OT China - Japan Dispute...

[Cdnwolf]

BEIJING: The war of nerves between Japan and China over the disputed Diaoyu Islands in East China Sea took a serious turn on Wednesday with Tokyo detaining 14 Chinese activists who, Tokyo said, made an "illegal entry" in the islands.

The Chinese foreign ministry responded with loud protests that now threaten to snowball into a major controversy as both countries claim ownership to the islands. "The activists ignored warning from Japan before landing. But none of the arrested was hurt," the police in Japan's Okinawa island said. The arrested activists will be transferred to the city of Naha, which is the capital of Okinawa.

"They may be transferred to the Immigration Bureau of Japan later and sent back to Hong Kong," said a spokesman from Japan coast guard quoted by Chinese news agency, Xinhua. China has asked Japan to do nothing that would endanger the safety of the lives and property of Chinese citizens going to the Diaoyu Islands, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.

"China is paying close attention to the developments of relevant issues, and it has expressed its serious concerns over the issues to the Japanese side," Qin said. China's position on the Diaoyu Islands issue remains "clear and resolute".

[Webstral]

As China begins to think we don't have the ability to police the western Pacific as we have, we're going to see much, much more if this. The real action for the next decade might be in the Navy. It's a shame the Street Fighter program was cancelled. I hope the ship-borne missile defenses are up to scratch.

[headquarters]

Contrary to the western image of a reformed and now peace loving Japan I have to say that the Danish newspaper "Weekendavisen" had a pretty chilling portrayal of Japanese political faultlines along the issue of the war,nationalism and patriotism.

Rightwing nationalists like the Nipponkaigi and uyoku groups are a force to be reckoned with and have influence in the highest political hierarchies of Japan .
( So of course does the antiwar movement who takes a line of reconciliation against all former enemies and stands for a full acknowledgement of Japanese warcrimes - like the heiwaizokukai.).

However the uyoko have more efficient recruiting -and whats more - they push buttons that many Japanese respond to - obligation to nation,tradition and Emperor. By monopolizing the claim on these values they have secured influence.

Japan is still what we have known since ww2 - a peaceful nation with a largely pacifist constitution - but the times are a changing. China is making its mark more an more and in SOME peoples conception the US might is in a slow decline. I am not saying that thi is so - but if some people start thinking this policies might change and in time new powers will try to emerge.

I for one find it "fascinating" to se how the Chinese military is changing the way it wants to be percieved - no more Mao style green fatigues. These days its dark blue dress uniforms and digital camo fatigues whenever I see them on television.

I suppose all sides know that the stakes are too high as they will be when China and USA are involved.Time will show I guess. Hopefully it will go to an international court rather than end in a conflict.

[Webstral]

I agree that it will be better for everyone if the contest goes to court. Unfortunately, it takes everybody to live in peace but only one party to start a fight. I don't have a good lens on China's senior leadership. However, I'm aware that they have made a certain quid pro quo trade with the Chinese people: the Communists get to stay in charge and limit political freedom in return for rapid economic growth. If China's rate of growth slows significantly, there could be internal problems. An external adventure that can be blamed on someone else may become the cure for restiveness in that event. Also, a disruption of Persian Gulf oil and/or oil from the Sudan may cause the Politburo to conclude that control of the Spratleys offers better oil security. Such a move might allow the PLAN to score a victory over a second-string player. They might be willing to roll the dice versus the USN; or, with Chinese forces in control of the Spratleys, they might insist that the matter be taken to the UN, where issues of who owes how much money to whom might "influence" justice.

Neither Obama nor Romney are the sorts to go head-to-head with China over aggression. Too many American businesses could lose out if the Chinese decide to nationalize certain foreign assets. Never mind that China would lose an important market. The investors will blink before the Politburo settles down for a serious staring contest. Blinking investors send their agents to bang on the doors of Congress. Sigh. Capitalism and federal republicanism certainly do have their weaknesses.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree that it will be better for everyone if the contest goes to court. Unfortunately, it takes everybody to live in peace but only one party to start a fight. I don't have a good lens on China's senior leadership. However, I'm aware that they have made a certain quid pro quo trade with the Chinese people: the Communists get to stay in charge and limit political freedom in return for rapid economic growth. If China's rate of growth slows significantly, there could be internal problems. An external adventure that can be blamed on someone else may become the cure for restiveness in that event. Also, a disruption of Persian Gulf oil and/or oil from the Sudan may cause the Politburo to conclude that control of the Spratleys offers better oil security. Such a move might allow the PLAN to score a victory over a second-string player. They might be willing to roll the dice versus the USN; or, with Chinese forces in control of the Spratleys, they might insist that the matter be taken to the UN, where issues of who owes how much money to whom might "influence" justice.

Neither Obama nor Romney are the sorts to go head-to-head with China over aggression. Too many American businesses could lose out if the Chinese decide to nationalize certain foreign assets. Never mind that China would lose an important market. The investors will blink before the Politburo settles down for a serious staring contest. Blinking investors send their agents to bang on the doors of Congress. Sigh. Capitalism and federal republicanism certainly do have their weaknesses.

in my humble opinion - China will take the Spratleys from Vietnam if there is oil or gas to be had. I do not see the US loosing anything by not backing up an old foe in those seas.

As for potential Naval conflict - how about that northern polar ice cap dwindling? I hear the US, Canada, Denmark, Russia, China and even South Korea are sending signals that these are "their " waters? Even hear talk of submerged mountain ridges expanding from Russian waters thus widening their legal claims etc etc ..

[Webstral]

I agree that we’d be happy to see Vietnam receive a little spanking. However, Taiwan and the Philippines are among the other claimants. This could be a problem.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by headquarters

As for potential Naval conflict - how about that northern polar ice cap dwindling? I hear the US, Canada, Denmark, Russia, China and even South Korea are sending signals that these are "their " waters? Even hear talk of submerged mountain ridges expanding from Russian waters thus widening their legal claims etc etc ..

I totally agree. The oil and gas fields of the Middle East, Eurasia and North America and the North Sea are reaching maturity and new oil fields in Africa and South America plagued by regional instability. The Polar regions are becoming the world’s last great untapped energy reserves. The South Pole and the continent of Antarctica is strictly off limits by international treaty to mineral exploitation, but the North Pole and the Arctic is not.

The ownership of this hostile land is contested by five countries; Russia, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, the US and Canada, although other countries are also relevant to the Arctic geopolitical order, most notably Great Britain, Finland, Iceland and Sweden, and the Chinese are staking a claim in case they are literally frozen out.

The five Arctic countries control a 200-mile economic zone extending north from their northern coasts. Beyond that it’s a no-man's-land. Under UN rules an Arctic country's economic zone can be extended if it can prove that the undersea territory it wants to claim is geologically part of its own continental shelf. Using this loophole Russia has mounted a massive scientific and diplomatic effort to redraw the polar map. In 2007 Russia claimed through sonic and magnetic readings and photographs of the seabed from a nuclear powered ice breaker the discovery of an underwater ridge directly linking Russia's Arctic coast to the North Pole named the Lomonosov Ridge. According to Moscow it guarantees Russia's rights over a polar territory half the size of Western Europe which contains ten billion tons of oil and natural gas deposits. To push the point home a Russian submarine planted the Russian flag on the bottom of the sea at the North Pole. Russia is also believed to be readying a claim to an 18,000 sq mile piece of the Bering Sea, which separates Alaska from the Russian Far East.

Today Russia, Canada and the US keep isolated military posts dotted across the Arctic Circle. Any future confrontation over the Arctic would largely be a naval one, with Russia's Northern Fleet, based at Murmansk, confronting the US Navy Second Fleet. Two-thirds of Russia's naval power is allocated to its Northern Fleet. Recent forecast of far-reaching climate change in the Arctic has led to fears of future conflict in the region.

Such fears have been expressed in the defence policy of the five Arctic states. Canada, Denmark and Russia have recently implemented new foreign and defence policies with a specific emphasis on the Arctic, and have strengthened their military presence or increased their military capabilities for Arctic use. Norway has also moved a substantial part of its operational forces to the north of the country.

Only the USA has placed less focus on Arctic security, although US forces take part in the biannual training exercises (wargames) held since 2007 in Norway along with Britain, Canada, France and the Netherlands, and non-NATO Finland and Sweden. NATO’s new focus on the Arctic seems to be to contain or confront future Russian moves in the Arctic region with Canada even putting aside its past land dispute with the US over 12,000 sq km of seabed in the Beaufort Sea to defend against Russian Arctic claims and testing of its boundaries which clash with those of the US, Canada, Denmark and Norway.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree that it will be better for everyone if the contest goes to court. Unfortunately, it takes everybody to live in peace but only one party to start a fight. I don't have a good lens on China's senior leadership. However, I'm aware that they have made a certain quid pro quo trade with the Chinese people: the Communists get to stay in charge and limit political freedom in return for rapid economic growth. If China's rate of growth slows significantly, there could be internal problems. An external adventure that can be blamed on someone else may become the cure for restiveness in that event. Also, a disruption of Persian Gulf oil and/or oil from the Sudan may cause the Politburo to conclude that control of the Spratleys offers better oil security. Such a move might allow the PLAN to score a victory over a second-string player. They might be willing to roll the dice versus the USN; or, with Chinese forces in control of the Spratleys, they might insist that the matter be taken to the UN, where issues of who owes how much money to whom might "influence" justice.

Neither Obama nor Romney are the sorts to go head-to-head with China over aggression. Too many American businesses could lose out if the Chinese decide to nationalize certain foreign assets. Never mind that China would lose an important market. The investors will blink before the Politburo settles down for a serious staring contest. Blinking investors send their agents to bang on the doors of Congress. Sigh. Capitalism and federal republicanism certainly do have their weaknesses.

I would agree with much of this although I don't realy think Japan could be classed as a second string-player by any means. Its economy is almost as big as China's and its a lot richer, and its also a major military power in its own right (without nuclear weapons). Constitutionaly the Japanese are restricted from developing nuclear weapons and its military is set up for self defence only (hence the names of the army, airforce and navy).

Japan is also highly industrialised with a generally higher level of technology within its economy than China's. Japan's post-war governments have been happy to apply the minimal amount of its own technology for military or strategic purposes and has been happy to sit under the American defence umbrella and spend no more than 1% of its economy on its own defence. But they have a large and very modern airforce and navy and they produce a lot of very high quality weapons or licence produce it from America. They are also believed to have the capacity to go nuclear very quickly if they felt threatened by hostile powers (North Korea, China). The last think China or the rest of Asia wants is a pissed off Japan spending the same amount of its economy on defence as America spends (4-5%) as it will radically alter the balance of power in Asia, while the Japanese are also major investors in the Chinese economy. Just like America they could pull their factories out of China and start up somewhere else.