U.S. senators to Chinese ambassador: Senkakus under Japanese control

Japan Times

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of senators sent a letter to the Chinese ambassador to the United States on Thursday that criticizes Beijing’s establishment of an air defense identification zone and recognizes the Senkaku Islands as being under Japanese control.
The four members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including Chairman Robert Menendez, said in the letter to Cui Tiankai that they view the unilateral ADIZ declaration as “an ill-conceived attempt to alter the status quo.”
“China’s declaration of an ADIZ over areas of the East China Sea does not alter the U.S. acknowledgement of Japan’s administrative control over the Senkaku Islands,” the letter said.
The senators include Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the committee.
The senators took the action because of the U.S. government’s strong reaction to the ADIZ, which overlaps similar zones previously set up by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
China is also demanding that all aircraft entering the zone submit flight plans and has cited the possibility of military action.
Washington has said the bilateral security treaty with Japan, under which the United States is required to defend Japan, covers the Senkakus.
“This declaration reinforces the perception that China prefers coercion over rule of law mechanisms to address territorial, sovereignty or jurisdictional issues in the Asia-Pacific,” the letter said.
Given that China is involved in territorial disputes in the South China Sea with countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam, the senators urged Beijing not to implement the ADIZ and to “refrain from taking similar provocative actions elsewhere in the region.”
The Senate unanimously adopted a resolution in July that condemned “the use of coercion, threats or force” in the South China Sea and the East China Sea to assert disputed maritime or territorial claims or alter the status quo.

Read More

China stands to lose in island spat

Threat of backlash if Beijing secures islands by force

By Geoff Dyer in Washington

Two weeks ago, few people had ever heard of an “air defence identification zone”, the Cold War-era set of air regulations that China has decided to put in place across a large stretch of the East China Sea. 

But the obscure rules have become the latest flashpoint in the region’s unresolved historical disputes. 

By the end of the week, Joe Biden's Air Force Two will probably have passed twice through what has suddenly become the world’s most controversial airspace.

The air rules are part of a broader pattern: the steady procession of Chinese pressure tactics to push its claims on Japanese Senkaku islands.

Since around 2008 – and especially over the past year – China has been sending ships to patrol the seas around the islands. 

The air defence zone extends its claim to the skies above.
The long-term Chinese agenda is to exert greater control over the East China Sea and South China Sea and in the process to ease the once-dominant US Navy out of large stretches of the western Pacific. 

China is attempting what aspiring great powers often do: to prevent another country from dominating its own region.
China’s latest move does appear to be driving something of a wedge between Japan and the US. 

Tokyo was heartened when two US B-52 bombers flew across the air zone, calling China’s bluff. 

But to its immense displeasure, Washington has told commercial US airlines to abide by the rules. 

Japan sees the pressure from China as a hot, immediate challenge: for the US, it is a more distant concern, a piece on a geopolitical chessboard. 

Tokyo will always worry that Washington does not quite have its back.
Yet the Chinese tactics are also too clever by half. 

Given Japan’s significant navy, China cannot just simply assert control over the Senkaku – as it was able to do last year with the Scarborough Shoal, an area in the South China Sea which is also disputed by the Philippines. 

If Japan and the US maintain a firm and disciplined position and avoid obvious provocations, the status quo is likely to hold for some time.
Even if China were to muscle control of the Senkaku from Japan, the downsides would outweigh any potential gains. 

The uninhabited islands have become a symbol of competing nationalism and of a great power tug-of-war, but they are of little strategic value and would be difficult to defend.
The diplomatic fallout in the region would be immense. 

Beijing would like to isolate Japan in Asia, scaring off other nations with warnings about its second world war revisionism. 

But such a move would end up engineering strong regional support for Japan. 

Even South Korea, the one country that shares Beijing’s reservations of the Japanese government, has been outraged by the Chinese air zone.
Most of all, Beijing would secure the enmity of the second-biggest economy in the region for generations. China, whose own economy depends on an open trading system, seems to think that its tough approach will eventually oblige Japan to respect its designs for the region. 

But the likely result is one of two very different options: either a substantial beefing-up of the US-Japan alliance or a major shift in Japan towards greater defence muscle, including even the possibility of a nuclear bomb. 

Beijing warns constantly about the revival of Japanese militarism, which is still a long way off. Yet it is creating the conditions for its revival.

All of this raises questions about what sort of endgame China really has in mind. 

In a recent speech in Beijing, Paul Keating, former Australian prime minister, laid out the dilemma China faces. 

“There can be no stable and peaceful order in Asia unless Japan is, and feels itself to be, secure,” he said.
If Beijing really wants to shape the next century in Asia at the expense of the US, it will need friends and allies to advance its priorities and to push its agenda. 

Instead, if it steps up efforts to coerce its neighbours, China is setting itself up to be a very lonely great power.

Read More

Island spat dulls appeal of China as production base for Japan firms

A man walks on a pathway next to a building in Tokyo's business district September 30, 2013.
TOKYO (Reuters) -- A territorial dispute and rising labor costs have dulled the appeal of China as a production base for Japanese manufacturers, with Indonesia, India and Thailand more attractive, an annual survey by the Japan Bank of International Cooperation showed Wednesday.
China dropped to fourth place in a survey it has topped since it began in 1992, with the proportion of companies naming it the most promising region over the next three years falling to 37.5 percent from 62.1 percent last year.
State-owned JBIC, which provides loans to help Japanese companies expand overseas, in July-September surveyed 625 firms which have three or more overseas affiliates, including at least one production base outside of Japan.
Sino-Japanese relations have worsened since the survey after China established an air defense zone in the East China Sea covering islands controlled by Japan but claimed by China.
Most companies in the survey, 77 percent, cited rising labor costs as a concern for manufacturing operations in China. 

Almost a third said they were also worried about security and social instability there.
A consumer boycott of Japanese goods in China following anti-Japanese riots last year hurt income from Asia's largest economy, making China a less profitable source of income than India and Europe, JBIC said.

Read More

China's ADIZ undermines regional stability

By Bonnie S Glaser

China established an "East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)" effective as of 10 am on November 23. 

China's Ministry of National Defense also announced Aircraft Identification Rules for the ADIZ, which include a warning that "defensive emergency measures" would be adopted to respond to aircraft that refuse to follow the instructions.
The zone overlaps the existing ADIZ of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. China's ADIZ also covers the Japanese Senkaku Islands.

One day following the announcement, China conducted two aerial patrols over the area; its aircraft were intercepted by Japan Air Self Defense Force (ASDF) fighter jets.
All nations have the right to establish reasonable conditions of entry into their territory. 

An ADIZ is a declaration of a perimeter within which unidentified aircraft can be intercepted and prevented from illegally proceeding to enter national airspace. 

It serves essentially as a national defense boundary for aerial incursions. 

There are no international rules or laws that determine the size of an ADIZ. 

Over 20 nations have an ADIZ, including the United States, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Taiwan in the West Pacific. 

ADIZs typically are much more extensive then a country's territorial airspace.
Why did China establish an ADIZ? 

China's PLA spokesman claimed that its action is "a necessary measure taken by China in exercising its self-defense right," and that "it is not directed against any specific country or target." 

However, the decision to declare an East China Sea ADIZ is likely aimed at strengthening Beijing's claim over the Japanese islands in the East China Sea. 

This move follows on China's September 2012 submission to the United Nations of baselines to demarcate a territorial sea around the islands.
China may also be responding to recent Japanese warnings that it reserves the right to shoot down unmanned drones that pose a threat to Japanese airspace. 

By creating an ADIZ that includes the Senkaku Islands, Beijing may believe it has established a basis for challenging and, if necessary, taking action against Japanese aircraft operating in this zone. 

The ADIZ may also signal a Chinese intention to increase flights in the territorial airspace around the disputed islands as a demonstration of its sovereignty and jurisdictional claim. 

China has only flown an aircraft in the territorial airspace around the island once, in February 2013, when a civilian maritime surveillance Y-12 aircraft entered the airspace.
Beijing may also seek to collect and publish data on the number of times that Chinese jets scramble to intercept Japanese fighters that enter into its ADIZ. 

Japan already publishes data on "intrusions" by Chinese and Russian aircraft; China may see benefits in demonstrating to its domestic audience that the party and military are doing their utmost to defend Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity.
China's action exacerbates tensions in ongoing disputes and creating friction in the region where none or little existed. 

It further increases tension in the territorial row between China and Japan at a time when that bilateral relationship is already severely strained. 

Moreover, it heightens the risk of an accident. 

There is a very large overlap between China's ADIZ and Japan's ADIZ. 

When aircraft from either country fly in this overlapping area, the other side is likely to scramble fighters and intercept the intruder. 

If intercepts are not conducted safely and in accordance with international norms, a collision is possible. Recall that in 2001 a Chinese fighter jet that was conducting aggressive intercepts collided with a US surveillance plane, which resulted in the Chinese pilot's death, the forced landing of the US EP-3 on Hainan island where its 24-member crew was held for 11 days, and a crisis in US-China relations.
China's ADIZ also encompasses portions of Ieodo Island and Jeju Island, which are part of South Korea, and overlaps with the Korean ADIZ in a wide swath that is 20 kilometers wide and 115 km long. 

The South Korean government expressed its regret about the Chinese government's decision. 

The newly announced ADIZ also overlaps with Taiwan's ADIZ, prompting the government in Taipei to issue a statement that included a pledge that Taiwan's armed forces would ensure the safety of the country's airspace, and urged all parties to "avoid actions that could escalate confrontation in the region."
Moreover, China's Aircraft Identification Rules make no distinction between aircraft flying parallel with China's coastline through the ADIZ and those flying toward China's territorial airspace. 

Secretary of State Kerry highlighted this issue in his statement, saying that the US "does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter US national airspace," implying that the US would not recognize China's claimed right to take action against aircraft that are not intending to enter its national airspace. 

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stated that the US would not change the way it conducts military operations in the region.
Some Chinese may believe that aggressive intercepts against a Japanese aircraft in air space near the Senkakus would not provoke a US response since Washington is neutral on the issue of sovereignty over the islands. 

Secretary Hagel's statement reaffirming that Article V of the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the disputed islands is important in this regard and should prevent Chinese miscalculation.
At one fell swoop, Beijing's ADIZ decision has injected new problems into its ties with South Korea, Taiwan and the US, further soured relations with Japan, and frightened smaller nations in Southeast Asia. 

It appears that Xi Jinping, who by all accounts has emerged stronger from the recently held Chinese Communist Party Third Plenum, is willing to fan the flames of nationalism so he can ensure the party's popularity as he tackles economic reform at home.

Read More

Low Profile

China aircraft carrier 'avoids' Senkakus en route to training
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

BEIJING--China’s first aircraft carrier steered clear of the Senkaku Islands now under the country’s newly designated air defense zone on the way to its maiden exercise in the high seas.
The 67,000-ton Liaoning left its home port of Qingdao, Shandong province, on Nov. 26, and entered the South China Sea through the Taiwan Strait on Nov. 28, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency.
Observers were watching whether the ship would travel along the Chinese continent and through the Taiwan Strait or head for the Pacific Ocean across waters around Okinawa Prefecture.
If the Liaoning had passed near the Senkakus, administered by Japan as part of Okinawa, it could have fueled tensions with Tokyo and Washington.
Four warships are accompanying the aircraft carrier for an extended exercise in the South China Sea, where China has territorial disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines.
“(The Liaoning’s route) has nothing to do with the regional situation,” Chinese defense ministry spokesman Yang Yujun told a news conference Nov. 28. 

“We ask you not to overstretch (the meaning of the route).”
Beijing’s designation of an air defense zone in the East China Sea on Nov. 23 has drawn sharp criticism from Tokyo and Washington as a unilateral attempt to undo the status quo.
U.S. bombers on Nov. 26 flew through China’s Air Defense Identification Zone without giving advance notice demanded by Chinese authorities.
According to Taiwan’s defense ministry, the Liaoning did not cross the median line between China and Taiwan when it navigated through the Taiwan Strait.

Read More

Air Defence Farce

After Challenges, China Backpedals on Air Zone
By JANE PERLEZ

Protecting the Senkakus

BEIJING — China has permitted rare street protests and sent armadas of fishing boats to show its growing national interest in a small string of islands in the East China Sea.

Earlier this year, the Chinese military locked its radar on a Japanese navy vessel.
Each step seemed like a measured escalation in the long-running territorial dispute, intended to press Japan to negotiate over jurisdiction of the islands. 

But they also seemed calibrated to avoid a sharp international backlash — or to raise expectations too high at home.
But by imposing a new air defense zone over the islands last weekend, Beijing has miscalculated. 

It provoked a quick, pointed challenge from the United States, set off alarm bells among Asian neighbors and created a frenzy of nationalist expression inside China on hopes that the new leadership team in Beijing would push for a decisive resolution of the longstanding dispute.
On Wednesday, after the Pentagon sent two B-52 bombers defiantly cruising around China’s new air defense zone for more than two hours, Beijing appeared to backpedal. 

The overflights went unchallenged, and some civilian airlines ignored China’s new assertion of air rights.
“We will make corresponding responses according to different situations and how big the threat is,” the spokesman at the Foreign Ministry, Qin Gang, said when asked about China’s lack of enforcement against the American planes.
Under President Xi Jinping, China has suggested that it intends to make a more robust defense of its national interests, including in maritime disputes, to match its rising economic and military power. 

But even some Chinese analysts say they wonder if the new leadership team fully anticipated the response to the latest assertion of rights — or had in mind a clear Plan B if it met with strong resistance.
“I believe Xi Jinping and his associates must have predicted the substance of this reaction; whether they underestimated the details of the reaction, I’m not sure,” said Shi Yinhong, an occasional adviser to the government and a professor of international relations at Renmin University.
China does appear determined to escalate the issue of the uninhabited Senkaku islands, as a way of forcing the Japanese to negotiate and give up control of territory that has symbolic and strategic value for both countries. 

In the long term, China has not tried to disguise its goal of weakening the alliance between the United States and Japan and supplanting the United States as the dominant naval power in the Western Pacific.
Beijing is especially frustrated that its previous, more cautious steps to convince Japan of the seriousness of its claim to the islands have not prompted Japan, which administers them, to negotiate in earnest.

But if China has been trying to drive a wedge between Washington and the Japanese government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, their strategy seems to have backfired, at least for now.
The United States had for months seemed reluctant to get involved or take sides in a dispute that carries so much emotional weight for China. 

And the Obama administration dodged requests by Japanese leaders to take a clearer stance in their favor.
That hesitation seems to have largely vanished since China pronounced it was expanding its hold on the region’s airspace.
With the flyover by the B-52s, the United States has shown it is more willing to work with Japan in opposing China’s efforts to unilaterally force a change in the status quo, even if the United States still takes a neutral stance in the islands dispute itself.

Hours after China declared its new air zone, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reaffirmed that the United States would stand by its security treaty obligations to aid Japan if it was attacked.
Since Saturday, Japanese leaders have publicly emphasized the close coordination with Washington — largely to reassure their own population, which has felt growing anxiety over China’s increasingly assertive stance.
On Wednesday in Tokyo, the defense minister, Itsunori Onodera, pledged in a phone call with Mr. Hagel to work closely with the United States military by sharing information and coordinating in the surveillance of Chinese activities in the East China Sea, Japan’s Defense Ministry said.
The new United States ambassador to Japan, Caroline Kennedy, said in her first speech since assuming her post, broadcast around the world on CNN, that China’s creation of the air defense zone “only serves to increase tensions in the region.”
The Chinese action also stirred the first official negative comments about China in South Korea since President Park Geun-hye took office this year and forged a closer relationship with Beijing. 

The coordinates of the air defense zone announced by China overlap with South Korea’s own air defense zone in some places and appear created to give China an edge in a separate maritime territorial dispute with South Korea.
“We see competition and conflict in the region deepening,” South Korea’s foreign minister, Yun Byung-se, said Wednesday. 

“Things can take a dramatic turn for the worse if territorial conflicts and historical issues are merged with nationalism.”
The announcement of the air defense zone may also have created problems at home for the leadership in China, where there are expectations among an increasingly nationalist population that the country can live up to its promise of standing up to Japan.
On Chinese social media, a barrage of commentary congratulated the government on the new air defense zone and warned that Beijing should make good on threats by the Defense Ministry that aircraft give notification or face military action.
“If the Chinese military doesn’t do anything about aircraft that don’t obey the commands to identify themselves in the zone, it will face international ridicule,” wrote Ni Fangliu, a historian and an investigative journalist, on his microblog, which has more than two million followers.
The Liberation Army Daily, the official newspaper of China’s military, said in a commentary published before the Chinese government acknowledged the B-52 flights that without strong enforcement, the zone would be just “armchair strategy.”
Despite the risks, Mr. Shi, the government adviser, said that proclaiming the air defense zone was important because it represented China’s first effort to expand its strategic space beyond offshore waters since the establishment of Communist China in 1949.
The response by the United States, he said, amounted to “a negative development for a strong great-power relationship” that China sought between the United States and China.

Read More

Getting Senkaku History Right

Chinese claims to sovereignty over the Senkaku islands don’t hold up well under scrutiny
By Tadashi Ikeda

East Asia this year has been marked by rising tensions over the Senkaku Islands.
As has been widely reported, China has dispatched government patrol and surveillance ships to intrude into Japan’s territorial waters off the islands, which lie in the East China Sea.
Meanwhile, Beijing’s rhetoric has been more heated.
In April, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson appeared to indicate that the Chinese government regarded the Senkaku Island issue as a core interest for China.
This was the first government use of a term normally reserved for highly sensitive Chinese political concerns such as Taiwan, Tibet and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
And in recent days, China has made the very provocative decision to establish an air defense zone that encompasses the Senkaku skies.
With concerns rising that the situation could spiral out of control, it seems worth reviewing the facts regarding the sovereignty of the Senkaku and the options available for a sensible resolution to the issue.

Unfounded Assertions
Ever since it incorporated the Senkaku Islands into Japanese territory through a Cabinet decision in 1895, the Japanese government has consistently taken the position that the islands are an integral part of the territory of Japan.
This stance accords with both international law and the historical facts.
The Senkaku have consistently been under Japan’s effective control, except for a period (from 1945 to 1972) when the islands were placed under the administration of the United States as part of Okinawa prefecture.
Before 1971, neither China nor Taiwan made any claims to “territorial sovereignty” over the Senkaku Islands.
For 76 years, neither government expressed any objection to Japanese sovereignty over the islands.
Why the change in position?
In the late 1960s, a UN agency, the Bangkok-based Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE), surveyed the waters around the Senkaku.
The survey suggested potentially rich deposits of oil beneath the seabed.
After the ECAFE released its findings, in 1971, the Republic of China (Taiwan) made its first territorial claim to the islands.
Several months later the People’s Republic of China followed suit.
So, let’s review the history of the issue more carefully.
For ten years starting 1885, Japan conducted field surveys on the Senkaku Islands, scrupulously confirming that the islands had never been inhabited and showed no traces of having been under the control of China’s Qing Dynasty.
Based on this research, the Japanese government decided in January 1895 to erect national territorial markers on the islands, officially incorporating the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan.
This administrative action was consistent with international law, namely the internationally accepted legal theory of terra nullius (land belonging to no one) concerning the rights of acquisition through occupation.

The Historical Record
As the record shows, Japanese inhabited the Senkaku from 1895 until immediately before the start of World War II. Japanese people sometimes lived on the islands to harvest albatross feathers.
During another period, a factory was built to process dried bonito.
The population of one of the islands, Uotsuri, topped 200 at one point.
In 1920, residents of Ishigaki Island, which was under the jurisdiction of Okinawa prefecture, rescued Chinese fishermen caught in a storm in waters near the Senkaku.
The Consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki sent a signed and sealed letter of appreciation for the rescue in the area of “the Senkaku Islands in the Yaeyama District of the Japanese Empire’s Okinawa Prefecture.”
The letter cited the names of the residents of Ishigaki Island, whom the consul noted “were willing and generous in the rescue operation.”
Just over three years after the People’s Republic of China’s birth, a January 8, 1953 article in the People’s Daily, an organ of the Communist Party of China had the Senkaku as Japanese territory.
A World Atlas published in China in 1960 showed the islands as part of Japan.
According to notes taken at meetings of the Chinese government around 1950, copies of which were recently obtained exclusively by the Jiji Press news agency, Chinese government officials were using the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands,” indicating that they considered the Senkaku part of Okinawa prefecture.
When Okinawa prefecture was provisionally placed under U.S. administration in 1945, the U.S. military used some of the Senkaku Islands as firing and bombing ranges.
With the reversion of Okinawa to Japanese rule in 1972, the Senkaku returned to Japan, as part of the prefecture.
The U.S. has clearly and repeatedly stated the Senkaku are “within the range of application” of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
China argues that Japan stole the Senkaku Islands during the Sino-Japanese war, from August 1894 to April 1895.
The claim suggests Japan “usurped” the islands using the turmoil of war as an excuse.
But in making that assertion, China deliberately ignores two key facts:
(1) Over a period of at least 10 years before the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, the evidence showed that the Senkaku were terra nullius, and not under the control of China’s Qing Dynasty; and
(2) Japan incorporated the islands into its sovereign territory using procedures in accordance with international law, prior to the conclusion of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which ended the Sino-Japanese War.
Under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed in April 1895, the Qing Dynasty ceded Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands to Japan.
No mention was made of the Senkaku Islands.
There is no record of any discussions taking place on the Senkaku in the bilateral negotiations on the treaty. The incorporation of the Senkaku into Japan’s territory by exercising its rights of “acquisition through occupation” based on the legal principle of terra nullius was carried out three months before the Treaty of Shimonoseki was concluded.
During the 50-year period from 1895 to 1945, when Japan ruled both Taiwan and the Pescadores under the jurisdiction of the Governor-General of Taiwan (Formosa), the Senkaku Islands were under the jurisdiction of the Okinawa prefectural government as part of the prefecture’s Nansei Islands, a chain of islands extending from southwestern Kyushu to waters north of Taiwan.
Administrative jurisdiction over the Senkaku was entirely separate from the administration of Taiwan and the Pescadores.
Searching for options, the Chinese government has recently begun quoting the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Declaration as evidence of its claims.
Beijing argues that Japan’s acceptance of these declarations means that it agreed to return the Senkaku to China (the Republic of China) along with Taiwan and the Pescadores as “islands appertaining to Taiwan.”
To be sure, the Cairo Declaration obliged Japan “to restore to the Republic of China all the territories Japan has stolen from the Qing Dynasty of China such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores.”
Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration stipulated, “The Cairo Declaration shall be implemented.”
However, there is no evidence that shows that the Allied powers, including the Republic of China, recognized the Senkaku Islands as among “the islands appertaining to Formosa.”
The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed in September 1951, defined the territory of Japan after the war: Article 2 (b) of the treaty stipulated that Japan renounced territorial sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores, which the treaty said had been ceded by China to Japan after the Sino-Japanese War. However, the Senkaku Islands were not included “in the islands appertaining to Formosa” in the treaty.
Had the Senkaku, at that time, been recognized as “islands appertaining to Taiwan,” the U.S. would not have placed the Senkaku under its administration as part of Okinawa prefecture.
In this respect, China’s claims are without legal foundation.

No Agreement on “Shelving”
The term of “shelving” an issue refers to the acknowledgement by two parties that an issue exists, and the agreement to postpone resolution to a future date.
Japan and China never agreed to “shelve” any issue related to the territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands.
Documents recently released by Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs make this clear.
At the time of negotiations between Japan and China in 1972 to normalize diplomatic relations, Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai briefly exchanged words on the Senkaku Islands.
One document quotes Tanaka as asking Zhou: “What is your view on the Senkaku Islands? Some people say things about them to me.”
The exchange ended abruptly with Zhou’s response: “I do not want to talk about it this time. If there wasn’t oil, neither Taiwan nor the United States would make this an issue.”
That is the entire exchange, and it simply cannot be equated with an argument in favor of shelving the issue.
The record also reveals what Chinese Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping said about the Senkaku Islands in 1978 to then Japanese Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda.
Deng was visiting Japan for an exchange of instruments ratifying the Japan-China Treaty of Peace and Friendship.
During his meeting with Fukuda, Deng said, “There’s no need to raise subjects like this [the issue of what is called the Diaoyu in China and the Senkaku Islands in Japan] at a meeting like this.”
Deng also said: “There’s probably insufficient wisdom to resolve this issue in our generation, but with the next generation likely to be wiser than us, they will probably be able to find some resolution to the issue.”
Fukuda made no response.
At a press conference on the day he met with Fukuda, Deng reiterated his desire to leave a solution to the Senkaku problem to the next generation, as “people of our generation don’t have sufficient wisdom to settle this problem… Even if this means the issue is temporarily shelved, I don’t think I mind. I don’t mind if it’s shelved for 10 years,” Deng added.
As these records show, there was never any recognition that a territorial or sovereignty problem existed between Japan and China or that an accord or agreement to shelve the matter existed.
Although Deng’s remarks were carefully and skillfully phrased at the press conference, he was merely offering his own opinion.

Tokyo’s Position
The Japanese government has consistently maintained that the Senkaku Islands are under the valid control of Japan as an integral part of its territory and therefore no issue of territorial sovereignty exists.
This is obvious from remarks made by then Foreign Minister Kiichi Miyazawa in October 1975.
During deliberations in Japan’s parliament on the Japan-China Peace and Friendship Treaty negotiations, the foreign minister asserted, “It can never be said the Japan-China negotiations are being conducted under the assumption of a so-called shelving [of matters related to the Senkaku].”
Miyazawa added, “Ever since the 28th year of the Meiji era (1895), the Senkaku Islands have been part of Japan’s integral territory and they in fact have been under our country’s valid rights of administration.”
Since then, the Japanese government has been consistent in its position that “shelving” the issue is out of the question.
In April 1992, 14 years after Deng Xiaoping held his press conference in Japan, China unilaterally enacted a domestic law, the Law on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone of the People’s Republic of China,under which it incorporated the Senkaku Islands into its own territory.
The Japanese government immediately issued a strong protest at the act, which in fact contradicts China insistence it was “shelving” the Senkaku issue.
Japan, for its part, should demand that China amend or abolish the law before agreeing to a discussion on “shelving” the Senkaku sovereignty issue.
Beijing also maintains that proof of China’s sovereignty over the Senkaku can be found in descriptions of the islands in old documents from the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty.
It says it named the islands.
These assertions, however, are attributable mostly to China’s ancient notion of Sinocentrism in an age of nominal suzerain-tributary relationships between the Chinese Empire, which claimed to be cultural center of the world, and other nations.
At that time imperial titles were given by Chinese dynasties to “barbarian” tributary states. This thinking has been superseded by modern international law.
Taiwan is also referred to as Formosa, a derivation from the Portuguese Ilha Formosa, meaning “beautiful island.” Does that mean Taiwan should be Portuguese territory?
Extending this false notion of Sinocentrism, it could be argued that Okinawa (the Ryukyu Archipelago), which once paid tribute to both Japan and China, was “part of the sovereign territory of China.”
News reports this year have a high-ranking Chinese government official suggesting China could claim sovereignty over Okinawa.
Subsequently, the Global Times, the People’s Daily’s international version, argued in an editorial in May 2013 that the territorial status of Okinawa remained undecided.

Agreement with Taiwan
Taiwan’s position on the Senkaku is similar to that of the People’s Republic of China.
It asserts the islands were Chinese territory since the Ming and Qing dynasties.
Nevertheless, when the People’s Republic of China called on Taiwan recently to join hands with it in dealing with Japan “on the basis of defending Chinese sovereignty” over the Senkaku, Taipei refused.
As it turns out, Taiwan is mainly worried about fishing.
Although Tokyo and Taipei have met more than 15 times since the mid 1990s to negotiate fisheries rights, divisions remained, with Japan placing priority on the Japan-Taiwan median line and Taiwan demanding its traditional fishing grounds.
In 2008, when I was chief Japanese representative to Taiwan, a Japan Coast Guard patrol boat rammed and sank a Taiwan fishing boat near the Senkaku.
In the wake of this incident, anti-Japanese sentiment surged, albeit temporarily, in Taiwan.
That experience made me all the more aware of the importance of the fisheries problem between Japan and Taiwan and the need to resolve them at the earliest possible time.
In April of this year, after long and careful preparation, Japan and Taiwan signed a fisheries agreement.
This was a groundbreaking event that deepens friendly Japan-Taiwan relations and is a positive development on the Senkaku sovereignty issue.
Separating fisheries negotiations from any territorial question has proved useful.
China, which regards Taiwan as part of its territory, objected to the Japan-Taiwan accord.
Despite the fisheries accord, it seems that the Taiwan government authorities will continue to make claims to the Senkaku in a way unique to Taiwan, although pressure from Taiwan fishermen to deal firmly with Japan will likely ease.

Could the ICJ Help?
One option on the Senkaku issue would be to seek arbitration by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Since Japan is certain of the legitimacy of its sovereignty over the Senkaku, it would be pointless for it to lodge any claim.
But if China did so, and agreed to accept whatever ruling was handed down, Japan might also think it beneficial to defer to the ICJ, demonstrating that it is ready to abide by internationally accepted rules.
Both Japan and China would have to be prepared to run the risks inherent in such a decision.
However, if China complied with an ICJ ruling on the Senkaku, Beijing could be inundated with calls to accept ICJ rulings on other “core interests,” including Taiwan, Tibet, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and even the South China Sea.
Given that, it seems highly unlikely that China would run the risk of an adverse ICJ ruling.
For Japan, deferring to the ICJ carries the risk of having the legitimacy of its sovereignty over the Senkaku decided by a third party.
Would all 15 ICJ judges be well versed in Japan’s assertions?
In a territorial dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua over a group of islands, the ICJ recently handed down a ruling that split the islands between the two countries.
Colombia relinquished its ICJ affiliation in protest.
If it were to agree to ICJ arbitration, Japan would have to be prepared to face a similar situation.
Personally, I see no need for Japan to run such a risk in light of this country’s extremely well laid-out position both in terms of legality and historical facts.
Japan should continue to hold to the position that it has maintained for more than 100 years.
Compromising on territorial integrity and sovereignty could open the door to more challenges.

What Will China Do? 
Any improvement in China-Japan relations should be welcome. Both countries refer to it as “a strategic relationship of mutual interest.”
Needless to say, Japan and China should maintain dialogues and exchanges and use compromise where possible to contain tensions.    
That does not mean, however, rushing to compromise at the expense of a nation’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Japan wants China to act as a responsible Asian power and to play a constructive role by adopting a policy of international cooperation.
This is roughly what Americans have in mind when they call for a “China as a responsible international stakeholder.”
Will China adopt a policy of international cooperation or will it pursue a hegemonic path that uses its military strength to flout international law?
In light of recent events in the East China and the South China Seas, it seems clear that China has superpower status in mind.
China’s defense outlays – those that have been made public – have consistently risen at a double-digit clip over the past two decades.
Article II of the 1978 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China stipulates, that “Neither of the two countries should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony.”
Is this stipulation still valid or has it become a remnant of the Cold War?
Japan and China should have a candid exchange of views on this point.
While Deng Xiaoping’s remarks proposing the shelving of the Senkaku sovereignty issue are widely known, few people are aware that Deng made a statement to the effect that Japan should object if and when China began to show signs in the future of seeking hegemony.
This brings to mind a 1980s statement by the chief of the general staff Wu Xiuquan of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, who said – probably in reference to China’s military tensions with the then Soviet Union at the time – that Japan should spend at least 2 percent of its gross national product on its defense, double Japan’s actual defense spending at the time.
As China’s economic growth slows, it is likely to face social unrest over wealth disparities, corruption, environmental issues and human rights.
There is an obvious temptation for the government to distract from these issues by casting Japan as a “villain.”
On the Senkaku issue, Beijing has been making outrageous claims implying that Japan is going to ruin “the postwar peace order.”
It has been trying to link today’s Japan with its 1940s version, as exemplified by a statement by Premier Li Keqiang that China will “never accept any comments or actions that seek to deny or glorify the history of fascist aggression.”
China’s moves are mainly designed to hold Japan in check while at the same time trying to drive a wedge between Japan and the United States.
China’s rigid diplomatic stance today is likely to remain unchanged at least for the immediate future, particularly given the domestic problems it faces.
Japan should maintain the position that it is always ready to talk with China about any issue without condition.
At the same time, Japan should bolster its alliance with the United States.
It should also maintain an effective defense of the Nansei Islands, which include the Senkaku in Okinawa.
In other words, seek peace by all means, but prepare to defend its own core interests.

Read More

Flight of the B-52s

Joint patrols of the Senkakus would send a stronger message.
The Wall Street Journal

A U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortess is being refueled by a KC-135 Stratotanker 

Full credit to the Obama Administration for showing solidarity with Japan as it seeks to defend itself against China's aggression over the Senkaku Islands. 

On Tuesday a pair of B-52s flew unannounced—and unchallenged—through an "air defense identification zone" covering the islands that was unilaterally declared by Beijing late last week. 

Maybe President Obama's pivot to Asia means something after all.
The flight of bombers comes after more than a year of Beijing brinksmanship with Tokyo over the uninhabited Japanese islets, which is designed to change the status quo on the sea and in the air around them. In its response to the flight, the Chinese Foreign Ministry backed down somewhat, saying "we will in accordance with different situations take corresponding reactions." 

But the real test of the air defense zone will come in the next few days or weeks when the People's Liberation Army uses it to challenge Japanese forces as they patrol the Senkakus.
The U.S. can help to deter an armed clash by making more concrete its treaty obligation to assist Japan in defending the islands. 

The best ways to do that are joint sea and air patrols with Japanese forces. 

If Beijing challenges those patrols, it would be taking on both countries at once—a security trip-wire similar to the stationing of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula.
This could lead to an eruption of Chinese anger, and the U.S. might pay a short-term price in economic and diplomatic retaliation. 

Washington could pre-empt that to some extent by cancelling next week's visit of Vice President Joe Biden to Beijing. 

But allowing China's aggression to succeed means running a high risk of future conflict, accidental or intentional.
It isn't clear why Chinese leaders are acting belligerently. 

One theory is that they feel their rising economic and military power entitles them to restore the tributary system by which their imperial predecessors dominated East Asia. 

Others think their lack of domestic political legitimacy makes them eager to stir up nationalist sentiment. Maybe it's some combination of the two.
In any case they miscalculated this week by assuming their intimidation would succeed. 

As long as Beijing continues its bullying, the aim of U.S. policy should be to make sure that China's provocations are met with further demonstrations of solidarity and resolve.

Read More

China overplayed its hand on the Senkaku islands

By David Pilling

About a year ago, I was in the office of Albert del Rosario, the foreign minister of the Philippines. 

What, I asked, would Manila say if Shinzo Abe, then running for prime minister of Japan, carried out his pledge to amend the pacifist constitution and “rearm”? (In fact, Japan is already fully armed, but its constitution bars use of force except in self-defence.) 

I fully expected him to reply that this would be a regrettable move. 

Not only would it be enormously provocative to China but memories of the country’s invasion of the Philippines were surely just as raw in Manila as they were in Beijing and Seoul. 

Not a bit of it, he said. 

“We would welcome that very much. We are looking for balancing factors in the region and Japan could be a significant balancing factor.”
Those remarks, echoed by Indonesia’s foreign minister, came back to me this week as China and Japan squared off dangerously over Japan's Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. 

At the weekend, Beijing took many by surprise when it announced the creation of an “air defence identification zone” covering the Senkaku islands.

There is nothing unusual about establishing such a zone. Many countries have them, including Japan and the US. 

Yet the move is provocative because China’s zone overlaps Japan’s. 

From now on, Beijing says, aircraft entering the zone will have to identify themselves to Chinese authorities or face unspecified “emergency defence measures”.
Mr Abe denounced the move, which he said had no legitimacy. 

Washington, too, has strongly objected. 

It sent two B52 bombers across the zone – without telling Beijing in advance – to underline its displeasure. 

Japan’s two main civilian airlines initially complied with the order but, under pressure from Tokyo, resumed flying across the zone on Wednesday without informing Chinese authorities.
China’s aim appears to be to change the facts on the ground – or, in this case, in the air. 

Its new zone challenges Japan’s longstanding de facto control of the islands, which it incorporated into its territory in 1895. 

In the short term, Beijing hopes to force Japan to admit that sovereignty over the islands is in dispute, something it refuses to acknowledge. 

In the longer run, China may seek to drive a wedge between Japan and the US. 

Although Washington takes no position on the islands’ sovereignty, it says they fall under the remit of the US-Japan security treaty. 

That implies it would come to Japan’s aid if the islands were attacked. 

Yet China cannot be the only country to wonder whether Washington would really risk American lives to defend a few barren rocks.
On the face of it, this is a good fight for Beijing to pick. 

One might advise it to do exactly the same as a way of ratcheting up pressure on Japan and advertising its regional ambitions. 

After all, one might argue, there is little love lost for Japan in the region.

Washington is desperate for Seoul and Tokyo to get along. Instead, they are barely on speaking terms. 

Park Geun-hye, the president, has refused to meet Mr Abe until he has developed a “more sincere” attitude towards Japanese history. 

She instead made a high-profile visit to Beijing.
Yet other Asian countries, even ones that suffered at the hands of Japan’s Imperial Army, do not harbour the same bitterness. 

Many of the region’s nations, including the Philippines, Vietnam and India, have become increasingly wary of a rising China as it becomes more assertive about its territorial claims. 

They have encouraged the US to “pivot” back to the region. 

And many of them have edged closer diplomatically to Japan, an important – in some cases, the most important – investor in their economies. 

In an unprecedented diplomatic charm offensive, Mr Abe has visited all 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in his first year in office. 

Japanese companies, backed by the government, have sharply stepped up their presence in Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar. 

The latter, until recently firmly in China’s orbit, has slipped out of its diplomatic grasp as it opens up to the west.
The hedging against China is not just commercial. 

Many countries in the region, including the Philippines and Vietnam, are stepping up military co-operation with the US. 

Japan has supplied ships to Manila to patrol waters disputed with China, and is in discussion with Hanoi to do the same. 

Even South Korea has objected strongly to China’s new exclusion zone. 

China’s lack of soft power was on display in the days after Typhoon Haiyan ripped through the Philippines. 

The US sent the USS George Washington, Japan sent 1,000 self-defence troops and plenty of money. China’s initial contribution, a mere $100,000, was widely condemned as petty and mean-spirited.
One could argue that, as China’s economy grows, it is only natural that its regional footprint will also expand, not always to the liking of its neighbours. 

After all, as long ago as the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the US declared Latin America off-limits to European powers. 

Yet Beijing may be overplaying its hand. 

In Japan, China’s action may make it easier for Mr Abe to scrap a self-imposed ban on collective self-defence or even eventually to ditch the pacifist constitution. 

Whether regional leaders like his nationalistic sentiments or not, many of them will be hoping he does not blink.

Read More

Beijing plays a longer game with its air defence zone grab

Next step will be to work on other countries to cajole or intimidate them into at least tacitly recognising China’s sovereignty over the disputed airspace.
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
2011 Japan-US joint military exercise

The American B-52 bombers that flew over the East China Sea on Tuesday made something of a mockery of Beijing’s newly-declared “air defence identification zone”.
To the outside world China looks weak and ineffectual right now, as it obviously cannot match its blustery rhetoric with an actual defence of the uninhabited Japanese-administered islands it claims as its territory.
But viewed from Beijing and the longer-term perspective of the country’s strategic planners, the establishment of the new zone is a masterstroke that will change the facts on the ground (or in this case the air) pretty quickly.
For a start, the US cannot keep flying bombers over the region and say they are part of “long-planned exercises” (as they claimed this week’s flyovers were).
Doing so would quickly lose impact as a statement of principle and evolve into needless provocation, especially in the eyes of the Chinese public, who draw most of their opinions on such matters from tightly controlled state media.
There are already signs that Beijing will portray its response to Japanese and American “incursions” as proof it is exercising maximum restraint in the face of outrageous incitement.
Since Japan’s strongest claim to the Senkaku island group comes from the fact it has administered them for many decades, China is hoping to assert its own overlapping track record of “administration”.
The next step in China’s game-plan will be to work on other countries in the region and around the world to cajole or intimidate them into at least tacitly recognising China’s sovereignty over the disputed airspace.
When Chinese diplomats and politicians sit down for discussions with their counterparts from other countries, they usually have a very short list of things they want from the other side.
With the big shiny promise of Chinese markets looming behind them, they usually demand recognition that Taiwan and Tibet are part of China and they ask for general statements about open markets and anti-protectionism.
From now on they will start asking other countries to force their airlines to identify themselves to Chinese authorities when passing through the disputed airspace, thereby implicitly acknowledging that the territory belongs to China.
The pressure will be much greater on individual airlines hoping to capitalise on the tens of millions of new Chinese tourists flooding out of the country every year.
When they cave they can always justify their compliance on safety grounds.
That was the explanation from Japan’s two largest airlines, which immediately agreed this week to provide Beijing with co-ordinates for all flights entering the disputed airspace.
They changed their minds three days later under pressure from the Japanese government and now say they will not comply with the Chinese demand.
For evidence of how successful Beijing’s tactics are, just look at Taiwan, which lost diplomatic ties with the Gambia this month, leaving it with the Vatican, Burkina Faso, Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland and less than 20 Latin American and Pacific states as its friends.
In its territorial disputes with all of its neighbours, China’s big advantage is that it wants to change the status quo while its opponents are all trying to keep things pretty much as they are.
That means other countries in the region have to prepare for an infinite number of possible Chinese actions while Chinese strategists only have to design one clever manoeuvre at a time.
What we are witnessing is just the early stages of China’s abandonment of its long-held foreign policy of minding its own business as Chinese President Xi Jinping, one year into the job, turns his attention to the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” outside the country’s current borders.
China’s leaders know that time and global trends are on their side as long as nothing goes disastrously wrong domestically and as long as they do not actually provoke a war with Japan, the US or any other country.
That is where the danger lies.
As one senior Asian diplomat told the FT this week, China may think it has pulled off a clever tactical manoeuvre but clearly nobody in Beijing has properly studied European history before the first world war.
As the world prepares to mark the centenary of the “war to end all wars”, China would be better off learning how that conflagration started rather than dreaming up clever ways to antagonise and scare its neighbours.

Read More

Airspace Claim Forces Obama to Flesh Out China Strategy

The United States needs to project military power in the region, build up the defensive capacities of allies, and align the countries that ring China’s coastal waters to present a united front against Beijing’s aggression.

By MARK LANDLER

President Obama and Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in Russia in September.
WASHINGTON — While foreign-policy experts and risk analysts were riveted by the nuclear talks with Iran last weekend, the next major geopolitical crisis erupted a world away, over a clump of desolate islands in the choppy waters between Japan and China.
With the United States dispatching two B-52’s to reinforce its protest over China’s attempt to control the airspace over the islands, it served as a timely reminder that President Obama wants to turn America’s gaze eastward, away from the preoccupations of the Middle East.
Mr. Obama’s shift — once known as a pivot, now re-branded as a rebalance — has always seemed more rhetorical than real. 

But when Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. travels to China, Japan and South Korea next week, the administration will have another chance to flesh out the policy.
“What isn’t clear to me is whether they see this as a Japan-China problem that needs to be managed or as part of a longer-term test of wills with Beijing,” said Michael J. Green, an Asia adviser in the George W. Bush administration who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
If it is the latter, Mr. Green said, the United States needs to project military power in the region, build up the defensive capacities of allies like Japan and the Philippines, and align the countries that ring China’s coastal waters to present a united front against Beijing’s aggression.
The trouble, he added, is that “the administration is very worried about appearing to contain China.”
The cause of all this trouble are the flyspeck Japanese Senkaku Islands, that China, enticed that they may sit atop rich mineral reserves, now claims.
The dispute has mushroomed into a dangerous standoff between the world’s second- and third-largest economies — one that pits a conservative Japanese leader, Shinzo Abe, against a Chinese president, Xi Jinping, who is riding a nationalist tide in his country.
With so much at stake, Mr. Biden’s advisers say the dispute will intrude on every meeting he has in the region. 

That could come at a cost to an agenda that includes promoting a trans-Pacific trade deal and discussing how to deal with the nuclear threat in North Korea. 

“There’s an emerging pattern of behavior that is unsettling to China’s neighbors,” a senior administration official said on Wednesday, previewing Mr. Biden’s message. 

At the same, he added, “The vice president of the United States is not traveling to Beijing to deliver a démarche,” a diplomatic term of art for a slap on the wrist.
The delicate balancing act in Mr. Obama’s Asia policy, between cooperating with and containing China, is evident in the administration’s mixed messages over the last two weeks. 

Speaking before Beijing’s latest provocation, the national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, said the United States was seeking “a new model of major power relations.”
“That means,” she said in her maiden speech on Asia, “managing inevitable competition while forging deeper cooperation on issues where our interests converge.”
Referring to the territorial disputes between China and its neighbors — which flare up not just with Japan in the East China Sea but in the South China Sea, with the Philippines and Vietnam — Ms. Rice urged “all parties to reject coercion and aggression and to pursue their claims in accordance with international law and norms.”
To some critics, that smacked of moral equivalence: the coercion and aggression has been overwhelmingly on the part of China against its smaller neighbors. 

But on Saturday, when Beijing announced an “air defense identification zone” over a wide swath of air space above the islands, the United States jumped off the fence.
Secretary of State John Kerry immediately condemned what he called an “escalatory action” by China and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the United States would not alter any military operations because of it, a promise he kept this week by dispatching the unarmed bombers from Guam on a routine mission off the coast of China.
Administration officials said it was important to push back against China’s dubious assertion of jurisdiction over international air space. 

The Chinese policy requires foreign planes flying through the zone to identify themselves and file a flight plan, even if they are not flying into Chinese air space.
The symbolism of B-52’s flying, with no advance warning, through China’s zone spares Mr. Biden from having to play the tough guy. 

But experts said he needed to leave no doubt in talks with President Xi that the United States thinks the Chinese move was ill-advised.
“It will have the Chinese scrambling aircraft time after time, especially if the Japanese play games with it,” said Kenneth G. Lieberthal, a China adviser during the Clinton administration.
Mr. Biden has cultivated an unusually personal relationship with Mr. Xi. 

The two traveled together in China and the United States, when Mr. Xi was vice president. 

That may make Mr. Biden more alert to the domestic political pressures the Chinese leader faces, as he embarks on risky economic reforms after a recent Communist Party congress.
“Chinese social media, official and semiofficial media are all playing up this dispute,” said Cheng Li, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 

The tensions are likely to increase. 

The Chinese Navy has put its only aircraft carrier out to sea, on a course toward the South China Sea. 

In the East China Sea, an American carrier group is joining Japanese warships for long-planned naval exercises.
With so much firepower in such hotly contested waters, experts said there was a real danger of miscalculation by either side. 

Mr. Biden, who will begin his trip in Tokyo, is expected to urge Mr. Abe to show restraint as well.
The good news for all concerned, China experts said, is that Mr. Xi is much less interested in military adventurism than in overhauling China’s economy. 

“The chances of a real war are still low,” Mr. Li said. 

“But sometimes incidents will push leaders into a corner.”

Read More

Australia expresses concern over China air defence zone

By Karen Barlow

A Japan Coast Guard boat and vessel sail past Uotsuri Island, one of the Senkaku islands. 

China's ambassador to Australia has been called in to explain the Chinese Government's latest military move in the East China Sea.
Beijing has claimed the right to take military action against aircraft that enter its newly-declared air defence identification zone.
The area covers most of the East China Sea and the skies over a group of Japanese islands claimed by Beijing.
China says foreign aircraft must report a flight plan and respond to Chinese inquiries or it will take "defensive measures."
Australia's Foreign minister Julie Bishop says the timing and the manner of China's announcement are unhelpful and won't contribute to regional stability.
"Australia has made clear its opposition to any coercive or unilateral actions to change the status quo in the East China Sea," Ms Bishop said in a statement.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade called in Chinese Ambassador Ma Zhaoxu on Monday to explain Beijing's intentions and hear the Australian Government's concerns.

War of words
Japan has protested China's move, warning of an escalation into the "unexpected" if Beijing enforced the rules.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says the measures are a "destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region".
Washington does not take a position on the sovereignty of the Senkaku islands. But it recognises that Japan has administrative control over them and is bound by treaty to defend Japan in the event of an armed conflict.
Sino-Japanese relations have been strained for months because of the dispute over the tiny islands in the East China Sea.
China's Defence Ministry said on Monday it had lodged protests with the US and Japanese embassies in Beijing over the criticism from Washington and Tokyo of the zone.
It also summoned Japan's ambassador, warning Tokyo to "stop (their) words and actions which create friction and harm regional stability", China's Foreign Ministry said.
Meanwhile, Tokyo and Seoul summoned Chinese diplomats to protest.
Asian and Western diplomats say the zone is a problem for Japan, the United States and other countries that may be wary of any acknowledgement of China's claims over the area.

Read More

Japan Answers China’s Warnings Over Islands’ Airspace

By MARTIN FACKLER

TOKYO — Matching China’s stern language with warnings of his own, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan vowed on Monday to defend his nation’s airspace after China declared an air defense zone over a Japanese group of islands in the East China Sea.

Speaking in Parliament, Mr. Abe called China’s move an unacceptable effort to change the status quo with threats of force. 

He described it as a dangerous ratcheting up of tensions in the standoff over the uninhabited islands, which are administered by Japan.
“We are determined to defend our country’s air and sea space,” Mr. Abe said. 

“The measures by the Chinese side have no validity whatsoever for Japan.”
China and Japan have been locked in an escalating war of words and nerves over the islands for more than a year. 

China’s declaration on Saturday that it would identify and possibly take military action against aircraft flying near the islands follows a long period of frequent dispatches of Chinese coast guard ships and aircraft to the area to challenge Japan’s control.
Mr. Abe’s effort to draw a line in the sand reflects his promises to lead his nation in standing up to China, which has eclipsed Japan as Asia’s top economic power. 

Since taking office in December, Mr. Abe, an outspoken conservative, has raised defense spending for the first time in a decade, and has increased military ties with the United States.
Japan has repeatedly signaled to China since Saturday that it has no intention of yielding control of airspace over the Senkaku islands.

On Monday, the Japanese vice foreign minister, Akitaka Saiki, summoned China’s ambassador to Japan, Cheng Yonghua, to demand that China repeal the air defense zone, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Mr. Cheng replied that the Chinese air zone was not aimed at a specific country and would not affect civilian air traffic, according to Kyodo News. 

In Beijing, a Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman said that Japan had “no right to make irresponsible remarks,” because Japan has maintained a similar air defense zone over the islands, the state-run news agency Xinhua reported.
As the standoff has escalated, Japan has also sought to bind itself more closely to the United States, which has been the guarantor of Japanese security since the end of World War II. 

On Monday, the top Japanese government spokesman and chief cabinet secretary, Yoshihide Suga, said that Japan would work with the United States to urge China to allow aircraft to continue flying freely near the islands, which lie between Okinawa and Taiwan.

Read More

US sends B-52 over China-claimed waters

China has claimed a stretch of ocean and Japan and the USA will challenge that when a U.S. carrier battle group and Japanese warships arrive on Wednesday.
By Kirk Spitzer

• China claiming nearly 1 million square miles of East China Sea
• Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe confronts China
• U.S. treaty obligates Pentagon to defend Japan

NAHA, OKINAWA, Japan — An American carrier battle group and a flotilla of Japanese warships will arrive Wednesday near a vast stretch of ocean claimed by China in what is shaping up as a test of how Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the USA will stand up to the challenge.

The joint U.S.-Japan exercises in the sea are a direct challenge to China's claim. 

On Tuesday, the U.S. military said two Air Force B-52 bombers flew over the sea without notifying Beijing despite China's demand that it be told if anyone plans to fly military aircraft over its self-claimed "air defense zone.
The aircraft took off from Guam on Monday, part of a regular exercise, said a U.S. defense official who spoke to AFP news service on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to divilge the information.
China has been laying claim to nearly 1 million square miles of ocean known as the East China Sea, insisting that the sea's energy resources and fisheries belong to China. 

Much of the ocean territory it claims is hundreds of miles from its shore, including waters off the coasts of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.
On Saturday China went further than ever, announcing it had designated much of the sea as an air-defense zone it controls. 

The zone includes the Japanese Senkaku Islands, a string of uninhabited islets. 

The Chinese Defense Ministry said the zone was created to "guard against potential air threats."
"China has been pushing and testing Abe since he took office and for the most part he has been passing," said Brad Glosserman, executive director of the Pacific Forum Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Honolulu.
"This is a very dumb, very risky move by China," he said. 

"If the People's Liberation Army tries to interfere (with the US-Japan exercise), there will be real problems."
The challenge represents a test for Abe, a conservative party prime minister elected in 2012 who has vowed to shift Japan's deferential military posture to a more muscular stance that recognizes its right to defend itself.
On Tuesday, Abe directly confronted China, stating he would not recognize the Chinese air zone over the East China Sea or any of its claims to the Senkakus.
"We will take steps against any attempt to change the status quo by use of force as we are determined to defend the country's sea and airspace," Abe said.
For the U.S.' part, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Chinese action represents a "destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo" and "will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region."
To that end, the U.S. Navy arrived in force Tuesday off the coast of Japan for a complex exercise in which Japanese naval ships and U.S. fighter jets, warships and submarines will practice scenarios for a possible attack on Japan.
Sailing into the waters southeast of Okinawa on Tuesday to prepare for a long-planned exercise was the aircraft carrier USS George Washington, guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam, guided-missile destroyers USS Curtis Wilbur, USS Lassen, USS McCampbell, USS Mustin, maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft and a Navy submarine.
China issued a protest with Japan and the U.S. government over the exercises and opposition to China's self-claimed right to an air-defense zone over the sea. 

Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun said Japan's complaint about the zone is "absolutely groundless and unacceptable," according to Japan's Kyodo news service.
Yang said Japan has "no right to make irresponsible remarks" on the sea's airspace, portions of which have been jointly administered by Japan and the United States for decades. 

Yujun also urged the United States to "not take sides."
Earlier this year, Japan scrambled fighter jets when Chinese planes flew near the Senkaku islands, a rich fishing ground annexed by Japan in 1895 and purchased by the legislature in 2012. 

Chinese interceptor aircraft conducted the first flights into the zone after it went into force at 10 a.m. on Saturday.
The Chinese moves have inflamed Japan and worried other nations that say they may now need to inform China when their commercial flights are heading over the East China Sea. 

It also has U.S. allies concerned that China is becoming more aggressive against them since the installation a year ago of Xi Jinping as leader of the Communist regime.
But Hagel reaffirmed the U.S. military commitment to the 1952 U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty that commits Washington to intervene in defense of Japan if there is an attack on Japanese-administered territory. And Abe has backed up his belief that Japan must modify its stance held since World War II that Japan's defense can be outsourced entirely to the United States.
Abe has been pressing for Japan to raise its readiness and play a bigger role in global security since he came to power in December 2012 and won a majority for his Liberal Democratic Party in the upper house of the Japan legislature in July.
Defense spending in Japan has seen its largest increase in 22 years, says Kyodo. 

The spending has zeroed in on boosting Japan's capabilities to defend against amphibious assaults.
But Abe has yet to garner the votes to change Japan's constitution so its defense forces can project the full military powers of a sovereign state. 

The constitution, written by the U.S. military after the defeat of Japan in WWII, restrains what Japan can do militarily.
The U.S. military retains bases in Japan, primarily in Okinawa, and exercises between the two militaries have grown in size and complexity in recent years.
Although precise locations have not been announced for the latest exercise, specific training events — which will include land-based patrol planes and other aircraft — are supposed to take place across large stretches of Japanese and international airspace, including parts of the East China Sea.
China's Ministry of National Defense announced that any foreign aircraft entering its newly drafted "East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone" must file a flight plan with Chinese authorities, stay in two-way radio contact and follow other instructions.
Failure to do so will result in "defensive emergency measures" by China's armed forces, according to the statement.
It is not clear why China chose to announce the new air restrictions now, said Narushige Michishita, Director of the Security and International Studies Program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo. 

Whether Xi Jinping approved of it or the military demanded it is unknown, Michishita said.
"It is a scary scenario," Michishita said. 

"What happens next is up to China."

Read More

Japanese Airlines Defy China Demand for Data in Air Zone

By Chris Cooper and Kiyotaka Matsuda 

A Japan Airlines Co. (JAL) aircraft takes off from Haneda Airport while the Tokyo Sky Tree, right, stands in Tokyo.

ANA Holdings Inc. and Japan Airlines Co., the country’s two biggest carriers, said they would stop reporting flight plans for planes traveling through a new Chinese air-defense zone that Japan rejects.
Japan’s government told airlines to stop providing that information, citing China’s “false” impositions, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said yesterday in Tokyo. 

Hours later, ANA and JAL said they wouldn’t comply with China’s demands, reversing their decision to supply that data.
China’s creation of the zone has been denounced by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and marks one of the most serious escalations in tensions since September 2012, when Japan bought three disputed islands in the East China Sea. 

The islands lie within the defense zone and China has threatened “defensive emergency measures” against unidentified planes there.
“Presumably the Chinese are not going to be trigger happy,” said Ralph Cossa, president of the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum CSIS, a foreign-policy research institute. 

“It certainly raises the concern about regularly scheduled flights.”
ANA and JAL said they would halt the sharing of the flight-plan data starting today, spokesmen said by phone. 

The carriers shifted their stance on instructions from Japan’s airline trade group, which acted as an intermediary between the airlines and Japan’s Civil Aviation Bureau, Maho Ito, an ANA spokeswoman, said by telephone.
China’s action may escalate the situation and lead to unforeseen events, Abe told a parliamentary committee, saying that he was very concerned. 

“We urge China to revoke this measure, which is in no way binding on Japan.”

U.S. Military
The U.S. won’t change its military flight operations to comply with the new air-defense zone, a Pentagon spokesman, Army Colonel Steve Warren, told journalists in Washington. 

The U.S. and Japan may deploy unmanned drone aircraft to the area to respond to the Chinese move, the Nikkei newspaper reported without citing anyone.
Even if commercial flights through the defense zone comply with the Chinese demands, the establishment of the security perimeter raises the threat of incidents, such as the shoot-down of a Korean Air Lines Co. jumbo jet in 1983 when it strayed into the airspace of the former Soviet Union, Cossa said.

Incident Risk
The Japanese Senkaku islands lie inside the new air defense zone. 

China claims sovereignty over the area, whose waters are rich in oil, natural gas and fish. 

The dispute comes as China and Japan seek a greater role in the region, courting nations in Southeast Asia.
“While our central scenario remains for the situation to stay on the rhetorical level, the risk of actual incidents is on the rise,” Dariusz Kowalczyk, a Hong Kong-based strategist at Credit Agricole CIB, wrote in a research report.
The information that ANA had been supplying to China was the same shared with other countries, according to Ryosei Nomura, a spokesman for the Tokyo-based carrier. 

The data included planes’ route, and cruising altitude and flight time, Nomura said.
Other countries’ carriers are awaiting government guidance.
“There has been no change to our operations,” said Lee Hyo Min, a spokeswoman for Seoul-based Asiana Airlines Inc.

“We have not yet provided any flight plans to China on services that pass through the zone because there has been no guideline from the government. We will make change if and when the government revises this guidelines.”

‘Extra Steps’
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., the Hong Kong-based carrier, said its flight operations are normal. 

The creation of the zone hasn’t affected operations of commercial flights so far, the International Air Transport Association said in an e-mailed response to Bloomberg News.
“Some airlines have had to take some extra steps at the moment, such as filing flight plans manually,” IATA said. 

“We are trying to get more details from the Chinese authorities to clarify ongoing operational requirements.”
The announcement of the zone follows a decision by Communist Party leaders this month, after a meeting led by President Xi Jinping, to form a state committee to coordinate security issues as China broadens its military reach.
China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, departed on an exercise in the South China Sea yesterday, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. 

China has a longstanding territorial dispute with the Philippines in the area over the Scarborough Shoal.
China is “resolute in its will and resolve” to defend its sovereignty over the islands, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in Beijing on Nov. 25. 

Japan’s Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato said Nov. 25 that the zone infringes on the principles of international law. 

He said that planes entering Japan’s own air defense identification zone are required to identify themselves.

Read More

China’s Restriction on Airspace Over Disputed Islets Could Lead to War

Weekend declaration by China ratchets up chances of conflict with Japan and the U.S. Dictatorial China is now challenging the existing global order which was created by the United States. China is beginning to test U.S. resolve in regional disputes, including in the Senkaku Islands.
By Mark Thompson

U.S. sailors load an air-to-air missile onto an F-18 on the deck of the carrier U.S.S. George Washington in the western Pacific, not far from China, on Nov. 22, 2013

The news of a welcome, if temporary, early-Sunday diplomatic breakthrough between the international community and Iran over its nuclear-development efforts overshadowed a far more ominous announcement from China.
Beijing declared an “air-defense identification zone” Saturday over a swath of the East China Sea that is home to islands administered by Japan. 

It could spin out of control far more quickly than the spinning Iranian centrifuges that much of the world believes Tehran has been using to develop nuclear weapons. 

The eight Japanese isles — two of which are under control of the U.S. military — are called the Senkaku Islands.
While the U.S. has declared it takes no position on what Secretary of State John Kerry has called the “ultimate sovereignty” of the islands, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said shortly after China’s announcement that it represented a “destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region.” 

He made clear that the U.S. would go to war alongside Japan to preserve Tokyo’s control of the islands, as he did last month in the Japanese capital. 

“Since they are under Japan’s administrative control,” Hagel said on Oct. 3, “they fall under United States treaty obligations to Japan.”

China has said that as of Nov. 23 its military forces will take “defensive emergency measures” if aircraft enter the zone without reporting their flight plans or identifying themselves to China. 

While Beijing didn’t detail the measures it might take, it dispatched a pair of reconnaissance planes, backed by fighter jets, into the zone the same day, the Defense Ministry said. (Japan sent a pair of F-15 fighters airborne in response; the Chinese spy planes avoided confrontation by heading home a short time later, according to officials in Tokyo.)
But with both sides sending warplanes and warships to the islands in an increasingly bellicose game of maritime cat and mouse, a mistake, deliberate or otherwise, could set off a shooting war in short order, Pentagon officials fear. 

General Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, chief of the U.S. Air Force in the Pacific, recently warned that China’s “increasingly … aggressive approach” toward the islands runs “the risk of creating the potential for miscalculation.”
The dispute is part of the ebb and flow of regional power in a tense corner of the world, where China and Japan all lay claim to the islands. 

While uninhabited, the islands’ surrounding waters are rich in fish, natural gas and oil.
Tensions have been on the rise in recent years over conflicting claims to the islands, and spiked last year after Japan bought three of the islets from a Japanese family. 

Beijing claims Japan stole the islands from China in 1895, while Japan says they were unclaimed by any nation when it took them over. 

Nationalists in each country are insisting they belong to their side.
“Given the historical animosity between China and Japan and the strong nationalist sentiment on both sides regarding the sovereignty of the islands, the Senkaku Islands dispute is especially intense,” said a report issued last Wednesday by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a study group created by the U.S. Congress in 2000. 

“Tensions continued to simmer throughout 2013 as both sides enhanced their naval and maritime law enforcement presence in the disputed waters to assert their claims.”
Between 1945 and ’72, the U.S. ruled the islands, and to this day the U.S. military controls two of them — Kuba and Taisho. 

The U.S. used Kuba for bombing practice until 1978. 

The status-of-forces agreement between Tokyo and Washington says that “the facilities and areas used by the United States armed forces shall be returned to Japan whenever they are no longer needed for purposes of this Agreement.” 

Yet the pair of islands remains under U.S. control 35 years after the U.S. last conducted bombing runs there.

Three of the eight Senkaku islands

In fact, Japanese citizens cannot land on either of the islands without first getting permission from the U.S. military, Akira Kato, a professor of political science at Tokyo’s Obirin University, said in an April report by the East-West Center in Washington, D.C.
“The Senkaku dispute is a part of a power struggle between the existing superpower — the United States — and the rising revolutionary power — China,” said the study by the East-West Center, a 1960 creation of the U.S. Congress. 

“As a militant Japan did in the past, dictatorial China is now challenging the existing global order which was created and is protected by the United States. China is beginning to test if the United States has the capacity to maintain the current global order through testing U.S. resolve in regional disputes, including in the Senkaku Islands.”
The islands’ 1,700 acres of desolation now loom as the firing pin in the U.S. military’s pivot to Asia.

Read More

China must rescind its air zone over disputed islands

The Washington Post

OVER THE weekend, China abruptly raised the stakes in a long-simmering dispute over Japanese-controlled East China Sea islands in a manner that is worrisome and reckless. 

China unilaterally announced the imposition of a new “air defense identification zone” over a broad swath of the sea, demanding that planes identify themselves to China and obey its orders or face potential military action. 

The zone overlaps a similar one maintained by Japan and is nothing less than an assertion of sovereignty.
At issue are a string of uninhabited islands that are claimed by both countries. 

Last year, Japan bought them from a private owner; China increased the frequency of patrol ships, and Japan responded with patrols of its own. 

The United States is neutral in the territorial dispute but committed to the defense of Japan, and it has repeatedly urged both Asian powers to negotiate.
The shadow-boxing with sea patrols was already unsettling before the Chinese announcement of the new zone in the air Saturday. 

China is saying, in effect, that it now controls the zone’s air traffic and could intercept planes that don’t follow its rules. 

The Chinese action creates a very real hazard of accident or error leading to open hostilities, which could draw in the United States through its commitment to Japan. 

Both Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel were right to immediately protest China’s action. 

Japan also called on China to step back. 

But Beijing has stood fast.
Some years ago, its leaders reassured the world that a rising economic superpower did not mean a more muscular China, in the region or beyond it. 

They called it “China’s peaceful rise.” 

The weekend’s announcement looks to be anything but. 

It is true that China’s territorial claim to the islands is long-standing. 

But to suddenly impose restrictions on air travel over such a wide territory is not a “peaceful rise” nor the sign of a willingness to negotiate. 

China claims another expansive territory in the South China Sea that has brought it in conflict with its neighbors there. 

If this air zone is allowed to stand, it may encourage China to step up the pressure in other ways, too.
Recent months had brought signs of some cooperation and dialogue between the military forces of the United States and China. 

This remains urgent and important. 

If China really feels the need for an air identification zone beyond its territorial waters, perhaps it should join with Japan and neighboring states to create a joint zone in which they share aviation data and agree to work out claims on the waters and islands below. 

That may be an optimistic goal, but China must realize that unilaterally grabbing control of the skies is not a path to tranquillity.

Read More