national

Japan plans to deploy troops near disputed islands

54 Comments

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

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

There are many for and against this move, but it is prudent considering the actions of the Chinese around the Senkaku Islands.

11 ( +17 / -6 )

Japanese map first documented by Mori kenseki. He published in 1877. But Ayato Terashima quickly points out that the map has a positioning error. Look into 1895-Treaty of Shimonoseki. 1951-Treaty of San Francisco. The people do not understand the true meaning of peace therefore, people say: History repeats itself. China, Korea (N&S Korea), Russia and many other nations will fight on and fight only. Because people think this Earth is made for man and his race etc...

The man is made off earth and made for earth therefore man is not in charge of the planet Earth. The planet Earth is not for the mankind (humankind) but mankind is for earth.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Smart move by Japan and beyond reproach. No doubt the Chinese will have something to say about this, but I think the standard Chinese response is in order, "Japan has the right to do whatever it wants within its sovereign territory and rejects the provocative interference by China in the internal affairs of Japan."

4 ( +10 / -6 )

I think Japan should be able to put people there, China and Korea certainly do the same to strengthen their claims, (the other island that Japan and Korea fights about.. if they are there its Korea's more or less right?) Im just worried Chinese response will not be "this is a regrettable action" but actually to do something.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

And lets hope by 2019 there will be more than the pathetic 11%ers who are willing to fight for japan.

-17 ( +4 / -21 )

The need to strengthen surveillance over that area is understandable however the addition of hundred of troops is going to raise militarism and increase the tension between China and Japan because of the historical reason even among the Asian countries. This sensitive issue will continue to sour the relationship between China and Japan and obviously anger China triggering public and diplomatic protest igniting passions escalating the already delicate situation harming both sides so if interested please identity possible solutions.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Putting troops near the disputed islands? Why not just on it? Scared?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

YubaruNOV. 27, 2015 - 07:08AM JST There are many for and against this move, but it is prudent considering the actions of the Chinese around the Senkaku Islands.

So escalating this by adding 500 military boots on the ground is considered prudent? Not even China has made such a move, but they are probably considering it now.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

So escalating this by adding 500 military boots on the ground is considered prudent? Not even China has made such a move, but they are probably considering it now.

500 ground troops... wouldn't that be 1,000 military boots on the ground?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I say build a runway.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

@stuart, just maybe tthe chinese do have that same plan and maybe more but still hesitant to do it considering the power might of Japan with America at its side. Just look what the chinese did to the disputed islands with the Phils. They reclaimed the sea thus making the island bigger for their planted military. So sad to know that they did started it during the time that all the countries in the world were busy looking for the lost Malaysian airline. Very cunning and shrewd and alarming.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Can't be that much of an "emergency" if they aren't going to deploy until 2019? Heck… the planet could be a smoldering nuclear wasteland by then the way things are heading now.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The first stage of aggression since the change to the constitution.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

2019??

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Simply a move to escalate things and justify military spending when the country is going bust, as well as to promote Abe's security legislation and arms sales. China will respond in turn, the fear factor and paranoia will increase, and Abe and Co. will rake in the dough (not to mention there has not been a peep from Okinawans since the Chinese ship neared the islands last week).

3 ( +8 / -5 )

2019??

Japan should move the date up to 2016. With this announcement they are giving China too much time to develop countermeasures.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Near means exactly where ?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So sad to know that they did started it during the time that all the countries in the world were busy looking for the lost Malaysian airline. Very cunning and shrewd and alarming.

Let's not have historical dishonesty here. The countries that have claims in the SCS once had followed a status quo of not building or developing in the disputed islands. Obviously, the status quo changed, but here's the kicker: China wasn't the one that started the development in the disputed islands (although they are the ones who have the ability to develop it fast, as the world was surprised to see). Their development there is relatively new that's more of a reaction, and I'm pretty sure it was even before the missing of the Malaysian airliner (that incident just drew the attention away from the island development for a while). So who knows, China's "same plan and maybe more", as you said, for the East China Sea might be in the works now because of this.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

People seem to forget this is all in defense of some useless tiny islands that people don't and won't even live on and Japan grabbed during its imperial era while simultaneously grabbing Taiwan (who incidentally also claims the islands).

If and when this actually happens, I wonder how many complaints by residents will occur? I wonder how crime rates will fair. I even wonder if the locals are going to complain and protest before it even happens because a target has just been painted on their backs.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The Chinese got the idea from S Korea for unilaterally fortifying islands they laid some claim to, in order to create a defacto "possession is 9/10ths of the law".

Now the Japanese have come to the table, a little late and a little circumspect, but you can hardly blame them with two such neighbors.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Big mistake; stirring a hornet nest. An old wise saying: Big quarrel, maketh it a smaller quarrel, then no quarrel. Treasure peace. 70 years of peaceful pacifism should not be lightly thrown away. Better solution is send in a carton of Kirin beer to the island.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Now the Japanese have come to the table, a little late and a little circumspect, but you can hardly blame them with two such neighbors.

So I'm guessing you've totally forgotten about the whole Imperial Japan thing, how Korea was annexed along with Taiwan and the Senkaku islands, how Japan invaded China and etc etc......If anything, you can hardly blame China and Korea for acting the way they do for having such a neighbor. In before the "that was in the past, let by bygones be bygones" comments (while actually using the past AS LONG AS it suits your argument).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

(expletive deleted) There goes Ishigaki as a choice holiday destination.

Abe needs to be stopped, it seems he's itching to start a fight.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@therefugee

People seem to forget this is all in defense of some useless tiny islands that people don't and won't even live on

Right....because the sole metric governments use to decide their territorial interests is "where do our short-sighted citizens want to live?" /sarc.

All of these territorial disputes in the Pacific revolve around economic interests: usually some combination of fertile fishing waters and undersea mineral deposits (especially suspected oil & natural gas fields). Nobody gives two cow patties if "people don't want to live there". The stuff under the sea surface is potentially worth billions of dollars.

I wonder how crime rates will fair.

Generally speaking, military personnel have lower crime rates than the civilian population, and I suspect this is even more pronounced amongst the JSDF.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Japan plans to deploy troops near disputed islands

Near? Ishigaki is nowhere near. It is 170 km away from the Senkakus. And how can land troops go across the 170 km of water? It would take hours before they land on the Senkakus on boat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands#Geography

News agencies should refrain from exaggeration.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Stephen Knight:

"500 ground troops... wouldn't that be 1,000 military boots on the ground?"

Well 995 actually, taking into account 5 one-legged SDF troopers.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan grabbed during its imperial era while simultaneously grabbing Taiwan

This is quite a comparison. Taiwan was "grabbed" in that it, and its thousands of inhabitants, were forcibly conquered by the army.

The Senkaku Islands, on the other hand, had never been inhabited by anyone. And the waters around them had long been used by Okinawan fishermen (not Chinese). And the islands lie very far east of the dividing line in the sea separating Japan's westernmost island (Yonaguni) with Taiwan.

You can't "grab" something that no one had ever wanted and that was on no one's property.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The argument that Japan is provoking China and the country is militarizing by enacting these Senkaku plans is nonsense. Japan has had a presence on these islands for many years. And the total area is tiny compared to China's claim of the ENTIRE South China Sea, where they have never had a presence until recently building artificial islands.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You can't "grab" something that no one had ever wanted and that was on no one's property.

Then quite simply, the Chinese cannot "grab" them either. I am telling you, Hypocrisy/Double Standards needs to be an actual school subject for at least a year in high school. It really seems to be that difficult for people to grasp the concept.

Right....because the sole metric governments use to decide their territorial interests is "where do our short-sighted citizens want to live?" /sarc.

Governments? No. I was talking about international standards. Its why America can't claim the moon.

People actually living in a place is a primary means of establishing who a chunk of land belongs to. Short of that you have history. China's history has clear records of the islands going back further than Japan's. Both Japan and China claim its been Chinese since 1534. Of course people want to disregard that in favor of Japan. Japan was going to take the islands in 1885, but postponed because they were well aware that China thought them theirs. So they took the islands in 1895, to be clear, along with the rest of Taiwan during a war which began in 1894, in which Japan also invaded Manchuria. They took the islands along with the rest of Taiwan, as part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

Even the Japanese used the Chinese names for the islands until 1900. Japan was nothing more than a lying, greedy, imperialist piece of putrid feces during that period. Its hard to believe anybody thinks that the Senkaku islands seizure, at least, was legitimate. Its all just a manifestation of "we don't like China, and Japan is now an ally". If Japan had taken a single uninhabited rock from the vicinity of Hawaii in 1941, everyone would be demanding its return though.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

How about to the north too. Kuril islands are also in dispute with the Russians, is it not?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China is seeking to steal the sea and its resources by itself. In doing so, it is ignoring the territorial waters of all nations around the China Sea, exploiting the fact they are weaker. That does not seem responsible for the so-called "raising power". With such a massive population hungry for energy, food and space, can be expected the claims on the China Sea are only the beginning.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

A stupid move by Japan. They should negotiate with China to return the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands, which they should have done in 1951

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Japan and China claim its been Chinese since 1534.

Sorry. Should read "Taiwan and China". Anyway, its kind of funny how our less significant ally Taiwan says the same as our non-friend China, but Taiwan just gets ignored. Japan should give the islands back to Taiwan. Then, our friend Taiwan benefits for having the ability to patrol the seas around them better, and those seas are more important to Taiwan's security than Japan's. Japan benefits because China will shut up and Japan won't feel it has to make these costly military deployments. The region benefits because the little powder keg virtually disappears.

The only people who would not benefit are Abe's wannabe war profiteers.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

China's dotted line already goes right around Taiwan, so anything belonging to Taiwan automatically belongs to mainland China.

The rocky islets were given a Chinese name as they were navigation points on the Chinese trading route to the Kingdom of Ryukyu. No suggestion of China ever owning them.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

China's dotted line already goes right around Taiwan, so anything belonging to Taiwan automatically belongs to mainland China.

Tell that to Taiwan. They will aim a missile at you and beg to disagree.

No suggestion of China ever owning them.

The fact that Japan dropped its annexation plan in 1885 for not wanting to annoy and alert the Qing Empire is a BIG suggestion.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@CH3CHO

Near? Ishigaki is nowhere near. It is 170 km away from the Senkakus. And how can land troops go across the 170 km of >water? It would take hours before they land on the Senkakus on boat.

Good thing the JSDF has helicopters, then....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I said it before: Better hurry up and put some physical presence on the islands, otherwise we wake up one morning and find the Senkakus crawling with Chinese construction workers building runways and whatnot.... just look at what is happening in the Spratleys.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Noble, also think Ospreys.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hire Chinese labourers to build a runway, housing, tv station and what not. Then hire Koreans to do the maintenance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Better hurry up and put some physical presence on the islands, otherwise we wake up one morning and find the Senkakus crawling with Chinese construction workers building runways and whatnot....

Um, no

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@nandakandamanda

Noble, also think Ospreys.

Trust me, I haven't forgotten about them. I look forward to laughing my butt off when the Marines move out of Futenma......and it promptly gets converted into a JSDF Osprey base. LOL...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Trust me, I haven't forgotten about them. I look forward to laughing my butt off when the Marines move out of Futenma......and it promptly gets converted into a JSDF Osprey base. LOL...

It wont, and anyone that even thinks that it will are truly ignorant about the facts of the situation. Futenma, when returned, will go back to the original land owners who are already working with the local Ginowan government on plans for the future use of the land.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Taiwan, china, etc. No one can really claim them as people's republic of china is the country that took over the republic of china (taiwan). Republic of china took over the empire of china. Depending on how long ago, the land should be returned to the great grandson of the chinese emperor (successor jin yuzhang) orthe Ryukyu kingdom. Since America says annex of crimea was illegal (and hence much of American territory since it was taken from the natives), the annexation by Japan was as well. King mamoro shou of Ryukyu is the other lawful contender.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Senkaku is not similar to Dokdo at all especially in possibility for violence. China is acting out an action of daring someone to try and stop them. If nobody can they will take it all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taiwan, china, etc. No one can really claim them as people's republic of china is the country that took over the republic of china (taiwan). Republic of china took over the empire of china. Depending on how long ago, the land should be returned to the great grandson of the chinese emperor (successor jin yuzhang) orthe Ryukyu kingdom. Since America says annex of crimea was illegal (and hence much of American territory since it was taken from the natives), the annexation by Japan was as well. King mamoro shou of Ryukyu is the other lawful contender.

China NEVER "owned" the Ryukyu's, NEVER, the Ryukyu Kingdom paid tribute to China, and had trade missions and cultural and educational exchanges, but China NEVER had a claim to the Ryukyu Kingdom.

The rest of what you are talking about makes no sense to me. Sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stuart haywardNov. 27, 2015 - 08:38AM JST YubaruNOV. 27, 2015 - 07:08AM JST There are many for and against this move, but it is prudent considering the ?>actions of the Chinese around the Senkaku Islands. So escalating this by adding 500 military boots on the ground is considered prudent? Not even China has made such >a move, but they are probably considering it now.

Japan putting troops on one of their own islands isn't exactly "escalating" anything. And where exactly is China suppose to put THEIR troops?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yubaru:

Chill. Just having a little fun introducing other contenders amd showing that the modern countries aren't really the successors of territory. You still see this with Taiwan. Taiwan (republic of china) is claimed by people's republic of china, but they won't let them take over. Republic of china took over the empire of china despite emperor not backing down. As far as senkakus go, japan annexed them along with its owner, the Ryukyu kingdom. Depends on how far back you wanna go, which is the fun part in these little kerfuffles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Poor Okinawa, always the meat in the sandwich.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Depends on how far back you wanna go,

Seems to me that plenty of people posting here are living in that way far back era when Okinawa was the Ryukyu's.

At least that's how it sounds when they post about ownership issues and territorial rights, they think it's still the middle ages here!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So Yubaru, how far back are we allowed to go? Who made that rule?

And lets talk about terra nullius. You can go to Wiki and read about it. Read about Svalbard. Several countries claimed in for centuries, but Norway ended up getting it, apparently for permanently occupying it. Are the Diaoyu/Senkakus permanently occupied? No. So is it up for grabs for anyone? Well, it seems it should be, doesn't it, if Svalbard is a valid example. But all Japan does is use its military to prevent anyone from approaching. Is that valid?

Seems to be that Japan claims the Diaoyu/Senkakus WERE terra nullius. But in fact, they still ARE.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So Yubaru, how far back are we allowed to go? Who made that rule?

Read what I wrote again. Then tell me what era are you living in? Oh and stop with the comparison or deflection game, just weakens the discussion about HERE!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan plans to deploy troops near disputed islands

Good. And about time.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Good. And about time.

No

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So Yubaru, how far back are we allowed to go? Who made that rule?

You re answering to yourself a fw posts above.

Governments? No. I was talking about international standards. Its why America can't claim the moon.

But all Japan does is use its military to prevent anyone from approaching. Is that valid?

Sur that is although that's not all Japan does.

1 ( +2 / -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