|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2013 5:17:56 GMT
The US State Department repeatedly acknowledged Japanese administration of the disputed islands and the US is willing to intervene if there is an armed conflict over the islands between China and Japan based on Article V of the mutual defence treaty. As the congressional report below states, the Okinawa Reversion Treaty clearly included the Senkakus when they were returned to Japan in 1971 and China has no legitimate historical claim over the Senkakus/Diaoyu. Japan needs to fend off China's nationalist claims by relying primarily on America's military might and its own military power does not have enough deterrence effect on the hawkish Chinese military. U.S. administration of the islets began in 1953 as a result of the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan.10 The Treaty did not mention the Senkakus Diaoyu/Diaoyutai), but it referred to other islets that had reverted to Chinese control or which China claimed. These included Taiwan and the Pescadores (off the western coast of Taiwan), as well as the Spratlys and the Paracels (both in the South China Sea). Article 3 gave the United States sole powers of administration of “Nansei Shoto south of 29 north latitude (including the Ryukyu and the Daito Islands)….” In 1953, the U.S. Civil Administration of the Ryukyus issued U.S. Civil Administration of the Ryukyus Proclamation 27 (USCAR 27), which defined the boundaries of “Nansei Shoto [the southwestern islands] south of 29 degrees north latitude” to include the Senkakus.11 At the time of the signing of the Okinawa Reversion Treaty, several State Department officials asserted that following the signing of the Japan Peace Treaty, “Nansei Shoto south of 29 degrees north latitude” was “understood by the United States and Japan to include the Senkaku Islands.”12 In short, while maintaining neutrality on the competing claims, the United States agreed in the Okinawa Reversion Treaty to apply the Security Treaty to the treaty area, including the Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai). During a 2010 worsening of Japan-PRC relations over the islets, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton summed up the U.S. stance by stating, “... with respect to the Senkaku Islands, the United States has never taken a position on sovereignty, but we have made it very clear that the islands are part of our mutual treaty obligations, and the obligation to defend Japan.”22 Moreover, the Security Treaty itself declares in Article V that each party would act “in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes”23 in response to “an armed attack ... in the territories under the administration of Japan.” “Administration” rather than “sovereignty” is the key distinction that applies to the islets. Since 1971, the United States and Japan have not altered the application of the Security Treaty to the islets. Some observers, seeking to avoid a situation where the United States inadvertently encourages more assertive Chinese actions, have called on Obama Administration officials to stop using the word “neutral” in describing the U.S. position on the issue and to also publicly declare that unilateral actions by China (or Taiwan) will not affect the U.S. judgment that the islets are controlled by Japan. In its own attempt to address this perceived gap, Congress inserted in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310, P.L. 112-239) a resolution stating, among other items, that “the unilateral action of a third party will not affect the United States’ acknowledgment of the administration of Japan over the Senkaku Islands.” www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42761.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 24, 2013 15:24:38 GMT
China has demarcated an "air-defence identification zone" over an area of the East China Sea, covering islands that are also claimed by Japan. China's defence ministry said aircraft entering the zone must obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures". The islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are a source of rising tension between the countries. Japan lodged a strong protest over what it said was an "escalation". "Setting up such airspace unilaterally escalates the situations surrounding Senkaku islands and has danger of leading to an unexpected situation," Japan's foreign ministry said in a statement. Taiwan, which also claims the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, expressed regret at the move and promised that the military would take measure to protect national security. The Senkaku/Diaoyu islands have been a source of tension between China and Japan for decades In China, where Japan's wartime actions are kept alive in TV series, films and government propaganda, the new zone quickly won approval from Chinese nationalists, some of whom flocked to online sites such as the militant Iron and Blood forum to demand "merciless" treatment of the Japanese. On Sina Weibo, China's Twitter equivalent, lawyer Wu Yu, based in the eastern city of Nanjing, demanded the shooting down of all unauthorized planes in Diaoyu airspace. In September this year, Japan said it would shoot down unmanned aircraft in Japanese airspace after an unmanned Chinese drone flew close to the disputed islands. China said that any attempt by Japan to shoot down Chinese aircraft would constitute "an act of war".
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2013 5:00:14 GMT
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. China announces new Air Defense Identification Zone across the East China Sea November 23, 2013 (Courtesy China's Ministry of National Defense). 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.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2013 22:40:22 GMT
For more than a year, China and Japan, the world’s second- and third-largest economies, have been increasingly confrontational over the issue. Japan’s hypernationalist government led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has most often been the provocateur, but China has contributed to the instability by deploying Chinese coast guard ships and aircraft to the area to challenge Japan’s claims. The air defense zone goes even further in contesting Japan’s control by aggressively asserting China’s reach in the region. It significantly complicates efforts by the United States to develop a relationship with China under President Xi Jinping. Asian airlines quickly fell in line and said they would inform China of their flight plans before entering the disputed airspace. But the unilateral power grab rightly angered Tokyo and Washington. On Saturday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as part of a rapid American response, made it clear that the announcement “will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region” and reaffirmed America’s treaty obligation to aid Japan if it were attacked. On Monday, Mr. Abe vowed to defend his nation’s airspace. Given China’s unilateral decision, with its threat of possible military action, the United States needed to stand up for its ally Japan, for the principle of freedom of navigation of the seas and skies, and for other Asian nations that also have territorial disputes with China in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. Although America recognizes Japan as the administrator of the islands, it takes no position on claims to the islands in general and has urged all claimants to peacefully resolve their disputes. But Mr. Abe has pursued a disturbingly nationalistic foreign policy dominated by overheated words and an aggressive posture toward China that can be dangerous, for Japan and the United States. The Obama administration must find a way to defend Japan’s interest without emboldening the Abe government to take foolish risks that would increase tensions with China. Along with its predecessors, the administration has not always been clear or consistent in its messages and that needs to change. But it is China’s behavior that is most disturbing right now, especially since officials have left open the possibility of more air defense zones in the future. The United States has urged China to exercise caution and restraint and should be increasingly active in helping the two nations find a path away from confrontation. It is unclear if China really intends to respond militarily to Japanese or other planes flying through the zone, but the chance of miscalculation or error grows as the dispute escalates.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 27, 2013 2:15:19 GMT
"A pair of American B-52 bombers flew over a disputed island chain in the East China Sea" on Monday, according to The Wall Street Journal, "in a direct challenge to China and its establishment of an expanded air-defense zone." Jet diplomacy: A B-52. According to reports, two flew through an area that China now claims is within its air defense zone. Citing "U.S. officials" as its sources, the Journal adds that Chinese authorities were not told in advance of the planes' flights. The U.S. Air Force B-52 planes -- which were not armed because they were on a training mission -- set off Monday from Guam and returned there without incident. The mission lasted for several hours, and the aircraft were in China's newly declared air zone for about an hour, according to the U.S. official. The planes' pilots did not identify themselves upon entering the disputed airspace, as China would have wanted, according to the official.
|
|