Japan's defense paper slams China's maritime claims

I know all sides are using the islands as political pawns. Could they all agree to just leaving them all alone as has been the case for many years until recently. The country that steps up and makes that offer would look bold and proactive to the world and would pass the buck to the other and make them look like the aggressor.

Politics over logic i guess.

Quite right. China was never (at least not after the early 1500's) a maritime nation and so their "historical" claims are farcical. both Japan and China should give the relevant islands or archipelagos their independence.....

@ Kobe

That won't work because both of them claim ownership of the islands. For both of them to agree to leave them alone would mean both of them accepting that they don't own them.

That scenario is about as likely as me finding out that I'm actually the rightful owner.

Why until 1900, Japan refer to the islands around Taiwan with Chinese names? The Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Why suddenly Diaoyu/Senkaku became terra nullius after 1894 when Japan annexed Taiwan and other islands? Clearly, the exercise was to pre-empt any counterclaims by China or to legalize what they were stealing Japan surveyed the islands for 10 years and determined that they were uninhabited. That being the case, in 1895 it erected a sovereignty marker that formally incorporated the islands into Japanese territory.

Before Japan defeated China in 1894, Japan went surveying the islands in the East China Sea. the Chinese named since Ming period as the Diaoyu centuries back. Therefore, in 1884 Japan took an interest on Diaoyu ten years before she defeated China in 1894 in the First Sino-Japanese War. China used it as a marker in its route from Fuzhou to Naha, now in present-day Okinawa, and where occasion demands, its fisherman would seek temporary refuge from the raging sea storms, thus its name Diaoyu means “Fishing Platform.”

It just does not make sense that the Japanese, with nothing to gain, would spend ten years meticulously surveying the islands before 1894. Oil or gas had not been discovered or reported to be around the vicinity for Japan to be interested, at that point of time the need for fossil energy was not critical to Japan. Why would Japan embark on a non-viable survey for ten years to determine without any doubt that Diaoyu was terra nullius? If, as Japan claims, the ten years spent surveying the islands would mean they were likely to encounter Chinese fisherman taking shelter there in a storm and not actually terra nullius, would Japan have accepted that the islands were visited by Chinese fishermen?

Then why Japan did not lay claim to Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands before 1894 the year Japan vanquished Qing China’s navy? Why wait until 1896 after Japan forced an unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki on China in 1895 to pass an imperial decree to make Diaoyu a Japanese territory? Surely it is obvious that Japan had not surveyed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands to verify that it is no man’s land or uninhabited, because Japan could not as Japan knew the islands belong to China.

That accounts why Japan could not claim to discover the islands unless by outright war of conquest, which Japan did in 1894, and issued an imperial decree in 1896 to make Diaoyu a part of the Japanese Empire after the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Thus it would appear to me Japan is disingenuous, as Japan well knew long before her 1894 defeat of China, the Senkaku Islands were named as Diaoyu, a fishing platform for Chinese fishermen to take refuge in storms and route markers. To say Japan surveyed ten years the islands she called Senkaku Islands was a pretence Japan did not hear of the name Diaoyu used by China centuries before Japan called it Senkaku Islands.

The truth is very much lacking from Japan. Now, why terra nullius and not res nullius (a thing that has no owner)? To claim terra nullius is to say no one ever lived there before, and at the point of time, the discovery was made. Thus, having ‘proved’ terra nullius, Japan purported to land in Diaoyu and claims it as a discovery. That was what precisely Japan trying to legitimise their theft and answerable to no one with what is suspiciously a big lie.

I can't explainer better than a example Carl Sagan says “But our energies are directed far more toward war. Hypnotized by mutual mistrust, almost never concerned for the species or the planet, the nations prepare for death. And because what we are doing is so horrifying, we tend not to think of it much. But what we do not consider we are unlikely to put right. Every thinking person fears nuclear war, and every technological state plans for it. Everyone knows it is madness, and every nation has an excuse. There is a dreary chain of causality; The Germans were working on the bomb at the beginning of World War II; so the Americans had to make one first. If the Americans had one, the Soviets had to have one, and then the British, the French, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis …”

Two countries with childish people basically saying to each other: "no it's you, no it's you, no it's you....".

And what a coincidence that this defense paper shows up now when the government has all the difficulties convincing people that it's just ok to violate the constitution in a way that makes look Japan quite good as a contender to join the club of totalitarian countries.

But hey, one can find a common characteristic for both China and Japan. Those two countries like propaganda.

daito_hakJUL. 21, 2015 - 04:27PM JST Two countries with childish people basically saying to each other: "no it's you, no it's you, no it's you....".

No..Who actually defined the ownership of Senkaku/Daioyu islands after WWII? Let me guess U.S.?

@daito_hak

Show me a country that does not have childish people, specially on its government and public organizations.

How to win friends and influence people not. Blind Freddie will tell you that China is the Gorilla in the room. It has territorial disputes with a whole range of parties. Moreover, non-involved parties are rather concerned about its real estate developments in the South China Sea (airfields for those who are less perceptive). However, what is the point of irritating the Chinese by blatantly stating their transgressions in a policy document that has only a small and select readership, a readership that is already more than aware of the implications of Chinese expansionism. It just seems to raise the temperature of debate unnecessarily. Indeed, in recent times with those neighbors with which it has "problems", Japan seems to be upping the ante unnecessarily. Wouldn't it be better to walk softly and carry a big stick rather that publicizing dissatisfaction to all in sundry?

Well my point is not who defined the ownership of whatever. My point is more that we have here two countries (in fact governments) that just keep accusing each other for whatever using the only tool that they know: propaganda to rise people against each other.

HongoTAFEinmate JUL. 21, 2015 - 04:40PM JST It just seems to raise the temperature of debate unnecessarily. Indeed, in recent times with those neighbors with which it has "problems", Japan seems to be upping the ante unnecessarily. Wouldn't it be better to walk softly and carry a big stick rather that publicizing dissatisfaction to all in sundry?

China already confirmed buildup of military forces in nearby Nanji Island within attack range of Japan’s Senkaku/Daioyu islands. Chinese ships and warplanes, as well as unmanned surveillance drones, have been flying close to the islands, prompting numerous Japanese maritime and aerial intercepts.

In possibly the most stupid manoeuvre ever in international strategising China gains a little power and then reveals its geostrategic hand immediately and practically sets most of its neighbours against it. It couldn't even wait to have a decent navy or fuller international backing. Perhaps China thinks its days are numbered and it must get what it can while it can. This seems to be the only explanation for such foolishness.

sfjp Nice dissertation. There are so many other territories around the world that have changed hands far more recently or have been disputed and named in different languages. the ongoing disputes only seem to exisit where countries are trying to create a distraction (eg argentina in Falklands, spain for Gibralter, China and SK in South China Sea)

@Daniel Neagari

Go to travel to Europe, you should find what you are looking for.

And frankly I don’t follow your argument here which I found intellectually limited. What are you saying here? That it’s ok to have two entities with immature people in command of a large military strike force (one of them having a nuclear arsenal)? Sorry the usual argument "it's the same elsewhere" is not convincing at all, moreover being even utterly wrong for this specific topic.

Japan on Tuesday slammed Beijing’s bid to reclaim land in the South China Sea as a “coercive attempt” to force through sweeping maritime claims

JAPAN didn't say this!

This is not Japan's opinion, but Abe and crew just trying to create an atmosphere of tension to justify their attempted hatchet job on the constitution.

No Bertie, it's China and its constant military incursion that is causing the tension.

Nice try but you missed by more than 200 nautical miles.

@sfjp330

Your argue is a highly flawed confusion. It's typical of the type of argument used by the Chinese.

As was pointed out, not only was China not a maritime nation, it's government unfortunately banned and destroyed all ships capable of making blue water voyages, concentrating on its inland waterways instead (rivers and canals).

So, in the first place, your argument might only work if you include Taiwan as being part of China. Good luck with that! (It will never happen).

Therefore it is deeply disingenuous.

The Chinese are also pushing this false construction of a sneaky Japan grabbing them after the war.

It's simply not true.

The problem really lies in China's refusal to adopt international maritime laws, right up to this day. It still sees itself as the centre of the world and refuses to play by the rules.

Japan evolved sooner and quicker and adopted international law ... which developed during the (European) imperial age as a way of resolving territorial and maritime conflicts. Japan adopted international law and played by the rules. It followed those rules to acquire the islands, of which China had no interest, no history of use, no evidence of ever occupying.

Beijing refused to play by the rules, instead thrashing around in the waters, and throwing its toys, like a spoilt single child baby. Its rules are its wills and wants, backed up by a growing threats and intimidations.

The problem with the activists who have swallowed Beijings deliberate confusion and conspiracy stories over the issues is that they have not got a clue about how international law works either. Instead, all they have is a Jackie Chan-like script to work off.

Japan has rightful ownership of the islands under international law for many reasons.

If China refutes that, all it has to do is take the matter to the court. China won't as they know they will lose, so instead they refute the intentional court of justice and other such venues of resolution as American conspiracies. It's a joke.

Japan has to draw the line, defend the Senkaku and bring China to its senses which it is doing with its usual understated politeness. If politeness fails, then the US-Japan alliance would be right to use force - which China will also lose.

The message to the Government of China is simple, any actions that prevent the free movement of global trade to maritime routes through the South China Sea will be challenged in the strongest possible terms. The Global community will take whatever measures collectively that are necessary to maintain free movement.

Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative

http://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/

The message to the Government of China is simple, any actions that prevent the free movement of global trade to maritime routes through the South China Sea will be challenged in the strongest possible terms.

And who is preventing the free movement of global trade?

It is a simple warning if you will to the Government of China, Nessie.

Land reclamation activities in the Spratly Islands that result in the militarization of the South China Sea preventing the free movement of global trade to maritime routes will result measures including punitive economic sanctions and or the use of military force.The economic well-being of communities globally are reliant on these maritime routes. Crystal clarity is necessary. The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative link spells it out clearly.

Well Done Japan. Anyway the actions of China is pre-determined i.e. to control the waters of the South China Sea & to get its hands on the rich raw materials & oil in the disputed waters.

Good they call it paper as it worth only so much given China claims are backed by nukes not spears.

No surprises here from Japan. The US and other allied nations are seeing the exact same picture, a China that lied to us with their "peaceful rise" claim to build itself up economically while building te biggest and mosat non-transparent military in Asia.

@Wakarimasen

China was never (at least not after the early 1500's) a maritime nation and so their "historical" claims are farcical.

The 1500s is pretty old though. Even that era can be used as a historical claim, especially in relation with the other countries they have disputes with. Just to put it in perspective, Guam being part of the US isn't even that old. The US isn't even that old. (This is where usually people make comments about "history doesn't matter, what matters is now").

Slamming, Babling, Military Drills, and Saber-Rattling will get absolutely nowhere folks.

China will just keep pushing forward until the U.N. Security Council votes on a Militarty Resolution to halt ALL of China's activities around the Spratley Islands.

THEN Naval Blockades may be established, but little too late for that since Washington fell asleep at the switch and let China complete the "Island Reclaimation" or for a better sense of the word "Invasion".

And you all have heard China's response - They're not gonna budge now that they are all comfy and cozy on their new islands.

The mistake The Philippines made; was back in the early 1990's when they persisted for the U.S. Military leave The Phillipines.

Mt Pinatubo eruption pretty much sealed the deal, but there was time to offer a alternative base relocation, but we just didn't feel very welcome in the Philippines, and if we still had an active U.S. Military Naval and Airbase like we had in Subic Bay & NAS Cubi Point - The Phillipines wouldn't be having this problem with China on their back doorstep would they?

The Japanse in Okinawa had better take serous consideration before demanding the U.S. Military leave Okinwa because I guarantee Okinawa - it won't be a matter of "IF" but "WHEN" The Communist Incursion will be at their doorstep.

Mister Ed JUL. 21, 2015 - 07:59PM JST Japan has rightful ownership of the islands under international law for many reasons.

False. The U.S. government has never ever given the sovereignty of the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands to Japan. The U.S. merely appointed Japan to administer the islands. Nothing more. It's on the '72 agreement.

Shinzo Abe should not stick his nose in other people’s business. Mr. Abe has no business in the South China Sea. Again, there is no dispute over South China Sea. When Philippine and Vietnam ratified the treaty between Japan and Republic of China, herein after ROC. Both Philippine and Vietnam relinquished their sovereignty over the South China Sea. Mr. Aquino III undoubtedly understand that there is no disputed in South China Sea when Philippines ratified the 1951 San Francisco treaty which in 1952, Japan renounced all right, title and claim to the Spratly and Paracel Islands to the Republic of China (Taiwan), by way of Article 2 of the bilateral Japan–Taiwan (ROC) Treaty of Taipei. This treaty followed — and referenced — the territorial renunciations of the Islands by Japan under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Under this treaty, only China or Taiwan (ROC) has sovereignty over South China Sea. As such any island occupied in South China Sea by Philippine or Vietnam is considered occupying force. It will legally jeopardize for China when occupied forces to bring a suit against lawful a territorial owner of China or Taiwan (ROC).

Who is a real threat to Asian Continent security? Not China and It is the United States and Philippine. Philippines, under Mr. Aquino III whom incited by President Obama’s administration, are more blustering and overbearing behavior against its neighbors. Filipinos usurps American power to bully and harass its neighbors, such as violently attacks or unlawfully and barbarically seizes Taiwanese fishing boats and even invasion and attempts to occupy Malaysia’s island, under the acquiescence their American cohort. If the United States has a strong interest in preservation of peace and security in the South China Sea, then, the United States should not involve in the conflicts.

Jennie PC Chiang江佩珍 07/21/15 美國

Jennie Pc ChiangJUL. 22, 2015 - 04:34AM JST Shinzo Abe should not stick his nose in other people’s business. Mr. Abe has no business in the South China Sea. Again, there is no dispute over South China Sea.

China’s disputes with neighbors over the disposition of minor islands and reefs in East and South China Seas shows how minor real potential for growth in territories the way other powers have in the past. There is a problem of diplomacy from China in the rising tension between China and Philippines over the South China Sea. Your retired Major General Luo Yuan called for China to use force if the Philippines does not leave a disputed reef in the region. Luo said, China “should drive away the ship and reclaim the reef by force,” and he said the methods China could use to do so were “beyond the Philippines’ imagination.” Which means war.

China could start up conflicts with the Philippines if Philippines oversteps the red line of China's bogus definition for any reason, China will strike back regardless of U.S.attitude. Maybe this is the reason Philippines is preparing to pass a new defense budget, featuring a 25 percent increase in spending, partly in response to disputes in the South China Sea. The Philippines are doing their best to draw the U.S. and Japan further into the dispute.

As expected, bashing the neighbors in an attempt to fool the people that “the changes are crucial to counter security concerns in the region,” this is very wicked and low. It has to be Japan which raises the security concerns.

Japan is the only country in the world that has disputes with all of its neighbors while considering China which has so many neighbors is able to solve most of the territorial disputes peacefully. Recently, the buzz words seem to be “changing the status quo by force or coercion;” but have you noticed that China is only responding to someone else’ changing status quo. Look at Japan nationalized the islands while kept saying there is no dispute, China definitely has the right to respond in some way otherwise “the new status quo” would be the norm. China is even late in protecting its own territories and expanding their tiny reclaimed islands, while other countries have occupied the major chunk of the disputed islands building all kinds of facilities and structures on them while nobody saying a word. When China did it, it becomes an attempt to change the status quo, or it is coercion. Don’t you find that ridiculous? Those countries are just like vultures attacking China when it was weak and refusing to leave.

“Beijing’s sky-rocketing military budget,” why do we have to be concerned? China is a huge country which suffered greatly from foreign invasion and intrusion, so it has the right to try to protect itself. China doesn’t even have any military bases outside the country; this point alone shows that China is far from being expansionist or colonialist. Is it because of “opaqueness” that the US and Japan have to conduct routine surveillance over China? But they call it “freedom of navigation,” one should wonder what would happen if China starts to conduct routine surveillance close to the US shores. Japan is building itself to be the number one target by bad-mouthing, bashing, and poking at the neighbours. In the near future when Japan is attacked Abe will be the first to slyly say “I told you so.”

flowersJul. 22, 2015 - 05:14AM JST Japan is the only country in the world that has disputes with all of its neighbors

Japan has no territorial disputes with North Korea or the Philippines. So much for "all of itls neighbors".

while considering China which has so many neighbors is able to solve most of the territorial disputes peacefully

Japan has 4 disputes, all of which are being handled peacefully. China has 17, and some of them not being handled "peacefully" at all.

Look how China's Military "Land Reclaimation" (Invasion) of the South China Sea has rattled their own markets.

Their unilateral actions has triggered Foreign Investors to become too nervous to trust China anymore and they're starting to Bail on China.

China's own Greed & Corruption will soon become their own Worst Enemy and without a Democracy in place to stabilize the populace & keep the Government in Check with a system of Checks & Balances - they'll soon be looking looking for someone to Kingpin and attack.

OssanAmerica, last time I heard North Korea sided with South Korea on the territorial disputes with Japan. Most of the people considering the neighboring countries of Japan to be South Korea, North Korea, Russia and China. Have Japan and Russia concluded their peace treaty? Can Japan get near those disputed islands without being shot at? According to you China has 17 neighboring countries that is quite a big numbers don’t you think? For 70 years after the War Japan still has the same number of territorial disputes that it started off with, but look at China how many disputes that China has resolved, quite a few right? Do you see my point?

flowersJUL. 22, 2015 - 06:51AM JST Have Japan and Russia concluded their peace treaty? For 70 years after the War Japan still has the same number of territorial disputes that it started off with,

Japan could make peace treaty with Russia anytime if they return all four islands. If Russia is correct, why would they offer to return those two islands? They know they're wrong. In 1956, Russia proposed returning the two islands closest to Japan, a deal Japan rejected, in part because the two islands represent only 7% of the land in question. Since then, the dispute has remained unresolved. Japan wants all four islands back.

Japan has territorial dispute with China only since 1972 when U.S. gave administrative rights to Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. U.S. controlled the entire Ryukyu Islands until then. Japan claim no dispute.

@itsonly

It is a simple warning if you will to the Government of China, Nessie. Land reclamation activities in the Spratly Islands that result in the militarization of the South China Sea preventing the free movement of global trade to maritime routes will result measures including punitive economic sanctions and or the use of military force.

So no-one is preventing the free movement of global trade, which is what I asked. Thank you for clarifying that.

sfjp330

False. The U.S. government has never ever given the sovereignty of the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands to Japan. The U.S. merely appointed Japan to administer the islands. Nothing more. It's on the '72 agreement.

A nation namely the US cannot transfer sovereignty of land which they had not possessed in the first place. The only way a nation can claim sovereignty is when a two agrees and ratifies a treaty defining state border(ie. Russia to Japan in 1855 Treaty of Shimoda) or when a state had proclaimed Terra nullius and no nation protests(ie. Senkaku Isles 1895). PRC's protest is 100 years too late I'm afraid.