national

Japan, U.S. plan military response to Chinese threat to Senkakus

59 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

59 Comments
Login to comment

It's incongruent to say the US will come to Japan's aid under Article 5 of the security treaty of the Senkakus are threatened but take no position on the soveirgnty of the Senkakus.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Japan is preparing a war ? Abe needs to study arithmetics a little bit better and learn to measure close and far, small and big, few and many, short and long, before go to any battles. My fortune cookie tells me that if Japan launch a war, it will violate the constitution.

-21 ( +4 / -25 )

My fortune cookie tells me that historically China rarely wins any wars and should consider other things other than addition, subtraction, and snacks. Allies and World Alliances and not claiming entire oceanways are actually what keeps the peace.

18 ( +25 / -7 )

thepersoniamnow, China never win a war ? China, according to books in Beijing library, won wars more than all wars combined outside of China. The simplest example is that it took Japan 3000 years to finally launch a war against China 100 years ago. What did Japan do in 2900 years before that ?

-28 ( +2 / -30 )

Right. A war over a few rocks in the sea. Rubbish.

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

Kabukilover, agreed. Can't we just cede it to the birds?

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

As said before I have seen personally, antique maps and islands are definitely Chinese.

-22 ( +1 / -23 )

Rather than hoping for a help of unreliable foreign troops in Japan, Japan should defend our country by ourselves changing the stupid pacifist constitution. Friend in need is a true friend, it says, but we saw an icy attitude of U.S. Forces on Okinawa when we had a hard time about Senkaku. Obama's democratic government did not do anything citing that they do not get involved in territorial issues. Seeing this attitude, China acted freely without any worry about U.S. Forces behind Japan. U.S. was at that time ingratiating to China wanting to expand trade with China. U.S. says they do not get involved in territorial issues, but hey used their facilities in Okinawa and Japan freely to send their troops and flying bombers to Vietnam and other areas. Was this not incongruous for their purpose of defending Japan?

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

A war over a few rocks in the sea.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

I have my doubts that US would sacrifice their young to fight forJapan no matter what the security treaty says. It only serves as a deterrence. Even the Japanese doubt this hence a need for its own military.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

While some Japanese men may indulge in playing with their guns, they have endurance problem. Shortly one year after Japan invaded China in 1937, Japanese economy experienced severe problems. Everything went to military, people have no food to eat, no steal for railroad, no fuels for cars, no medicine for illness. If Japan then couldn't handle the war and economy at the same time, what makes Japan think that it can today ?

-20 ( +3 / -23 )

 A war over a few rocks in the sea.

As foolish as it may sounds, those rocks are important to mark the country's border on the seas, hence the interest lies on what is under the sea, e.g. for fisheries or gas field or etc.

20 ( +20 / -0 )

Make the Senkaku islands a nature reserve - problem solved.....

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Kabukilover

Right. A war over a few rocks in the sea. Rubbish

The Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory. If China occupies them militarily and Japan does nothing, it will only cause Japanese nationalism to increase exponentially. With the consequence that pacifism is reduced in equal proportion.

And in that hypothetical scenario, Article 9 of the constitution could even disappear. Because the indignation and pride of the people would be badly wounded. Triggering in itself a generalized request to do something. In this case the defense of the country by themselves and not depend on anyone from abroad. And for that to happen, Article 9 must be modified.

You really want that. So imagine if it really happened. Because if it happens it may be the beginning of the end of the pacifist clause of the constitution. Think about it.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

If anyone actually believes that such plans have not already existed for at least 10 years they are very naive. The Senkakus are not just "rocks" except to Japan. To China they are a part of the first island chain that they must beak to access the Pacific to counter the United States Navy. To the U.S. the Senkakus are part of the prefecture that houses the largest U.S. Military presence in Asia and serves as a gateway hub to regional operations. The natural resources are secondary to their strategic importance.

So why is this being announced now? Because US-China relations are at their lowest. and US objection to China's military and territorial expansion agenda is running concurrently with our trade and economic friction. Does the issue of "sovereignty" matter? Not really because China already lost all chance of ever securing the Senkakus the moment the U.S. declared they would fall under Article 5 of the US-JPN Mutual defense treaty. China is not prepared to start a shooting match with the United States.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

One, it is very prudent for any nation that has potential flash points like Japan has with the Senkaku Islands prepares for defending their land by making plans to either defend or if necessary retake them then in the event they are invaded.

Two, it's NOT planning for war, it's planning for defense. Abe is not going to attack China, it's ludicrous for anyone to think he is going to START a war.

Three, this is just as much a message to China that if they continue to push things with the Senkaku Islands and if they go so far as putting people on the islands, and notice the article referred to "armed fishermen" Japan is not going to be alone when it chooses to force them off.

Four, anyone who thinks that this is a "first" has their head in the sand. These types of contingency plans have been around since there have been problems surrounding the islands, any country has them. Anyone who thinks that because of the pacifist constitution Japan has that it does not prepare for things like this, also has their head in the sand as well!

15 ( +17 / -2 )

Getting sick of all the bullying and saber-rattling of communist China about Senkaku. If "fishermen" from PRC try to land on Senkaku, bring it on . They will regret it. USA has Japan's back.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

GoodlucktoyouToday  07:32 am JST

As said before I have seen personally, antique maps and islands are definitely Chinese.

Only after 1971.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/17/national/politics-diplomacy/foreign-ministrys-1969-china-map-identifies-senkaku-islands-by-japanese-name/#.W9-JoJNKi00

9 ( +12 / -3 )

U.S. Forces in Japan are our guard dog "banken." I am sorry "banken-sama." I want the banken-sama bark when somebody is approaching or entering to our house.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

In any other country around the world this paper ships would already have been sunk.

Unfortunately, Japan has no backbone!

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Plain and simply, the Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands or disputed territories claimed by Japan, China and Taiwan.

Is it not possible to get back to the time when Japan and China both claimed them but also both recognised that they were disputed? They agreed to differ and there was no problem until the Ishihara tried to buy them leading to the Japanese government buying them to stop them falling into the hands of extremists.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

OssanAmercia and Yubaru are spot on here. Others evidently live in some fantasy-land;

Rather than hoping for a help of unreliable foreign troops in Japan, Japan should defend our country by ourselves changing the stupid pacifist constitution.

Unreliable? Google KEEN SWORD 19 for some real-time news on how strong the bilateral alliance is... 

Friend in need is a true friend, it says, but we saw an icy attitude of U.S. Forces on Okinawa when we had a hard time about Senkaku.

??? - Newsflash - military leaders anywhere, but especially Okinawa, do not make US political foreign policy decisions...and as for friend, please Google OPERATION TOMODACHI....

Obama's democratic government did not do anything citing that they do not get involved in territorial issues.

Blatant falsehood - every member of the US government during Obama's term stated plainly that defense of the Senkakus falls under Article 5 of the Security Treaty, as the islands are under the administration of Japan.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/09/25/national/clinton-senkakus-subject-to-security-pact/

Seeing this attitude, China acted freely without any worry about U.S. Forces behind Japan.

I'm sorry, I must have missed it, China invaded the Senkakus today?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Akie

Maybe the Beijing library went through a “great propaganda purge”. You won’t find other facts about history in China too due to censorship. I think in North Korea they probably claim to be the Worlds leader in everything as well.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

thepersoniamnow, what censorship ? Chinese people know everything you know, Abe knows, and much more. Please tell me how many capitals in the world ? Right now ! That is a grade 1 question in China.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Simple answer to this problem would be to Station a small weather station team on a rotating basis to show ownership, that what China is attempting to do by “homesteading” the islands being contested presently by the Philippines and Vietnam. It’s that old say “possession is 9 tens of the law”, then any attempt by China to lay claim would’ve considered aggression period!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@Kabukilover and Laguna...I agree in principle with your posts however I think the concern is the sea surrounding the islands and the rights and access that goes along with it.

Ganbare Japan - you have found something we all agree with you on. I do not normally give up or downvotes but I am giving you an up on this one.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Bill Wright, what is the basis for Philippines and Vietnam to contest Chinese claim ? China has the claim in 1945, Vietnam recognized the claim in 1957, Philippines never claimed anything outside of its own constitutional territory which has zero overlapping with Chinese claim, before 1945. There are only two claim in the world, one is legal claim, another is illegal. Both Vietnam and Philippines have illegal claim.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Kabukilover, agreed. Can't we just cede it to the birds? {from Laguna}

and then....

Getting sick of all the bullying and saber-rattling of communist China about Senkaku. If "fishermen" from PRC try to land on Senkaku, bring it on . They will regret it. USA has Japan's back. {from Ganbare Japan]

Wow! What a difference in logic huh? Unfortunately, Ganbare Japan might be in for a rude awakening when the US refused to be pulled into a war over a few tiny rocks in the sea. You see, China has a lot of our treasury bonds. If you don't believe me, look at history. The Philippines thought the same thing as it was trying to push its boundary further west into what was considered Malaysian territory, and the US called them on it. "No, we will NOT defend over this!" was their answer. However, really.....if this is Japanese territory, WHY hasn't Japan planted a SDF force base on it, or an observation post on IT, or an Sushi-Roll restaurant on it, or a flipping FLAG on it? Just asking.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Using war to threat China is Japan's expertise. That wakes up the sleeping lion. If Japan has a war plan, what will China have ? It only makes sense for China to have plans too. China has 1.4 billion people to protect, just tell China how many new and clear bombs does China need to stop a war.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Send a few jets to explode the rocks... Problem solved.

Oh I forgot, politicians don't want problems to be solved, otherwise societies won't need them.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Meanwhile the hypocrite China continues to take coral reefs that belong to the Philipines and build a war footing (air base islands) to launch attacks from. If China keeps up these silly games with the Senkakus, you can be sure that China will force Japan to build up a base on one of those islands and maybe even have the US station troops there as well. China is so short sighted that they don't see that coming but it will most likely happen as they continue to threaten the region. It will also in a way help Taiwan as well.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

KnowBetter, which coral reefs belong to Philippines, or Vietnam ? What is the legal basis.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Japan is very capable of defending itself. If it needs atomic deterrence, then get it. Trump is not a transient aberration, he is the foreruner of a 180 degree turn in foreign relations. The world needs a new polieman.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The problem with the current Chinese administration is an exaggerated sense of its own strength. Sabre rattling and war are very different and the so called numerical strength of the Chinese army will have no meaning when it comes at the receiving end.

The Chinese have picked up too many fights and there is a large dissatisfaction amongst the population for caring about giving aid to other countries when it cannot manage its own people. Any war will surely see the end of the communist rule.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

It makes sense for the US and Japan to make these contingency plans as allies.

Some China apologists always talk of war when Japan makes plans or statements that are in its interests. Such pointlessly false dialog should be ignored as the provocative gibberish that it is.

The Senkaku's are claimed by Japan and administered by Japan and any attempt to alter this status quo by any country would see a response form Japan and potentially the US as well. As Japan gets closer to gaining additional allies in the future this could potentially include them as well in the defense plans.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

What they need to do is develop a way to have the military bases China has been built on atolls declared illegal by the international community, and removed from nautical charts and maps - if not from the seabed itself.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

What they need to do is develop a way to have the military bases China has been built on atolls declared illegal by the international community, and removed from nautical charts and maps - if not from the seabed itself.

Ok, but that ain't ever going to happen as these places will continue to exist. Why doesn't Japan just build up a new artificial island along side these "here" new military bases on atolls. Japan likes building artificial islands, look at Kansai airport, Kitakyushu-city airport. And the engineers would LOVE it! And then plant the Japanese flag right alongside these Chinese islands (conservatives would LOVE it), and so everyone wins. Only problem is that the Japanese politicians are spineless and cowardly, and won't DO it. Nor will the Americans too. (Not being anti-Japanese here). So, we clutch our pearls and wring our hands at these dastardly cunning Chinese, and do this for....what years? Come on! For every problem, there is a very easy solution. If one has courage.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

One of Abe’s pledges when he came into power was to station SDF troops on the Senkakus to deter possible Chinese invasions. The islands are still uninhibited. I wonder what’s keeping him from fulfilling his election pledge.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

About time, time to kick out their Chinese garbage can navy ships.

Why Senkaku is worth protecting at all costs is the massive amounts of gas below.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Japan can talk tough as long as the US military is standing behind them...

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Why is Senkaku issue being brought up suddenly now? When Abe mama boy signed trade agreements with China, he is so stupid

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Revision of Art 9 of the Pacifist Constitution of Japan is essential as ultimately Japan will have to depend upon its own strength to defend its sovereignty, for that purpose SDF must be militarily strong equipped with state of art weapons. People of Japan must understand this basic reality and must extend their full cooperation to PM Abe for the revision of the constitution and do not get swayed by the adverse propaganda by the vested forces against this move.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Revision of Art 9 of the Pacifist Constitution of Japan is essential as ultimately Japan will have to depend upon its own strength to defend its sovereignty, for that purpose SDF must be militarily strong equipped with state of art weapons. People of Japan must understand this basic reality and must extend their full cooperation to PM Abe for the revision of the constitution and do not get swayed by the adverse propaganda by the vested forces against this move.

The current interpretation of the constitution allows Japan to do all of that as it is. It has state of the art weapons and it has the ability to defend itself. What specifically is amending the constitution going to do to change any of that?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

But just a fewdays ago we were reading on JT that Abe and China were beginning a new beautuful relationship.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"China never win a war ? China, according to books in Beijing library, won wars more than all wars combined outside of China. "

But only in China, don't count the Mongols

6 ( +6 / -0 )

China must be stoped!!..

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I’m still not sure if this is about protection, paranoia or provocation.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What would worry me about this issue is that it does not take very much for Japan to feel threatened.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

rainyday

The current interpretation of the constitution allows Japan to do all of that as it is. It has state of the art weapons and it has the ability to defend itself. What specifically is amending the constitution going to do to change any of that?

The interpretation of the constitution you mention is actually a rhetorical statement to deliberately disobey Article 9.

The sad truth is that the constitutional thread has been broken to ignore the pacifist clause. And he assured him that when the time comes no one will obey him.

And all because Article 9 is obsolete.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Revision of Art 9 of the Pacifist Constitution of Japan is essential as ultimately Japan will have to depend upon its own strength to defend its sovereignty, for that purpose SDF must be militarily strong equipped with state of art weapon

No you are wrong, revision of the constitution is not about Japan needing to depend upon itself, not even close.

You have a friend, gets into a fight, you can"t help them, even though you have agreed to assist in any way possible, you want to help, but the law says differently, you help, you break the law. THAT is what Article 9 is about, if the US gets into it with anyone, Japan, BY LAW, can not assist nor defend any US military if it is outside of Japan.

Next, the JSDF is NOT in the constitution, technically speaking they should not exist.

Oh and what do you think Japan is? A third world country? Japan is one of the best equipped military forces on the planet.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Akie

Tell you how many capitals are in the world right now???

Wouldn’t that be a quick google search for me? Do you have a point? You know being an internet troll and running around just spewing hate isn’t good for your mental health.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Akie

The Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory. So it is on the UN world territorial map. And there is nothing more to discuss. The best thing for everyone to keep the peace is to leave those islands as they are. What China has to do is stop sending ships and patrol planes around those islands. Japan doesn't want any war with anyone. Japan doesn't want any war with anyone. But it can be dragged into one by China's irresponsible attitude. For wanting to take over a territory that is not theirs.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Akie

The Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory. So it is on the UN world territorial map. And there is nothing more to discuss. The best thing for everyone to keep the peace is to leave those islands as they are. What China has to do is stop sending ships and patrol planes around those islands. Japan doesn't want any war with anyone. Japan doesn't want any war with anyone. But it can be dragged into one by China's irresponsible attitude. For wanting to take over a territory that is not theirs.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Rather than resorting to a show of force and claiming, motivated only by ego-centered nationalism and chauvinism, that the Senkaku/Diayudao islands are their own sovereign territory historically and under international law, both sides must come to the table and engage in more dialogue, on either a state or civilian level to listen to what the other side says. 

So I think this thread is really a good venue on which to discuss the issue freely and frankly. I therefore ask a favor of the Moderator to give us more space for a free, fruitful discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some say that the Senkaku Islands, called Diaoyudaos by mainland China and Diaoyutais by Taiwan, were ceded to Japan by China’s Qing dynasty in the Treaty of Shimonoski as a result of the First Sino-Japanese War. They then argue that since Japan accepted the terms of unconditional surrender stipulated in the Cairo Declaration after World War II, it should observe these terms and fulfil its obligation –– including losing all islands in the Pacific region.

Manchuria, Taiwan, the Pescadores and other affiliated islands were restored to China automatically when Japan surrendered. The Ryukyu Islands, including the Senkakus, were stripped from Japan and put under a US trusteeship.

Why weren't the Senkakus returned to China when Taiwan was restored? Apparently, they were not considered spoils of war taken by Japan.

The international community took the post-World War II regime for granted. Even the People’s Republic of China that had assumed power in Beijing in 1949, kept acknowledging the “status quo” until 1971.

In the Jan. 8, 1953, edition of the People’s Daily, an article describes the island chain stretching between Kyushu and Taiwan — the Ryukyus — and calls an island group in the chain by the Japanese name “Senkakus.”

The article was discovered among Chinese government archives in December 2012 and is reported to describe the Senkakus as part of the Ryukyu Islands, which were a geo-political entity before 1972.

For the rescuing of 31 Fujian fishermen from a shipwreck, then Chinese Nagasaki Consul Feng Mian sent letters of appreciation dated May 20, 1920, to Ishigaki islanders spearheaded by Sonhan Tamayose for their devoted rescue efforts, addressing the area where the accident occurred as Senkaku Islands, Ishigaki Village, Yaeyama Island Group, Imperial Japan. 

The Treaty of Taipei signed on April 28, 1952, stipulates that Japan renounced all rights to Taiwan, Penghu, the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) and the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島), over which Japan no longer had any jurisdiction, but it left out the Senkakus.

These documents and historical evidence reflect that China — regardless of who was in power in Beijing — had thought until at least 1971, that the Senkaku Islands were Japan’s sovereign territory, not just something that Japan won after the First Sino-Japanese War.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

                Why are these barren islands called "Senkakus" in Japan and "Diaoyudaos" in China?

                                                                                       (1)

Common nouns in a language are very ad hoc in naming objects. There's no reason why things are called as they are in languages. However, proper nouns are different from common nouns in that there's always reasons behind -- why they are called by such and such names.

Kubajima (久場島)or Huangwei Yu (黄尾鱮)in Chinese in the Senkaku/Diaoyudao Islands was an important landmark for ancient Ryukyu (Okinawa) seamen and traders navigating on the Okinawa-Fuchuan sea lane. These seafarers, who were thoroughly familiar with the Senkaku waters more than anyone else, called this landmark "Kubajima" because, according to one theory, the island was covered full with “kuba” (or Areca) palms. But I think it was called by that name because the island's shape is quite similar to that of another island called Kubajima, that is located about 40 km west of Naha, Okinawa Island, on the same sea lane. When necessary, the former was called "Iigun Kubajima" to distinguish it from the latter.

Wasn't Chinese "Huangmao (Yu)" (黄毛)as recorded by Chen Kan (陳侃, 1534)and "Huangwei (Yu)" recorded elsewhere, meaning yellow hair or tail, a phonetic conversion of Kuba(-jima)? Note that the k-sound of Japanese (and Okinawan) ordinarily corresponds to the h-sound in Chinese. Or did the Chinese think the island was inhabited by mythic animals with yellow tails or hair and so named it as such?

The easternmost island in the chain is officially called Taishojima in Japan, but historically it used to be called Kumi-Akajima by Ryukyu seamen. Here, too, we see the same mechanism of nomenclature as in the case of Kubajima. There's an island called Akajima in the Kerama Islands whereby Kumi-Akajima in the Senkakus must have been named after this with Kumi added to differentiate it from the original.

The Chinese calls this island Chiwei Yu (赤尾鱮), meaning "red-tailed island." Does it mean the Chinese believed the island was inhabited by animals with red tails? Isn't it a semantic conversion of what Ryukyu seamen called Kumi Akajima (久米阿嘉島), which could mean "Kume Red Island" if cast in folk etymology?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

               Why are these barren islands called "Senkakus" in Japan and "Diaoyudaos" in China?

                                                                                       (2)

The name "Senkaku" comes from English "Pinnacle Islands." The HMS Samarang made a port at Ishigaki Island three times and on its second port calling in May, 1845, it launched out upon an exploration of the hitherto unheard-of island group which the islanders called Iigunjima. Approaching the islands northward from Ishigaki Island on May 8, they must have been struck with the similarity of the first approaching island to Bartolome Island in the Galapagos, which is famous for its Pinnacle Rock, thus calling the island group Pinnacle Islands. The Japanese name "Senkaku" was coined after this by a natural history teacher named Hisashi Kuroiwa, in 1900, who hailed from Kochi Prefecture in Shikoku and taught at Okinawa Normal School. 

The Meiji government called the largest island in the chain "Uotsuri-jma", which is an apparent translation from the Chinese "Diaoyudao". It also called the adjacent islands lying southeast of it "Kita Kojima" (North Islet) and "Minami Kojima" (South Islet) respectively. The Chinese names "Bei Xiaodao" and "Nan Xiaodao" definitely come from these Japanese names.

Ancient Ishigaki fishermen called the island (group) "Iigun-jima." "Iigun" (rhymed with "eagle") means the head of a spear used in dive-fishing, a fishing method probably unknown to the Chinese. The reason why it is called so is similar to why the highest mountain in the Japan Alps in Honshu is called "Yarigadake." The top of the rugged mountain reminds one of the head of a spear ("yari").

Why did the Chinese call the island (group) Diaoyudao meaning "fishing island"? Did unworldly men, as often depicted in Chinese drawings, go there and spent days angling for fish? Or have Chinese fishermen come here to engage in blue-water fishing since ancient times? Note, however, that blue-water fishing started only recently with the development of modern refrigeration technology.

Isn't "Diaoyudao" a semantic conversion of what Chinese royal missions to and from Ryukyu were explained to by Ryukyu seamen and traders traveling and navigating together aboard the same tributary and trading ships? Note that Chinese royal envoys came to Ryukyu Kingdom 25 times during the period from 1373 to 1866. During the same period, Ryukyu seamen, traders and the Ryukyu King's appreciatory envoys sailed to China more than 200 times.

All these linguistic and historical facts must be taken into consideration before anyone says anything definite about sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyudao Islands on the basis of nomenclature.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The fact is, the chinese can shout all they want, but Japan currently control the islands, not China. So China have to physically take them by force.

Senkaku is part of a japanese Island chain, so no way do they want to give in to Chinese bullying. Plus we know that the chinese wd turn senkaku into a tourist attraction, lots of ugly chinese hotels. Another natural spot ruined by chinese.

What japan need to do is build small armoured ships capable of withstanding ramming by chinese vessels. They need missiles on the islands, just like the chinese are doing with their fake islands. A stronger airforce base on the neighbouring island to defend against long range attacks and aircraft carrier incursions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Will Macc,

I'm suggesting more dialogue be needed between the two countries at either a state or civilian level in order to avoid what you are writing here as the fancy takes you..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites