Book Authored (ISBN-10: 0824821599)

Book Authored (ISBN-10: 0824821599)
Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands (ISBN-10: 0824824938)

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Unilateral Decisions by Japan-II/The Diaoyu/Senkaku-XVIII

On September 27, 2012, the Chinese No. 4 position among 9 Standing Committee members of the CCP (or core leadership in Beijing) made latest warning to Japan. Jia Qinglin, Chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the Chinese top political advisory body, stated that the Japanese “nationalization” of the Diaoyu Islands had put bilateral ties into “an unprecedented and severe situation (CCTV News September 27 2012)” when he met the Japanese delegation whose members include Kono Yohei (former Lower House Speaker), Eda Satsuki (Former Upper House President), Kato Koichi (former Chief Cabinet Secretary), and Komura Masahiko (former Foreign Minister). By now, however, most Japanese media and politicians assume that Beijing will change its position of the Diaoyu Islands after the 18th CCP meeting in November. This might be another miscalculation (or misjudgment) by Japan.

Source: Kyodo News (access date: 30 September 2012).
In separate talks with Tang Jiaxuan (former State Councilor), according to Kato, Tang was “very made” at Japanese move, which came only two days after Chinese President Hu Jintao told Prime Minister Noda Yoshikoko in APEC meeting (in Vladivostok, Russia) on September 9, 2012 that China firmly opposed Japan’s nationalization plan. “President Hu met Prime Minister Noda on the sidelines of a regional summit in Vladivostok at Japan’s request, but Japan decided to nationalize the islands the next day. How could you do such a thing (Japan Times 30 September 2012)?” Basically, Noda slapped Hu’s face international and domestically. This was one of the biggest mistakes (or/and miscalculation or/and misjudgment) by Japan.
Source: China Times (access date: 30 September 2012)

Monday, September 17, 2012

The Chinese “Super Missile” DF-41 vs. American X-Band-I/Diaoyu/Senkaku-XVII

Since China has possessed a “carrier-killer” (or DF-31), the Pentagon has been concerned it because the anti-ship missile can strike at the American Pacific fleet (see the blog “Carrier-Killer” Missile/Cold War Mentality-V). The “carrier-killer” has a range of 930 miles, which might prevent US ships from approaching the South China Sea. Now, China also appears to have a DF-41 in their hands.
Source: X-Band by (access date: 30 August 2012).
Previously, the discussion between Japan and the United States, according to US defense officials (interview by the Wall Street Journal), was underway to set up a new anti-missile shield, known as the X-Band, on the southern Japanese islet (The Telegraph August 23, 2012). This will be the second X-Band to be place, and a third X-Band will be placed at the Philippines in South East Asia (Phoenix News 22 August 2012). In 2006, the US installed the X-Band in Aomori Japan. Once the three radar arcs set up, they will prevent Chinese navy from entering the Pacific Ocean. Unfortunately, the idiotic Japanese Minister has agreed with the US to set up the second radar as soon as possible when Secretary Leon Panetta visited Japan by September 16, 2012 during ongoing Sino-Japanese territorial disputes in the East China Sea (Jiji News 17 September 2012).  

Source: Mainichi Shimbun (access date: 17 September 2012).

An unnamed American official told Jane’s Defence Weekly that the PLA in China has tested an intercontinental ballistic missile, DF-41, on July 24 and August 16. It was the first time that US authorities confirmed the existence of the missile project (South China Morning Post 24 August 2012; Phoenix News 23 August 2012). However, a Chinese military expert, Wei Guoan, familiar with the missile corps (was interviewed by the Global Times, a newspaper under the CCP party mouthpiece People’s Daily) denied that the missile tested on July 24 was DF-41. “The third generation ICBM equipped with multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) is being developed by the Second Artillery….” It was not the DF-41 on July 24. 
Source: DF-41 by (access date: 18 August 2012). 
A number of Western military experts believed that the Chinese abandoned the project a long time ago because of technical difficulties. For instance, Andrei Chang, who edits the Canadian-based Kanwa Asian Defence Monthly said, “The Challenges and difficulties between the second and third generation of ICBMs is very complicated, and the intelligence that I’ve gathered tells me that China is still incapable of overcoming many problems, even though they have spent more than 20 years to develop it (South China Morning Post 24 August 2012).”  
Source: DF-41 by (access date: 20 August 2012).

On the other hand, Larry Wortzel, the former American military intelligence official, quoted in Jane’s report, “The DF-41 is mobile and will be very hard to detect and counter because of that mobility.” Also, Phillip Karber from Georgetown University, studying Chinese nuclear programs told Jane’s that China’s third generation ICBMs, which could carry up to 10 MIRVs, will cover all American cities with a population over 50,000 people with 32 missiles (South China Morning Post 24 August 2012). 
Source: X-Band in Aomori by (access date: 7 September 2012).

Nonetheless, the Chinese military expert in the Hubei TV News state two important rules) which Beijing has long maintained:  

1.      China will not the first to use nuclear weapons;

2.      China will not use the nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states.

The Chinese nuclear forces are designed for counter-strikes against nuclear attacks on its territory. Interestingly, No one in the Chinese military circle has denied that it was not a DF-41 on August 15. The day the Chinese nationalists landed at the Diaoyu Islands!

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Unilateral Decisions by Japan-I/The Dokdo/Takeshima-III/Diaoyu/Senkaku-XVI

On 24 August, 2012, the Lower House passed two resolutions. The resolutions: (1) denounced President Lee`s landing at the Dokdo Islands and Lee’s statement “disrespecting” the Japanese emperor; and (2) denounced the Chinese nationalists from Hong Kong who landed at the Diaoyu Islands (Jiji Press 24 August 2012). Subsequently, Prime Minister Noda provided a live press conference regarding these issues which is unusual in Japan. Regarding the Dokdo issue, Noda stated, Seoul “illegally” occupied the islands, and Japan does not have territorial issue with China regarding to the Diaoyu Islands (Kyodo News 24 August 2012). Later, the Upper House passed the similar resolution, too. As expected, the Korean government and the Chinese government (both mainland and Taiwan) rejected the resolution and Noda’s statement completely. By September 10, Noda’s cabinet officially announced to “purchase” the Diaoyu Islands for 2.05 billion yen (Jiji News 10 September 2012). As Kyodo News stated on August 25, Tokyo can not retreat and play chicken now. In the end, who is the “chicken” between China, Japan, and Korea? The answer can be found in the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration. The issues between Japan and China have become very serious; the war may be imminent. 
Source: Kyodo News (access date: 10 September 2012).

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

President Lee Myung-Bak Landed-II/The Dokdo/Takeshima-II

Japanese politicians were shocked when President Lee landed on the Dokdo and the aftermath between Japan and Korea. When Japan offered to bring the case to ICJ, the Korean government rejected and sent back Prime Minister Noda’s letter to Japan. Japanese nationalists (especially Fuji TV and Sanke Shimbun) claimed that the rejection is like a quasi-declare of “war.” Meanwhile the Japanese edition of the Chosun Ilbo, in an article written by Lee ha won (http://www.chosunonline. com/site/data/html_dir/2012/08/20/2012082000968.html) insists that the Japanese emperor should learn from Willy Brandt of West Germany who knelt down on his knees before the Korean people. Right wing Japanese responded to these comments on the internet with anger. It would be of big step for reconciliation between Korea and Japan if Lee’s suggestion happened. Another big step (for reconciliation between the Japanese and Chinese) would be to build a memorial for the Chinese to remember the “Rape of Nanjing” in Tokyo similar to the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. However, in today’s Japan, it is impossible (at least in my life time) for Japanese leaders to take such bold steps.
Source: AP News (access date: 1 September 2012).
Source: (access date: 1 September 2012).
Source: (access date: 1 September 2012).