Abe orders stronger surveillance near disputed isles

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

  • -1

    TrevorPeace2

    Good.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    So what? They'll be just more ships saying they've spotted ships. It's not going to stop them from coming, and it's not going to stop both sides from being children.

  • -1

    megosaa

    excellent.

  • -2

    Outta here

    So Japan is going to increase surveillance around islands it claims as its own all to counter china doing the same around the same islands it claims.....

  • 0

    catseye97

    What is excellent megasaa? Both sides acting like children?

  • 0

    catseye97

    Oops megosaa.

  • 1

    marcelito

    Yeah...that will make a lot of difference and make China shake in its boots. Just a political posturing to the local right wing sentiments.

  • 1

    Chubaka

    The real concerns will start when surveillance is not enough or not working. China will no doubt continue to increase their activity there. So does "respond firmly" imply use of force in the near future?

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Japan's really screwed itself on this whole 'respond firmly' thing. It's made the point Abe wanted -- which is to say get the vote and continued points from the right wingers. But when the time comes, and it will be soon, that the response is not 'firm enough', boy are they going to turn on him!

  • 1

    JohnBecker

    It's going to come down to this eventually, so they might as well do it now:

    "Due to continuing incursions into internationally recognized Japanese territorial waters by Chinese vessels, the government of Japan is forced to dispatch Marine Self-Defense Force vessels to those waters, with the following warning to the government of China: any Chinese ships entering Japanese territorial waters without permission will be fired upon without warning. If the Chinese government would like to discuss this, representatives of the government of Japan will be happy to meet with them at the International Court of Justice."

  • 0

    flowers

    In response, China warned that “Japan may face consequences, if Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe fails to be pragmatic, Japan may face challenges both domestically and overseas." From this statement you can see that China is more mature and realistic, compared to the childish statement from Abe “respond firmly”. China is pointing finger directly at Japanese PM. You can see that this is a soft war; China will see to it that Japanese economy falls further into the abyss and the image of Japan will be deeply tarnished by its own past.

  • -2

    Crazedinjapan

    I find this scenario ridiculous. Back and forth back and forth...someone park some ships there. Get it overwith and move on. If china really thinks they have claim to it ...why do they run off everytime the Japanese show up. Maybe this is just a feeling out process with regards to china seeing how slow and predictable the Japan thinking process is in regards to affermative action.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    Japan doesn't need to firm up surveillance. It needs to construct an outpost either JCG or JMSDF and guard the area. China's explanations for it's maritime and aircraft intrusions being justified because it's Chinese territory is nonsense. It is Japanese territory to which China has a claim. In the civilized when you have a claim to something you don't just start using it like it's yours, you follow legal procedures to validate your claim. The ICJ , Japan and the rest of the world is waiting for China to act like a civilized country.

  • -3

    Outta here

    OssanAmerica

    Japan doesn't need to firm up surveillance. It needs to construct an outpost either JCG or JMSDF and guard the area.

    Yeah that will really stabilise the issue. Japan building military outposts on a disputed island. Way to escalate the issue. Maybe china will do it first then what

    China's explanations for it's maritime and aircraft intrusions being justified because it's Chinese territory is nonsense. It is Japanese territory to which China has a claim.

    Yes according to who? Ah that's right, its Japanese sovereign territory according to Japan. And Japan alone...... So china claims its there territory, Japan claims no it's theirs...... Well sorry but until it is determined the ICJ then really its merely Japan claiming and china claiming with no support from other nations for either claim.

    In the civilized when you have a claim to something you don't just start using it like it's yours, you follow legal procedures to validate your claim. The ICJ , Japan and the rest of the world is waiting for China to act like a civilized country.

    Funny but that is summing up Japan's actions to a tee...... Great point

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    ">Outta hereJan. 10, 2013 - 08:56AM JST "Japan doesn't need to firm up surveillance. It needs to construct an outpost either JCG or JMSDF and guard the area."

    Yeah that will really stabilise the issue. Japan building military outposts on a disputed island. Way to escalate the >issue. Maybe china will do it first then what

    China will never do it first. The U.S. has already told them they they will be engaging the United States if they attempt to take the islands by force, a necessity if China wants to build on them. China has no intention of "stabilizing" anything, they intend to keep trespassing until it becomes the norm then they can claim that they have effective control.

    China's explanations for it's maritime and aircraft intrusions being justified because it's Chinese territory is nonsense. >It is Japanese territory to which China has a claim.

    Yes according to who? Ah that's right, its Japanese sovereign territory according to Japan. And Japan alone...... So >china claims its there territory, Japan claims no it's theirs.....

    According to China. They themselves say that they have a dispute as regards ownership.

    Well sorry but until it is determined the ICJ then really its merely Japan claiming and china claiming with no support >from other nations for either claim.

    China is the only party with no support from any other nations. That's because it's playing the same game of stealing territory from the Philipines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei. And China is afraid of taking Japan to the ICJ because all the other countries they are bullying will do the same to them. As for ownership, in a practical sense it makes no difference, China cannot take the Senkakus by force unless it is willing to start a shooting war with the United States, which it is not. Therefore Japan should should build an outpost and secure the waters and airspace around it to put an end to China's childish games.

    In the civilized when you have a claim to something you don't just start using it like it's yours, you follow legal >procedures to validate your claim. The ICJ , Japan and the rest of the world is waiting for China to act like a civilized >country.

    Funny but that is summing up Japan's actions to a tee...... Great point

    No it's summing up China;s failure to take the issue to the ICJ. Japan is a signatory to an agreement that it will respect ICJ verdicts. China is not. China has a long ways to become a civilized member of the international community. Japan has been so for 70 years."

  • -1

    soldave

    JohnBecker - Agree with most of that except it would definitely be described as "regrettable" in an official statement.

  • -1

    Nessie

    In the civilized when you have a claim to something you don't just start using it like it's yours, you follow legal procedures to validate your claim.

    Ossan, as you suggest elsewhere, China is using the movements/incursions (depending on your point of view) to bolster future legal claims. Japan should invite or continue to invite China to take it for resolution in an international court now.

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    NessieJan. 10, 2013 - 01:07PM JST "In the civilized world when you have a claim to something you don't just start using it like it's yours, you follow legal procedures to validate your claim." Ossan, as you suggest elsewhere, China is using the movements/incursions (depending on your point of view) to >bolster future legal claims. Japan should invite or continue to invite China to take it for resolution in an international >court now.

    Actually since it is China which has a claim it is up to China to bring an action at the ICJ. Which we all know they won't do. Therefore, for Japan to "invite" China to do so would undoubtedly be a wasted effort. However I do think that Japan should bring an action before the ICJ charging China with continuous violation of sovereign waters and airspace with a demand to cease. I don't see how China could answer that without ending up disputing the sovereignty issue before the ICJ. Of course this is China; they could easily say "We are not violating Japanese territory because that territory has been Chinese since the the earth cooled ". In other words, a civilized resolution will only work with a civilized nation, and here I use the term to mean a country that is willing to play by everybody's rules.

  • -1

    Nessie

    Actually since it is China which has a claim it is up to China to bring an action at the ICJ.

    They both have a claim. Not sure what you mean. Japanese claims it's theirs and administers it. China claims its theirs and doesn't.

  • 0

    flowers

    You all talk about ICJ but how can China bring an action to ICJ when Japan claims that the dispute does not exist. China has been trying to show that the dispute does exist. First, you have to agree that the dispute does exist and that Japan can lose face by admitting it. Besides going through ICJ will take years, it will be faster to use bilateral negotiations. About building an outpost there and firing warning shots at the Chinese planes this is what China has said “If Abe hopes his tough stance can help boost his image at home, he has made the wrong bet. China has reaffirmed time and again its resolution to defend its territorial sovereignty, and China has the economic and military power to do so. Japan's threat will only further deteriorate bilateral ties, which in the end will be a price that the Japanese public has to pay.”

  • 0

    nigelboy

    You all talk about ICJ but how can China bring an action to ICJ when Japan claims that the dispute does not exist.

    Simple. All China has to do sign the Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory.

    http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3

    Besides going through ICJ will take years, it will be faster to use bilateral negotiations.

    In this case, no. Both sides pretty much stated that they won't give in.

    China has reaffirmed time and again its resolution to defend its territorial sovereignty, and China has the economic and military power to do so.

    I doubt China will go "all out" to get these islands. In any case,

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/20/the_sino_japanese_naval_war_of_2012

  • 0

    flowers

    nigelboy, as stated Japan has to admit that the dispute does exist in accordance with Japan’s declaration and the dispute has to occur on or after September 15, 1958 which is not the case here. So, taking action to ICJ would be pointless. Also, it doesn’t matter whether both sides won’t give in, the main point is the sovereignty issue which can be put aside just like before and come to an agreement on other issues. China already said that China was willing to meet Japan half way, but it was Abe who was making things worse. Abe has been acting tough for the wrong reason. Have you ever heard Chinese PM saying something provocative against Japan? So, you doubt China will go “all out” to get these islands, but we are talking about sovereignty here. Believe it or not China is waiting for Japan to make a wrong move and not just talk. According to some veteran analysts “these tensions might eventually turn into war”.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    nigelboy, as stated Japan has to admit that the dispute does exist in accordance with Japan’s declaration and the dispute has to occur on or after September 15, 1958 which is not the case here.

    It isn't? That's news to me and the rest of the world for that matter. I believe you need to read the entire charter of the ICJ and also the cases that was judged and heard based on both parties being signatory of this said declaration. The non-stop excuses of pro china posters are become tiresome. Come up with something original for a change.

  • -1

    flowers

    Maybe I interpreted it wrong, but can you explain this first paragraph of the declaration written by Kenzo Oshima, Permanent Maybe Representative of Japan t the United Nations, “I have the honour, by direction of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to declare on behalf of the Government of Japan that, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, Japan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, over all disputes arising on and after 15 september 1958 with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date and being not settled by other means of peaceful settlement.” Sorry if my post seems to be tiresome for you, I am just stressing my point of view. Recognizing that China has been acting very maturely from the beginning and every step it makes is in accordance with the international laws. There were no Japan bashing words coming from Chinese PM from what I’ve read so far, all the tough talks have been coming from Japan. Don’t you agree? Oh! Nothing new again.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    Maybe I interpreted it wrong, but can you explain this first paragraph of the declaration written by Kenzo Oshima, Permanent Maybe Representative of Japan t the United Nations

    Yes. It simply means that any party accepting the same obligation (signing the same declaration) the state agrees to recognize ICJ as compulsory jurisdiction. To simplify more, if China signs the document and subsequently bring the claim to Senkaku, Japan has no choice to accept the jurisdiction and the decision made by ICJ. I think the document is self explanatory.

    Sorry if my post seems to be tiresome for you, I am just stressing my point of view.

    And I appologize for classifying you with other posters that I encountered but it seems as though I made this argument countless times already.

    Recognizing that China has been acting very maturely from the beginning and every step it makes is in accordance with the international laws.

    I wouldn't call claiming soverignty over the territory in the early 70's only when underwater resources were discovered "is in accordance with the international laws" especially in light of the fact that their maps continuously showed it as being part of the Japanese territory prior to that. Nor do I call continuosly encroaching on the territory that is for your satisfaction, "administered "by Japan is "mature".

  • -1

    flowers

    If that is the case, why the July 9, 2007 declaration has to mention the date “on or after Sep 15, 1958”? This is a condition set forth in the Japan’s declaration that has to be followed for the dispute to be valid, and there is no such “date” condition mentioned in other country’s declaration. Numerous times I saw people raised the question about why China did not make a fuss of the islands issue before the discovery of the resources, thinking it through carefully you can understand that early 70’s China just came out of the shell, weak and poor. There was nothing China could do but to shelve the issue until later and which also agreed by Japan at the time. Also, the discovery of underwater resources was made by Chinese people and yet China agreed not to press the issue any further. Not to mention also that Japan does not follow the rules of international law by denying the effects of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamtion. About the maps you mentioned there were a lot of other maps made by Japanese and foreingers that showed the islands were parts of China dated back a long time. There were also numerous documents that showed the islands belong to China. Even when you talk to Okinawan people they even have doubts about the ownership of the islands, a lot of them believe the islands belong to China. Are you not curious about the choice of words used by the US that shows the islands are being “administered” by Japan and not “owned” by Japan. There is a distinction between ownership and administration. Now, the big question is why would Abe make such a tough stance toward China when it would be much easier just to sit down and talk it over with China? In my opinion, it has something to do with the term “Pivot to Asia”. For strategic reasons, the US wants Japan to be the leader in Asia in order to contain China and this is an opportunity for Japan to flex its muscles. But do you see Abe as the “right” leader of Asia? This is what China said about him, “Abe has to be wary of history repeating itself. Based on the rules of revolving top government post in Japan over recent years, he has about one year to prove himself to the public.”

  • 2

    nigelboy

    The date of September 15, 1958 is the initial date Japan signed the said declaration. Some nations declarations are broad while some other nations declarations are restrictive in terms of which issues they will abide by the compulsory jurisdiction. But if you are insisting that the Senkaku dispute will be exempt based on Japan's declaration, the answer is no.

    In regards to your excuses of why China fail to claim Senkaku before the 70's, it's just lame for even Korea, a non UN state, tried to claim Takeshima through diplomatic correspondences. You also conveniently forget the fact Republic of China, a UN member at the time with Embassy in Washington DC never once mentioned to U.S. about the ownership issue of Senkaku. Heck. I'll even take PRC's own newspaper claiming Senkaku at that time.

    Using common sense tells you that Japan did in fact incorporate them under terra nullius, hence no protest from either PRC or ROC.

  • -1

    lachance

    As regards the Senkaku Islands, Japan must not change face and even consider the Chinese claim unless the Qing emperor makes those claims. The Senkakus belong to Japan, as won from the Qing dynasty in 1895. Since the Qing dynasty no longer exists, no one else has a claim to adjudicate.

    The Senkakus have nothing to do with WWII, which was settled in Potsdam, Cairo, and San Francisco, irrelevant documents that are forever quoted by the Chinese. Find the heir to the Qing dynasty, and then there might be a reason to discuss sovereignty of this small island chain. Otherwise, the Red Chinese are simply usurpers themselves, not heirs to the Qing dynasty.

    Likewise, if the US does not fully support Japan in this moment of crisis regarding this issue, China will eventually be so emboldened as to come to our shores and demand California as their sovereign territory, simply because Chinese people helped build much of our railroad system...or they will use some other similarly ridiculous pretext.

    If China succeeds with its ridiculous claim, then China will eventually claim the entire planet. It is up to Japan to STOP this war-monger now. Japan must not change face and compromise on the sovereignty of the Senkakus. Japan must save face. The Japanese people must save face.

  • -1

    lachance

    I admire Japan. With a miniscule population in relation to China, Japan will NOT allow itself to be bullied. The US should pay heed and stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally, using our own fighter aircraft in the air around the Senkakus.

    I mean, "shoot the buggers down." Stand firm. Escalate. Protect. Will China start something? No. China is all noise, trying to see what it can get away with. The longer China behaves in this fashion, the harder it will be to disabuse them of this notion.

    If the sovereignty of these islands is really open to debate, then debate it in the international courts. Until then, defend these islands as if they are under attack. SHOOT THE BUGGERS DOWN

  • -1

    flowers

    nigelboy, if you said so, but that paragraph said otherwise. You talked about Korea, I assume you meant South Korea, it has never been an isolated and closed country like China. You were comparing apples to oranges here. The islands were part of Taiwan and should have been returned to China according to the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. The distance between Taiwan and the islands is also much closer than Okinawa to the islands. The Taiwanese fishermen have been fishing there for centuries. The seabed link also proves that the islands are part of China. I heard about the newspaper you mentioned but the use of Senkaku was meant specifically for that article, it proves nothing with regards to ownership of the islands. You should also know that J govt lied about “terra nullius”, there was a letter written by Japanese official and sent to J govt stating that the islands belong to China at the time, and they did not even finish the survey of the islands. Would it make any sense to you that at the time the islands were really terra nullius considering the proximity to China? Japan took it and now said “Oh, nobody said anything, so now they are ours!” Is this right to you?

  • -1

    nigelboy

    nigelboy, if you said so, but that paragraph said otherwise. You talked about Korea, I assume you meant South Korea, it has never been an isolated and closed country like China. You were comparing apples to oranges here

    No I'm not. We're talking about a non U.N. state trying to negotiate its territory while a recognized U.N. state at the same time doing nothing despite having an Embassy there as well as "given the continued strategic importance of the Taiwan Strait during the Cold War era, the ROC and the United States signed the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty in 1954 to consolidate their military alliance. " who gave NO indication that the Senkaku's might belong to them.

    Let's also note forget that fact that a separate treaty was negotiated between Japan and ROC (Treaty of Taipei) and Senkaku was never mentioned at or before the execution of the agreement.

    Proximity or an act of private individuals (fishermen) has nothing to do with international customs and laws of "terra nullius". It's the LACK of state exercized effective control (i.e. survey, issuing commercial license, imposing tax) that is deemed terra nullius.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    Flowers

    I'll make it simple. From 1945~1970's (when China started to assert her claim after the underwater resources were discovered), what was the psycology behind PRC and/or ROC?

    "We know it's our territory but we'll keep silent and not negotiate nor make our claim with the any nations to get our territory back".

    "We know it's our terriotory but we'll use Japanese names on our respective official maps."

    "We know it's our teritory but we won't even mention this outright theft by Japan in our own domestic newspapers"

    "OOh. I think U.S. and Japan is working towards reverting Okinawa and the minor islands which will include our territory back to Japan. But let's keep it quiet".

    Instead of using logic and common sense, China's excuses are becoming equal to "my dog ate my homework" rhetoric.

  • 1

    flowers

    Nigelboy, what you have described are just circumstantial, it’s like when a thief took something from you and said it is belong to him because he took it, it is “terra nullius”. The thief used the thing and even asked his friend to use it (effective control). You didn’t say anything or tell anyone before so the thing should belong to the thief. This is your logic, right? I call it “a thief is a thief.” Back in September of last year, China mentioned there was an agreement between China and Japan in shelving the issue until the next generation, do you know what J govt said there was no such agreement. But when China produced the dialogue between the two leaders at the time, J govt then couldn’t deny any further. Yes, the Chinese discovered the resources and even proposed to shelf the issue until the next generation just for the sake of improving bilateral relationship. For over 40 years, China kept its promise; now Japan broke its promise and even worse denied it. So, your logic that China “didn’t do anything” doesn’t fly here. Do you believe the words of the thief?

  • 2

    nigelboy

    Nigelboy, what you have described are just circumstantial, it’s like when a thief took something from you and said it is belong to him because he took it, it is “terra nullius”.

    You're not comprehending. When somebody usually takes something from you, you either complain about it or report it to the authorities, or you tell that person you took from them during the reasonable amount of time. The problem with your argument has always been on the false premise that it was "stolen" from the beginning when common sense tells you that it was not.

  • 0

    flowers

    OK, let’s look at common sense, Japan said the islands were terra nullius but China had Japanese official letter that said the islands belong to China and Japan did not complete the survey. China came up with numerous documents and maps as proofs of ownership a lot more than Japan. Japan lied and denied about the agreement in shelving the issue. During the last 40 years China kept its promise while Japan broke it. Japan transferred private ownership to state ownership and claimed that it was to prevent problems with China, but even kid knows that there is a distinct difference. Japan insisted that there was no dispute but you and I and the rest of the world know there is a dispute. J PM has been escalating the issue by provoking China in every turn and we don’t see Chinese PM say anything to provoke Japan. Sending fighter jets to chase after Chinese ordinary plane, 8 of them at one time! Japan is a bully and has been a bully as seen by the atrocities committed during the WW. Abe even wants to change the history book and deny about the atrocities. China was too poor and weak then to stand up to the bully but not any longer. From common sense, do you see what I am pointing at, J govt (the same govt since the WW) is flip-flopping and lying, now do you see my point.

  • 0

    lachance

    While rumors circulate that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe issued orders to the Japan Air Self-Defense Force to fire warning shots on Chinese planes entering the Japanese Air Defense Identification Zone, PLA General Peng Guangqian told the state-run China News Service that if a Chinese aircraft were hit even with a flare, it would mean war. Peng said that it would be up to the PLA Air Force to determine what kind of weapon to use in response. The general stated that Japan gives China a perfect excuse to launch a war should it fire the first shot.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in National

View all

View all