politics

Japan asks China not to escalate fishing boat spat

33 Comments

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

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

33 Comments
Login to comment

Q: What's the main idea of this artilce? A: Japan is asking for talks for gas exploration in the East China Sea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Q: What's the main idea of this article? A: Japan is asking China to grow the fudge up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan is right in telling China to handle any international dispute carefully with retraint. Problem was that Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said "added that the issue, if improperly handled, will affect bilateral relations" Threat of affecting bilateral relations with Japan? This is stupid. This statement came right after the incident and they did not know all the facts. Yu's statement has affected public perception in China and this has created problems. Chinese Foreign Ministry should be more responsible when you have international dispute of this magnitude. Problem is that Yu behave like this is a domestic issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan is asking for talks for gas exploration in the East China Sea. -- China is not interested.

China want to negotiate islands ownership first. -- Japan does not want to hear.

Who is worse? Can't tell. Both are bad boys. You can't clap with only one hand, can you?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Beside, why shall Chinese talk about gas exploration, while Japanese denies the existence of issue concerns Chinese most? When Chinese has shown its records/evidences to challenge Japanese claim on the island, can Japanese show any records/evidences to counter challenge? Did Japanese government take the call from Chinese to talk about the island issue, to solve the problem diplomatically, once for all?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Regardless of gas explorations and such, when two boats collide, there has to be investigation and possibly prosecution if there's fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Regardless of gas explorations and such, when two boats collide, there has to be investigation and possibly prosecution if there's fault."

Japan: Hey, your uh boat kind of crashed into our boats here.

China: We have a perfect right to be here.

Japan: Yes, but see this collision...

China: Look, you can't push us around. We are going to protest you know. We are going to do this and that, and you can forget about ever doing this and that, and here. We are going to throw some fish at your embassy too! And we are going to pelt your kindergartens with ball bearings? See that?

Japan: Be that as it may, there is still the matter of this captain and boat see...

China: The what? OOOh! You are so infuriating! Can't you Japanese just knock it off?

I think China seriously needs to take a chill pill. They need to separate their this from their that. I know they are busy, but if they have been paying attention, they would see that Japan is not on any territorial offensive this week. They just want to get this captain thing handled and move on. It is not a big deal and nobody's mother is involved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan say: I will deal with this according to my domestic law, because it is my territory.

China say: This is my territory, not yours, so you cannot apply to domestic law to my captain.

Guys, this is a disputed territory, isn't this?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

tian4670:" this is a disputed territory, isn't this?"

Actually its not the rest of the world has recognized Japan's claim for over a century, it seems that only The 2 China's ( ROC, PRC) and N Korea dispute that fact!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Other countries do not claim that island. You are just assuming silent majority your supporters, which is not fact. When you only 2 china and NK dispute that fact, you do recognize that there is dispute, don't you? If there is dispute about a territory, then that is a disputed territory, isn't that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unlike the case of Takeshima/Dokdo whose ownership Korea claims based on misreading of historical records, China has surely their records of their own that verify their recognition of the islands going back to the 15th century? But it does not mean that China recognized their ownership of the islands. The rulership started with Japan. As a supporting evidence of which, China regarded the islands as a Japanese territory in their official documents/maps before 1971 and didn't dispute it until then. These are matter-of-facts Beijing knows well and perhaps she also expects that in response to China's stance Japan will increase its defense spending as advised by someone like Mr. Armitage. If you don't feel any dejavu, reversed one, here, you may still find it interesting to see how we can keep tensions for such a long time. Are you really going to dispute and take the Senkaku?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can you find such map? I've never seen one. Can you show me? Many Japanese conclude this line of dispute with argument like 'I have bigger gun than you, and I have US behind you, are you still going to dispute me?'. When you have reached this line, it just show me that you are running out of argument, that you are not confident to convince me or the rest of the whole world, that you are kinda barbaric. I wonder why Japanese are so excited or so eager for a slim possibility of war against China. Do you have to win a war against China to qualify yourself a man? A country cannot call itself peaceful when its people are so eager for warring another country.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The USA will back up Japan, so Japan can begin to develop the underwater assets immediately, and China will have no choice but to negotiate. China must not be allowed to dictate any rules to Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How much do you know about Mr. Armitage? He is very famous in China as well for he has been busy putting fire everywhere, he has deep connection with defense contractors. Defense contractors benefit most from war. Mr. Armitage, in my view, want to start another war before one is finished. When did I start to know his name? The second Iraqi war. US fabricated WMD to justify its aggression against Iraq. If he is successful in getting Japan to war with China, are you sure Japan will come out as a winner? I don't think so. War is very dangerous and damaging. Once a war is start, nobody is going to be winner, except those defense contractors Mr. Armitage represents. Can US guarantee your safety? NK and Vietnam are good examples. In my own, dispute and difference are best solved by dialog and negotiation. When Japan concerns about gas field developing, China agrees to talk. When China disputes Japanese ownership of the land, Japanese is to afraid to acknowledge the dispute, to afraid to sit down together to talk? Many Japanese like to think China is a 'bad' communist government. In this comparison, I find that it is at least better than Japan, because it more willing to talk, more careful about peace. Japanese has long wanted to be a 'normalized' country. I am sorry to say, it has to show it is a normal country before other country thinks it is a normal country.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

tian4670, I appreciate your views on Mr. Armitage. He may want to create such a strained environment but I don't think he will be successful. We have to strive to prevent it. But do you really think it helps that Japan acknowledge the dispute and sit down to talk? Doesn't it rather escalate the tension on the Chines side, particularly among the people? Will they accept any result from the dialog?

As for your question on maps, if you read Japanese, please refer to http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/尖閣諸島領有権問題 and see the section 年表 under which you can read that in 1958 a publisher in Beijing published such a map. And on January 8th, 1953 the People's Daily described the islands not as Diaoyutai but as the Senkaku Shoto as part of Okinawa.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Give in on this and next China will say the Ryukyu Islands are part of China. No Nippon has to hold its position and say no to the Chinese. Maybe we will allow them to share our oil/gas fields.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@YuriOtani: "Give in on this and next China will say the Ryukyu Islands are part of China"

I have said the same thing in a post to another article on this subject, the way China is using past Dynasties to try and lay claim to multiple territories could eventually lead to a demand for the Ryukyus seeing China once claimed that they were a vassal state. Not to mention that if we were to accept all these supposed historical claims then China would effectually claim and have just about the entirety of the East China sea effectively cutting of ocean access to many countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Seiharinokaze;

nice post and links for Wiki to bad that they will now probably be removed within the next few days Just like the section in the English Wiki that pointed out that these islands were closer to Okinawan islands they any from Taiwan or main land China I pointed this out on September 12th to "@yosun" who like "@tian4670" are both new to the JT forum and only post on this subject, suddenly on September 14th Wiki removed those details, Coincidence?!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah. Guys guys.... you are doing exactly what China is doing. Everyone wants to talk territorial issues,but Japan is trying to take care of a case of a collision.

If it happened in international waters, Japan would still want to know why a civilian craft is ramming patrol boats. Just confining discussion to that issue would really move things along.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From what I can see, these jagged rocks, protruding out of the sea, so called islands, are real close to Taiwan. Maybe the Taiwanese should be make more of a fuss than far off Beijing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

elbudamexicano: "From what I can see, these jagged rocks, protruding out of the sea, so called islands, are real close to Taiwan. Maybe the Taiwanese should be make more of a fuss than far off Beijing."

Actually they are closer to Ishigaki island then any other place, to be more precise: They are 170 kilometers (106 mi) north of Ishigaki Island, Japan; 186 km (116 mi) northeast of Keelung, Taiwan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Problem with Senkaku and the control of the sea boundaries have mutiple overlapping claims by both countries. China and Japan dispute over the East China Sea oil/gas rights offers confirmation that both parties obviously lack the political will to agree to seek an arbitral or judicial settlement for peaceful settlement by legal means.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sfjp330:

Actually there are no overlapping claims Japan's boundary is internationally recognized by all except China (ROC, PRC) and N Korea in that area, one thing that keeps coming up as a point by many here is this remark:

" why would Japan offer to jointly develop resources if they know their claim is right? because they no it's not."

This has been written many time over the past few days in many forms.

Well the answer is simple:

Japan has offered to jointly develop the resources that border its international recognized territory because the deposits there overlap outside of it territory it does not want a rush to see who can drain those resources faster or to fight over how must is on one side or the other.

In the old days you could only drill strait down but with today's technology you can drill one well and snake the drill into other pockets of gas or oil from the same drilling rig, so basically China or even Japan could build a rig on it's side and drain both side within some distance.

But Japan has not offered to share anything beyond the border region.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Seiharinokaze The articles you have referred to (Chinese version), do not mention any thing about ownership of the island. Two things I can pick up is: 1) Diaoyu was occupied and ruled by US as a part of Ryukyu. 2) Diaoyu is a part of Ryukyu islands geographically.

For 1): it is just a recognition of its status at the time - ruled by US. It did not say anything about ownership.

For 2): recognizing Diaoyu as a part of Ryukyu geographically does NOT imply territory recognition. They are very different concepts in different categories.

Dialog and negotiation is far better than solving disputes with war. You might win, or you might lose in negotiation. Yet you can neither guarantee your preferred outcome in a war. Chinese have settled many territory claims with its neighbors. It won some, lost other. Excitement and disappointment are all parts of experience. Chinese took those results gracefully.

At the same time, many mentioned about Chinese dispute with Vietnam, Philippines etc, etc, and there is dispute between Japan and S Korea. Can Japanese take up its courage, and tell all parties involved, 'Let's sit down and talk this messy disputes out together'?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

tian4670; "Dialog and negotiation is far better than solving disputes with war." & "At the same time, many mentioned about Chinese dispute with Vietnam, Philippines etc, etc, and there is dispute between Japan and S Korea. Can Japanese take up its courage, and tell all parties involved, 'Let's sit down and talk this messy disputes out together'?"

Well tell that to China that has just unilaterally move on drilling in the region.

Japan was willing to negotiate but it seems China was not and it is looking more and more like this whole thing was staged by China as an excuse to move their drill equipment in.

Check out the JT article "China moves drilling equipment to facility over disputed gas field" just to quick for a coincidence!

As for Japan having border disputes the only real one is Korea that is internationally not clear the Russian occupied islands are internationally viewed as Japan's and all it will take is that Russian and Japan sign a peace treaty, even Russian refer to them as occupied territory, the Senkaku are internationally viewed as Japan as is the EEZ around them.

BUT China has 17 or more border disputes and most of them are viewed internationally as China being in the wrong or unfounded claims, Why does China have a dispute with every single neighbor including North Korea it's supposed friend?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tian4670, The article described the islands not as Diaoyutai in the Chinese name but Senkaku Shoto in Japanese as part of the Ryukyu islands. It means the islands are part of Okinawa right? Do you mean Japan should talk about it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How can you expect China to talk with Japan over 'disputed gas field', when Japanese government do not even want to recognize that there is a dispute? Do you know how many countries have common border line with China? Your number only highlights how mammoth a task is waiting in front of China. There are many claims you don't agree with, that is not important. What really matters is that all parties sit down together and negotiate.

I don't know where you get 17 from, but most neighbors have settle their claims already. Only 8 countries have open disputes with China, that indicate China has resolve most dispute through negotiation, none via military. Japan has 4 open disputes with other countries. That appears, Japan has more open disputes as a percentage of its neighbors. If number of disputes indicates how bad a country is (by your standard), China is a lot better than Japan.

My advice for kids: do your homework before you come out to accuse other country.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Seiharinokaze

If Japanese government can find its courage to negotiate, it should raise this. In fact, Japanese should find and present all information, records and other evidences, not matter how weird or how remotely connected.

The articles (at least Chinese version) only mentioned Senkaku island is a part of Ryukyu islands. It is geographical description that Senkaku is a member of a group of islands that collectively called Ryukyu islands, has nothing to do with territory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tian4670, I think Ryukyu islands territorially means Okinawa. That's why the U.S. occupied them including the Senkaku islands. But at least it is clear that at the point of 1953 the China's Daily didn't dispute the islands. But what's more important is there are people perhaps on both sides and even somewhere else who want a strife and actual collision around Senkaku. They are speciously creating tensions and letting them get out of control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China could not dispute in 1953 because of its involvement in Korean war. The China's Daily of 1953, mentioned Senkaku as an island of Ryukyu islands. As such, it is a part of Ryukyu geographically, but territory implication can not be deduced.

As a matter of fact, some people on both side are getting excited about remote chance of war. It is more important for both sides to sit down and negotiate seriously. It will take huge negotiation and leadership skill, and of course courage.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Leadership skill? in Japan. Both countries have so much more to worry about than some rocks. I think China wants to show its neighbors who the bully is and test reactions..I mean honestly, Japan cannot stand up to China and the U.S. won't go to War over the islands unless there is oil or a terrorist training camp there. The main focus seems to be making money on fishing...so how about a 3-country fishing association/organization to administer the area for all to fish equally and fairly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think it will come to a war.

Even Europe still has many disputed territories, Ex: South-Tyrol officially Italy(after WWII) now but the locals still feel that they should be part of Austria(and Austria agrees).

Many disputes in Asia as in Africa, ME, etc were caused that after a war territories, etc were split up and often marked by a ruler(check any african map).

The disputes aren't really about the land/islands but the surrounding territory/natural resources and the expansion of the EEZ/etc that come with the extended territory.

All about Greed and nothing to do with national pride, heritage, etc.

Don't recall ONE war in History that wasn't fought over resources or enrichment, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

so how about a 3-country fishing association/organization

Which 3 countries are you talking about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites