national

China's navy seeks to 'wear out' Japanese ships in disputed waters

51 Comments
By David Lague

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

This article seems fit for the Military Journal, not a normal News item.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

China is going to be hard pressed to "wear-out" the MSDF if they get involved instead of the Coast Guard.

The JMSDF operates some 110 major warships, including four helicopter destroyers ("Helicopter carriers"), eight guided-missile destroyers, twenty-nine small-destroyers ("frigates"), three destroyer-escorts ("light-frigates") and sixteen attack submarines (SSK).[9]

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Shouldn't China court not antagonize Japan to develop ecologically economically. Such military spending when Chinese are suffering occupational hazards, environmental pollution, unemployment, etc.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

If China keeps pushing, eventually it won't be the MSDF and Coast Guard, but a US Navy carrier group...

12 ( +16 / -4 )

Japan should put some fishermen on the island ... or declare them international neutral sanctuary with no ownership... people do not own land anyway.. people can only be caretakers of the land...

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Shouldn't China court not antagonize Japan to develop ecologically economically. Such military spending when Chinese are suffering occupational hazards, environmental pollution, unemployment, etc.

Woulda' shoulda' coulda'....all come in to mind when considering what China (or any other country for that matter) thinks about and what actions they take in disregarding the people of their country.

Do you actually think the Chinese government cares? Look at it's neighbor NK, do think they care? Seriously if everyone only cared about taking care of their own what would the world be like?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If China keeps pushing and pushing Japan and other neighbours to the limits to the brink of a conflict breaking out. Surely they would and should be booted out of the Security Council.

The Senkaku Islands don't belong to China nor do any of the other territories that they seem to be claiming..

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Thereafter, claims of ownership of Okinawa, Guam, demands for a "demilitarized" Micronesia, the blackmail targeting of Hawaii by missiles, oh yeah, we are at the pre-Dec.7th moment, with a willfully blind commander in chief spreeding to implant socialism in the US Govt. I hope Abe knows enough when say enough is enough, join the demand a democratic revolution for the Chinese mainland. But silence and acquiecence is the rule of the day; thats not helping.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

China clearly has become more arrogant in recent years.....and while the rest of the world shares technology and purchases their goods what else could we expect?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The islands in question have been listed on maritime charts as belonging to China for about five hundred years. They were seized from China in the first Sino-Japanese war, 1895. The People's Republic of China was not a participant in the treaty of San Francisco, 1950, when the matter of Japan's land claims by aggression were settled.

Objectively, the islands are Chinese.

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

One would think the two parties would have better things to do than playing whack-a-mole in the East China Sea.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

China continues to push Japan the next step is to place permanent structures on the island, use it or loose it. (Perhaps nuclea waste storage )

5 ( +5 / -0 )

They could be taking a page from the Reagan playbook, where he purposely spent tons of money building up the military, forcing the Russians to keep pace thereby going bankrupt.

Maybe China is hoping that by forcing Japan to increase it's military activity, they'll naturally spend more and more money (and focus) on their military, thereby going bankrupt as well, or at least destabilizing.

After all, China's ALREADY committed to building up their military, so sending ships out all the time doesn't really cost them anything extra, politically.

Not saying it's a good plan, but you never know what those idiot politicians (of any country) got up there sleeve.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

China becomes more emboldened on money and attention received. Are Japanese businesses in China bailing on the country yet? The Olympics were no help, everyone moving their manufacturing there was no help. China will not change. Maybe start moving business elsewhere, into a fledgling democracy even. Everyday China is accepted as a rational player is another day of torment. What a waste of time

6 ( +7 / -1 )

shameless!agressor!tend to your suffering people first!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"We could have had Japan and China in a serious war"

Over a few tiny islands? How dumb could Japanese and Chinese military officers possibly be?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@waltery

Use it or lose it.

Thats what I've been thinking all along. Especially like your idea of a nuclear waste depot.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Ships from these agencies including customs, maritime surveillance and fisheries are in the frontline of Beijing’s campaign to assert sovereignty over the disputed islands, which are believed to be rich in oil and gas."

At this point in time, I absolutely think China's position is less about oil and gas and only about nationalism and asserting political sovereignty of these islands.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I cannot understand why Abe doesn't go to Beijing and sort this out.

Communication will resolve it.

Not childish military games.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Stop over reacting! Just on the air sea strength itself, China is still behind Japan, so what is the fuss? Japan should worry only about 2-3 years later, not now. China is just doing patrolling for domestic consumption and military exercises to sharpen warfare skills.

I had said before, China have quantity, not enough quality yet in the air sea area compared with Japan. But wait another year or so and Japan should be really worried. Watch out the radar evading type-056 frigate which would be introduced in big numbers.

All this dispute will be easily resolved if Kerry tells Japan the facts as noted here and start negotiation with China!

http://congressionalresearch.com/96-798/document.php?study=Senkaku+Diaoyu+Islands+Dispute+The+U.S.+Legal+Relationship+and+Obligations

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Japan should use this to bolster it's armed forces, the Self-Defense Forces. for example, JMSDF should use this opportunity to ask for aircraft carriers, or an even bigger "Helicopter Carriers", or that Japan Coast Guard should get ships, weapons and technologies on par with JMSDF.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@ngeorge

There is no independent international law regarding territorial disputes. In cases that have been resolved through international tribunals, there have been specifics of bilateral or multilateral treaty settlements.

It does not matter who was in control 500 years ago, the issue now is a combination of effective control and treaty.

From 200 to 100 years ago, China didn't effectively control itself, let alone outlying islands. Whether ceded by treaty or not, China had no control over them.

What is dangerous for Japan now is losing effective control and administration, that is why a physical establishment or US intervention should be considered.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Finally an article that says exactly what's going on. China is the one country most likely to start WWIII. The CCP's need to hold on to power at any cost, the use of nationalism to control it's people, the sheer magnitude of the need for natural resources and the related need to military protect it's supply lines putting it in confrontation with the United States and all of it's allies are unique to China, a one-party dictatorship.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Seriously? You guys think the U.S. will go to war with China because Japan wants a bunch of rocks? No.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

This is exactly what I have been speculating in the past.

What China is trying to do is to let Japan to get provoked and make mistakes. Please do not. That's exactly what China is waiting for. China will use Japan's mistakes to justify the war. So be judicious and swift in the time of crisis.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Humph! Not a Chance in Hell! China can orbit the Senkaku's for the next 100 Years and THEY WILL NOT GET THEM EVER!!!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I'm glad Japan is not as hot-headed as China! Switch positions of these two countries and it would look very ugly indeed.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Tony Ew-san,

All this dispute will be easily resolved if Kerry tells Japan the facts as noted here and start negotiation with China!

Exactly!

That would be the adult way to deal with it.

Instead of sucking up to the U.S.A., Abe would do better to think about where Japan actually is and start sorting out the problems and making friends with the neighbours.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Then why don't you respect your own logic and free Xinjiang, which doesn't belong to the Chinese but to the Uighurs. Free Tibet which does not belong to the Chinese but to the Tibetans. Free Inner Mongolia which does not belong to the Chinese but to the Mongolians. It seems the PRC always wants what other people have...like the Senkakus, which belong to Japan by treaty with the Qing dynasty.

It doesn't matter what the PLA wants, because the future has already been written in the Pentagon. Xinjiang will be free. Already you see what we have begun there. Tibet will be free. Already you see what we have begun there. Inner Mongolia will be free. Already you see what we have begun there.

What you haven't noticed is that prominent Han businessmen, politicians and PLA officials on the coast have determined that the PRC is an evolutionary deadend. They work with us. They have no interest in raising the prosperity of Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, since that would mean redistribution of their wealth. Yes, their wealth.

Instead, they've agreed to a division of the Chinese coast into three separate nations based on China's three principal rivers. Just as I've been telling you for a long time what we were doing in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, and you were unwilling to believe, you now see it all coming true. Now expect the coast to divide into three new nations, making six brand-new nations of the old PRC.

The dissolution of the PRC is scheduled for 2017, 18 months after the reconstituted Japanese military completely destroys the PLA navy and air force in what will be known as the "Battle of the Senkakus."

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I cannot understand why Abe doesn't go to Beijing and sort this out. Communication will resolve it.

Then why doesnt China come to Japan and "communicate" with Abe? Like it or not China is the cause of all this that's going on. Until they starting sending ships to the area things were peaceful.

And it doesn't matter really that the national government purchased one of the islands from a private owner, seeing as how they already own a couple of the other one's out there. China using that as an excuse shouldn't hold water considering that fact.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I think that this may backfire on China. Trying to wear out the Japanese ships? Seriously? "Whew, we are so tired of sailing round and round these islands...we give up, you take em." Its already clear that this is simply going to provoke a build up on Japan's side.

I hope someone in the Japanese government is working out some strategy here. China needs to be forced to pay some price for its actions, short of all out war.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

U.S must be happy seeing China and Japan quarrel each other.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Then why don't you respect your own logic and free Xinjiang, which doesn't belong to the Chinese but to the Uighurs. Free Tibet which does not belong to the Chinese but to the Tibetans. Free Inner Mongolia which does not belong to the Chinese but to the Mongolians. It seems the PRC always wants what other people have...like the Senkakus, which belong to Japan by treaty with the Qing dynasty.

It doesn't matter what the PLA wants, because the future has already been written in the Pentagon. Xinjiang will be free. Already you see what we have begun there. Tibet will be free. Already you see what we have begun there. Inner Mongolia will be free. Already you see what we have begun there.

What you haven't noticed is that prominent Han businessmen, politicians and PLA officials on the coast have determined that the PRC is an evolutionary deadend. They work with us. They have no interest in raising the prosperity of Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, since that would mean redistribution of their wealth. Yes, their wealth.

Instead, they've agreed to a division of the Chinese coast into three separate nations based on China's three principal rivers. Just as I've been telling you for a long time what we were doing in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, and you were unwilling to believe, you now see it all coming true. Now expect the coast to divide into three new nations, making six brand-new nations of the old PRC.

The dissolution of the PRC is scheduled for 2017, 18 months after the reconstituted Japanese military completely destroys the PLA navy and air force in what will be known as the "Battle of the Senkakus."

Oh man, that would make a great war novel. Anyway, PRC can try anything they want, Japan won't be easily provoked. Let the idiots implode themselves.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Blackrock, the Chinese invaded the so called Xinjiang back in its imperial days. And tens of millions of Chinese migrated and settled there long before the Uighurs laid claim to that region.

There is no chance to free Xinjiang. Its more Chinese than Turks. And it was never really an organized gov't to begin with. You're stretching it to the point similar to the Ainu wanting independence of Hokkaido but they are only a minority. Never going to happen.

Tibet is going into the same direction but it had an organized gov't. Currently there are more Chinese than Tibetan in Tibet. How is it going to go independent when the majority rules?

Stuff happens, just move on.

Back to topic,

There is no chance in hell that the Chinese navy can "wear out" Japanese navy. Japanese navy is much more established and disciplined than the Chinese naval forces. And Japan is basically and island chain, Navy and naval power is a way of life. Its ingrained into the mindset of its military. This article is simply a puff piece wanting some attention and stir up unnecessary concern.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Maybe China is hoping that by forcing Japan to increase it's military activity, they'll naturally spend more and more money (and focus) on their military, thereby going bankrupt as well, or at least destabilizing. After all, China's ALREADY committed to building up their military, so sending ships out all the time doesn't really cost them anything extra, politically.

...and by that assessment, Tokyo is already doing China's bidding.

Furthermore, throwing more maritime resources at the islands just leaves the rest of the Japan exposed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"How dumb could Japanese and Chinese military officers possibly be?" Dumb enough, believe me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

warnerbro-san,

I don't think you can fit "military" and "intelligent" in a sentence without a "not" in there somewhere.

It's much easier to make a sentence with "military" and "dumb."

Who else would want to lay down their life for some fat cat laughing his head off while the military go down like flies?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I don't think you can fit "military" and "intelligent" in a sentence without a "not" in there somewhere.

It's much easier to make a sentence with "military" and "dumb."

This just goes and proves how little you actually know about the military and what they actually do. There are plenty of military folks that could make mensa people look dumb, but because of your prejudice against the military there is no way you will acknowledge it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Wertiebooster... Have you ever served in the forces? Didnt think so. Lets not parrot the old line about military intelligence..wearing thin..

In any case I wish Japan and China would sit down and nut this out diplomatically and responsibly...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Well, US policy against China has changed from Clinton time to Obama time.

Facts

1)Clintion's policy was to "CONTAIN China" while Obama's approach is encouraging "NEGOTIATION with China".

2)Kerry believes it is not necessary to add more military personnels in the Asian sea as China is not yet a threat.

I agree with Professor Aaron Friedburg of Princeton University once served for Bush Administration that not agressively containing China will increase instability in Asia. I believe Obama and Kerry need to re-evaluate the current policy position against China while we can.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@globalwatcherMar. 10, 2013 - 11:43PM JST

Well, US policy against China has changed from Clinton time to Obama time. Facts 1)Clintion's policy was to "CONTAIN China" while Obama's approach is encouraging "NEGOTIATION with China". 2)Kerry believes it is not necessary to add more military personnels in the Asian sea as China is not yet a threat. I agree with Professor Aaron Friedburg of Princeton University once served for Bush Administration that not agressively containing China will increase instability in Asia. I believe Obama and Kerry need to re-evaluate the current policy position against China while we can.

People who believe in containing China live under the rocks. First remember Hainan Incident 2001? China won't let anybody to contain her. Bush/Condi attempt was the last chance but failed.

Two more scary reasons: first China had tested real EMP bomb above ground and can create a fake incident to disable US super carriers. Plus China ASAT can disable US military satellites, even those in GEO orbits ( test withheld so as not to inflame US) The neutron bomb /EMP could be China's way to give US/Japan last warning before actual WWIII

What else can US do to contain China? It's more likely China can contain US with A2/AD strategy

Anyway I said China is not trying to wear out Japan. Constant patrolling is just for domestic consumption and the 'wearing out' of Japan is just a bonus!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

What else can US do to contain China? It's more likely China can contain US with A2/AD strategy

Many effective measures are not fully utilized yet. I will not tell you what we are thinking against China. Enough said.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Yubaru

Then why doesnt China come to Japan and "communicate" with Abe? Like it or not China is the cause of all this that's going on. Until they starting sending ships to the area things were peaceful.

Whether Chinese leaders come to Japan or Abe go to China, the bottom line is Abe should reread the Congressional Report that did not say Japan have sovereignty and should not twist facts. Once Abe accept reality, then discussions can move forward!

http://congressionalresearch.com/96-798/document.php?study=Senkaku+Diaoyu+Islands+Dispute+The+U.S.+Legal+Relationship+and+Obligations

Without resolution, China must continue patrolling since Japan cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt the islands belong to her!

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@Tony Ew

If you think the Chinese can contain the USA, you are gravely mistaken. At this time, the US Navy has the capability of eliminating the entire Chinese navy within less than a week. Your over projection of Chinese military capabilities is somewhat laughable. Also, wars and provoking conflict are never good for domestic consumption or economics, as they tend to eliminate hard earned wealth of millions of citizens, both Chinese and Japanese. The Americans are mostly a rational bunch, but anger them and they will respond in catastrophic force.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@nihoncritic @globalwatcherMar. 11, 2013 - 12:34AM JST

>What else can US do to contain China? It's more likely China can contain US with A2/AD strategy

Many effective measures are not fully utilized yet. I will not tell you what we are thinking against China. Enough said.

As usual, people tend to takes things at face value. If they dig deeper they will see Japan is in fact the aggressor. China have history to prove she was victim, and Japan was aggressor and continue to be so but cloaked very cleverly as peaceful until you see examples of aggressiveness with massive show of jet fighters on small propeller plane and intimidating China frigates at the choke point near Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (radar lock) and obscene water cannons on Taiwanese boats.

China containing US A2/AD is getting so worrisome that in times of war US dare not have the carriers even within the second island chains. China won't mind US goes to Australia! It's peaceful now, so of course you don't see US carriers moving further away, but they have contingencies just in case...

Some nasty minds have thought of nuking the trenches to set off tsunami waves against China, so maybe somebody trying to hide a theoretical possibility?

Tell Abe to be like Honest Abe, lies won't work, never have, never will! China reading tea leaves, and expect Abe to be gone based on Japan's past PM pattern, so maybe next PM have more flexibility.

China patrol on forever, as long as it takes to wear Japan down, but that is just non intentional!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@TonyEw from your link:

China argues that Japan used its victory in the war to annex the islands.

To the victor goes the spoils. If this is the basis of all land arguments the world would look a whole lot different today.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Yubaru

I don't know what you are talking about! The link I give is from the US Congressional Report and it shows clearly US takes no position on the sovereignty issue. I don't care Japan OR China story telling, just what the US clear position is. Abe should just come clean and stop his blatant lie or Kerry might just show him the US 'big stick' This could means for example US might say we support you in the letter of the Security Treaty regarding Senkaku/Diaoyu Island but if US sees Japan as intransigent and actually framed China to start a war like the radar lock incident in Japan home turf , I think Kerry should advise POTUS Obama if the Spirit of the Security Treaty is not carried out in good faith by the Japanese, US will lead from behind, far far behind until Japan is really in a corner, millions dead first! Of course if China attack first without being framed by Japan, then US is obliged to help.

Excerpt: A letter of October 20, 1971, by Robert Starr, Acting Assistant Legal Adviser for East Asian and Pacific Affairs--acting on the instructions of Secretary of State William Rogers-- states that the Okinawa Reversion Treaty contained "the terms and conditions for the reversion of the Ryukyu Islands, including the Senkakus."10 U.S. POSITION ON THE COMPETING CLAIMS In presenting the Okinawa Reversion Treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification, the State Department asserted that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing Japanese and Chinese claims to the islands, despite the return of the islands to Japanese administration. Department officials asserted that reversion of administrative rights to Japan did not prejudice any claims to the islands. When asked by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee how the Okinawa Reversion Treaty would affect the determination of sovereignty over the Senkakus (Diaoyus), Secretary of State William Rogers answered that "this treaty does not affect the legal status of those islands at all."11 In his letter of October 20, 1971, Acting Assistant Legal Adviser Robert Starr states: The Governments of the Republic of China and Japan are in disagreement as to sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. You should know as well that the People's Republic of China has also claimed sovereignty over the islands. The United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants. The United States has made no claim to the Senkaku Islands and considers that any conflicting claims to the islands are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned.12 Successive U.S. administrations have restated this position of neutrality regarding the claims. In the midst of the current tensions, the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Japan have reiterated this position.13

http://congressionalresearch.com/96-798/document.php?study=Senkaku+Diaoyu+Islands+Dispute+The+U.S.+Legal+Relationship+and+Obligations

China should do no more, and no less, just keep patrolling and never introduce military force into the equation first!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

So, this is like a new Cold War, except that China is playing the U.S. role by outspending Japan and stretching her resources. Not a bad read for a Monday morning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@TonyEw....my quoted comment is from the link you provided. Sorry if you didn't read it, that's not my mistake.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BertieWooster

All this dispute will be easily resolved if Kerry tells Japan the facts as noted here and start negotiation with China! Exactly!

OK. What is the possible outcome of the negotiation? Will you answer me, BertieWooster? I do not see that China and Japan can reach any agreement on this matter through negotiation.

ngeorge,

The islands in question have been listed on maritime charts as belonging to China for about five hundred years.

You must be talking about "Shun Feng Xiang Song" (順風相送). The problem is if all the places recorded in the book belong to China, then Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Okinawa, Nagasaki all belong to China. We should not let Chinese imperialists set a dangerous precedent based on that imperialistic book.

Jeff Ogrisseg,

Every economist in the world predicts that GDP of China is going to surpass that of the US in several years. At that time China will be outspending the US in defense budget.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

AustPaul,

In any case I wish Japan and China would sit down and nut this out diplomatically and responsibly...

Totally agree!

Whether Abe goes to Beijing or Beijing comes to Tokyo, or they meet in some neutral place doesn't really matter. These guys have got to talk!

-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