Hi there
I want to know how you can chop off my paragraph and reply by paragraph? I want to do that too but i don't know how...
But the islands are uninhabited; Japanese claiming no one lives there when they annex it doesn’t mean anything, no one a life there now, does that mean china can claim terra nullius as well? In addition the period in which they claim the island is a period (beginning of) Japanese aggression and war in Asia, there is no higher form of protest than war.
Why would nobody actually read my post......
You don't just need terra nullius to claim an island
According to the Law of the Sea and Law of Sovereignty, there are 4 requirement for a country to cliam sovereign of any land mass. They are:
1.) The land must be originally uninhibited (Casus Terra nullius - Case of land belong to no one)
2.) Must be within 200 nm of EEZ (except ceded by treaties)
3.) Must establish settlement
4.) Must establish physical occupation (By direct governing or annexation)
However, people are not able to see 2 other complication on the issue as well, one is japanese claim the island was a part of Ruykyu Island chain (The reason why US gave the Island back to Japan) and the Cairo Declaration did not name Senkaku Island was one of the Island the Japanese have to return to their rightful owner.
What also complicated the issue is the Japanese claim the Island was annexed 4 months before the signing of Treaty of Shimonseki, Historial report the Treaty of Shimonoseki was in April (April 17 1895) while the annexation was done in january that year (Done on January 14 1895). Hence the japanese claim the annexationis nothing related to the Treaty of Shimonseki and hence is not part of landmass ceded to Japan via war (ie not war gain) but rather just an annexation of an unhabited land. I desprise on the Japanese tactic but any lawyer will tell you that, such dated historical even will stack against the Chinese in any International Court (Either Hague or Geneva)
The only way to counter this claim in an international court is, you can proof the Chinese have establish the government LONG BEFORE (no need to be long 1 day is enough) there are Japanese Settlement, currently as Chinese refuse to let a UN team survey the Island, there are no way to know if this is a valid agrument. Hence Terra Nullius is very important in this issue, if either side cannot proof there are settlement before 1895, Japanese will win as,
A.) The island was not official ceded by Treaty of Shimonoseki
B.) First recorded Settlement are the japanese in 1895.
But the assumption you are making here is that any kind of island hopping will take place. Again the islands are uninhabited, there is no point to take the islands, the reason they are valuable is the resources around the islands. If japan gave up the resource rights to china, china will be happy to give up the land on the islands. Any fight over the islands will be naval in nature no one will land troops on the island, it’s pointless. Whoever control the waters around the islands control the islands themselves, and unlike what you said, time is on china’s side, the longer they wait the stronger PLAN becomes (given current trends)
First of all, senkaku is not an inhabited island, they were habited in the period of 1900-1910 and can be rehabit again.
Secondly, You cannot start an naval blockade without the land base support (AWACS, Fighter and so on), basically nothing better to interdict than a solid airfield, if you want to control the sea around senkaku, you need the Island itself.
Same thing we do in WW2, do we want the Island like Peleliu and Iwo Jima or Palau island? No, but occuping the island will give you naval advantage that to the surrounding area, you need the island not because of the island itself, but rather it give you control the surrounding sea lane
You are assuming the US will jump blindly into the conflict, but let’s assume the US absolutely will jump to defend the islands if china attacked, but the strategy of china is not to go and attack japan, as you know they are sending mostly civilian ships into the area, this does several things.
1. If japan attacks civilian ships china can respond with its military and the US has no grounds to intervene because it is not china who attacked japan first but the other way around. In addition by hold the US economy at stake china can give every reason for the US not to join, and china being attack first gives the US a way out.
2. the islands are far closer to china than japan, china can send many ships exhausting the JSDF by forcing them to respond to every Chinese ship. Over time this will wear them down greatly. And note china has more money, ships, man power than japan and the distance favors china.
3. Time is on china’s side they need not force a show down now but civilian ships will keep the pressure on non-the-less
4. the illusion of actual Japanese control has been smashed, Chinese ships more or less enter the area at will
There are 2 things you got it wrong, 1 is the geoproximate of the island with China the second one your preception on the Naval Blockade.
The nearest Chinese mainland port is 202nm (wenzhou city), there are closest city in between but not shorter than 180nm, where the closest Japanese port is 92nm Ishigaki Island, ryukyu island chain, Okinawa. Where the nearest Major City is Keilong, Taiwan (100nm)
Google Maps Distance Calculator
The Chinese navy need to steam almost twice the mileage than their japanese counterpart just to get in the area and the truth is Chinese is fighting a war twice as hard unless Taiwan allow the Chinese to use their Keilong port, which does not seems possible.
To your Naval Blockade knowledge.
First of all, not that you cannot fire on any civilian ship. Civilian Ship would become a legitimate target once enter the exclusion zone, depend on the flag they fly, they may be boarded, turned around or if uncooperate, fired upon. it doesn;t matter if you are a civilian ship or warship.
Secondly, All NAVAL BLOCKADE ARE LEGAL within each country EEZ. Last time i check, senkaku lies 200nm both inside China and Japan. So either blockade will be consider legal.
So, in your case, it will be Chineses can shoot at Japanese Civilian or Navy vessel while Japanese can shoot at any Chinese Vessel. None of which will consider a casus belli to each other as both country have their exclusion right (Hence the dispute) and nothing is done.
Then you need to consider 2 more things, first of which is of course what the American do in case of a blockade, guess who will they help, the japanese or will they help the Chinese? I think we both know the answer. For a modern blockade, the US Navy have train on anti blockade (Or Spear FOrmation ) which has been extensively used during the Iran-Iraq War in 1980 wher the US Warship escort Kuwait ship out of the Blockade.
What they are doing is basically put themselve ahead of the intented ship you want to protect. Make sure people cant hit your protectee. The US have a seventh fleet in Japan for a reason, the reason is this.
The second thing is international pressure. Who will the people in asia more scare of,
When chinese start shooting Japanese Naval or Civilian ship, or,
When Japanese start shooting Chinese warship or civilian ship?
I can foresee the international pressure will be on the Chinese side. Do remember Japan have more friend than China in the Asia region. And the fact that China is a big country will start an international outcry and preceived as a big vs small fight. Which would not be good for the Chinese imagine.
