national

Armed Chinese ship seen near disputed isles

41 Comments

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

© 2015 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

Cannon or water cannon? Responsible reporting AFP!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Cannons? Did those pesky pirates return?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It was however the first time an apparently armed Chinese coast guard vessel had “entered the territorial waters near the Senkaku Islands”, the Japan Coast Guard said. Japan administers the uninhabited islands under that name but China also claims them and calls them the Diaoyus. On Tuesday Japan said it had spotted the armed Chinese coast guard ship for the first time in the contiguous waters near the islands.

It would be really helpful if, just once, one of these articles would help define terms for readers. So, what is the difference between "territorial waters" and "continuous waters". I mean, I think I might know, but seems like it should be a basic part of the reporting, in order to ensure that readers understand.

Also, if the ships were in Japanese territorial waters for nearly an hour, what did Japan do? Did it take any action other than track the ships? If not, why not? Seems like basic questions that should be asked.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Chinese guard ship seems just showing strength, not belligerence. They always leave there after a few hours.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Detain it. Immediately.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Chinese guard ship seems just showing strength, not belligerence. They always leave there after a few hours.

Belligerent strength is more like it. It happens so often that it has gone past the point of showing "strength" and is pushing things too far with their constant childish games, looking for a confrontation.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

the game continues ,

it is a coast guard ship - being larger than the others it is armed better- Japan- trying to stay diplomatic is saying it cannot describe them clearly spoke in oblique tones regarding the arms it carried - hoping china will get the message.

but china will not, the next ship will be navy, if Japan does not take a stand- china will land troops and set up a base

1 ( +5 / -4 )

if Japan does not take a stand- china will land troops and set up a base

What are you basing this comment on?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

"Japan administers the uninhabited islands under that name but China also claims them and calls them the Diaoyus."

" the first time an apparently armed Chinese coast guard vessel had “entered the territorial waters"

"Distrust, however, remains high as China is wary of moves by Abe"

a possible scenario: according to Joel Skousen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1mqCFIp6Lw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG2SmmyId9Y

3 ( +3 / -0 )

A Chinese coast guard ship which appeared to be armed with several cannons on Saturday entered what Tokyo regards as its territorial waters near disputed islands

That's the second time in a week. The Chinese will keep doing it cause they know the japanese will show restraint. Plus Japan's rules of engagement are a national joke.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

zones

That's contiguous not continuous.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Chinese continuously complain to other sabout "aggression", "provocation" and "interference", but they keep the lead in all the three things. Like any other bully, they will calm down after someone give them a lesson.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

They knew the boat was Chinese because they had their left indicator on while steaming in clockwise circles..

3 ( +6 / -3 )

And anti-base people will be quiet today, no doubt.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

As "EyeOfTheCat" indicated above, China always says their missions are peaceful. Seems as if they send armed vessels into peaceful waters ... then are those vessels being belligerant? I still wonder what Bejing's meaning of "peaceful" really is. Seems as if it is trying to say it is merely being a peaceful bully.

Next time Japan should challenge an armed vessel and order it out of local waters ... or else deal with a more serious kind of reception.

Better yet ... why can't China just stay away and stop such aggressive tactics ...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

China looks unlikely to be any more successful in dethroning U.S. from global leadership than Japan and Russia were. This is partly due to limits on China’s ability to continue advancing. China’s disputes with neighbors over the disposition of minor islands and reefs in East and South China Seas shows how little real potential for growth in territories the way other western powers have. Problem with China is that within a few years, the working age population will reach a peak and then begin a sharp decline. China has followed the same footstep as Japan in using trade as main springboard to economic development. Unfortunately, now they are so dependent on offshore resources, markets and investors to keep its economy growing that it can’t run the risk of really scaring its trading partners.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Personally, I hope Japan defends those islands for all they're worth on principle. This topic has been covered ad-nauseum over the years on JT and never once have I seen a convincing argument that China have a better historical or contemporary claim over the islands than Japan. Not once. The broader reading I have done says the same.

Those islands and bases that they are building in the Spratly Islands are an absolute affront to stability in the region and a spit in the face of their smaller and weaker neighbors:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35031313

Japan have the strength and balls to stand up to them. Good on 'em.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Smithinjapan: No, if you cared to look, they were not quiet on that thread but you and Yubaru were!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

China always says their missions are peaceful. Seems as if they send armed vessels into peaceful waters ... >then are those vessels being belligerant? I still wonder what Bejing's meaning of "peaceful" really is. Seems as >if it is trying to say it is merely being a peaceful bully.

China's action does not contradict it's stated position of being peaceful, because in its mind, the islands are their territories. Hence, they have every right to patrol the area with vessels, armed or otherwise.

Now if they start sending vessels near Okinawa, or Kyushu, then that's something else. The mutual understanding for decades was that since the islands were uninhabited, that both sides would leave things as is indefinitely. That's until 2012, when Japan decided to nationalize the islands. Whether you see this as Japan's intentional provocation, or China using the nationalization as an excuse to escalate the situation, you can't deny that it was Japan that messed with the status quo in 2012.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Must we be made to jump everytime a Chinese vessel is sported off the infamous disputed islands? This is not Commodore Perry's black ship era, plus, you are supposed to have put countermeasures against Chinese intrusion in the far flung Islands, haven't you?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There is quite a difference between territorial waters (<12NM, soevereign control) and a contiguous zone (12-24NM, limited control), especially depending on whether Japan has formerly declared the latter around the Senkaku Islands. That said, it's all academic anyway in Chinese minds because they don't recognize Japan's territorial claim to begin with...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

****Sink it. Immediately.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

China's action does not contradict it's stated position of being peaceful, because in its mind, the islands are their territories. Hence, they have every right to patrol the area with vessels, armed or otherwise.

You must be joking. If the world really operated that way, chaos and anarchy would reign supreme. I'm going to go and get in that car at the 7-11 and drive it back to my place, because in my mind I want it deserve it and it would be a welcome addition to my collection. Et al.

It doesn't matter what China thinks about their ownership over those islands - they are controlled by Japan and have been for 120 odd years. China cannot simply pretend Japan aren't there. And of course they don't.

The mutual understanding for decades was that since the islands were uninhabited, that both sides would leave things as is indefinitely. That's until 2012, when Japan decided to nationalize the islands.

You mean to say they were purchased from the Kurihara Family of Saitama, right?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Stuart Hayward: "Smithinjapan: No, if you cared to look, they were not quiet on that thread but you and Yubaru were!"

On what thread? I was talking about THIS thread, and where are the people you speak of, amigo? Like I said, quiet as anything. Thank you for proving me right yet again.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Big China has to flex those mighty muscles. Gotta feel big, eventhough Japan beat them to the punch.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

China did not fire any shoots or did not made any demands so we think it was not a ship but sick whale swimming by and we wave him goodbye.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gaijin6000: " Gotta feel big, eventhough Japan beat them to the punch."

"Beat them to the punch"? With the islands they were GIVEN after the war?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yet, there are people who are against the change of article 9.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

smith

With the islands they were GIVEN after the war?

I think the verb you are looking for is cede.

verb (used with object), ceded, ceding. 1. to yield or formally surrender to another: to cede territory.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Chinese are preparing war in the future... that's why there building man made military bases in many places around South China Sea ...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

China's actions seem to have the amazing ability to force Japan into actions that otherwise if left alone, would never happen. Just as China anti-Japan position and Senkaku offensive caused the revision of Japan's defense posture, China's upping the Senkaku issue like this will bring JMSDF vessels conducting Freedom of Navigation passages through the South China Sea in the near future together with the United States and Australia.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Tamarama: "I think the verb you are looking for is cede."

No, that's not what I meant at all, because it was GIVEN to Japan, by the US, without the permission of China.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Fire across the bow. If the shot's returned, sink it. Worry about the aftermath, after the fact, like Turkey's doing with the downed Russian fighter. A simple shrug of the shoulders, some UN condemnation, and then it's all behind-the-scenes apologies and 5-second newsbites after the fact. Posturing, posturing...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Japan was given administrative rights and not sovereignty.

The Japanese statement that Daioyu/Senkaku was "terra nullius" is significant because it serves as an acknowledgement that Japan had no meaningful claim to Diaoyu/Senkaku based on historical activities prior to 1895. Japan’s argument largely ignored the historical position put forward in Chinese accounts. Claiming that the uninhabited islands were not occupied by any power, or terra nullius, Japan annexed the islands in 1895 shortly after its victory in the Sino-Japanese War. At the time, Japanese interior ministry noted that it was still unclear as to whether the islands belonged to Japan, especially as there was detailed knowledge of the islands in Chinese writings, making Koga’s claims of ‘discovery’ difficult to substantiate.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

actions speak louder than "improv(ed) ties"

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If Japan or any other country had been the one in known Chinese territorial or continuous waters, without a doubt China would have acted proactively then defend its use of force and say it was within their right, so too should Japan under the agreement it has a right to directly defend itself and push China back once and for all. But it could be Abe is waiting for Obama to leave office since he has proven the Americans to be wishy washy and appear weak at the knees and better at apologizing to China than defending Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@tamarama

Here we go again; we invaded Asians countries to liberate them. Those women volunteered. We own those islands since forever.

You and other like minded deniers may not be tired of parroting the same lines, I'm tired of hearing it.

Read the two comments above on why the islands do not belong to Japan. And again, Japan messed with the status quo by nationalizing them in 2012.

I'm not condoning China's action, but like the proverbial school yard argument would be: YOU (Japan) started it!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

What nonsense. Japan started nothing, China is the looked upon as the biggest threat to peace in Asia by multiple countries and their expansionism is being challenged by the entire world, and the J-haters still post their old worn out nonsense.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Cannon or water cannon? Responsible reporting AFP! <healthmoor.com>

0 ( +0 / -0 )

they are hoping to justify a slip and take the islands by force, there dream would be that they get attacked by a harpoon missile, then they will accuse Japan of being the aggressor. Japan has a rightful claim to those islands, and should never back down from that stance.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

AGYWE

If you are tired of hearing it, then as a new poster you may want to exit stage left because this conversation has been going on for YEARS here at JT, and will continue for YEARS to come. I promise you, I've read more than you on the subject. I know the arguments for and against very well. I think China's claim is historically feeble and more recently just plain petulant. Plus, they don't control them.

So, they should stay away.

1 ( +1 / -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