Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Radar

Jeff Head said:

In so doing over they years, they have established themselves as the de facto administration of the islands.

China is attempting to stand up to that now...but Japan will not tolerate China landing on the islands themselves to upset that de facto position.

Click to expand...

Mysterre said:

IMO Japan's current status as de facto administrator of DYT is a direct consequence of the United States' decision to transfer the control of the islands to Japan in 1972 instead of Taiwan or China, not anything that Japan has enacted regarding those islands since that time. Japan's actions do not in any way legitimize its possession or administration of the islands nor does its status as de facto administrator lend any credence at all to the legitimacy of its claims to that island, which stand or fall on historical grounds alone.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

I agree that the 1972 decision directly established this administrative position...but had Japan done nothing since that time and allowed others to make their own claims, or themsleves establish a precense on the island, then what happened in 1972 would have no bering now.

But Japan did not do that, they have acted out the role and punctuated the claim since that time. To the point that it is Japan that removes interlopers from the islands when they land there, both its own people, and those from other places (like Taiwan).

If the PRC or Taiwan had established such a role without Japoanese interference, then it would be they who remove people landing there, not the Japanese. The very fact that Japan came in there and removed its own people and the Taiwan landings just punctuates their de facto and accetred role at the current time.

So, the Japanese in fact have had a part in it since 1972, and it has been a major and pivotal part in maintaining what the US passed to them back then, 40 years ago. They have taken the baton the US passed to them in 1972 and run with it.

As to the legal claims and how that will work itself out...my guess is, that short of some earth shattering ruling which the US and all members of the Security Council agree to, or short of some military escalation (which we hope does not occur because once started there is no way to tell how far it will go) that settles the matter, things will remain as they are for the forseeable future, and will probably cool down over time given no major provocation on either side.

And that will mean that China and Japan both send vessels there, but that Japan administrates the islands regarding any tresspass or emergencies dealing with the island's land mass themselves.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

And who landed on the islands and "forcefully" removed them? That's right, the Japanese did, further punctuating their position as the recognized administrators of the islands.

I have not seen any Americans suggesting they do this. I only made the observation that they had done it...and when they removed their own people and later others from the islands, they officially punctuated themselves as the ones with the authority to do so.

In so doing over they years, they have established themselves as the de facto administration of the islands.

China is attempting to stand up to that now...but Japan will not tolerate China landing on the islands themselves to upset that de facto position.

So the de facto position remains and ships sailing around within 12 km of the islands do not change that.

Japan is not going to "fight" that...they don't have to. And I do not believe China is ready to land a contingent of troops on any of those islands and build forts like they (and others) have done in the Spratleys precisely because they are not desirous to have a shooting war with Japan over it.

Facing off in a maritime confrontation against the Philipines or Vietnam is not the same as contemplating such a confrontation with Japan and all the strings Japan has attached to it.

Click to expand...

SampanViking said:

Now lets say that CNOOC were to build an Oil Rig just on or even within the 12 nautical mile limit of the Islands.....?

Click to expand...

jobjed said:

1972; the mainland was in the cultural revolution and Taiwan was still planning on re-taking the mainland. How can anyone expect them to pay attention to a small island that neither the ROC or PRC realised was their's but given to a foreign country?

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

If the PRC or Taiwan had established such a role without Japoanese interference, then it would be they who remove people landing there, not the Japanese. The very fact that Japan came in there and removed its own people and the Taiwan landings just punctuates their de facto and accetred role at the current time.

Click to expand...

Mysterre said:

It almost sounds like you think that what Japan has done since 1972 in some way legitimizes its presence there, by "accretion" or something. Japan doesn't get to have any "accetred" role there (I assumed you mean accreted, as in accumulated), as if its administration earns it some kind of 'possession points' or something like that so that it's own claim on thie islands is somehow strengthened by what it does routinely. That would be like saying that just because you illegally squatted on a piece of land for x amount of time and did y to it, somehow means your illegal status slowly turns into a legal status over time.

Click to expand...

Mysterre said:

It almost sounds like you think that what Japan has done since 1972 in some way legitimizes its presence there, by "accretion" or something. Japan doesn't get to have any "accetred" role there (I assumed you mean accreted, as in accumulated), as if its administration earns it some kind of 'possession points' or something like that so that it's own claim on thie islands is somehow strengthened by what it does routinely. That would be like saying that just because you illegally squatted on a piece of land for x amount of time and did y to it, somehow means your illegal status slowly turns into a legal status over time.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Mysterre, you jump to conclusions where there are none. You are stretching to try and read something into what I wrote. I have simply recounted the facts and not made a judgement regarding the legal claims as I plainly stated.

When you have to use terms like "it almost sounds like," to make a point that you thenb moce forward with to state that I feel it "somehow legitimizes," something, when I never said anything of the sort in the first place.

The legal issues will work out however they do...sometime. I do not expect it to be any time soon because at the moment for the UN to rule on it, it could be vetoed by the security council either way..CHina probably on one side of the issue and the US on the other. And, I do not believe they are willing to go to war over the status quo. So, that's why I believe unless somehing very pronounced happensm, as I said in my earlier post, things will probably cool down and stay as they are.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

BTW, in many US states the law actually does contain a provision for "squatters rights," where if someone does live on or even use your land for a certain amount of time without your making a legal claim against it...it can actually revert in ownership to the squatter.

I had to deal with an issue like this on my own, where a neighbor used a part of my land for a drive so his large lumber truch could get back to his property. After seven years, if I did not make a legal issue of it, he could have claimed ownership to that little strip of land. So I filed...just to make sure that didn.t happen (and will do so ever five years or so)...but then continue to let him use it as a good neighbor.

Click to expand...