politics

Abe warns of possible military response to intruder subs

96 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

96 Comments
Login to comment

China is pushing the envelope...they need to back down and stop escalating the problem but then a bully can't be made tame by words anyway. The best way to bet a bully is pushing back and standing your ground. China is having problem with increasing unemployment, spiraling inflation, domestic issues, inequality, severe corruption, unrest from occupied territories, and of course food issues like rat meat, floating pigs, double dead meat and they need to divert the attention of its people. They are waiting for an incident to happen.

22 ( +26 / -4 )

They are waiting for an incident to happen.

Or intentionally provoking an incident, which they will turn into an act of Japanese aggression and use as a pretext for escalation.

They are naughty, those Chinese.

20 ( +24 / -4 )

The government would not confirm media reports it was a Chinese sub.

Initial media reports here in Okinawa stated that the origin of the vessel was unknown?

Shouldnt matter though, Chinese or otherwise, if the submarine is passing that close to territorial waters without prior notification being given to the Japanese government Abe and the defense ministry should not be putting out press releases or having press conferences about what they might do, they should DO it and then talk about it later.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Of course, the underlining message here is "we hear you China. Your subs are a joke"

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Or intentionally provoking an incident, which they will turn into an act of Japanese aggression and use as a pretext for escalation.

This is where I do believe you are wrong. It won't turn into an act of Japanese aggression, it would be, if it is a Chinese vessel, an aggressive act my China against Japan, giving Japan the right to defend itself with any and all means at it's disposal.

In this case show some balls Abe, as Japan has the right to protect it's territory and incursions like these are illegal.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

This is where I do believe you are wrong. It won't turn into an act of Japanese aggression, it would be, if it is a Chinese vessel, an aggressive act my China against Japan, giving Japan the right to defend itself with any and all means at it's disposal.

You don't think the Chinese media would spin Japanese action into some kind of attack by Japan on China?!

"Stupidly, one of our submarines got lost and ended up in Okinawa, where it was sunk by the Japanese. We aren't sure how or why this happened, and we apologise to Japan."

Don't think so. I stand by my original statement.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

"Stupidly, one of our submarines got lost and ended up in Okinawa, where it was sunk by the Japanese. We aren't sure how or why this happened, and we apologise to Japan."

Submarines don't get lost that close to land. And even if it did, it just makes the Chinese look even dumber for putting a person in charge who can't drive.

China could spin it anyway they wanted, but the international community is what matters. Do you think for a minute that if the places were reversed that China would let Japan get away with it? I don't.

Sending patrol boats is one thing, submarines, totally different. You don't play chicken like that.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Sounds a lot like a feeling out process. How far China thinks Japan will go and when they'll actually respond aggressively . The unknown for China is when will the USA step in? Well keep parking Subs too close to Okinawa and you may find out. I have a feeling that shortly we'll wake up and China will be all over those islands

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Crazed.....Japan has it's own subs.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Submarines don't get lost that close to land. And even if it did, it just makes the Chinese look even dumber for putting a person in charge who can't drive.

Of course they don't. That's why I originally said:

Or intentionally provoking an incident

It's obviously no mistake, and given recent history, a clear provocation.

China could spin it anyway they wanted, but the international community is what matters.

You think so? Apart from Japan and the US, the international community haven't said much at all about these kinds of incidents in recent times. Chinese incursions, like this one, are becoming bolder, Yubaru, not less so.

Do you think for a minute that if the places were reversed that China would let Japan get away with it? I don't.

Nope, I don't. But Japan AREN'T doing it, China are, and they are right on the front foot.

What do you think China will do if Japan sinks or captures one of it's Subs or other Government ships?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Yubaru what's your point ?? Failed to see why you made that comment where the point I was making had nothing to do with whether Japan had their own or not.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yubaru what's your point ?? Failed to see why you made that comment where the point I was making had nothing to do with whether Japan had their own or not.

Japan doesn't need US subs parked around the islands when they can defend themselves. In fact for the time being, the US would prefer to stay away from escalating the situation and let Japan deal with it until the time when Japan asks for assistance.

When you wrote "The unknown for China is when will the USA step in? Well keep parking Subs too close to Okinawa and you may find out." it sounded to me like you were talking about the US parking subs near Okinawa!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What do you think China will do if Japan sinks or captures one of it's Subs or other Government ships?

Depending upon the situation: Nothing.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yub, go back and read again. The article is about China messing around with subs and ships. The comment is in reference to China parking/passing through those waters....but never mind see what you want to see and that's what you'll see. You don't by any chance spend time on too of a van in front of train stations do you ??

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Submarines entering the waters while submerged would be a serious issue, and one that's very black and white (i.e. no misunderstandings on China's part about what the subs are doing).

I don't say this lightly, but Abe should authorise a military response for any intrusion.

Yubaru said:

Sending patrol boats is one thing, submarines, totally different. You don't play chicken like that.

That's exactly right.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The japanese dont dare to take unilateral action against the chinese. Without making this conversation SECRET/NOFORN china's OTH radar sees everything almost up to Guam, our 7th fleet fears their shore to ship carrier killers and we could never execute a landing of any kind to get our boots on the ground. china's conventional force is still a decade behind us, but they more then make up for it in kinetic kill tech. Its only a matter of time before they make asia one big slave nation. I would love nothing more then to abandon this AOR and take our forces away from this god-forsaken region.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Depth charges

2 ( +3 / -1 )

China won't attack any Japanese islands, not yet anyway. China is still testing the waters and its leaders know the Chinese military does not have the capacity to take and hold Senkaku. In 10 years it might, but right now it doesn't. Since this sub did not violate Japanese waters, Japan does not need to respond. But Japan has the right to respond to incursions into its territory if it sees fit, same as any other sovereign nation.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yub, go back and read again. The article is about China messing around with subs and ships. The comment is in reference to China parking/passing through those waters....but never mind see what you want to see and that's what you'll see. You don't by any chance spend time on too of a van in front of train stations do you ??

Well at least you clarified one thing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Depending on the situation, nothing

Hilarious. And an entirely unconvincing answer. Been reading the news much of late?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

0302 USMCMay. 15, 2013 - 08:26AM JST The japanese dont dare to take unilateral action against the chinese.

If you don't think the Japanese will take a "unilateral" action when they are being invaded, you're dreaming. And if you don't think ARticle 5 of the US-Japan Mutuial Defense Treaty isn't going to kick in. you're dream,ing even more.,

Without making this conversation >SECRET/NOFORN china's OTH radar sees everything almost up to Guam, our 7th >fleet fears their shore to ship >carrier killers and we could never execute a landing of any kind to get our boots on the >ground. china's conventional >force is still a decade behind us, but they more then make up for it in kinetic kill tech. Its >only a matter of time before >they make asia one big slave nation.

Spoken like a PLAN admiral.

I would love nothing more then to abandon this >AOR and take our forces away >from this god-forsaken region.

So China can claim they've owned Guan. Hawaii and California since ancient times? Better get with the pivot.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

It may have been a North Korean sub.......

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Abe's "military response" is simply to hide behind the US.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

nigelboy: "Of course, the underlining message here is "we hear you China. Your subs are a joke"

Is THAT why Abe's crying then? and people like Ossan talk about US defense kicking in? If they are a joke, what's the need to respond?

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Japan would win any submarine skirmish. China, on the other hand, could take the Senkakus, and couldn't be stopped from doing that, but they could be removed, since Japan has few assets on the islands to worry about, and both the US and Japan have lots of nifty weapons.

Of course that would remove part of the Senkakus from existence as well, along with a lot of Chinese people, and it would have the unfortunate side effect of escalating into a war.

The best solution for everyone is to have both sides not go any further with "development" or "surveillance" of the islands, and to get back to what used to be normal. This "on the brink of a giant conflict" stuff makes everyone grouchy, and nothing good can come of it.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Japan really need to smack China in the face and tell them what's what.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Hilarious. And an entirely unconvincing answer. Been reading the news much of late?

What China decides to do internally to it's own people is one thing. They are not willing to have a confrontation with Japan and the gorilla that sits behind it either.

So if China gets it's sticky fingers stuck in the cookies jar and got caught, they would do what they've done up until now, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, threaten, talk, talk talk threaten, and talk some more.

Wait they might be cowardly and have their citizens attack japanese interests in China, but then that is cutting their own throats too. But that's the Chinese way right? Keep the populace focused on an imagined enemy and dont let them think about what's really wrong in their country.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If China pushes further, I guess Japan will come back to build "comfort" centers for their soldiers at Beijing and Shanghai. Action is better than words :)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Abe's "military response" is simply to hide behind the US.

Oh come on, play another record Smith. You say this every time, and yet you would be the first to complain if Japan ditched the USA and militarised on its own. You can't have it both ways. It is the US / JAPAN alliance you are so scornful of that has kept peace in the region for all these years.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Good! It is self-defense in Japanese waters. Self-defense does not mean action after an attack.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Doesn't matter if it is China or whoever. If there is an intruder sub, in Japanese waters, just torpedo the crap out of it and sink it.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Chinese subs . . . Testing 1 - 2 - 3, testing 1 - 2- 3? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Are you sure it really is me? not just a broadcast-ed signature? Hello? hello?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The meek Indian Govt. agreed to destroy its forward posts and stop infrastructure building in the border areas in return for China to withdraw its troops from Indian territory. Similar fate awaits Japan if they do not take proactive measures. Otherwise, one morning we will wake up to see the Chinese flag fluttering over Senkaku. About time to launch some Torpedoes and depth chargers.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

In light of Chinas aggresion and escaltion in past and present situations Japan needs to be tough for its own sake and for the sake of further acts by China toward Japan and other similar situations, notably India, Vietnam, and the Phillipines.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Under the international maritime law, each sovereign nation is only entitled to 12 nautical miles extending from their UN recognized land boundary. If that sub was outside of the 12 miles, it is entitled to travel without harm or the threat of harm. Attacking it would be deemed as a declaration of war under colors or piracy.

So if JDF is SURE that the sub entered into territorial water, go ahead and sink it. IF JDF is not sure, then all these talks are pointless since you can't do anything about it. You think the Chinese would not hesitate to sink your sub if you get close to them?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Under international rules, vessels can pass freely through the outer ring of waters, provided their intent is peaceable.

And here lies the truth of the matter, the PRC is playing a game they think they will win , but in the end all they ar doing is poking a stick into hornets nest like a child.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

the strategically-important and resource-rich islands.

When was this affirmed?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

When subs goes against air-crafts, the air craft will always win.The sub can only retreat or worse sunk by a torpedo.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

highball7, I totally agree.

Ping the sucker and tell it to surface. If it doesn't surface, start shooting. The sub could be holding NK commandos looking to kidnap their next Japanese spy tutor.

The only problem with this tact is that the Chinese will shoot first even if a civilian wanders accidentally into the wrong territory. But who cares, this type of shoot first mentality is common for communist countries, e.g., look at the Korean airliner that was shot down by Russia after it entered its airspace.

China and Russia live under a different norm than the rest of the world and only respect action. If they know you will slap them in the face, they won't stick it out there to get slapped.

Sub incursions have happened in the past when a Chinese sub just cruised right through the Okinawan islands a few years back. This crap needs to stop.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

smithinjapanMay. 15, 2013 - 09:07AM JST Abe's "military response" is simply to hide behind the US.

Just like South Korea is HIDING behind the U.S. because they're afraid of North Korea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frankly Japan can`t allow unknown subs to enter its waters, the North Koreans are the real threat, they have kidnapped Japanese citizens (including children) from Japanese beaches in the past and frankly a North Korean sub entering Japanese waters would be the only viable method of delivering one of their primitive nuclear weapons. Chinese subs need to be careful they aren't mistaken for North Korean subs.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Talk is cheap when you only hiding behind American asses. What you gonna do? tell US to shoot them? not gonna happen. This is why Japan SHOULD have its own military and STOP relying to uncle Sam.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Sink it and say it was a NK sub.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Talk is cheap when you only hiding behind American asses. What you gonna do? tell US to shoot them? not gonna happen. This is why Japan SHOULD have its own military and STOP relying to uncle Sam.

This is where you are wrong. This is purely a defense issue from the Japanese standpoint, and THAT is why they have their own SDF to deal with intrusions like this one. It would be totally within their right to stop the vessel if it had intruded in their waters. No need for a military to do that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Chinese are going beyond their limits. They want to enter India then Japan it seems like they want to take over the world. But I believe in Karma so I feel god punishes them with all the natural disasters.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

China is being a bad boy and needs to be spanked, the sooner the better.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The Peoples Republic of China would not hesitate to sink a sub or shoot down an intruding aircraft.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Japan would win any submarine skirmish.

Japan on their own? Perhaps. Japan with the US? Indeed. Abe is talking tough because he is fully expecting the US to support him and the "self defence force". If it came down to it and the US stayed out of it, I'd be putting my money on China. Japan can't organize itseld out of a paperbag and the SDF is no different.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So it is a question of time before the Chinese Communists call him out on that. Wait for the first ChiCom sub to sneak around the Senkakus under water.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

After 20 years of slow collapsing economy Japan will give emerging Asia gift of Asian Prosperity Zone again. Shame on Japan and Japanese people for being such warmongers. I am never buying anything Japanese again.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Im sure China would give Japan a run for their money and then some. Lets hope nothing goes down.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The SDF is specialist in hunting subs! We have the worlds best equipment and training. What the Chinese is doing is testing our defenses. As for the comments from the Americans, you wonder why we have a poor relationship with such vain people. Either you are on Japans side or not, make up your mind! Then again I should not take the duckspeak of low level American military to heart.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

tmarieMay. 15, 2013 - 12:16PM JST Japan on their own? Perhaps. Japan with the US? Indeed. Abe is talking tough because he is fully expecting the US to support him and the "self defence force". If it came down to it and the US stayed out of it, I'd be putting my money on China. Japan can't organize itseld out of a paperbag and the SDF is no different.

As usual the PRC supporters are talking about something they know very little about.

But never fear I am here to help you out, it doesn't matter how much you have all that matters is how well the training and tech is.

Most of the PLAN's fleet is old Soviet navy hand me downs while the rest, well let's just say they will make great additions to Davy Jone's Locker.

You pals need to understand that history shall repeat itself if they continue poking that Hornets nest.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Manu DattaMay. 15, 2013 - 12:31PM JST After 20 years of slow collapsing economy Japan will give emerging Asia gift of Asian Prosperity Zone again. Shame on Japan and Japanese people for being such warmongers. I am never buying anything Japanese again.

Living in the land of make believe is not living, or could it be you're the newest addition to the PRC Water Internet Army?

BTW, Japan will get over you not buying their products, really they will, so go eat some "lamb" and enjoy the mystery meat!LOL

1 ( +4 / -3 )

WilliBMay. 15, 2013 - 12:17PM JST So it is a question of time before the Chinese Communists call him out on that. Wait for the first ChiCom sub to sneak around the Senkakus under water.

Never heard or saw a PLAN sub called a Chicom, what is it a Romeo or Kilo knockoff?

Or are you trying to make a funny?LOL

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Yubaru

This is where you are wrong. This is purely a defense issue from the Japanese standpoint, and THAT is why they have their own SDF to deal with intrusions like this one. It would be totally within their right to stop the vessel if it had intruded in their waters. No need for a military to do that.

That's not gonna work. If Japan attack, China will attack back. Even just skirmish, US will definitely intervene no matter what happen. Therefore the notion "Japan hiding behind US" is absolute. Just like Saudi Arabia and any other US puppets. Japan playing their role really really well.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

That's not gonna work. If Japan attack, China will attack back

You missed something, Japan wouldn't "attack" it would be "defending" and totally within their right!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The "natural rock formation" in the Nihonkai is called Takeshima (Dokdo to the Koreans) and is a different issue. The bigger Senkaku Islands are big enough to definitely qualify as real islands

@Yubaru

You missed something, Japan wouldn't "attack" it would be "defending" and totally within their right!

Yes, but China would still "attack (back)".

And they'll probably insist that they were not quite in territorial waters when Japan attacked. If that doesn't work, they'll play the "overdoing it" card.

Overall, if it stays a submarine skirmish, right now I think the Japanese can win, even without US help. If it becomes more than that, then it is harder. The PLA is getting better both in equipment and training, and Japan's remaining advantage is in its long period of superiority. As one measure, the PLAAF actually flies more hours, at least in its 4-generation units (read: the ones that will be employed against Japan) than the JASDF (over 200 v 150 or so a year). As for the quality of training, we have to remember the JASDF gets to play with the USAF from time to time, but nevertheless does not routinely have access to that sophistication of training. The Chinese PLA likely has a better allocation of bullets than the JGSDF (which is about 10 rounds per month even for infantry units - non-infantry it is 20 rounds per YEAR) and they have more space and thus more opportunity for large scale maneuvers. Plus they can attack and defend, and Japan would definitely need American help.

So maybe the US' task is to stay out of the sub fighting while ensuring it stays at that level by its large, silent presence.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@smithinjapan

Abe's "military response" is simply to hide behind the US. And that's what USA have been wanting Japan to do... that's why until now there is not action by USA. hehehehe

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Does anybody recall the movie Red October where the Soviet ambassador talks with his US counterpart about a missing sub? That is the exact dialog that is going to take place with PRC and Japan if and when a sub is sunk within Japan territories since PRC will not and cannot admit it was theirs that was trespassing into Japan submerged.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So should we torpedo the American Subs that come into Okinawa, often without prior consent from Japan?

We just need to resolve the territorial dispute, once done there should be no issues.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Ar, the international community is run by the Americans so they can spin it to our favour.... Go Japan!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

We have the worlds best equipment and training.

Laughable. More so coming from a poster who is always demanding the US defend them.

As usual the PRC supporters are talking about something they know very little about.

How on earth and I PRC supporter? Oh right, because I don't believe that Japan is the bestest country with the bestest military training and weapons. Please. Not agreeing with some comments doesn't mean I am on any side. Seems you're the one that is talking about something you know very little about.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You missed something, Japan wouldn't "attack" it would be "defending" and totally within their right!

It depends on where the exact location is. And for some unknown reasons, japan has refused to reveal the exact location.

It is also a big question whether Japan holds the sovereignty of Ryukyu/ Okinawa since it had given up the sovereignty of it according to the series of WWII documents such as the Potsdam Agreement, Japanese Instrument of Surrender, San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.

For example, **Japan ceded the sovereignty of Ryukyu to the UN under an UN trusteeship according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty which says:

"Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands)"**

In 1972, the US government transferred the administration rights of the Ryukyu islands to Japan without any approval from the UN and without applying to the UN to restore the sovereignty of Ryukyu to Japan.

The US government further said: "The United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants."

It is therefore only logical to conclude that the San Francisco Peace Treaty is still valid and the Sovereignty of Ryukyu islands still lies with the UN.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It is also a big question whether Japan holds the sovereignty of Ryukyu/ Okinawa since it had given up the sovereignty of it according to the series of WWII documents such as the Potsdam Agreement, Japanese Instrument of Surrender, San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.

It seems that it's only a "big" question for the nut cases in Beijing that want to push their luck and try to build an empire!

Everyone else in the world KNOWS that Okinawa Prefecture is a part of Japan.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Are you sure it is Chinese what about your Subs when they are out on exercises.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For example, **Japan ceded the sovereignty of Ryukyu to the UN under an UN trusteeship according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty which says:

"Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands)"**

You misread the treaty. Japan ceded the sovereignty of the Ryukyu islands to the US, not the UN.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Yubaru

You missed something, Japan wouldn't "attack" it would be "defending" and totally within their right!

No i'm not. Obviously, Japan will attack because for defending their boundary. And that's my point. So still, the notion "Japan hiding behind US" is undebatable.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

President Abe seems to be losing it. He is stirring all kinds of contentions.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Japan will attack because for defending their boundary. And that's my point. So still, the notion "Japan hiding behind US" is undebatable.

If a Chinese sub, illegally enters Japanese waters and the Japanese choose to sink that vessel they wont need the US to do it for them. All it would take is someone to have the balls to give the order.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

DeDeMouse

Even just skirmish, US will definitely intervene no matter what happen. Therefore the notion "Japan hiding behind US" is absolute.

No mate, it's called a Japan-US alliance. You want Japan to militarise on its own? No problem, let's bring it on. Increasing weaponry will be a big boost to the economy, and Japan can start selling high-tech arms to other countries too. You want a swing to the right and a militarised Japan - really? There's never been a more likely time in the past 70 years than now.

Be careful what you wish for son, it might just come true.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

justicetz. Wondering why you dont want chapter 9 to be change? We have a freaking China trying ot invade us. We will change article 9 and arm ourselves to the teeth.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Is THAT why Abe's crying then? and people like Ossan talk about US defense kicking in? If they are a joke, what's the need to respond?

He's not crying. It's simply a warning targeted to whomever that encroached.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

As usual, just another storm in a cup of tea!

Provocation, no real threat, no illegal maneuver and a huge PR mess!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You misread the treaty. Japan ceded the sovereignty of the Ryukyu islands to the US, not the UN.

Read the San Francisco Peace Treaty carefully. It says Japan will agree to an US's proposal to the UN to place Ryukyu and etc under an UN trusteeship. If it is just a transfer of sovereignty from Japan to the US like what you said, then there is absolutely no point to get the UN involved at all.

The following statement from the US government also shows that you are wrong:

"The United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants."

In essence, it says the transfer of administrative rights in 1972 has got nothing to do with sovereignty. So it is you who has mistaken UN as US, not the other way round.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It seems that it's only a "big" question for the nut cases in Beijing that want to push their luck and try to build an empire!

Well, if I am from Beijing, I would have said the sovereignty of Ryukyu belongs to China. But I said the sovereignty lies with the UN according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. If you believe the San Francisco Peace Treaty is legal and still effective, then you would have agreed with what I said. On the other hand, if you think the San Francisco Peace Treaty is illegal or invalid, then you will disagree with me.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Everyone else in the world KNOWS that Okinawa Prefecture is a part of Japan.

I don't think so. Japan promised to abide by the Potsdam Declaration in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender for the ending of WWII and the 1972 China-Japan Treaty.

And the Potsdam Declaration says:

"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 (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And as far as I know, at least UK, China and Russia have never formally agreed that Ryukyu belongs to Japan.

Tens of million of lives were lost in WWII for the establishment of peace based on the Potsdam Declaration, Japanese Instrument of Surrender, San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc. Do you think these treaties/ agreements are just joke like what the right-wing Japanese here believe?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Open Minded

It was a serious act of military provocation even if it was within the limits of international law. A cruise missile shot from a sub under water 24 miles away can reach it's target on land within a minute. This is a serious threat that requires serious consideration.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sorry but you keep reading it wrong.

Okinawa was never under UN trusteeship at any time. Even the UN trusteeship website says this.

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

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Guru29

One point there was NO United Nations when the Potsdam Declaration was made.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Yubaru

If a Chinese sub, illegally enters Japanese waters and the Japanese choose to sink that vessel they wont need the US to do it for them. All it would take is someone to have the balls to give the order.

OFF COURSE! And you think China will just sit down and doing nothing? IF Japanese choose to sink Chinese vessel, a war will broke out. A war between Japan and China IS a war between USA and China. NOT a war between Japan and China.

-3 ( +0 / -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 (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

Russia was not one of the issuers of the Potsdam declaration.

And as far as I know, at least UK, China and Russia have never formally agreed that Ryukyu belongs to Japan.

The UK and China did formerly agree that Okinawa was going to be under the sole control of the US.

The UK signed the Treaty of San Francisco. China signed the Treaty of Taipei which accepted the Treaty of San Francisco. Russia wasn't involved with the Potsdam deceleration.
0 ( +2 / -2 )

And lastly, neither the UK nor China (both Taipei and Beijing) objected to the return of Okinawa to Japan.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And lastly, neither the UK nor China (both Taipei and Beijing) objected to the return of Okinawa to Japan.

UK and Russia seemed indifferent regarding the transfer of administrative rights over Ryukyu.

Both China and Taiwan however, renounced the 1971 treaty regarding the transfer of administrative rights over Ryukyu which according to the US government has got nothing to do with sovereignty.

"The United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants."

The UK signed the Treaty of San Francisco.

So? It merely shows that the UK did agree to the ceding of sovereignty of Ryukyu from Japan to the UN. The treaty says:

"Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands)"

China signed the Treaty of Taipei which accepted the Treaty of San Francisco.

So? Taiwan did agree to a small portion of SF treaty which does not involve Ryukyu or Diaoyu islands. And Japan renounced the treaty it signed with the government of Taiwan in 1971. So there is no point discussing about the treaty with Taiwan at all.

Russia wasn't involved with the Potsdam deceleration.

You have no idea that Russia is the legal successor of USSR?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

A war between Japan and China IS a war between USA and China. NOT a war between Japan and China.

Not necessary. The US has its own interests to look after. And the US will certainly try its best to stop or avoid any war even before it get started.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

One point there was NO United Nations when the Potsdam Declaration was made.

So? Is the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed in 1951 or 1945?

It was a serious act of military provocation even if it was within the limits of international law.

If it is so serious, why hasn't Japan protested to the country concerned like what it used to do? And why is it that Japan did not even want to reveal the location of the submarine? So there must be something fishy.

Mind you that China takes any use of force by Japan to reclaim territories it lost under the Potsdam Agreement and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender as a resumption of WWII.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Okinawa was never under UN trusteeship at any time.

If indeed the trusteeship as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty never existed, it would have invalidated the SF treaty and the 1971 reversion treaty too. And other treaties/ agreements such as the Potsdam Agreement and Japanese Instrument of Surrender will become the sole treaties/ agreements that can be depended on.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Guru29 A better question would be whether sovereignty was transferred or surrendered at all by the terms of the treaty. If Japan surrenders sovereignty over the Nansei Shoto (or perhaps, as you want to imply, it had none to begin with), its concurrence with the proposal would be irrevelant and meaningless. Without sovereignty, it has no power to decide what happens to the Nansei Shoto.

And a trusteeship, in essence, is a temporary delegate. Thus, being a trustee is antithetical to having ownership or sovereignty.

Thus, it must be concluded that the very wording of the treaty already assumes as a founding condition that Japan has sovereignty over the Nansei Shoto.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China seemed to be "unloved" by neighbors for the same issue, it's time for Japan Gov't to unite those countries addressing the issue forcefully before China put 2 new aircraft carriers for full operations within 4 years. Vietnam, Phillipines, Taiwan, S. Korea, Indonesia, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore will respond to Japan's regional leadership with open arms because of their fruitful economic relationships with Japan for decades. The Americans having issues to deal on their own at home currently as it's seemed like a civil war going on between their political parties (Democrats vs. Republicans), and they'll be distracted for world stage's issues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If indeed the trusteeship as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty never existed, it would have invalidated the SF treaty and the 1971 reversion treaty too. And other treaties/ agreements such as the Potsdam Agreement and Japanese Instrument of Surrender will become the sole treaties/ agreements that can be depended on.

You are ignoring the second half of article 3 which says the following

Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

Note that the treaty never stipulates that the US will make a trusteeship proposal.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Guru29

If indeed the trusteeship as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty never existed, it would have invalidated the SF treaty and the 1971 reversion treaty too. And other treaties/ agreements such as the Potsdam Agreement and Japanese Instrument of Surrender will become the sole treaties/ agreements that can be depended on.

Let's read the Article again: Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

Since apparently, the United States made no such proposal, we are left with:

Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

And the very fact Japan can say the United States has the right to exercise administrative rights already assumes it has sovereignty. Otherwise, it has no right to agree to such a thing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Guru29 the people of Okinawa do not want to be a part of the Peoples Republic of China! To be under the iron fist of the communist stinks. No I would favor fighting to the death! We do not need the help of the Americans to sink Chinese sodai gomi submarines!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Guru29 the people of Okinawa do not want to be a part of the Peoples Republic of China!

Did I say Ryukyu is part of China? I didn't.

I will say the historical status of Ryukyu is very similar to that of the other vassal state of China, i.e. Korea. And if the Koreans can achieve freedom, why not the Ryukyuans?

From the following disclosed US document, it is very clear that China was willing to accept independence of Ryukyu at the Cairo Conference in 1943 just as they accepted the independence of Korea.

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization. (UN trusteeship as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty?)""

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thus, it must be concluded that the very wording of the treaty already assumes as a founding condition that Japan has sovereignty over the Nansei Shoto.

If Japan did retain its sovereignty over the Ryukyu islands between 1945 to 1971 like what you believe, how then do you explain the followings:

Between 1945 to 1971, Ryukyu was listed as a foreign territory in all major maps published by Japan.

Between 1945 to 1971, all Japanese who visited Ryukyu must have their passports stamped at the Ryukyu custom.

So obviously Japan did give up its sovereignty over the Ryukyu islands, Northern islands and etc. according to the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender) and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. (i.e. agreement to the terms of surrender) after the war.

And in 1972, the US government transferred the administrative rights of the Ryukyu islands to Japan but said the transfer of administrative rights has got nothing to do with the sovereignty of Ryukyu. So it is very clear that the sovereignty issue of Ryukyu is still left unsettled 7 decades after the end of WWII.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And the very fact Japan can say the United States has the right to exercise administrative rights already assumes it has sovereignty. Otherwise, it has no right to agree to such a thing.

So you are just saying the US government was telling lies when they said the administrative rights has got nothing to do with sovereignty in the following statement?

"The United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are ignoring the second half of article 3 which says the following

It doesn't matter since the description in the latter sentence is already covered in the first sentence under "United States as the sole administering authority."

Note that the treaty never stipulates that the US will make a trusteeship proposal.

Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty does imply that the US must submit a proposal to the UN and place Ryukyu under the UN trusteeship system. And Japan must agree to it.

If what you said is true, then the whole Article 3 will become meaningless and should be taken out from the treaty.

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