Why do East Asian countries fight over miniscule bits of land?

[Beet]

Japan, Korea, China, ASEAN... it seems that they ruin relations with one another over some tiny rocks out in the middle of nowhere. What's the point? The borders of the region are largely defined... whether one controls some barren rocks settled by (literally) a couple of fisherman, is really important? It seems sometimes that East Asia is a repressed version of 19th century Europe. Regional politics is dominated by short-sighted nationalism and 'grievances' when instead the EU/North American models of greater regional integration and cooperation would make a lot more sense.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is certainly not an exclusively Asian phenomenon...

[Beet]

This is certainly not an exclusively Asian phenomenon...

It has a disproportionate weight on international relations / international news when it comes to East Asia.

[Insula Dei]

Maybe I'm just being fanciful, but wouldn't the most obvious explanation be that there just is no clearly established balance of power in the region? This, in addition to a) the region's history b) the huge 'ideological' gaps between the states on the coasts of the Chinese Sea and c) the vicarious presence of an external superpower in the form of SEATO etc., seems like a recipe ideal to get all involved to continuously try to 'score points' and/or try the other's resistance to provocation. 

[The Ex-Factor]

The EU model of regional integration/unity is an outlier in world history. And I would argue that land disputes are a more important factor in other regions of the world, such as Sudan, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Falkland Islands, Kashmir, and of course Israel/Palestine. Considering that none of the Liancourt Rocks or the Spratlys/Paracels have compelled a major conflict as of yet, I'd say the East Asian territorial disputes are largely paltry in comparison.

[Bacon King]

It's economics. Whatever country controls the contested tiny rock in the ocean also gets several hundred square miles of ocean around the tiny rock added to their national EEZ, and gets exclusive rights to all the oil, fishing, etc.   

[MaxQue]

Japan, Korea, China, ASEAN... it seems that they ruin relations with one another over some tiny rocks out in the middle of nowhere. What's the point? The borders of the region are largely defined... whether one controls some barren rocks settled by (literally) a couple of fisherman, is really important? It seems sometimes that East Asia is a repressed version of 19th century Europe. Regional politics is dominated by short-sighted nationalism and 'grievances' when instead the EU/North American models of greater regional integration and cooperation would make a lot more sense.

Let's not talk about the fight for the control of the Northwest Passage between US, Canada, Russia and Denmark.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Don't they have oil?

[Sbane]

It's economics. Whatever country controls the contested tiny rock in the ocean also gets several hundred square miles of ocean around the tiny rock added to their national EEZ, and gets exclusive rights to all the oil, fishing, etc.   

This. Especially in the case of the islands it makes perfect sense for the countries to duel each other for it since the rewards are plenty.

In the case of other land disputes there are other factors at play. I think we all understand Israel/Palestine but I will briefly touch on Kashmir. First of all the Kashmir valley is a very beautiful place with much potential for tourism. And not just tourists from India or Pakistan but from around the world. Many westerners did go to Kashmir till the late 1980's when the terrorists started kidnapping them and holding them for ransom. But this only a small reason. Kashmir is the battleground for the animosity that exists between India and Pakistan since partition. Kashmir is a symbol basically and both sides want victory not just to gain the resources of Kashmir, but also for national pride. And since Pakistan is not capable of defeating India in a war, they send thousands of terrorists in there to blow sh**t up in the hope this will lead to them gaining Kashmir...somehow. The Kashmiri people, who originally just wanted to be their own little country, are caught in the middle of this mess.

[2952-0-0]

The Chinese government likes to talk but is afraid of any of its people from taking action.It's more than willing to censor and block its people from pulling stunts like the recent landing on the islands.

But it can't prevent Hong Kongers from organizing such trips, and doubly doesn't like Hong Kongers who are political dissidents and professional protesters from pulling such stunts. As a result, today there are spontaneous anti-Japanese demonstrations in cities all across China. The Hong Kong activists were very shrewd, for now they've found a way to incite the Chinese people to spontaneously go to the streets and protest.

The Chinese government is now afraid, since they can't suppress anti-Japanese protests and can't let itself become accused of being too soft.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The PRC does a lot of bad things, and they do like to intimidate other countries, but they certainly show more restraint than say the US. For example, they haven't bothered to do that much about the Kinmen islands in the last half century.

[Foucaulf]

Three ways of explaining this:

-Economic reasons. Japan has the most to benefit from an expanded EEZ (fishers) and all the economies could use the natural resources. But I don't believe that is the primary reason for the disputes today. Any government taking unilateral action on taking an island is going to see their trade prospects shot, which reverses the benefits. On the other hand, nations are building infrastructure on islands they securely hold to exploit the area.

-Military reasons. This drives the South Sea dispute more than any others, since the countries want as much distance between land and foreign navies. But such worries wouldn't take place if not for...

-Political reasons, which I subscribe to as the main cause. The truth is in all the East Asian countries - whose politics, regardless of appearance, are all oligarchical and rife with factional struggles - there are groups who benefit from continuing the dispute/stonewalling. Meanwhile, central governments have to appease the nationalism to maintain the coalition which guarantees them authority.

Certainly East Asian politics is not dominated by regionalism or by any mass movement. The problem is the borders are not defined at all - the transformation of the area the nation-state system is very recent.

[opebo]

Don't they have oil?

South China Sea may have a lot of oil and gas.

So usually the reasons are economic, they can also be strategic, and often they also have some element of domestic politics/nationalism.

For example the 'row' between Thailand and Cambodia over a small area containing a famous temple on the border was based on 1) Thai domestic politics - the Thaksinite side is friendlier to Cambodia and China, and when there was a yellow (conservative) government, they were quite hostile to Cambodia, perhaps precisely because they had sheltered Thaksin and supported him.  2) There is a significant conflict or issue between Cambodia and Thailand in the Gulf of Thailand, and there is oil and gas there, so some say that the temple issue is just an effort by either side to gain a 'bargaining chip'.

[The Mikado]

Some of those rocks, especially the Spratlys and Paracels, are surrounded by rich oil fields, but that doesn't really explain the rocks Japan, Korea, and China feud over up north.

As everyone else has pointed out, the value isn't so much the rocks themselves as suddenly having the waters around that rock become national, giving you exclusive fishing rights etc., allowing you to constrict your rivals' shipping routes...

And, of course, Foucaulf is right that the islands are a great cause for all parties involved to shift domestic unrest to protesting about those evil Chinese/Koreans/Vietnamese/Japanese/Malaysians/insert country here sitting on our land.