politics

China says Japan fighter jets shadowed its planes over disputed waters

47 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

47 Comments
Login to comment

China has a history of flying too close to aircraft in international and other waters, that US bomber that crashed landed in China a few years back was clipped by a Chinese jet flying so close he flashed his hotmail email address on a piece of paper.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

A US bomber? Would that be an Orion? Not exactly a B52. I do agree, however, that China is playing a deadly game, not just with Japan but with the Philippines and Vietnam as well. BTW does anybody know if these jets are carrying war shots? I would hope not.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Japanese fighter jets shadowed Chinese aircraft patrolling over disputed waters, China's Ministry of Defense said on Thursday, in the latest flare-up of a spat over air space that has deepened a rift between the two countries.

OK. So, China admitted its air plane flew over or close to Senkakus which is administered by Japan. The act of China is a fragrant crime against peace. China should know it cannot change status quo by threat or use of force.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

some14some

treat this as Japan's acknowledgement to China's claim.

Of all the posters here at JT, I find you the most bizarre and cryptic. I consistently find it very difficult to follow your logic. Which is not a criticism, so much as an observation.

China know Japan are going to monitor incursions into their territory, so two questions seem a little obvious:

Why go into their territory?

Why complain when they react the way all sovereign nations would?

China really are diplomatic imbeciles in my humble opinion.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

China took “necessary measures” when numerous Japanese planes entered its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone

What is this crap? It's not their ADIZ, it's their claimed ADIZ. Huge difference.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

China. Go home

6 ( +9 / -3 )

The plot thickens in the world front.... Although this would surprise me if the islands are the reason the world goes into chaos. Then again, WW1 was started by an assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, so I guess anything is possible.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Possibility of reading a headline "Shots Fired" before too much longer.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

"Why is the US neutral [on the Senkakus]?

As Tamarama points out the US isn't exactly neutral in words and action.

But the history behind the US declaring it takes no position on the Senkakus goes back to Nixon's trip to China, which was being planned for 1972 just after ROC and PRC (ROC mainly) began to pressure the US government to not return the Senkaku to Japan in the upcoming 1972 Okinawa Reversion. Nixon and Congress wanted to at least appear to offer a concession to ROC (an ally) and PRC (a potential balance to the USSR). The US went right ahead with its plan to return to Japan control of Okinawa Prefecture (judicial, legislative and executive) and this included control of the Senkakus. The concession Nixon/Congress offered was a statement that (a) the US took no position on the sovereignty of the Senkakus; ( b) the US was returning only administrative control; and (c) the US return of the Senkakus to Japan (as planned) didn't prevent ROC and PRC from arguing heir claim.

These were only concessions in appearance because (a) The US doesn't take a position on many territorial spats anyway. Plus, the fact the US takes no position on the Senkakus does not alter the fact that Japan had sovereignty over the Senkakus prior to the Occupation (since 1895) and residual sovereignty after the Occupation ended in 1952. (b) The US only had admin control, not sovereignty over Okinawa to being with. And Nixon and Kissinger knew it was not the jurisdiction of the US president or Congress to assign or transfer sovereignty in the first place. Only a new treaty could transfer sovereignty -- or perhaps a binding agreement by the ICJ. (c) ANY PARTY can attempt to make a claim on another country's territory. Doesn't mean they'll win or win them friends, but they can try (e.g. Iceland can try to claim Boston based on Lief's visit in ancient time). ROC and PRC did not require special permission from the US.

Nixon should have made it abundantly clear to ROC and PRC back in 1972 that the US does not have the power to legitimately giveth or taketh away sovereignty and that ROC and PRC should file an application with the ICJ if they wanted to pursue their claim. Instead Nixon sacrificed clarity on the Senkaku issue for his short term desire to appear to make nice with PRC and ROC.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"The act of China is a fragrant crime against peace."

Odoriferous, yes. It stinks to high heaven. But, clearly not fragrant. China's policy stinks, or reaks, more accurately. Smells like bu__sh_lt.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

sfjp330Aug. 08, 2014 - 04:14AM JST

Lets make it clear, In the 1971 Okinawa agreement, the U.S. awarded Japan only administrative authority over Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, not sovereignty.

WhirledPeasAug. 08, 2014 - 08:53AM JST is absolutely right. San Francisco Peace Treaty reads,

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco

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 29 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.

The sovereignty of Senkakus included in Ryukyus stayed with Japan all the time, while the administrative power went to the US after SFPT and was returned to Japan in 1972. In addition, if what you say, "the US only returned administrative authority but did not return sovereignty to Japan," were true, the sovereignty of Senkakus would be left to the US, not to China.

sfjp330Aug. 08, 2014 - 09:09AM JST

What a worthless comment. What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing.

That is the trouble China has. It should respect the world court and Rule of Law.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I am just waiting for the Chinese to attempt a 'copycat' of the 'Tomcat' Tom Cruise 'Maverick' upside down 'Polaroid Bird Moment' and get it all horribly wrong. Headlines will read "Two military aircraft collide after some close posturing".

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Crush Them An Exclusive Economic Zone gives special economic rights to use the zone. It is not sovereign territory. Every countries sovereign territory ends 12 miles off their coast. If the United States wanted to park an entire carrier battleforce 12.000001 miles off the coast of Shanghai or Hainan Island, technically, they have the right since they would be in international waters. How chinese (and others) don't seem to understand the difference in status between EEZ and sovereign territory is beyond me.

And frankly, there is nothing stopping the Chinese from patrolling off the coast of Hawaii all they want. The Soviets regularly visited the area with spy trawlers but you never heard about the US Coast Guard ramming one of them or blocking their passage did you?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Well China, this is what happens when you suddenly draw up a claimed ADIZ in 2013 that overlaps another countries' that has been in place since 1968. Very clever China to do this so that when other nations planes are acting within their own ADIZ, you can claim they are in YOUR ADIZ.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@sfjp330: True, the US transferred only administrative control of the Senkakus back to Japan in 1972. But that is because the US only possessed administrative control rights to begin with!!! The US did not possess nor claim to possess sovereignty over Okinawa Prefecture after the Occupation ended. The Allied Occupation ended in 1952 at which time ~98% of Japan's occupied territory was returned to Japan. The US could have returned Okinawa Prefecture as well, but instead struck a bilateral deal with the Japanese government. No other Allies were involved or needed to be involved because the Allied Occupation was at an end. After 1952 the status of Okinawa was just between the US and Japan.

Via this Okinawa agreement Japan would retain "residual sovereignty" over Okinawa Prefecture (a term coined by John Foster Dulles) while the US would exert "administrative control" for an undetermined duration. This meant that Okinawa belonged to Japan but the US would have control over everything that went on in Okinawa. This allowed the US to have free rein to use Okinawa (including the Senkakus) as it saw fit -- specifically as an operational base in the ongoing Korean War, and generally as a strategic location from which to intervene in future Asian conflicts affecting US interests (e.g. Vietnam War). In return the US promised to provide a level of military security and deterrence to Japan so Japan could focus less on defense and more on re-building its economy. When the US returned Okinawa Prefecture to Japan in 1972 the US relinquished administrative control back to Japan and so "residual sovereignty" became sovereignty.

The fact that the US takes no position on the strength or weakness of China's 1972 claim to the Senkakus is irrelevant to whether Japan has sovereignty. It does. Japan annexed the Senkakus legally and peaceably in 1895. If China wants to challenge Japan's sovereignty over the Senkakus China should take Japan to the ICJ and Japan and China should abide by whatever decision is rendered.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The escalation of Japan-China tension is not in U.S. interests.

I don't think it is anyone's interest, least of all China. Why would you risk all of that for a couple of pithy islands long gone from your control? It's the definition of stupidity.

The U.S. obviously needs Japan as its most important ally in East Asia, but it also needs China, not only for economic and trade reasons but also due to global and regional security issues.

You seem to think this is a one way street only. The US is China's biggest single country trading partner, and Japan is it's 3rd biggest. Would China really start a war with 2 of it's 3 biggest trading partners? I would have thought not, because It's the definition of stupidity.

But the one thing the U.S. does not want to do is get forced in a war with the PRC because the SDF shot down some plane over Senkakus, and the security treaty, by specifying in case of an attack the U.S.

I'm sure it doesn't, but you can clearly see that if push comes to shove, they are going to support Japan. It's no accident that the US has so many military bases around Japan and other parts of Asia. If China attacks, the US will help Japan to defend their territory, end of story.

China might desperately WANT to take those islands from Japan, in fact I'm sure they do. Pride, bruised ego, vendetta, all of that childish stuff seems to be at play here. But to do so would be very, very stupid. They will lose more than anyone else.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This is like watching tennis! With the exception China is the baby crying at the end.... Lol!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Oh my gosh!!! China loves to talk and think about Japan 24 hours a day. I dont know how these guys can live. While Japan is trying to improve relations with her partner, China just care about herself.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Doesn't the JASDF always shadow/intercept Chinese military aircraft flying within Japan's territory anyway? This should be nothing new to China. Besides, they're one to talk. Their own jets and naval vessels have been shadowing Japan's since 2012. The pot calls the kettle black. Maybe if China stopped flying within Japan's ADIZ and over disputed islands, Japan wouldn't need to shadow them. It's a no-brainer China. Shut up and stop whining every time Japan takes the appropriate defensive measures.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Of course Japan is going to shadow China's jets that are scraping along the boarder. Here you have a neighbor who repeatedly talks smack about you and paces back and fourth across your fence glaring in at you, wouldn't you like to keep tabs on him too? China is trying to play itself off as some victim when it's nothing more than a verbal, slandering bully who can't forget something that happened 120 years ago.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

sfjp330

why U.S. is neutral on the issue?

I think you need to do more homework. The US have stated very clearly they support Japan on this issue, and will help Japan defend the islands if need be. They are very clearly not neutral. Here you go:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/obama-in-japan-backs-status-quo-in-island-dispute-with-china

Here is the pertinent Obama quote:

"Our commitment to Japan’s security is absolute and article five [of the security treaty] covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku islands,"

Reality is China holds the power of decision in the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, as Beijing is the only player than can choose to further escalate the incident

That's clearly NOT the reality at all. Japan itself has a powerful and sophisticated military, and when backed by the US, combine to present a far stronger force than China has. Sure, China can choose to further escalate the incident, but you are delusional if you think China will prevail in such a conflict.

If China chooses to push the situation to the point of war, China may stand a chance of victory against the U.S. or Japan in a limited war, but the benefits are overshadowed by the costs given thriving Sino-Japan and Sino-U.S. economic relations.

Now you are talking a little more sense, partly. In short, China would be unbelievably foolish to escalate the conflict. Not only would they lose that conflict, the economic and political isolation would be catastrophic.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

IF Chinese attack and kill Japanese to take control of the Senkakus, Americans will be killing Chinese.

If that is Americans' intention, why don't they come to the Senkaku area to defend where the most secutiry risk exists.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@sfjp330 I might agree that that Japan's claim that there is "no dispute" is some sort of legal maneuver. How does that change the fact that China continues to send ships and planes into this area when they didn't used to though? This is why there is the risk of war. Not fancy rhetoric.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Crush ThemAUG. 08, 2014 - 04:22PM JST

Excuse me, but I think that precludes the freedom to SPY.

It doesn't preclude anything. Passive intelligence gathering is just picking up anything the target of the intelligence gathering mission is putting into the environment. And if what the target is putting into the environment can be gathered beyond the target's national borders then I don't see the problem.

Its more like the United States is a rogue nation that has no respect for the U.N. or the rights of other countries' security and privacy.

Meh, you're entitled to your opinion. But I've never been impressed with the, "other people do it so why can't I?" argument.

Yes there is. Its called decency. I doubt the Chinese would do that even if they did have a foreign base as convenient as Kadena.

Unfortunately "decency" is not a factor in military preparedness. Decency is a political concern which, in the case of US intelligence gathering, is being overridden by China's military buildup and foreign policy double-talk.

Lets say some guy likes to sit on the edge of the road and peer at your house with binoculars. It might be legal. And that guy might say that you are free to do the same and sit on the road and peer at his house with binoculars. Do you imagine that would be anywhere near legitimate behavior?

It might be if that "guy" thought I might be running a crack house or engaging in other illegal or dangerous activity. People do things like that sometimes because they're concerned about a potential danger to the rest of the neighborhood. If China feels like everybody is watching it a bit too closely then China really needs to re-evaluate WHY everybody is doing that.

Intelligence gathering is just a fact of the world. China likes to do it's spying via the internet (with the occasional spy ship sent to RIMPAC exercises. So much for decency.) The US does it's spying in various ways. But the Chinese getting angry over it when anybody comes within 200 miles of their coast seems hypocritical and paranoid.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

sfjp330Aug. 08, 2014 - 08:02AM JST "OssanAmerica Aug. 08, 2014 - 07:54AM JST Well China, this is what happens when you suddenly draw up a claimed ADIZ in 2013 that overlaps another countries' that has been in place since 1968.

Japan has drawn its own ADIZ, 1960's modeling it after airspace map drawn up by the U.S. occupation force.

Actually it was drawn by the United States and it's management was handed over to Japan in the late 60s.

The Japanese claim includes not just those barren rocks but also a vast swath of far inside the continental shelf, which >is claimed by China and South Korea. In 2011, China and South Korea filed a joint position paper and complaint with >the UN against Japanese encroachment across the continental shelf.

And what was the result of the complaint?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

sfjp330

Lets make it clear, In the 1971 Okinawa agreement, the U.S. awarded Japan only administrative authority over Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, not sovereignty. Sovereignty was specifically not transferred.

Right. But they didn't award administrative authority to China, did they? Nor sovereignty.

Correct me if I am wrong.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"why U.S. is neutral on the issue?"

The United States is NOT "neutral on the issue". The U.S. s neutral on the question of sovereignty. But IF Chinese attack and kill Japanese to take control of the Senkakus, Americans will be killing Chinese. If that sounds very "neutral" to anyone, let me know.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

tinawatanabeAug. 10, 2014 - 09:38AM JST "IF Chinese attack and kill Japanese to take control of the Senkakus, Americans will be killing Chinese." If that is Americans' intention, why don't they come to the Senkaku area to defend where the most secutiry risk exists.

That's not an "intention". It's a matter of fact description of what would happen if China invaded any part of Japan including, as the President of the U.S. has stated, the Senkakus, as Article 5 of the Mutual Defense Treaty would be invoked. The US-Japan Treaty does not cover defense of territorial boundaries which is what I believe you are referring to.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why would Japan embark on a non-viable survey for ten years to determine without any doubt that Diaoyu was terra nullius?

Because of it was sporadic. Think about it. Why would any government at that time want to launch a survey on a unmanned islands that at that time, had no concept of EEZ or underwater resources?

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?

I believe Japanese claim of terra nullius is more a formal up to date international legal term as opposed to your simple definition.

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's a big leap. How about this? Can you explain to me why the officials of Qing did not address the status of Senkaku during the negotations which lead up to the finalization of Treaty of Shimonoseki? Or any subsequent Chinese government thereafter for uhhhhm NEXT 75 years!!!???

0 ( +5 / -5 )

A war between Japan and China will surely lead to bloodshed and destruction, yet a choice might be made, sadly, by a few lunatics , such as Abe and Xi.

The hardheaded approach in disputed water in East China Sea by both sides is destroying a possible diplomatic and political maneuver that might develop a peaceful solution before APEC summit. Furthermore, this kind of flickers may not only put fuel on the toxic nationalism in both Japan and China and turn the public of both counties even more hostile to each other, not also trigger an armed clash which both countries don’t want it, yet happen anyway.

While the crisises are deepening in Middle East and Ukraine, another one may be on the deck if these sort of dare-devil games contimue.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@John

"reeks" maybe. Not the rest.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

In 1895, why did the J-goverment depart from an established course from its previous incorporation proceedings?

I have no idea what this means.

The Daioyu islands incorporation was conspicuously made. In Japan incorporation of Daiyou Islands, China was never notified about Japan's incorporation nor were any formal acts carried out, which could have been regarded as Japan's symbolic incorporation. How can Japan explain thees clashing differences of procedures? Was the nearby end of the Sino-Japanese war a coincidence or were political reason behind it? There must've been fear within the Japanese goverment of creating diplomatic hardship with the Chinese in case of an publicized incorporation of the islands.

You are again, asking the wrong questions.

Why did the Qing, ROC, PRC kept silent for 75 years with the latter two even publishing the map using Japanese names?

It doesn't matter if it was done in a "sneaky" or "opportunistic" way for what's important is the action or in this inaction by China which based on common sense, NEVER had exercized soverignty in the past and subsequent to Japan's incorporation.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

CH3CHOAug. 08, 2014 - 09:53AM JST WhirledPeasAug. 08, 2014 - 08:53AM JST is absolutely right. San Francisco Peace Treaty reads, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco Article 3. The sovereignty of Senkakus included in Ryukyus stayed with Japan all the time, while the administrative power went to the US after SFPT and was returned to Japan in 1972. In addition, if what you say, "the US only returned administrative authority but did not return sovereignty to Japan," were true, the sovereignty of Senkakus would be left to the US, not to China.

Doesn't matter. Neither the PRC nor the ROC were invited to San Francisco Peace Treaty. The treaty is not recognized by PRC or ROC.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It does matter. There were many Meiji period goverment documents from 1885-95 and these documents demonstrate that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership.

It does not. What's left out in your quotes are reports the states "., Records of Messages from Chong-shan, but they were mentioned as a mere direction in the course of voyage and showed no particular trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty while the islands' names were different between them and us. "

As Pedra Branca dispute demonstrates, the court awarded Singapore based on "constant stream of Singapore's acts of administration in relation to Pedra Braca contrasted with the complete absence of activities of Malaysia...."

These were incorporated prior to Treaty of Shimonoseki which by definition is not as a result of "spoils of war"

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Tamarama Aug. 09, 2014 - 07:12AM JST Right. But they didn't award administrative authority to China, did they? Nor sovereignty. Correct me if I am wrong.

Since U.S. is the one that gave Japan administrative rights, why U.S. is neutral on the issue? Reality is China holds the power of decision in the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, as Beijing is the only player than can choose to further escalate the incident. The actions of Japan and the U.S. depend on China’s choice. If China chooses to push the situation to the point of war, China may stand a chance of victory against the U.S. or Japan in a limited war, but the benefits are overshadowed by the costs given thriving Sino-Japan and Sino-U.S. economic relations.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Tamarama

The escalation of Japan-China tension is not in U.S. interests. The U.S. obviously needs Japan as its most important ally in East Asia, but it also needs China, not only for economic and trade reasons but also due to global and regional security issues. But the one thing the U.S. does not want to do is get forced in a war with the PRC because the SDF shot down some plane over Senkakus, and the security treaty, by specifying in case of an attack the U.S. “would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes” does not directly mandate War. This unavoidable loophole concerns the Abe administration, I think, for good reason.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

nigelboy Aug. 08, 2014 - 06:36AM JST It doesn't matter if it was done in a "sneaky" or "opportunistic" way for what's important is the action or in this inaction by China which based on common sense, NEVER had exercized soverignty in the past and subsequent to Japan's incorporation.

It does matter. There were many Meiji period goverment documents from 1885-95 and these documents demonstrate that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership.

In 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, "Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China's suspicion.…" He then ordered that the matter should "await a more appropriate time" and "should not be made public."

In 1892, the Okinawa governor wrote, "the opportunity to survey the islands again has not yet arrived," thereby requesting the Navy to dispatch navy ship Kaimon." However, miscommunication and bad weather prevented the survey.

In 1894, the Home Ministry wrote, "Ever since the islands were investigated by persons dispatched by police agencies of Okinawa back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted." This was the final relevant correspondence prior to the Sino-Japanese War on Aug. 1894.

In December 1894, after China had suffered some devastating defeats in the war, a secret document from Japan's Home Ministry stated, "the situation today has changed significantly since back then." The Meiji government accordingly incorporated the islands based on a Cabinet decision on Jan. 1895, while the war was still underway. This was never made public and remained unknown to China.

In 1896, Koga Tatsushiro became the first Japanese native to lease the islands. In his biography, he attributed Japan's possession of the islands to "the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces."

These documents clearly show that the islands were Chinese territory obtained as spoils of war. The Chinese do not dispute that the islands, along with Taiwan, were part of Japan from 1895 to 1945. But with the conclusion of World War II, the islands should have been restored to their pre-1895 legal status.

Source: www.wikipedia.org

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

WhirledPeas Aug. 08, 2014 - 08:53AM JST If China wants to challenge Japan's sovereignty over the Senkakus China should take Japan to the ICJ and Japan and China should abide by whatever decision is rendered.

What a worthless comment. What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing. Regardless if Japan or China went to ICJ, there is no guarantee that loser of the case will not follow the ruling that was not in their favor. Nobody is going to enforce the ruling anyway. So what does it matter? What is important for the most for Japanese or Chinese politicians is the public opinion, and they will not respect the ruling that is not favorable on the sovereignty of the islands. So your back to square one.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

scipantheistAug. 08, 2014 - 04:29AM JST @sfjp330 I might agree that that Japan's claim that there is "no dispute" is some sort of legal maneuver. How does that change the fact that China continues to send ships and planes into this area when they didn't used to though? This is why there is the risk of war. Not fancy rhetoric.

Then why is U.S. neutral on this issue? 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. 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.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

OssanAmerica Aug. 08, 2014 - 07:54AM JST Well China, this is what happens when you suddenly draw up a claimed ADIZ in 2013 that overlaps another countries' that has been in place since 1968.

Japan has drawn its own ADIZ, 1960's modeling it after airspace map drawn up by the U.S. occupation force. The Japanese claim includes not just those barren rocks but also a vast swath of far inside the continental shelf, which is claimed by China and South Korea. In 2011, China and South Korea filed a joint position paper and complaint with the UN against Japanese encroachment across the continental shelf.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

ForumlurkerAug. 07, 2014 - 09:04PM JST

@Crush Them An Exclusive Economic Zone gives special economic rights to use the zone. It is not sovereign territory. Every countries sovereign territory ends 12 miles off their coast.

According to UNCLOS concerning EEZ: "Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states."

Excuse me, but I think that precludes the freedom to SPY.

If the United States wanted to park an entire carrier battleforce 12.000001 miles off the coast of Shanghai or Hainan Island, technically, they have the right since they would be in international waters. How chinese (and others) don't seem to understand the difference in status between EEZ and sovereign territory is beyond me.

Its more like the United States is a rogue nation that has no respect for the U.N. or the rights of other countries' security and privacy.

The U.S. has not signed UNCLOS.

And don't act like the Chinese intentionally downed that plane as they surely would have if it did fly in territorial airspace rather than EEZ airspace.

And frankly, there is nothing stopping the Chinese from patrolling off the coast of Hawaii all they want.

Yes there is. Its called decency. I doubt the Chinese would do that even if they did have a foreign base as convenient as Kadena.

And guess what? There would be nothing stopping the Americans from buzzing Chinese aircraft if they did.

The Soviets regularly visited the area with spy trawlers but you never heard about the US Coast Guard ramming one of them or blocking their passage did you?

Nope. But that was before UNCLOS III which the U.S. has not signed.

Lets say some guy likes to sit on the edge of the road and peer at your house with binoculars. It might be legal. And that guy might say that you are free to do the same and sit on the road and peer at his house with binoculars. Do you imagine that would be anywhere near legitimate behavior? Would you retaliate the same way? Do you think anybody would? Do you think the police might be called and even if no laws were broken, the police would fail to check the guy out?

I am not going to say that the Chinese were right to buzz American spy planes. I am just say that American started the provocation, and there is not really any room to complain that the Chinese responded to it.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

TamaramaAug. 07, 2014 - 06:55PM JST Why go into their territory? Why complain when they react the way all sovereign nations would?

Lets make it clear, In the 1971 Okinawa agreement, the U.S. awarded Japan only administrative authority over Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, not sovereignty. Sovereignty was specifically not transferred. Why would U.S. continued to maintain that dispute would only be determined through discussion and agreement? In the 1972 agreement between PM Tanaka and Premier Zhou Enlai, Japan and China agreed to “shelve” the issue to avoid any acts that enforce one side’s claim to sovereignty and for future generation to solve. What does this mean? As we know today, Japan claims that there is "no dispute".

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

nigelboy Aug. 08, 2014 - 05:48AM JST I believe Japanese claim of terra nullius is more a formal up to date international legal term as opposed to your simple definition.

In 1895, why did the J-goverment depart from an established course from its previous incorporation proceedings? The Daioyu islands incorporation was conspicuously made. In Japan incorporation of Daiyou Islands, China was never notified about Japan's incorporation nor were any formal acts carried out, which could have been regarded as Japan's symbolic incorporation. How can Japan explain thees clashing differences of procedures? Was the nearby end of the Sino-Japanese war a coincidence or were political reason behind it? There must've been fear within the Japanese goverment of creating diplomatic hardship with the Chinese in case of an publicized incorporation of the islands.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

China said Japan was exaggerating the threat posed by its military spending to justify its own build-up.

Personally I think there is some truth in that statement. Some natives are convinced that China will attack Japan.. why? So they can pick up the bill for all the old folk? So they can rescue the ailing electronics industry. So they can steal all the Japanese natural resources like.....eh, forget that one.

It must be said that the allies, mostly the Yanks, could have sorted this mess out properly many years ago.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

What is this crap? It's not their ADIZ, it's their claimed ADIZ. Huge difference.

No difference. Japan's ADIZ was declared unilaterally. I believe that precedent was set by America. In 2010 Japan extended its ADIZ unilaterally into Taiwan's ADIZ. After the fact, Taiwan and Japan discussed it and Taiwan said it was okay. AFTER the fact. Overlapping ADIZ precedent set by Japan.

China's ADIZ is similar in distance from their coastline as Japan's. But in this game of one upmanship, China not only made it overlapping but also over disputed territory. Latter precedent set by China.

But real trouble is that China wants to run its ADIZ with different rules than everybody else. I guess China is really trying to outdo the others crappy precedents with a few of its own all at once.

China's actions annoy me too. But you know what else annoys me? Acting like Japan and America are saints and mere victims and have no hand in all that is happening.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

China has a history of flying too close to aircraft in international and other waters,

@gogogo Okay. So you are saying that is what happened in this case? Otherwise, I don't see the relevance.

that US bomber that crashed landed in China a few years back was clipped by a Chinese jet

How many Chinese military spy aircraft are flying within 200 km of Hawaii and/or American military installations? If they started doing that regularly, what do you think would happen?

You are referring to the Hainan Island Incident. The U.S. military spy plane took from Kadena and flew all the way over to Hainan to spy on the Chinese. It is and was an ongoing situation, that if the Chinese did, would have made headlines and be described as unnecessary provocation.

The U.S. plane was within China's 200 km EEZ as specified by UNCLOS, of which you will note that the United States is NOT a signatory. So anyway, the Chinese get sick of it and eventually, one of their pilots screwed up. You will never guess where this wayward American plane had to make an emergency landing! Oh wait! You already did! Closest place was CHINA. One might fairly ask, WHAT THE HELL were they doing over there?

And oh yeah! Now China is doing the same to Japan! Even worse in fact!

You tell me. Who set the precedent? While you sit there and rag on China, you tell me. Who set the precedent?

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

Japan’s Ministry of Defense told Reuters it had no information on the incident.

treat this as Japan's acknowledgement to China's claim.

-18 ( +3 / -21 )

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