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

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

Jeff Head said:

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...

Which is pretty much what China is doing.
It's really hard to say what kind of a reasonable time frame is for Territorial disputes like these. Some countries are build on claims from thousands of years ago(fully endorsed by the US btw), so with that in mind it really hasn't been that long.

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

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..

Click to expand...

The Japanese landed to physically remove their own citizen from squatting. This is minimal government action and does not represent landing on the island to do surveys and show a presence to punctuate their national claim. For such actions will be provocative. This is contrary to your claim that Japan feels free to come in and land on the island, do surveys, show a presece as often as necessary to punctuate their claim. What Japan government had done is more subtle and can be interpreted as neccessary evil.

I have not seen any Americans suggesting they do this. .

Click to expand...

Maybe that was not your intention The Japanese government has not even done so is obviously out of concern to avoid any escalation. Yet your statement stating that Japan should perhaps feel free to do whatever it wants on these island are tacit consent and encouragement to do so.

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

xywdx said:

Originally Posted by Jeff Head
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...

Which is pretty much what China is doing.
It's really hard to say what kind of a reasonable time frame is for Territorial disputes like these. Some countries are build on claims from thousands of years ago(fully endorsed by the US btw), so with that in mind it really hasn't been that long.

Click to expand...

I agree, China did protest when the US handed administration over to Japan, the equivalent of filing. Ever since, there's always been protest on the issue, like re-filing. Taiwan/ROC is more muted because it depends on the US for credible defense and would be hard pressed to be more active/vocal as it lost its UN seat and eventually, the US terminating its defense treaty with Taiwan/ROC.



Japan may pretend there is no dispute but in 1971, the joint communique when normalizing China/Japan relations listed -

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 Proclamation.

Click to expand...

Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation states,

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.

Click to expand...

In the Cairo Declaration, we have

.... 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.

Click to expand...

Japan annexing Diaoyu happened during the First Sino-Japanese War. I reiterate - Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.




Unless something pivotal happens between now and next year, I think the next potential flareup in this saga will be what the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf determines from China's filing to extend the EEZ based on extension of its shelf.

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

Mysterre said:

Well, it sure sounded like that's what you were implying. And once again, "it sounds like" this is in fact what you mean, because you are now saying this as well:


So by your analogy, China should play the "good neighbor" and allow Japan to continue squatting, until of course the sheer duration of the illegal activity somehow legalizes its presence. I wonder how you would have felt had you become disabled and were unable to file a claim against your neighbor even though you wanted to....

Click to expand...

Well Mysterre, first of all, in the intervening time I got serious, malignant cancer and underwent surgeries where I did become disabled. But I am able to file anyway, and if I couldn't, my wife or one of my five kids would have my power of attorney and would do it for me. So...let's not go there, it's another bad analogy.

Second, I am not saying in the least that China should do what I explained regarding "squatter's laws" in particular states in America. Never said it, and never implied it. What I was doing was simply refuting your statment regarding squatters that you brought up as an analogy in the first place. So, please do not label it as "my" analogy. It was a bad analogy, and I tried to explain why...that's all. In turn, you are taking my statement to you about that analogy and extending it to China as if thought I directed it there. I did not.

Again, I never said what China should do, I only said what the law is in several US states. That does not make it law for China, or what China should do. The statement was made for your benefit, not China's. Again, it was you who brought up the issue/analogy of squatters, not me. I made the statement I did in the hopes you would not apply that particular analogy.

Hope that helps. Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions and making declarative statements about what I mean when I never said, or meant any such thing as regards China.

Dolcevita said:

Yet your statement stating that Japan should perhaps feel free to do whatever it wants on these island are tacit consent and encouragement to do so.

Click to expand...

I made no such statement that they should "feel free" to do whatever they want on the islands. I simply stated what they might have done in the past to try and punctuate their "de facto" administration of the islands. That does not say or imply that they are "free" to do things as it relates to the legal/soveriegnty issue, and I specifically stated that that situation was not related to the legality of the control or ownership of the islands.

There is a huge difference between a de facto situation that Japan finds itself in and what the actual outcome of who actually, legally has soveriegnty over the islands. I gave no tacit consent regarding that issue in the least and never meant to.

Hope that helps you understand what I meant.

I do believe that the situation is not going to be resolved on that legal issue for some time.

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

The situation have served its purpose, drive up the hype in domestic front and internationally, all in Japan's favor so far, as well as for Abe's upcoming visit to the US.

We'll soon find out what that will be, when they make their joint statement at the end of Abe's visit...also, Japan's parliamentary election is in the coming July, so do expect more stuff like that from Japan.

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

recently Abe has been talking about "going back to the original point" on the Diaoyu dispute, that is going back to the before last sept situation. China's reply is simple: going back, fine, scrap the purchasing thing first. Abe certainly doesn't want to do that, he wants China going back unilaterally to the time when japan had "effective administrative control" of the islands.

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

LesAdieux said:

recently Abe has been talking about "going back to the original point" on the Diaoyu dispute, that is going back to the before last sept situation. China's reply is simple: going back, fine, scrap the purchasing thing first. Abe certainly doesn't want to do that, he wants China going back unilaterally to the time when japan had "effective administrative control" of the islands.

Click to expand...

That's the point. Things as it is now neither side can back down without getting flayed alive by their own people, so either it stays stalemate (probably what both sides really wanted, as neither have what can be a "game changer" to endgame this once and for all), or something happens again to knock things a notch up, one more step towards a shooting war...at least in HK, the local authorities are using whatever red tape on the book to "legally" ground those activists from set sail again.

My bet is that things should keep simmering till May or June, just before Japan's parliamentary election in July, then we'll see how Abe's cabinet play this further towards their ruling coalition's favor.

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

MwRYum said:

My bet is that things should keep simmering till May or June, just before Japan's parliamentary election in July, then we'll see how Abe's cabinet play this further towards their ruling coalition's favor.

Click to expand...

Abe, like all japanese right-wingers, harbours ill will towards China, so a friendly relationship is imposssible.

Abe doesn't have a strong hand to play, it's pretty much a no-win scenario for him. he may have learnt from noda, japan cannot win any confrontation, and there is no going back.

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

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...

I do not understand this law at all. If I tolerate the usage of MY property by someone because I don't want to appear like an a**hole, the property will somehow become their's if I tolerate them long enough?

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

jobjed said:

I do not understand this law at all. If I tolerate the usage of MY property by someone because I don't want to appear like an a**hole, the property will somehow become their's if I tolerate them long enough?

Click to expand...

I do really suspect that law only apply to unclaimed land. Because there is a lot of unattended properties out there. Suppose I sneak into all of them, and I'm crafty enough to avoid detection and documented my "use" history, I would become the legal owner of all of them in 7 years? That doesn't sound right at all. OK /tangent