politics

Japan welcomes Britain's plan to send aircraft carrier group to Asia

45 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

If UK wants a war with China, let it be. Don't drag Japan in.

-20 ( +5 / -25 )

A dream come true once again?

The U.K. played a hegemon in this area once upon a time. Should Japan provide a Yokosuka scale naval base with the British carrier group for free?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Time for us all to shove China back into its hole.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

Should Japan provide a Yokosuka scale naval base with the British carrier group for free?

The Brits hardly need anything that big for the five ships that compromise their carrier group. The JMSDF is much larger than the Royal Navy.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Chinese mischief in the sea is tiresome and will continue to be a pest for all neighboring countries, but sending Queen Elizabeth around the world to go fishin' in foreign waters is just another post-Empire knee-jerk "Rule Britannia" gesture of Brexit Boris's useless government seeking the world's attention to boost the diminished international profile of a lonely, little off-shore island, for domestic consumption be it understood. Pathetic!

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

We Brits have no business being there. The new carrier, HMS Prince Charles still undergoing sea trials leaks water.

£3bn Royal Navy aircraft carrier springs a leak for the third time this year

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/3bn-royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-19416000

-1 ( +12 / -13 )

Good for the UK and Japan. Free, democratic nations have every right to be in a the region, sending a message loud and clear to the Commies to back off.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Desert Tortoise,

The U.K., the erstwhile Empire of Great Britain, was one of the Allied powers that occupied post-war Japan as victors. Today, it's the U.S. that only maintains large swaths of land as bases in Japan while other Allied powers all withdrew their militaries out of respect for Japan's independence in 1951. So why shouldn't the U.K. do the same in the track of the U.S.?

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Leaky flat tops are dangerous. Thanks for the info Zichi. Did not know that was an issue. Paints a different picture in my mind of a once glorious kingdom.

love the Brits. Great people.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

We Brits have no business being there. The new carrier, HMS Prince Charles still undergoing sea trials leaks water.

If the Chinese assertion that the "Nine-Dash Line" is their sovereign territory, the flow of trade in whole South China Sea will be affected including India and Australia, your closest allies. Chinese can order a blockade or seek for a Transit Fee for Sea Trades that doesn't concerns them i.e. India/Japan, India/Phil., Aus./Taiwan. Yes, as an ally it is your duty to protect your fellow allies just like U.S. protects the Brits or Japan protects the U.S. shipping's or vice-versa in Persian Gulf or Sea of Oman. Not to mention the air transits both passengers and cargoes that flies over them.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

We Brits have no business being there.

Exactly right. Stay out of it.

The US will eventually cede hegemony in this region to China anyway. The other bit-part players are basically irrelevant. Hong Kong went with a barely a whimper from outside and Taiwan is next on the list. I can remember posters on here telling us how our great leaders wouldn’t allow the commies to get Hong Kong in their jaws. It’s game over in HK now.

I don’t like the idea, but this posturing just looks like delaying the inevitable.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

Glad to hear this. Multilateral approach by democratic allies is the way to go long term.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

If UK wants a war with China, let it be. Don't drag Japan in.

I wonder why some few posters are so focused on war and not peace.

The UK is sending its F-35B's to Japan for maintenance and upgrades and they will be arriving on the ship that they are assigned to. While in Japanese and international waters the ships and planes will conduct exercises as would be expected. If any nation has a problem with the UK doing business with Japan then they can mind their own affairs and not be jealous that the UK is not doing that business with them.

Japan and the UK are improving ties and that is a good thing. Nations working together to strengthen peace is always beneficial to all peace loving countries. The only people who do not benefit are those with delusions of creating empires through intimidation and war.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Peter14

The UK is sending its F-35B's to Japan for maintenance and upgrades and they will be arriving on the ship that they are assigned to. 

If that is true, the work should be done by British companies and British workers. Strange since they are American made planes.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

If that is true, the work should be done by British companies and British workers. Strange since they are American made planes.

It has been mentioned a few times on JT. Many nations build components for the F-35 so it may be maintenance on Japanese built components.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

It has been mentioned a few times on JT. Many nations build components for the F-35 so it may be maintenance on Japanese built components.

Which can be shipped to the UK and installed by RN Aircraft Technicians.

Then is a badly manufactured plane if we Brits need to bring them across the world to Japan for maintenance. Good job people don't have to do that with their Honda Civics. I don't think they float anyway?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The last time the Brits sent warships east of Suez, it didn't turn out so good for them.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The last time the Brits sent warships east of Suez, it didn't turn out so good for them.

Really? In 2018 the HMS Albion and two other warships visited Japan. In what way did the visit not turn out well for the UK?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Part of its training and work up. Also beneficial to practice integration and joint working with allies and showing support for allies. HMS QE will be sailing through international waters around the globe, the fact that one particular area of international waterway is illegally claimed by a country ruled by a gang of unelected bullies is neither here nor there.

HMS PW where the leak was found is in the trials stage which is designed to find any glitches that need sorting out. The leak was minor and in no way endangering to the ship, the problem was identified and sorted. Reporting was blown out of all proportion by ignorant or malicious media reports.

Britain has a very real business in being there, not only showing support to a number of allies in the Indo-Pacific region but we are a major trading economy and a great deal of import-export trade goes through the South China Sea, so upholding the rule of law and freedom of navigation is very much in our interests as it is for everyone else.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Will the RN ships be allowed to dock in Japan given the current pandemic?

"The UK is sending its F-35B's to Japan for maintenance and upgrades and they will be arriving on the ship that they are assigned to."

nothing in the news about that. Did my service in the RN decades ago.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea?

https://chinapower.csis.org/much-trade-transits-south-china-sea/

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that roughly 80 percent of global trade by volume and 70 percent by value is transported by sea. Of that volume, 60 percent of maritime trade passes through Asia, with the South China Sea carrying an estimated one-third of global shipping.

 Its waters are particularly critical for China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, all of which rely on the Strait of Malacca, which connects the South China Sea and, by extension, the Pacific Ocean with the Indian Ocean. As the second-largest economy in the world with over 60 percent of its trade in value traveling by sea, China’s economic security is closely tied to the South China Sea.

There has to be a global freedom of navigation military directive.

This has to be maintained up to, and yes if deemed necessary, confronting the Government of China with intervention.

In every conference, including war both tactical and strategic.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The British Royal Navy is in a sorry state. Cut backs and wrong decisions by consecutive governments.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The U.K., the erstwhile Empire of Great Britain, was one of the Allied powers that occupied post-war Japan as victors. Today, it's the U.S. that only maintains large swaths of land as bases in Japan while other Allied powers all withdrew their militaries out of respect for Japan's independence in 1951. So why shouldn't the U.K. do the same in the track of the U.S.?

The other nations withdrew because they could not afford to keep bases in Japan, several can't even afford to defend themselves adequately, and their Parliaments saw no need as long as the US had bases there. But if you ever served in any allied military you would know it was normal for US bases in Japan to host British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and other nation's military units there for training. French warships too. Heck, I've even seen a Chinese built Royal Thai Navy frigate in one of the Yokosuka drydocks. Lots of old Australian sailors will tell you about the good times they had on liberty in Japan when their warships visited Yokosuka, Kure and other bases in Japan. The tacit understanding across Asia was that the US would keep its military forces in Japan to relieve Japan of the need to fully re-arm and once again threaten the region. You probably do not like to hear that but when I served in the 1980s this was openly spoken among US and allied military members.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

An obtw, has anyone looked at South Korea's LPX II ? Looks an awful lot like the new Queen Elizabeth Class and it is no coincidence. The original LPX II design looked more like an American LHD. The South Koreans however brought in British consultants to help them with their first true carrier as the mission changed from purely amphibious assault to more general sea control and power projection. The wet well was deleted to increase the ships aircraft capacity and the ship sports two islands with an elevator between them just like the Queen Elizabeth Class ships.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The last time the Brits sent warships east of Suez, it didn't turn out so good for them.

The Royal Navy operates in the Pacific regularly. They come to RIMPAC exercises every two years and their ships make goodwill tours of Pacific ports on a regular basis.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The Royal Navy operates in the Pacific regularly. They come to RIMPAC exercises every two years and their ships make goodwill tours of Pacific ports on a regular basis.

The Royal Navy didn't take part last year, 2020.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/08/rimpac-exercise-rim-of-the-pacific-2020-kicks-off/

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If China was a good neighbor, these political cruises wouldn't be needed.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Desert Tortoise (Jan. 15  11:02 pm JST),

So, in your opinion, the U.S. occupation forces kept maintaining bases in post-war Japan to not let the genie out of the bottle. In other words, the U.S. military in Japan is WW II occupation forces by nature.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So, in your opinion, the U.S. occupation forces kept maintaining bases in post-war Japan to not let the genie out of the bottle. In other words, the U.S. military in Japan is WW II occupation forces by nature regardless of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, that works as a mere facade to hide this sly state of affairs.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Deng Xiaoping once said China would tolerate the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, thus prioritizing a good Sino-Japan relationship. He must have clearly known of the true nature of that treaty.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So, in your opinion, the U.S. occupation forces kept maintaining bases in post-war Japan to not let the genie out of the bottle. In other words, the U.S. military in Japan is WW II occupation forces by nature.

Hate to break the news to you but until quite recently Japan was more distrusted by Asians than China. Having US forces in Japan kept the lid on a lot of regional animosity and actually benefited Japanese trade. You can thank Xi Jinping for your neighbors change of heart. If a war broke out between Japan and China I genuinely believe South Korea would refuse to help and would in fact either remain neutral not allowing US forces to use Korean bases to help defend Japan, or side with China.

True story; when Japan first approached the US about obtaining the Aegis system, the US said no. The US didn't want Japan to have something that sophisticated in their navy. JMSDF was an ASW navy tied to land based airpower and the US 7th Fleet. Why did they need Aegis? This was mid 1980s. Asian allies all opposed Japan obtaining Aegis. The fear of Japan was real. My wife still tells me to never trust the Japanese, they will turn on us. The US eventually had a change of heart and sold Japan the Aegis system. Why? The US figured Japan would sooner or later figure out how to make something like it on their own and at that point the US would have no control over the technology. Better to sell them ours than have them develop that know how independently. That was the distrust of Japan talking. My own parents would never buy Japanese goods due to WWII.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The British Royal Navy is in a sorry state. Cut backs and wrong decisions by consecutive governments.

The British Navy is in a very healthy state, and is more skilled now than it has ever been. I hope however that mistakes of 1904 are not repeated. Don't share too much military technology with Japan.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Desert Tortoise,

Citing your wife, who tells you to never trust the Japanese, and your parents who never buy Japanese goods because of their bitter WW II memories, you say Japan cannot be trusted. Even the U.S. government dragged its heels to transfer Aegis technology to Japan at first, you say. Is this the reason why the U.S. military must maintain so much land as bases 75 years after the end of World War Two?  

It's not wrong to say then that Japan is still under occupation, as I have argued here and elsewhere many times. Inadvertently, you supported my claim that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is shenanigans -- a facade to camouflage the hard reality.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Time for China to start taxing ships that pass through their waters. Panama and Suez do it.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Time for China to start taxing ships that pass through their waters.

Just because it’s called the South / East China Sea, doesn’t mean China owns it

9 ( +10 / -1 )

RIMPAC has a curious Hello, Sailor! ring to it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Desert TortoiseToday  11:48 am JST

So, in your opinion, the U.S. occupation forces kept maintaining bases in post-war Japan to not let the genie out of the bottle. In other words, the U.S. military in Japan is WW II occupation forces by nature.

Hate to break the news to you but until quite recently Japan was more distrusted by Asians than China

Care to substantiate that? Recently? Like when, 1948?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Time for China to start taxing ships that pass through their waters. Panama and Suez do it.

Ships trading with China are probably taxed already in some form when they collect/drop off goods.

Sailing in international water's claimed by China is free. China likes to claim things that do not belong to them.

Nobody would pay a tax to China to travel through open waters. China knows better than to try in any case.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Time for China to start taxing ships that pass through their waters. Panama and Suez do it.

Suez Canal is man-made built by soldiers and civilians. Panama has the right over it.

China Sea is a large nature-made body of water bordering several countries. Several countries have the right over it.

Theoretically speaking, if nothing "bounds by rule", that will mean Hawaii owns the Pacific Ocean because they are in the center of it.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

The fear of Japan was real. My wife still tells me to never trust the Japanese, they will turn on us.

I agree with your wife.

I sense a lot of echo's from the 1930's in Japan.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Stop messing with asain affairs.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

t's not wrong to say then that Japan is still under occupation, as I have argued here and elsewhere many times. Inadvertently, you supported my claim that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is shenanigans -- a facade to camouflage the hard reality.

To the extent that Japan has never fully atoned for its barbarities throughout the 20th Century and refuses to teach it's students the truth about the many wars and occupations undertaken by Imperial Japan not the least of which was attacking the USS Panay in 1937 and later the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, it does not surprise me you think that way. The true hard reality is that Japan has boxed itself into a corner by refusing to own up to its past. The reason those Marines are there is because you attacked us, never had the decency to apologized for it and obtw, the outcome of that war left a very messy Asia with many American enemies to deal with. The very least Japan can do considering how they are responsible for the mess they left post war Asia in and the many enemies they left the US to deal with in the wars aftermath is to let US forces use Japanese soil to keep a lid on the post war mess Japan is responsible for. If it wasn't for the IJA invading China, Chiang Kai-shek would have crushed Mao in 1937 and Asia would be a much better place than it is now. Japan owes us.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Desert Tortoise,

You inadvertently further confirmed my assumption that the U.S. military is stationed here not for the defense of Japan according to the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty but for occupation -- all this as the end result of WW II, from Imperial Japan's invasion of China in 1937 to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. You say Japan has never apologized for their action.

Hasn't Japan apologized for its past action during World War Two? Isn't Article 9 of post-war Japan's constitution an explicit expression of remorse and apology? The constitution was drafted under the guidance of GHQ, the occupation authorities, but it's said Article 9 was inserted to the constitution by Kijuro Shidehara, then Prime Minister.

For your reference, here's how Article 9 goes:

(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Despite this clause, Japan is rearmed to teeth today, maintaining the world's sixth largest army after France. Under whose initial pressure and coercion?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I think the idealism struck home in the Japanese constitution should be emulated by all nations, including the U.S., China or whoever. The war-renouncing Japanese constitution is one of Japan’s proud assets for sure and can be a World Cultural Heritage.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And back to topic.

I wonder how long the British ships will stay in Japan. Japan has one of two regional maintenance factories to work on F-35 engines.

As far as I know there are four places for maintenance work so far. America, Italy, Australia and Japan.

3 ( +3 / -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