Japan to create coast guard unit for disputed isles

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

  • -5

    Matthew Simon

    I support that these are Japanese islands and all and the Chinese have no rights to them, but does it make any sense to anyone else to have hundreds of people and the need to construct new ships to protect a few islands that nobody lives on?

  • 0

    WilliB

    So, we got another expansion of government and waste of taxpayer money, responding to Chinese aggression. Gee. thanks so much, China.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    If China were prepared to act like a civilized country and take the issue to the ICJ there would be no need for this. But since China prefers to avoid the ICJ and instead pursue a strategy of constant territorial violation and harassment, Japan is left with no choice, This is the strategy that China is pursuing with all the Asian nations. And they actually believe they are somehow "Asia's leader".

  • -3

    Yubaru

    The force, to be completed over three years, will consist of about 600 personnel and include an additional pair of existing helicopter-carrier vessels that are to be refitted, a coast guard spokesman said.

    And what does this say about Japanese foreign policy?

  • 4

    House Atreides

    They should also add around 10 or more predator/reaper type drones to the mix. There should always be at least one drone loitering around the Senkaku islands at all times.

  • -1

    Crazedinjapan

    They could just purchase already built vessels from the USA . Would probably save time and money. Maybe China will wake up now and see antagonizing Japan is not getting the expected results they wanted. All they've managed to do so far is get a new fleet of ships ordered and increased military spending here. I see a larger presence of USA members coming with more joint/shared operations between the two.

  • 1

    megosaa

    make sure to fit a few rocket launchers as well!

  • 2

    YuriOtani

    There are ships available in reserve, Japan is not the PI or Vietnam. We can build our own ships!

  • -4

    Tony Ew

    @OssanAmerica

    If China were prepared to act like a civilized country and take the issue to the ICJ there would be no need for this. But since China prefers to avoid the ICJ and instead pursue a strategy of constant territorial violation and harassment, Japan is left with no choice, This is the strategy that China is pursuing with all the Asian nations. And they actually believe they are somehow "Asia's leader".

    Last time I check China submitted to UN Commission on Continental Shelf survey around the islands and Japan objected strenuously. This looks more like Japan is afraid of ICJ than China. Besides having the 'with reservation' clause to opt out of ICJ ruling, so it looks like 'for show', no we don't intent to accept an unenforceable ICJ opinion. China next step is ICJ submission after this UN report. Why is Japan objecting? What's going on?

    Excerpt: In a letter to the commission, Japan's U.N. mission argued that China's submission should not be considered. "There is no doubt that the Senkaku Islands are an inherent part of the territory of Japan in light of historical facts and based upon international law. The Senkaku Islands are under the valid control of Japan," it said. http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE90N16Z20130124?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

  • 0

    Wakarimasen

    Should just send the Naval Self Defence Force. Going to need big guns at some stage.

  • -6

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    Its always about China, lets blame China.... thats what the American's want us to think so they can play both sides.

  • 2

    viking68

    Tiger (ahem) in the Hermitage, it is what everyone outside of China's propaganda machine believes. America is a land of laws, and that is the side America is playing. China is playing strong arm tactics and obfuscation. So, yes, China is to blame for their various land grabs in this hemisphere.

    Tony, the UN science review and decision is not binding. It will be a review of the science of whether the island is a part of the Chinese continental shelf. The science sounds particularly bad and if the ruling is in favor of China, then all of Japan should also be a part of China. In addition, the "science review" is not the same as a trail at the international court. Japan and the U.S. has suggested to take the matter to the international court, but China is afraid of losing. So, it has opted for a silly non-binding science review to confirm whether or not some arbitrary continental shelf argument applies.

    Obviously, China doesn't want a serious look at the legal basis for Japan's ownership of the islands.

  • 1

    CrisGerSan

    Just a quick note about ships and boats. :) Ships can carry boats but not the other way around. So some of these vessels described in the article are actually ships... just wanted to mention that.

    good article and good move by Japan. Sounds reasonable and appropriate.

  • 1

    Fadamor

    It will be a review of the science of whether the island is a part of the Chinese continental shelf.

    China is not a continent, so there is no such thing as a "Chinese continental shelf" China is just one country amongst many on the continent of ASIA. China doesn't get to claim the entire continent's shelf.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    Tony EwJan. 30, 2013 - 01:37PM JST "@OssanAmerica If China were prepared to act like a civilized country and take the issue to the ICJ there would be no need for this. But since China prefers to avoid the ICJ and instead pursue a strategy of constant territorial violation and harassment, Japan is left with no choice, This is the strategy that China is pursuing with all the Asian nations. And they actually believe they are somehow "Asia's leader".

    Last time I check China submitted to UN Commission on Continental Shelf survey around the islands and Japan >objected strenuously. This looks more like Japan is afraid of ICJ than China.

    Sorry Tony Ew but Japan is a signatory to an agreement holding it to accountable for recognizing ICJ decisions. China is not. China with multiple territorial disputes with Vietnam. Philippines, etc has refused to settle them at the ICJ. Japan in fact is the only East Asian nation that has advocated ICJ settlement in a disputre, with South Korea which has refused 3 times. Nice try.

  • -2

    Tony Ew

    @OssanAmerica

    Since you bring up Dokdo and Spraty's, I add a little comment there besides the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island disputes which is what this article is about.

    Boy, I love the internet! Anyone misrepresenting the truth will be exposed including me! OK so let's analyze what is going on.

    Excerpt: Noda also said on Monday that Japan has no intention to use the International Court of Justice to solve tensions with China over islands in the East China Sea. “We are not considering using the ICJ”, and there is no doubt the islands are an integral part of Japanese territory both internationally and historically, he said. http://opiniojuris.org/2012/10/03/japanese-pm-confirms-no-icj-for-senkakusdiaoyu-dispute-with-china/

    Have PM Abe change his position?

    Sorry Tony Ew but Japan is a signatory to an agreement holding it to accountable for recognizing ICJ decisions.

    Did you fact check it comes with ... WITH RESERVATION. One can conclude Japan will study the ICJ rulling and say 'hmm, I don't like this, I don't like that part', so maybe we'll ask for the Diet to vote and see what they say! Of course it is for show and the Diet will vote to reject a negative outcome. Then Japan can say, see, my people have spoken! Nope, we are not going to accept a negative ruling. VERY CLEVER!

    China on the other hand have submitted to UN Commision to rule on the Continental Shelf AND is confident enough to take the NEXT step to submit to ICJ. Japan meanwhile strenuously OBJECT this upcoming findings around August this year. WHY?

    See what I mean? We need SINCERITY and not try to mislead the public by slicing and dicing and directing people's attention to a small subset of the big picture.

    I agree with you that Dokdo Island is probably Japan's but this is a separate issue AND S Korea is playing EXACTLY the same game as Japan is trying to play ON China by first trying to prevent UN Commission to proceed with her findings on the Continental Shelf.

    Vietnam/Philippines disputes with China? Don't go there. It is more convoluted there than you can understand. I repeat. WHAT IS THE BASELINE? Starting point WHEN? Where were the flags on disputed islands to show sovereignty? I never support full possession of those islands by China. I repeat here, it is better to be split half and half or something close to settle those issues without US elephant in the room. See, bilateral negotiations is China's mantra ALL ALONG and the other party just never show up!

  • -1

    sfjp330

    So why don't China settle the matter with the Philippines and Vietnam at the ICJ? Because when China possesses the territory, they have a different view on the merits of international adjudication. Hypocritical? Yes. Surprising? No.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    Tony Ew, it is up to the claimant to bring an action to the ICJ. Japan already controls the islands. Do you expect Japan to take itself to the ICJ? There is no reason that China can give for not taking the Senkaku issue to the ICJ. As for "With Reservations" Every country that has agreed to accept ICJ judgments has done so WITH RESERVATIONS, the United States, UK, EU countries, Australia etc. It's absurd to complain that Japan accepts ICJ judgments with reservations when China hasn't even done that. I am sure you are aware the China's submittal to the UN their view of owning all of Asia based on a Continentatl Shelf aqument has no bearing on the dispute whiuch the UN Commission states "must be settled between the states". And the UN mechanism for that is the ICJ, which China continues to avoid. I summary, you have posed nothing to justify China refusal to go to the ICJ or it's continuous acts of harassment,

  • 2

    nigelboy

    Tony Ew.

    I think you"re confusing the two separate entitity of Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the International Court of Justice.

    As for International Court of Justice, Japan is a signatory of an instrument called Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory in which if the other party had signed the same instrument, they are obliged not only to comply with the jurisdiction of the court, they are bound by the decision as well. That's the whole point of the instrument. And as Ossan and others have allueded, China and South Korea are not signatories to the instrument. One can guess why.

    As for Submitting to Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the commission does not decide territorial disputes. As to disputes involving CLCS, it's heard by International Tribunal for the Law of Sea (ITLOS). In this matter, there was a case last year between Myanmar and Bangladesh in regards to the maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal but the court pretty much decided that the equidistant line would be observed when there is an overlapping EEZ. Hence, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that China won't be able to exercize their rights beyond the median line. (i.e. status quo where equidistant line is observed between mainland China and Senkaku). As a footnote, Japan also submitted their CLCS where last year, 5 out of 8 requests were approved which constitutes about 310K squae kilometers. In other words, CLCS usually benefits to states surrounded by vast amounts of ocean with no other competing claims like Japan in the Pacific Ocean. But then again, signatories to the said charter can contest the review as well as the ruling which both South Korea and China did in regards to ocean territory based in Okinotori Shima (both state that it does not fulfill the requirements under Regime of islands under UNCLOS) but it's funny that both nations are basically doing the same thing with China and their many "rocks and reefs" in South China Sea and Korea with their Socotra Rock.

    Having said that,

    China on the other hand have submitted to UN Commision to rule on the Continental Shelf AND is confident enough to take the NEXT step to submit to ICJ. Japan meanwhile strenuously OBJECT this upcoming findings around August this year. WHY?

    No. Japan objected to China's CLCS application simply because their extension request infringes on Japan's EEZ. Hence, under UNCLOS, when such request overlaps as in this case, the law specifically states that you need a official consent from the other party (meaning Japan which China has not gotten a permission).

    Confident enough to take the Next step to submit to ICJ? Please.

  • -2

    Tony Ew

    @sfjp330

    So why don't China settle the matter with the Philippines and Vietnam at the ICJ? Because when China possesses the territory, they have a different view on the merits of international adjudication. Hypocritical? Yes. Surprising? No.

    No, no surprise here. Just ask S Korea re Dokdo! Just ask Japan Senkaku/Diaoyu . When you have physical possession you think your stick is bigger, so you drag it out until the other party come to her senses and NEGOTIATE BILATERALLY WHICH IS WHAT CHINA HAD BEING SAYING ALL ALONG! WHY IS THIS SO VERY VERY HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND? If China stance is like Japan saying EXPLICTLY 'THERE IS NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE' then you will NEVER have solution to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands disputes. Ditto disputes with Philippines/Vietnam. China NEVER EXPLICTLY says 'nothing to negotiate' with ANY countries in the region. If you are truly a sovereign nation, why drag in US and other countries to negotiate on your behalf? Oh, 'bully' I heard that before. Spineless countries!

    China is WILLING to negotiate with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, KEEP A LOW PROFILE, but Ishihara unravel everything with TOO MUCH PUBLICITY. But Japan stance is 'NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE' how to solve problem? One hand, how to clap?

    China is WILLING to negotiate with Vietnam/Philippines but at some point LAST YEAR, TEACH PHILIPPINES A LESSON FOR ACTING TOO MUCH LIKE A NOISY COWBOY. Vietnam takes UNILATERAL steps in drilling AND invite Russia/Indian/US to drill, so China got fed up and put Sangsha on the Paracels.

    So Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and all other disputes have same pattern. Whoever have physical possession acts more tough to demand more concessions if possible. BUT if the other hand refuses to clap like China asking Japan to negotiate about the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, this is what you get: endless tensions and more in the future.

    I say rewind the clock, go back to 2008 when China and Japan agree on joint oil/gas explorations in the Chunxiao/Shirabaka area and stop reporting Chinese 'dancing at the edge' sea/air violations. THAT will give an atmosphere of normalcy for the countries to move forward. The newspapers are inflaming the situation by reporting small news endlessly making it hard for diplomacy to work. China testing the edges of the islands is NOT like a DEEP PENETRATION so why keep reporting same old news?

  • -1

    sfjp330

    Tony Ew Jan. 31, 2013 - 07:57AM JST So Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and all other disputes have same pattern. Whoever have physical possession acts more tough to demand more concessions if possible. BUT if the other hand refuses to clap like China asking Japan to negotiate about the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, this is what you get: endless tensions and more in the future.

    Japan, for various reasons, including extremely skillful public relations, is almost always treated very favorably in foreign news reports and international conventions. They mastered this art a long time ago. I would not trust any international forum to treat an issue fairly that involved Japan, including the ICJ. Japan is just maintaining that there is not an issue here to discuss. The matter is settled, and they have solid documents to support their possession. If Japan thinks they have better documents, so what? Japan lost the war. They lost Dokdo and the Russian islands. I’m surprised Japan don’t claim Manchuria.

    I’m not sure why Japan won’t go to the ICJ. Japan is very well advised on the strength of its position at international law. Perhaps Japan sees less value in resolving the dispute, even if the outcome is in its favor than in maintaining a “claim” (legal, psychological, etc.) against China, which of course is part of deeper unresolved historical issues.

  • -2

    Tony Ew

    @sfjp330

    That is why I am here to speak the truth. China have a public relation problem given multiple disputes in the China Seas and China bashing in US makes it harder for people to think clearly. Japan always seems to look so unblemished, nice clean country, civilize, good courteous people, polished, China crude, Communist, BUT surface goodness is deceptive people! I don't post on China's behalf but on behalf of PEACE. I am sorry people are blinded but in the end MOTHER EARTH, nobody think MOTHER EARTH should have FIRST PRIORITY? Who knows NUKES may fly, if not now, this SLOW BURN will get out of hand esp when POTUS Obama leave in 2017. I think if Kerry don't reign in his Pivot To Asia, this region may just explode right after he leave office and a new incoming POTUS may just mishandle the whole situation! I see I got so many negative votes here I thought OMG I have won a jackpot! People reading my post just HATES ME and think I am a PLA operative. All I am doing is to be a B/S Detector. I DON'T CARE who win the prize in the end via ICJ. All I want is a peaceful settlement so we can get on with our lives. and avoid a Fukushima/Chernobryl meltdown.The stakes are too high here!

    The current composition of ICJ on quick read looks like 60% tilt towards US/Japan influence. So I think China go slow approach via UN Commision first then later ICJ submission is a very clever way to checkmate Japan. See Japan don't want to negotiate, 'THERE IS NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE' MANTRA while at the same time making superficial gestures of peace. Don't people ever notice or just too biased to accept the facts of Japan double talk? Time is on China's side if she just go slow but as I said elsewhere this Diaoyu/Senkaku really belongs to Taiwan and if China helps Taiwan to have a standing to bring her case to ICJ this will be a very good public relation coup for China from the Taiwanese people. You never know. Politics make strange match ups to happen.

    IT IS INCREDIBLE people CHOOSE to believe Japan have sovereignty. Simple question for them: Why US only give Japan administer rights, not sovereign outright handover huh? There is NOT one word of 'Sovereignty' in the language.

    Excerpt: The 1971 reversion agreement that returned the Ryuikyfis to Japan followed the U.S. Civil Administration's Proclamation 27 in defining those areas that were to be returnedto Japan. In other words, it expressly gave Japan control over the Diaoyu Islands by delimiting them, in an agreed minute, as part of the RyukyuiIsland chain.'33Yet what the U.S. was giving to Japan with one hand, it was taking away with the other. During the Senate ratification hearings for the 1971 reversion treaty, Secretary of State William Rogers asserted "we have made it clear that this treaty does not affect the legal status of those islands at all. Whatever the legal status was prior to the treaty is going to be the legal situation after the treaty comes into effect."'34Robert Starr,Acting Assistant Legal Adviser for East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the State Department, opined that the reversion treaty did not prejudice anyone's claims to the disputed islands. After all, the U.S. could not "add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us nor can the United States by giving back what it received diminish the rights of other claimants."'

    Google The U. S. Role in the Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu ... These words came out from the Secretary Of State representing the US government.

    • Moderator

      Please refrain from posting propaganda ("I am here to speak the truth") and keep your posts short. The purpose of the discussion board is for you to post your views on the topic. You do not have to paste big chunks of material from other sources.

  • -1

    Tony Ew

    @viking68

    Tony, the UN science review and decision is not binding. It will be a review of the science of whether the island is a part of the Chinese continental shelf. The science sounds particularly bad and if the ruling is in favor of China, then all of Japan should also be a part of China. In addition, the "science review" is not the same as a trail at the international court. Japan and the U.S. has suggested to take the matter to the international court, but China is afraid of losing. So, it has opted for a silly non-binding science review to confirm whether or not some arbitrary continental shelf argument applies. Obviously, China doesn't want a serious look at the legal basis for Japan's ownership of the islands.

    I know that. The science is just designed to put pressure on Japan if the findings favor China as she think it will. Whether it is silly science or not is not up to us to say. Leave it up to the experts.

    Next step is to bring this to ICJ and let's see if Japan is really serious about it. Otherwise why Japan objected to China's submission to UN Commission for Continental Shelf review? Even after Japan reluctantly accept a negative ICJ ruling, her 'with reservation' is a ploy to opt out if she lose. You know like if the Diet fail to ratify ICJ ruling, Japan is not obliged. You can bet the Diet is going to object a losing ruling. So of course yeah the ICJ is not binding, back to square one, problem still unresolved, we can see it is just show biz. Of course to be fair if China pull the same crap, we can point the finger at China too for playing the same game!

    I repeat Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands belong to Taiwan because IF after this Continental Shelf is settled in China's favor, the proximity of the islands to Taiwan is the decider that give Taiwan the sovereignty! But China have to find a way to work with Taiwan to let her have standing to submit her case to ICJ first.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • African Speaking Sales manager

    African Speaking Sales manager
    JPC TRADE CO.,LTD. (株式会社JPC)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 ~ ¥450,000 / Month Negotiable Basic Salary + Incentives
  • Recruitment / HR Generalist

    Recruitment / HR Generalist
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Program Assistant

    Program Assistant
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager

    Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager
    Autocom Japan (オートコムジャパン株式会社)、Kanagawa
    Salary: ¥270,000 ~ ¥800,000 / Month Commission Based
  • Interim Administrative Systems Support Lead

    Interim Administrative Systems Support Lead
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ

More in National

View all

View all