national

Chinese coast guard confronts Japan in disputed waters for first time

95 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

95 Comments
Login to comment

and some officers aboard the vessels are believed to carry sidearms.

"Are believed"? What's the mystery? Either they do or they don't. Maybe the reporter could have picked up the phone and asked the Coast Guard's PR spokesperson, "Do officers on your ships carry sidearms?"

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Why not Japan Govt introduce GATE PASS and put some fees for entrance,

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

I say they should just JANKEN for the islands... ya know, just get the dispute over with! They are after all, only rocks! Rocks, scissors, paper!!! School children settle disputes this way everyday! LOL!

-29 ( +3 / -31 )

Nikkei has lost more than 400 points today, is it that investors are getting nervous due to current confrontation in disputed waters?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

So much for the octopus ink about the various agencies acting independently when they went overboard. They were always cat's paws.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

“As it is named the coast guard, its ships are likely to be authorized to carry light weapons so that they can enforce the law

Whose law, exactly?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Since when did the Japan Coast Guard (海上保安庁) become a "civilian organization"? Are they serious?

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Since when did the Japan Coast Guard (海上保安庁) become a "civilian organization"? Are they serious?

Technically speaking it is, if you consider the police to be civilian as well.

The Maritime Self-Defense Force however is a different story.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Shoot `em down. Japan is WAY TOO NICE to their neighbors!!!!!

2 ( +12 / -10 )

CrazyJoe

Japan Coast Guard (海上保安庁) is under the supervision of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism not the Ministry of Defense making it a civilian organization. Different from the US Coast Guards as well since they fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security making them a quasi military agency.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Maybe the reporter could have picked up the phone and asked the Coast Guard's PR spokesperson, "Do officers on your ships carry sidearms?"

CG PR flak probably said "Why not write it like this: 'some officers aboard the vessels are believed to carry sidearms.'"

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The Chinese are baiting the trap, just liked bullies usually do to draw someone into a fight.

9 ( +17 / -8 )

Just wait until there is an accidental collision or similar - then the sparks will really start to fly.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@Yubaru @SamuraiBlue

Thanks. I must have misinterpreted the meaning of "civilian".

2 ( +6 / -4 )

As usual though the title, with a given for deniable plausibility, is misleading, even though technically true. This is the newly formed joint patrol, but these ships have been testing the waters for quite a while now. Even though the title says "first" time.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Regardless of every commentators stance on the validity of the reporter I guarantee you that China does plan on aggressively pursuing the waters around these islands for territorial claims. I for one support a strong and unified Japan, and applaud Mr. Abe for his nationalist. As n American I can say that Japan has been one of our best allies (S. Korea is also to be commended) in NE Asia because they truly do believe in democracy and free markets. It is not just an economic gain for us (as in China) Americans really have an admiration for the people of Japan as seen in our contributions after the tsunami (and not necessarily after disasters in China) We want a strong and united Japan to stand with us in the Asia-Pacific region, continue your charge Mr. Abe!

10 ( +14 / -4 )

some14some: Nikkei drop 400 points today due to strong yen, not confrontation with China, corporates have certain control of government so if any issues they will ask Abe to stand down.

gregory.california: America may be a democracy and they believe in free markets, freeing up foreign markets so America under their trade protectionism can dump and control economies abroad. Americans admire Japan? Last I was in Okinawa, an American Marine lining up in front of me a AW said “why don’t these people speak English? There are 50,000 marines here and they don’t speak English….” He looked at the waitress with utter disrespect!

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

These incursions aren't only showing that China doesn't take Japan seriously but is also throwing disrespect for the USA forces present in Japan. The USA has no say in what china does in the Philippines area or Vietnam area unless those two places request the assistance from the USA . As for Japan they are obligated as per the treaty that umbrellas Japan. Any confrontation is going to give the excuse the USA needs to slap this bully on its fingers

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Nikkei has lost more than 400 points today, is it that investors are getting nervous due to current confrontation in disputed waters?

I don't think so. I think that is mostly unrelated.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I reckon they should just duke it out. A short quick fight - a few ships and planes. First to blink signs over the stupid rocks.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

whoever fires the first shot...gets caked

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

For crying out loud, stop pussyfooting around!

Whoever is leading this country needs to talk to whoever is leading China and work out the problem of these islands.

Why on Earth can't you do that?

What do we pay enormous salaries to politicians for?

0 ( +8 / -8 )

China say the island is owned by China. Japan say the island is owned by Japan. Why disputed? 1. China and Japan ,neighbor ,genes similar or same, long time ago many people moved from China to Japan . History, sometime the island was occupied by China and sometime by Japan. 2. World War 2. Japan lost the war. 3. USA . Disputed problems between China and Japan benefit USA. The island problem was designed by USA. How to solve? No leaders dare to abandon an island . China suggests mutual administration before problem solved, China and Japan can establish some relative temporary administration systems. Or just put the problem aside till solved many years later. China provides Japan many advantages to establish joint factories in China. Return Japan allows China to establish joint corporations in Japan. Why not joint administration for disputed island ? Japan and China can form joint companies in China and Japan. So the key is USA. the only winner.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I thought Japan would have already had the capability to defend its 1,000s of islands by amphibious means, now we find out they rely on aircraft for defense of its territories.

I would say they are too late in the run now to start thinking about a marine force, perhaps if they had thought of this before they could have stationed some of their marine force in the disputed area to stall the chinese attempt at stand over tactics for the islands.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan should just cut to the chase and build something on the islands. Anything Then any "landing" by China will qualify as an invasion. .

9 ( +14 / -5 )

The more Abe stirs the pot the more waste materials come out. Just note that Abe is the one who started all this horse manure and creating uncertainty. Perhaps he thinks Japan has been too peaceful for too long and is gaming for a fight having his American promoter behind him. When he finally hits the floor he will find that he is very much alone. After Japan's World War Two aggression Asian countries are all wary of the military resurgence being promoted by Abe. If Abe thinks that by doing so is going to solidify the people's support for his very painful economic policies he is in for a great surprise. Let the play run out. The closing of the stage curtains could be quick and with boos instead of standing ovation.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

"Chinese academics"

I wouldn't want them to my home for dinner.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The Maritime Self-Defense Force however is a different story.

Even the Self-Defense Forces are, to be precise, special civil servants, and thus technically civilians.

Whoever is leading this country needs to talk to whoever is leading China and work out the problem of these islands.

Call me a pessimist, but these problems cannot be "worked out". You can paper over it with any number of agreements, but ultimately it comes down to sovereignty, and only one country can be the true sovereign. That country will have a huge edge in any "dual-use" agreements, since they are generously allowing its use by another country at all.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I said it before and I will say it again. Japan has to put people in those islands, hoist the flag and without doubt make those islands Japanese territory. As long as Japan is playing this cat and mouse game with China, Japan is simply encouraging China to continue to be the bull they love to be. Encourage a bully and you will simply are asking for more bullying.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

CUBANOJul. 26, 2013 - 08:57PM JST

I said it before and I will say it again. Japan has to put people in those islands, hoist the flag and without doubt make those islands Japanese territory.

Just like Manchuria in the 1930s

As long as Japan is playing this cat and mouse game with China, Japan is simply encouraging China to continue to be the bull they love to be. Encourage a bully and you will simply are asking for more bullying.

Who says, apart from Japan, that these islands are Japanese?

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

BertieWoosterJul. 26, 2013 - 07:21PM JST For crying out loud, stop pussyfooting around! Whoever is leading this country needs to talk to whoever is leading China and work out the problem of these islands. Why on Earth can't you do that? What do we pay enormous salaries to politicians for?

And talk about what Bertiewooster? What is there to talk about with a bully who claims what's yours but won't take the issue to the ICJ?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Who says, apart from Japan, that these islands are Japanese?

Everyone? Who aside from China says they aren't Japanese?

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Please be accurate. A light Frigate Class Patrol ship is NOT a battleship, Frigates are about 5,000 tons, Battleships were over 40,000 tons, the Japanese Battleshps Yamato and Musahi were 65,000 tons. Use of that term wrongly is very poor writing indeed.

As for the incident, i expected they didn't put on that new paint job for nothing, they will keep pushing and Japan has to just stand firm. Bullies do not back down without being confronted and matched.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

ShankunJul. 26, 2013 - 09:53PM JST

Everyone? Who aside from China says they aren't Japanese?

Please do a bit of reading. Not even the US says these islands are Japanese and the Europeans openly opposed the idea of calling them Japanese.

Just because you don't agree to openly oppose something, does not mean you agree with something. That is so Japanese and childish. It's half the problem Japan has with its neighbours and so hypocritical when relative to their own cultural behaviour among themselves.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

DogJul. 26, 2013 - 10:26PM JST ShankunJul. 26, 2013 - 09:53PM JST Everyone? Who aside from China says they aren't Japanese? Please do a bit of reading. Not even the US says these islands are Japanese and the Europeans openly opposed the >idea of calling them Japanese

The allied victors of WWII decided that the islands are Japanese. The US does not state actual sovereignty, but considering that it was the U.S. that handed them to Japan and has told China that trying t take them by force will result in a war with the U.S., there really is nothing to be arguing about in this regard.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

@BertieWooster

It is pretty incredulous that there hasn't been some agreement to date-I am a direct recipient of Japan's close economic connection with China. To think that so much could be thrown away so quickly and easily leaves me dumbfounded......

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Quick take, I would be asking for U.S. assistance now, not later. Joint patrols, and the whole works. Japan is really underestimating the situation, China is proceeding systematically, not hit-and-miss. They are not going to stop unless Japan proposes a co-operative of some sort or a defeat on the high seas of their Chinese Coast Guard and or Naval forces. Be careful, peace on the seven seas.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Two Japanese scholars say that the islands belong to China. They are Tadayoshi Murata from Yokohama National University and, Kiyoshi Inoue from Kyoto University. Just surf the net for these two names so you will have your own clues.

Another scholar, from New Zealand, Martin Lohmeyer, from Canterbury University in New Zealand also has a comprehensive on-line thesis about these islands. Again, search the web with "Lohmeyer and "Senkaku" and his website will show up at the top. Maybe you will understand the truth.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

I said it before and I will say it again. Japan has to put people in those islands, hoist the flag and without doubt make those islands Japanese territory.

So, does that mean Japan acknowledges and accepts Dokdo and those Kuril Islands are not disputed anymore because they have Korean and Russian people and flags on them? or does this magical thing only works when Japan does it?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

kurisupisuJul. 26, 2013 - 10:48PM JST

@BertieWooster It is pretty incredulous that there hasn't been some agreement to date-I am a direct recipient of Japan's close economic connection with China. To think that so much could be thrown away so quickly and easily leaves me dumbfounded......

That's the Asian mentallity for you. I've heard so many Japanese say that would rather see Sony or Honda go bankrupt. than be sold th the Chinese.

These islands are the same mentallity on both sides.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Breaching promises, refusing to talk it over, ignoring testimonies, then calling neighbor a threat, beefing up force, counting dead bodies instead of sitting on a table, never makes sense. Under the Netouyo taken leadership, postures hostile to nighboring countries, tries to trick the world by enforcing a totally distorted history, then gets stood-off by all over the world, secedes from UN, causes WW3, gets a downfall. That's a fate for us to go. By the way, any of "foreign born Japanese defender boys", you may come to my Ameba Guruppo, I'm going to teach you how to write proper Japanese, as long as you guys seem to be not capable of managing proper Japanese, search me by "Nancy blab".

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Stating Facts:

From Cairo Declaration, Nov 25, 1943

Japan shall be stripped of all islands she has seized or occupied in the Pacific since the beginning of World War I in 1914. All the territories Japan has taken from China such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China. The Allies are determined that Korea shall become free and independent. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.

Essentially it means is Japan is NOT entitled to any islands beside the four primary islands: Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu.

What is to be "disputed" here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

as bad as it might be, but we must all stop that chinese government, or else they'll gooble up all asia. with their strong economy, they think they are unstoppable, and they will just push and push and try to bully their way to get all the resources. as if they don't have enough territory; what an arseholian government we have as neighbors.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Oh come on.

This is all just smokescreen.

Abe's goading the Chinese to make it look like there's a "dangerous situation" here so that he can get the constitution changed and remilitarise Japan.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The allied victors of WWII decided that the islands are Japanese.

Nonsense. The Allies actually decided that Ryukyu islands, South Kuril islands and Diaoyu islands were all not part of Japan. That's the reason why they declared the following:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

in the Potsdam Declaration.

And Japan did announce its acceptance of this decision of the Allies in several documents including the Japanese Instrument of Surrender which says:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Be aware that China will repeat this over and over hoping Japan will chew it someday. Japan, Do not dance with their tune. That's exactly what China want Japan to do to shift a blame on you.

Japan, do not get provoked and stay calm while you are working on diplomatic solution and appealing to the world how aggressive China has been in the Asian Sea. This is exactly how China has been taking a control over other countries in the past. .. This communist government is filled with corruptions and domestic social unrests, and it will break soon.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine

"We", as in Great Britain, U.S., and Republic of China did determine that Senkaku was not part of China. As to the Posdam Declaration which is signed by U.S., U.K. and Republic of China, the first two parties signed a Peace treaty with Japan whereby U.S. was given a sole " right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters" while Republic of China executed a separate Treaty with Japan not only recognizing the aforementioned Treaty(terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty) but failing to mention the renouncement of Senkaku by Japan thereby agreeing that the said islands were never the property of Republic of China to begin with.We went over this already.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

This whole thing is an exercise by China to try to increase their territory by intimidation while ramping up the nationalism at home to keep the party in power. It's a dangerous practice that the rest of the members of ASEAN, NATO, and Russia have learned to stop doing because of the possible consequences. It seems China has not yet learned the lessons of WWII. Unfortunately people who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sadly they are going to take us along for the ride.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The US and Japan are two of China's largest trading partners and vice versa. If you ignore for a moment who the islands belong to, anyone can clearly see that the provocative actions that Chinese are taking show that they seem too blind to realize that they're just tightening the noose around their own neck.

Not to mention the fact that even though China and South Korea are so worked up about "japan is becoming more militaristic!" they're too blind or ignorant to realize that their actions, like this, are just adding fuel to the fire.

Nonsense. The Allies actually decided that Ryukyu islands, South Kuril islands and Diaoyu islands were all not part of Japan. That's the reason why they declared the following: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Umm, so why is Okinawa part of Japan? And if "such minor islands as we determine" doesn't cover the Senkakus why did the US Senate pass an amendment to reaffirm its commitment to Japan over them?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It’s a free promotion for the Chinese Coast Guard, now we all know about the new Coast Guard Agency. Notice the logo and colours on the ships! Nice work China, your promotion tactic is working very well. This is not at all a bullying tactic. So drum it up.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The more Abe stirs the pot the more waste materials come out.

Is there a country in the world producing more "waste" (figurative and literal) than communist china? I think not.

Perhaps he thinks Japan has been too peaceful for too long and is gaming for a fight having his American promoter behind him. When he finally hits the floor he will find that he is very much alone.

Who's "gaming" for a fight here louis? Anyone with their eyes open can see that its the communists. I guess they still haven't learned their lessons. Wonder how many beating it will take?

After Japan's World War Two aggression Asian countries are all wary of the military resurgence being promoted by Abe.

Speaking for the entire region are you louis? If there's a more hated and reviled country in the world than communist china, I'd be surprised. Don't expect any of those "Asian countries" to have your back when you are getting your ass handed to you again.

Let the play run out. The closing of the stage curtains could be quick and with boos instead of standing ovation.

I agree. The result will be the long awaited death of communism. I imagine that's something that will bring the entire world to its feet in a standing ovation.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

hidingout, it’s the China “waste” that moves the world economy right now. “Who’s gaming for a fight,” obviously it’s Japan. Who’s been planning to change the Constitution, increase military budgets, acquire drones, change name of defense forces, just to name a few? Also, almost forget to mention the military drills on “recapture the islands.” China is now the most welcome country in the world, it has over 170 countries in the world that have China as their largest trading partner, more than double that of the US. Can you name any country in the world that does not welcome China? Now, think about how many countries do not welcome the US? You are still living in the old days and still fixating on the communism. Communism is no longer a problem; even now the US is shaking hands with Vietnam and still thinks Russia as an enemy. China already has a standing ovation for its success on producing the economic miracle, the longest growth ever in the world. A lot of people have been predicting a collapse in its political system and the economy for decades now and you might be one of those people who guessed wrong.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The problem is that if clashes erupt over the Senkaku/Daioyu islands, China may find itself in a position where it cannot compromise without severe damage to its domestic legitimacy. In these disputes, Chinese nationalism collides with other nationalisms, especially that of Japan, which embodies strong historical resentments. It means that most of China’s neighbors want the U.S. to remain militarily present in the region. Even if the U.S. were to withdraw, it is highly unlikely that these countries like Japan, Vietnam, and Philippines would submit meekly to Chinese hegemony. But if the U.S. were to commit itself to a military alliance with these countries against China, U.S. would risk embroiling America in their territorial disputes. In the event of a military clash between Japan and China, U.S. would be faced with the choice of either holding aloof and seeing its credibility as an ally destroyed, or fighting China.

Neither the U.S. nor China would “win” the resulting war outright, but they would certainly inflict catastrophic damage on each other and on the world economy. If the conflict escalated into a nuclear exchange, modern civilization would be wrecked. Even a prolonged period of military and strategic rivalry with an economically mighty China will gravely weaken America’s global position.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

World War 3? It will be a nuclear war through missiles. Nobody will win.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

*dog:

Not even the US says these islands are Japanese and the Europeans openly opposed the idea of calling them Japanese.*

When have they changed their view? According to San Francisco Peace Treaty that was signed by 48 countries included Dutch, UK, Greece, Norway,,etc. They are not Europeans? Canada, New Zealand, America, and so on. Totally 48 countries signed it.

Saying those islands which are listed as the islands remaining to Japan in the SF peace treaty in article 3 are not Japan, that means challenging the treaty. The treaty functioned to reset the world order for the future after WW2. Japan was not in the position saying anything for its decision.

Chinese Government did not say anything then for a long time what they say today. But even their Jinmin Nippo News paper printed Senkaku as Japan.China issued the official maps said so, too. At lease 5 maps that I saw till 1968. Then suddenly China claimed the island is China as soon as the potential oil was found in 1968.

If anyone thinks it finds some error in the treaty, the law exists for that reason, basically it saying that'' When it finds an error or asserts the invalidity of a treaty, the announcement to the country directly concerned is required by the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties article 65''. However, no government or any nation have filed a complaint or made an announcement of error invalidity of the treaty until today as of today. If what you said is true, I will be confused.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Chamkun Jul. 27, 2013 - 04:32AM JST When have they changed their view? According to San Francisco Peace Treaty that was signed by 48 countries included Dutch, UK, Greece, Norway,,etc. They are not Europeans? Canada, New Zealand, America, and so on. Totally 48 countries signed it.

Huh? It doesn't matter what other 48 countries think. China wasn’t invited, did not attend, and therefore does not recognize the Treaty of San Francisco. So it doesn't mean anything. The treaty is basically invalid to China.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

It's like two sisters fight over one orange. One wants the peel to make a pie crust, and the other wants the seeds to grow more oranges. I know the Time Guardians say that these islands will be of even greater importance in about forty years. But blowing up the orange would just be dumb! Technically these Islands were made to be Japanese and singed by GEN. MacArthur, who was at that time considered to be the President of the World.

We could've been up to 180 states with MacArthur in office.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

sfjp330

Huh? It doesn't matter what other 48 countries think. China wasn't invited, did not attend, and therefore does not recognize the Treaty of San Francisco. So it doesn't mean anything. The treaty is basically invalid to China.

Really? That sounds as if China is out law nation.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

MacArthur also wanted to drop A-bombs on 4 or 5 major Chinese cities. Got him fired but maybe that explains why the China supporters all hate the United States.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Full scale confrontation will damage both countries economy. Communist Chinese leaders must think about reality and not what they want to be. On the other hands, Communist does not like diplomacy solution and never work with Communist Chinese leaders. So Japanese Government has to deploy Navy for permanent station on Senkaku Island.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

4649Julian

Really? That sounds as if China is an out law nation.

Right!!! A normal country respects any treaty especially the treaty set a new start line of the post war with the 48 countries signature as a consensus of the world. If China can think, '' It does not matter because we were not invited'' That is a one of the actual proofs that they can set the value on their Sinocentrism more than anything else. That makes China as the out law nation.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The PRC and it's paid supporters/inetrnet slave labor are out in force on this one.

I for one am waiting to see Article 9 go out the window, on that day I will pop my fine bottle and will love it when Japan will be able to push the thug PRC out of it's waters.

The PRC might have the 3rd largest navy in the world, but after you take away their Soviet hand-me-downs their navy is small.

The coming war shall not be fought on land, it shall be fought on the oceans and seas.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Chamkun Jul. 27, 2013 - 05:39AM JST If China can think, '' It does not matter because we were not invited'' That is a one of the actual proofs that they can set the value on their Sinocentrism more than anything else. That makes China as the out law nation.

U.S. and U.K. wanted to control the treaty and excluded China from the '51 SF Treaty. China anticipated reparations from Japan in any peace treaty and insisted that Formosa and other territories should be ceded back to China in the treaty and not be dealt with by the United Nations. U.S. and U.K. could not agree to this. PRC insisted that for the purposes of the treaty with Japan, Taiwan and other territories should be defined as part and parcel of the rest of China, a position both still maintain to this day.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Kobuta Chan

Full scale confrontation will damage both countries economy. Communist Chinese leaders must think about reality and not what they want to be. On the other hands, Communist does not like diplomacy solution and never work with Communist Chinese leaders. So Japanese Government has to deploy Navy for permanent station on Senkaku Island.

No actually the Chinese diplomats are fairly advanced and competent. Japanese diplomats, not so much.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Last year, Secretary of Defense Panetta noted the treaty but strongly emphasized that the U.S. takes no position on this territorial dispute and encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute peacefully. This shouldn’t have to get to the point where people start invoking treaties. Misplaced pride is East Asia's greatest downfall. To those that think the islands are truly important, consider how many island disputes there are in the world. The Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute should be kept low key and shelved for diplomats while relations between Asian countries focus on important issues. Japan and China are important trading partners, and China's trade accounts for 21 percent of Japan's GDP compare to 9 percent for China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please China, continue tying this noose around your neck.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

sfjp330Jul. 27, 2013 - 07:14AM JST Last year, Secretary of Defense Panetta noted the treaty but strongly emphasized that the U.S. takes no position on >this territorial dispute and encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute peacefully

Please, partially quoting something is simply misleading. And he also told China that the Senkaku are considered within U.S. defense parameters under the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty. In other words, try to take the islands by force and the U.S. will respond.

This shouldn’t have to get to the point where people start invoking treaties. Misplaced pride is East Asia's greatest >downfall. To those that think the islands are truly important, consider how many island disputes there are in the world. >The Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute should be kept low key and shelved for diplomats while relations between Asian >countries focus on important issues. Japan and China are important trading partners, and China's trade accounts for >21 percent of Japan's GDP compare to 9 percent for China.

Everything you say about the economics is true, However China's expansionist agenda with regards the East and South China Seas have been elevated to "core interests" by the Chinese themselves. Breaking he first island chain has been a declared priority for the PLAN for many years now. China should follow your advice, keep it low key, and stop continuing to intrude on Japanese waters.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

OssanAmerica Jul. 27, 2013 - 07:53AM JST In other words, try to take the islands by force and the U.S. will respond.

U.S. will not be involved in defending a tiny rock. They have bigger isssue with economics with China.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

sfjp330Jul. 27, 2013 - 08:15AM JST "OssanAmerica Jul. 27, 2013 - 07:53AM JST In other words, try to take the islands by force and the U.S. will respond. U.S. will not be involved in defending a tiny rock. They have bigger isssue with economics with China.

You are very much mistaken. This issue is not about some "rock". The issue is about strategic dominance in the entire east asia region. Historically every country that had been defeated by the U.S. has always made statements similar to yours,

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Just give it back!!! . It use to belong to China but Japan took it after defeating China in the first Sino-Japan War triggered by Japan's illegal annexation of Korea and another Japanese victory in second Sino-China War seemed to affirm Japan's claim. After WW2 Japan continued to take control given the authority do so by U.S.Gov't. and China was out of the picture at the time because it was in the middle of Cultural Revolution.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

tokyodoumoJul. 27, 2013 - 10:03AM JST Just give it back!!! . It use to belong to China but Japan took it after defeating China in the first Sino-Japan War

No they didn't. The Senkakus were not part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki that ended the Sino-Japanese war. They never belonged to China and no Chinese have ever inhabited them.. Not to mention that Chinese maps showed them to be Japanese territory throughout the 1950s and 60s. That suddenly changed after the discovery of oil. China isn't fooling anybody.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@ Pizzatime, JeanValJean, gregory.california, CrazedinJapan, Shankun, OssanAmerican, Serano.

There is a book written by Murata Tadayoshi, Professor at the Yokohama National University. I suggest all of you read it as to who is the rightful owner to these disputed Islands.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

"OssanAmerica Jul. 27, 2013 - 07:53AM JST "In other words, try to take the islands by force and the U.S. will respond. sfjp330Jul. 27, 2013 - 08:15AM JST U.S. will not be involved in defending a tiny rock. They have bigger isssue with economics with China."

OssanAmericaJUL. 27, 2013 - 09:17AM JST "You are very much mistaken. This issue is not about some "rock". The issue is about strategic dominance in the entire east asia region. Historically every country that had been defeated by the U.S. has always made statements similar to yours,"

Sounds like a good way to stiff China coming soon.

And who owns them depends on how far back one goes. Japan as a whole was according to Chinese legend first inhabited by Chinese researchers looking for a medication to help the emperor of China live for ever. Search for immortality. The search party apparently never returned and Japan was born. That being said I am sure there were many Inuit and other ethnic groups here before them too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"avigatorJul. 26, 2013 - 11:12PM JST

Two Japanese scholars say that the islands belong to China. They are Tadayoshi Murata from Yokohama National University and, Kiyoshi Inoue from Kyoto University. Just surf the net for these two names so you will have your own clues.

Another scholar, from New Zealand, Martin Lohmeyer, from Canterbury University in New Zealand also has a comprehensive on-line thesis about these islands. Again, search the web with "Lohmeyer and "Senkaku" and his website will show up at the top. Maybe you will understand the truth."

You can find any number of "scholars" who will say this or that; it is quite meaningless. They are just basically stating their own opinions, and those two gentlemen undoubtedly have reasons of their own for saying "the islands belong to China," (perhaps to sell books)? They are essentially the same as all the Western academics in the 1950's and '60's who said that the Soviet Union's communist system was superior to the decadent Western capitalist system. You will find those types in every country; it is the hallmark of a democracy with free speech. No doubt there are Chinese scholars who might say that the islands belong to Japan, but you would never hear it, because in China they would face reprisals if they publicly stated an opinion that contradicted their government's stand.

I am mystified why anybody would imagine that a university thesis is any kind of authoritative document. I have read that thing by Martin Lohmeyer, it is just a thesis written (rather poorly) by a law student going for his degree and condenses selective references. "Historical claims" mean nothing in this instance, because the Senkaku Islands have been controlled by Japan since 1894 with no objections from China until 1972, when a survey showed that there might be significant deposits of oil and gas near there. Territorial issues between China and Japan were decided by the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Chamkun: When have they changed their view? According to San Francisco Peace Treaty that was signed by 48 countries included Dutch, UK, Greece, Norway,,etc...

What is the point of mentioning the San Francisco Peace Treaty which has got nothing to do with the Diaoyu/ Senkaku islands?

The San Francisco Peace Treaty merely obliged the US government to hand over the Ryukyu islands (i.e.Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude which clearly excludes the Diaoyu/ Senkaku islands) to the United Nations under the UN trusteeship system (UN system for decolonization) for future independence.

And the UN trusteeship system did help many former colonies throughout the world to gain independence since its foundation as can be seen from its website:

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml

1 ( +1 / -0 )

War is also a solution, just saying... And i don't think china is ready to go to war with Japan

2 ( +2 / -0 )

How about giving the Senkakus independence?

"The Democratic Republic of Senkaku/Diaoyu."

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

dingbatJul. 27, 2013 - 12:00PM JST Sounds like a good way to stiff China coming soon. And who owns them depends on how far back one goes. Japan as a whole was according to Chinese legend first >inhabited by Chinese researchers looking for a medication to help the emperor of China live for ever. Search for >immortality. The search party apparently never returned and Japan was born. That being said I am sure there were >many Inuit and other ethnic groups here before them too.

According to Chinese legends the entire universe was discovered by and owned by China in ancient times. LOL There is absolutely no scientific or historical evidence to support a Chinese claim of having discovered Japan. I've heard similar silliness about China having discovered the Americas. There is no evidence of Inuit being in Japan. Whatever ethnic groups existed on the Japanese archipelago such as the Jomon people are now found as genetic remnants in the modern Japanese.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan should just cut to the chase and build something on the islands.

I think a Peking Duck stall would be an excellent business venture in the Senkakus right now.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Bertie is right. Be a great tourist spot I bet!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is well past time for Japan to stop thinking of the past.

Place boots on the ground, ships and aircraft in the area and defend what is YOURS.

In a 24 hour time frame, enough could be in place to control the areas sounding what is yours.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Second to last paragraph is not quite complete: "In one of the most serious incidents of the row so far, Japan said a Chinese battleship locked its weapons-targeting radar on one of its vessels. Beijing denied the charge, accusing Tokyo of hyping the “China threat”.

Actually after weeks of bluster China later admitted that the facts were essentially true.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

this will not end well :|

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually after weeks of bluster China later admitted that the facts were essentially true.

Yes, only in the dream of the Japanese Uyoku/ Neo-fascists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guru29Jul. 30, 2013 - 02:01AM JST "Actually after weeks of bluster China later admitted that the facts were essentially true."

Yes, only in the dream of the Japanese Uyoku/ Neo-fascists.

China military officials admit ship radar lock: report

(AFP) – Mar 18, 2013 TOKYO — Senior Chinese military officials have admitted for the first time that a frigate locked its radar on a Japanese destroyer during the two nations' row over disputed islands, Kyodo News reported Monday. In one of the more serious incidents in an escalating wrangle over ownership of the islands in the East China Sea, Tokyo said the Chinese vessel effectively had a Japanese ship in its sights earlier this year.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghD7eJPvXRdgMpb51K6nwFKeP3Vg?docId=CNG.839a63b495e9438c8a1f00676298857c.371

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

China military officials admit ship radar lock: report

I read that Kyodo news' article before. Not only that the Japanese report contains no evidence but it even reported a statement from the Chinese navy which says the Japanese report is "maliciously concocted" and "fabricated out of thin air".

So the statement from nandakandamanda which says "China later admitted that the facts were essentially true" is obviously a lie.

The Chinese government had actually challenged Japan several times to disclose its so called evidence to the whole world but Japan had always declined. Why can't Japan accept the challenge?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guru29 Jul. 30, 2013 - 04:18AM JST The Chinese government had actually challenged Japan several times to disclose its so called evidence to the whole world but Japan had always declined. Why can't Japan accept the challenge?

Japan consulted with the U.S. after the incident and they are following directions as advised. The U.S. has been pressing Japanese officials to try to get the hot-line talks moving again with China, and such agreements are key if low-level clashes are to be headed off before they become larger.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guru29Jul. 30, 2013 - 04:18AM JST The Chinese government had actually challenged Japan several times to disclose its so called evidence to the whole >world but Japan had always declined. Why can't Japan accept the challenge?

China DENIED that the radfar lock took place But they never CHALLENGED Japan to disclose the evidence. In fact they asked that it NOT be disclosed.

"China’s defence ministry has said in a faxed statement, that on both occasions the Chinese ship-board radar maintained normal operations and “fire-control radar was not used”.

It said “the Japanese side’s remarks were against the facts” and Tokyo had “recklessly created tension and misled international public opinion” by making the claim.

“The officials urged Japan to calm the situation by not becoming fixated with the incidents and called on Japan to refrain from disclosing its data proving the radar lock,”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica Jul. 30, 2013 - 04:40AM JST China DENIED that the radfar lock took place But they never CHALLENGED Japan to disclose the evidence. In fact they asked that it NOT be disclosed.

U.S. advised Japan not to disclose. Not China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China DENIED that the radfar lock took place But they never CHALLENGED Japan to disclose the evidence.

Well, when a person accuses you of telling lies, don't you think it is an indirect challenge to you to prove that he is wrong?

“The officials urged Japan to calm the situation by not becoming fixated with the incidents and called on Japan to refrain from disclosing its data proving the radar lock,” Kyodo said.

Again, didn't the Chinese government say the "ghost officials" as described by Kyodo news is "maliciously concocted" and "fabricated out of thin air"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jpshepherdJul. 26, 2013 - 03:06PM JST

I say they should just JANKEN for the islands... ya know, just get the dispute over with! They are after all, only rocks! Rocks, scissors, paper!!! School children settle disputes this way everyday! LOL!

Your're no "Jar Head" with that kind of comment! Who but you perhaps are the only one that considers this an issue of school children? Semper Fi!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Guru29Jul. 30, 2013 - 08:31AM JST "China DENIED that the radar lock took place But they never CHALLENGED Japan to disclose the evidence. Well, when a person accuses you of telling lies, don't you think it is an indirect challenge to you to prove that he is >wrong?

That's a far cry from your previous statement:

"Guru29 Jul. 30, 2013 - 04:18AM JST The Chinese government had actually challenged Japan several times to disclose its so called evidence to the whole world but Japan had always declined. Why can't Japan accept the challenge?"

China never challenged Japan to disclose their evidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is all about the sea bottom resources. The two countries to negotiate a treaty to share in the exploitation of those resources if or when possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China never challenged Japan to disclose their evidence.

So if I accuse you of telling a lie, you think I am not challenging you to show your evidence to prove me wrong?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Looks like japan will be getting a truck load of unmanned reconnaissance plane, possibly fitted out with weapons.

-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