SDF chief urges early crisis management pact with China

This guy should replace Abe.

@Magnet, unfortunately having a military guy as a leader almost always leads to a dictatorship.

"SDF chief urges early crisis management" for geolological, radiological, asian conflicts, mass unrest, and devine destruction?

@wtfjapan True, but sometimes you get lucky and acquire an Eisenhower

Magnet, unfortunately having a military guy as a leader almost always leads to a dictatorship

Not always the case. Churchill was an officer in the British military, he also held many military type positions throughout his career before becoming Prime Minister. As mentioned Eisenhower was also the Supreme Allied Commander but did not become a dictator after WW2.

Admiral Katsutoshi Kawano, should stick to his day time job, leave politics to the politicians.

@Brian

A tad unfair. Sounds like he merely gave his opinion after being asked to. And what he's saying is precisely that the politicians should get on with their jobs.

Seems a wise bloke.

Just admit that there is a dispute over the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands and be done with it

Christopher GlenDec. 01, 2014 - 05:19PM JST

Just admit that there is a dispute over the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands and be done with it

So, you want to start a war with China? Look at the history of China after WW2. It started armed conflicts with Russia, India and Vietnam, because it has border disputes with the 3 countries and it thinks a border dispute gives it the right to start an armed conflict.

Admitting a dispute that has no other exit than a war is just dangerous.

Admitting a dispute that has no other exit than a war is just dangerous.

So you are assuming that negotiating with China will lead to war? As for border conflicts, I guess that's the nature of things when you border 14 countries. Japan didn't have that problem, but it still initiated the Pacific War which led to the deaths of millions.

@Christopher Glen I don't think admitting there is a dispute is necessary for establishing a hotline.

Christopher GlenDec. 01, 2014 - 08:36PM JST

So you are assuming that negotiating with China will lead to war?

PM Noda proposed settlement through International Court of Justice at the General Assembly of UN in September 2012, right after Japan bought the Japanese property title of the islands from a Japanese citizen. http://japan.kantei.go.jp/noda/statement/201209/26un_e.html

China sent armed ships to the Senkakus as an answer to his proposal. In addition, Chinese government announced that it has no room for compromise on Senkakus. What is the point of "negotiating" with China? Their goal and means are apparent.

I don't think admitting there is a dispute is necessary for establishing a hotline.

No, but it would certainly negate the need to have a hotline in the first place. Actually if this link is to be believed, Abe has recognised there is a dispute. If his right-wing cronies get wind of this, I imagine heads will roll http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/japan-caves-to-china-on-senkaku-island-dispute/

@Christopher Glen

So you are assuming that negotiating with China will lead to war?

He did not say "negotiating' with China will lead to war. However, acknowledging China has a case gives them an undeserved legitimacy, which they can use to partially justify any border fight.

As for border conflicts, I guess that's the nature of things when you border 14 countries.

Oh please, none of those countries are making encroachments on Chinese territory. China simply chose to pick a fight.

Japan didn't have that problem, but it still initiated the Pacific War which led to the deaths of millions.

While Japan's wars did lead to the deaths of millions, to blame her completely for the Pacific War, as opposed to the broader "Greater Asia War" is unobjective and ignores the economic clamp that the West put on Japan. While it is in an attempt to stop the Sino-Japanese War (which is causing the death of the bulk of those "millions"), it did put Japan into a place where it had few really good options. If you take measures to put an opponent in a position where his only options are submission or fight, and he chooses fight, let's not pretend you didn't have a part in making the fight, even if it may have been for the good cause.

No, but it would certainly negate the need to have a hotline in the first place

No it won't. Should Japan ever concede there is a dispute, China would simply ramp up the pressure, trying to get it back.

No, but it would certainly negate the need to have a hotline in the first place. Actually if this link is to be believed, Abe has recognised there is a dispute. If his right-wing cronies get wind of this, I imagine heads will roll http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/japan-caves-to-china-on-senkaku-island-dispute/

It's not to be believed. The end result is this.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/c_m1/cn/page4e_000151.html

China caves to Japan.

CH3CHODec. 02, 2014 - 11:25AM JST PM Noda proposed settlement through International Court of Justice at the General Assembly of UN in September 2012, right after Japan bought the Japanese property title of the islands from a Japanese citizen.

China will not use the ICJ. China is not confident that it will win the case. China is concerned doing so could adversely affect its sovereignty disputes with other Asian countries over islands in the South China Sea.

China is not confident that it will win the case

I'm not sure Japan will either. I seem to recall Japan being given an exit opportunity for whaling with the recent judgement by the ICJ against their "scientific whaling program", which they predictably spurned. Having said that, Abe has recognised there is a dispute. This is all to the good, as it might lead to Japan and China coming to an understanding over the Diaoyu / Senkaku islands. And it's certainly doubtful that the US will aid Japan over a territory which now officially has a sovereignty "dispute".

And it's certainly doubtful that the US will aid Japan over a territory which now officially has a sovereignty "dispute".

"...And let me reiterate that our treaty commitment to Japan’s security is absolute, and Article 5 covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands..."