politics

Japan protests Chinese activity near disputed islands

19 Comments

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

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

Oh well, so much for all that feel good news about them two nations joining collaborating.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Fighter jets are scrambled almost daily from here in Naha. This is nothing new, just another day!

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Chinese/Japanese relations will never be as good as pre WW2. Go into any Chinese family home and you'll find a video tapes collection of WW2 movies about the boxer rebellion, opium wars and Japanese aggressions.

Just as some Japanese will always have inner animosity towards USA, a lot of Chinese will have inner animosity towards Japanese.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It's time to stop scrambling planes and send 2 fully armed Frigates to show force to these PRC ships illegally entering Japanese Territorial waters.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Go into any Chinese family home and you'll find a video tapes collection of WW2 movies about the boxer rebellion, opium wars and Japanese aggressions.

Evidence, citations?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

China is trying to show some might their enemies and Taiwan and get the people on their side after the disaster in HK. It is a nationalistic feel good moment!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Perhaps the Chinese vessels could have an unfortunate explosion

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Recommend Abe to recognize the dispute, and move on, for the sake of Japanese people.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Screw that pansy arsed response!!

Send a bunch of fighters and bombers to buzz the ships!!

Threaten them with warning shots, active painting by radar, and close naval encounters!!

The expansionist PRC military only understands one thing.... force and power!!!

They are power hungry bullies and have to be dealt with as such!!!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It maybe time to prepare the people of Japan to explore the possibility of a tactical and strategic offshore deterrent. There is no necessity to change current Japan articles of constitution the Government of China is a clear threat to regional peace and stability.

The question remains if present or future governments would be prepared to strike. It is pointless to possess such a deterrent if government is not prepared to use it.

The present dictatorship of China is preparing for a show of force. Either in Hong Kong or Taiwan. It could be only a question of time before the Chinese Government prevokes conflict in the East sea of Japan

The Government of Japan must be ready to respond with a clear unequivocal message.

The Government of China is the embodiment of Japan Imperial past. President Trumps word cannot always be relied upon. President Trump is first and foremost a businessman of sorts, not meant disparagingly, President Trump is neither a diplomat or a politician.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I've always been curious, does Japan have the right to unilaterally close the Miyako Strait to foreign navy? or Is there some sort of UN rule that states it must be open for passage?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Watching the Chinese mainstream news today and they were proudly showing their vessels mapping and measuring the floor of the 'western Pacific Ocean' with two green laser points.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

itsonlyrocknroll June 18 12:56 pm JST

It maybe time to prepare the people of Japan to explore the possibility of a tactical and strategic offshore deterrent. There is no necessity to change current Japan articles of constitution the Government of China is a clear threat to regional peace and stability.

No. Any military action by JSDF will be clearly unconstitutional. With the current Article 9 in force. And it needs to be updated precisely because of the belligerent attitude of the People's Republic of China.

The question remains if present or future governments would be prepared to strike. It is pointless to possess such a deterrent if government is not prepared to use it.

The government is preparing for it. Ignoring the application of Article 9.

Japan faces the following 2 scenarios, if the current Article 9 of the constitution is not modified

Scenario 1: Do nothing and allow China to unilaterally take Senkaku Islands by force. We would abide by Article 9 by not going to war. At the cost of losing Japanese sovereign territory.

Scenario 2: Defend the Senkaku Islands militarily by entering an unconstitutional war with China. Clearly disobeying Article 9 breaking the established constitutional order. Increasing controversy in the current political and legal situation.

The truth is that the current Article 9 is too obsolete. And what the political forces have to do, is to arrive at a

broad consensus to make military use more flexible. So that the country can defend itself more adequately. Unfortunately, this political consensus is currently impossible to achieve.

The present dictatorship of China is preparing for a show of force. Either in Hong Kong or Taiwan. It could be only a question of time before the Chinese Government prevokes conflict in the East sea of Japan

Some analysts are already warning about that. The problem is that many political actors do not want to see reality. Especially the political parties integrated in the pacifist coalition of Japan. They will deny everything until reality opens their eyes. And by then it will be too late.

The Government of Japan must be ready to respond with a clear unequivocal message.

You can't do that with the current Article 9 in effect. Unless the government orders JSDF to disobey its compliance with that article.

The Government of China is the embodiment of Japan Imperial past. President Trumps word cannot always be relied upon. President Trump is first and foremost a businessman of sorts, not meant disparagingly, President Trump is neither a diplomat or a politician.

But for that Japan must first amend Article 9 through a constitutional amendment. Until that happens, Japan will be totally dependent on the United States.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

dougthehead13Today  01:36 am JST

itsonlyrocknroll June 18 12:56 pm JST

> Japan faces the following 2 scenarios, if the current Article 9 of the constitution is not modified

Scenario 1: Do nothing and allow China to unilaterally take Senkaku Islands by force. We would abide by Article 9 by not going to war. At the cost of losing Japanese sovereign territory.

Scenario 2: Defend the Senkaku Islands militarily by entering an unconstitutional war with China. Clearly disobeying Article 9 breaking the established constitutional order. Increasing controversy in the current political and legal situation.

While I fully agree that Japan's Article 9 needs to be amended to allow more leeway, I don't specifically agree with the above.

Scenario 1 could never happen unless China is prepared to engage in a war with the United States. Two Secretaries of State, two Secretaries of Defense as well as a POTUS has officially stated that defense of the Senkakus falls under article 5 of the US-JPN Mutual Defense Treaty. Under the collective defense agreement now in place the JSDF can (and will) support US forces in such a conflict.

Scenario 2 which applies to the above as well, Japan is constitutionally bound to not start any wars. It is not bound to not defend itself.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The significance of Article 9 politically, is interpretation.

It removes the first strike option. However how present and future Governments of Japan would responded to an existential threat, and how that existential threat was defined is open to a wide degree of political latitude.

Without question, the majority of Family members support keeping Article 9 in its current form.

Even the younger members registered to vote would not support any form of revision. It is the only issue that would persuade young family members into a ballot box.

I have a suspicion the majority of the electorate feel the same reluctance to support any revision to Japan's pacifist constitution.

The Senkaku islands strategic/economic importance are their proximity to important shipping lanes and the large amounts of oil, gas, and mineral deposits.

The Government of China has significantly increased incursions, violating the islands boundaries, both militarily and with trawler ships/vessels. Also Japan Air Self-Defence Forces are on a constant state of readiness to challenge the number of PLA Air Force entering the adjacent air space.

Question remains will the US Government use military force to counter Government of China seizing the islands and/or the surrounding waterways, trading routes. I suggest the Government of China believes the US Government would hesitate. This is where at present the real political dangers lie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there would ever be a war in Senkaku, it is provoked by Japanese govt, and Japan is better off to acknowledge the dispute and make East China Sea a peaceful sea, for generations to come. Imperialistic past is not the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

itsonlyrocknroll Today 08:31 am JST

The significance of Article 9 politically, is interpretation.

Because neither the government nor the LDP nor its partners have the legislative capacity in the Diet to modify Article 9. All because of the systematic refusal of the opposition parties to modify it.

Without question, the majority of Family members support keeping Article 9 in its current form.

Even the younger members registered to vote would not support any form of revision. It is the only issue that would persuade young family members into a ballot box.

That will not be known until a national referendum is called to consult it. Until then, it will only be speculation.

I have a suspicion the majority of the electorate feel the same reluctance to support any revision to Japan's pacifist constitution.

If the first paragraph of the renunciation of war is maintained in its entirety. The second paragraph is modified for the exclusive defence. And new ones are created for the limitation of military activities and operations. It is quite possible that young people will support this constitutional change. As long as that change is honest.

Question remains will the US Government use military force to counter Government of China seizing the islands and/or the surrounding waterways, trading routes. I suggest the Government of China believes the US Government would hesitate. This is where at present the real political dangers lie.

That's what my previous comment is about. The U.S. is no longer as reliable as it used to be. That's why Japan has to modify Article 9. Simply for a reason of survival.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I apologize for the reply to itsonlyrocknroll.

When editing the comment the highlights of the comments have been exchanged.

Moving the answers instead of the questions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan AmericaJune 19 07:09 am JST

Scenario 2 which applies to the above as well, Japan is constitutionally bound to not start any wars. It is not bound to not defend itself.

Actually Article 9 does not allow the existence of Japanese military forces.

The interpretation is only a temporary patch until the Diet proposes a constitutional amendment, to solve this problem definitively.

The problem is that this temporary situation has been going on for more than 70 years. And everything points to the fact that it will still take many years to resolve this problem.

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