national

6 Chinese ships spotted near disputed isles

125 Comments
By Harumi Ozawa

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

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


125 Comments
Login to comment

"Leave at once" "...no you leave once." ..."but I was here first." One word describes this: petty.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

I don't like where this is going....

19 ( +22 / -3 )

These are act's of war, in the sovereign territorial water's of Japan. China are your ready to wake the sleeping dragon? USA will stand by Japan. Don't get fooled by your growing economy. You lack Naval superiorty. "Stand Fast" and give way. Just my thought's...

-5 ( +12 / -17 )

Gunboat diplomacy?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

"Under international law, territorial waters extend up to 12 nautical miles from the coast of a landmass."

How funny that the Japanese are quoting this ruling when it comes to the Chinese entering "their" waters, I seem to remember an incident early this year whereby as JCG manned vessel entered another nations territorial water (to within a couple of miles of the coast) and when this other nations government complained and demanded the Japanese vessel leave these demands where ignored. Typical do as l say not as l do approach from the Japanese. So in this case l say go for it China stay as long as possible. Karma oh its good aint it....

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Gunboat diplomacy?

It has worked in the past, right?

Japan needs to act like it is trespass on their land, otherwise China will say: You didn't defend it, so it is ours. China is positioning itself to make the same claim, we defended it, so it is ours.

I smell a shooting war starting up over a rock. A more peaceful resolution would be to put the question to a maritime or international court.

I am surprised that the vessels from both sides are just "governmental" ships and not actual Navy fighting vessels.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Time to send in the Maritime SDF, if they do not leave than take action.

I say light them up with the attack radars and watch them run! If not harpoon them!

-5 ( +16 / -21 )

Nothing like trading blood for dirt! Give me liberty, or give me death. I love Japan. I loath China. Let's get it on!

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Idiots, both sides, Japan or China both really cant afford to go to war...well China could but at heavy cost...

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Provocative perhaps, hardly "an act of war".

3 ( +4 / -1 )

YuriOtaniSep. 14, 2012 - 11:14AM JST

I say light them up with the attack radars and watch them run! If not harpoon them!

I was waiting for it and.............................................

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

So in this case l say go for it China stay as long as possible. Karma oh its good aint it....

This will give the US the excuse it needs to deploy the V-22 Ospreys. Good going China.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

China might win a skirmish, maybe even a short war over these islands, but will lose a lot more in regional and international prestige.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I like the situation very much. Wait to see the provocation.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

USA will stand by Japan.

No they won't. They've already said they're staying out of this - the same time they told Japan and China to grow up and act like adults.

1 ( +16 / -15 )

The Ospreys are of little help. The SDF has helicopters and carriers to support them. This is only the beginning, the Red Chinese will not stop with this action.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Provocative perhaps, hardly "an act of war".

If Chinese ships were patrolling the Northeastern Coast of the US would you think so? Oh...well, how about the West Coast?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

No they won't. They've already said they're staying out of this - the same time they told Japan and China to grow up and act like adults.

WRONG. You are not an American political representative. Actually, as reported by Reuters: "U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell cautioned China and Japan on Tuesday against escalating the dispute, saying the stakes "could not be bigger" and tension could have global repercussions."

If America was staying out, they would issue no such statement. It clearly shows that America has invested interest. What will actually transpire is simply a guess.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

In the embedded picture about the timeline, there is one line omitted (or shold be included).

1968 - The United Nations declared and announced that just like SOuth China Sea, the East China Sea, specialling the surrounding water of the Senkaku islands has VAST MINERAL DEPOSITS like OIL and LNG.

1968-Dec to 1969 --> Chinese Politburo get mad to take this island by hook or by crook. (Because they knew from the very beginning that under international law, the argument of ANCIENT RIGHTS is INVALID).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

They've already said they're staying out of this

Well, not really. They said they take no position on sovereignty. They haven't said they would stay out of it, and have given some hints that they might get into it.. Remember that the US administered these islands for quite some time, and then turned the administration over to Japan, so they're sort of in it one way or another.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

3 ( +4 / -1 )

ohayo:

" Leave at once" "...no you leave once." ..."but I was here first." One word describes this: petty. "

Yes it is petty, but there is is a lot of money involved, in the form of ressource ownership determined by sea boarders, plus a lot of face-saving for an emerging superpower.

Wars have started over smaller things.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

US might take over the darn islands and declare em as a base.. probably best outcome actually

5 ( +8 / -3 )

FarmboySep. 14, 2012 - 12:05PM JST

Here's a link about the US Senkaku points

It's an opinion rather than a link to actual US stance and since the woman got caught out by the reporter - go see the video - the US has tried to backtrack.

I really don't know which world you're living in, but war weary US is not going to sacrifice its sons and daughters to protect Japan's 4.5 million EEZ grab of the Pacific ocean.

China has the about the same number of kms of coastline as Japan, yet has 1/10th of an EEZ as Japan. Most of what Japan considers as 'Japan Proper', outside of the 4 main islands is a legacy of Japan's imperial past. The US is hardly likely to defend that with its own lives,

The japanese are living in some unreal world where they dictate the international narrative. I wish the US would make their stance clear, so that we can stop all this territorial nonsense, on the Japanese side at least.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

What is the official (i.e. not according to either Japanese or Chinese propaganda) status of these islands, anyway? If they are Japanese territory, as Japan claims, then why the need to buy them? You don't need to buy your own territory.

Sorry if this is a childish question, but so far I was unable to find any third party information about this, and as others might have noticed, it is impossible to get non-contradictory information about this from Japanese sources.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The U.N. and .ICJ must find the way to resolve this issue. Japan should demand in the general assembly for China to comply with ICJ mandate. If China still disagree, Japan must be strong and seek international support to protect the islands. Just wondering if China would return Tibet to Tibetans according to the ancient map? China behaving wildly in 21th. century as expected. Communist China is copying part of Darwin's theory survival of the fittest.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Paulinusa, I don't think that's necessarily true in this case. Japan is seen as the "bad guy" in this conflict, mainly due to the reputation of Ishihara who took this issue and ran with it.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Im gonna laugh if there is war and america doesnt help japan. Reminds me of small brother acting tough cuz of big brother, but when big brother not there, he gonna hide like a wimp. Reality check, Japan is NO match to china's army. Japan will be crushed. Sorry folks just spitting the truth.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

You don't need to buy your own territory.

governments across the globe buy land from private citizens all the time...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The Chinese ships entered the area and left when the J coast guard told them to do so. Apparently there was no time for "law enforcement" activities. Now that the islands were purchased by the J government it would not be surprising if they decided to install a small JIETAI patrol unit on the islands, imitating the Koreans. In any case any kind of naval confrontation could easily escalate and get out of control. Loosing face is unacceptable to both. What will the US do? Personally I believe that if there is any dangerous escalation, the US Navy will make its presence felt in the area. Get ready for big US Naval exercises around Okinawa very soon. On the other hand such dangerous games between Japan and China work well for the US who find good excuses to justify the presence of US bases in Japan and particularly on Okinawa after the Futenma mess. So as long the situation is not escalating dangerously the US will stand by and watch. If the boys start playing rough, the US will asume the role of the referee.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It's an opinion rather than a link to actual US stance

Dog,

The official stance is that they take no position on sovereignty, and that they hem and haw about whether they would get involved. I think, as I said, that they might, but I have no reason to be certain about this. The following is from the State Department, so I would guess it's about as official as we can get.

http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/08/20120830135324.html#axzz26PcHpPW5

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Provocation begets provocation. All this increase in tensions because Ishihara decided he wanted to nationalize the islands. All of these politicians on both sides are morons, and any time Japan pushes, China will just push back harder. I predict we'll see some kind of skirmish in the next few days, but hopefully it doesn't develop beyond that.

Despite YuriOtani begging for war with 'the Red Chinese', no one really wants a full out war because we'd all lose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PS: You have to skim down to the appropriate section, or do a search for Senkakus.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

USA will never use lives to defend the rock,,,,but hey,,,,20-40 drones can make great fireworks!!

7 ( +9 / -2 )

HansnFranz:

" What is the official (i.e. not according to either Japanese or Chinese propaganda) status of these islands, anyway? If they are Japanese territory, as Japan claims, then why the need to buy them? You don't need to buy your own territory. " You are mixing issues. They are owned by a Japanese family (not even the Chinese dispute that, to my knowledge). The question is, does this family own a piece of land in Japan, or in China. (Not all land that the government has jurisdiction over is actually owned by the government.) The Chinese government, by the way, has also approached the Japanese family to buy the islands from them. I think offered 35 million USD, but where turned down.

Hope that makes it clearer.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I agree America should not get involved.

After all, Japan is the same country that attacked us in WWII. They killed indiscriminately.

Japan has had enough time to heal up since WWII so it should be an interesting fight. I'm betting on the Red Corner.

-18 ( +6 / -24 )

FarmboySep. 14, 2012 - 12:53PM JST

Dog, The following is from the State Department, so I would guess it's about as official as we can get.

it's actually a transcript of the interview that the Australian article you posted and the video that I mentioned. It is not the US' actual stance on the issue; as the US was quite quick to point out, soon after the interview.

Like I said I wish the US WOULD announce it's official stance and shut up these Japanese blow hards within Japan and on this site.

This issue is quite easily resolved by all 3 countries renouncing sovereignty and one them being a custodian of them, with no territorial rights of EEZ.

Of course Japan would never agree because for the last few years what we are seeing is Japan's pacific grab of as much of the sea as possible.

When will enough of sea be enough? Well 4.5 million kms of it is not enough for iJapan's dream of resource auturky. The narrative is sounding rather spookily like the Japanese narrative of the 1930s, which followed the 1929 economic crash

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Piedestroika:

" Now that the islands were purchased by the J government it would not be surprising if they decided to install a small JIETAI patrol unit on the islands "

They should. As Korea has demonstrated in the Takeshiam/Dokto dispute, boots on the ground matter. And as Korea also demonstrated, you can then ignore the other party`s call to take the issue to the ICJ...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan should exercise its right over these islands. Don't back down! China will grab and squat on those islands the moment the Japanese Coast Guard ships leave. They did that to the Philippines in one of their islands just recently.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Dog:

" Of course Japan would never agree because for the last few years what we are seeing is Japan's pacific grab of as much of the sea as possible. "

....and China is not?? Ask the Philippines and Vietnam about that. They have their own problems with China`s new imperial policy.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

WilliBSep. 14, 2012 - 01:01PM JST

You are mixing issues. They are owned by a Japanese family (not even the Chinese dispute that,

Yes they do under the classic property principle of ultra vires ( a knight cannot annoint a king ). In layman's terms I cannot sell my neighbours property, without his consent, and any contract between me and the buyer is void, with both of us suffering any penalties that may arise and the property returning to my neighbour, without my neighbour suffering any penalty.

There are countless cases of this example in contract law in nearly every country and it is one of the first examples used in contract law classes at uni.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Crystalyle

I agree America should not get involved.

but America cant afford chinese vessels and submarines appear on the pacific ocean, doesnt it?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

lock some rockets and the radar on them, and count to three through the speakers. No action on China side ?- fire then lose the lock, in order to deliberately miss. Still no action? fire at will...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@codomo

If you have to ask that question then you don't really know what we've done. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. After 50 years we've never left Japan. Call it anything you want, treaty this, proclamation that.

So much has changed. I've seen Japan do so much wrong to other human beings. The Left Behind Parents, the illegal marriages, the fraud and lies to it's own citizens.

Not this time. IF war breaks out, remember your politicians started it.

Then you will look up to God and say "Save Us". NO!

We will pray for you, but we don't have to save you. Not over this.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

More Chinese argession, if they are not careful the Chinese Paper Tiger will be exposed and the Mongols will take over once again.

Chinese Military may have tons of troops but they do not have tons of ships and ships can be lost in seconds.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

WilliBSep. 14, 2012 - 01:10PM JST

and China is not??

We now are venturing down the road of supposition.

What I am saying is that, if Japan wanted to resolve this issus on amiciable terms, then it should suggest it.

It won't because the frightening part is the japanese mind think is that these islands are Japan. Not the territorial mind think of those British who think the Falkland are British, but not Britain itself,

The Japanese mind think is that these islands are on a territorial par with Manhattan or the Grand Canyon. This psychological point the Americans, as of yet, have failed to grasp. When they do, they'll drop any pretence to supporting Japan, like a lead balloon.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

CrystalyleSep. 14, 2012 - 01:05PM JST

I agree America should not get involved. After all, Japan is the same country that attacked us in WWII. They killed indiscriminately. Japan has had enough time to heal up since WWII so it should be an interesting fight. I'm betting on the Red Corner.

The moment China becomes the argessor that paper tiger will be cooked.

Your ships are going to last about 7 seconds.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I agree America should not get involved. After all, Japan is the same country that attacked us in WWII. They killed indiscriminately. Japan has had enough time to heal up since WWII so it should be an interesting fight. I'm betting on the Red Corner.

Exactly. This is why I think the US should have never have helped the British during WWI or WWII. The English invaded the US twice, indiscriminately killed many American civilians, and even burnt down the White House and most of Washington D.C. The British had plenty time since 1812 to heal up and so they should've been able to give Germany an interesting fight without the help of the US.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

In my view the dispute over the islands from the Japanese side started with a group of politicians that believe that the US is hesitant or even unwilling to defend Japan and therefore lobby for an "independent" (at least military) Japan with its own strong Armed Forces. The Chinese threat is played accordingly and the Senkaku issue is a challenge towards the US government. If the US does nothing to support Japan, these politicians will gain traction.

From the Chinese side the dispute works well in the overall Communist government military spending spree frame. Creating enemies and inflating situations is exactly what another communist country does, the N. Korean government, to justify its authority and the misfortunes (famine) to the population. The powerful Chinese military needs enemies to justify its growth, with the politicians running behind for whatever under-the-table scraps. The underlying message to the pliable population is: "Do not protest for destruction of the Chinese countryside, the corrupt officials, the unemployment and all the other huge social problems. Let's all Chinese get together against the "evil Japanese"."

The economies of both countries are too co-dependent for their governments to risk any kind of conflict. The obtuse nationalists who frequent these boards do not realize that any attack on Japanese interests in China means less investment, less jobs and more merchandise produced in China without a market to be sold to. All these would certainly bring the Chinese economy to its knees in no time. Similar for Japan who would lose one of its biggest and most important markets.

My 2 yen.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Crystalyle

perhaps you misunderstand something why US keeps their military base around japan is not to defend japanese citizen, the US just wants to use the chain of islands as if a huge unsank vessel to prevent spreading communism. the US doesnt care what japan has done, US only care of what is the best way for their benefit, didnt know that?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Has admiral Ishihara who started all this reported for duty to sail and defend Senkaku yet?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Once again you guys are still thinking inside this little box. You think the ROE is followed here in Asia when Japan doesn't even the UNHCR?

FYI, ROE = Rules of Engagement.

There will be no safety zone or limited area where they fight. They'll hit you where it hurts the most. Tokyo. Ishihara lives there right?

When it comes to war, you have to think outside the box. Next time you are at Odaiba take a good look at Tokyo. Then imagine it blown away with every living being charred to dust.

This is what these Japanese politicians like Ishihara want for dinner. Their appetite for war and Nationalism will result in bloodshed.

Hey if you guys are on a beach somewhere outside of Japan just put that in your signature. NIJ = Not in Japan. Then I won't attack back at you cause I know you're just trolling.

If you live here it's a totally different reality.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

CrystalyleSep. 14, 2012 - 01:05PM JST I agree America should not get involved. After all, Japan is the same country that attacked us in WWII. They killed indiscriminately. Japan has had enough time to heal up since WWII so it should be an interesting fight. I'm betting on the Red Corner.

Well, I believe most Americans do not think like you. Anyway, I remind you that his country killed indiscriminately too thousands of innocent Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and 100,000 people in tokyo with incendiary bombs in one day. Then consider,what the Japanese did to the united states like a slap in the hand

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

HanzandFranz: I was wondering the same thing. I asked my husband the other day what the whole issue is with buying the islands from private land owners. It seems stupid if they are already owned by Japanese people to buy them because either way they seems to be Japanese islands. He informed me that the government most likely bought the islands so that they can develop them the way they want. With the abunance of natural resources, I guess that may be mining and such. However, I still think it is strange to buy them if other countries don't recognize the sale as legit.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Time to deploy the American Force in Okinawa...they have been waiting for some action for last 50 years!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

issa1 There is a saying that leaves no room for apathy.

"If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem".

Those so called innocent could have stormed the government building and removed those idiot politicians or Imperial family. Instead they drank sake whenever they heard news of a Japanese victory even if it was propaganda.

Again, you sit there at your computer blogging here when you should be in Shinjuku protesting against your government in order to save innocent lives. Let this issue go. You don't need this.

You can't go all the way with this. You'd have to take over China. After you start this war even if it's just a conflict, there won't a be a single Japanese company that can do business in China.

King Phyrrhic if you'd like to learn from other's mistakes.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

We need a modern day Yamamoto to put the Chinese in their prace

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Crystalyle Sep. 14, 2012 - 02:04PM You can't go all the way with this. You'd have to take over China. After you start this war even if it's just a conflict, there won't a be a single Japanese company that can do business in China.

I pray for this cause,every day

In that arm wrestling,the japan has less to lose than you think!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

What sort of ships are they? Are they coast guard? Fishing? Navy? They are armed?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

China would sometimes have to keep sending patrol boats to Senkaku isles after Japan legally bought these isles, otherwise one billion people of China would criticize their government extremely and there would be a possible hazard that many riots happening all over overturn their government. That's they are very worrying about. I don't think China would start war by such a dispute. The Chinese government don't want war with Japan but the military top leader might want to start it. It depends on the government can control/suppress the huge military or not.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

kwatt

totally agree with you. i really hope that the chinese government will take back control before any japanese residing is killed. if it happen, the situation will be rapidly worse.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Maybe I read world news to much, but it just seems to me that people are getting way to agro and need to cool down and concentrate on family and making money and stuff.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The U.S. is not about to get into a war with China. The budget is gutted because of two unfunded wars. The first has lasted a decade and the other (against the country that didn't attack us) is only winding down now. Things are going south in northern Africa. The American public has no stomach for a confrontation with a country that can fight back.

There are also bad feelings left over from the Okinawa base debacle, and the constant changing of the guard in Tokyo. There's a sense that no one is in charge in Tokyo.

Washington is also well-aware that this heating of tensions was caused by a crazy old man who shouldn't be driving around town, let alone being allowed to be governor of the world's biggest city. At least our crazy old men have arguments with empty chairs, we don't let them have the keys to major metropolises.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sakuraia:

" He informed me that the government most likely bought the islands so that they can develop them the way they want. "

No. The Japanese government bought them to prevent Tokyo under tle leadership of Ishihara buying them. Ishihara would be a loose canon, and the government clearly wants to avoid that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

it's actually a transcript of the interview that the Australian article you posted and the video that I mentioned. It is not the US' actual stance on the issue; as the US was quite quick to point out, soon after the interview

Dog,

I don't know what video you are talking about, but would like to see it, if you have a link. The transcript is from a State Department briefing, not an interview " from an unnamed source" that the Australian article mentions. Maybe you're talking about this one?

< http://shanghaiist.com/2012/08/30/victoria_nuland_we_dont_take_a_posi.php>

This is a State Department spokesperson. Again, the US doesn't take a position on sovereignty, but does feel/might feel/sort of feels it is covered by the defense treaty with Japan. Actually, she is more clear than the guy in the link above, and she might have backed off on her clarity. I don't think the policy has changed. They just don't want to inflame the situation, so they aren't talking about it in depth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S. is not about to get into a war with China. The budget is gutted because of two unfunded wars. The first has lasted a decade and the other (against the country that didn't attack us) is only winding down now. Things are going south in northern Africa. The American public has no stomach for a confrontation with a country that can fight back.

Which two wars? The War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq (the Second Gulf War)? The US wasn't attacked by military forces of either of these countries.

The US also wasn't attacked by Iraq in '90, it wasn't attacked by Panama in '89, Grenada in '83 or North Vietnam back in the 60s. Also, Spain in 1898, the Indian tribes post-Civil War, as well as Mexico back in 1846. Not being attacked first has not stopped the US from trying to exert its military might in various parts of the world before.

The Chinese would be a formidable adversary but don't kid yourself in not believing that there are some in the US (possibly those with lots of power) who are just waiting for an excuse to fire up the war drums and use all of the toys at their disposal. Unfortunately, war can be big business for some where lots of money can be made. All you need is a reason (legitimate or make believe) to get a good portion of the public riled up and ready to rumble.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I don't think the US wants to get into a war with China. Still, they might just park a big battleship in an area near the Senkakus and just sit there, hoping someone has a suggestion that doesn't involve fighting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sneaky old Ishihara is probably having sweet and wet dreams about the possibility of war between his un-favorite nations - US and China.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No. The Japanese government bought them to prevent Tokyo under tle leadership of Ishihara buying them. Ishihara would be a loose canon, and the government clearly wants to avoid that.

Ishihara's position from the very start (he has basically admitted as such) was to force the Japanese Government's hand. He knew he could raise enough money to actually purchase the island, he knew Tokyo could possibly gain some economic benefit from the island and the surrounding waters, but he also knew (and this is key) that there was no way on earth that Tokyo defend the island. It's not like there's a Tokyo National Guard with troops, armour, aircraft and naval vessels that could be used to fight off any Chinese aggression. So, he knew that if he bought the island then it would become the de-facto responsibility of the Japanese Government. He also knew that this would also possibly place the Americans between the proverbial rock and a hard place: the US would have to decide whether to honor her treaty commitments to defend Japan or appear weak by hanging one of its most important allies out to dry and leaving them to defend themselves. Either way he sees it as a win for himself.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ishihara is just playing politics. He's trying to shame the National Government into acting, he's gambling that the Chinese will not want to go to war with Japan because of the possibility of the US becoming involved and he's banking that the anti-Chinese lobby in the US will become vocal enough about their concerns of expanding Chinese influence to force whomever is in charge (Republican or Democrat) to take a hard line against the Chinese. He's playing all sides against each other.

The Japanese Government has puchased (is trying to puchase?) this island to try and pull the rug out from under Ishihara. They are not "buying" it o prevent the Chinese from getting it; they are buying it to prevent Ishihara from getting it. They have no intention (at least currently) of developing it. They are more interested in protecting themselves against Ishihara then they are against the Chinese. Unfortunately, the Chinese don't see it that way.

So, although total war is unlikely to erupt, I do think the Chinese, in particular, will start to rattle their sabres more aggressively to appease their own citizens. Minor miltiary confrontations like those that happen between the Koreas would not be a total surprise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ummm the prediction that the world ends on December21st could be coming true. On the one hand we will have a massive war China V Japan over these stupid islands. Then there's Israel V Iran followed no doubt by South Korea V North Korea. Why can't we all just get along??

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

if china starts war with japan, the US may support japan behind with giving info using satellite or supplying some reasonable weapons to appeal the presence to its allies in the south east asia, but cant involve so much as long as the war wouldnt spread from those tiny islands. anyways that war wont be one side battle the US needs to control japan to be barely winner.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This whole messy issue, seen from a modern, Western point of view, is simply further proof that the immature Eastern Asian countries (and China and Japan are more culturally linked than the Japanese want you to believe) should never have been allowed to participate in world politics. Japan and China will never be truly democratic countries with mature citizens who are able to think critically and therefore let their ruling classes get away with power plays and filling their own pockets. I'm so glad I never made long-term commitments in Japan.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The US ain't gettin involved unless seriously provoked. It's using Okinawa to watch over the East to make sure they don't go do something stupid again like Hawaii. Pride comes before the fall. LET IT GO.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

politicians only want to lead the crowd to the edge of the cliff for their own agenda. by then, the crowd gets really worked up. and they push the politicians off the cliff. that's usually how the war breaks out. even then, nobody expects the full-scale war until it's been done and over with. everybody thought the WWI would come to an end by the christmas of 1914.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Stop blaming Giv. Ishihara and other politicians on this.

With or without right-wing, left-wing or center-wing people in Japan, the GREEDY CHINESE WILL GET those Islands.

The difference with Japan is that She has 4 satellited and extensive sea and air radar to watch.

The Philippines and Vietnam don't have, so the Johnson Reef of Vietnam, the Michief-Reef of the Philippines where GRABBED by CHINA in the 80's and 90's respectively.

Now, China is GREEDILY GRABBING the Scarborough Shoal of the Philippines.

AS USUAL, the uptake of the greedy Chinese is.............. SINCE ANCIENT TIME, CHINESE has INDISPUTABLE SOVEREIGNTY over those vast of lands, sea and even the moon and the stars.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

**WRONG. You are not an American political representative. Actually, as reported by Reuters: "U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell cautioned China and Japan on Tuesday against escalating the dispute, saying the stakes "could not be bigger" and tension could have global repercussions."

If America was staying out, they would issue no such statement. It clearly shows that America has invested interest. What will actually transpire is simply a guess.**

You think commenting on it is getting involved? Oh dear!

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

honto just a bit sad .like two groups of lads hitting the pub and arguing over who saw the girls first... so grown up and so mature....fair play to you both Im sure history will look back at this and treat you kindly..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unless there is a vast ocean of oil and gas in the vicinity of those islands then this fight proves exactly how childish the Chinese government is. I don't know if that's a new phenomenon that followed the communist regime or if their juvenile sense of entitlement is a product of their sudden rise to power, but this kind of behavior will eventually backfire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's very clear that the Chinese knew about, and used these islands for at least a couple of hundred years before Japan 'discovered' them in 1884. Japan advantageously took control of them after defeating China in war in 1895. By that precedent, should anybody begrudge China the right to win them back in a war? Could anybody really have a legitimate complaint about that? It seems particularly hypocritical for Japan to do so. The Japanese have escalated the tension of late, but their neighbors aren't the disorganised, weak rabble they were in 1895. And clearly the Chinese have a very clear recollection of Japan's 'dealings' with them over the last 150 years. So, it remains to be seen how far China will take this, but I honestly don't think they will stand by for much longer and watch their arrogant neighbors rubbing their face in it. This conflict is very much of Japan's doing in my opinion.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Looks like those ships won't be there long.

http://www.jma.go.jp/en/typh/typh5.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unlike the J surveillance fleets ( bigger sized & armed ), the Chinese surveillance vessels are not armed, slow & smaller on the average. Hence, their presence -- as thoroughly expected by the Noda cabinet as one of the very 'mild' scenarios. What one can blame the Noda game plan : no room for any options -- crashing straight ti the wall -- kamikaze style.. Chance is indeed limited of taking any advantage out of the self made crisis. Worst still, China & Taiwan are gradually pushed by Noda to form an united front on the Senkakus-Diaoyu issue.. This is a long term damage to J position in term of geopolitical balance for the decades to come. Smart move ! Smart move ?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Good job Ishihara!! Wake the giant!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

the Chinese surveillance vessels are not armed

I read that they were lightly armed, not unarmed, and in addition, they most likely have other capabilities:

Maritime Surveillance and Targeting Systems China reportedly is developing and deploying maritime surveillance and targeting systems that can detect U.S. ships and submarines and provide targeting information for Chinese ASBMs and other Chinese military units. These systems reportedly include land-based over-the-horizon backscatter (OTH-B) radars, land-based over-the-horizon surface wave (OTH-SW) radars, electro-optical satellites, radar satellites, and seabed sonar networks.97 DOD states that The PLA Navy is improving its long-range surveillance capability with sky-wave and surface-wave over-the-horizon (OTH) radars. In combination with early-warning aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and other surveillance and reconnaissance equipment, the radars allow China to carry out surveillance and reconnaissance over the western Pacific. These radars can be used in conjunction with reconnaissance satellites to locate targets at great distances from China, thereby supporting long-range precision strikes, including employment of ASBMs.98

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"I pray for this cause,every day"

For a war with China? Issa, where and to whom do you pray?

man, there are some scary people around

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Next headline: Japanese ships spotted near disputed islands

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Let these islands be set-up with enough dynamite, so that they would disappear from the face of the Earth, that nobody will have any claims and the waters would be international waters. But back to reality, they are there for a reason: another World conflict.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Rather naively China has now pushed and squeezed the options to escape this situation with pride in tact (I NEVER call it 'saving face', it's PRIDE) to a point of no return. I do now believe that, unless Japan backs off, their will be a short, sharp shock received by one or both parties.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Best is to make them a neutral zone belonging to nobody and no drilling to be conducted within so many miles of them.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Purchasing the disputed islands is to stir up the issue. It is too naive for Japanese people to fall into the game setup by the politicians in Japan and US. US will never sacrifice any lives for a war with China. China and Japan will have to bear the costs in conflict and US will be the beneficiary, at least to make a profit in arms sales.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You think commenting on it is getting involved? Oh dear!

You think bickering proves anything? Oh dear!!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The recent "show" is again to appease the domestic population of China for it was reported (with footage) of their vessels heading to Senkaku's. The brainwashed citizens of China are under the false assumption fed by their government that the islands are currently administered by China. Therefore, it's only natural that their citizens react this way when it was announced that the central government of Japan was going to purchase these islands.

The likelihood of armed conflicted over this issue is slim to none for China had ample opportunity to take these islands decades ago when it was practically unguarded (and it still is for the most part). Secondly, even an armed conflict without U.S. involvement would not favor China as stated in this article.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/20/the_sino_japanese_naval_war_of_2012?page=0,0

The likelihood of China's embarrasing loss coupled with Japan's movement towards revision of Article 9 "collective defense" are the risks that none of the Chinese leaders are willing to take on.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

USA will stand by Japan

Don't be too sure... I'm betting they will let Japan handle this themselves... These islands are NOT an integral part of Japan, if even recognized in the international community as belonging to Japan, which is unlikely at best... What are there like 6 other countries that japan is squabbling over territory with...? China, Korea, Taiwan, Russia... I think I'm missing a couple here... But don't worry, as soon as China gets busy doing something else, Japan will read that as they've given up claim (which it won't mean at all) and Japan will start something over some other island 1000 Nautical Miles from Tokyo, and claim those are inherently Japanese sovereign territory... The hits just keep on coming... And you've got these people spewing off this Nationalistic rhetoric, that have never even left Japan... The only history book they've ever read was one of the white-washed versions from the text-book history reform commission... And you wonder why...?

This is what happens when a whole generation of Japanese reaches 60+ years old and has no TRUE idea about history, I.E... Especially Japan's role, other than believing they are the victims of WW2.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

T-Mack, Don't rely on US or someone else. You must stand up on your own two feet but not on someone else feet. Obviously, Japan needs strong military power to protect country from rouge nations. To possession of Nuclear Weapon is inevitable for Japan sooner or later. There's no one can guaranty peaceful nation will not be attack by rouge nation like North Korea or Communist China. I believe Communist China will invade to Senkaku Islands soon. You can't trust Communist Chinese Government. The Communist Chinese Government is thinking about shooting two birds with one stone for long time. Taiwan will be automatically in the Communist Chinese’s cage if the Communist Chinese control the Senkaku Island chain. Communist leaders are crazy peoples and they are unpredictable peoples. Idiot politicians need to wake up and do something for nation instead of bitching each other.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

US doesn't recognize Japanese sovereign over the Islands. Moreover, would US want to have a war with Taiwan?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The only history book they've ever read was one of the white-washed versions from the text-book history reform commission.

There is no such organization. Secondly, Japan has dozens of privately published textbooks that the schools can choose from unlike the counterparts which has ONE government issued textbook.

This is what happens when a whole generation of Japanese reaches 60+ years old and has no TRUE idea about history, I.E... Especially Japan's role, other than believing they are the victims of WW2

Getting pretty tired of these posts from people who haven't read Japan's history books.

"The Japanese textbooks make no attempt to glorify or justify the war, to portray Japan as the “victim” of outside forces, or to offer an apologia for wartime atrocities. Nor do they absolve the Japanese civilian public of supporting the war effort."

"War Stories "Peter Duus, William H. Bonsall Professor of History, Emeritus, Stanford University

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Hey China - I press my pimples at you cheap second-hand donkey bottom biters!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

These islands may be uninhabited by the Japanese but I can almost guarantee they are inhabited by all that Chinese garbage that floats over. Ishigaki Beaches are a pig sty

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Just watching with my bowl of popcorn in my hands.

Start the fight already!

What's taking so long?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Greedy Japan! All this could have been averted if Japan had recognized the Cairo Accord of 1943 where-in Japan was to return all lands taken by violence or greed. The Ryukyu Islands allways got along with C hina and I predicted that China would share with Okinawa, but Japan spend all thier time mouthing off about the islands that were taken from them as per the Cairo Accords. I say forget it or you could contribute to what could be the end of the world.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

@ Dog

I wish the US would make their stance clear, so that we can stop all this territorial nonsense, on the Japanese side at least.

The US has made their position clear. It could not be clearer: the pivot to Asia. We have invested billions of dollars in the deployment of troops and armament, new bases, and the plans are way underway. What do you think we are doing so? To nab illegal fishermen?

Hồ Chí Minh said it best: "I'd rather smell American sht, than Chinese sht"....and soon thereafter Vietnam was attacked by China. The region's leaders have always been had to keep an eye on China, particularly now with China on the prowl for natural resources. In the 70's, China tested the Russian resolve to defend their ally, Vietnam. If China wants to test the US resolve to defend a US ally, let them go ahead.

Only a fool would believe that the US and other allies are sitting on the fence watching this from afar. China knows it's playing with fire.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Stop talking non-sense and spewing idiocies. Here you go, straight from the US Dept:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/08/146001.htm

MR. CROWLEY: The Senkaku Islands are under the administrative control of the Government of Japan. Article 5 states that the treaty applies to the territories under the administration of Japan. So that if you ask today would the treaty apply to the Senkaku Islands, the answer is yes.

QUESTION: Yes. Okay.

China needs to create a controversy, particularly one that with nationalist/territorial dynamics. This is the trademark of the CP since Mao. That makes the Chinese Army generals feel good about their job, and it allows the CP to solidify its base among the huge masses of unemployed and impoverished folks.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

“Only a fool would believe that the US and other allies are sitting on the fence watching this from afar”

Great! The world would come to an end as we know it

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hope both sides calm down and find a peaceful way to get this issue settle down.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Marion Wm SteeleSep. 15, 2012 - 01:44AM JST Greedy Japan! All this could have been averted if Japan had recognized the Cairo Accord of 1943 where-in Japan >was to return all lands taken by violence or greed. The Ryukyu Islands allways got along with C hina and I predicted >that China would share with Okinawa, but Japan spend all thier time mouthing off about the islands that were taken >from them as per the Cairo Accords. I say forget it or you could contribute to what could be the end of the world.

Nope Japan is not greedy at all. It is under the Cairo declaration itself that the Senkakus are part of Japan. Furthermolre the PRC is notneven a party to the Cairo or Potsdam Accords. You still can;t defferentiaste beteein Ching Dynbasty, Republic of China and People's Republic of China (aka REd China).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

According to Cairo declaration, Taiwan must be return back to China. Senkakus is part of Taiwan and Taiwan is part of China after 1945. Obviously, Senkakus must be part of China.

Please take a look at the map and you will know Diaoyu islands must be part of China without doubts.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So. my name is Japanese, thats why I come to Japantoday. We all know that territories and patriotism go together. No politician will ever send a battleship to that area for the simple reason that politicians only look for money. They will never go to war over that problem. China may win or may NOT win a battle vs Japan, In any case, Japan and China start a Naval war, it wont take Japan 6 months to get like 1000 Nuclear bombs ready.

Also if china invades Japan, USA will go stop them. So. there's not going to be an escalation over this. Those crazy mobs that set flags to burn will never get the chance to be president.

Only bad thing that we could get over this is that japan gets a Nuclear Arsenal. or anything like that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

""Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.[1]"

It was determioned that the Senkakus were not taken by "force or greed". They were never "takemn" from China to start with. And they were deter,mned to be very minor.

Looks like the Chinese are re-writing wikipedia gain.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As long as China keeps sending their Maritime Surveillance vessels and not the PLA NAvy,. they are not ready to play hardball with Japan. much less the US 7th Fleet.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

For all those on here warbling on with their anti-Japanese quaffing, herein lies the difference in stark reality. Whilst the Japanese may annoy somewhat with their bland diplomacy and contractual purchasing, the Chinese are ready to demonstrate their bullying aggression and violent tendencies. 6 ships sent to patrol around a territory belonging to another nation? Remember everyone, the Japanese are very pacifist yet the Chinese will drag the whole show into armed conflict at the drop of a hat. Remember this the next time you support the Chinese and pick on the Japanese.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

And for all those unbelievably uneducated quotes about the US not wanting to get involved and just using Japan. How wrong could you be. I guarantee that if the Chinese really are stupid enough to get confrontational, the US will be more than happy to engage and protect their own foothold on this side of the pacific. The US have invested far too many years and far too many dollars on their Japanese annexe, and no way will they allow China to be top boy in that playground.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

US definitely does not want to take a nuclear war risk with China because of a small island, which already belongs to China for centries.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Diaoyu island was and is part of China without any question. It is reasonable for Chinese vessels to patrol within their own territory.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

bao.2yeSep. 15, 2012 - 07:59AM JST

US definitely does not want to take a nuclear war risk with China because of a small island, which already belongs to China for centries.

Diaoyu island was and is part of China without any question. It is reasonable for Chinese vessels to patrol within their own territory.

@bao, your argument is weak. Back this up with facts. Thanks.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

When your loved ones lie dying beside you(due to war), remember why.

Was it really worth it????

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Totally not worth it. Ishihara and his Nationalists want to plunge the world into darkness.

Old men are dangerous and should be ignored. Only the living suffer and we'll be the ones. Ishihara will kill over and never have to live with the guilt or the bloodshed.

I know it's not all Japanese who feel this way. However this society is making the same mistake that it did with WWII, following the Emperor blindly and sending their men out to die. Japanese women do that so easily.

It just takes one nuke on Tokyo to set the nation back 100 years. Technology lost, books and wisdom burned to ashe. Depending on the magnatude of the blast and it's depth it make even cause further damage to the plates that Japan sits on. You'd be a lost people.

When was the last time Ishihara went down to Hiroshima? It won't be an American atomic bomb this time. It'll be a nuclear missile with 50 times more yield.

As soon as the American Embassy issues a warning to leave, I'm out.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

nigelboy:

" The recent "show" is again to appease the domestic population of China "

I agree. Whipping up nationalistic frenzy against foreign "enemies" is a great way to keep the masses busy and prevent them from looking critically at their own regime. Dictatorships have used this technique time and time again. Alas, it often leads to real-life war.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Chinese are just putting on a show, like babies begging for attention!! Now the Beijing Communist Regime is under a lot of pressure to pick a new leader, Mr.Shi?? But for the last 2 weeks nobody can find him!! So what do Chinese communist party leaders do?? Start this Senkaku islands BS to get the sheep all worked up about little Japan, as they a it, why?? So the average Chinese will not focus on the mess within the Chinese communist party but go have a few beers wave that blood red flag and let off some Chinese national steam out against Japan!!! Divert their attention from Beijing!! Oldest trick in the book!!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Politician make use of the nationalism to gain support to their political benefit and the Japanese people will have to bear the cost.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Crystalyle; You just wrote it all - the first nation to drop the bomb will end our world as we know it today. Today's missle is BAD - it can spell fini for the world. Talking does not fill bodybags. Incidentally, you can Google up the Cairo Accords and the Potsdam Declaration. I am a WW2 veteran and I am 91 years old. Wait till I am long gone before this action gets any worse.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

judging by the size if this island is worth bothering with?? lets face it 3 miles by 1 mile... and a rocky out crop.... may be they could use it as a light house post or sea gulls could use it !!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brian.

The size of the Island don't matter but ownership extend the EEZ and thus the exploitation of the resources within the EEZ.

No war has been fought for any other reason than acquiring new resources. China, etc are growing their economy and thus need extra resources to full-fill the needs of their Citizens and keep their power up vs their competitors.

This isn't about who owned them 100 or more years ago but about wealth, power, resources, etc. Starve China and it will become aggressive, just like what happened with Japan before Pearl Harbour.

As for a mutual exploitation try 1.3 Billion vs 130 Million and work it out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really? The JNSDF? LOL, the JNSDF is a sliver in the eye of the Chinese military. I also like the comments about the U.S. helping.... a nice change from the "Amercan military should leave japan, we dont need them!" Argument I usually read on this sight! Well, when the time comes, I'm sure the U.S. will once again help out when asked, even with such negative criticism from some of the japanese people. Then when the U.S. saves the day, everyone can once again go back to protesting America and its role it plays in the safety of its allies. I worked 10 years as a military member in Japan working with the JNSDF, so I know a lot about our capabilities and that of China and North Korea. In my opinion the JNSDF is a great organization with very professional men and women in it. That being said, they will need help if war was to ever break out.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Heloooooooooooo! i own those islands and i have no intentention or will or right to give! Stop fighting!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As is was back in 1894 as it is again.

Chinese Navy was overrated then and it is overrated now.

China starts it and Japan will finish them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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