The article “China’s military worrisome; U.S. military reassuring” shows the anxiety of Japan Defense Ministry about the possible military attack of China to Japan. In this conflict, the U.S. army is considered to be a solution to maintain the peace in this region.
The conflict came from the appearance of China’s military in Japanese waters. China claims all water, island, and the natural resources in the South China Sea are its own. The most serious problem of the two countries recently was about the collision between Chinese trawler and Japanese patrol ships. China insisted that it was wrong when Japan arrested the Chinese trawler’s captain.
As a role of protection, Okinawa is the best island for the U.S military to place their base. This is facing many opposing arguments from China and Okinawans.
The article also indicates the danger of North Korea’s nuclear and missile program as an “extremely destabilizing factor” in the region.
Analysis:
The Asia-Pacific region is a flashpoint of conflicts in waters, so the happening of war is possible among these countries. In this region, China is the biggest country. They use their military power to claim nearly all the waters, islands, and natural resources in South China Sea are their owns. The appearance of China’s military in the west of Japan’s Okinotori Island in April 2010 in November 2004 showed their purpose. Although China is a member of the international agreement United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they broke its laws about nations’ rights and responsibilities in their use of the world’s oceans.
Apart from Japan, China is also having the same conflicts with other countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam, to widen their waters region. In May 2010, some weaponised Chinese patrol ships escorted their fishing boats to operate near Natura – one of Indonesia islands. Moreover, clashes often occur in the Malaysia waters between China and Malaysia; military intervention from Malaysia was applied.
Also, China arrested many fishing boats operating in Vietnam waters region and robbed their seafoods. This violation of sovereignty was also resisted strongly by Vietnamese Government. The best serious problem came in May 16th when China declared to ban fishing in the Vietnamese East Sea from May 16th to August 1st every year.
Although these countries are much smaller than China, they all agree with each other to against the violation of China to their legal profits and waters regions.
The U.S. army is playing a role in keeping the peace in this region. They made some opposing actions by placing the location of U.S. military base in Okinawa, Japanese Islands, organizing military exercises between U.S. and some South East Asia countries, and the first time a U.S battleship George Washington visited Vietnam in August 8th.
Questions:
1. What do you think about these violations of China?
2. What should the governments of smaller countries do to prevent China from continuing its violations?
3. Do you believe in the purpose of maintaining peace of the U.S? Is it real?
Thanks for reading.
by
Hai Nguyen(Henry)
September 11, 2010 at 10:30 pm
We need to look on this kind of political issues objectively. Whether the article bears a strong personal idea or not, we should establish our skeptical opinions on our own. We are not the insiders, but the politicians are.
My analysis of this article is that the Japan Defense Ministry overstated the negative influence of Chinese military. I do not think the so called “lack of transparency” in national defense policies and the direction of military power should be treated as a kind of worrisome to other countries. Every nation has its top secrets. Even Japan itself does not show their military power in public.
The conflicts about territorial waters or islands such as diaoyu island do exist between China and Japan. But we should come to understand it is a controversial issue that is comletely over our heads. Any kind of arbitrary and vicious thinking can be thought to break world peace and create disorder. Obviously, we can not totally rely on other countries’ help to protect the interest of our own nation. Instead, we should contribute our knowledge and intelligence to our governments to help figure these issues out in peaceful ways.
As far as I’m concerned, China’s initial aim which raised by the government is to establish a harmonious society. Thus I think such “violtion” word which imposed on China can be looked as ridiculous and slanderous. If violation is easily inferred from the continuously developed power of military, then how can our society make progress in civilization. The power of military is part of comprehensive national strength. National strength of any country is developed to make their citizens feel the sense of security and peace. Seeing this with jealous emotion is the way how impulsive and vicious ideas come into being.
All I want to indicate is an objective and fair point of view without any strong personal emotions may help us neutralize contradictories or eliminate misunderstanding of such political issues. Again, we are not the insiders, but the politicians are.
by
Zhouyang Lu (David)
September 12, 2010 at 10:47 pm
My question is: is the duty of a nation’s military power to protect itself or to violate others?
by
Zhouyang Lu (David)
September 13, 2010 at 12:08 am
In the article Japan report: China’s military worrisome; U.S. military reassuring, Japan`s Defense Ministry asserted that lacking transparency of military strength in Chinese official military reports, China was considered as a worrisome factor to the peace in Asia-Pacific region. Moreover, the frequent moving of Chinese submarine beside Japanese territorial sea aggravated Japan`s worry. Some considered that to be possessed of more nature resource in South China sea, China disputes it has entire ownership of this region, which compromise its neighbor`s benefits. Otherwise, Japan`s Defense Ministry also claimed China`s economic supports indirectly caused the nuclear threat from North Korea. And, the U.S. military in Okinawa keeps China`s military threat at bay in Asia-Pacific region. This article expressed Japan`s worry of enhancement of Chinese military strength, which mainly focused on military threat in regional contest of nature resource.
Based what I can see, in Asia-Pacific region, there are many controversial waters or islands such as Diaoyu island and Spratly islands. Because of ambiguous partition of boundary, China has ever had “skirmish” with nearby countries. Simultaneously, each side has its own evidence to prove its ownership. International community is not appropriate to define the boundaries either. Thus, it is unfair to give unilateral voice that China broke the relative international laws. China as the biggest Country in Asia-Pacific has its own responsibility to ensure regional peace. If China has any violation, small countries are suppose to depend on U.N or international community to protect their interests. No matter what purpose the U.S have, the presence of the U.S army in Asia- Pacific area ensured the peace in this region. Or else, some potential wars such as war in Taiwan Strait and Korea war, as well as war caused by regional contest of nature resource. In this case, I believe that the U.S could maintain the peace in Asia-Pacific.
Every country has its own right to protect its national interest. What is the best way to protect national interest? Do you think utilization of favorable regional cooperation to keep peace is better than the U.S army ?
one sentence in my reply should be:Or else, some potential wars such as war in Taiwan Strait and Korea war, as well as war caused by regional contest of nature resource may break out.
1. I think, violations have always negative meaning. According to the article, the Chinese government seems to be disrespectful to others countries. Since all of the countries in the world are members to United Nation, we have to follow the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea. This Law regulates a country’s territorial boundaries. It should be clear enough to know, which part of the sea belongs which country. To declare that South China Sea belongs to the China, it is not a good idea. Even though China is the biggest country in the Asia Pacific, it does not mean that China deserve to have the largest part of the South China Sea. There are enough laws to be followed by countries without exception.
2. Well, since the issue concern many countries in the Asia Pacific, there are two ways to solve it. First the smaller countries can bring this issue to international court. Second the countries that are involved can negotiate with each others. I think, the second way is the best way, because I believe that a country cannot live alone. It always depends on others countries even the most powerfulness country in the world cannot live without smaller countries. The word respect means a lot in this context.
3. Actually I do not much about the purpose of maintaining peace of the U.S. But I do not see any connection why the U.S has to be involved with this issue. I think the United Nation has something to do with it not the U.S. Do not get me wrong guys; I believe the U.S has good purpose of it. But it seems weird for me. I speak for myself, I will not do without any reason, and so it sounds like investment for me. I might be wrong, so what do you think guys?
by
Anne Hasanah Djayasasmita
September 12, 2010 at 9:59 pm
First of all, thank you for Hai’s sharing. It doesn’t seem an interested topic to me. Because it’s difficult to me to express my feeling and thinking as well. However, when I read this article, it sounds like that this is a burning debate issue between China and Japan. Both countries are trying to claim their sea territory and until now United Nations has not given any ideas of who’s right and who’s wrong. This issue can only be solved by diplomacy. Therefore, I think it’s not very persuasive to say it is a violation.
Second of all, I agree that military expansion of one country is a threat to their neighbors. However, I don’t think cooperation of smaller countries against a big country will solve the problem as we are now living in the 21st century, the peaceful time for all mankind. All sides should sit down and talk rather than form a counter force. Diplomacy acts should be highly considered in this case, the dispute between China and Japan. China is big country in terms of economy and politic, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they can do whatever they want. Europe and U.S. will not stand and watch if China intentionally violates international laws. Moreover, don’t create more tension in Asia-Pacific region. I strongly believe that tyrants eventually will never win the righteousness.
The U.S is a powerful country all over the world, and based on what I have known, the U.S will act for peace and for worlds benefit. We can see that The U.S contributes to develop trade in Asia- Pacific area and create many opportunities for foreign trade. The reason why I definite that the U.S acts for worlds common benefits is that the U.S refuse to buy oil from Africa countries, Nigeria, for example. Because those countries more or less support for terrorism. And, if terrorist have money to buy weapon, it is a real menace to world peace. The U.S can anticipate this threatening, so it sacrifice its profit to protect the worlds democracy.
by
Van, Nga Nu Ngoc (Vivian)
September 12, 2010 at 11:26 pm
1. I think, even though CNN is one of the most reliable sources of information, the article shows the both sides of this argument and there is no way to know the true about this violations until some court will proclaim its veredict based on the facts and on the 488-pages report from Japan. Mainly my position is neutral because I am not familiar with that dispute. But I totally agree with Anne’s point of view about that every country who is member of United Nations should respect the international Law of the Sea. Any nation has the right to protect its national interests but also has to respect its neighbors’s.
2. Carrying out their demands to International Courts or making arrangements in their negotiations with China, are the posibilities that smaller countries have to prevent future violations. Particularly, I believe in aplying negotiations with win to win strategies where every part could satisfy its positions.
3. Even though I do not support the US international policies, I think in this case the US intentions are preventing from North Korean’s nuclear proliferancy and collaborating with its commercial partner Japan. Despite its intentions, I think US should not be the mediator in this argument but this role should belong to UN. Maybe it point out the US concerns about the increasing commercial growth or political leadership of China. But definately, it shows the US preocupation about loosing its hegemony who Knows?
This article is talking about a conflict between China, Japan and Southeast Asia country. It is the conflict in a territorial water or high sea in natural resources. There is possibility of China’s military attack Japan. This conflict came from China’s military was in Japanese waters. Reccently, it has a collision between Chinese trawler and Japanese patrol ships, China insisted that it was wrong when Japan arrested the Chinese trawler’s captain. Due to, a seriously between two country, it makes the U.S. army considered to be a solution to maintain the peace in this region.
For me, no one is right. This conflict can happen everytime and everywhere. Every countries are a member of the international agreement United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) which is about nation’s rights and responsibilities in their use of the world’s oceans. But it is depend on will they follow the rules and others people rights. Every countries will always greedy and greedy and greedy about natural resources because everyone knows that it is the most valuable and important resources.This is the reason why we have the UN. It is not about how big or how powerful you are but it is about how hard you try to develop and helping each other to use these resources for long-term together. We cannot say that this is mine and this is not yours. Is it to selfish to think that natural resources is belong to one country? If we think that one day there shall not be any natural resouces left for our next generation. What will come up in ours mine right now? Sustainable is the right answer in my view. If every countries can think like this, it will not be the UNCLOS or U.S. military in Okinawa island or U.S. military in Iraq or another conflict in others region. So, every coutries should have generosity and kindness to each other, then their shall not be the conflict.
First thing that the governments of smaller countries should do is to respect to others people rights and others territorial waters. And after that if there still be a conflict happen, they should not use violence to strike back. But they can use diplomacy to negotiation. At the same time, they should collect all of the evidences that can point that they did not infringe the UNCLOS. If the diplomacy does not do any help, third step is to tell the UN that there is a problem right here and do not forget to send them all of the evidences that you got.
It is real that the U.S. troop in Okinawa can maintain peace in this region. And I also believe in the U.S. purpose to set up a base in Japan. After Japan lost in the world war II, they have to sigh military pact that they will not develop technology in military. To make sure with this pact U.S. military has to set up the base in Japan since then. It is a wise thing that the U.S. try to keep peace in this region by training and teaching to many contries in this region. Because before world war II Japan, China, Russia and German used to be an ally and this region is a stronghold or strategic point in a military. I think the U.S. try to keep watching every countries in this region in caution. From what the U.S. did has pros and cons that effect to many countries in this region but from what side of the coin. Is it my side or your side? Do you think that the U.S. can be or cannot be and should be or should not be an internation police?
by
wahsin leeskul (nin)
September 13, 2010 at 12:54 am
1. According to the article, Japan and China involved in a political conflict. Although both countries tried to prove their rights on the territorial waters, islands and natural resources, the articles did not show any evidences to prove the fact in this article. However, the international agreement United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea defined the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans. Both China and Japan are members of United Nation. They should follow the agreement and respect each other to solve their arguments.
2. In this situation, smaller countries should have meetings that each country has chances to talk and negotiate an agreement. This is the best choice to satisfy all countries. In this 21st century, backing to the negotiating table, country can solve all problems. Moreover, all countries have the same rights to protect their lands, territorial waters. Powerful countries should not use their powerful army to dominate other countries. In this specific situation, China is the biggest countries in Pacific Asia. It tends to dominate other countries in this problem. China should respect other countries in solving this issue.
3. I am not sure about the purpose of maintaining peace of the U.S. I do not agree with the US’s international policies because sometimes it tends to handle other countries’ arguments. I think that the judge should be the UN. However, I think that all countries world have responsibilities and rights to keep peace. War is ridiculous. If the war happens, it will damage all countries in the world. It means that each country has responsibilities to reach a common goal, peace. All related countries should try to back the negotiating table to get an agreement.
1. Territorial waters have meaning not only range but also under the sea. They have huge resources in the sea. I think China has been trying having good position of the Chinese sea. This affair is caused from the purpose. As I know UN makes international custom, normally countries follow the rule. This time, China and Japan make different application of the law. So it could happen.
2. I think there is no actual solution in this kind of conflict. However, UN is working in various fields of activity in the world, bigger country always wins at international trouble. Small country can create a negative atmosphere about big country’s tyranny. After then the small country can negotiate with big. At that time, small countries would get losses.
3. I think every political action has reasons. As I know America is so-called police nation in the world. America has been doing the role as police. Even though, it brings good effects such as balance of the power between countries, America makes benefits through the role. I want to mention two American benefits simply. One of them is America is one the biggest military weapon exporter. The other is America can make higher and louder voice in the international relationship. While performing the arbitrator, America can sell their weapon. As police nation, they can preserve their position as the strongest nation in the world.
by
Junggeun Lim (Jordan)
September 13, 2010 at 5:25 am
1. China is the largest city in Asia, in order to show that it is a powerful country, China always has violations to its neighbor countries.The article mentioned the violations of China, such as: 10 Chinese submarines and destroyers was spotted Okinotori Island of Japan in April 2010, and a Chinese nuclear submarine entered Japanese waters in November 2004, etc. Also China states that waters, islands, and the natural resources in the South China Sea are its own. This statement doesn’t make sense and seems to be unreasonable. The clash between a Chinese trawler and Japanese patrol ships is a typical violation of China relating to territorial issue. I don’t agree with China’s point of view that Japan applies domestic law to solve this problem. It is because China and Japan are members of United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), thus Japan may apply the regulations of UNCLOS, not Japanese laws, to arrest the Chinese trawler’s captain. Although I have never read UNCLOS, I believe that China’s affirmation that waters, islands, and the natural resources in the South China Sea are its own may violate UNCOLS. If it doesn’t want to change its point of view, sooner or later China will be isolated among the countries in Asia with its violations.
2. The smaller countries’ governments should hold some meetings to discuss about this matter. Concretely, the countries should have an unanimous idea to deal with the territorial issue and after that they can invite China to negotiate this problem with them. Then, the parties including such countries and China should discuss to reach an agreement in writing which regulates some useful measures to prevent China from violating them. Because China is a big exporters exporting many goods to others, the economical punishment for China’s violation should be included in the agreement.
3. I believe in the purpose of maintaining peace of the US because it is a very big and strong country which has significant influences relating to economical, political, defense matters and others to almost countries in the world. By the role of a conciliator, the US has neutral position to solve the problem, thus its decision and action may be objective. I think the US’s role in this case is real. However, through its interference, the US can get some certain benefits also.
McDermid ESL Writing & Reading
CNN Wire Staff. (September 10, 2010) Japan report: China’s military worrisome; U.S. military reassuring. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/09/10/japan.china.paper/index.html
Summary:
The article “China’s military worrisome; U.S. military reassuring” shows the anxiety of Japan Defense Ministry about the possible military attack of China to Japan. In this conflict, the U.S. army is considered to be a solution to maintain the peace in this region.
The conflict came from the appearance of China’s military in Japanese waters. China claims all water, island, and the natural resources in the South China Sea are its own. The most serious problem of the two countries recently was about the collision between Chinese trawler and Japanese patrol ships. China insisted that it was wrong when Japan arrested the Chinese trawler’s captain.
As a role of protection, Okinawa is the best island for the U.S military to place their base. This is facing many opposing arguments from China and Okinawans.
The article also indicates the danger of North Korea’s nuclear and missile program as an “extremely destabilizing factor” in the region.
Analysis:
The Asia-Pacific region is a flashpoint of conflicts in waters, so the happening of war is possible among these countries. In this region, China is the biggest country. They use their military power to claim nearly all the waters, islands, and natural resources in South China Sea are their owns. The appearance of China’s military in the west of Japan’s Okinotori Island in April 2010 in November 2004 showed their purpose. Although China is a member of the international agreement United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they broke its laws about nations’ rights and responsibilities in their use of the world’s oceans.
Apart from Japan, China is also having the same conflicts with other countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam, to widen their waters region. In May 2010, some weaponised Chinese patrol ships escorted their fishing boats to operate near Natura – one of Indonesia islands. Moreover, clashes often occur in the Malaysia waters between China and Malaysia; military intervention from Malaysia was applied.
Also, China arrested many fishing boats operating in Vietnam waters region and robbed their seafoods. This violation of sovereignty was also resisted strongly by Vietnamese Government. The best serious problem came in May 16th when China declared to ban fishing in the Vietnamese East Sea from May 16th to August 1st every year.
Although these countries are much smaller than China, they all agree with each other to against the violation of China to their legal profits and waters regions.
The U.S. army is playing a role in keeping the peace in this region. They made some opposing actions by placing the location of U.S. military base in Okinawa, Japanese Islands, organizing military exercises between U.S. and some South East Asia countries, and the first time a U.S battleship George Washington visited Vietnam in August 8th.
Questions:
1. What do you think about these violations of China?
2. What should the governments of smaller countries do to prevent China from continuing its violations?
3. Do you believe in the purpose of maintaining peace of the U.S? Is it real?
Thanks for reading.
We need to look on this kind of political issues objectively. Whether the article bears a strong personal idea or not, we should establish our skeptical opinions on our own. We are not the insiders, but the politicians are.
My analysis of this article is that the Japan Defense Ministry overstated the negative influence of Chinese military. I do not think the so called “lack of transparency” in national defense policies and the direction of military power should be treated as a kind of worrisome to other countries. Every nation has its top secrets. Even Japan itself does not show their military power in public.
The conflicts about territorial waters or islands such as diaoyu island do exist between China and Japan. But we should come to understand it is a controversial issue that is comletely over our heads. Any kind of arbitrary and vicious thinking can be thought to break world peace and create disorder. Obviously, we can not totally rely on other countries’ help to protect the interest of our own nation. Instead, we should contribute our knowledge and intelligence to our governments to help figure these issues out in peaceful ways.
As far as I’m concerned, China’s initial aim which raised by the government is to establish a harmonious society. Thus I think such “violtion” word which imposed on China can be looked as ridiculous and slanderous. If violation is easily inferred from the continuously developed power of military, then how can our society make progress in civilization. The power of military is part of comprehensive national strength. National strength of any country is developed to make their citizens feel the sense of security and peace. Seeing this with jealous emotion is the way how impulsive and vicious ideas come into being.
All I want to indicate is an objective and fair point of view without any strong personal emotions may help us neutralize contradictories or eliminate misunderstanding of such political issues. Again, we are not the insiders, but the politicians are.
My question is: is the duty of a nation’s military power to protect itself or to violate others?
In the article Japan report: China’s military worrisome; U.S. military reassuring, Japan`s Defense Ministry asserted that lacking transparency of military strength in Chinese official military reports, China was considered as a worrisome factor to the peace in Asia-Pacific region. Moreover, the frequent moving of Chinese submarine beside Japanese territorial sea aggravated Japan`s worry. Some considered that to be possessed of more nature resource in South China sea, China disputes it has entire ownership of this region, which compromise its neighbor`s benefits. Otherwise, Japan`s Defense Ministry also claimed China`s economic supports indirectly caused the nuclear threat from North Korea. And, the U.S. military in Okinawa keeps China`s military threat at bay in Asia-Pacific region. This article expressed Japan`s worry of enhancement of Chinese military strength, which mainly focused on military threat in regional contest of nature resource.
Based what I can see, in Asia-Pacific region, there are many controversial waters or islands such as Diaoyu island and Spratly islands. Because of ambiguous partition of boundary, China has ever had “skirmish” with nearby countries. Simultaneously, each side has its own evidence to prove its ownership. International community is not appropriate to define the boundaries either. Thus, it is unfair to give unilateral voice that China broke the relative international laws. China as the biggest Country in Asia-Pacific has its own responsibility to ensure regional peace. If China has any violation, small countries are suppose to depend on U.N or international community to protect their interests. No matter what purpose the U.S have, the presence of the U.S army in Asia- Pacific area ensured the peace in this region. Or else, some potential wars such as war in Taiwan Strait and Korea war, as well as war caused by regional contest of nature resource. In this case, I believe that the U.S could maintain the peace in Asia-Pacific.
Every country has its own right to protect its national interest. What is the best way to protect national interest? Do you think utilization of favorable regional cooperation to keep peace is better than the U.S army ?
one sentence in my reply should be:Or else, some potential wars such as war in Taiwan Strait and Korea war, as well as war caused by regional contest of nature resource may break out.
1. I think, violations have always negative meaning. According to the article, the Chinese government seems to be disrespectful to others countries. Since all of the countries in the world are members to United Nation, we have to follow the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea. This Law regulates a country’s territorial boundaries. It should be clear enough to know, which part of the sea belongs which country. To declare that South China Sea belongs to the China, it is not a good idea. Even though China is the biggest country in the Asia Pacific, it does not mean that China deserve to have the largest part of the South China Sea. There are enough laws to be followed by countries without exception.
2. Well, since the issue concern many countries in the Asia Pacific, there are two ways to solve it. First the smaller countries can bring this issue to international court. Second the countries that are involved can negotiate with each others. I think, the second way is the best way, because I believe that a country cannot live alone. It always depends on others countries even the most powerfulness country in the world cannot live without smaller countries. The word respect means a lot in this context.
3. Actually I do not much about the purpose of maintaining peace of the U.S. But I do not see any connection why the U.S has to be involved with this issue. I think the United Nation has something to do with it not the U.S. Do not get me wrong guys; I believe the U.S has good purpose of it. But it seems weird for me. I speak for myself, I will not do without any reason, and so it sounds like investment for me. I might be wrong, so what do you think guys?
First of all, thank you for Hai’s sharing. It doesn’t seem an interested topic to me. Because it’s difficult to me to express my feeling and thinking as well. However, when I read this article, it sounds like that this is a burning debate issue between China and Japan. Both countries are trying to claim their sea territory and until now United Nations has not given any ideas of who’s right and who’s wrong. This issue can only be solved by diplomacy. Therefore, I think it’s not very persuasive to say it is a violation.
Second of all, I agree that military expansion of one country is a threat to their neighbors. However, I don’t think cooperation of smaller countries against a big country will solve the problem as we are now living in the 21st century, the peaceful time for all mankind. All sides should sit down and talk rather than form a counter force. Diplomacy acts should be highly considered in this case, the dispute between China and Japan. China is big country in terms of economy and politic, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they can do whatever they want. Europe and U.S. will not stand and watch if China intentionally violates international laws. Moreover, don’t create more tension in Asia-Pacific region. I strongly believe that tyrants eventually will never win the righteousness.
The U.S is a powerful country all over the world, and based on what I have known, the U.S will act for peace and for worlds benefit. We can see that The U.S contributes to develop trade in Asia- Pacific area and create many opportunities for foreign trade. The reason why I definite that the U.S acts for worlds common benefits is that the U.S refuse to buy oil from Africa countries, Nigeria, for example. Because those countries more or less support for terrorism. And, if terrorist have money to buy weapon, it is a real menace to world peace. The U.S can anticipate this threatening, so it sacrifice its profit to protect the worlds democracy.
1. I think, even though CNN is one of the most reliable sources of information, the article shows the both sides of this argument and there is no way to know the true about this violations until some court will proclaim its veredict based on the facts and on the 488-pages report from Japan. Mainly my position is neutral because I am not familiar with that dispute. But I totally agree with Anne’s point of view about that every country who is member of United Nations should respect the international Law of the Sea. Any nation has the right to protect its national interests but also has to respect its neighbors’s.
2. Carrying out their demands to International Courts or making arrangements in their negotiations with China, are the posibilities that smaller countries have to prevent future violations. Particularly, I believe in aplying negotiations with win to win strategies where every part could satisfy its positions.
3. Even though I do not support the US international policies, I think in this case the US intentions are preventing from North Korean’s nuclear proliferancy and collaborating with its commercial partner Japan. Despite its intentions, I think US should not be the mediator in this argument but this role should belong to UN. Maybe it point out the US concerns about the increasing commercial growth or political leadership of China. But definately, it shows the US preocupation about loosing its hegemony who Knows?
This article is talking about a conflict between China, Japan and Southeast Asia country. It is the conflict in a territorial water or high sea in natural resources. There is possibility of China’s military attack Japan. This conflict came from China’s military was in Japanese waters. Reccently, it has a collision between Chinese trawler and Japanese patrol ships, China insisted that it was wrong when Japan arrested the Chinese trawler’s captain. Due to, a seriously between two country, it makes the U.S. army considered to be a solution to maintain the peace in this region.
For me, no one is right. This conflict can happen everytime and everywhere. Every countries are a member of the international agreement United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) which is about nation’s rights and responsibilities in their use of the world’s oceans. But it is depend on will they follow the rules and others people rights. Every countries will always greedy and greedy and greedy about natural resources because everyone knows that it is the most valuable and important resources.This is the reason why we have the UN. It is not about how big or how powerful you are but it is about how hard you try to develop and helping each other to use these resources for long-term together. We cannot say that this is mine and this is not yours. Is it to selfish to think that natural resources is belong to one country? If we think that one day there shall not be any natural resouces left for our next generation. What will come up in ours mine right now? Sustainable is the right answer in my view. If every countries can think like this, it will not be the UNCLOS or U.S. military in Okinawa island or U.S. military in Iraq or another conflict in others region. So, every coutries should have generosity and kindness to each other, then their shall not be the conflict.
First thing that the governments of smaller countries should do is to respect to others people rights and others territorial waters. And after that if there still be a conflict happen, they should not use violence to strike back. But they can use diplomacy to negotiation. At the same time, they should collect all of the evidences that can point that they did not infringe the UNCLOS. If the diplomacy does not do any help, third step is to tell the UN that there is a problem right here and do not forget to send them all of the evidences that you got.
It is real that the U.S. troop in Okinawa can maintain peace in this region. And I also believe in the U.S. purpose to set up a base in Japan. After Japan lost in the world war II, they have to sigh military pact that they will not develop technology in military. To make sure with this pact U.S. military has to set up the base in Japan since then. It is a wise thing that the U.S. try to keep peace in this region by training and teaching to many contries in this region. Because before world war II Japan, China, Russia and German used to be an ally and this region is a stronghold or strategic point in a military. I think the U.S. try to keep watching every countries in this region in caution. From what the U.S. did has pros and cons that effect to many countries in this region but from what side of the coin. Is it my side or your side? Do you think that the U.S. can be or cannot be and should be or should not be an internation police?
1. According to the article, Japan and China involved in a political conflict. Although both countries tried to prove their rights on the territorial waters, islands and natural resources, the articles did not show any evidences to prove the fact in this article. However, the international agreement United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea defined the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans. Both China and Japan are members of United Nation. They should follow the agreement and respect each other to solve their arguments.
2. In this situation, smaller countries should have meetings that each country has chances to talk and negotiate an agreement. This is the best choice to satisfy all countries. In this 21st century, backing to the negotiating table, country can solve all problems. Moreover, all countries have the same rights to protect their lands, territorial waters. Powerful countries should not use their powerful army to dominate other countries. In this specific situation, China is the biggest countries in Pacific Asia. It tends to dominate other countries in this problem. China should respect other countries in solving this issue.
3. I am not sure about the purpose of maintaining peace of the U.S. I do not agree with the US’s international policies because sometimes it tends to handle other countries’ arguments. I think that the judge should be the UN. However, I think that all countries world have responsibilities and rights to keep peace. War is ridiculous. If the war happens, it will damage all countries in the world. It means that each country has responsibilities to reach a common goal, peace. All related countries should try to back the negotiating table to get an agreement.
1. Territorial waters have meaning not only range but also under the sea. They have huge resources in the sea. I think China has been trying having good position of the Chinese sea. This affair is caused from the purpose. As I know UN makes international custom, normally countries follow the rule. This time, China and Japan make different application of the law. So it could happen.
2. I think there is no actual solution in this kind of conflict. However, UN is working in various fields of activity in the world, bigger country always wins at international trouble. Small country can create a negative atmosphere about big country’s tyranny. After then the small country can negotiate with big. At that time, small countries would get losses.
3. I think every political action has reasons. As I know America is so-called police nation in the world. America has been doing the role as police. Even though, it brings good effects such as balance of the power between countries, America makes benefits through the role. I want to mention two American benefits simply. One of them is America is one the biggest military weapon exporter. The other is America can make higher and louder voice in the international relationship. While performing the arbitrator, America can sell their weapon. As police nation, they can preserve their position as the strongest nation in the world.
1. China is the largest city in Asia, in order to show that it is a powerful country, China always has violations to its neighbor countries.The article mentioned the violations of China, such as: 10 Chinese submarines and destroyers was spotted Okinotori Island of Japan in April 2010, and a Chinese nuclear submarine entered Japanese waters in November 2004, etc. Also China states that waters, islands, and the natural resources in the South China Sea are its own. This statement doesn’t make sense and seems to be unreasonable. The clash between a Chinese trawler and Japanese patrol ships is a typical violation of China relating to territorial issue. I don’t agree with China’s point of view that Japan applies domestic law to solve this problem. It is because China and Japan are members of United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), thus Japan may apply the regulations of UNCLOS, not Japanese laws, to arrest the Chinese trawler’s captain. Although I have never read UNCLOS, I believe that China’s affirmation that waters, islands, and the natural resources in the South China Sea are its own may violate UNCOLS. If it doesn’t want to change its point of view, sooner or later China will be isolated among the countries in Asia with its violations.
2. The smaller countries’ governments should hold some meetings to discuss about this matter. Concretely, the countries should have an unanimous idea to deal with the territorial issue and after that they can invite China to negotiate this problem with them. Then, the parties including such countries and China should discuss to reach an agreement in writing which regulates some useful measures to prevent China from violating them. Because China is a big exporters exporting many goods to others, the economical punishment for China’s violation should be included in the agreement.
3. I believe in the purpose of maintaining peace of the US because it is a very big and strong country which has significant influences relating to economical, political, defense matters and others to almost countries in the world. By the role of a conciliator, the US has neutral position to solve the problem, thus its decision and action may be objective. I think the US’s role in this case is real. However, through its interference, the US can get some certain benefits also.