East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Status
Not open for further replies.

SamuraiBlue

Captain
The fact that a territorial dispute exists between China and Japan is plain for the entire world to see. Only the Abe regime is blind to this fact apparently. That's fine, there is no need to go to war. I'm sure most Japanese people are more reasonable than Mr. Abe. In the latest poll, a majority of Japanese people already disapproves of Abe. Abe can't use the China threat card forever to distract the Japanese people from his poor handling of Fukushima cleanup, from his print more money economic policy that's eroding the people's saving, from his attempt to drag Japan into more international conflicts. I trust that given time, the Japanese people will kick him out of office and elect a more reasonable government with whom China can do business with.

Sorry but dispute is a result from ambiguity in the claim made by a nation in which both nations agrees in the ambiguity of the claim. You can't just claim another nation's sovereign territory and call it a dispute, that is just land grabbing.
PRC in the 60's through government authorized maps shows that PRC themselves accepted that the Senkaku isles belong to Japan only to change her attitude in the 70's when Shell announced that there may be oil within the region.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
Sorry but dispute is a result from ambiguity in the claim made by a nation in which both nations agrees in the ambiguity of the claim. You can't just claim another nation's sovereign territory and call it a dispute, that is just land grabbing.
PRC in the 60's through government authorized maps shows that PRC themselves accepted that the Senkaku isles belong to Japan only to change her attitude in the 70's when Shell announced that there may be oil within the region.

was it even Japanese territory to begin with in the 60s or 70s?

Did japanese government officially incorporate it in the 60s or 70s?

when the Japanese government received it from US in 79' did it get full sovereignty rights or just Administrative rights?

Did Chinese government (ROC or PRC) ever formally announce to give up the Islands?

Where is the legal basis for Japanese sovereignty? I see it therefore I took it?


Simple fact of the matter:

Does or Does not the Nation of Japan as through its current government recognizes and submit under the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declarations? In which it stripped away all of its ill-gotten gains from Japan's post late 19th century military expansionism?

If not, then China has every right to delcare cause belli... Japan has reneged its term for surrender for the WW II.

...

it doesn't pass the lawyer test.
 
Last edited:

shen

Senior Member
Sorry but dispute is a result from ambiguity in the claim made by a nation in which both nations agrees in the ambiguity of the claim. You can't just claim another nation's sovereign territory and call it a dispute, that is just land grabbing.
PRC in the 60's through government authorized maps shows that PRC themselves accepted that the Senkaku isles belong to Japan only to change her attitude in the 70's when Shell announced that there may be oil within the region.

Land grabbing is when one party refuses to admit that another party has a conflicting claim on that piece of land. Which is what Abe is doing. A territorial dispute is defined as "a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more territorial entities".
Let's not get into another round of the history of who claimed first. That's really tiresome and unproductive. What is clear is that when Taiwan was occupied by Japan, the Japanese government considered Diaoyudao as part of Taiwan administration. Since Taiwan was returned to China after WWII, Diaoyudao as part of Taiwan should've already been returned to China. Heck, return Diaoyudao to ROC today, personally, I don't really care.
 

FarkTypeSoldier

Junior Member
Mainly because the Cairo declaration has no legal status as same as the Potsdam declaration. Declarations are only unilateral and always followed by signing of a bilateral treaty in which case the San Francisco peace treaty is the only recognized legal document.

I didnt know you were so ignorance as well.
 
Last edited:

joshuatree

Captain
Mainly because the Cairo declaration has no legal status as same as the Potsdam declaration. Declarations are only unilateral and always followed by signing of a bilateral treaty in which case the San Francisco peace treaty is the only recognized legal document.


Ahem, Japan has this bilateral treaty with China.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China (Aug 12, 1978)

Recalling with satisfaction that since the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China issued a Joint Communique in Peking on September 29, 1972, the friendly relations between the two Governments and the peoples of the two countries have developed greatly on a new basis.

Confirming that the above-mentioned Joint Communique constitutes the basis of the relations of peace and friendship between the two countries and that the principles enunciated in the Joint Communique should be strictly observed.


Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China (Sept 29, 1972)

3. The Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration.


Potsdam Declaration (Jul 26, 1945)

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.


Cairo Declaration (Nov 27, 1943)

The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.


Furthermore, neither ROCs were signatories to Treaty of San Francisco, thus making it unilateral in regards to Japanese-Chinese relations.
 

ABC78

Junior Member
Here's a discussion on the ID zone as news of the b-52s broke.

Jump to time 1:22:00 if your not interested in the rest of the talk.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Former State and Defense Department officials and former Middle East adviser Dennis Ross talked about President Obama’s challenges in foreign policy and national challenges. Topics included a recent agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, efforts to start peace negotiations in Syria, turmoil in the Middle East, the European economy, and competitive markets in the Asia-Pacific. They responded to questions from the audience at the New America Foundation. "The National Security Agenda: Foreign Policy Challenges in Obama’s Second Term" was the seventh in a series of programs co-sponsored by the Century for a New American Security and the American Enterprise Institute.
 

Scyth

Junior Member
It appears that South Korea is expanding their own ADIZ. I'm wonder how much it'll overlap with China's ADIZ.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Defense News said:
SEOUL — South Korea is announcing next week that it will extend its air defense identification zone in response to China’s declaration of a new air defense zone overlapping the country’s southern islands and underwater rock.

President Park Geun-hye held talks Dec. 6 with US Vice President Joe Biden here to discuss the matter.

According to the presidential office, Biden, who had received no concession from China on its new air defense zone, appreciates Seoul’s plan to expand its air defense zone, drawn in 1951 by the UN Command in the middle of the Korean War.

“The two sides agreed to continue to discuss the matter,” Foreign Minister Yoon Byung-se said after the meeting.

In a speech at Yonsei University here, Biden reiterated the US government doesn’t recognize China’s unilateral move announced Nov. 23.

“We do not recognize the zone,” Biden told students. “It will have no effect on American operations.”

He called on South Korea, China and Japan to “lower the temperature” to resolve the issue. “The possibility of miscalculation, a mistake, is real,” he said.

Right after the Park-Biden meeting, presidential National Security Chief Kim Jang-soo convened a meeting of security-related ministers to finalize South Korea’s zone expansion, according to the presidential office.

The ministers agreed to expand the zone to include the southern islands of Marado and Hongdo, as well as the Ieodo Ocean Research Station. The station is built on top of a submerged rock formation within the overlapping exclusive economic zone of South Korea and China. The new Chinese air defense zone covers Ieodo, which is effectively controlled by South Korea.

“The new [zone] has been conceptually finalized,” a senior Defense Ministry official said. “The new air boundary is likely to be extended as far south as 100 kilometers from Ieodo, so as to make it coincide with South Korea’s flight information region designated by the International Civil Aviation Organization.”

China expressed regret. Hong Lei, spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said Seoul’s zone expansions should be in line with international law and convention, saying Beijing will consult with Seoul over the issue.

Security experts here offered mixed responses to the expansion.

Yang Wook, a research member of the Korea Defense & Security Forum, urged the government not to take an emotional action.

“We should come up with a strategy in a more careful and measured way,” he said. “It is not smart to hastily bring in a measure to handle the hot-button issue.”

Hong Hyun-ik, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute, said, “As China takes toll on South Korea, we have no option but to declare our expanded air zone.

“A lukewarm response could send a signal that we may make a concession on our own territory,” he added.

Amid heightened tension triggered by China’s new air defense zone, the navies of South Korea, the US and Britain plan to carry out maritime exercises in the southern waters off the Korean Peninsula.

The two-day exercise is set to take place Dec. 8-9 and mobilize a South Korean Aegis destroyer, the US Navy cruiser Shiloh and a Royal NavyDaring-class destroyer.

“This is an exceptional opportunity to bring together three navies that have historically worked very closely together as allies and close friends,” said Rear Adm. Lisa Franchetti, commander of US Naval Forces Korea. “This exercise provides our navies a chance to work together and learn from each other, so we may continue to fulfill our common interests in preserving a safe and secure maritime environment.”

The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) is set to approve a plan to build at least three more Aegis destroyers to better cope with potential conflicts with North Korea, as well as neighboring countries.

“The plan to launch more Aegis ships is scheduled to get approval during a JCS top decision-making conference on Dec. 22,” a JCS spokesman said.

The South Korean Navy has three 7,600-ton KDX-III Aegis destroyers. The KDX-III ship is equipped with the latest phased array radar and other state-of-the-art sensors that can deal with all kinds of air, surface and submerged threats, Navy officials said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top