All Asian Maritime Disputes

In these recent weeks, there has been an increase in the several maritime and territorial disputes in Asia such as that of the Senkaku (as Japan calls them) or Diaoyu (as the PRC and ROC call them) islands.

These disputes have been increasing since there came issues regarding terriorial waters and air space for both China, South Korea and Japan, among many other Asian countries. The Senkaku/Diaoyu islands are claimed by Japan (the islands are currently owned by them), China and Taiwan^note South Korea also had an interest, but not an official claim. Naturally, this generates plenty of tension on all sides of East Asia (and, indirectly, of Southeast Asia).

So, we're here to share news and discuss about all things related to all maritime (and territorial, by extension) disputes in Asia, where many islands are rich in natural resources (including oil, apparently).

Here are a few links on what's been happening (regarding the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands), as well as a few opinion articles:

China imposes airspace restrictions over Japan-controlled Senkaku islands.

Japan and China step up drone race as tension builds over disputed islands.

Japan's PM demands China revoke claim to air zone over disputed islands.

Taiwan's president offers a solution to the problem.

Japan’s Future Marines to Conduct Massive Island Landing Drill.

China monitored US B52 bombers' flight through disputed air defence zone.

Japan and South Korea defy Chinese air defence zone.

I would like to ask for any person who posts here to not engage in nationalistic flame wars, avoid and/or refrain from mentioning World War II and engaging into attitudes like "the Chinese are becoming bullies" or "the Japanese still glorify their militaristic past", and so forth.

edited 10th Apr '15 1:04:04 PM by Quag15

This is a VERY old problem dating back before the so-called "rise of China". I spent my childhood listening to people going "return the Diaoyu Islands!" whenever the Japanese did something provocative (in the sense that they provoke the Chinese) there. Actually good to hear that people are starting to be aware that the islands have a Chinese name (Diaoyu) as well as before people only refer to them as Senkaku.

In some ways I am kind of glad that this had blown out of the water: time to settle this once and for all. For once I hope that the western powers don't interfere (too much) given that this is something that needs to be settled between China, Taiwan and Japan (and maybe Korea, but they seem to be shrugging their shoulders about it- they are more concerned about the airspace itself rather than the islands).

Yeah, solving it without the interference of western powers (unless China, Japan and Taiwan want a mediator/intermediary) would be the recommended thing to do.

Sadly, until then, there will be some escalation and the US will always be involved in one way or another, because of their treaty with Japan.

It's also interesting to point out that this dispute has been highlighted again in a time where Xi Jinping is trying to assert his political capital and achieve a good level of authority, in order to not be swayed by the interests of others, either in the Chinese economy or in the party itself.

On the other hand, Shinzo Abe's rhetoric is a dangerous one and he shouldn't be pushing the territorial waters any further, in order to avoid increasing the tensions or generating actual confrontantions between Japan and China.

edited 29th Nov '13 8:10:55 PM by Quag15

Can I say Too Dumb to Live here? Can I?

Because the effects of 'historical obliviousness' is already taking hold, and they are deadly at that. There -are- people in Japan that don't buy the fact that their country once waged war for the sake of dominance, even though it practically is still a fact. Because of this, there are some right wings who want to play dumb and go with Abe's flow until it's all too late.

I don't know how 'aware' they are, but they are Mugging the Monster that was once their victim.

Japan knows that if they hold the line and provoke China into making the first move, America will be forced to fight for them. Furthermore, they think that China knows that, leading to the current version of the old Cold War brinksmanship.

China, meanwhile, seems to be calculating that America won't intervene if things do go south.

Well, things might also go South in a literal sense, since China is part of the Spratly Islands dispute, along with Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

And many other disputes as well, like in the case of Scarborough Shoal or the Paracel Islands.

I've seen some of the arguments invoked by China in regards to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and I don't know if they're valid (like claiming they belonged to China according to some maps, which is probably as effective as the Pink map.

edited 30th Nov '13 2:58:29 PM by Quag15

Is the UN doing anything?

edited 30th Nov '13 3:02:43 PM by DeviantBraeburn

And in the North, Japan and Russia have a dispute over the Kuril Islands, dating from the end of World War II.

The whole region is a mess when it comes to borders at sea.

edited 30th Nov '13 3:06:06 PM by Greenmantle

Indeed. It will take many years to sort the whole mess out.

China took the dispute there last year, but there's been no reaction since.

Speaking of the UN, here's an article proposing possible measures that Ban Ki-moon could use to solve this dispute.

edited 30th Nov '13 3:12:12 PM by Quag15

Personally I'm a little worried about Taiwan's participation in this matter. A two way stand-off is one thing but a three way stand-off is inherently more complex, especially when two of the parties have as many issues between them as the ROC and PRC. And if Taiwan and Japan clash directly against each other... it may tie the hands of the allies they have in common which would work out in Beijing's favour.

Taiwan is barely recognized, so the problem wouldn't be that. Also, while Taiwan and Japan have some issues, they have had relatively good relations so far (they signed a fisheries resource management agreement in April, in order to solve their fishery demarcation issues).

That being said, things could change. But it would involve actual confrontations between some or all the parties involved in East Asia and Southeast Asia (among other things).

edited 30th Nov '13 3:21:21 PM by Quag15

An advice should be taken here, is that USA has no monetary capacity and moral resources left whatsoever to sortie another unit in the context of war, assistance or otherwise. Because we all know the disputes came from what Imperialist Japan claimed that existed for much longer in their former soils, and right now it's not Imperialist Japan but Republic of Japan.

I'm not surprised that WAiR is going to be used as a nucleus for the JSDF's attempt to do a naval infantry corp. Do note that the unit is based in Western Japan and their main mode of operation is fighting through unconventional warfare should a regional or world war once again occur.

I expect the SDF to be more oriented towards the western part of Japan since originally, they were meant to counter a Soviet/Warsaw Pact-led amphibious invasion through Hokkaido and northern Japan with declassified documents showing that Spetsnaz units did try to practice for the said invasion.

Also expect the Japanese to be a bit more lenient in exporting defense hardware, but don't expect APCs or anti-tank rocket launchers in parts of Asia any time soon.

And yeah, the Philippines and Vietnam are among the few nations that are going to be sucked into the dispute in the Spratlys.

You do know that Japan is still a constitutional monarchy with the Emperor as their Head of State (even if he has less political power than say... Queen Elizabeth II or any of the other remaining European monarchies)?

*implying that Abe didn't ruin things during his recent term* Oh sure, let's blame the almost defunct Emperor, while the National Diet is behind all this.

Bear in mind, the islands were effectively terra nullius until the Japanese formally annexed them in 1895. The Chinese claim is based on the Treaty of Shimonoseki 1895, which transferred "the island of Formosa [Taiwan], together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa (emphasis mine)" to Japanese control, unhelpfully without specifying what those islands were. The Treaty of Shimonoseki and which was reversed in 1945 with the Treaty of San Francisco, returning, again "all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa" to China. The key question being: are the Pinnacle Islands (I'll use the Western name as a neutral term for them) "islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa" for the purposes of the Treaty of San Francisco and thus, are they owed to China under its terms?

I would probably answer that no, the Treaty of San Francisco did not intend to transfer the Pinnacle Islands to China. When trying to determine the construction of any legal instrument - from a contract to an international treary - it is helpful to look at the intentions and subsequent actions of those who drafted them. The two main parties here, China and the United States^note Japan doesn't really count since it had practically no choice in the matter., did not at the time act as if the Pinnacle Islands were Chinese. Post-war, the United States administered them until 1972 as part of their post-war administration of Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands, rather than place them under KMT control like they did with Taiwan and its surrounding islands. For it's part, China did not actually claim the islands until 1971, a year before the US occupation ended and, I imagine not coincidentally, two years after the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, announced that there might be lots of sticky black gold underneath them.

This isn't a case of Japan holding onto imperial possessions past their sell-by date; the Japanese claim is equally as strong as the PRC/ROC claim, if not more so. Personally, I would prefer international arbitration - send the case to the International Court of Justice in the Hague and let them sort it out.

EDIT: Maybe we should change this thread to something about all Asian maritime disputes - there's lots to talk about re: the Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands, and the Liancourt Rocks. The last is disputed between South Korea (which has control) and Japan. The ferry between Korea and the Rocks show this totally not racist video of Korea defending the islands against Japanese invaders with Humongous Mecha.

edited 1st Dec '13 1:47:07 AM by Achaemenid

I'd agree about extending the scope to all disputes on and around the coast of Eastern Asia^note  China/India and the land disagreements around that part of the world probably need to go somewhere else , especially as there are disputes between Malaysia and Indonesia and possibly even between Indonesia and Australia.

According to wikipedia PRC's also used historical maps and records dating back from the 13th century though, and not just the Treaty of Shimonoseki 1895

Discovery does not imply ownership, and there are no signs of actual permanent habitation or a statement of sovereignty, as far as I can see. I would not be surprised if the Japanese can also point to ancient maps of the islands, given their proximity to island chains connecting to Japan; if Leif Ericsson could hop across the northern rim of the Atlantic to the Americas, I'd be extremely surprised if the mediaeval Japanese couldn't reach the Pinnacle Islands via Okinawa, the Ryukyu Islands, and Ishigaki.

Also interesting is that according to Rana Mitter, China recently stopped releasing documents from and allowing access to its old foreign ministry files for historians, leading some to speculate they found something that doesn't support their claim to the Pinnacle Islands.

edited 1st Dec '13 4:14:03 AM by Achaemenid

Fair enough. And looking at the Qing dynasty map the Diaoyu Islands are "tributary states" rather than official territories.

Still, with so much bad blood between Japan and China over the World War II business (plus Abe's rhetoric doesn't help) should the International court found the islands to belong to Japan it will be seen within China as another example of outsiders using legal tricks to bully the Chinese again (they already saw the Western powers doing so with the embassy and diplomatic immunity back during the Qing dynasty).

There's a Chinese and a Japanese judge on the ICJ panel, which could perhaps mitigate that? Of course, the ICJ's rulings are dependent on UN Security Council enforcement, so Japan might not agree, given that China can veto an unpleasant result but Japan cannot (except by asking America to do it for them).

Re: The Pinnacle Islands as "tributary states".

Didn't the Chinese Imperial government consider the entire world to be comprised of Chinese tributary states? That at least was Britain's takeaway from the Macartney Embassy, when Qianlong emperor referred to King George III (and all Britons) as a "barbarian" and ordered him to "tremblingly obey without any tardiness!" King George III had a different opinion.

edited 1st Dec '13 4:40:57 AM by Achaemenid

I was referring to this map◊ on Wikipedia, which is based more than just the Chinese Imperial Court's of view (I think).

edited 1st Dec '13 5:19:48 AM by IraTheSquire

Looks like the air defense zone created by China is creating massive headaches all over Asia. I mean it literally. Even the local front pages are jammed with it.

Well, duh. They are putting a definitive claim on disputed territory. It's basically an invasion.