Japan should fortify defense around isles, Maehara says

Japan needs to put a manned radar station there. Off limits to everyone. All unauthorized vessels should be interdicted and turned back.

A public works opportunity! Just concrete all the coastal banks, add concrete breakwaters and tetrapods. Leave lots of rusty and discarded industrial debris all over the beach. In other words, make it look like the rest of Japan.

the prolem is not the defenses, it is the lack of political will. The present administration has to authorize the use of force just like in the time of Koizumi when they sank a north Korean boat. In the time of LDP China and SK are not this brazen to enter Japanese territories and even if they do they suffer the consequences.

There is no point of risking the lives of these patrol guards if the government will just do nothing but bury their heads in the sand.

Deal with the problem. Face the consequences. Don't be a push over. Diplomacy will work if you are willing to fight. If not, its just appeasing the bullies. It does not work anywhere.

Agree

How do you prevent someone from swimming to the islands?

The beginning of WWIII...

Germany did not acknowledge its losses from WWI and started WWII.

Japan does not acknowledge it is the loser of WWII and starts WWIII.

Nice.

It really bothers me when people start agreeing with these blowhard warmonger politicians!

How do you prevent someone from swimming to the islands?

The question is not how, but why. What is the big deal about a small group of people swimming to some rocks? There is nobody there to harm. Nothing there to take or damage. This whole thing is about the resources under the sea, and they didn't get any.

Just for a handful of people walking on those damned rocks, this guy wants to spend a fortune of our tax money and antagonize China? For walking on some rocks?

Diplomacy will work if you are willing to fight. If not, its just appeasing the bullies.

Bullies? Some un-uniformed geezers in a fishing boat walked on Japanese rocks! This is bullying??

There is no need for diplomacy and no need to prepare to fight. The only need is to be ready to handle this nonsense in the same way next time, not react to it and give it meaning it otherwise does not have.

Allow anyone to swim to the island, just prevent any water craft from picking them up.

Japan need to build a military equipment on this rock island. There is no any other countries can enter it.

This, more or less, is the Japanese view.

Pretty telling how they skip over the part about taking over Taiwan and administrating the Senkakus as part of Taiwan. And they concluded the Senkakus were terra nullus based on surveys, and no mention of maps, diplomacy or anything else.

They also neglect to mention the First Sino-Japanese War, which was on when they annexed the islands, until they get to the Treaty of Shimonoseki, in which they received Taiwan, of which, the Chinese considered the Senkakus a part, and so did the Japanese by their own action of administrating them together. But they still avoid direct mention of their annexations and the war that brought the treaty, in an attempt to look clean, which they aren't.

And since the Communist Chinese government was not recognized until 1970 and therefore did not have the proper diplomatic channels, its extremely dishonest to then complain that they made their claim late. Its pure beaurocratic nonsense.

These omissions by the government of Japan is why they get labeled a pack of dirty crooks same as their war rampaging brethren pre-1945. Even so, I support the Japanese claim to the Senkakus, based on contemporary military control. But if the Japanese renounce war, then they should renounce their war gains as well. The proper, just, and clean action would be to return the rocks to Taiwan. But IMHO they can soil themselves by keeping them as they have had military control for a long time. They will just have to endure the reputation it gives them though, and it allows people to fairly make parallels with Imperial Japan and today's Japan.

It is not Japanese control but Okinawa control. They are part of Ishikawa city and even if Tokyo buys them, they are still part of Okinawa. Tokyo will be the private owner but it is still part of the Okinawa Prefecture.

"Japan should strengthen its coast guard to defend disputed islands,"

Good luck with the Kuriles and Dokdo -- both Russia and SK would down the Japanese vessels before they even got close. Nope... hypocritically again, the only one they could 'defend' would be the Senkaku islands. And when Russia declares its putting more military on the Kuriles as a result, and SK decides to station more military on Dokdo, Gemba will shake his fists and say he doesn't understand, and right-wingers on here will be up in arms, so to speak. Japan clearly hasn't learned when you up the rhetoric, others up the ante as well.

YuriOtani: "It is not Japanese control but Okinawa control."

And Okinawa is controlled by Japan.

both Russia and SK would down the Japanese vessels before they even got close.

Do you have anything to back up this contention other than your own personal bitterness? Japan has the seventh largest defense budget in the world. Russia is fifth and S.K. 11th. But the thing is, Russia is huge and has many borders. And Korea is in a technical state of war and is focused on their northern border. Japan only has to worry about her seas, and so has a strong navy. There is a reason why this tiny island, like Britain, could have a far flung empire. And the reason is still relevant to military affairs today.

Plus, Japan can afford to take more away from other defenses as the whole of Japan is protected by the number one funded military BY FAR, in the world.

Japan could do a lot of damage over these land claims. I for one am very glad they choose not to.

AlternativeUniverse: "Do you have anything to back up this contention other than your own personal bitterness?"

Not that bitter, just knowledgable. Russia has had no qualms about firing at trespassers in the past, and since they have already started setting up a military presence (which Japan went wacky about) on the Kuriles, they could easily defend against inferior SDF ships. South Korea has a much stronger, more experienced military who would also easily push back any ships Japan sent towards the islands. The SDF has the tech, but not the man-power nor the experience. Japan depends 100% on the US in regards to defense issues, and leading an attack would yield no defense from the US.

" I for one am very glad they choose not to."

The US hasn't given them permission, and without US permission and with the constitution, attacking the sovereign soil of other nations is illegal.

"Japan could do a lot of damage over these land claims."

So no where's YOUR proof, aside from the bitterness? :)

I can see where the new tax money is going to go.......into the defence of these useless islands.

Rather than wasting money on such things, why not harvest the resources around the islands??...cos that's ultimately what all this huff and puff is about. Once the resources are gone, no one is gonna give a damn about these stupid islands.

As always though, HAte and PRIde will blind people into continuing this stupid charade. Ganbare nippon! Make us proud.

So no where's YOUR proof, aside from the bitterness?

I mentioned budgets. You read?

they could easily defend against inferior SDF ships.

Where did that come from? Why would you think the 7th best funded military would have nothing but inferior ships compared to a country that is almost totally land or ice locked?

Japan depends 100% on the US in regards to defense issues, and leading an attack would yield no defense from the US.

If Japan attacked Russia over the Kuriles, the U.S. would defend Japan against China if they decided to jump in and take advantage. Therefore, Japan can afford to take some defenses away from those intended to ward off China.

AlternateUniverse: "I mentioned budgets. You read?"

Budgets, especially those not backed by statistics, do not prove the outcome of a conflict.

"If Japan attacked Russia over the Kuriles, the U.S. would defend Japan against China if they decided to jump in and take advantage. Therefore, Japan can afford to take some defenses away from those intended to ward off China."

No they would not. They would only step in if it became a full-fledged war, which everyone would lose. They have already stated they are not going to get involved in the island roes and have asked the Asian neighbours not to provoke each other.

Budgets, especially those not backed by statistics, do not prove the outcome of a conflict.

You want budgets backed by statistics? I would say that is your prerogative, not mine. As for the outcome of the conflict, your contention is quick and utter defeat of Japan, which is an extreme position, and a position usually proven false when war actually breaks out. Those thinking it will be a quick and easy affair are usually wrong.

My contention is basically that it will be a battle, and Japan could well win. That is much more realistic. And I have provided as much non-statistical evidence as you. In fact, the only person who has provided any numbers is me. Budgets do account for a lot. Russia 63 billion. Japan 47 billion. S.K. 27 billion. Those are U.S. dollars from 2008 and stats from 2009. And I say again that Japan is an island nation and focused on the navy.

And your contention that Japan has obsolete ships is bizarre. Japan retires ships early and replaces them with new ships. Its Russia with obsolete ships.

No they would not

I dont think you read what I wrote.

AlternateUniverse: "You want budgets backed by statistics? I would say that is your prerogative, not mine."

It's my prerogative to back up YOUR argument? In what alternate universe does that work? :)

"My contention is basically that it will be a battle, and Japan could well win."

And it's my contention they would not, based on the performance of many SDF 'men' vs. the well-trained and even battle-hardened people of Russia and SK.

"And your contention that Japan has obsolete ships is bizarre."

I don't recall ever saying Japan has obsolete ships. Obsolete scooters for police, yes, but I have fully admitted that when it comes to tech Japan has one of the highest in terms of military -- all of which they got from the US, of course.

"And I say again that Japan is an island nation and focused on the navy."

How's that navy going to do against a nuke if it came to it? Hell, they're early warning systems warn them a day earlier than a rocket launch from NK! Either way, Japan is simply not equipped for any situation where the other nations stationed military on these islands. They would shout, and cry, and say it's 'regrettable', recall a few ambassadors for a day, and the people that demand the US military out of Japan would demand their defense, but that's it. After that, they would sit back and mope.

smithinjapan

If Japan attacked Russia over the Kuriles, the U.S. would defend Japan against China

Of cause US would defend Japan against Chinese attack ...

If Japan will attacked Russia...it will be very intresting from all points of view...

But Japan is not indepenent state to take such decisions...

I think Japan and South Korea need to be able to work together a bit because of a possible North Korean threat,

Korea is one !

Japan historically always was an enemy of Korean people...

It was definately a lucky thing for Mr Maehara who has lost his bid to be Japanese PM in last September, if he was nominated being the next PM of Japan he might causing a castastropic conflict with China with his perceptive when dealing the island disputes!

I sense a plan to attach some frigging laser beams to sharks' heads!

build a naval station there and load it up with janitors with a Nationalistic mind and be done with it. This is getting to be boring news

Why not lead some die hard soldiers to Kurial and Tokdo?

I don't see any reports of young Japanese men rushing to join up for any of the SDF forces, but yet you get the sabre rattling from political officals. Some of the same officials who don't want the SDF to deploy to the Persian Gulf or do anything with the US and other allies in hot spots.

I hate to point this out to some of thse politicians, but going to different contingencies and working with real world events helps to train your forces to be prepared for real life situations like this one is developing into. True the SDF does numerous exercises, but having been part of these, they are pretty much "canned" and you know the outcome before they start. This is real world, and now they may see what it really takes.

The same for those who keep rallying around the Nationalist Agenda. What are their porpotions of personnel who actually belong in the SDF? They can go around playing patriotic songs and making statements, but are they really going to put some "skin in the game" or is this just more loud talking.

Japan's claim over those islands is clearly a violation of the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan.

In the Potsdam Agreement, it was clearly stated that:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Since Japan agreed with Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.

Japan's claim over those islands is clearly a violation of the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan.

Russia didn't agree to a peace treaty.

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Yes. It was between ROC, U.S. and U.K.

Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace states

"Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters."

Treaty of Taipei (Japan and ROC) states

Article 2 "It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands."

The 1971 Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands Article 1 states

"With respect to the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, as defined in paragraph 2 below, the United States of America relinquishes in favor of Japan all rights and interests under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, effective as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement. Japan, as of such date, assumes full responsibility and authority for the exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands. "

S. Maehara, hope he can just stop adding oil to the fire..he was lucky to have resigned just 2 days before the disaster in 2011. Posture indeed hyper nationalist ( nothing wrong ) resulted from the 2010 incident but fatally missing the maturity & subtlety of a skilled diplomate.

nigelboy says: "Russia didn't agree to a peace treaty."

Stalin did attend the Potsdam Conference, and is a signatory of the Potsdam declaration which became a 5 party agreement subsequently.

As can be seen in the Imperial Rescript of Surrender i.e. the speech delivered by Emperor Hirohito on 15 August 1945, the day of Japan's surrender, Emperor Hirohito informed the Japanese people that Japan would accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration in order to end the great war:

"To Our Good and loyal subjects:

After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in Our Empire today, We have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

nigelboy says: "Yes. It was between ROC, U.S. and U.K."

What was between ROC, U.S. and U.K.?

nigelboy says: "The 1971 Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands Article 1 states"

Well, the US government did clarify that the return of Ryukyu islands had got nothing to do with the sovereignty of it but merely its administration. The US government had further clarified that since it did not own the sovereignty of Ryukyu in the first place, therefore it was impossible for it to return the sovereignty of Ryukyu to Japan.

And since the 1971 treaty is a two party agreement between Japan and the US, it is not entitled to amend or annul any multi-party treaty or agreement signed or agreed earlier on between Japan and other nations.

Stalin did attend the Potsdam Conference, and is a signatory of the Potsdam declaration which became a 5 party agreement subsequently.

So?

What was between ROC, U.S. and U.K.?

"and such minor islands as we determine"

of it but merely its administration

Not merely just an administration. "An authority for the exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands. " Sounds like soverignty to me.

nigelboy says: "So?"

So according to the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan, the sovereignty of those minor islands must be jointly determined by US, UK, China and Russia.

As the Potsdam Agreement states that:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

nigelboy says: "Sounds like soverignty to me"

According to the clarification of the US government, administration is not equivalent to sovereignty.

And even if the US did intend to hand over the sovereignty of Ryukyu to Japan, it would not be possible without first denouncing the Potsdam Agreement and its nuking of Japan.

So according to the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan, the sovereignty of those minor islands must be jointly determined by US, UK, China and Russia.

No. Potsdam declaration and the Peace Treaty are two separate items. One document is the terms of the surrender. The other document covers the settlement between the 48 nations that signed.

According to the clarification of the US government, administration is not equivalent to sovereignty

Administration is part of soverignty. Legislation is part of soverignty. Jurisdiction is part of soverignty. An exclusive power and authority to excercize those three are considered soverignty.

nigelboy says: "No. Potsdam declaration and the Peace Treaty are two separate items."

Potsdam Declaration became Potsdam Agreement when Japan announced the acceptance of it in the Imperial Rescript of Surrender and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

In the Imperial Rescript of Surrender i.e. the speech delivered by Emperor Hirohito on 15 August 1945, the day of Japan's surrender, Emperor Hirohito informed the Japanese people that Japan would accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration in order to end the great war.

In the Imperial Rescript of Surrender, it was clearly stated that:

"To Our Good and loyal subjects:

After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in Our Empire today, We have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

Potsdam Declaration became Potsdam Agreement when Japan announced the acceptance of it in the Imperial Rescript of Surrender and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

You still haven't addressed it. The Peace Treaty and the declaration are two seaparate instruments.

nigelboy says: "One document is the terms of the surrender. The other document covers the settlement between the 48 nations that signed."

The Potsdam Agreement is a five party agreement. Only five nations were involved.

An agreement is a contract and must be adhered to.

The Potsdam Agreement is a five party agreement. Only five nations were involved

It's an acceptance of a declaration that included the terms of surrender in which Japan's fulfilled their end.

Treaty Of Peace states

".....concluding a Treaty of Peace which will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the existence of a state of war between them; (Allieds)"..

Two separate instruments.

nigelboy says: "An exclusive power and authority to excercize those three are considered soverignty."

Even the government of a colony have those powers. As I said, it is not possible for the US government to hand over the sovereignty of Ryukyu to Japan without first denouncing the Potsdam Agreement and its nuking of Japan.

nigelboy says: "It's an acceptance of a declaration that included the terms of surrender in which Japan's fulfilled their end"

Japan has not fulfilled the Potsdam Agreement. In fact, its claim of sovereignty over the Ryukyu islands and the islands of China, Korea and Russia seriously violated the agreement.

nigelboy says: "concluding a Treaty of Peace which will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the existence of a state of war between them"

The fact is Japan failed to negotiate the individual peace treaties in the context of the Potsdam Agreement. Otherwise, Japan's territorial disputes with China, Korea and Russia would have been resolved.

Even the government of a colony have those powers. As I said, it is not possible for the US government to hand over the sovereignty of Ryukyu to Japan without first denouncing the Potsdam Agreement and its nuking of Japan.

????

Japan has not fulfilled the Potsdam Agreement. In fact, its claim of sovereignty over the Ryukyu islands and the islands of China, Korea and Russia seriously violated the agreement.

Yes they did. They surrendered. The violation of the Potsdam Declaration was carried out by the Soviets when they invaded Sahkalin and Kuriles after surrender. Heck. Consider it null and void then.

nigelboy says: "The violation of the Potsdam Declaration was carried out by the Soviets when they invaded Sahkalin and Kuriles after surrender."

Japan agreed that "its sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands to be determined by by US, UK, China and USSR" as stated in the Potsdam Agreement on 15 August 1945 as announced by Emperor Hirohito. The Sahkalin and Kuriles were never considered as part of Japan's territory.

The Imperial Rescript of Surrender states that:

"To Our Good and loyal subjects:

After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in Our Empire today, We have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

Japan agreed that "its sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands to be determined by by US, UK, China and USSR" as stated in the Potsdam Agreement on 15 August 1945 as announced by Emperor Hirohito. The Sahkalin and Kuriles were never considered as part of Japan's territory.

I believe the Kuriles are especially the Northern territories.

Seriously. We got the Soviets who not only violates the neutrality pact, they violate the Postam Declaration by military action which continued after the acceptance and now you go there accuse Japan of not honoring the Declaration because the "we" (U.K. U.S. China Soviets) couldn't get their collective heads to determine the "such minor islands "?

Hence to summarize, Japan surrendered. Condition fulfilled.

Allieds-Attacked Japanese islands after the surrender term accepted by Japan. Couldn't get their collective heads to determine the so-called "such minor islands" but somebody from the "we" had to do it. Result, the Treaty of Peace.

What are we arguing??

Furthermore, I apologize for talking about the Soviets because they have nothing to do with issue of Senkaku. We're talking China.(ROC, PRC, or both, whatever)

What's their line of thinking after 1945?

"We know it's our territory but we'll keep silent and not negotiate with the remaining Allied members to get our territory back". "We know it's our terriotory but we'll use Japanese names on our respective official maps." "OOh. I think U.S. and Japan is working towards reverting Okinawa and the minor islands which include our territory back to Japan. But let's keep it quiet".