China says Japan relationship should be based on cooperation, not confrontation

It's a two-way street. You can't have one country saying they are not being provocative and are just reacting to the other, when both are engaged in confrontational activities from going around disputed islands, building artificial islands to house military, to trying to isolate each other by engaging in activities with neighbours for that ends, to saying they are not disputed, to visiting shrines with war criminals. China and Japan need each other.

Yeah, says China as they build military bases (one with a 3,125-meter runway) on man-made islands far away from their mainland. Imagine China's reaction if Japan built an airstrip near the Senkakus. With so many countries claiming the Spratly Islands, China really is giving everyone the finger. Then they have the audacity to give advice to other countries on how not to be confrontational?! It's hard to think of a better example of hypocrisy.

couldn't help hear a laugh track

China’s relationship with Japan should be based on cooperation not confrontation

Exactly!

'Trust'....... a concept that respecs the principals of international law, that does not conveniently forget the slaughter of students pleading for the very basics of democracy in Tiananmen Square.....Truthful words stand the test of time, but lies are soon exposed......

Japan doesn't need to build artificial islands with airstrips, they have Okinawa and American carriers to do the job for them.

Japan also built aircraft carriers (Oh excuse me, I mean "Helicopter Carriers"), that's all the runway they need especially if the JSF ever finally starts getting produced.

Both countries are full of crap but the current LDP is not helping with its ultra right wing behavior.

Should stay firmly on course, and not give in to forked tongue manipulators...

I suggest China check the meaning of cooperation in a dictionary before demanding it of others....

Based on, "cooperation not confrontation". OK, what is in it for Japan if it cooperates with China? Would Japan be treated as an Equal Partner if it "cooperates"? Reading between all the lines.... the bottom line is; Ally with the USA / West, or switch to allying with China? Considering that on an almost institutional basis, Chinese children are brought up with stories that would push them in the direction to hate the Japanese, how could Japan align with China and expect to be treated fairly? China wants to be the next Major Player in World Politics, Military Power, and Money, but they need more countries on their side to do so..... the question is, will those countries enjoy a fair, equitable and trusting relationship with a Communist country that controls the Media and Free Speech?

I think "cooperation" in this case means to do what we tell you to do and shut up about anything you don't like. Kind of like, "You should 'cooperate' with the police, or they'll fabricate all kinds of evidence to charge you with 10 crimes."

Cooperation? Don't think the US will allow it. What exactly the US want between Japan and its important neighbors especially Russia and China is conflict and confrontation but without pulling the US into a war.

In order for the US to keep its important military bases in east Asia, it is of utmost importance that Japan be kept as a US protectorate for as long as possible, of course the best is permanent. And to achieve this objective, Japan must be kept totally isolated from its influential neighbors so that it will never break loose of US control.

In order to keep Japan totally isolated, the US even encourage Japan to reclaim lands it lost to the Allies in WWII, thereby violating the whole series of WWII peace treaties/agreements drafted and signed by the US government itself, these include at least the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), Japanese Instrument of Surrender and Yalta agreement.

With so many countries claiming the Spratly Islands, China really is giving everyone the finger.

Well, China isn't the only one doing that. In fact, every claimant is doing it and some actually started it decades ago. Even Ashton Carter admitted to that. And even Obama said some of the Chinese's claims in South China Sea might be legitimate.

For me, the South China Sea issue is just a repetition of what happened in NE Asia. Whereas the US used Soviet Union to scare Japan into submission, it now uses China to scare the Philippines to give up its land to the Americans for them to build their military bases. However many Filipinos and Philippines presidential candidates aren't really happy about it because the American troops are famous for committing crimes like what they did in Japan.

However, I don't think the US policy of freedom of navigation for US bombers, aircraft carriers, spy ships and planes to anyway in the world can achieve much in South China Sea. No doubt the US will continue to send military ships and planes to the Chinese islets to intimidate them, so far it only gives the Chinese a good excuse to speed up their defense. And the Chinese will never give in because it is a matter of sovereignty.

So China is going to watch Japan's actions and CHINA will JUDGE Japan's "sincerity" wow the arrogance of that statement is ludicrous! Who I might add is going to watch CHINA'S actions and judge accordingly???

Then China should stop confronting Japan.

Then China should stop confronting Japan.

The main issues between Japan and its neighbors including Chinese, Koreans and Russians are territorial disputes and facing history squarely.

For the history part, Japan should at least stop practicing or preaching Jihad and fascism, the main belief of State-Shinto and Yasukuni Shrine.

For territorial disputes, Japan should comply with the various WWII peace treaties/agreements such as San Francisco Peace Treaty, Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), Japanese Instrument of Surrender and Yalta agreement.

For example, the Yalta agreement says "The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union."

Article 8 of 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 the San Francisco Peace Treaty says Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands and etc.

@James BurkeApr. 30, 2016 - 07:27PM JST

Japan doesn't need to build artificial islands with airstrips, they have Okinawa and American carriers to do the job for them. But we also must remember all the case of super quiet Chinese subs surfacing near American ACCs, the Ronald Regan was one case but there have been many. Using subs(u boats) was a huge card for the germans remember the lusitania.....

What they do is counts not what they say.

No doubt the US will continue to send military ships and planes to the Chinese islets to intimidate them, so far it only gives the Chinese a good excuse to speed up their defense. And the Chinese will never give in because it is a matter of sovereignty.

But those man-made islets are not sovereign Chinese territory - no international institution recognizes them as such

Japan doesn't need to build artificial islands with airstrips, they have Okinawa and American carriers to do the job for them.

Carriers carry no territorial sovereignty with them

But those man-made islets are not sovereign Chinese territory - no international institution recognizes them as such

Those reclaimed or expanded islands or islets were built on existing reefs, not something like a floating platform or floating islands.

And according to UNCLOS, Reefs or rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, however they do count for territorial claims, i.e. claims of up to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters.

Well, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one fills up first.

Those reclaimed or expanded islands or islets were built on existing reefs, not something like a floating platform or floating islands.

And according to UNCLOS, Reefs or rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, however they do count for territorial claims, i.e. claims of up to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters.

No they don't.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, artificial islands do not receive any maritime entitlements. Low-tide elevations are legally part of the seabed, are not subject to sovereignty claims, and do not generate any maritime entitlements in their own right.

Under Article 121, islands must be “naturally formed,” so China cannot hope to legally upgrade its reefs by transforming them into artificial islands. (They may reclaim land - but they cannot apply maritime sovereignty entitlements over it as it is an artificial island. Whether they own the reefs there in the first place is another story.)

Here's the whole passage in its entirety:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm

Article121

Regime of islands

1) An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2) Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3) Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

China has no sovereignty there; they would lose in court. That's why they don't want to take it to court.

Under Article 121, islands must be “naturally formed,” so China cannot hope to legally upgrade its reefs by transforming them into artificial islands.

What is your definition of artificial islands in the first place? Something like the Okinotori rock?

Are you telling me that the reefs beneath your so called "artificial islands" weren't formed naturally?

And just because China, SE Asia countries and many other countries all over the world decided to build on or expand their islands or islets, so they have totally lost their entitlement of 12 nautical miles of territorial waters?

Are you serious?

What is your definition of artificial islands in the first place? Something like the Okinotori rock?

Are you telling me that the reefs beneath your so called "artificial islands" weren't formed naturally?

Artificial islands = anything that's not naturally-formed islands

Reefs, rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own = not an island

And just because China, SE Asia countries and many other countries all over the world decided to build on or expand their islands or islets, so they have totally lost their entitlement of 12 nautical miles of territorial waters?

If it's not naturally-formed island, then there's no maritime entitlements to lose in the first place.

They can build something there, but they don't gain entitlements around it.

If it originally started out as a naturally-formed island, then yes they get entitlements, even as they expand it.

Bottom line is: it has to start out as a naturally-formed island first. If it doesn't, then no matter what they do, there's no maritime entitlements. They cannot build something into an island in order to gain maritime entitlements. Maritime entitlements are only for natural island formations.

They cannot build something into an island in order to gain maritime entitlements. Maritime entitlements are only for natural island formations.

They were entitled to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters according to UNCLOS even before they built on it. And they won't lose this entitlement just because they built something on it or expand it.

What is your point? Are you saying the reefs beneath your so called "artificial islands" weren't formed naturally in the first place?

Reefs are not islands. Why does it matter if it's naturally formed? Reefs. Are. Not. Islands.

Low-tide elevations like reefs are legally part of the seabed, are not subject to sovereignty claims, and do not generate any maritime entitlements in their own right.

Artificial island built on top of reefs is still not a naturally-formed island - it's an artificial island built on top of a naturally-formed reef.

A naturally-formed island has to be (A) an island and (B) naturally-formed. If it fails both criteria, then it's not a naturally-formed island.

Low-tide elevations like reefs are legally part of the seabed, are not subject to sovereignty claims, and do not generate any maritime entitlements in their own right.

That's just your wishful thinking.

This is what UNCLOS says regarding the territorial waters of Reefs:

"In the case of islands situated on atolls or of islands having fringing reefs, the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the seaward low-water line of the reef, as shown by the appropriate symbol on charts officially recognized by the coastal State."

So all reefs are entitled to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters as long as they are not totally submerged in water during low tide.

Since you know basically nothing about UNCLOS, I will not be wasting my time on you.

Let's practice some reading comprehension - read what you quoted again:

"In the case of islands situated on atolls or of islands having fringing reefs"

So there has to be an island first. And in order to be qualified as a true island with maritime entitlements, it has to be a naturally-formed island.

A reef by itself with no naturally-formed island = not an island, let alone a naturally-formed island, thus no maritime entitlements

A naturally-formed reef with an artificial island built on top of it = not a naturally-formed island, thus no maritime entitlements too

If there's no naturally-formed island there, it doesn't matter if there's a naturally-formed reef - there's still no maritime entitlements.

No naturally-formed island = no maritime entitlements

Simple. What's so hard to understand?