| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| Panetta Warns of War Between China and Japan Over Disputed Islands |
| 2012-09-17 |
| This is not getting much attention Exchanging warnings but avoiding confrontations thus far, Chinese and Japanese ships have come within less than half a nautical mile of each other in an ongoing dispute over the sovereignty of contested islands. Amid deepening tensions in a long-running saga over the uninhabited islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Sunday about the possibility of war between the two Asian countries. “What we don't want is to have any kind of provocative behavior on the part of China or anybody else result in conflict,” he told reporters accompanying him on a trip that includes stops in Japan, China and New Zealand. “My purpose will be to urge that they engage in the effort by the Asian nations to try to work out a format for resolving these issues,” he added, referring to a code of conduct developed by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in a bid to manage unconnected territorial disputes between China and ASEAN members in the South China Sea. Asked again about the concerns, Panetta said he was worried that “when these countries engage in provocations of one kind or another over these various islands, that it raises the possibility that a misjudgment on one side or the other could result in violence and could result in conflict, and that conflict would then, you know, have the potential of expanding.” “We’re going to face more of this, countries are searching for resources,” he added. “There’s going to be questions raised as to who has jurisdiction over these areas. There has got to be a peaceful way to resolve these issues.” Any conflict between Japan and China could risk drawing in the United States. Although the U.S. position is that is does not take sides in the territorial dispute the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has confirmed that the islands fall within the scope of article five of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security – an appraisal rejected by Beijing. The treaty’s article five states: “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.” The Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, located about halfway between the Chinese mainland and Japan’s southernmost island of Okinawa, have been under disputed Japanese control since the late 19th century. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #15 PEOPLE'S DAILY > THREE QUESTIONS FOR JAPAN: WHAT IS JAPAN'S INTENTIONS IN "PURCHASING THE DIAOYU ISLANDS"? ARTIC > Zhang Haiwen of SOAC = denoted that the Daoyus has HUGE MILITARY, ETC. VALUE - CONTROL OF ITS WATERS BY JAPAN MEANS JAPAN HAS CLUTCHED THE THROAT OF THE CHANNEL BY WHICH CHINA GAINS ENTRANCE INTO THE OPEN SEA OF THE PACIFIC. Yuuup. * WAFF > AS CHINA-JAPAN RELATIONS DETERIORATE, THREAT OF WAR LOOMING | GROWING TENSIONS BETWEEN CHINA + JAPAN FUELS CONCERNS ON POTENTIAL [for]WAR. * WORLD NEWS > US: CHINA [+ ASEAN] MAY START [poten Escalatory] "TERRITORIAL WAR(S)", iff their Govts. continue "provocative" behavior at the expense of compromise and peace. US SecDef Leon Panetta. versus * CHINA DAILY FORUM > US WILL NOT TAKE SIDES ON ISLANDS. I have to wonder iff JAPAN = ISRAEL, vee Israel-claimed failure of the POTUS Bammer Admin to set-up "red lines"??? * WAFF > JAPANESE [Corporate]FLAGSHIPS SHUTTER FACTORIES IN CHINA AMID ESCALATING ISLAND DISPUTES. * GLOBAL TIMES.CN > US BACKING MAY PROVE COSTSLY FOR JAPAN. ARTIC = ... - Japan is a Puppet of the USA. - Diaoyu Islands dispute = ultimately devols into the US-VS-CHINA, NOT CHINA-VS-JAPAN wid Japan only in secondary or tertiary role??? FYI the US has just agreed wid Japan to set up a second BMD Radar there. Also, dare JAPAN unknowing get a gift from the Soviets now Russians, or Mama Indjuh ... * WAFF > [Indian Navy] RUSSIAN-BUILT "VIKRAMADITYA" AIRCRAFT CARRIER SUFFERS ENGINE PROBLEM [failure]. Seven of eight HP Boilers suddenly broke down during a high-speed ocean trial, wid three of same repor as "un-repairable. NOT CLEAR IFF WAS AN ORIGINAL SOVIET/RUSSIAN ENGINEERING DEFECT, OR INDIAN vee India's decision to use dubious firebricks instead of more reliable asbestos as boiler heat protection??? CHINA's new CV is also simil Soviet/Russian-built. LOOKS LIKE THE SMALLER RUSSIAN OCEAN/FLEET TUGBOAT IS BECOM THE MOST IMPORTANT VESSEL IN THE TASK FORCE OR TASK GROUP, NOT THE BIGGER CV, SUBS, OR SURFACE WARFARE VESSELS??? Can you imagine the US CNO demanding to know the location of each and every Fleet Tug in the Russian + Chinese Navy as priority in war - "THE FLEET TUGS, D *** YOU, THE FLEET TUGS"! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-09-18 00:01 |
| #14 Put a sock in it, Panetta. |
| Posted by: canalzone 2012-09-17 21:42 |
| #13 Pragmatically, the PLAN may have acquired a number of new modern warships, but these are still mostly inferior to older ones of the JMSDF, let alone Japan's new AEGIS or Super-AEGIS-centric stuff. Unless China resorts to using its Nukes, Analysts predict Japan will prevail in a major conventional war between the JSDF + PLA, although Japan will have a hard fight on its hands. Perhaps more importantly, CHINA'S ULTIMATE INTENT IS NOTSOMUCH RE-C0NQUEST OF THE DIAOYUS ANDOR RYUKYUS [Okinawa archipelago] FROM NIPPON, BUT TO "FORCE OPEN" PERMAMENT + "UNCHALLENGED" PLA AIR-NAVAL STRATEGIC ACCESS FROM NE ASIA INTO WESTPAC, VEE OKINAWA-TAIWAN CORRIDOR = "DRAGON TRIANGLE". IOW, NILBLOGS = In China's mind, any Sino-Japanese conventional war oer the disputed Diaoyus/Senkakus will also be a battle or war for control, dominance of Okinawa, Taiwan, Korean Peninsula, + northern PHIL. IMO the JSDFS must be ready for at least a SINO-JAPANESE LIMITED NUCLEAR = LIMITED TACTICAL NUCLEAR WAR SCENARIO(S) vee China + PLA. Either that, or Japan must renounce its sovereignty of the Diaoyus + prolly Okinawa to China. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-09-17 19:56 |
| #12 To paraphrase K: Imagine a giant nation, with unlimited population, a massive inferiority complex, and a real short temper, is tear-assing around the South China Sea with a brand new navy. |
| Posted by: Shinter Javirong9154 2012-09-17 17:09 |
| #11 China would be better of dealing with North Korea if it needs a foreign threat and wants international love. Might end up with a united semi-neutral Korea. |
| Posted by: Rjschwarz 2012-09-17 16:41 |
| #10 China is nowhere near needing that type of distraction Actually, China badly needs a distraction from the coming economic meltdown. Plus there is an upcoming leadership change in the Party and some associated revisions to the constitution. Couple that with the territorial issues that gromky mentions upstream, some historical animosities, China's sense of Manifest Destiny, and you have all the ingredients. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2012-09-17 15:45 |
| #9 It's already bad for business. Over a dozen Japanese factories in China have shut down over real or threatened damage, storefronts have closed, tourist trips from Japan to China are being canceled. OIL. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-09-17 14:29 |
| #8 They're not just "worthless rocks", unworthy of fighting over. Whoever owns them owns hundreds of miles of ocean as well, and there's oil and gas on the seafloor. That's why they're fighting over these tiny islands. |
| Posted by: gromky 2012-09-17 13:57 |
| #7 Resources can be negotiated and the Chinese and Japanese know this and will work it out quietly behind the scenes while the public faces scream and yell. That's what I'm hoping. They both must know that a war would be bad for business. But if the shooting did start it might be difficult for them to back away from it. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2012-09-17 13:49 |
| #6 China doesn't want to bugger up their new toys. High probability they may not work also. Standees don't look good wet and blow over also in the wind. |
| Posted by: Dale 2012-09-17 13:13 |
| #5 Much different politically. Argentina was looking at a possible coup back home and everyone thought the British would just shrug and go away. It was a war of distraction, not resources. China is nowhere near needing that type of distraction and Japan is willing to go toe to toe at the moment. Resources can be negotiated and the Chinese and Japanese know this and will work it out quietly behind the scenes while the public faces scream and yell. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2012-09-17 13:08 |
| #4 War was started over the Falklands - how different was that? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-09-17 13:04 |
| #3 If somebody wants to start a war, this is a good excuse, but nobody is going to start a war for these islands. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-09-17 12:47 |
| #2 Panetta warns..... And Rice bloviates. Endless election year distraction from a failed economy by the Obama rank and file. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-09-17 12:31 |
| #1 Doubt this will lead to war. Lead to China targeting Japan with missiles and making a jerk out of itself, yes. Making sure the nations surrounding China form more of a coalition against them, yes. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2012-09-17 12:23 |