national

Japan to patrol disputed islands if Chinese vessels sail too close

31 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

31 Comments
Login to comment

Passing by and waving hello/goodbye is not dangerous, but displaying and having locked in radar is intimidating.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

What does this article really mean to China? Absolutely nothing. They did the same thing to Tibet and many other parts of China during its takeover of the ruling system. If the tables were turned then without a reasonable doubt as the Americans like to say, China would sink the Japanese ship, and then later say well we did tell it to leave. Does anyone recall when China shot down the US's prize possession a U2 spy plane and the US did what? Absolutely nothing.

XI is drinking wine and laughing with his generals. Strong talk like Obama amounts to nothing but hot air. Sorry to say but as my US friends say: truth hurts. Until Japan puts SDF bases regardless of size in the Senkakus,since it is Japan administrative rights and ownership, what can China do/ Acutally I'm surprised that they haven't done that already because Japan and the US would be doing much about nothing and blowing hot air of which China knows full well.

If Japan does build and China moves in with gas drills, cut their production straws and make sure the straw is on their side.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

International laws grant the right of passage of naval ships within other nations’ territorial waters as long as they don’t pose a threat to security, the report said.

It's called "innocent passage."

But China does not believe in it. (The US does though.)

China won't let anyone "innocent passage" thru their waters.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Bjohnson23: AS far as Tibetians are concern Tibet aren,t part of China. This is a perfect situation for Japan to make a deal with China. Do a better Job keeping the DNKP under your thumb and we give you the 50 m2 of inland. Bargain!!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

“If a foreign naval vessel transits our waters for (purposes) other than ‘innocent passage’, we will order a sea patrol and take the step of having the Self-Defense Force unit order withdrawal,” Suga told a news conference

Japan should be very careful how they threaten China. China's military is more than double Japan's population. Japan is relying on 'Big Brother' (the US) to step in and stand up for them, but they will not raise an eyebrow if China is responding to an aggressive move by Japan. They have also changed the pacifist constitution to play big boys games. Sadly, I believe Japan is stupid enough to actually attack a Chinese ship.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Japan to patrol disputed islands if Chinese vessels sail too close I surely hope so.

"China's military is more than double Japan's population. " But they're on the mainland and most equipment is outdated. Japan is believed to the the strongest Navy and Air Force in Asia (next to America). Plus China knows that, as you said "Big Brother" is right there. But, I believe that you got it backwards... Sadly, I believe that China is stupid enough to actually attack a Japanese ship.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

DisillusionedJan. 12, 2016 - 09:00PM JST Japan should be very careful how they threaten China. China's military is more than double Japan's population.

Ohhhh all of Asia should shake and shudder and let China take whatever they want, right?

Japan is relying on 'Big Brother' (the US) to step in and stand up for them, but they will not raise an eyebrow if China is >responding to an aggressive move by Japan

Anyone who thinks Japan is capable or wiling to take an "aggressive move" is on those "dangerous drugs". The article above shows how Japan is telling China not t escalate the issue by brining naval ships into the waters. That China will continue to escalate dispute areas with the threat of military force is obvious. Japan should build a manned observation station on the Senkakus while they still can.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Go Japan.

Stand up finally to those aggressors.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

This plays into China's hand very well. They love intimidation and so far the world ignoring China has been the best medicine as its economy tumbles.

If Japan really wanted to stand up to China, it would withdrawal all it's manufacturing there, y'know, really do something

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan is believed to the the strongest Navy and Air Force in Asia (next to America).

China has more strength overall by far. It's true, however that some of Japan's is more advanced. A war would destroy both countries. Let's not, okay?

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=Japan&country2=China&Submit=Compare+Countries

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The rule to having an upper hand in any confrontation is being the "first mover". No one, in this day and age really wants a military conflict, so if someone takes steps to assert their PHYSICAL control of territory, it then becomes very difficult to reverse that without taking extremely provocative actions that would involve military conflict.

The South China Sea is gone. The Chinese have it. They moved in, established physical control and there is no way they will be dislodged now. Just as there is no way that Russia will be dislodged from Crimea. Or the "Northern Territories". Or Korea from the Liancourt Rocks.

China is not stupid. They will not engage a military force to "recapture" these islands. But.... if the islands are neglected and they could take them without a military engagement, they may well consider it in the future. However, if Japan mounts a robust defense NOW, to include these measure and potentially a physical presence on the ground, that would change the equation.

I am not a warmonger; however, the best way to ensure peace would be for Japan to establish a permanent military presence on the islands. It raises the bar so high that it would force China to rethink their approach.

Just my opinion.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

told China that any foreign naval vessel that enters Japanese waters for reasons other than “innocent passage”

Guess the chinese are going to resume those 'innocent passages' then.

will be told to leave by a Japanese naval patrol, signalling a potential escalation in a long-running dispute.

What if they don't comply? Everyone knows Japan's rules of engagement are a joke.

Japan’s government, Suga said, had approved the course of action last May.

Great. Now those SEALDs protesters will regroup and start another protest against the security bills.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@bjohneon23

since it is Japan administrative rights and ownership

Administrative rights - yes. Ownership - no.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

China will just force Japan's hand to create an incident then claim innocence. Does anyone have a doubt?

Japan needs to clear out their manufacturing in China, find worthy economic partners instead of enabling a screw-up

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"China's military is more than double Japan's population. " But they're on the mainland and most equipment is outdated. Japan is believed to the the strongest Navy and Air Force in Asia (next to America).

K, fair enough. But the "real" nitty-gritty is that ONLY 11% of Japanese are willing to fight for Japan. So if the s**t hit the fan, Japan (without America) would truly be screwed.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The economy of China is in the toilet and they may decide what they need is the "Short victorious war" to distract the Chinese people from their problems at home. Take the disputed islands from Japan using military force. Then fight Japan while hoping the US will remain neutral.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

They better patrol them right now, or they wake up one morning and find a Chinese construction crew on them.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

ONLY 11% of Japanese are willing to fight for Japan

Do you really think that the Chinese have enough honor, pride and discipline to follow orders and die for THEIR country? Especially now that much their force is in the newer, spoiled "one-child" era. Even the Chinese leaders are worried about this.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What China does is take steps to see how far it can go without anyone pushing back. If you bother to read the state-controlled Chinese media they are greatly upset by this latest Japanese move. However, at the present time it is unlikely that China will actually do anything aside from the usual screaming and shouting and invective; it is too concerned with its own domestic problems.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do you really think that the Chinese have enough honor, pride and discipline to follow orders and die for THEIR country?

Yeah . . . prob more than Japan too. The 11% tells me that japanese don't give a toss. It's why they pay DC for USAFJ and their families to be "stationed" here.

The South China Sea is gone. The Chinese have it.

Aren't the chinese drilling in the East China Sea. Don't forget, another chinese aircraft carrier is on the way too.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Wc626: You are right in oneway but if they do decide the aggression way, a very small precent would be willing to die. THat would be still very big ground force to infected enough damage along with stopping imports. The infrastructure and the economic damage would leave any small country struggling for decades. China would retreat and wait and see if there would be a response. What Happen after that will determent the further of the asian / Pacific area of the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another scenario.well japan navy can shoot and sink chinese ship. Like Turkey did. And give reasons like turkey that i told you so and now i hide behind US eigth fleet. US please support due to our ally agreement. Well how will US react . Same as us portect turkey happy trigger.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wc626JAN. 13, 2016 - 12:12AM JST K, fair enough. But the "real" nitty-gritty is that ONLY 11% of Japanese are willing to fight for Japan. So if the s**t hit the fan, Japan (without America) would truly be screwed.

Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Kerry stated that the U.S. security agreement with Japan “remains ironclad and covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands.” It is clear that any aggressive action by China against the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands will involve U.S. forces from the outset.

In the event of war it is unlikely China would restrain itself from bombing American bases in Japan. Many of these bases are surrounded by villages and towns, and even using precision-guided weapons civilian casualties would be inevitable.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Lots of posters speculate about shooting and bombing... reality is different. This is about political reality. Reality is that once a Chinese presence is established on the ground, there will be lots of huffing and puffing, but the the presence is there and will not go away. Just look at China`s annexation of the Vietnamese Paracel islands and about the artificial island they have built in Philippine waters. Nobody is going to bomb or shoot them.... the Chinese are there and are not going to leave.

Same situation in the Senkakus. Either Japan puts boots on the ground now, or the Chinese government will. That is reality, better face it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Senkaku/Daioyu islands were transferred to Japan in terms of “administrative rights.” The U.S. clearly avoided the term “sovereignty” when returning these islands in 1972. The phrase reflects in part the ambiguous status of the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands. The Senkaku/Daioyu Islands were not part of the Ryukyu Kingdom originally. In addition, given the political environment of the Cold War the special proximity of these islands to the PRC gave them a special status in the eyes of the U.S. Perhaps the U.S. wished to carve out a special political space for those islands. That phrase “administrative rights” with regards to the islands deserves careful consideration. One might ask what exactly the difference is between “administrative rights” and sovereignty or ownership. In what exact sense does an island belong to a nation and who, ultimately does that nation belong to? The question must be raised if it is equitable to apply western influenced methods to determine the ownership of the islands.

If Japan has definite ownership of Senkaku/Daioyu islands without doubt, why would Japan offer to explore resources jointly with China? If Japan owns it, they didn't need to ask China. It shows that Japan has a weak claim. The solution to the competing claims emerged in 2008, when Japan and China reached a principled consensus on joint development of disputed area that includes the potentially gas-rich Chunxiao/Shirakaba field. However, the 2010 ramming of Japanese Coast Guard cutters by a Chinese fishing boat and the subsequent arrest of the Chinese captain by the Japanese, have halted all movement toward formalizing the 2008 consensus.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"If Japan has definite ownership of Senkaku/Daioyu islands without doubt, why would Japan offer to explore resources jointly with China? If Japan owns it, they didn't need to ask China. It shows that Japan has a weak claim. The solution to the competing claims emerged in 2008, when Japan and China reached a principled consensus on joint development of disputed area that includes the potentially gas-rich Chunxiao/Shirakaba field. However, the 2010 ramming of Japanese Coast Guard cutters by a Chinese fishing boat and the subsequent arrest of the Chinese captain by the Japanese, have halted all movement toward formalizing the 2008 consensus"

PATENTLY FALSE!

The fields are located near the median line between the two nations' territorial waters, but no agreement has been struck on the more contentious issue of fixing a demarcation line between the two sides.

Joint development was only vented as a way of preventing Chinese rigs from sucking gas from the Japainese side of the still not clearly demarcated border lines.

Makes one wonder why would anybody try to post false info in 2016, when it's so easy to access articles dealing with this issue!!!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Peeping_TomJAN. 14, 2016 - 01:16AM JST PATENTLY FALSE!The fields are located near the median line between the two nations' territorial waters, but no agreement has been struck on the more contentious issue of fixing a demarcation line between the two sides.Joint development was only vented as a way of preventing Chinese rigs from sucking gas from the Japanese side of the still not clearly demarcated border lines. Makes one wonder why would anybody try to post false info in 2016, when it's so easy to access articles dealing with this issue!!!

If you didn't know, Joint development agreements (JDAs) are already common across Asia. Japan is no different. Most of the countries with a DISPUTED CLAIM in the South China Sea have signed at least one joint agreement to explore for oil and gas, either in the South China Sea or in neighboring areas like the Gulf of Thailand and the East China Sea, so there are many precedents to draw on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good going, Japan. The Chinese have to be stopped...somewhere. It is better to stop China in the Senkakus than to face Chinese troops in Tokyo. Besides, the Chinese are blustering cowards. They won't do anything when you stand up to them. Look at what happened in India. Look at what happened in Vietnam. It's always the same. The Chinese retreat to save their behinds. Besides, if they should sink a Japanese ship in the Senkakus, the US is required to come to Japan's assistance. However, don't make the mistake of sinking a Chinese vessel, because we won't help you unless you're the one who has been attacked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If you didn't know, Joint development agreements (JDAs) are already common across Asia."

I am well aware of that, thank you very much.

However, your premise that the joint development was based on "Japain's weak claim to sovereignty is not true.

"If Japan has definite ownership of Senkaku/Daioyu islands without doubt, why would Japan offer to explore resources jointly with China? If Japan owns it, they didn't need to ask China. It shows that Japan has a weak claim"

Your words, not mine!

And they are incorrect. Joint development was ONLY a solution to China's probable encroachment on Japain's side of the maritime dispute. Nothing to do with all the rest you came up with.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Peeping_Tom JAN. 14, 2016 - 03:49AM JST Your words, not mine! And they are incorrect. Joint development was ONLY a solution to China's probable encroachment on Japain's side of the maritime dispute. Nothing to do with all the rest you came up with.

Where Japan's facts on "terra nullius"? If you look at the map, distance from Senkaku/Daioyu Islands to mainland China is 200 nautical miles, and distance to Tokyo is 1,884km? And Japan claim as "terra nullius"? Stating that China didn't know about this island, that Japan discovered?

Then why until 1900, Japan refer to the islands around Taiwan with Chinese names? The Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Why suddenly Diaoyu/Senkaku became terra nullius after 1894 when Japan annexed Taiwan and other islands? Clearly, the exercise was to pre-empt any counterclaims by China or to legalize what they were stealing Japan surveyed the islands for 10 years and determined that they were uninhabited. That being the case, in 1895 it erected a sovereignty marker that formally incorporated the islands into Japanese territory.

Before Japan defeated China in 1894, Japan went surveying the islands in the East China Sea. the Chinese named since Ming period as the Diaoyu centuries back. Therefore, in 1884 Japan took an interest on Diaoyu ten years before she defeated China in 1894 in the First Sino-Japanese War. China used it as a marker in its route from Fuzhou to Naha, now in present-day Okinawa, and where occasion demands, its fisherman would seek temporary refuge from the raging sea storms, thus its name Diaoyu means “Fishing Platform.”

It just does not make sense that the Japanese, with nothing to gain, would spend ten years meticulously surveying the islands before 1894. Oil or gas had not been discovered or reported to be around the vicinity for Japan to be interested, at that point of time the need for fossil energy was not critical to Japan. Why would Japan embark on a non-viable survey for ten years to determine without any doubt that Diaoyu was terra nullius? If, as Japan claims, the ten years spent surveying the islands would mean they were likely to encounter Chinese fisherman taking shelter there in a storm and not actually terra nullius, would Japan have accepted that the islands were visited by Chinese fishermen?

Then why Japan did not lay claim to Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands before 1894 the year Japan vanquished Qing China’s navy? Why wait until 1896 after Japan forced an unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki on China in 1895 to pass an imperial decree to make Diaoyu a Japanese territory? Surely it is obvious that Japan had not surveyed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands to verify that it is no man’s land or uninhabited, because Japan could not as Japan knew the islands belong to China.

That accounts why Japan could not claim to discover the islands unless by outright war of conquest, which Japan did in 1894, and issued an imperial decree in 1896 to make Diaoyu a part of the Japanese Empire after the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Thus it would appear to me Japan is disingenuous, as Japan well knew long before her 1894 defeat of China, the Senkaku Islands were named as Diaoyu, a fishing platform for Chinese fishermen to take refuge in storms and route markers. To say Japan surveyed ten years the islands she called Senkaku Islands was a pretence Japan did not hear of the name Diaoyu used by China centuries before Japan called it Senkaku Islands.

The truth is very much lacking from Japan. Now, why terra nullius and not res nullius (a thing that has no owner)? To claim terra nullius is to say no one ever lived there before, and at the point of time, the discovery was made. Thus, having ‘proved’ terra nullius, Japan purported to land in Diaoyu and claims it as a discovery. That was what precisely Japan trying to legitimise their theft and answerable to no one with what is suspiciously a big lie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Very, very briefly to you:

1) Proximity/distance has no relevance on sovereignty

2) Tokyo is not the only part of Japain; there is a place called Yonaguni, which I believe you KNOW is Japain

3) Yonaguni is a mere 150 Km from Senkakus, closer than anything China can muster

4) Based on your theory and proximity alone Japain already won the case then!!!

5) No Chinese has ever lived on the Senkakus

6) Japainese on the contrary lived and worked there

7) Senkakus were acquired in accordance with International Law, whether you and China like it or not.

8) Settled case law supports Japain, re: Island of Palmas case; find out the ratio decidendi was before mouthing off.

9) Point me towards any case law that supports China

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

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