politics

Gov't panel calls for stronger military to deal with China

119 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

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

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

119 Comments
Login to comment

Yes, yes, yes. Hurray. Maybe now some of the USA military can leave on their Ospreys, permanently, and save just a small amount of money for the USA taxpayers.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

We urge Japan to follow the historical trend, walk on the path of peaceful development and make due efforts to improve ties.

Can you believe they sprout this crock?! What are Japan supposed to do when the actions and rhetoric coming from China suggest they are interested in the exact opposite?

I don't want Japan to increase their military. I don't want China to increase their military. Bu, whilst US/Japan ties are strong, ultimately Japan would be foolish to sit on their hand whilst their belligerent neighbour continues to threaten and expand.

I just can't believe China has the temerity to make comments like this. Unbelievable.

17 ( +23 / -6 )

Recent events proved Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is not much deterrence. America will edge toward China more for economical reasons in the future. Japan should build up its military power and defend the country by themselves.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

“Japan’s accusations and hyping of the China threat have an ulterior motive,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said

Pot. Kettle. Black. I would be funny if it were not so sad...

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Short the Yen and the NIkkei.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Can anyone tell me whether Japan’s current economic, political and military policies adopted by the Abe administration bear a resemblance to those in the prewar years? Abe's three arrows - massive fiscal stimulus, aggressive monetary easing and structural reform - are quite similar to the economic policies in prewar Japan, since both featured the yen's depreciation and a budget deficit increase. Another similarity is that then Japanese government and the current Abe administration both strived to buoy domestic demand, which constitutes the fundamental driving force for the country's economy. Also, creating favorable conditions for the Japan SDF to deploy units overseas through exercising the right to collective self-defense, National Security Council, involving the Japanese PM, chief cabinet secretary, foreign minister and defense minister, is expected to exert similar functions with the Five Ministers' Conferences that set policies for the then empire's invasion and expansion plans in the 1930s. Moreover, a state secrets act was passed by the Diet immediately after the setup of the council. The act was likened to Japan's tough military secrets-protection legislation, introduced during the Meiji period and was then revised to be more war-supportive in the light of escalating Sino-Japanese tensions. The secrecy law, designed to support the National Security Council, will help Abe rewrite the country's war-renouncing constitution, executing collective self-defense and formulating harsher peripheral diplomatic policies. Is the history repeating itself?

0 ( +11 / -11 )

Japan's relationship with China hasn't been good for almost a millennium if ever. The government has always leaned toward fascism. Even if there are signs of the 1930's, it's more like Taisho. As for dealing with China, short of going nuclear, I don't see any way. Building up the military will leave Japan short since I can't see Japan having a military force of 4.5 million or 3.5% of the population. Japan would have mandatory military service for 2 years for both sexes. It would have to be more like Israel. Still, all this would only be a deterrence. No matter what the Abe government does, it will not be enough. We are talking about China, a modern China. In a real conflict, Japan would not have a prayer.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Mr Abe had a lot to do with inflaming the tensions between Japan and China so far and now he's calling to strengthen the firepower for defense against China... It's obvious he was aiming for this all along since his attempt for amending Article 9 which is meant to prevent govt from engaging in armed conflict over a territorial disputes. It's hard not to say Mr Abe is hungry for a War to say the least... Recent survey showed over 90% of population in Japan and China had ill feelings toward each other. furthermore the study tells that older generation who remembers the horror of war are dying and the fearless younger generation is more inclined to delve into a conflict clueless of what could happen to them. once a war ignites. This is not the time to strengthen the military but a time to show Japan has no intentions of engaging in an armed conflict with any country over a territorial disputes but insist on bilateral talks and cooperations instead.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

SchopenhauerDec. 12, 2013 - 07:45AM JST Recent events proved Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is not much deterrence.

flowersDec. 12, 2013 - 07:58AM JST Can anyone tell me whether Japan’s current economic, political and military policies adopted by the Abe >administration bear a resemblance to those in the prewar years?

Sorry guys but there is nothing in this article that isn't already agreed upon between the United States and Japan.

"Joint Statement of the Security Consultative Committee: Toward a More Robust Alliance and Greater Shared Responsibilities"

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/10/215070.htm

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I love Hong Lei - absolutely hilarious. You can't make this stuff up, yet how this guy manages to say this %#'$ with a straight face is beyond comprehension.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Abe is the worst ever PM that Japan ever had. shame on him. Korea and China will against Abe sooner.

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

@flower, I cant believe you , nor anyone else saying those stupid things that Japan wants war, CHINA IS THE ONE WHO IS TRUING TO START THE WAR , those island were in the hands of America untill 1972 when they give it to the Japan , so , this isnt just desision of Japan that it is their island, that desision Americans did also then , and , those island are part of chain of islands that goes all back to the Japan , yes, those island are doors for that chain of islands, thats why Japan cant handle it to the China, it would compromise their security a lot , and those isnands are just a exsuse for China for much worse things. STOP SPREDING LIES THAT JAPAN WANTS WAR , and you all cry for what ? Japan spending on military, but, look who is knocking at their door , CHINA , with huge war mashine that they constantly upgrade every day , while at same time Americans want to get out of this , and Japan know it, they know Americans will find some way not to get into China way, so, who will defend then Japan against China? WHO WILL DEFEND JAPAN IF NOT JAPAN SELF DEFENSE FORCES , and Japan SDF need modernization, they lagged in everything because they believed that USA Army will protect them, but in several years , there were a sign from USA that it will not be like that, and now, Japan SDF need to fill a gap that exist because of the probability that American army will not help in defending Japan from China . WHY WOULD JAPAN WANTED WAR NOW WHEN CHINA ARMY IS AT PEAK ? WHY THEY DIDNT TRIED THAT IN 90 , WHEN CHINA ARMY WAS COMEDY ? How immature are comments , and not to forget , CHINA IS NUCLEAR POWER , WHO IN THE WORLD WANT WAR AGAINST THEM ? So , every normal person , with every brain , know who is here attacker , and who want just to defend it self , ONLY HATEFUL PEOPLE CAN SAY LIES WHEN TRUTH IS SO OBVIOUS , CHINA IS ATTACKER HERE . And for all you who think Japan wants ware, tell me, what is the goal of that war for Japan , every war has some goal, so , what is here for Japan ? I will tell you, NONE. And you all know it, all of you who are saying lies .

3 ( +11 / -9 )

Back to the "good" old days?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

flowers

Is the history repeating itself?

No.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Rhetoric indeed!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@tokyodoumo, I strongly disagree when you state that PM Abe is at fault in the present tension with China. Just look at what the Chinese are doing with the Phils. The Phil President is neither the cause of the tension over there. That country's people simply want to be rich to be able to get what they want by sheer intimidation. And I strongly agree with Nenad. What's a super power nation without a military! Hurrah Japan !

0 ( +6 / -6 )

It baffles me as to why the Japanee government should care what the Chinese and South Korean governments think. (And thankfully, it apparently doesn't) Japan has the right to do what it thinks is best for it's own welfare. But if we are going to talk about foreign support, well Japan already has it. Nobody is threatening sanctions against Japan like they did in the 1930s. Quite the opposite, former enemies have welcomed Japan's stance.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

“Japan’s accusations and hyping of the China threat have an ulterior motive,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Wednesday. “We urge Japan to follow the historical trend, walk on the path of peaceful development and make due efforts to improve ties.”

Geez! Are these idiots for real! Do as I say and do as I do. While China ramps up its military and presence and starts bullying other Asian countries over disputed islands, while expanding its air defence zones over said disputed territories.

How about Japan following its other historic trend Mr Lei by colonising your ass, they have done it before. Your remarks are totally pointless, useless and completely inflamatory which is par for the course for anything that comes out of the Chinese Foreign Ministry. I could think of some colorful abbreviations for CFM.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@Nenad Jovanovic

Give Nihon back the Kuril Islands then..

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Well its going to do with the sea. I would be looking at making mass speedboats with torpedo's that can takeout there ships. So even ships that can hold mass speed boats then release them.

You would put jamming devises on all of them boats, so any incoming guided bombs are jammed " That in return sends them off course".

Make very long distance torpedo's. China could not stop 100drs of small speed boats coming at there war ships or Aircraft carries.

Use the same smoke that Israel did "if you can". It burns hot ant stops inferred from working. "including inferred weapons 2".

So they would need away to protect there troops from getting it in there eyes. If they use mini hot air balloons or put that smoke above there boats, it should float up / rise up at least to a height of 20 meters above there heads or more. China's jet fighters will be stopped from flying low & Any inferred weapons of vision will be rendered useless.

Using and making very long distance Torpedo's, will see there war ships gunners or aircraft gunners having minimal affect.

OK

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Unfortunately Japanese government had no chance.

It was China and South Korea's incessant demonization and threats against Japan that has spurred this arms race in Japan.

A nation can only take so much of hollow and unnecessary threats time and time again until push comes to shove.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

As I was watching some CCTV "news" being broadcast in English on my local PBS station it was quite funny that only CCTV was stating that Japan was being aggressive whilst the Arirang (Korean), AR"something" (Russian), and other Asian/ ME news broadcasts were pointing out China as the aggressor.

@Flowers, You're living in China propaganda land. Everything you're saying is actually quite the reverse with China taking the place of the old Japanese imperialistic army nationalism.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Has Abe learned anything from his recent botched efforts to enlist the US to stand by him on demanding the Chinese regime to withdraw its controversial ADIZ ? Of course not, it seems hawkish Abe’s admin is still trying to clinch a misguided credence that the US will back Japan ,no-matter-what, if Japan has an armed conflict with China.

The fact of matter is that the role that the US is now only interested to play is to be an intermediary and stabilizer of the region because the US wants to protect its best national interest and thus commercial interests. In other words, the US has no stomach for ratcheting up tensions with China. For example, the FAA’s decision to ask American airlines to submit their flying plans the Chinese regime was accepted by the White House although state dept. gave an official version of American stance – NR and NA to make Japan feel aligned.

Abe does not get it. Unlike a relationship between an estrange couple or soured romance between a pair of love birds – in which a divorce or a breakup would set two parties apart somehow perpetually. Yet, the neighboring countries cannot move away just because the relationship does not work it out. In fact the neighboring countries have to live adjacent to each other for a long and long time. That being said, in my humble opinion, Abe’s advocating on China threat might not get him on the history books with a well-perceived place.

Seeking peace and cooperation earnestly and skillfully would make sense for both Japan and China to shine in the long run. Fighting each other with war could only inflict pain and suffering for both countries.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

The national security strategy must go through a radical change in defense policy that dates back 1945.En other term, the arms industry including nuclear weapons (because the world is so) must run full regime and thus the time of the American protectorate evolved as international politics is passing interest (commercial, ...) of the guard at the expense of protected: Japan, it goes without saying ...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ReformedBasher I totally agree with you, why should Japan care? Everyone always referring to World War II. This is a New Generation. You don't see Japanese ships sailing up on China's coastline its the other way around and they don't want Japan to defend itself? Why some people here call Abe the aggressor?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

walk on the path of peaceful development and make due efforts to improve ties.”

Like China does? If Japan follows China's example there will be a war soon.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Just counting the days until Article 9 disappears and Japan can defend itself properly.

0 ( +7 / -6 )

@ReformedBasher It baffles me as to why the Japanee government should care what the Chinese and South Korean governments think.

First world countries these days are linked just too deeply linked. It's about $400bn in trade between the two countries and China is the biggest creditor on the Japanese bond market. Economically they could both do serious damage to each other. In particular because the the treaty obligations from the US.

Korea is a smaller concern. They have a common friend, but strategically and economically they are competitors.

I personally think China is a bigger distraction to the main problems of the area which are Russia and North Korea.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Yes Japan, do as we, China, say and walk the path of peace, so that you don't resist us when we invade you. Take a hike China, you reap what you sow. You bully Japan incessantly, and you expect them not to seek to improve their defensive capabilities? What dream world do you live in? Can I join you? Japan needs to approve this strategy and get cracking on it immediately. At the moment, they're quite vulnerable to China, relatively speaking. Japan already has a superior air and navy force, but China has numbers on its side. Better defences will lead to less losses.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Awesome...lets not look at the history.....most of the European country have colonized one or the other country at times in past but that does not mean they deserve to be colonized. Same applies with Japan. Yes, Japan did colonized some countries in the past but power and victory has always lead to colonization. What US is doing now to the whole world, its basically colonization. So, if the country is weak and unable to protect their sovereignty, they will face the risk of being colonized and especially when the country that has fallen victim of colonization is rising, the risk skyrockets.

So, I don't see any stupidity in rectifying the terms of Pacifist agreement or even completely abolishing it. Every country has right to protect their border and their people. Its not the Japanese we have are responsible for colonization.

From 1952 to 2004, there were approximately 200,000 accidents and crimes involving U.S. troops, in which 1,076 Japanese civilians died. So, how can Japan possibly rely on them. Crime is different story and other important issue is of being a turn coat. USA is a corporation. Help comes only if there is a profit and I consider Japan would understand it sooner or later.........understanding this means saving billions of tax payer money as well, which they pay to US government in one form or another ......... for keeping base in Japan and starting all the turmoil.....

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

A government panel, representing Shinzo Abes interests....no surprises there, and I would amend the word "protector" to the true word - master. The simple solution to this is to hold a referendum on Okinawa, and give the people a choice. Remain with Japan and be a host for US bases in perpetuity, or become autonomous. Im sure the result would be interesting

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Well one part of history that could be interpreted as repeating itself seems to be Japan responding to the presence of a bigger power. Last time it was the US and this time it is China. Seriously I can't think of another people in the world that has to listen to a comparison to history every time someone wants something as much as the Japanese. The fact that China can't move on to find better arguments for their expansionism is a statement in itself, and that is very worrying when it is combined with building military muscles. If I recall correctly Chinas behavior seem to be a perfect match with the history about how Germany moved after the ww1. Well who would have thought...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

“We urge Japan to follow the historical trend, walk on the path of peaceful development and make due efforts to improve ties.” Point here is "peaceful development" comming from China who just expanded their airzone? What do they expect Japan to react?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Chinas actions in this case certainly appear extreme. (I am also by no means condoning how their government conducts itself) However, taken in the context of Japan upsetting the status quo by nationalising the islands, and refusing to recognise the existence of a territorial dispute - I think the imposition of the ADIZ by China was an example of their exasperation with Japans intransigence.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

China can't be like the Germany. Germany had the Weimar Republic. China doesn't have democracy so they can't become a dictatorship. China is an oligarchy. I kinda like the Athenian system of drawing lots for public positions.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

No matter what the Abe government does, it will not be enough. We are talking about China, a modern China. In a real conflict, Japan would not have a prayer.

Modern China. What does modern imply here? Here is a quote from an other poster that I somewhat agree with:

Well...it exists today, in the modern era, if that's what you mean. They have modern machines and appliances and cars and cities...However, many people live in unacknowledged poverty, political opposition is routinely jailed, and there is practically no internet freedom. Basically, China is both modern and first-world, and at the same time, medieval and oppressive. It's a country of contradictions.

Modern China is still eons away from a modern Europe or a modern North America, for example. Which fact does not mean China isn't a threat to its neighbors and/or the rest of the world.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The sheer hypocrisy of the Chinese govt and it's supporters is sickening. Japan didn't rearm for 63 years when we forced them to create the JSDF. Now in one fell swoop China shows it's true self to all of Asia. True nobody wants an all out war, including China. But they certainly don't think twice about limited conflicts and the US-Japan alliance will be happy to answer it. This is 21st century and the days of empire building are over. If the Chinese dictatorship wants to escalate it further they are going to find themselves fighting the whole world. China is the one who needs to learn from history and correct their ways.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

@motyrah

You might have a point. Trade is probably one reason that Japan has not been more vocal against China's behaviour. But China is on the fast track to becoming the loser if they persist. People will trade elsewhere. China does not have a monopoly on cheap labour.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@Ossan America. Actually, the US wanted Japan to re-arm as early as 1950. Many people opposed the existence of an SDF at all, and still do. The fact that moves to alter article 9 are again gaining momentum is because the docile LDP is receiving pressure from the US to be a more active partner. I for one am opposed to this, until Japan settles matters still pertaining to WW2 to the satisfaction of its neighbours

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

There you go . After ww2 all Japan and its people want is working hard ,live in peace , service to mankind through science and technology, help its neighbours.... then here comes China , under communist rule, with full of deception and vengeance!!! hongkong taiwan xinjiang,tibet vietnam combodia laos all under its rule or heavy influence ,and Okinawa is full of chinese spies. Japan needs to do it fast and NOW.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Does Hong Lei and the Chinese Foreign Ministry not realize how bad they make China look to the global community every time they wheel up to the podium and say anything?

I guess not.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

"South Korea is uncomfortable with any Japanese military expansion", not "because it was colonized by Japan" but because of its on-going anti-Japan education and propaganda.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

South Korea, I would say, is thoroughly justified in its concern, going by the anti-Korean demonstrations which have been held in Shin-Okubo and elsewhere. @Anbinh. Japan still has numerous historical issues to settle with its neighbours, over denials of war atrocities, refusal to compensate sex slaves, and territorial disputes. I think it suits the governments of the US and Japan to keep things simmering

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

@aussie-musashi, all those things you mentioned above, Japan had already done them , finished ,gone...loooong time ago . during the early developments of China ,SK . But they just can not let those matters go for good. Australia got some bitter experiences with Japan as well but all forgiven. Australia is even now getting help from Japan for its submarines.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

We urge Japan to follow the historical trend, walk on the path of peaceful development and make due efforts to improve ties.”

THIS coming out of the mouth of a Chinese official! Wow! If you check the dictionary for the word Hypocrisy you should find China under the explanation!

0 ( +7 / -7 )

One question. Have you ever read Article 9? If you want a military, change the constitution; don't ignore it. I recommend you leave it alone and run the fascists out of government.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@aussie-musashi, sex slaves is just one kind of crime during war time. If we talk about compensation for each and every individual of different crimes during war time, all wars , all colonial powers , America , Russia ,China, Japan , ..etc.. will have impossible tasks to accomplish.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The PRC has been talking with a forked tongue.

It tells Japan and the world that it comes in peace, but as it says that it claims Okinawa and everything that it can.

The PRC doesn't just want Senkaku it wants all of the Pacific.

No difference as when Hitler demanded Austria and Czechoslovakia.

You can never quench the thirst of imperialistic madness, the only way to stop it is by meeting it with stronger and unflinching counter force.

For those who think that giving into the PRC's demands will bring peace to the region are sadly mistaken. What will happen is what always happens when you give into a bully, they will demand more.

Hitler's thirst wasn't quenched after he got what he demanded, he later demanded Poland and then invaded it, hell he even invaded his ally the Soviet Union out of his madness.

You can never reason with madness, you can only stop it by pushing back!

Time for Japan to do away with Article 9, man up and be ready to help it's allies as a true super power!

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Japan can defeat China if a war is boken out?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

aussie-musashiDec. 12, 2013 - 01:54PM JST @Ossan America. Actually, the US wanted Japan to re-arm as early as 1950. Many people opposed the existence of >an SDF at all, and still do. The fact that moves to alter article 9 are again gaining momentum is because the docile >LDP is receiving pressure from the US to be a more active partner. I for one am opposed to this, until Japan settles >matters still pertaining to WW2 to the satisfaction of its neighbours

Just as there are Americans who are against anything military, there are those in Japan who are against the military there. Japan has enjoyed nearly 70 years of peace with little need to worry about the military. The JSDF was originally designed to "hold off" a hypothetical Soviet invasion for 3 days until US reinforcements could arrive en masse. Since then over the decades, although Japan learned to use their Article 9 as a shield to protect themselves from the constant and ever increasing US pressure, they did step by step move forward, both in terms of international activity and integration with US forces. That "docile LP" to which you refer is the same party that has resisted US pressure for decades. Matters of WWII have all been settled, in 1972/878 with China and 1965 with South Korea. These are Treaties that involve apologies and settlements. That these two nations disregard the treaties hey signed and continue to use WWII and anti-Japan sentiment as a political and diplomatic tool says far more about the integrity and intentions of those two countries than of Japan's dealing with WWII history. So when we say "neighbors: let's be specific, it is only these two countries (and NKorea) that have raised an objection. All other Asian nations have welcomed the direction that Japan is taking because they recognize the threat China poses. I for one am completely disappointed in the direction that China has taken, becoming a threat to all of Asia. As for Japan's renewed attention to it's military and security, it has been necessitated by China's actions over the last few years. I have no doubt that Japan would have loved to keep going on forever insulated from threats of conflict.

mgglifeDec. 12, 2013 - 09:55PM JST Japan can defeat China if a war is boken out?

In a limited are/sea conflict, which is about as far as China is willing to engage, I would say yes. China's objective would be to take territory (islands). Japan's objective would be to prevent or take them back. Japan is not the Philippines.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Japan continues unabashedly to pursue a path to its own obliteration. The population made up of old people cannot afford to go to war with any country. The young will continue to drop off like flies after drinking ' safe ' water that has been contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster and eating radiated fish from the oceans surrounding Japan. With Tokyo as target all this swash buckling by Abe will end quickly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica

I am afraid that there is no limited conflict between China and Japan. China abviously can't accept fail with Japan any more, because of the history. So if Japan want to defeat China here, It will finally be an unlimited conflict.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

By calling for a stronger military, Abe’s hawkish admin may hinder Japan’s best national interests and jeopardize American’s position in long run although Abe might fan nationalism to get some voter support in near term. Moreover, The Chinese ruthless regime would thank Abe , in private, for helping it to expand its military further with a cause. As a result, the heated arm race will put even more pressures on the stability of the region. For those zest nationalists, please don't jump out of your seats, I know your thinking. :)

Here is a thing: the US and American public now are watching Abe questionable agenda and belligerent remarks towards to Japan’s neighbors to unfold with wary eyes especially after passing anti-democracy state secrets act.

For people who are not aware:

South Korean government has quietly changed its position on Chinese ADIZ. Now S.K’s airlines are going to submit their flying plans the similar way as its American counterpart. It’s safe to predict that Japanese Airline might follow suit in the distance future. If that happens, it will make Abe’s admin look very odd in the international community.

Thanks to Abe and its domestic policies, the Japanese Communist Party (the pure forms of Communism) has grown more rapidly. For instance, Japanese Communist Party almost doubled its number of the original seats in the last Upper House election. Worse, JCP also are growing influence in the nation's main cities as well. This strangely uptick trend of Japanese Communist Party is largely contributed by the Abe’s right-wing stance. Therefore, Japan may face its internal issues of communists more than that comes from the outside. That is really worrisome and ironic indeed.
-2 ( +3 / -5 )

A government panel, representing Shinzo Abes interests....no surprises there, and I would amend the word "protector" to the true word - master. The simple solution to this is to hold a referendum on Okinawa, and give the people a choice. Remain with Japan and be a host for US bases in perpetuity, or become autonomous. Im sure the result would be interesting

In 2006, a governor candidate Chousuke Yara did exactly that appealing to the independence of Okinawa. He received a grand total of 6,220 votes (0.93%)

Ryukyu Shinbun conducted a survey in 2011 which resulted in 61.8% against independence, 15.3% to become autonomous state or special region, 4.7% to become independent.

Happiness Realization Party conducted their survey of 3,086 Okinawa residents selected based on age distritubiton of the prefecture itself and only 1% stated they wanted independence.

These results are not surprising for as is always the case for Okinawa protests, they make a lot of noise but they barely reflect the desire of the entire population.

Chinas actions in this case certainly appear extreme. (I am also by no means condoning how their government conducts itself) However, taken in the context of Japan upsetting the status quo by nationalising the islands, and refusing to recognise the existence of a territorial dispute - I think the imposition of the ADIZ by China was an example of their exasperation with Japans intransigence.

It is extreme. Using the threat of force if one does not comply by unilaterally breaking the status quo is extreme in any parts of the world and within the international community. It's simply that some posters have on time and time again, excused China's behavior because of simply what they are. A bully that has taken islands and territories by force. (South China Sea).

As a responsible member of the U.N., China could very well take the route of taking this to the International Court of Justice thereby elevating this officially as internationally recognized "dispute" but they refuse to do so.

South Korea, I would say, is thoroughly justified in its concern, going by the anti-Korean demonstrations which have been held in Shin-Okubo and elsewhere

A localized demonstration by a specific group does not warrant such views. Face it. The demonstrations did in no shape or form changed Korea's view of Japan's desire to pursue collective defence. It's merely another anti-japan rhetoric that they continue to preach with only China that agrees to. That in of itself best exemplifies these two (perhaps NK could be included as well) which is a direct contrast of what the remaining international community views Japan.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

mgglifeDec. 12, 2013 - 10:53PM JST OssanAmerica I am afraid that there is no limited conflict between China and Japan. China abviously can't accept fail with Japan any >more, because of the history. So if Japan want to defeat China here, It will finally be an unlimited conflict.

I must disagree with you completely. China has already failed in terms of grabbing the Senkakus because they are unable to take them through military means without entering conflict with the United States. And China clearly is not prepared to do so.The "history" is irrelevant, it is a branwashing tool usedf by the Chinese government to jutify their actions of aggression. Japan is not interested in "defeating China" tey simply want to keep China from taking what they consider their territory by force. It is only China that is interested in war and "defeating Japan". The entire world sees China's actions as a unilateral provocation and an attempt to change the status quo through force and intimidation. I can assure you that even China is not interested in an "unlimited conflict" as it would mean the end of the CCP.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

OssanAmerica

I can assure you that even China is not interested in an "unlimited conflict" as it would mean the end of the CCP

I can also assure you, this is impossible. Chinese people know that they can't go in to situation like Irag even the CPP commit all crime.

as a matter of fact, I tend to believe that China will not break a war with Japan and USA before China is strong enough, because that is stupid. The USA does't like a war also, the USA just dislike the destiny of UK.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I am afraid that there is no limited conflict between China and Japan. China abviously can't accept fail with Japan any more, because of the history. So if Japan want to defeat China here, It will finally be an unlimited conflict.

Blockage of sea lanes (i.e. no resources coming to China) will be a slow death for China much like Japan was in the Pacific War. The two million plus Little Emperor PLA will be too busy holding off the mass riots all across China.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@ ka_chan Sorry your thinking is WAY OFF!!!! You are still stuck in the bow and arrow age “

You wrote “Even if there are signs of the 1930's, it's more like Taisho. As for dealing with China, short of going nuclear, I don't see any way. Building up the military will leave Japan short since I can't see Japan having a military force of 4.5 million or 3.5% of the population”. You don’t need a million man army these days to fight a war! It’s all technology now and if you don’t make it or design, you don’t have a clue and guess what I DO! You also wrote “We are talking about China, a modern China. In a real conflict, Japan would not have a prayer”. I am laughing at your statements you are dreaming!! China has a very weak Navy!!! Don’t mention the near carrier they have that was bought from the Russians what good is a carrier when you don’t have the support ships. If you don’t know then ask somebody!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

mgglifeDec. 12, 2013 - 11:56PM JST OssanAmerica "I can assure you that even China is not interested in an "unlimited conflict" as it would mean the end of the CCP"

I can also assure you, this is impossible. Chinese people know that they can't go in to situation like Irag even the CPP >commit all crime.

I can not tell if you are agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me. Please clarify.

as a matter of fact, I tend to believe that China will not break a war with Japan and USA before China is strong >enough, because that is stupid. The USA does't like a war also, the USA just dislike the destiny of UK.

This assumes that at some point in time China WILL start a war with Japan and the US when it feels strong enough. Is that wyat you are saying?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I'm assuming that Abe plans to do to China what the US did to the Soviets. Start an arms race and bankrupt China.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Nenad Jovanović, you should know that the US only returned the administrative rights to Japan and not the sovereignty rights knowing full well that the islands belonged to China. China didn’t say anything when the US occupied the islands because the ownership of the islands was not in dispute in accordance with Cairo declaration and Potsdam Proclamation. In pursuit of the ownership rights of the islands China has based its claims on historic, scientific and legal grounds which the most recent event on the ADIZ has helped China in weakening Japan’s administrative rights over the islands. Think about which sides have the most to gain and lose in the event of a war, China has the most to lose in terms of economic ruin and negative creditability and the gains from winning the war are only its pride, and a small territory and resources which are not worth going to war for. Now, think about what Japan would gain from the war, we are talking about a limited war and not a full scale war, which Japan has expected. As I mentioned before the trends are there that Japan is following its old past in preparing for war. As a lot of people here mentioned that Japan has been on peaceful path since the War, so it doesn’t make any sense to change now despite of the claim of China threat. All Japan has to do is to reset everything back to the way it was before September, 2012, agree with China to re-shelve the islands issues and stop provoking China. These are not hard to do at all but Japan obviously chose the other aggressive path as possibly dictated by a third party which has a lot more to gain from this dispute, namely the US. Abe administration thinks they need a war to boost its economy and when Abenomics fails they can still stay in power. As China has committed itself to the peaceful rise policy, any war will make China to be seen as untrustworthy and its economy would be contained giving Japan a chance to overtake China. You can see that Abe has been provoking and smearing China constantly and China’s only reacted to those provocations, this new ADIZ is also the response to Japan’s plan to shoot down Chinese drones. If China is really aggressive it would have set up the ADIZ all around China already and not just East China Sea. China has announced to the world that it’s followed the peaceful rise policy so any military actions would be unwise, and Japan knows this weakness and uses it to its advantage. Also, think about this, the rise and fall of Japanese economy is pretty much dependent on China’s market as China is Japan’s largest trading partner, so Japan is taking a very big gamble thinking that China wouldn’t dare to stir up the anti-Japanese movement again. Is Abe really trying to fix the economy or he has another ulterior motive? From what I can see the later would be more likely.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

flowers, The Senkakus are under Japanese control in accordance with the Casiro amnd Potsdam declarations with China's (ROC) agreement.it is China that is provoking Japan in an effort to change the status quo established after WWII.. The Japanese government purchasing 3 of the 5 islands from their Japanese owners is nothing but an excuse for China to come open with their plans. China had stated as early as 2002/2003 that they intended to take over the entire South and East China Seas. All of Asia does not want to come under the control of a dictatorship. No one is buying your lengthy parroting of CCP propaganda anymore.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

The only thing missing from your perspective flowers, is that the facts point to China rather than Japan when it comes to war mongering. You know very well that Japan is a democracy and that the state can't make the people do anything it wants. The Senkakus was bought by the state to stop nationalists from doing something strong to provoke China. If China can't see such a simple fact it is worrying. Instead it seems that Chinas gov took the chance to attack Japan with unnecessary threatening rhetorics. To lay it out a bit simplified it would seem there is an agenda from the Chinese gov to use every means possible to gain control of the area around the Senkakus. The gains are of course possible economic profits, strategic military use and some kind of old style payback. I agree about that the US is likely to get more involved over time for strategic purposes. But basically China is pushing and giving Abe the momentum he need to change Japans defense policy. Of course that is Japans own business but i find it a bit sad that one of the most peaceful countries in the world is changing as a response to outside threats. With Chinas new Adiz Abe got what he needs to push for a change of article 9.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

OssanAmerica, you are very good at distorting the facts about Cairo declaration and Potsdam Proclamation. If Japan is not afraid of the declarations, it wouldn’t use the “no dispute” claim to avoid the legal ramification. And, who is in control of the islands now? Last time I checked China can get in and out of the area freely. Your math must be very poor indeed, you must know that 4/5 is larger than 1/5, right? Japan changed the status quo when it nationalized the islands, everybody knows that nationalization is not the same as private transfer. And, you are wrong in saying that China “intended to take over the entire South and East China Seas,” China has intended to take over the whole world. You see Chinese are everywhere now. Are you afraid? Don’t overuse the terms “dictatorship” and “democracy,” every time somebody mentioned those words I now tend to think negatively about the US, the word “hypocrisy” also springs up. I’m really honoured to hear the terms “parroting of CCP propaganda,” because I know myself I am not. You seem to appear in every article concerning China and blaming China on everything, don’t you think we should be more concerned about you?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

flowersDec. 13, 2013 - 04:32AM JST OssanAmerica, you are very good at distorting the facts about Cairo declaration and Potsdam Proclamation.

Not at all. It is YOU who is distorting the facts by leaving out the fact that the Cairo and Postdam declarations exempt territory not taken by force and minor islands, as determined by the allies which included China from being taken away from Japan at the end of the war.

If Japan is not afraid of the declarations, it wouldn’t use the “no dispute” claim to avoid the legal ramification.

Japan is not "afraid of the declarations" in fact it is in accordance with the declarations (and subsequent 1951 San Francisco Treaty) that Japan considers them to be theirs. It is China which is afraid of the declarations because if they were not, they would bring this "dispute" to the ICJ. But they dare not because they know they have a losing case.

And, who is in control of the islands now? Last time I checked China can get in and out of the area freely. Your math >must be very poor indeed, you must know that 4/5 is larger than 1/5, right?

When China lands on them, then you can claim control. Until then they are under Japanese control. Stupid and insulting comments about irrelevant math ability are unnecessary.

Japan changed the status quo when it nationalized the islands, everybody knows that nationalization is not the same >as private transfer.

Who is everybody besides China? The Japanese government already owned one of the 5 islands from the beginning. No complaints from China. They then let the US use it for live fire bombing practice. No complaints from China. Then the Japanese government purchased 3 of the islands from JAPANESE LANDOWNERS. Stop and consider just how did this affect the "status quo". How did this have the slightest effect on China's claim made in 1971? None. China already had plans to take the Senkakus. They sent the fishing trailer in 2010 to deliberately cause an international incident. The Trawler was ordered to the Senkakus by a Chinese government Agency called the East China Seas Fisheries Research Agency, a covert organization tasked with supporting China's territorial expansion under the guise of natural resource management.

And, you are wrong in saying that China “intended to take over the entire South and East China Seas,” China has >intended to take over the whole world. You see Chinese are everywhere now. Are you afraid? Don’t overuse the >terms “dictatorship” and “democracy,” every time somebody mentioned those words I now tend to think negatively >about the US, the word “hypocrisy” also springs up. I’m really honoured to hear the terms “parroting of CCP >propaganda,” because I know myself I am not. You seem to appear in every article concerning China and blaming >China on everything, don’t you think we should be more concerned about you?

No, Asian nations are not concerned about the United States, In fact they are supporting the US Pivot to Asia because they consider China to be the biggest threat to peace in the region. And rightfully so. China is the one who has declared their intent to take over the East and South China Seas. They have declared their intent to push the US out of the western Pacific. China is the only country that openly talks of preparing for war and expanding their territory. China is a country drunk of Nationalism and a mistaken belief that they can take on the US and the world. Tyhey shuld learn from history and see what has happened to other nations in the past who thought that way.

"Chinese state-run media revealed for the first time this week that Beijing’s nuclear submarines can attack American cities as a means to counterbalance U.S. nuclear deterrence in the Pacific.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/inside-china-nuclear-submarines-capable-of-widespr/

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Sentiments, I understand that you think China is “war mongering”. But from what I can see some people seem to blame China on everything which is unfair. The approaches that China’s made are not at all unreasonable, but some people seem to think negatively when it comes to China. Now, “democracy” again, I tend to think that this word comes from “demonstration” of “craziness,” think deeply and you will understand that Japan is not a democratic country, it appears to be but in fact it is not. How long has LDP been in power since the War? How was the secrecy law passed when 70% of the people were against it? “The Senkakus was bought by the state to stop nationalists from doing something strong to provoke China,” this is what the Japanese government wants you to believe. There are many ways to stop the nationalists from provoking China rather than the government taking upon itself to provoke China. Constant verbal attacks and aggressive actions have been coming from Japan. you mentioned about “the gains are of course possible economic profits, strategic military use and some kind of old style payback,” but think about this, the dispute was not new at all it’s existed for many decades already, you didn’t hear much about it because China has put a lid on it following the verbal agreement between the two leaders. So, who opened the lid last year, it was Japan. In spite of the Chinese leader asking the Japanese leader not to do it, Japan went ahead with the nationalization any way. So, who is to blame, if it is not Japan. If you’ve followed the news from the beginning, China seems to be only in the reactive mode. Abe is using China to get back in power and realize his dream of getting Japan to be “normal” country again. Don’t you see that Japan is going backwards seeing from various movements within Japan and average citizens can’t do anything about it? So, where is Japan’s “democracy”?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

flowersDec. 13, 2013 - 05:36AM JST Sentiments, I understand that you think China is “war mongering

"As tensions between China and Japan escalate, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been told to prepare for war in a training directive issued by the General Staff Headquarters, which oversees the entire PLA."

http://www.voanews.com/content/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-pla-prepare-for-war/1585348.html

"China's navy should speed up its development and prepare for warfare, President Hu Jintao has said."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16063607

"China's General Staff Headquarters issued a harsh directive on Wednesday to the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to prepare for war: "

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/18/19-Jan-13-World-View-China-s-directive-to-the-People-s-Liberation-Army-Get-Ready-for-War

2 ( +6 / -4 )

All for Japan pumping up its military might and hardware. Every country has a right to protect its citizens and its borders.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

All Japan has to do is to reset everything back to the way it was before September, 2012, agree with China to re-shelve the islands issues and stop provoking China.

This would mean that a previous owner (a Japanese national) would have to pay back the Japanese government and subsequently renews the least whereby she continues pay lease payments. But let's face it. What does this really accomplish, flowers? Do you think for a second that by doing this, China would cease the daily territorial incursions and omit their recently declared ADIZ?

To those who are continually using the word "breaking the status quo" which is straight out of the China's propaganda, I suggest they study this issue carefully for the REAL STATUS QUO was Japan's continuous display of effective control without a single peep from China from 1895-1971.

2 ( +6 / -3 )

OssanAmerica, “Cairo and Postdam declarations exempt territory not taken by force and minor islands,” please check the dates when the Treaty of Shimonoseki signed and the islands incorporated, they were only a few months apart so they were in fact taken by force. And, the islands were not included in the “minor islands,” if they were China would know. Again, you are distorting the truth. You see “Japan considers them to be theirs,” but in fact they belong to China according to the declarations. Japan is preventing China from bringing the dispute to the ICJ because by claiming the “no dispute” claim Japan is not obligated to abide by the decision of the Court, this shows that Japan is afraid on the legal grounds. Again, the fact is China can get in and out of the area freely shows Japan no longer has valid control of the islands, period. About the math, I only pointed to you that before only one of the five islands was nationalized but now four islands were nationalized, now can you see the change in the status quo? The impacts were that the “status quo” agreement had been changed and nationalization increased the legitimacy of Japan’s claims in the legal sense. About the trawler, you can make up any story you want the point is China did not escalate the issue otherwise it wouldn’t be the last September event that broke the straw. “No, Asian nations are not concerned about the United States,“ in fact the whole world is concerned, especially when Obama said, the Americans were “exceptional.” What did they label the US, “the hypocrite,” right? From my reading China just wants to be “a balance of power” in order to keep the US in line. Don’t you think that the US is getting more and more out of line and this time it is using Japan to do its dirty work.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

nigelboy Dec. 13, 2013 - 06:20AM JST I suggest they study this issue carefully for the REAL STATUS QUO was Japan's continuous display of effective control without a single peep from China from 1895-1971.

The heavy insistence by the U.S. on law is simply out of place here. But law alone does not govern international relations, especially on big issues of national pride and dignity. This is as true for Japan as for China. Many in Japan feel that a line has been drawn under their wartime history and the territories settled long ago. As angered as Chinese people are, most Japanese feel that enough is enough. They rest their legal case on U.S. control of these islands on behalf of Japan after 1945 with no protest from either of the governments of China until 1970, after oil was discovered in the East China Sea. Japan’s view is not strictly based on law either. It wants an end to its war shame and repeat calls from China for an apology, which Japan feels has been given many times. China wants greater admission of some role for justice and it will not back down until it gets it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

nigelboy, to reset the status quo would only require Japan not to nationalize the islands so that the conditions would remain the same as before. It doesn’t require the involvement of the previous owner. “Do you think for a second that by doing this, China would cease the daily territorial incursions and omit their recently declared ADIZ?” I don’t see why not. If Japan announces to the world that it wants to bring back the status quo and not provoking China, I don’t think that China would back tracks on its words of re-shelving the issues. About the ADIZ I think a compromise has to be reached between the two leaders. About the REAL STATUS QUO you mentioned I thought Japan had no effective control over the islands for a couple of decades until 1972 because of the US.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

flowersDec. 13, 2013 - 06:28AM JST OssanAmerica, “Cairo and Postdam declarations exempt territory not taken by force and minor islands,” please check >the dates when the Treaty of Shimonoseki signed and the islands incorporated, they were only a few months apart so >they were in fact taken by force.

The islands were incorporated in Jan 1885 after Japan conducted a search to verify them to be Terra Nullius in accordance with international protocol. No complaints were raised by any country on the incorporation. The Treaty of Shiomonoseki was signmed in Apr 1885 between Japan and China (Qing Dynasty) and China ceded territory to Japan. Such territories are specifically named, such as Taiwan and the Pescadores. The Senkakus were not listed and they were not mentioned by either side because neither side considered them to be Chinese territory to begin with. The fault in the recently introduced Chinese argument that the islands were taken "in war" or "by force" from China is that if that were the case, all Japan had to do was put it on the list of Chinese territory that was to be ceded to them at the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Why bother going through the incorporation process if it was believed by anyone to be Chinese territory. As for the use of "force" there was no battle, no conflict, and in fact, no Chinese, military or civilian present on the Senkakus.

And, the islands were not included in the “minor islands,” if they were China would know. Again, you are distorting the >truth. You see “Japan considers them to be theirs,” but in fact they belong to China according to the declarations. >Japan is preventing China from bringing the dispute to the ICJ because by claiming the “no dispute” claim Japan is not >obligated to abide by the decision of the Court, this shows that Japan is afraid on the legal grounds.

It is you who is distorting the truth. Firstly, it is China which refuses to bring an action to the ICJ. To this date China has NEVER suggested settling the matter at the ICJ. Japan is a signatory to an agreement which binds it to ICJ rulings, another truth that you distort.

Again, the fact is China can get in and out of the area freely shows Japan no longer has valid control of the islands, >period.

Getting in and out for a few hours does not signify "control" of the islands. Landing on them probably would, but China is afraid to do so.

About the math, I only pointed to you that before only one of the five islands was nationalized but now four islands >were nationalized, now can you see the change in the status quo? The impacts were that the “status quo” agreement >had been changed and nationalization increased the legitimacy of Japan’s claims in the legal sense.

Whether the islands, be it 1 or 5 being owned by Japanese nastionals or the Japanese government makes no difference to China's claim. Any change between ownership, if they are between Japanese entities does not change the status quo. The Status Quo that China is trying to change is to remove the islands from Japanese administration.

About the trawler, you can make up any story you want the point is China did not escalate the issue otherwise it >wouldn’t be the last September event that broke the straw.

My story is not made up at all. The real point is that the Japanese govt bought 3 of the 5 islands to prevent Ishihara from building on them and thereby aggravating China. But rather than appreciate that fact, China decided to go open with the offensive to take those islands, a plan that they have had since at least 2002. The entire world sees China as escalating the issue and Japan being forced to respond.

“No, Asian nations are not concerned about the United States,“ in fact the whole world is concerned, especially when >Obama said, the Americans were “exceptional.” What did they label the US, “the hypocrite,” right? From my reading >China just wants to be “a balance of power” in order to keep the US in line. Don’t you think that the US is getting more >and more out of line and this time it is using Japan to do its dirty work.

What dirty work has Japan been doing? Helping the Philippines after the Typhoon? Helping he Southeast Asian nations after the 2004 Tsunami?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

nigelboy, to reset the status quo would only require Japan not to nationalize the islands so that the conditions would remain the same as before. It doesn’t require the involvement of the previous owner. “Do you think for a second that by doing this, China would cease the daily territorial incursions and omit their recently declared ADIZ?” I don’t see why not. If Japan announces to the world that it wants to bring back the status quo and not provoking China, I don’t think that China would back tracks on its words of re-shelving the issues. About the ADIZ I think a compromise has to be reached between the two leaders. About the REAL STATUS QUO you mentioned I thought Japan had no effective control over the islands for a couple of decades until 1972 because of the US.

Does China censor the fact that the islands were first owned by Koga family and was subsequently bought by another private individual before the Japanese government bought them in 2012? The transaction, recorded deed of trust, and assessment of taxes dates back to early 1900's. And yes. Such actions like "paying lease" was also done by U.S. To the owners while U.S. had trusteeship. Hence, you are absolutely clueless as to "the conditions ewmain the same before". Perhaps the concept of "owning" a land is a foreign concept to Chinese posters here since that's not allowed.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Even though it is invalid, why did Japan signed this treaty? In 1952, Japan and Taiwan signed a Treaty of Peace as a precondition to normalization of relations under which Japan reaffirmed its renunciation of sovereignty over Taiwan and the Pescadores and also recognized that all pre-1941 Sino-Japanese treaties, including the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, were null and void. This treaty ceded Taiwan and associated islands to Japan after the First Sino-Japanese War.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Here is a thing: the US and American public now are watching Abe questionable agenda and belligerent remarks towards to Japan’s neighbors to unfold with wary eyes especially after passing anti-democracy state secrets act.

Which is a long time coming for U.S. counterparts for the "slap on the wrist" penalty which Japan had imposed on the public officials was one of the reasons why Japan-U.S. relations (in terms of security) never flourished as it should have been.  As for the "american public", they don't care.

South Korean government has quietly changed its position on Chinese ADIZ.

This was, dare I say, "expected".  Korea is an insignificant country which structually is trade(import & export) dependent (close to 90% of GDP) while China's exports contributing the dominant amount of their export surplus.  With the current President trying desparately to escape her father's image (pro Japan), it's no wonder that she tested the waters first, see China's reaction, scolded by her masters afterwards, then obliged.

Thanks to Abe and its domestic policies, the Japanese Communist Party (the pure forms of Communism) has grown more rapidly. For instance, Japanese Communist Party almost doubled its number of the original seats in the last Upper House election

And yet JCP has the EXACT same stance in terms of Senkaku's and the recent unilateral declaration of China's ADIZ.

http://www.jcp.or.jp/akahata/aik12/2012-09-11/2012091105_01_1.html

http://www.jcp.or.jp/akahata/aik13/2013-12-10/2013121001_03_1.html?_tptb=089

Do people not watch these committee meetings coverage on NHK live?  Not only JCP, but when DPJ stops criticizing Abe's tactics in terms of handling foreign relations (both in regards China and Korea) in these committee meetings, you get the sense that the general Japanese population had basically enough of ohitoyoshi gaikou "appeasement foreign diplomacy" in regards to those two countries."

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

nigelboy Dec. 13, 2013 - 08:47AM JST This was, dare I say, "expected". Korea is an insignificant country which structually is trade(import & export) dependent (close to 90% of GDP) while China's exports contributing the dominant amount of their export surplus.

In reality, for many countries, Japan is already an insignifcant country for trade. Even for South korea, trade with has become a non-factor. You noticed Japan's GDP growth in the last two decades has barely moved. For SK, China accounts for 25 percent of total exports and 16 percent of total imports and it's increasing. For SK, the trade with Japan has dropped fifty percent in the last decade, and and the focus for SK is for better relations with China.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Peaceful path"? Are you kidding me China. You set up an ADIZ which includes the Senkaku islands. You send in ships in Japanese territorial waters. You are one-sidedly flexing your muscles and threatening peace in the region but don't have the decency to be honest about it.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

OssanAmerica, “The islands were incorporated in Jan 1885 after Japan conducted a search to verify them to be Terra Nullius in accordance with international protocol.” Wrong, Japan did not complete the survey and it did not follow international protocol. “No complaints were raised by any country on the incorporation,” you are right no complaints because nobody knew about the incorporation and the change of islands names until years later, according to one of the rules under Terra Nullius, the incorporation has to be made public which means the surrounding nations should be notified. “Such territories are specifically named, such as Taiwan,” yes Formosa was mentioned which the islands were included under. By “force” in this case means China had no choice but to comply according to Treaty of Shimonoseki as the result of war. And, no China didn’t even mentioned about the ICJ because of its policy in dealing with any dispute has to be bilaterally, and yes Japan is a signatory but if you read the agreement you will see that Japan does not have to comply if there was “no dispute”. “Landing on them probably would, but China is afraid to do so,” but you see anyone is not permitted to land them otherwise it would make more sense for Japan to build a station on them. So, who is afraid? “Whether the islands, be it 1 or 5 being owned by Japanese nastionals or the Japanese government makes no difference to China's claim,” yes it makes a big difference under the international law. I really don’t see your logic here, now let me ask you this, is there a difference between 1/5 and 4/5? Japan had changed the status quo. “My story is not made up at all. The real point is that the Japanese govt bought 3 of the 5 islands to prevent Ishihara from building on them and thereby aggravating China,” the situation was discussed between the two leaders and Chinese leader asked not to nationalize the islands, so China had already prepared to accept the consequences if Ishihara took over. Japan set the fire in motion and blamed China of escalating the issue. Do you see my point? “What dirty work has Japan been doing? Helping the Philippines after the Typhoon? Helping he Southeast Asian nations after the 2004 Tsunami?” Not looking at it strategically, there shouldn’t be any reasons for Japan to behave like it is and go against China, peaceful solution is only a step away, but Japan chose not to go that route. This is beyond logics. And from the publicity Japan gets from its help to the Philippines is like acting in the political drama which China did not want to play along. The tension Japan created in the region has helped increase arms sale for the US and now Japan is trying to get on that boat too. China is used as a scapegoat when it didn’t even want to play the game.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Sorry flowers but it's too late for me to go into your point by point. But I will address the last part:

Not looking at it strategically, there shouldn’t be any reasons for Japan to behave like it is and go against China, >peaceful solution is only a step away, but Japan chose not to go that route. This is beyond logics.

Japan is not he one sending planes and ships on a daily basis to a territory under Chinese control that it is claiming. It is China that is doing that to territory under Japanese control. The only peaceful solution is for Chinas to cease it's intimidation tactics and bellicose rhetoric and suggest settling at the ICJ.

And from the publicity Japan gets from its help to the Philippines is like acting in the political drama which China did >not want to play along.

Are you suggesting that Japan kept China from offering more aid? China did that themselves because childishly they wanted to punish the Philippines for trying to take them to court. And yet you twist China's own doing into Japan's fault?

The tension Japan created in the region has helped increase arms sale for the US and now Japan is trying to get on >that boat too. China is used as a scapegoat when it didn’t even want to play the game.

The only country increasing tensions in the region is China. All of ASEAN agrees. China is not a "scapegoat" it is the instigator of region disputes and tensions because it is on a self declared territorial expansion program. It is China itself that declared an intent to take control of the entire South and East China Seas.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Ossan America: Settling at the ICJ would work, and China would likely agree to it. But for that to happen, Japan would be giving China what it has long sought - recognition that there is a dispute. "Matters of WWII have all been settled, in 1972/878 with China and 1965 with South Korea". In 1972, China and Jpaan agreed to "shelve" the dispute. Clearly that course has no longer been adhered to. And Japan has failed to follow Germany`s example of compensating the Holocaust victims by compensating the sex slaves. Do you see Germany quibbling about expiry dates? No. As long as there are survivors left they are compensated. Look at the amicable relations Germany enjoys with its neighbours as a result. Japan on the other hand faces mistrust and suspicion because nitwits like Ishihara, Hashimoto and Abe get to spout off their right-wing rubbish

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Flowers, I respect your persistence and the fact that you want to position a Chinese perspective on the issues concerning the Senkakus. Democracy comes in many colors and yes Japan is one, even if the system needs a bit more maturing measured against some western nations. However I believe I have followed the controversies through the media lens for well more than a year. I’m well aware about the facts of the declarations pre and past ww 2 and most of the historic issues concerning the Japanese and Chinese relations. If you look back you will most likely see that there are no simple way to determine what is right and wrong from a supposedly neutral ground. There are only different viewpoints and the difference between the viewpoints has been increasing for at least 2 years now. Being tired of the old discussions about pseudo facts and blame game I think China understand that strong rhetoric’s, claims (and yes an ADIZ) in a situation with strong tension will only fuel the tension more. Thus Im surprised that instead of showing calmness and responsibility this wannabe superpower is acting to increase the tension. I think the right word for such behavior is aggressive.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Settling at the ICJ would work, and China would likely agree to it. But for that to happen, Japan would be giving China what it has long sought - recognition that there is a dispute.

Another false argument for at no point in history have the Chinese government EVER mentioned the word "ICJ" in regards to Senkaku. Since Japan is a signatory to" Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory", all China has to do is the sign the EXACT document and bring forth the suit and Japan has no choice to comply. (this is what transpired the whaling suit filed by Australia against Japan)

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

“Japan is not he one sending planes and ships on a daily basis to a territory under Chinese control that it is claiming.” I didn’t know much about the history of territorial disputes between Japan and Korea, and Russia, but let me ask you this, were there any planes or ships sent to those disputed areas that resulted in the loss of life from the Japanese side? I bet Japan must have lost some lives there that is why it does not dare to send anyone there again. From what I can see it is very logical for China to send in ships and planes to assert its sovereignty. As I mentioned before about ICJ, Japan doesn’t want to go through ICJ, hence “no dispute” claim, and please don’t say that China could just initiate the proceeding because it would be pointless when the decision cannot be enforced on Japan. “Are you suggesting that Japan kept China from offering more aid?” Not at all, Japan has no influence on China what so ever. China did the right thing in really helping the people in needs in the Philippines and not get into Philanthropies contest and political game with Japan and the US. “China is not a "scapegoat" it is the instigator of region disputes and tensions because it is on a self declared territorial expansion program,” how can China be the “instigator” when the dispute started from the Japanese side? The islands issues would still be sitting on the shelf if Japan did not nationalize those islands. And, you even extended your ill-conceived logic in saying that China was on the expansion program. As I said before my own logic is China is trying to take control of the whole world and not just South and East China Seas. I think you can expand on that too, say to cover the moon and Mars.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

aussie-musashiDec. 13, 2013 - 02:55PM JST @Ossan America: Settling at the ICJ would work, and China would likely agree to it

Well that's as far as you need to go. China is the one with the claim, since 1971/72. The claimant is the one who must initiate a settlement at the ICJ. To date China has NEVER suggested talking the Senkaku issue to the ICJ.

flowersDec. 14, 2013 - 02:34AM JST As I mentioned before about ICJ, Japan doesn’t want to go through ICJ, hence “no dispute” claim, and please don’t >say that China could just initiate the proceeding because it would be pointless when the decision cannot be enforced >on Japan.

Same to you flowers. China has not proposed settling at the ICJ. And an ICJ ruling most certainly is enforceable on Japan. As Nioelboy hgas correctly posted: "Japan is a signatory to" Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory", all China has to do is the sign the EXACT document and bring forth the suit and Japan has no choice to comply" Why China does not do so, perhaps you can provide a more credible answer?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Abe's statement reiterate his resolve to defend the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands is hardly positive. Japan's long term interest requires that it find a way to resolve island dispute with China. The leaders of both countries need to have courage and wisdom to construct framework for putting the resources in an around the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands under some sort of joint administration, in which the sovereign claims of both Japan and Chian are neither recognized nor disputed, but overruled by a supranational governing body like the ECSC during the 1950's. Both countries need to have mechanism to prevent repeat wars of unspeakable disaster, because the dispute can esclate quickly, and there is no turning back.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

OssanAmerica, as I said before if Japan does not admit that the dispute exists the ICJ decision becomes unenforceable whether or not Japan is a signatory. Please ask Nioelboy to provide you with the link to that Declaration and read it carefully you will find that “escape clause”.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

flowers,

Please!

You're grasping at straws and know it very well!

You're plain wrong, just admit it and move on.

China only needs to bring the issue to the ICJ and Japan CANNOT REFUSE to abide by the ICJ's decision. Japan has no "escape clause", as you try to convince us all!

You asked for the link, please suit yourself:

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=JP

2 ( +3 / -1 )

OssanAmerica, as I said before if Japan does not admit that the dispute exists the ICJ decision becomes unenforceable whether or not Japan is a signatory. Please ask Nioelboy to provide you with the link to that Declaration and read it carefully you will find that “escape clause”.

There is no escape clause.

Here's a link. Point it out.

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=JP

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

flowersDec. 14, 2013 - 06:41AM JST OssanAmerica, as I said before if Japan does not admit that the dispute exists the ICJ decision becomes >unenforceable whether or not Japan is a signatory. Please ask Nioelboy to provide you with the link to that Declaration and read it carefully you will find that “escape clause”.

I have read through this and find no reference to any "exclusion" , or "escape clause" as you call it. Please show us where this clause you claim exists.

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=JP

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Peeping_Tom, thank you for the link. Now read the following part of that letter: “Japan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, over all disputes arising on and after 15 september 1958 with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date and being not settled by other means of peaceful settlement.” You notice the key words “over all disputes,” but what if there is “no dispute” then what? Think it over carefully.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Flowers.

Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the Court by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court, and, conversely, it has undertaken to appear before the Court should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more such other States."

In it's simplest form, China files, Japan must show up.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Won't be long before Japan 'officially' becomes a nuclear state I don't think. We all know that they are already but they should make it official (to the Chinese) and that will stop this sabre rattling by them, and of course it is a much cheaper option than to go toe-to-toe (armaments wise) with China in the future. Keep the navy strong (as it is) and become a nuclear state and that will contain China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

flowers,

The "key words" you should be looking for are "other State accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity".

Whether Japan accepts or not the existence of a dispute it's not here nor there!

Japan is a signatory; all China MUST do is sign as well! Plain and simple, or is it not?

FYI I am a qualified and a practising Solicitor.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Peeping_Tom, I told you to think it over carefully. If there is “no dispute,” Japan will have the right to refuse even though Japan is a signatory. It has nothing to do with “any other State accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity”. If you are really a practising Solicitor, you should have known this.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Flowers, I do not see how Japan saying there is "no dispute" exempts it from it's obligations under the declaration. For the purposes of the Court, a "dispute" consists of a plaintiff (claimant in China's case) and defendant and action being filed with the court., Or advice that it will be filed. Not two people arguing in the parking lot. If China were to file a claim ie; bring action, I can not see how Japan could not answer. A simple test of your argument is whether China has ever filed an action against Japan at the ICJ with respect to the Senkakus, and has Japan ever failed to answer that on the grounds you suggest? If the answer is no, on the grounds that China has never brought an action to the ICJ or even suggested it, then you are arguing a moot point in debating whether Japan would answer it or not.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

flowers,

4 years LLB at UCL-London plus a further 1 year at BPP provided me enough time and the tools to think "carefully" about normative interpretation.

And don't worry; I am a solicitor and doing reasonably well.

Thank you very much anyway!

Please, show us where in the document specifies that Japan can refuse jurisdiction if there is "no dispute"!

Maybe in your "university" they teach that non-existent words shall/will be implied out of such a document?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Peeping_Tom, let me put it this way. What will happen if there is “no dispute,” because that statement is only applied if there is a dispute? So, if there is “no dispute,” is that statement still valid?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

flowers,

I'm going to answer with another question(s) of my own:

What will happen if I take you to court on account of having being deceived/defrauded by you?

Can you simply say you're not coming because as far you're concerned I haven't been defrauded?

Do you know what a judgment in default is? Can you refuse it?

Now, think carefully!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

OssanAmericaDec. 12, 2013 - 10:30PM JST

In a limited are/sea conflict, which is about as far as China is willing to engage, I would say yes. China's objective would be to take territory (islands). Japan's objective would be to prevent or take them back. Japan is not the Philippines

It is another G W Bush fantasy of surgical strike like video games. His vision has failed with limited planning, limited ideology, limited casualty and limited exit strategy. It is obvious that Bush and associates have never been to front line and playing paint ball game as their imagination.

As you posted before PRC conventional capacity is limited. It is unlikely PRC will match combined fire power of US, Japan and Philippines.They have only one air craft carrier and limited well trained pilots.

In thousand years history, China was a loser of successive wars. Losing another modern war will bring PRC as national humiliation and incredible loss of pride as standing in the history. It does not make sense for PRC will make herself as another loser in their history book. If they go for conflict, sky may be the limit.

It is Cinderella fairy tale for PRC will wage limited Bush fantasy warfare of limited area/sea and limited resources. If there is a conflict, they may or will sacrifice about almost one third of their population (approx 300 millions) for using ICBMs attached with MIRVs(Multiple Independently re-entry Vehicles). It will make the outcome of war is not one sided and more balanced.

Even PRC lost 300 millions people, it may be still negligible for them due to the huge population. General Macarthur reported to President Truman as it was the largest human wave he has seen in his life time. He was discussing to use WMD for wiping out Bee like human wave. However that President did not allow and replace him with another General.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Peeping_Tom and flowers, please stop going around in circles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FlyfalconDec. 14, 2013 - 09:52AM JST

Leaving aside the fact that George W Bush is rather irrelevant to this discussion, you appear to advocate that China will carry out an all out war. Rather than the limited air/sea conflicts I suggest. The one argument against your scenario of an all out war is that it is extremely unlikely that the CCP would survive a nuclear war with the United States and, let's face it the rest of the world. I do not believe the CCP will ever do anything that could risk their existence. Of course if the PLA takes complete control that could be a different matter.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Won't be long before Japan 'officially' becomes a nuclear state I don't think. We all know that they are already but they should make it official (to the Chinese) and that will stop this sabre rattling by them, and of course it is a much cheaper option than to go toe-to-toe (armaments wise) with China in the future. Keep the navy strong (as it is) and become a nuclear state and that will contain China.

China had wars through out her history, she forgive most of them, Great Britain and whole lots of others.

President Xi told VP Biden you are not our direct enemy, our beef is with Japan,if Japan go nuke, she can kiss goodbye, China are willing to lose1/3 to 1/2 of her country, as long as she make Japan disappear, that is how much China feel.it doesn't bother her who come next as long as she get the 1 that count to her.

Better hope that cooler head preview and stop all this you win or i win, in war all lose it is a matter of how much you willing to lose.

-1 ( +2 / -4 )

Ossan

Reality is different from ideology and fantasy. According late Bruce Lee, there is no rule, no limit, no referee, no retreat and surrender in the real combat. Although I do not want to upset you, all of them will use Last resources for their pride, intolerance and survival. PRC is a badly wounded tiger. Back in1950, they wasted young men about 5 percent of 1950 of US population. They can afford to lose 527 millions people which is equivalent to combined population of Phillipines, Japan and US. Current Japan total population is 127 millions only.

If there is the worst, Some may be survived, they will be still damaged by radio active waste and radiation. In the long term, they will gradually deteriorated and sayonara with painful cancer.

There is no winner if there is no restraint from using maximum force from other party. As you said, Japan is not Phillipines. PRC is not Vietnam too.Hope we can pray for world peace and tolerance. Amen! Son of God will be sad about seeing heated exchange between all parties.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Flyfalcon, you are right that reality is different from history. And likewise 2013 is different from 1950. The PLA historically has relied on it's immense number of disposable human resources, ie; cannon fodder to overwhelm it's enemies. But today's China is far more modernized conceptually and after decades of a forced one-child policy, a great many Chinese families don't take kindly to the PLA treating their only son as cannon fodder. I do not believe that China still calculates it's strategy with the same willingness to lose vast numbers of lives as they did in the past. However, whether that reasoning will hold if the PLA manages to gain more power than the Politburo is unclear, and it is up to the entire free world to ensure that China never goes that route.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@noriyosan73 at Dec. 12, 2013 - 07:10AM JST Yes, yes, yes. Hurray. Maybe now some of the USA military can leave on their Ospreys, permanently, and save just a small amount of money for the USA taxpayers.

Cheer now cry later

1 ( +1 / -0 )

noriyosan73Dec. 12, 2013 - 07:10AM JST Yes, yes, yes. Hurray. Maybe now some of the USA military can leave on their Ospreys, permanently, and save just a >small amount of money for the USA taxpayers.

You will be seeing JSDF Ospreys very soon.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

For a dispute such as this to be brought to the ICJ, both parties have to agree to its arbitration. Japan has clearly shown, with the whaling case, that it doesnt really care. The whaling fleet has already departed for the hunt, even though the ICJ hasnt handed down its ruling yet. Oh, and here`s a link shedding light on the Senkaku / Diaoyu territorial dispute. http://japanfocus.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

aussie-musashiDec. 16, 2013 - 01:13PM JST For a dispute such as this to be brought to the ICJ, both parties have to agree to its arbitration.

And to date China has never suggested it.

Japan has clearly shown, with the whaling case, that it doesnt really care. The whaling fleet has already departed for the hunt, even though the ICJ hasnt handed down its ruling yet. Oh, and >here`s a link shedding light on the Senkaku / Diaoyu territorial dispute. http://japanfocus.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947

Whaling is not relevant to the Senkaku issue. And whatever comparison you are attempting to make doesn't make any sense since no court in the world has stopped the Research Whaling from taking place. You need to wait until there is an ICJ ruling to know what will happen. Hence the whaling case hasn't shown anything.

BTW, Could you return to English encoding before you type on this forum from the simplified Chinese? It makes a mess out of your posts.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Let the US leave Japan completely and end this treaty to protect it. Japan is capable of defending itself against China and Russia. US needs to go back to being neutural and end this web of never ending "protection packs."

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If China does attack Japan, Japan will be screwed anyway because over 60% of the population will be over the age of 45 and there will be no young people to fight the Chinese...

Instead of complaining all the time why doesnt Abe fix the population problem and the debt problems that will surely crush Japan before China does...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Precisely, common sense at last. Or even better, stop trying to "bribe" ASEAN members with money grants

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Flowers, You're living in China propaganda land. Everything you're saying is actually quite the reverse with China taking the place of the old Japanese imperialistic army nationalism.

@honestdictator you are living in Japan propaganda land. The truth might be somewhere in between. There are no innocent parties here and that includes the US who are doing a lot to demonize China and stir the pot. You know how ridiculous that newsreel footage of commies in the 1950s looks now, well guess what it still looks the same. The only positive I can see is that they have stopped demonizing the muslims for a short break. Do you only believe that China is the only country that has propaganda? Before all of you get excited China actually has done anything yet.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Nothing good will come of this.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oh, you may be wrong. People may just realise what a truly monumentally incompetent leader Shinzo Abe is. The rest of the world knows already, we are just waiting for the Japanese to catch on

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

aussie-musashiDec. 18, 2013 - 07:43PM JST Oh, you may be wrong. People may just realise what a truly monumentally incompetent leader Shinzo Abe is. The rest >of the world knows already, we are just waiting for the Japanese to catch on

If you paid any attention to global news sources besides the CCP controlled ones you would know that the "rest of the world" doesn't consider Abe incompetent at all in act they are giving his economic reforms high marks. What the rest of the world knows is that China has a 6 year old mentality towards diplomacy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica

Agree - in the end, it really doesn't matter what any of us think - as long as investors are optimistic on Japan, Abe will be lauded. With the Fed taper and easing in Japan, yen is poised to depreciate relative to the dollar for at least the next year, barring any drastic changes.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What the rest of the world knows is that Japan has a 6 year old mentality towards diplomacy, as shown by the call for a "stronger military".

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Canadian here. We have noticed a strange "pull-out" of American businesses from my province in particular (Ontario) recently. This is causing high concerns, even fears in the population and governments here. Stephan Harper the Prime Minister of all Canada has made huge efforts to compensate for a very critical loss of trade with the U.S. by travelling abroad seeking trade deals outside the U.S. in the larger, richer, Global Village. He has managed to make good deals with Malaysia, China, Europe, and others, but still not the equivalent to what is being lost in U.S. business. Canadians have also been "stung" with a bill for $42 Billions over the next three decades, for F-35 aircraft, that can land on Aircraft Carriers - we have none of these, and cannot fly in the cold - we have mostly this, 8 months a year we are a frozen desert! Even still: We are unable to defend our huge Natural Resource riches in our Far Northlands, because of the current conservative governments foolish obsession with pleasing the U.S.A., even sending our Canadian Forces in harms way on behalf of the U.S. Oil Barons interests in a pipeline through Afghanistan and the oil basin north of that country, and to Libya, another oil producer like Canada, and even seeking to break Syria in order to access the oil basin northeast of that country - very expensive acts for Canada's peons, all acts to lower World Oil prices, all contrary to Canada's interests as an oil seller? how does this reflect on the U.S. position on Japanese air-space, once firmly defended by the mighty U.S.A.? Even Canada has lost much of the once faithful support felt from south of our borders, and we are now getting a "mish-mash' or garbled message from there, much the same as you are getting? now the Quantitative Easings, or money printing there is ti be cut, will they survive or crash? Is that the question?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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