Read the forum code of contact
By: - 23rd February 2005 at 15:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
China is not used to being the one helpless in a situation like this...(see past Spratly Islands disputes)...but Japan does have the stronger navy at this time in history, so there's not much the PLAN can do about it...at least not from an intimidation standpoint.
By: - 23rd February 2005 at 18:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well it's a one sided argument you posted. Chinese claim over the island due to historic fact and both argument should be considered equally since there are no residents on the islands and so it's on a first come first serve basis. Japan's lease of the island is unfortunately without permission since the islands were never apart of Japan to start with. Both China and Japan never stressed that the island belonged to either before the discovery of oil deposit. The thing is Chinese gov't does not want a lasting conflict with the Japanese but can't seem to let go of the fact that lossing claim over the islands will not only give Japan the oil deposits there and extra rights to the surrounding waters.
So in agreement both China and the Japanese noted that all gov't involvement of the islands should be on hold. Until recent surge of event that a Japanese private company want to hand over a privately owned light house to Jap gov't resurected the debate.
By: - 23rd February 2005 at 18:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
China is not used to being the one helpless in a situation like this...(see past Spratly Islands disputes)...but Japan does have the stronger navy at this time in history, so there's not much the PLAN can do about it...at least not from an intimidation standpoint.
I don't see what you mean by hopeless...
The question is that if Japan is willing to upset Beijing and jepordize it's market interests in China over the islands.
You have to take into consideration that the only reason Japan is slopping out of its stagnation is because of new opportunities and business venture in China. If the situation gets ugly, well you'll see corps like sony and panasonic take a huge toll not to mention the Jap auto industries in China as well.
By: - 23rd February 2005 at 19:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
pure geopolitics. its really a win-win matter for japan, and i seriously doubt the timing was a coincident.
right now china is in a bind, if they try to back up their claim to the diaoyu islands with action, then the japanese are going to act like the victims and that gives the japanese and americans more ammo to used against the EU on the arms ban issue.
if china stays quiet and does nothing, the japanese will make damn sure the world sees it as china giving up the claim.
its bascially a well calculated gamble on the part of tokyo.
right now, desipte being technologically superior in general, the JDFAF and navy are in fact the inferior side if it came down to actually shooting. this is due mainly to the japanese limiting their own offensive capacity and the lack of key force multiplier weapons systems like ARHAAMs, HMS+high off-broadside IRAAMs and high performance AShMs, which the chinese now have.
the japanese F15Js are about on par with the chinese J11s and Su27Sks in terms of manoverability, and would be superior in terms of electronics. but the electronic performance of the chinese bought MKK and MK2s would probably be on the same level as the F15s, with the added advanatge of R77s.
the PLAAF and PLANAF can also call on an undisclosed number of J8Hs and JH7s (read 100+ at least) which are also ARHAAM compatable for BVR and hundreds of J7s and J8s with HMS and high off-broadside IRAAAMs for WVR combat. there is also the distinct posibility of a small number of J10s also being available.
so in the air, the JDFAF is outclassed and outnumbered in BVR and WVR.
with air superiority, the PLAAF and PLANAF can safely bluggen the japanese surface fleet to the bottom with hundreds of 250km C803 AShMs from well outside SM2 range.
even in surface only warfare the PLAN has a distinct advantage with their longer ranged C802/3 and sunburn supersonic AShMs.
a significant number of PLAN subs are also capable to launching long range AShMs in the form of C802s and clubs.
the japanese sub force, while quieter and with far better sonars, are nevertheless only SSKs, which are ill equiped to go on the offensive. effectively ruling them out of attacking the chinese surface fleet. being SSKs also means they will need to snorkle and run their deseil engines to recharge their batteries very often. and SSKs are not that quiet when they do that, so that also effectively rules them out of defensive ops without surface ships to protect them when they are recharging.
so, all in all, the japanese are the ones who will have to back down or risk getting hammered if china went all the way with this dispute (assuming the USN doesnt interfer of course).
but the japanese are going along with this anyways because they are waging that china will be unwilling to go all the way with the lifting of the EU arms ban, taiwan and the olympics all on the horrizon.
if china gets overly assertive with its responce and shows signs of being willing to get their hands dirty, the japanese and americans can make a meal out of it by using that as 'evidence' that china is 'in fact' aggressive in nature, so the lifting of the EU arms ban is a bad idea. and the arms ban will probably stay in place. which will slow down china's modernisation and development quite a bit.
the japanese are also betting that china wont want to actually fight in case taiwan takes advanatge of the situation and declears independence while the chinese and japanese are in the middle of the fight. that would force china to devide their forces and might bring the americans into it.
even if the americans stay home, china has little chance of winning two wars against two of asia's most powerful armed forces simutaniously. and if the fighting gets really bad, it might also adversly affect the olympics in 2008.
finally, another reason for japan to choose this time to 're-assert' their claim on the islands is the fact that this is most likely their last chance.
as can be seen, the chinese military already have the upper hand, and what leads japan currently have are steadily being eroded with each passing day.
at the current rate, it wont be too long before the PLA is capable to taking on both taiwan and japan at the same time, and may be able to effectively deter even american intervention in the not too distint future. so the window for japanese action to cerment their claims on the diaoyu islands is fast closing, and they have chosen now - the best time for them, to make their move.
clever. now lets see how china deals with this one.
By: - 23rd February 2005 at 22:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't see what you mean by hopeless...
The question is that if Japan is willing to upset Beijing and jepordize it's market interests in China over the islands.
You have to take into consideration that the only reason Japan is slopping out of its stagnation is because of new opportunities and business venture in China. If the situation gets ugly, well you'll see corps like sony and panasonic take a huge toll not to mention the Jap auto industries in China as well.
A) Not "hopeless"....helpless. ;)
B) What I meant was that the PLAN has been flexing it's muscle in and around the South China Sea when it's up against navies from Vietnam, the Pilippines, etc., but that won't work with JSMDF. China's naval muscle isn't big enough to intimidate Japan...yet.
C) China is smart enough to know that a "trade war" is also a no-win situation...since they do not hold all of the cards from an economic perspective (i.e. Japan could retaliate by withdrawing it's investment in the mainland, and possibly shifting it over to Taiwan.)
By: - 23rd February 2005 at 22:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
plawolf
Not that I agree with your take on which air force/navy is stronger, but irregardless, do you seriously think it would just be Japan vs China in any military confrontation near Japanese territory?
U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement
Think again. ;)
By: - 23rd February 2005 at 22:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A) Not "hopeless"....helpless. ;)B) What I meant was that the PLAN has been flexing it's muscle in and around the South China Sea when it's up against navies from Vietnam, the Pilippines, etc., but that won't work with JSMDF. China's naval muscle isn't big enough to intimidate Japan...yet.
C) China is smart enough to know that a "trade war" is also a no-win situation...since they do not hold all of the cards from an economic perspective (i.e. Japan could retaliate by withdrawing it's investment in the mainland, and possibly shifting it over to Taiwan.)
PLAN have been trying out its planned blue water fleet, partly to intimidate its neighbours. Seriously I don't see that JSMDF is that much stronger than PLAN at any point that the PLAN would have no chance against JSMDF.
Realistically this situation won't get anymore uglier than this, since Japan have doubts as to if China is willing to act tough like it once had. The reason behind these action Japan took is to prevoke Beijing and see where the chinese draw the line.
There absolutely won't be any "trade war." Chinese economy strives on going forward. The Japanese have been talking about withdrawing it's investment for ages. Please take a look at chinese foreign reserves and you'll see that the Japanese loans are but a drop in the bucket. But if limited conflict breaks out then the chinese might consider a 100% or 200% levy on all Japanese imports just to put strain on the Japanese industries and covertly pressure Tokyo to come to some understanding where both parties could actually share the resources around the islands.
There are some things that Tokyo want in relation to China as well. So it's not only up to the Japanese. eg. tokyo want Japan to be a permenant member of UN but the Chinese objected. In other word in order to gain Chinese support Tokyo must sacrifice some as well.
By: - 23rd February 2005 at 22:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
PLAN have been trying out its planned blue water fleet, partly to intimidate its neighbours. Seriously I don't see that JSMDF is that much stronger than PLAN at any point that the PLAN would have no chance against JSMDF.Realistically this situation won't get anymore uglier than this, since Japan have doubts as to if China is willing to act tough like it once had. The reason behind these action Japan took is to prevoke Beijing and see where the chinese draw the line.
There absolutely won't be any "trade war." Chinese economy strives on going forward. The Japanese have been talking about withdrawing it's investment for ages. Please take a look at chinese foreign reserves and you'll see that the Japanese loans are but a drop in the bucket. But if limited conflict breaks out then the chinese might consider a 100% or 200% levy on all Japanese imports just to put strain on the Japanese industries and covertly pressure Tokyo to come to some understanding where both parties could actually share the resources around the islands.
tough talk on japanese economy when in reality, Japan heavily invested much needed capitol into China during the 70's and 80's, just go ask your everyday person in Liaoning how much the investment has helped them, and please none of your nationalistic sunshine :)
By: - 23rd February 2005 at 23:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
tough talk on japanese economy when in reality, Japan heavily invested much needed capitol into China during the 70's and 80's, just go ask your everyday person in Liaoning how much the investment has helped them, and please none of your nationalistic sunshine :)
Please Japan invested these capital because they wanted to make money off these investments, by taxing or putting pressure on these capital (eg. a full gov't tax audit) would drive the owner of these capital to talk with their gov't and end the stupidity. It's all about politics and how you utilize the economy, it has nothing to do with nationalism.
By: - 24th February 2005 at 13:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
plawolfNot that I agree with your take on which air force/navy is stronger, but irregardless, do you seriously think it would just be Japan vs China in any military confrontation near Japanese territory?
U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement
Think again. ;)
the 'mutual' defence agreement was aimed at the USSR, and even your link pointed out its cold war origins.
china is no iraq or afganistan, and any confrontation between china and japan will be about disputed land, not a fight to stop a chinese invation of japan. so do you seriously think that under those circumstances the american people will be willing to send thousands of its sons and daughters out to die in the pacific because japan wanted to plant their flag on an uninhabitable island?
its a highly debatable issue whether america will even send troops to fight and die to stop a chinese move on taiwan. so japan is not going to risk so much (basically their whole navy and air force) all on the premise that uncle sam will be so selfless and come to their aid at such great costs (and thats only the military costs, the economic costs of a head on military confrontation between china and america will be many times worse for both).
no, if china and japan did come to blows over disputed islands, america will condamn china's 'aggression', call for restrint on both sides and demand a cease fire, while providing intel support and shipping in new weapons for japan. but they will most likely only interfer if its looks like the conflict is about to spill out into an all out war and really threaten the american economy.
By: - 24th February 2005 at 13:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
tough talk on japanese economy when in reality, Japan heavily invested much needed capitol into China during the 70's and 80's, just go ask your everyday person in Liaoning how much the investment has helped them, and please none of your nationalistic sunshine :)
i came from liaoning province, and there is little love for the japanese there amounst the vast majority of the people. and there is no reason why there should be any to start with.
what, you think the likes of sony and panasonic invested in china out of charity? :rolleyes: they invested for the same reason as anyone else - because there is money, big money to be made in china.
to suggest that the chinese should somehow feel greatful for japanese investment is about the same as suggesting that you should feel greatful for being paid by your boss. :rolleyes: japanese investment in china is business, plain and simple.
however, the economic aid japan has been giving china over the years is out of charity (or remorse for the war, or both), and there has not been enough reconisation of that on the chinese side, and you would have made a better point had you used that instead of investment.
By: - 24th February 2005 at 18:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the 'mutual' defence agreement was aimed at the USSR, and even your link pointed out its cold war origins.:pTrue...but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be used as justification for the US to come to Japan's defense.
china is no iraq or afganistan, and any confrontation between china and japan will be about disputed land, not a fight to stop a chinese invation of japan. so do you seriously think that under those circumstances the american people will be willing to send thousands of its sons and daughters out to die in the pacific because japan wanted to plant their flag on an uninhabitable island?
Only if the confrontation escalates beyond a simple "stand off"...which it most definitely could.
Remember, most Americans did not want the US to liberate Iraq...but we did. ;)
its a highly debatable issue whether america will even send troops to fight and die to stop a chinese move on taiwan.
You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better...but don't count on it.
so japan is not going to risk so much (basically their whole navy and air force) all on the premise that uncle sam will be so selfless and come to their aid at such great costs (and thats only the military costs, the economic costs of a head on military confrontation between china and america will be many times worse for both).
You talk as though Japan can't handle itself? ...and that America is too frighten to take you on militarily if necessarily? :rolleyes:
no, if china and japan did come to blows over disputed islands, america will condamn china's 'aggression', call for restrint on both sides and demand a cease fire, while providing intel support and shipping in new weapons for japan. but they will most likely only interfer if its looks like the conflict is about to spill out into an all out war and really threaten the american economy.
I think you have us confused with the EU.
By: - 24th February 2005 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There absolutely won't be any "trade war." Chinese economy strives on going forward. The Japanese have been talking about withdrawing it's investment for ages. Please take a look at chinese foreign reserves and you'll see that the Japanese loans are but a drop in the bucket. But if limited conflict breaks out then the chinese might consider a 100% or 200% levy on all Japanese imports just to put strain on the Japanese industries and covertly pressure Tokyo to come to some understanding where both parties could actually share the resources around the islands.
Bleehhhh, stop viewing these two countries in isolation!!! :mad:
These two countries are both essential for the current world economy; even the slightest amount of serious tension, let alone shooting conflict, would put the world economy on its ass, to the detriment of the whole world and especially the two countries involved. Why? Simply, because investors want stability and credibility and thus a stable peace without adventurous politicians. Hostile action ==> first hot money flows out and if stability doesn't return very fast the rest later will go later on and greenfield investment may be cancelled or put to another place.
But hé, the world is already tied to China and Japan, isn't it? Yes of course it is and that's why I said "to the detriment of the whole world". If stability ceases to be, risk premia will go up (discount factors!!) and investments lose value at a rapid pace; people want to get rid of them. Serious financial (whether it be exchange, currency or banking) crisis may not be a strange phenomenon. And of course, the world will take action and not remain passive and may even get seriously involved one way or another. This involvement will have unpredictable results, may be favorable or not, but it will induce speculation (oil/gold prices!!!) and panic on the markets.
IMHO this disastrous economic fallout will prevent these two countries from doing things they will regret.
By: - 24th February 2005 at 20:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Eighty percent of all investment ever put into China was and still is from Overseas Chinese - Hong Kong, Taiwan and SE Asia. The yearly percentage was even higher than 80% during the formative years of Chinese reforms the 1970s and 80s. The Japanese are only in China in a substantial way very recently.
The main foreign brands manufactured in China for cars and electronics are US and German (VW and GM) for the former and South Korean (Samsung) for the latter. Cars and electronics are the two Japanese mainstays and they're far behind in China which is pretty telling of the lack of old Japanese investment compared to others.
Actually it is Japan that depends on China for exports of capital machinery to stave off a full-blown recession.(1) China depends far far less on Japanese investment than it does Hong Kong and Taiwanese FDI. In 2004, Japan had $14 billion surplus with China but put in less than $6 billion new investment.
The most important investors to China even today remain Overseas Chinese followed by the US, Europeans and even behind South Korea. Japan is only in the top five in recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/business/worldbusiness/24yen.html
New Concerns for Economy in Japan
"A steep drop in Japan's trade surplus in January, combined with rising oil prices, raised concerns Tuesday that the economic slump that began last year could continue into 2005.
. . .
One hopeful sign for Japan, many economists say, is the continuing strong growth in China, which surpassed the United States last year as Japan's top trading partner."
By: - 24th February 2005 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bleehhhh, stop viewing these two countries in isolation!!! :mad:
These two countries are both essential for the current world economy; even the slightest amount of serious tension, let alone shooting conflict, would put the world economy on its ass, to the detriment of the whole world and especially the two countries involved. Why? Simply, because investors want stability and credibility and thus a stable peace without adventurous politicians. Hostile action ==> first hot money flows out and if stability doesn't return very fast the rest later will go later on and greenfield investment may be cancelled or put to another place.
But hé, the world is already tied to China and Japan, isn't it? Yes of course it is and that's why I said "to the detriment of the whole world". If stability ceases to be, risk premia will go up (discount factors!!) and investments lose value at a rapid pace; people want to get rid of them. Serious financial (whether it be exchange, currency or banking) crisis may not be a strange phenomenon. And of course, the world will take action and not remain passive and may even get seriously involved one way or another. This involvement will have unpredictable results, may be favorable or not, but it will induce speculation (oil/gold prices!!!) and panic on the markets.
IMHO this disastrous economic fallout will prevent these two countries from doing things they will regret.
I don't know what you're talking about. This isn't about creating global economics crisis we are talking about... this is utilizing market strategy. Just like how US and Canadian economy are so closely tied yet recently US inposed 100% levy on all Canadian softwood lumber chief export product in the wast coast, thus to pressure Canada firms and gov't. Does that mean there is no stability in canadian lumber industry and Canadian economy as a whole and investors are flocking out? No! it only give canadian industries like Buchannon and Weirhuser a hard time when competing in US markets. Now Canadian gov't might be serious to think about joining the NMD or supporting the war on terrorism.
Now if China were to put a 100% levy on all Jap import cars and see to it that Jap car sales in China head in a parabolic downward curve and the Jap market be replaced by VW, audi, Buick etc. I think then companies like Honda, Toyota etc would be greatly unimpressed by the actions their gov't have taken in these international issues. There would be pressure or new incentive in Japanese gov't to solve the problem with the Chinese. Call it an encouraging push in the back if you will...
By: - 25th February 2005 at 00:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i came from liaoning province, and there is little love for the japanese there amounst the vast majority of the people. and there is no reason why there should be any to start with.You say you're from Liaoning yet your handle suggests your British, but regardless most Liaoning people I've talked to are rather happy for Japanese investment into their province but I guess you're not exactly working there are you :rolleyes: but of course what can I expect when most of the people here seem to have little love for the Japanese in general with people like Hello84 constantly whining about history. I guess its impossible to have a fair analysis of the economic situation in two countries when one side is obviously inclined to historical animosity and the other side simply doesnt exist on this board. :rolleyes:what, you think the likes of sony and panasonic invested in china out of charity? :rolleyes: they invested for the same reason as anyone else - because there is money, big money to be made in china.
to suggest that the chinese should somehow feel greatful for japanese investment is about the same as suggesting that you should feel greatful for being paid by your boss. :rolleyes: japanese investment in china is business, plain and simple.
however, the economic aid japan has been giving china over the years is out of charity (or remorse for the war, or both), and there has not been enough reconisation of that on the chinese side, and you would have made a better point had you used that instead of investment.
By: - 25th February 2005 at 15:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know what you're talking about.
Rather simple, describing the unintentional consequences of serious tension or even conflict between the two countries, which in my opinion will prohibit them from going to far. Though in today's WSJ a teacher from Yale's history department described current tensions as a calm before the storm due to the absence of any Asian institutions that allow the countries to increase predictability and to arrange security matters in another way than delicate power balancing games.
By: - 25th February 2005 at 21:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rather simple, describing the unintentional consequences of serious tension or even conflict between the two countries, which in my opinion will prohibit them from going to far. Though in today's WSJ a teacher from Yale's history department described current tensions as a calm before the storm due to the absence of any Asian institutions that allow the countries to increase predictability and to arrange security matters in another way than delicate power balancing games.
All you've done is copy material off a marketing text but have close to no understanding of what you actually typed. Your like a student that reads off a text to impress others while give no thought to what you've actually read. I feel like i'm talking to my self here. Like i've stated there will not be any serious conflict between Japan and China because there will be serious factors to consider on both sides but if prevoked there could be economical retailiation to some degree so that Japan will suffer more than what it hopes to gain from the island. Therefore pressuring Japan to work with China on these issue and not announce unilateral procliamation to the islands.
Posts: 4,674
By: Distiller - 16th February 2005 at 09:40
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0211/p01s03-woap.html
---
Japan-China tensions rise over tiny islands
Japan took possession of disputed Senkakus Feb. 9.
TOKYO – In a sign of deepening popular and political animosity between China and Japan, Tokyo took formal possession this week of a tiny archipelago in the Pacific waters south of Japan. In the early morning of Feb. 9, Tokyo informed Beijing's embassy here that the Senkaku Islands would be administered by the Japanese coast guard.
The unexpectedly bold action by Tokyo received little attention here. But it is seen as a "serious chess move," says one diplomat, in a region where power relations are being redefined, and where tensions over energy, borders, military buildups, and ethnic rivalries are palpable. In Asia, drawing clear lines around territories that may hold oil and gas, is rare; Japan's move takes place amid a dispute with China over what constitutes legitimate zones of energy exploration in open seas.
While economic ties between "China Inc." and "Japan Inc." are warming and integrating, political feelings between China and Japan are not. The current atmosphere is "cool if not cold," a senior Japanese official says, due to a perception that China fuels "anti-Japanese sentiments" among its people, and is making "aggressive claims ... all over the Pacific."
"There is a huge disconnect between the economic and political relations of China and Japan," says Gerald Curtis, of Columbia University, on sabbatical in Tokyo. "Japanese business enthusiasm for the China economic miracle continues. But at the political level, there is no talk of integration. Rather, there is a stiffening back of nationalism in both countries."
Beijing's somewhat vague claims on the Senkakus date to the early 1980s. Chinese "activists" last year landed on one island and attacked a lighthouse, and a Chinese nuclear submarine was found in Senkaku waters that Japan claims. Chinese spokesman Kong Quan interrupted the new year holiday to describe Tokyo's formal claim as "illegal and unacceptable."
Tokyo has never acknowledged China's claim, which it says was made only after a US geological survey in the late 1970s indicated the area could contain petroleum. Moreover, under Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Japan has shed much of its pacifist identity, sent troops to Iraq, and begun a quiet campaign to reposition opinion on formerly taboo subjects like missile technology and the dangers of an Asia with a North Korean nuclear program and a confident, wealthier China.
"We needed to remove the question that Senkaku was in some way a dispute," says Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatsuhisa Takeshima. "We felt this step was reasonable to avoid any physical activity that would bring harm to China-Japan relations."
According to Mr. Takeshima, the largest island, where the lighthouse is located, had been owned by a fishing family for decades. On Feb. 9, this unnamed family transferred island rights to Tokyo, which put the coast guard in charge. No one - Japanese or foreign - may visit the island.
Japan is the world's second-largest economy, has a huge savings rate, and a large educated middle class. Yet China, with 1.3 billion people, cheap labor, and a policy of market competition, has become the world's seventh-largest economy. In the past year, China has passed Japan, becoming the US's third-largest trading partner. [Editor's note: The original version misstated China's status as a top US trade partner.]
The new circumstances concern Japan and deepens sentiments of fear and patriotism.
China plans to send a manned spacecraft into orbit this fall, something Japan has never attempted. China's military prowess is growing, though it has limited capability to project power conventionally.
China's hot economy makes it a major oil importer; concern over energy security has prompted China to cut recent energy deals in Canada, South America, and with Iran.
There have been no state visits between China and Japanese leaders in this century. Chinese point to Mr. Koizumi's regular visits to the Yasakuni Shrine in Tokyo, where a number of Japanese war criminals are buried. For three generations, Koizumi's family has represented in the Diet the district that includes the headquarters of the Japanese Navy. "He's bred to a traditional view of Japanese patriotism and to a school among younger Japanese that the nation should no longer be bossed around by others," says a diplomat.
Yet much ill will between China and Japan stems from intense jockeying over potential energy fields in "EEZs," or exclusive economic zones. Japan sticks with a UN Law of the Sea definition of EEZs as being 200 miles from shore; China defines an EEZ as starting from the edge of the submerged continental shelf.
Last year a Chinese submarine cruised into Senkaku waters. Beijing said it was unintentional. Yet Japanese requests that China issue corrective measures to its submarine captains have not been honored, officials here say.
Last year, the US State Department said it would back up any Japanese security claim on the Senkakus. After World War II, at the San Francisco peace treaty, a line was drawn in the Pacific that was regarded as giving the Senkakus to Okinawa, which for many years was administered by a UN high commissioner. The Senkakus had been and still are often used by the US as practice grounds for bombing runs.
In 1972, Okinawa was returned to Japan. Shortly thereafter, Beijing made a preliminary claim. When Japanese diplomats visiting Beijing in the mid-1980s asked for a clarification, Deng Xiaoping called the issue a "dispute," and recommended it be resolved in the future. Tokyo objected to what it saw as a device to grab territory by declaring it disputed.