national

3 Chinese ships seen in disputed waters

30 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

China would not act first? Entering the 12 mile zone is definitely an act that will stir up trouble Mr. Defense Minister!

Of course, that is what I was supposed to say. That is why that is in the article.

What I am not supposed to say is that I wish Japan would just give those islands up. But Japan is not about to admit it took the islands as part of the Sino-Japanese war, just like it is constantly denying all the misdeeds of Imperial Japan.

Of course, Japan does not have to give them to the PRC though. Japan can give them to Taiwan, and not only end the dispute, but further cement ties with Taiwan. In case you did not know, Taiwan also claims the islands. I probably was not supposed to say that either. Waffles the anti-China narrative don't you know.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Yeah , PRC has said if that Taiwan got ownership over the diayu islands, PRC will accept it

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

What I am not supposed to say is that I wish Japan would just give those islands up.

lol, good morning mr PRC!

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I am Mr. PRC for suggesting to give the islands back to ROC? It must be morning where you are, because you don't seem to have fully awoken yet Chenchan!

-3 ( +3 / -7 )

Some day all these people are going to realize that we all live on this beautiful blue planet, surrounded by the vastness of space, and that we should try to get along.

3 ( +6 / -2 )

Last night I was in a chinese restaurant. They were watching a CCCTV and they were talking about territorial waters. That was pure propaganda from their point of view. Just told the chinese that was watching that his government uses that to control the population and pump nationalism but they didnt really care about those Islabds. He told me that Daiyou is chinese and will ever be. That ended the conversation.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@ overchan - getting involved in political disagreements with people preparing food may not be the smartest move...

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Tell me when someone decide to land on those rocks and take a piss. Otherwise, this isn't news.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Isn't' it a strategic gateway into the Pacific for the Chinese navy?

More importantly is the the redrawing nations boundaries. Globally speaking what nations will accept that? At what date in history is it limited to? since WW2 and a few years after that the many or the worlds nations had changed territorial wise. Shall we redraw those lines? Should we reach further back in time?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Give back the islands to ROC,(Taiwan), and then let it resolve the problem with the PROC, (Mainland China).

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Coming soon, burning of Japanese flags and riots in cities.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Castle Doctrine

No. Those islands are not Chinese, and never were. There was never a Chinese presence on them, as opposed to around 200 Japanese from 1895-1945. China's claim originated in the late 1960s (they didn't protest the US occupation, and listed them as Japanese territory on maps produced after the war), when a UN survey intimated that there might be oil under the islands. Giving up Japanese territory in face of aggressiveness from China sets a bad precedent.

They are 100% Japanese.

@MarkG

Not really...they are hemmed in by the southern part of Okinawa prefecture. That said, I have seen Chinese propaganda that shows the most South-western islands of Okinawa as part of the Senkaku group.

This is also just the first push of Chinese assertiveness which is why Japan should not show weakness now. If Japan does show weakness in this dispute, the PRC could drive for Okinawa, next. Not so crazy since state media has released an article saying that China will "support Okinawan independence."

0 ( +5 / -5 )

China certainly does need its reins pulled in. Sad to say that maybe a escalation needs to be put into play from Japan. It need not be lethal just controlled and definitive followed by a threat that Japan will not tolerate any further provocation or consider any negotiations on Japanese territories.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan should stop screwing around and build a Coast Guard base there. Or maybe an oil drilling platform. Force China's hand, make them put up or shut up. There is no way in the world that China wants this to turn into a military confrontation.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan would give up these islands as soon as China gives up claiming almost all of the South China Sea.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@MGigante

No. Those islands are not Chinese, and never were. There was never a Chinese presence on them, as opposed to around 200 Japanese from 1895-1945.

No. 1900 to 1940. But a physical presence is not required to claim ownership. If it were a country could go into the Sahara desert and start claiming swaths of Libya and Egypt. Plus I highly doubt that if the Chinese managed to occupy those islands today with 205 Chinese for 45 years then left, that you would use your own doctrine and say they are Chinese. Besides, they are not inhabited now, so by your own doctrine, nobody owns them. The Spratly Islands are largely uninhabited. I doubt you would say that no claims are valid. I cannot see how you are even being honest with yourself, within your own principals.

During WWI, the Japanese built a weather station on the now uninhabited Maug Islands. America took them during WWII. Are those islands Japanese and not American then?

The truth is that the Senkaku islands were first given Chinese names (like Diaoyu) and those names were recognized by the Japanese and the Okinawans. The Chinese used the islands as navigational markers when sailing to Okinawa. When the Japanese occupied Taiwan the Japanese themselves administered them as part of Taiwan, not Okinawa.

(they didn't protest the US occupation,

Of course the ROC didn't! The U.S. and U.N. refused to have diplomatic relations with them until 1971! And that is the same year they made their claim! If you want to say that it was just about oil, that charge should be leveled against Taiwan. They made a claim only months before ROC despite having diplomatic relations for years! But I know! Mustn't criticize our ally Taiwan! Just like we have to take the side of our ally Japan!

All I want is an honest accounting. Its a shame we have to deal with this penny ante political garbage.

Giving up Japanese territory in face of aggressiveness from China sets a bad precedent.

What part of "give the islands to Taiwan" confuses everyone? You are the second person to overlook that point I made. Further, there was plenty of time to give up the islands before the Chinese got aggressive. So complaining about aggression now is just a red herring.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So, I see China is prodding Japan once again. They showcased their laughable aircraft carrier to Chuck Hagel, and now they're flexing their flimsy muscles again. I smell an Oedipus Complex here. Seems like China is looking up to Mother Russia as it eyeballs the Senkaku's, crying "Are you watching mother? I'm doing it all for you. Be proud of me mother." Pssh! Just try it China. See what happens to your Oedipus Complex when your naval fleet is rusting on the sea floor. The Senkaku Islands are Japan's. End of Story. You want to debate that: ICJ. They'll settle your petty squabble. By which I mean they'll examine Japan's authenticated evidence of sovereignty, weigh it up against a sloppily drawn "Ming Dynasty" map that shows the "Daioyu" Islands with the annotation "China woz 'ere" and a "Made in Taiwan" sticker on the back, and then laugh China's claim out of the court as they rule once and for all that Japan has sovereignty.

Or China can carry on being the petulant child, harrassing Japan, initiating in endless slander and libel, trying desperately to provoke Japan into firing the first shots. That'll inevitably fail, China will fire the first shots, and Japan, US, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Phillipines, East Turkminestan and several other countries will put the smack down on China. Either way, the big red cockroach is getting put down.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Castle Doctrine

If it were a country could go into the Sahara desert and start claiming swaths of Libya and Egypt.>

Pretty much exactly how China thinks it can operate, thank you for elucidating that point.

Its not my own principles, its international law and international recognition of sovereignty something Japan understood far better than China at the end of the 19th century (when establishing sovereignty over territory was important). This hasn't changed.

Because of this, should China makes an incursion onto Japan's islands, and set up a military base...well, that's illegal. We call it "invasion."

It is the ability to protect, develop and use of land that establishes sovereignty. China and Taiwan have cannot claim to have ever done this throughout any time in history. Maps from centuries ago, and a dubious claim that fisherman used them for navigation do not support a right to sovereignty from the perspective of 21st century international law. A better example than the Sahara, in this case, would be Spain's claims to North America. There are plenty of Spanish maps claiming the entirety of North America as its inherent territory from the 17th century. Of course, they never actually administered all that land, but according to you that is enough to make a claim.

Good thing sovereignty doesn't work like that.

Finally, physical presence does not matter at this point because they are currently being administered, and have been administered for around 70 years, by Japan. This means: coast guard patrols, leasing the islands to the US in the post-war period, leasing the islands from Japanese private owners, just recently nationalizing the islands and ultimately the Okinawa revision treaty which solidified international recognition of Japanese administration. China cannot claim any of that.

I won't even get into China's claims to the South China Sea. The 9-dash line was a fabrication of the Nationalist China in the early 20th century. Anything China claims beyond Hainan are not valid for the PRC. The rest are hold-overs from the colonial era that can be settled through the international court of justice.

Of course the ROC didn't! The U.S. and U.N. refused to have diplomatic relations with them until 1971!>

I'm going to assume that ROC here is PRC.

However, not once in their own literature did they claim the Senkaku islands as their own territory until months after the discovery of oil. Newspapers and maps created after WWII showed these islands as Japanese territory. Strange that they'd be so accepting of the status quo...almost as if they actually accepted Japanese sovereignty over these islands.

Speaking of the ROC, if these were "integral" parts of China and Taiwan, why didn't the ROC protest while it was on the UN security council for 2 decades? Why didn't the US give them to the ROC AFTER WWII when they gave back Taiwan? Its because they didn't even want them until they discovered they sat on top of strategic resources. Sovereignty doesn't work like that either.

What part of "give the islands to Taiwan" confuses everyone? You are the second person to overlook that point I made. Further, there was plenty of time to give up the islands before the Chinese got aggressive. So complaining about aggression now is just a red herring.>

I didn't ignore it, it is just not a solution. Because Taiwan is not able to police the islands the islands will revert to PRC control, effectively. Worse, Japan just pissed off the PRC by interfering with "internal matters" by signing a treaty which respects Taiwan's sovereignty as a nation. It won't drive the two nations to war, but it will FURTHER strain relations.

Besides, Japan has not need to hand over Japanese territory to anyone.

China has no right to be aggressive in its claim assertions because they have no legitimate claim to these islands. So, simply saying "Japan started it" doesn't fly, because a nation has the right to do whatever it wants with its sovereign territory.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@MGigante

Pretty much exactly how China thinks it can operate, thank you for elucidating that point.

You don't seem to realize that that is what Japan did in the first place. You want to say that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, so no, thank you for proving that you are just plain against China, all for Japan, or both.

Its not my own principles, its international law

No its not. Occupation is a point that counts in one's favor, and no absolute guarantee of recognized sovereignty. Justice does not, will not operate that way. Nor does justice allow one group to make some rules unilaterally, another group to take advantage of those rules, and thereby deny a third party their rightful historical property. The same things was done to the Native Americans, but it was not justice then either. All this applies to your discussion of administration and coast guard patrols etc. Those are all rules and justifications invented by people who were not Chinese and at a point in time far outside Chinese historical ownership. Its a bunch of ex-post facto vomit.

And yes I see that you are passing up your chance to clarify your stance on when occupation is legit and when it is not.

And invasion is always illegal until it gets legitimized. Japan has done that too.

It is the ability to protect, develop and use of land that establishes sovereignty. China and Taiwan have cannot claim to have ever done this throughout any time in history.

And right there you just legitimized invasion. You just gave China a reason to actually invade and see if they can develop the land that Japan has not, and see if Japan can or cannot protect it.

A better example than the Sahara, in this case, would be Spain's claims to North America.

Not remotely. You cannot compare currently occupied land with land that is unoccupied. So no, I would not say Spain has a claim. That is why I brought up Maug island and the Sahara. If you properly address Maug island in it will most likely destroy your position. Not for me and not for Japan, but for yourself, you should think on that one.

I won't even get into China's claims to the South China Sea.

So why did you? Let me guess. You see a chance to gain the upper hand by attacking China's reputation, the sort of penny ante political garbage I lamented in my earlier post.

I'm going to assume that ROC here is PRC.

Thank you. Yes, my mistake. The PRC could lodge no protest as it was denied diplomatic relations. Its like my ISP provider expecting an e-mail even though they themselves cut off my internet!

Anyway, yes, clearly the ROC was reacting to the gas and oil discoveries. Its more dubious with the PRC. But its neither here nor there. If you took raided my house and took a bunch of things including a cardboard box , and later found a gold coin inside the box, I might not have complained specifically about the box at first , but I want the box and the coin back now. Only if I said clearly to you at some point, okay, you can have the box, I concede, its not yours.

I didn't ignore it, it is just not a solution. Because Taiwan is not able to police the islands the islands will revert to PRC control, effectively.

Taiwan is currently policing Tungyin Tao and other minor islands in the East China Sea and very close to PRC. The Diaoyu islands are behind those islands and much further away from the PRC. Taiwan could police them with ease.

Besides, Japan has not need to hand over Japanese territory to anyone.

Nobody ever does in the present. Its always the future that will determine such a need. There may come a day when people will look back and believe that if only Japan had given the islands to Taiwan, it would not have come this.

For many reasons the ICJ may rule in Japan's favor. But I think the very political garbage I complain about will be included in such a decision and not raw truth and justice. I hate the idea that land can be stolen by process of war, but that is exactly what Japan did in 1895. The ICJ may well legitimize that if given the chance. But that would be the final straw for China I think. Already we can see that force has been legitimized by "our"side, so now, China is employing it. Its just that nobody on "our" side will admit they legitimized force. That would mean giving up territory.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan should stop claiming China's Diaoyu Islands. America passed the so called administrative right of China's Diaoyu Islands to japan 40 years ago, but what made America thought that America had the right to handle China's islands when Diaoyu Islands have never been part of the US territories.

If America thinks that America does not have to respect the fact and history because America has a powerful military, someday in the future, when America's military capability becomes weaker and weaker (for sure it will happen), this illegal transaction between the usa and japan over China's Diaoyu Islands will no longer be valid.

Go ahead, the Chinese Government, the 1.4 billion Chinese people and descendants all over the world support you to get the Diaoyu Islands back for China...

0 ( +3 / -2 )

Japan should stop claiming China's Diaoyu Islands

They're not China's. China has no legitimate claim on the islands. Up until the discovery of oil in the area, China couldn't give a damn about the Senkaku's. China made no objections to the Senkaku's being placed under Japan's administration. China did not raise the issue when it signed a treaty with Japan in the 60's, nor when it reaffirmed the treaty later on. But, the oil is discovered, and suddenly China is claiming the islands. If you can't see this, then you're being blinded by the CPC's propaganda. Japan can substantiate its claim of sovereignty as far back as 1895. China cannot. They claim that they can, but if that were the case, they'd take the matter up with ICJ. The fact that they don't just shows that China knows they don't have a leg to stand on. The Sekaku Islands are Japan's, and Japan will continue to defend its territory as it always has.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

China has no legitimate claim on the islands. Up until the discovery of oil in the area, China couldn't give a damn about the Senkaku's.

That doesn't mean that they don't have a legitimate claim, just that the reasons for exercising that (potentially) legitimate claim are suspect.

I agree it should be taken to the ICJ.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

My understanding is that China has already submitted evidence to the ICJ, so would seem to be willing to go. Its Japan that does not want to go to the ICJ. Japan says there is no dispute so no need for the ICJ. This might be an explanation for why the Chinese keep sending ships to the islands; to get Japan to admit that there really is a dispute.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You don't seem to realize that that is what Japan did in the first place. You want to say that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, so no, thank you for proving that you are just plain against China, all for Japan, or both.>

Prove to me that China ever established sovereignty over the islands (without the use of maps from a period when the borders of China were dubious and the son-of-heaven claimed dominion over the world) and that they were not terra nullius. Also, prove to me that China complained that the islands were "stolen" before 1968.

Occupation is a point that counts in one's favor, and no absolute guarantee of recognized sovereignty.>

Occupation over terra nullius, and international acceptance is ALL that matters. Japan has both to shore up its claims. One example of international recognition is the Okinawa Revision Treaty of 1971.

And yes I see that you are passing up your chance to clarify your stance on when occupation is legit and when it is not. And invasion is always illegal until it gets legitimized. Japan has done that too.>

As far as I can tell, the burden of proof is on YOU to try and prove that these islands were ever Chinese to be invaded in the first place and not terra nullius as the Japanese studies from 1885 concluded. Where was the complaint from China when Japan was conducting surveys on the islands for ten years before the First Sino-Japanese war?

Oh right, there was none.

And right there you just legitimized invasion. You just gave China a reason to actually invade and see if they can develop the land that Japan has not, and see if Japan can or cannot protect it.>

The difference you don't seem to grasp is that when Japan took over the Senkaku islands in 1895, China could not claim to have ever owned them from the perspective of international law/recognition. Therefore it was not an invasion.

Besides, even when China (both of them) started to play by the rules they weren't demanding their return, or that Japan "stole" them. Hell, the international community (including both China's) has accepted Japan's rights over the islands for over a century.

That is why I brought up Maug island and the Sahara. If you properly address Maug island in it will most likely destroy your position.>

Except that the Saharan nations' borders are internationally recognized and legally defined. The Senkaku Islands were not recognized nor legally defined as China's in the 19th century by anyone. Further, China made no attempts to exert sovereignty/protest over the Japanese occupation of the Senkakus after they took over following 1895.

As far as Maug island is concerned, under the San Francisco treaty, Japan relinquished sovereignty over itself and all claim to overseas possessions besides the main islands of Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu and "such minor islands as we (meaning the signatories) determine."

The Senkaku Islands were reverted along with Okinawa in 1971 (which were administered as part of Okinawa from 1951) following the Okinawa reversion treaty. So, no. Maug Island does not "destroy" my position, the US took ownership and was under no obligation to return it following the war.

So why did you?>

Because you brought up the Spratly's.

Thank you. Yes, my mistake. The PRC could lodge no protest as it was denied diplomatic relations. Its like my ISP provider expecting an e-mail even though they themselves cut off my internet!>

'Kay. Then why did the PRC show the Senkaku Islands as part of Japanese territory on their twice published world atlas' after WWII? Why did their state newspapers refer to the Senkaku Islands, in the few articles written that mentioned them, by their Japanese name?

But its neither here nor there.>

Yes, it is. The Japanese displayed their acquisition to the world after 1895, and made it clear that these were NOT part of the treaty of Shimonoseki which ceded Taiwan and the Penghus. This wasn't a secret to the international community, or China and if Japan did steal them it was China's fault for remaining silent.

Of course, the real reason China remained quiet for around a century was that they couldn't claim ownership because they couldn't produce have the evidence to support it, and they were completely fine with Japan's sovereignty claims.

Taiwan is currently policing Tungyin Tao and other minor islands in the East China Sea and very close to PRC. The Diaoyu islands are behind those islands and much further away from the PRC. Taiwan could police them with ease.>

Tungyin Tao and the Penghu's are not as politically charged as the Senkakus. There would be a PRC response that Taiwan would not be able to handle, absolutely.

Also, you shouldn't ignore the effects of Japan signing a treaty with Taiwan on PRC-ROC and PRC-Japanese relations. There is a very good chance that this "coup" could make things far worse for all involved.

There may come a day when people will look back and believe that if only Japan had given the islands to Taiwan, it would not have come this.>

If China starts a war, the CPC may as well kiss itself goodbye. There is no way the PLAN is any sort of match for the combined US and MSDF, and it won't be for another half a century, if it ever gets that powerful.

I hate the idea that land can be stolen by process of war.>

I feel the same, but the Senkaku Islands were not taken during the First Sino-Japanese War. They are not included in the treaty of Shimonoseki. Japan took 10 years establishing island's status as terra nullius. China didn't complain during the surveys, nor did they complain for another 70 years.

My understanding is that China has already submitted evidence to the ICJ>

The PRC regularly rejects the ICJ as a means of settling disputes, and has not submitted evidence regarding the Senkaku Islands. Whether they mentioned their willingness or not is irrelevant, they'll never go because they don't want other states in the South China sea doing the same.

Also, why should Japan agree to arbitration its case when there is nothing in it for them? Just look at what's going on with the Philippines. China is kicking and screaming that they are being "trouble-makers;" an ICJ ruling in Japan's favor will NOT stop China asserting its claims.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

According to the Chinese, they were sailing through their own sea space, what's the problem?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

According to the Chinese, they were sailing through their own sea space, what's the problem?

The problem is that according to international law, it's not theirs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Chinese military can sell it as an internal matter, granting them full authority. The average Chinese citizen could care less about military expansion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China said, just defending his country's claim ? Well' china has a BOGUS claim in the first place and china cannot and should not make east and south china sea to be china's backyard lake.. China's aggressive stance as an '' open and brazen breach of it's treaty obligation under the UN charter and the UNCLOS.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My understanding is that China has already submitted evidence to the ICJ, so would seem to be willing to go.

No it hasn't. China doesn't recognise the authority of the ICJ, and as such has never taken the case up with them. Hence the dispute. Only the claimants can present the case. Japan is the defendant. They want to take it up with ICJ but can't. If China were to recognise the authority of the ICJ and take up the case with them, this matter would have been settled back in 2012 at the latest. Since China won't take the matter to ICJ, Japan is saying that there is no dispute. As far as either side is concerned, there isn't a dispute really. If a change was made allowing defendants to take cases to ICJ, then Japan would do so in a heartbeat and settle the matter, thereby ending the headache that is China's constant provocations. Or so I'd like to believe. Somehow I doubt China would stop just because ICJ says so.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The way China is aggressively claiming disputed territorials atm... We probably blowing it up in ww3.... Sad think about these silly nationalistic awakening in the 21st century ?... We should be working toward a policy of One-planet & One-people...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites