U.S. hopes Japan's navy will be more active in Pacific

OK, I made a mistake in my post above. I meant to say that China started showing interest in "Okinawa" when much vaster oil reserves than Senkaku islands were discovered there. Chinese write about Okinawa being part of the Ryukyu Islands that were a tributary state of China, etc. So it is really Chinese. I have never met an Okinawan that considered themself to be Chinese. Corrected post:

There was a survey showing oil around Senkaku islands. Then China showed an interest in Senkaku islands. But subsequent surveys showed more oil under Okinawa, and then China started its campaign to undermine Japan's claim to the Okinawa. Well, looking at how things are going with the US base issue, I wouldn't be surprised if Okinawa wants to join China.

Well, we're not quite there yet. But this is very good.

A smart move for the Japanese and US militaries. I understand why Japanese people are wary of increasing military participation world wide. The remnants of the insanity of WWII should keep people wary, after all besides the suffering caused to other countries, the Japanese people themselves were just as abused by the imperial military, people losing family to the whims of an emperor and prime minister as well as losing hundreds of thousands more to American attacks. No one wants to repeat anything from WWII, understandable.

However, the mistake Japan is making is the belief if they appear peaceful and have no military or an unwillingness to use it, the somehow other nations will leave japan alone. This mistake has been made in the past and the result is always that so called peaceful country gets invaded, taken over and destroyed. I can give examples, such as Poland 200 years ago, it was the largest, richest and most productive country in Europe and they disbanded their military believing if they are peaceful and with their economic might being the key to Europe's economy, no one would invade. Well Prussia, Austria and Russia all invaded, pieced out the country and Poland ceased to exist as a country for the next 200 years, until 1919, when it was revived after WWI.

Japan is in the same position now. China and Russia will continue to antagonize and Japan will eventually be forced to protect itself. In the end, having a more active military will reduce these antagonists enough to keep them in check, it wont remove the disputes but it will at least ensure it doesn't go past debate and diplomacy and a Japanese Navy running round the world is in fact a solid way to keep things diplomatic. Being peaceful in the face of a country pointing a gun at you, is not diplomacy.

iirc, it was the Japanese that wanted no military. McArthur knew we'd have to throw down the Chinese someday, and Japan will have to help in some fashion.

The whole point of American involvement in the fight against Japan during WWII was to help the Chinese stop getting their arses kicked by their beligerent island neighbor, oh the irony.

I get why the US wants this (obviously) and why there elements within Japan that want this - China and Russia pushing their ways out further from their own borders, Japan having one of the most technically capable and versatile Navies in the world, and Japan having the chance to make tighter ties with allies in areas in the Middle East and Africa. But, there's good reason to worry Abe's Defense Minister, Nakatani, and those like him could use this as a reason to preemptively or prematurely reach out where they're not wanted or needed.

There was a survey showing oil around Senkaku islands. Then China showed an interest in Senkaku islands. But subsequent surveys showed more oil under Okinawa, and then China started its campaign to undermine Japan's claim to the Senkaku islands. Well, looking at how things are going with the US base issue, I wouldn't be surprised if Okinawa wants to join China.

Sounds like they're questioning the legitimacy of Japans claim of ownership to these islands.

Yes, and suggesting that they should belong to China.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/05/08/national/china-questions-okinawa-ownership/#.VR52c1KJi1s

Agreements reached between the Allies during World War II mean the ownership of the Ryukyu Islands may be in question, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences researchers said in a commentary published Wednesday in the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s main newspaper. They said Japan’s loss in the war nullified an 1895 treaty in which China ceded territory to Japan.

It is clear that China was suggesting Okinawa was Chinese territory. There is no need to read between the lines. China's mouthpiece the Peoples Daily spoke very clearly.

I hope each country can manage to settle some of their differences through open communication rather than physical aggression, war.

I agree with this.

Slumdog: Sounds like they're questioning the legitimacy of Japans claim of ownership to these islands. Any other conclusion would only be an assumption.

To question the present thinking of ownership.

what's clear is that the headlines have been twisted, (related to the content of what was actually said) and the Japanese government feels threatened by the statement of questioning sovereignty.

It seems that you are "reading between the lines", while I'm just reading the words. It doesn't matter to me, who's right and who's wrong, we simply have a different view on this subject. I hope each country can manage to settle some of their differences through open communication rather than physical aggression, war.

The Chinese Navy, PLAN, is an OK force on paper as is the JMSDF. Only the USN has real experience, but the operational tempo of the 7th Fleet has led to a degree of wear.

In this context, the PLAN knows it does not match up to the 7th Fleet, especially if the latter is buttressed by JMSDF assets. So the best posture for the PLAN is A2/AD -- anti-access, area denial. This is primarily asymmetry, knowing that the USN -- and the JMSDF -- does not tolerate losses, and hence is to a large degree risk averse. So, what should China do?

Exactly what it is doing. Do small scale construction on islands and force an uptick in the operational tempo of reactive forces. Conduct exercises further into the Pacific to assert its rights of passage and use. If the USN and JMSDF assets bite, so much the better. In the meantime, China works on anti-ship missiles that can potentially sink a capital ship, which then could force the USN to operate further away.

So the question is how much risk is Japan prepared to stomach. We are not talking Jutland or Midway or even the Java Sea. We are talking about minor interactions, with some danger of risk of escalation, in the context of poor communications.

It is a real problem, and I hope Japan is prepared for the consequences of a more robust role.

Stuart,

As I mentioned above, the articles for some are no longer there. However, the headlines and comments are and they give you a good idea of what was in the articles. The Peoples Daily is the official mouthpiece of the Chinese government. What was written in the article claiming Okinawa's sovereignty should be reconsidered is clearly suggesting that it should be reconsidered as Chinese territory. This claim was made with the clear approval of the Chinese government and has been mentioned in numerous articles on the subject.

What do you think the government meant to say when they approved their own mouthpiece claiming that the sovereignty of Okinawa should be reconsidered? What do you think the purpose was? It seems pretty clear to me and it did to the Japanese government when they lodged their protest about it.

SlumDog: Thank you for posting the articles. I'm unable to view all the JT articles because it says they are no longer available but is the fist comment of the two links that did work.

The Japanese government has lodged a strong protest with its counterpart in China after an article in a Chinese state-run newspaper suggested that Okinawa WAS previously a "vassal state" of China and that its sovereignty should be reconsidered. The second article said: Major-General Luo Yuan said "lets for now not discuss whether [the islands] belong to China, they WERE certainly China's tributary state. I'm NOT saying all former tributary states belong to China, but we can say with certainty that the Ryukyus do not belong to Japan.

I'm still not seeing SamuriBlue's and your claim.

The articles are not there in many cases, but the headlines and comments are.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/japan-protests-to-china-over-okinawa-claim

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/china-trying-to-strengthen-its-claim-to-okinawa

http://www.dw.de/japan-angered-by-chinas-claim-to-all-of-okinawa/a-16803117

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/china-should-reconsider-who-owns-okinawa-peoples-daily

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/who-wants-to-be-a-part-of-china-20130520-2jwun.html

Now, if you are going to suggest that the Peoples Daily was allowed to print anything the government does not approve of, you would have a hard time doing so and proving it. China did back down from that under international pressure. However, they have laid claim on Okinawa. That is a fact.

Slumdog: It wasn't me who gave you a thumbs down, I come to respect your post, wether I agree with them or not. Besides, I wouldn't feel hurt if you supplied the information I asked for, I don't support the Chinese governments actions anyway. For that matter, I don't support most countries government actions.

China always begins a land grab with a challenge to the existing status quo. They have an unlimited store of ancient maps with specs on them they can claim to be any island.

@slumdog

Stuart's right. I agree with 99.9 per cent of your posts, but the link you provided in no way supports your assertion that China "claimed" Okinawa.

SlumDog: The headline to the article you gave says, "China lays claim to Okinawa", when you read the article, they mentioned NO such statement by China.

It does say this: Beijing began its attempt to broaden the territorial dispute earlier this month when the communist party newspaper, the People's Daily, ran an article in which two Chinese academics challenged Japan's sovereignty over the Ryukyu chain of islands, which includes Okinawa.

Two Chinese academics CHALLENGED Japans sovereignty. This isn't the same as saying China lays claim to Okinawa. As for my previous comment, I asked to please show us your evidence. Is the Guardian article you posted, the evidence to my reply?

Thumbs down without responding if you wish. However, the reality is that China has in fact attempted to claim Okinawa as its own territory. Unless you think China was playing an April Fool's joke in May of 2013 that is.

OssanAmerica the government in Tokyo has taken this away from Okinawa. The city officals in charge of them need permission to land there from Tokyo.

Which prefecture would that be? SamuraiBlue: Okinawa? Please show us your evidence.

You both should check things before asking others, especially something which has been widely reported for about two years.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/15/china-okinawa-dispute-japan-ryukyu

China lays claim to Okinawa as territory dispute with Japan escalates

SamuraiBlue: Okinawa? Please show us your evidence.

Okinawa.

It amazes me that many contributors to this website can't seem to get over WW2. The world has moved on since then. Defence is insurance. I hope Japan becomes as strong as it ever was. I hope it gets lots of F35's. Air dominance is a major deterrent. Avoiding war unfortunately is very expensive.

Do you understand that China is laying claim to a part of a Japanese prefecture?

Which prefecture would that be?

YuriOtaniApr. 03, 2015 - 09:25AM JST This worries me as it is a return to Imperial Japan.

But Chima behaving like Imperial Japan doesn't bother you? Do you understand that China is laying claim to a part of a Japanese prefecture?

Historical irony much?

This worries me as it is a return to Imperial Japan.

iirc, it was the Japanese that wanted no military. McArthur knew we'd have to throw down the Chinese someday, and Japan will have to help in some fashion.

The US gave us a constitution that said NO MILITARY! Before the end of the occupation, the US made us set up a military. Now the US wants us to use the military. Well, excuuuuuuuse me!!!!!!