist movement. While external threats pose significant challenges, the most serious danger to the regime is when these threats catalyze or exacerbate domestic instability. Here, the three most plausible contingencies are the following: a "Tahrir Square"–like uprising in Amman, an Islamist squeeze play against the monarchy, and the defection of the regime's core base of support in the East Bank.

"Tahrir Square" in Amman

Frustration with slow, inadequate political reform snowballs into mass demonstrations that the regime cannot contain without resorting to unprecedented levels of force against a largely unarmed citizenry. Potential triggers include popular outrage at a glacially paced reform process, dissatisfaction with a government filled with corrupt ruling elites, or a particularly egregious public spectacle of royal corruption that goes unpunished. This scenario envisions growing demonstrations driven by a gradual but steady erosion of support for the king and possibly the monarchical system itself. Participants run the gamut of Jordan's activist population (itself a small segment of the overall population): underrepresented Palestinians, long-suffering Islamists, and potentially, East Banker Jordanians with tribal origins who have lost confidence in the king's ability to improve the economy, govern transparently, or deliver patronage at traditional levels. Under pressure not to use force, and sharing many similar grievances, the king's security apparatus breaks down. The result could be the king's acceptance of fundamental political change (e.g., a European-style constitutional monarchy), Abdullah's abdication, or the demise of the monarchy and establishment of a republic.

The likelihood of this scenario is low because the lack of political reform is neither the leading grievance in Jordan nor one that unifies the opposition. Not only is popular discontent focused more on the weak economy and perception of widespread corruption, but political reform highlights deep antagonism between East Bankers and Palestinians. After all, real reform—in the sense of a fairer demographic representation in national voting—would dilute the privileged role of East Bankers, including the status of Jordan's tribal-heavy security services and the political empowerment of Jordanians of Palestinian origin. The absence of political reform alone is unlikely to trigger mass opposition to the regime.

An Islamist Squeeze Play Against the Monarchy

In a moderately likely scenario, after decades of an ambivalent relationship with the regime, Jordan's Islamist movement capitalizes on Islamist successes in Jordan's neighbors to directly challenge the Hashemite monarchy, with the goal of transforming Jordan into an Islamic state. Mass protests break out in Amman, Zarqa, Irbid, and other areas where there are significant concentrations of Palestinians, the primary support base of Jordan's Islamist movement. Clashes with security forces are difficult to suppress without substantial loss of life and attract foreign fighters into Jordan from Syria, Egypt and Iraq, leading to a contest over the survival of the regime.

Islamists' ambitions in Jordan will largely be determined by events outside the country, particularly the extent to which they, and particularly the jihadists among them, assume prominent roles in post-Assad Syria; the potential for Hamas to overtake Fatah as the dominant player in Palestinian politics; and whether Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood leadership, with Qatari financing, looks to Jordan as an avenue for expanding its regional influence. It is unlikely that any one of these developments would trigger an Islamist contingency in Jordan, but two may be enough to convince local Islamists to flex their muscles and three—a "perfect storm"—could trigger an Islamist version of the Nasserist/Ba'athist effort to subvert Jordan in the 1950s and 1960s. If this were to happen, King Abdullah would likely respond by trying to burnish his Islamic credentials, especially the Hashemites' hereditary claim to the Prophet Mohammed. Ultimately, however, he would rely on his security apparatus while stoking fears of Jordan's takeover by Palestinians to secure the support of East Bankers. A concerted effort to undermine the king by Islamists in Cairo, Damascus, and Ramallah working with the local Muslim Brotherhood and more radical Salafists would pose a substantial threat; factors that militate against its success are the ideological divisions and ethnic splits (i.e., Palestinian versus Transjordanian) within the Brotherhood and the fact that Jordan's tribal-based security apparatus is likely up to the challenge, assuming it is confident of the political will of the king and his regime.

The East Bank Core Defects

For decades, analysts have focused on Jordan's large Palestinian population as the most likely source of regime instability. At least since the Jordanian army quashed a Syrian-supported Palestinian rebellion in 1970–71, Jordan's Palestinian population has generally been quiescent. Far more dangerous for the regime would be the development of a critical mass of disaffection among its traditional East Bank supporters—those who live in and near the spine of Transjordanian cities (e.g., Ma'an, Karak, Tafilah) and who supply the manpower for Jordan's armed forces and security services. Recently, such opposition has begun to emerge due to poor economic circumstances, alienation from Amman's nouveau riche, anger at the regime's apparent indifference to tribal grievances, and disgust at what is perceived as royally sanctioned corruption. Given the isolationist streak among many East Bankers, Jordan's deepening involvement in Syria—including reports that it is permitting Israeli drone flights over its territory and welcoming deployments of U.S. troops—could feed protests, too. The tribal-based opposition has coalesced around a political organization called Hirak ("Movement"), which has staged persistent street protests in East Bank cities as well as in the capital.

In this scenario, East Bank disaffection metastasizes into full-blown opposition to the regime as a result of an event that both offends tribal sensibilities and feeds the idea that the regime has broken its covenant with its East Bank supporters. This could include the killing of Hirak members during street protests or their deaths while in detention, fueling a blood feud against the palace that attracts broader tribal support; a "man-made tragedy," such as the collapse of a bridge or tunnel that kills members of an East Bank family, attributed to shoddy construction linked to corruption; or the shuttering of public institutions, such as clinics, schools, or hospitals, that is viewed as unfair and disproportionate belt-tightening affecting poor East Bankers without similar sacrifices from the political leadership and better-off Ammanites. In each of these cases, demonstrations would spread quickly based on public sympathy and elements of the security services—themselves mostly East Bankers—would be supportive.

Of the three scenarios for instability, disaffection among the regime's East Bank core is the most threatening and, since the emergence of the persistent and vocal Hirak in 2011, the most plausible as well. While its numbers are not yet huge, the organization has spread throughout the kingdom, and the regime might not be able to rely for long on East Bank security personnel suppressing East Bankers, whose concerns they may share. So far, the Hirak has no defined and unifying political agenda, but that could quickly change in the context of a wildfire-like spread of riots and demonstrations.

Warning Indicators

Warning signs of a "Tahrir Square"-in-Amman scenario include bold and direct criticism of the monarchy and the state in Jordan's growing online media, the appearance of leaflets and banners calling for national unity to combat a corrupt government, and a rise in the frequency and size of labor protests, university demonstrations, and sit-ins at government offices. This would all presage the emergence of mass protests. Likewise, increased participation by Palestinians—who have generally stayed out of recent demonstrations—might be another portent of instability.

In the Islamist squeeze–play scenario, warning indicators would be less dramatic. One signal would be Islamist regimes or leaders in Egypt and Syria encouraging Jordan's Islamists to take bolder positions or use violent resistance. Increased activity in Jordan by foreign Islamist groups would complicate efforts by the regime to manage the challenge posed by local Islamists. Further growth of Jordan's indigenous Salafist movement, a regional trend already taking place in Jordan, would constitute another warning sign.

For the last and most likely contingency, the East Bank core–defects scenario, warning signs might include increasing frequency, size, and coordination of Hirak protests; greater cooperation between the Hirak and Islamists, possibly to condemn the monarchy for "selling out" to foreign interests; increasingly heavy-handed suppression of the protests; defection to the Hirak by some of the "king's men" (i.e., older East Bankers of formerly unquestioned loyalty to the monarchy), and the explosion of "bread riots" in tribal areas, which attack the king and his family.

It is important not to view these contingencies as discrete possibilities; rather, they have the potential to affect and even trigger one another. For example, a spread of Hirak protests that neutralizes the regime's security apparatus would make Jordan more vulnerable to subversion from radical Islamists, It is critical to keep a watchful eye on the potential contagion effects of any particular set of events.

Implications for U.S. Interests

Radical anti-Western change in Jordan coerced by popular opposition—for example, royal abdication or constitutional reforms compelled by street protests—would almost certainly trigger profound change in Jordan's strategic posture that would harm U.S. interests. The monarchy plays a critical role in maintaining Jordan's pro-West, pro-peace orientation; any coerced diminution of royal prerogative would harm Jordanian-American and Jordanian-Israeli relations. Radical change at home is sure to bring about radical change in Jordan's foreign policy. Potential setbacks for the United States include, but are not limited to, the severance of the Jordan-Israel peace treaty, Jordan's refusal to participate in U.S.-led counterterrorism and regional security efforts, and, by implication, heightened instability in Gulf monarchies, which view Jordan as a critical line of defense. At the same time, the United States has humanitarian and other political interests in Jordan: avoiding major bloodshed brought by popular unrest and furthering stable, if incremental, democratic change in line with its larger regional goals. Given these stakes, preventing radical and/or violent change in Jordan is a high U.S. priority.

Preventive Options

Most analysts emphasize political reform as the best way to insulate Jordan's monarchy from local Islamist and secular challenges alike. This is a mistake. First, as commonly understood in the West, reform is a divisive issue in Jordan; due to the population's demographic divide, its very definition is contested. Second, the most serious potential source of instability, East Bank disaffection, exists apart from reform or the lack thereof. Rather, the two most significant contributing factors to potential East Bank disaffection are perceptions of widespread corruption and insufficient and misallocated government spending.

This is somewhat ironic, of course—many East Bankers are not angry about corruption per se, but rather, that they no longer receive what they consider to be an appropriate and equitable share of government largesse at a time when they see "business as usual" among the well-connected elites in Amman. The most effective way for the government to defuse the potential for a critical mass of disaffection is through a somewhat contradictory mixture of taking some high-profile measures against official—and, perhaps, royal—corruption while spending more money on local needs in crucial East Bank communities, thereby dividing the opposition. Unlike Islamists, a significant portion of East Bank opposition is not ideologically alienated from the regime; placating East Bankers should be a top priority.

To be sure, the task of preventing instability in Jordan lies principally with the king. Nevertheless, Washington could take the following steps now to help avert a crisis.

Provide Additional Financial Support

Since its inception, Jordan has been a debtor state, dependent on foreign donors for critical recurrent and discretionary funding. Lately, however, the kingdom's financial struggles have been exacerbated by the cutoff of cheap natural gas from Egypt and the violence in neighboring Syria. Meanwhile, Amman has embarked on an austerity program, cutting food and energy subsidies—and engendering popular anger—to meet the terms of its International Monetary Fund (IMF) Stand-By Arrangement. To prevent the rise of domestic instability, the kingdom will need more financial backing. The United States has wisely supported Jordan's efforts to access the international bond market by providing the kingdom with loan guarantees. But refugees are flowing over the border in increasing numbers, placing an ever-expanding burden on Jordan's public services and fueling what is likely to be competition with the regime's most loyal supporters for scarce public funds. In this environment, additional support will be needed. Washington could take several steps, including providing Amman with more bilateral aid, organizing "friends of Jordan" to augment their own support to the kingdom, and using its influence to convince Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to fulfill their pledges of financial support.

Support Credible Anticorruption Measures

Corruption has served as a potent rallying cry for the kingdom's disparate opposition groups. It has also proven highly corrosive to the stature of the monarchy, which—notwithstanding the establishment of an Anticorruption Commission in 2006—suffers from the perception that it is insufficiently committed to rooting out high-level corruption. While Jordan ranks among the least corrupt Arab states and the government has pursued some sensitive, high-profile cases, the perception of endemic public corruption prevails. To counter this perception, Washington could encourage the king to intensify his stated commitment to fighting corruption by pursuing high-profile trials, licensing organizations such as Transparency International to open offices in Jordan, and rescinding legislation restricting Internet publications, which have been outspoken in efforts to expose corruption in the kingdom.

Promote Sound Leadership and Adequate Funding for Military and Security Services

Holding government officials accountable is essential in the fight against corruption. However, viewed from a different perspective, Jordan's partners and allies should not take solace in the fact that two recent heads of Jordan's General Intelligence Directorate have been jailed for financial crimes. The public disgrace of these intelligence chiefs almost surely has had a demoralizing effect on the institution on which the king relies for internal security. In this regard, there is little Washington can do other than keep a close watch on disaffection within the security services and encourage the appointment of leaders focused solely on protecting the kingdom.

Washington could also push Amman to take measures that strengthen its armed forces—the other pillar of regime security. Washington could encourage the government to shrink the procurement budget for the air force, which has long enjoyed special attention (and oversized budgets) despite its peripheral role in national security, in favor of the land forces, which provide the men and equipment that are vital in addressing threats facing the kingdom. Particularly during difficult economic times, it is important that Jordan retain traditional levels of funding for military hospitals and schools, a critical social service for poor East Banker families. Jordan should be counseled to not commit the "unforced error" of slighting military infrastructure that is essential for its internal stability.

Enhance Quiet Cooperation on Syria

Syria—both in its current state of civil war and in the post-Assad era—will pose a substantial threat to Jordanian security, one that rivals or even surpasses the heightened operational tempo of al-Qaeda in Jordan following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The spread of radical ideologies from Islamist groups in Syria, an influx of violent jihadis, the threat of cross-border terrorism, and trade in sophisticated weapons will erode Jordan's internal stability. To help Jordan address this range of threats and insulate its internal politics from developments in Syria, the United States could increase its already strong intelligence sharing and cooperation with Jordan. But it should work with Jordan quietly. Whatever additional deterrence is created vis-à-vis Syria by advertising U.S.-Jordanian military and intelligence cooperation, including the deployment of U.S. forces to prepare for contingencies, is offset by inflaming local passions that could ignite if circumstances worsen.

Promote a Natural Gas Deal with Israel

Jordan's economic morass has much to do with energy. While Egypt was long a source of cheap gas, the absence of security in postrevolutionary Egypt made the pipeline to Jordan vulnerable to terrorist attacks, forcing Jordan to find alternative energy suppliers at exorbitant prices. Amman faced an unbudgeted expense of more than $1 billion in 2012, and Egypt will not return as a reliable supplier of cheap gas in the foreseeable future. In the short term, a concessionary arrangement with Iraq and, perhaps, discounted Gulf oil may fill the gap. But Jordan's strategic answer is Israel, soon to emerge as a major gas exporter, which is willing to provide Jordan's needs at concessionary prices well into the future. Anti-Israel sentiment pervades Jordanian public opinion and inhibits Jordan from pursuing a gas deal. The United States could play matchmaker, persuading the palace and the Jordanian people to accept a deal that is manifestly in Jordan's strategic, commercial, and security interests, all while strengthening the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty.

Advocate for Credible, if Modest, Reform

While political reform is not the main source of opposition to the monarchy, modest democratic changes would no doubt be welcome, both for their substantive benefits and for the improved image of the king they would provide. Shortly after the Arab revolts began in early 2011, the king initiated a process that resulted in constitutional reforms approved by 70 percent of Jordanians. While the United States should not endorse the transformational changes advocated by Islamists, Washington should support more moderate reforms, including the revision of media laws to provide for a less repressive press environment and the modification of the electoral law to modestly increase the number of representatives elected from a national list, which would give political parties greater representation in the lower house of parliament.

Engaging with Israel and Saudi Arabia

Two Middle Eastern states have deep interests in Jordan's stability—Israel and Saudi Arabia—and the United States could bolster Jordan by promoting ties with each. For Israel, whose peace with Jordan is a major strategic asset, finding ways to ensure stability in its eastern neighbor is a high priority. Saudi Arabia's interests are more complicated. Despite the Saudi ruling family's checkered relationship with the Hashemites, Jordan is a critical buffer against instability from the north. While Israeli and Saudi interests are not identical, they are complementary, and there is much that Washington can do to deepen political, security, and intelligence coordination vis-à-vis Amman with Jerusalem and Riyadh. Other actors—the United Arab Emirates, major European states, and pro-Western East Asian countries—have a supportive role to play, especially in terms of the provision of economic aid. Their role at a moment of crisis, however, will be minimal.

Mitigating Options

Should Jordan face a rapidly deteriorating situation, the United States should first take actions that ensure the safety of U.S. embassy personnel and American expatriates residing in the kingdom. Beyond that, there are important steps Washington could take on its own and in concert with other states to mitigate dangerous instability in Jordan. They include the following.

Public Messaging of Support

In the event of violence or large demonstrations in Jordan, Washington could privately encourage the palace to continue its longstanding policy of nonviolent crowd control while avoiding public criticism of King Abdullah II and high-profile contacts with opposition figures; both would be taken as signs of wavering U.S. support for the monarchy. Pressing the king to make drastic political changes such as allowing for full or near-full parliamentary representation by national list candidates may appear to mesh with democratic principles but is only likely to benefit Jordan's Islamist movement instead.

Securing Immediate Infusions of Cash

Money cannot ensure stability in Jordan, but it could buy the king time to ride out economic difficulties fueling popular unrest. A large cash infusion provided by Gulf states or Western donors in the midst of a crisis could prove a helpful stopgap measure, enabling the palace to temporarily resume subsidies, provide pay increases to government employees, or take other steps to defuse demonstrations. The king could then resume his program of managed reform once the situation stabilizes.

Warning the Muslim Brotherhood's External Patrons

Washington could consider more assertive measures to prevent outside actors from stoking instability, such as issuing stern warnings to Egypt (where the Muslim Brotherhood is strongest) and Qatar (the Brotherhood's main financier) not to interfere in Jordanian politics. In the event Amman finds itself embroiled in East Bank disaffection, Cairo and Doha could sense an opportunity to expand Islamist influence and contribute to a dangerous escalation by urging Jordanian Islamists into the streets in a tactical alliance with East Bankers. To dissuade them, the United States could communicate the substantial costs that Egypt and Qatar would pay for intruding in Jordan's domestic affairs.

Recommendations

The United States has important interests at stake in Jordan and should take steps now to lower the likelihood of major threats to Jordan's stability emerging in the near future. The most urgent factor contributing to instability in Jordan is financial; the IMF recently reported that Jordan's midterm fiscal situation appears positive, but to get to the "midterm," especially if the regional security situation worsens, Jordan needs help. At the same time, Jordan cannot be insulated from the deepening crisis in Syria but it can be protected from its most negative repercussions. In this regard, the Obama administration should take the following steps.

• Work with Congress to maintain military assistance to Jordan and organize "friends of Jordan" to provide additional financial support to offset the costs of sheltering Syrian refugees. The precise amount of additional support—which may be in the hundreds of millions of dollars—should include needs assessments conducted by the U.S. and Jordanian governments and relevant international institutions as well as a political premium designed to cushion the regime against shocks and prevent the rise of instability resulting from competition for limited public funds. In addition, the Obama administration should encourage Saudi Arabia and other donors to fulfill outstanding aid commitments. Together, these steps should ease Jordan's budget deficit and provide Amman with the means to address the demands of important constituencies.
• Lobby King Abdullah privately to implement more systemic anticorruption efforts while boosting open, transparent investments in East Banker–dominated areas. This message should be a consistent talking point high on the agenda of U.S.-Jordan consultations. The European Union's leadership should reinforce this message and provide technical assistance on anticorruption measures.
• Encourage Amman to prioritize its military expenditures on areas most essential for regime maintenance. Spending should be focused on land forces, intelligence agencies, and military support institutions (e.g., hospitals and schools), rather than air force procurement and other areas peripheral to maintaining stability.
• Urge the Jordanians to continue incremental political reform. This might include loosening media restrictions and increasing the number of national list parliamentarians. Any changes should strike the balance of maintaining forward movement without raising expectations of a rapid political transformation or providing regime opponents with opportunities to advance revolutionary change.
• Counter the spread of radical Islamist ideologies and jihadist terrorism to Jordan. This can be achieved by enhancing the already cooperative U.S.-Jordanian intelligence-sharing relationship, warning outside actors—especially Egypt and Qatar—against efforts to exploit Jordanian vulnerabilities to expand Islamist influence in the country, working to prevent a Hamas takeover in the West Bank, and bolstering Jordan's quiet cooperation with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Tensions have risen to dangerous levels between Japan and China over a small group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, called the Senkaku by the Japanese and the Diaoyu by the Chinese. These islands were once controlled by the United States as part of its post–World War II occupation of Japan and only returned to Japanese administrative control with the reversion of Okinawa in 1971. As Washington prepared to return these islands to Japan, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan contested Japan's sovereignty. Two years earlier, a United Nations (UN) geological survey of the East China Sea revealed the potential of significant hydrocarbon resources. Contending sovereignty claims over the islands thus have both historical and resource-related dimensions.

Until recently, this territorial dispute was little more than a minor irritant in Sino-Japanese relations. However, against the backdrop of China's growing military power, the island dispute has increased concerns in Tokyo about Beijing's regional intentions and the adequacy of Japan's security, while stoking nationalistic politics in both capitals. Political miscalculation in Tokyo or Beijing, or unintended military interactions in and around the disputed islands, could escalate further, leading to an armed clash between Asia's two largest powers. The United States, as a treaty ally of Japan but with vital strategic interests in fostering peaceful relations with China, has a major stake in averting such a clash and resolving the dispute, if possible.

The Contingencies

Sino-Japanese tensions in the East China Sea have been building steadily since 2010, when a Chinese fishing trawler rammed two Japan Coast Guard (JCG) vessels in waters near the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and Japan detained the captain. Although the crisis was eventually defused, the territorial dispute came to a head again in September 2012, when Japanese prime minister Yoshihiko Noda announced his government's decision to purchase three of the five islands. The islands were privately owned, but a new wave of activism, including Chinese attempts to land on the islands and a public campaign by the Tokyo governor to purchase them himself, prompted Noda to attempt to neutralize nationalist pressures. The decision triggered widespread anti-Japanese demonstrations in China, resulting in extensive damage to Japanese companies operating there. Eventually China dampened the popular response, but it has since repeatedly stated its intent to assert its own administrative control over the disputed islands. China's Marine Surveillance agency intensified its patrols of the waters in and around the islands, and China's Bureau of Fisheries patrols followed suit. The JCG in turn increased its patrols and put them on 24/7 alert.

The danger of escalation to armed conflict increased when the two militaries became directly involved. On December 13, 2012, a small Chinese reconnaissance aircraft entered undetected into Japanese airspace above the islands. The JCG alerted Japan's Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF), which scrambled fighter jets based in Naha, Okinawa; however, they were too late to intercept. In January, China sent its reconnaissance aircraft back toward the islands accompanied by fighter jets, but stopped short of entering Japan's airspace, and no direct aerial confrontation occurred. Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) reported that a Chinese frigate locked its firing radar on the Japanese destroyer Yudachi on January 30, 2013. Chinese authorities instigated an investigation into the incident in response to Japan's protest, leading to speculation that Beijing was unaware of the ship captain's actions. Although China's Ministry of Defense later denied that the incident took place, it did acknowledge the danger such an act posed.

Given current circumstances in the East China Sea, three contingencies are conceivable: first, an accidental or unintended incident in and around the disputed islands could trigger a military escalation of the crisis; second, either country could make a serious political miscalculation in an effort to demonstrate sovereign control; and third, either country could attempt to forcibly control the islands.

Accidental/Unintended Military Incident

Although recent incidents have sensitized China and Japan to the risk of accidental and unintended military interactions, the danger will persist while emotions run high and their forces operate in close proximity. In stressful and ambiguous times, when decision-making is compressed by the speed of modern weapons systems, the risk of human error is higher. The 2001 collision between a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and a Chinese fighter jet near Hainan Island is a case in point, as was the intrusion of a Chinese Han submarine in Japanese territorial waters in 2004. So-called rules of engagement (ROEs), intended to guide and control the behavior of local actors, are typically general in scope and leave room for personal interpretation that may lead to actions that escalate a crisis situation. Compounding the risk of unintended escalation between Chinese and Japanese air and naval units is the unpredictable involvement of third parties such as fishermen or civilian activists who may attempt to land on the islands. Their actions could precipitate an armed response by either side.

Political Miscalculation in an Effort to Demonstrate Sovereign Control

Political miscalculation of either country's intent or resolve, as well as miscalculation of the U.S. position, could lead to armed conflict. First, Japan and China are already finding it difficult to read each other's actions. Past Japanese government leasing of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands effectively kept nationalist activists—Japanese as well as Chinese and Taiwanese—at bay. In mid-2012, however, rising nationalist sentiments during leadership transitions inflamed the dispute. This stimulated heated debate in Tokyo over how to consolidate Japanese sovereignty and was a factor in the December 2012 election of conservative prime minister Shinzo Abe, who advocated inhabiting the islands. This escalation in asserting sovereignty claims through the use of patrols, populating the islands, and perhaps even military defense of the territory could lead to heightened tensions between the two countries and whip up nationalist sentiments, potentially limiting the capacity of leaders to peacefully manage the dispute.

Second, China could miscalculate U.S. interests and intentions. Since last year, U.S. policymakers have sought to lessen tensions but have also taken steps to clarify the U.S. role in deterring any coercive action by China. U.S. and Japanese forces have conducted regular exercises to strengthen defense of Japan's southwestern islands and maritime surveillance capabilities. Both former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and former secretary of defense Leon Panetta clearly stated that the United States will defend Japan against any aggression, and on November 29, 2012, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution accompanying the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act to demonstrate congressional support for the Obama administration's commitment to Japan's defense. As tensions escalated late last year, Washington increased its deployments in and around Japan. Early this year, as military interactions raised the potential for conflict, Clinton restated the U.S. position that it would not accept any unilateral attempt to wrest control of the islands. Still, Beijing could miscalculate Washington's commitment to defend Japan and/or seek to test that commitment. Finally, U.S. assurances could lead Tokyo to overestimate Washington's response and to act in a manner that would increase the chance for confrontation. To date, however, Tokyo has tended to err on the side of caution in planning and exercises with U.S. forces, and it is unlikely Japan would act without evidence of U.S. assistance.

Deliberate Action to Forcibly Establish Control Over Islands

Although this seems highly unlikely today, either party could take military action to assert sovereignty over the disputed islands. Rising domestic pressures or an unexpected opportunity for a fait accompli could lead to a decision by either government to establish military control over the territory.

Warning Indicators

Although it seems that neither Tokyo nor Beijing wants to use force to pursue its interests in the territorial dispute, it is possible that either government could choose to do so in the future. Indicators of a strategic decision by either country to escalate tensions include:

• Introduction of Japanese or Chinese military forces on or in the vicinity of the islands to claim or defend sovereignty. Japan and China have kept their militaries distant from the disputed islands; a military presence would intensify the dispute and raise the probability of armed conflict.
• Deliberate use of economic sanctions. China's informal embargo on rare-earth exports to Japan during the 2010 crisis and the setback to Japanese investment in the latter half of 2012 suggest a new role for economic instruments of pressure in this dispute. The imposition of sanctions (i.e., embargos, boycotts, or blockades) to harm economic performance would signal a desire to escalate conflict. Government action to reduce conspicuously economic dependence would be a lesser but equally important indicator of a strategic shift.
• Government-sponsored nationalist activism. Nationalist activism has until now come from a host of social actors, including fishermen, local politicians, and advocacy groups. A deliberate effort by either government to stimulate popular nationalism against the other nation would signal a shift in intentions away from resolving the territorial dispute peacefully. Government calls to mobilize popular support for the defense of the islands, lift regulatory controls over access to the islands, or elect leaders who advocate sustained confrontation over the sovereignty dispute would be indicators of a strategic shift in the conflict.

Short of a deliberate effort to exert physical control over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, several specific indicators raise the likelihood of an inadvertent clash between Japan and China:

• Incident involving the loss of life in the waters off the disputed islands. No lives have been lost over the disputed islands, but should these interactions result in the loss of life, crisis management would be a serious challenge for both governments. China's Bureau of Fisheries and its Marine Surveillance patrols have increased the tempo of operations near the disputed islands. JCG ROEs give ship commanders the authority to respond; the ROEs for Chinese paramilitary agencies are less clear. In addition, fishing boats from Taiwan accompanied by their coast guard have periodically complicated the standoff.
• A protracted airborne standoff between Japanese and Chinese forces in the East China Sea. China's intrusion into Japan's airspace prompted Prime Minister Abe's cabinet to review its air defenses. Heightened Japanese sensitivity over the territorial dispute with China could raise the stakes for Japan's air force if Chinese forces test their readiness in the vicinity of the islands.
• Loss of national command control over local commanders. Local commanders could act independently in ways that are interpreted as presaging hostile intent (such as the Chinese radar lock on Japanese forces), which could trigger a defensive response that escalates the crisis. Local commanders will be hard-pressed to remain calm should interactions increase near the islands, especially if miscalculations continue. Postwar constitutional constraints on Japan's military have produced well-articulated principles and procedures for civilian control over the SDF, with clearly established ROEs and careful central government oversight over local forces. Civil-military command structures in China are less clear and not well described. Moreover, the degree of oversight of local commanders by Beijing is also unknown. Strong central government command over local forces will be absolutely essential to avoid unintended incidents from escalating.

Implications for U.S. Interests

The United States has major interests at stake in the growing tension between Japan and China. Three risks in particular stand out:

• Risk of armed hostilities with China. U.S. forward-deployed forces are deeply integrated with Japan's SDF and assist with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support, as well as exercises designed to enhance Japan's defense capabilities. U.S. forces may be asked to assist Japan's SDF in the case of a broader military conflict, and would likely provide logistical support as well as continued ISR collaboration. Direct armed conflict with China would harm a broad array of vital U.S. economic, political, and strategic interests.
• Risk to U.S.-Japan alliance. The U.S. response to a Japan-China conflict would determine the future of the U.S.-Japan alliance, as well as other alliances in the Asia Pacific. Tokyo remains concerned that Washington might not fulfill its treaty obligations if Beijing escalates the conflict, and U.S. government statements of its intentions notwithstanding, domestic perceptions in Japan of U.S. hesitancy in the case of Chinese coercion will shape Japan's future security choices. Japan's postwar policy of military self-restraint and reliance on the United States for strategic protection, including its continued abnegation of nuclear weapons, would likely come to an end if the United States chose not to defend Japan against Chinese aggression.
• Risk to regional stability. China's dispute with the Philippines over the Scarborough Reef in the South China Sea has set a particularly dangerous precedent. Many leaders in the Asia-Pacific region are beginning to see China's maritime behavior as unpredictable and will be watching to see if Washington ultimately resists or accommodates Chinese military pressure on its periphery. The Japanese case will be decisive not only for Japan's future choices but for many other allies and friends in the region adjusting to the rise of China.

Preventive Options

The United States has considerable interest in doing all that it can to prevent armed conflict between Japan and China. The policies for preventing such a conflict include the following steps.

Deter and Dissuade Unilateral Actions to Contest Japan's Administrative Control of the Islands

Washington can regularly and consistently communicate its interest in, and position on, the island dispute to avoid ambiguity in the U.S. security commitment to Japan. Privately, Washington could also communicate to both capitals the need to avoid statements and assertions that would incite popular sentiments on the dispute and encourage peaceful dispute resolution.

To deter potential Chinese assertiveness, the United States can consult closely with Japan on its response to Chinese activities near the disputed islands, and can ensure seamless U.S.-Japan defense cooperation. To counter any impulse toward Japanese assertiveness, Washington and Tokyo should confirm the conditions under which U.S. defense assistance would be rendered. Japan's leaders remain committed to limiting their use of military force to defensive missions. Should that change, U.S. policymakers should revisit the terms of defense assistance.

U.S. forces can also assist Japanese agencies in a maritime emergency, should an incident involving the Japanese and Chinese militaries occur. For example, Washington can urge Tokyo to update communications and exercises between the JCG and MSDF, providing assistance if needed. To date, there has been little need for Japan to integrate its civilian maritime policing with its defense operations. As Chinese maritime forces in the East China Sea expand and the distinction between civil and military maritime forces becomes less clear, Japan can develop its planning and capabilities for sharing maritime missions. A special JCG task force at the eleventh regional headquarters in Okinawa has responsibility for the Senkaku/Diaoyu area, and a U.S. liaison team could be assigned there as well as onboard JCG vessels. Data links and other communications upgrades could be added, along with real-time exercises between the JCG and MSDF, which could include consultations with relevant U.S. forces.

Risk-Reduction Measures for the East China Sea

Crisis management protocols are needed for Chinese and Japanese maritime and aerial forces in the East China Sea. The United States can encourage a bilateral agreement between Japan and China along the lines of the U.S.-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement. In May 2012, the first Japan-China High-Level Consultation on Maritime Affairs was held in Hangzhou, China, and in June, Tokyo and Beijing concluded an agreement to establish crisis communications, including a hotline. Japan and China can be encouraged to restart this initiative and push forward with consultations on a search-and-rescue agreement. A multilateral code of conduct in the East China Sea, modeled on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) code of conduct in the South China Sea, could also be considered. This would require participation by South Korea, in addition to Japan and China, and could be pursued in trilateral China-South Korea-Japan talks or in a new forum with Chinese, Japanese, South Korean, and U.S. participation.

Military interactions between Japanese and Chinese forces can also be more predictable if regular bilateral military-to-military consultations are held. Recent tensions with China have increased worries in Tokyo about China's long-term intentions. To ease these heightened concerns, the United States could encourage Beijing to be more transparent about its maritime strategy and strategic goals.

Diplomatic Efforts to Manage (or Resolve) the Territorial Dispute

Preventing armed conflict between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute ultimately depends on Beijing and Tokyo finding a mutually acceptable framework for managing their differences. An active diplomatic effort to embed the island dispute in a stronger and more constructive Japan-China relationship will be needed and could be encouraged by Washington.

Several options exist for managing the dispute. The first, and most preferable, is a bilateral diplomatic effort. Since 1978, both governments have sought to control their citizens from seeking access to the islands. The Japanese government's decision to preempt activist purchase of the islands does not preclude a return to the status quo ante.

Second, Washington could encourage Beijing and Tokyo to explore new collaborative formulas for managing their island dispute. Developing proposals for transforming the islands into a nature preserve or some other entity that would restrict human access could also offer a way to demilitarize the dispute. However, this approach seems unlikely to attract attention in either Beijing or Tokyo at the moment.

Third, if the dispute cannot be managed peacefully through bilateral negotiations, Japan and China could be encouraged to seek international adjudication. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) could be asked to open a hearing. Beijing, having challenged Japan's sovereignty claim in 1971, should initiate the ICJ adjudication process. Washington should not expect Tokyo to take the first step, but should encourage Tokyo to respond if Beijing were to submit the dispute for international mediation.

Finally, Japan and China could be encouraged to develop cooperation in the management of their East China Sea maritime boundary. The East China Sea is 360 nautical miles wide, falling short of the 400 nautical miles that would be required to enforce the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which defined 200-mile exclusive economic zones. While Japan argues for the establishment of a median line halfway between the two coastlines, China argues for an exclusive economic zone based on its extended continental shelf. This contested maritime boundary exacerbates the unpredictability of interactions between Japanese and Chinese forces across the East China Sea. Japan and China should be urged to implement their 2008 joint development agreement for exploring hydrocarbon resources in the East China Sea to build trust and cooperation in maritime management.

Mitigating Options

Should a military conflict erupt between China and Japan, the United States can react in several ways to contain and minimize the threat to its interests. The U.S. response would depend on the scale of the armed clash. Options for U.S. policymakers include:

• Urge Tokyo to stand down. Withholding U.S. military support could change Japan's strategic calculus in the context of a conflict. This option would create a severe backlash against the United States in Japan and fatally undermine the bilateral alliance. Appeasing Beijing would also embolden China to use force against other U.S. allies in the region.
• Contain any inadvertent incident involving the use of force. In the event of an incident between Japanese and Chinese forces, Washington could immediately use all means at its disposal to communicate to both Tokyo and Beijing its interest in preventing an armed clash from escalating. The U.S. military could offer search-and-rescue assistance for any vessel and crew involved in an armed clash. Communications with Beijing may prove difficult, but all means, including the hotline and crisis communication mechanisms outlined in the U.S.-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement, could be used to encourage a stand-down of forces. Real-time communication between Japan's chief of joint staff and the commander of U.S. Forces–Japan will make local military coordination with Tokyo easier, but immediate attention should be given to communication between the U.S. president and the Japanese prime minister on how to control the situation.
• Plan for southwestern island contingency in U.S.-Japan defense cooperation. Washington and Tokyo could continue regular exercises and planning to deter, and, if necessary, defend Japan against an armed attack. Japan may ask the United States to assist should China unilaterally opt to take military action to occupy the disputed islands. The scale and timing of that assistance will depend on the scale of attack. If the conflict were to expand beyond the disputed islands to become an all-out military clash between Japan and China, the United States should be prepared for integrated defense operations ranging from maritime and air defenses to ballistic missile defense as requested by Japan.
• Call for an emergency session of the UN Security Council. This option would engage the UN in the effort to de-escalate the crisis, although China's seat on the Security Council could limit the effectiveness of UN action. Nonetheless, the UN could facilitate a ceasefire and a negotiated end to hostilities.
• Impose economic sanctions on Beijing. Washington could impose sanctions on financial transactions, the movement of goods and services, and travel between China and the United States. However, China can retaliate in kind by barring U.S. exports, curtailing or ending purchases of U.S. treasuries, and limiting investment flows.
• Threaten China with a U.S. military response to any use of force against Japan. Washington could adopt a strategy of escalating any use of force to gain control over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands into a U.S.-Japan coordinated response designed to repel Chinese forces and establish Japanese military control over the disputed islands. This could severely damage the United States' relations with China.

Recommendations

The United States should pursue three policy goals: promote de-escalation of the dispute, initiate crisis management consultations with Japan, and intensify efforts to create multilateral maritime risk reduction mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific region. More specifically:

• The United States should consistently and clearly reiterate its treaty obligation to assist in Japan's defense if China uses force to resolve the dispute over the islands. Until the risk of miscalculations subsides between Japan and China, the United States should continue to make clear its long-standing position that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are covered by the U.S.-Japan security treaty.
• The United States should continue to encourage China and Japan to seek peaceful resolution of the dispute and remind Beijing that the unilateral actions of other powers will not change U.S. recognition of Japan's administrative control over the islands. Secretary Clinton's January 18, 2013, statement, reiterated by Secretary John Kerry on April 15 in Tokyo, offered a valuable clarification of the U.S. position. Washington should condemn harshly the use of force to settle this dispute.
• The United States should urge Japan and China to avoid any steps that might escalate tensions in and around the disputed islands. Washington should encourage Tokyo to continue to avoid populating the islands or deploying military forces to defend its control so long as there are no efforts by Beijing to seize control of the islands. The United States should encourage China to restart High-Level Consultations on Maritime Affairs with Japan and to implement their agreement to establish crisis management communications.
• The United States should continue to advocate for transparency between maritime forces in the East China Sea and the development of mechanisms for confidence building. As China's maritime power grows, greater comfort with the procedures and prohibitions on interactions with military and nonmilitary vessels, including aircraft, across this increasingly crowded sea will be required. Opportunities for Chinese participation must be expanded in existing regional maritime cooperation, such as the annual Rim of the Pacific exercises, regular regional fisheries exercises, and coast guard exercises dedicated to search-and-rescue operations and humanitarian assistance. The United States should also encourage the countries of Northeast Asia to develop Incidents at Sea agreements.
• Should China initiate the use of force against Japan, the United States should be fully prepared to provide military assistance to Japan. The United States should maintain the requisite capability and readiness to fulfill its commitment to assist in defending Japan.
• The United States and Japan should develop clear alliance crisis management procedures for an incident or armed clash in and around the disputed islands. Washington and Tokyo should design plans to manage a military clash between Japanese and Chinese militaries, including how to control escalation and communicate effectively with Beijing. Past U.S. and Japanese incidents with Chinese forces should be closely examined as the basis of an alliance response. Containing escalation should be the highest priority for alliance crisis management.
• The United States and Japan should continue to improve defense consultations and exercises designed to enhance Japan's southwestern defenses. The island dispute exacerbates an increasing trend of interaction between Chinese and Japanese forces in Japan's southwest. As Chinese naval strength grows, these interactions are likely to increase, raising concern that Chinese military presence in and around Japan could impinge on the United States' ability to assist in Japan's defense. Washington and Tokyo should improve ISR and amphibious landing cooperation and strengthen Japan's air defenses.
• The United States should strongly encourage China to expand consultations with its maritime neighbors on its evolving strategy. China's rise is creating deep uncertainty about its longer-term intentions regarding the use of its military power. Washington should continue regular regional security consultations in the ASEAN Regional Forum and encourage annual meetings of regional defense ministers. Open sea lanes, including antipiracy operations, are the lifelines of Asia's growing economy, and the United States should continue to advocate freedom of navigation.
• Finally, the United States should ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in order to become a more forceful actor in global deliberations over maritime rights and sovereignty dispute resolution. In both the East and South China Seas, China's neighbors are seeking the adjudication of maritime disputes in UNCLOS. The United States cannot shape the maritime debate in the Asia Pacific or defend its own maritime interests if it is not a full participant in international maritime deliberations.