Despite ongoing efforts to alleviate tensions between China and Japan, the territorial dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is not going away anytime soon. In fact, China recently rolled out a website detailing China’s claim to the islands, complete with historical documents and legal arguments. “Diaoyu Island – China’s Inherent Territory,” a banner at the top of the page proclaims. The site not only contains China’s case for sovereignty, but includes photographs, geographical details, and the Chinese names of each of the islands in question.

The new website includes a statement of China’s “basic position” on the Diaoyu Islands. As the website is currently only available in Chinese, I offer a translation below:

Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands are an inseparable part of China’s territory. Whether viewed from an historical or a legal perspective, Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands are all China’s inherent territory, and China has indisputable sovereignty over them. Before Japan’s so-called “discovery” of Diaoyu Island, China already had administered Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands for a period of several hundred years. In 1895, Japan took advantage of the First Sino-Japanese War to secretly “include” Diaoyu Island in its territory. Japan asserted its sovereignty by declaring Diaoyu Island “terra nullius” [land belonging to no one] prior to Japan’s “initial occupation.” This act by Japan severely violated relevant international laws on the acquisition of territory. It is an illegal act of invasion and occupation of Chinese territory, invalid under international law. Under the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands were ceded to Japan along with Taiwan and its affiliated islands. After World War II, according to legal documents of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands were returned to China. After 1952, the United States unilaterally expanded the [geographical] scope of its “trusteeship,” illegally including China’s Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands. In 1972, the U.S. “returned” to Japan “administrative control” over Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands. This U.S. and Japanese act of privately giving and taking Chinese territory does not have any validity under international law, and China resolutely opposed it. No matter what unilateral measures Japan uses on the Diaoyu Islands, it cannot change the fact that Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands belong to China. The Chinese government’s determination and will to protect the country’s territorial sovereignty is unswerving; China’s determination to defend the fruits of victory in the global war against fascism is unmoving. We have the confidence and the ability to thwart Japan’s moves to trample on historical fact and international legal principles, and to protect regional peace and order.

The site also includes an overview of China’s historical claims to the island, attempting to provide evidence for China’s assertion that it was the first to “discover, name, and exploit Diaoyu Island.” China offers up a 1403 book titled “Voyage With a Tail Wind” (Shun Feng Xiang Song) as the earliest written reference to Diaoyu Island. “This shows that China had already discovered and named Diaoyu Island as early as the 14th and 15th centuries,” the website argues.

More relevant from a modern-day perspective (as knowledge of a geographical location does not imply control), China claims to have actually considered Diaoyu Island part of its jurisdiction. “In the Ming dynasty, China added Diaoyu Island to its defense region in order to guard the southeast coast from Japanese pirates,” the website states, pointing to maps from 1561, 1605, and 1621. Each document mentioned on the site has been uploaded as well, so readers (at least those who can interpret classical Chinese) can judge for themselves.

In all, the new website echoes a longer white paper on the Diaoyu Islands issued by China’s State Council in September 2012, shortly after Japan nationalized the islands. Readers looking for a more thorough rundown of China’s claims should check it out.

Japan, meanwhile, has its own website for the Senkaku Islands, expounding on Tokyo’s claims. “There is no doubt that the Senkaku Islands are clearly an inherent territory of Japan, in light of historical facts and based upon international law,” the website proclaims – essentially the same claim that China makes for itself. As the Chinese website indicates, Japan’s claims are largely based on the idea of terra nullius – that the islands were uninhabited and not under Chinese control when Japan annexed them.

To quote from Japan’s website:

From 1885, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly conducted by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and through other means. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been not only uninhabited but also showed no trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on January 14, 1895, to erect markers on the islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan. These measures were carried out in accordance with the internationally accepted means of duly acquiring territorial sovereignty under international law (occupation of terra nullius).

As part of this claim, Japan argues that none of the historical evidence presented by Beijing (or Taiwan, for that matter) “is valid evidence under international law to support the Chinese assertion of its territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands.” Japan notes that the historical documents that mention the Diaoyu Islands make no explicit mention of Chinese ownership or Chinese control. “[T]he existence of a map in itself does not evidence the assertion of territorial sovereignty,” Japan’s website points out.

Here, it is important to remember that the definition of sovereignty generally accepted in today’s international community has not been constant throughout history. In fact, as Ambassador Chas W. Freeman argues, differing definitions of sovereignty illuminate the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute. As Freeman explains:

Traditional Asian statecraft exercised jurisdiction over people, not places. Places without people were, in this conception, no-man’s lands, belonging to none, but accessible to all.

The notion of sovereignty as it evolved in Europe was quite different. There the governing authorities exercised jurisdiction over territories and assigned them to national ownership whether or not there were people in them…

As in so much else, Japan led the way to change in Asia by adopting the European concept of sovereignty… The first place to which Tokyo applied the un-Asian idea of geography-based state authority was the five islands and three adjacent rocks that make up the Diaoyu Islands. Not having yet embraced the Western idea that a state is defined by its territory rather than by its people, the Qing government of China had not seen a need to establish effective control of the uninhabited Diaoyu Islands. So, following Western legal norms, Japan declared them ‘terra nullius.’

Here is the crux of the Senkaku/Diaoyu question: differing understandings of historical sovereignty. By the Qing dynasty, China was certainly aware of the existence of the Diaoyu Islands – they had Chinese names and were included on Chinese maps, and the area was frequented by Chinese fishermen. But because the idea of sovereignty as we now understand it did not exist, there was little reason for the Qing government to consolidate control of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. Thus the Japanese government in the late 19th century could (and did) claim that the islands were not under Chinese administrative control. Even in the 20th century, control over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (and other uninhabited maritime features) did not become a major issue until the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea codified access to maritime resources based on control of nearby land features.

Today, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island issue has become a complex web of competing historical claims, national pride, and the messy legacies of the First and Second Sino-Japanese Wars. With no resolution in sight, both sides have taken to the court of international public opinion to try and advance their claims — and given the complexity of the question, both sides can legitimately claim to be speaking the truth.

Satellite imagery analysis by IHS Jane’s released on January 22 confirms Japanese media reports last month that China is building a military base on islands near the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

The analysis, which compared images captured from October 2013 to October 2014, shows a heliport with 10 landing pads being built in the center of the main Nanji Island, part of a group of islands that are part of Zhejiang province and are located about 300 kilometers (190 miles) away from the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

However, in contrast to earlier media reports, the analysis shows no signs of an airstrip under construction, only existing radar and communication sites. Jane’s also notes that without an airfield currently in place, the closest one would be at a base in Luqiao 380 km away from the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, which is home to the PLA Navy Air Force’s East Sea Fleet 4th Division, 12th Regiment, which operates Chengdu J-10A fighter aircraft.

On December 22, a widely-cited report from Kyodo News had suggested that Beijing was building a large military base on the Nanji islands to improve China’s readiness to respond to a potential military crisis and strengthen its surveillance over the air defense identification zone it declared in the East China Sea in November 2013.

But that report cited unconfirmed Chinese sources. Japanese officials declined to comment on the specifics of the initial report, while Chinese statements and media reports reacted with the expected nationalistic bluster, charging that Tokyo was being unnecessarily alarmist. While this quiet militarization is consistent with Chinese behavior in other instances in both the East and South China Sea, Jane’s satellite imagery now offers clear, public, visual confirmation that such construction is indeed ongoing.

Japan, meanwhile, is not standing still either. In April, Tokyo announced measures to strengthen its defense and surveillance capabilities with a troop presence and military radar station in Yonaguni, 150 km (93 miles) from the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. It is also developing amphibious forces that will be based in Nagasaki, among other moves under consideration as signaled in its record defense budget disclosed earlier this month.

As both China and Japan engage in such activities, Jane’s concludes that Beijing’s base is a move that risks further escalating the “quiet military buildup” around the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands by the two countries. Despite the famous handshake between Chinese president Xi Jinping and Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting last November, as well as continued talks on developing mechanisms to manage maritime tensions, the silent saber-rattling by both sides has continued to simmer beneath the surface.

Collision Course: The Looming U.S.-China Showdown Over Taiwan

A new crisis in relations between China and Taiwan is likely in the coming months, one that will pose more acute difficulties than in the past for Taiwan’s benefactor, the United States. China is relatively stronger than Taiwan, less inhibited from behaving assertively, and more insistent on attaining its objectives—which include ruling Taiwan. The people of Taiwan, however, are showing signs of evolving toward permanent opposition to political unification with China. Reaffirming U.S. willingness to protect Taiwan from forced unification would put at risk America’s relationship with the world’s second most important country. Abandoning Taiwan to involuntary absorption, however, would signal to the region the end of Pax Americana.

HONG KONG — China summoned India’s ambassador in Beijing to protest Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to a border area claimed by both countries, a reminder that the world’s two most populous countries have yet to resolve vast territorial disputes that have simmered for more than half a century.

On Friday, Mr. Modi visited Arunachal Pradesh, a state in eastern India that borders Tibet to the north, where he opened a new railroad line. A large portion of the Austria-size state is claimed by China, and the two sides fought a border war over the area in 1962.

China viewed Mr. Modi’s visit as an unnecessary provocation, lodging a diplomatic complaint on Friday. On Saturday, the Chinese deputy foreign minister, Liu Zhenmin, called in Ambassador Ashok Kantha, telling the ambassador that the visit “harmed China’s territorial integrity and rights” and “went against the consensus both sides had of properly handling the border issue,” the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

The dispute has its origins a century ago, when British colonial administrators, negotiating with Tibetan officials, set the border between British India and a then-autonomous Tibet at the so-called Mc Mahon Line in the Himalayan mountains. China, which regained control of Tibet in 1950, claims its border lies well to the south of that line.

The diplomatic row over Mr. Modi’s visit comes a month after President Obama visited India. He and Mr. Modi found common ground in their unease at China’s increasing assertiveness in territorial issues that has come with its rise as an economic power.

Mr. Modi wanted to get relations off to a good start with China when he became prime minister last year. But he was infuriated that even as President Xi Jinping of China was visiting India last September, Chinese troops confronted Indian forces in another disputed border area on the other side of the Himalayan range.

Despite the territorial disputes, China has put great effort into developing its ties with India, whose economy offers a huge market for Chinese companies, from telecommunications equipment makers to builders of coal-fired power stations. Mr. Liu, in his remarks to Mr. Kantha, said China “hopes India cherishes the good momentum of the development of bilateral relations.”

Mr. Modi, leader of a right-of-center party that has long advocated a forceful defense of India’s territorial claims, is scheduled to visit Beijing in May. - Michael Forsycthe

(Reuters) - China is building some "fairly amazing submarines" and now has more diesel- and nuclear-powered vessels than the United States, a top U.S. Navy admiral told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, although he said their quality was inferior.

Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for capabilities and resources, told the House Armed Services Committee's seapower subcommittee that China was also expanding the geographic areas of operation for its submarines, and their length of deployment.

For instance, China had carried out three deployments in the Indian Ocean, and had kept vessels out at sea for 95 days, Mulloy said.

"We know they are out experimenting and looking at operating and clearly want to be in this world of advanced submarines," Mulloy told the committee.

U.S. military officials in recent months have grown increasingly vocal about China's military buildup and launched a major push to ensure that U.S. military technology stays ahead of rapid advances by China and Russia.

Mulloy said the quality of China's submarines was lower than those built by the United States, but the size of its undersea fleet had now surpassed that of the U.S. fleet. A spokeswoman said the U.S. Navy had 71 commissioned U.S. submarines.

U.S. submarines are built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.

In its last annual report to Congress about China's military and security developments, the Pentagon said China had 77 principal surface combatant ships, more than 60 submarines, 55 large and medium amphibious ships, and about 85 missile-equipped small combatants.

Mulloy did not provide details about the number of surface ships now operated by China.

He said the U.S. military did not believe China carried nuclear missiles on its submarines, but that it had been producing missiles and testing them.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; editing by Gunna Dickson)

(Reuters) - China is conducting "large scale" land reclamation and construction on a reef in the disputed Spratly Islands, state-backed media reported on Thursday, in an unusual acknowledgement of its controversial work in the region.

Citing satellite images, the semi-official China Military Online said China had officially begun reclamation work on Cuarteron Reef, which is also claimed by the Philippines.

Chinese troops also conducted drills on the reef this month, the online publication said.

China claims most of the potentially energy-rich South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have overlapping claims.

All but Brunei have fortified bases in the Spratlys, which lie roughly 1,300 km (810 miles) from the Chinese mainland but much closer to the Southeast Asian claimants.

Satellite photographs have shown that Chinese reclamation work is advanced on six reefs in the Spratly archipelago.

Workers are building ports and fuel storage depots as well as possibly two airstrips as China works to project its military power into Southeast Asia.

China has rejected diplomatic protests by the Philippines and Vietnam and criticism from the United States over its reclamation on the reefs, saying it falls "within the scope of China's sovereignty".

(Reporting By Megha Rajagopalan; Editing by Robert Birsel)

Chasing Chinese Planes 400 Times a Year Is Wearing Out Japan's Top Guns

(Bloomberg) — Fighter pilot Jun Fukuda sits edgily on the couch in his flight suit, waiting for the call that sends him sprinting to his jet. On any given day, he will chase and warn off Chinese military planes nearing Japanese airspace.

The 35-year-old motorbike enthusiast and soon-to-be father is a captain in the fighter squadron based at Naha, the nearest Japanese base to islets in dispute with China. The single squadron at the Okinawan capital operates in a high-octane environment, scrambled on average more than once a day — a record of more than 400 times in the year through March 2014.