Wednesday, 10 November 2010

Japan needs space, no space given

After President Medvedev's visit to the Kurils, or Northern Territories a few days ago on the back of China's protest in the East China Sea, Japanese people and policy makers got even more rattled. Not withstanding the legality or otherwise of claims (see me here), it is clear that everyone needs to calm down and stop being provocative.

In that regard, a big 'Thank You China' for sending another survey ship into disputed areas.


This is just dumb. The fact that the Chinese survey ship turned around and left once requested by the JCG shows that China is at least a little sensitive to the fact that it can ill afford another run in Japan. But if these type of events increase, another 'accident' is almost guaranteed.



Monday, 8 November 2010

More thoughts on Senkaku video

There is an awful lot in the videos are there implications. I am stilling trying to sort it all out - I will try to focus on three questions here:

1/Why did JCG initally act to repell the MinJinYu?
2/Was JCG action illegal?
3/Does Japan's act constute a challenge to the status quo?

1. JCG initially warned the MinJinYu that it was in Japanese Terrority and to retreat. If the MinJinYu were within Japan's EEZ it would be permitted to fish without a permit subject to Japanese regulation. If the MinJinYu were in Japan'ss EEZ then the JCG can board and inspect/detain etc.

But the Minjinyu was within the Joint Measure area.

The JCG's action therefore is strange as only China could act (or give permission, more*) against the Minjinyu for breach of fishery. The point is that the JCG did not ask to inspect, they asked the Minjinyu to "move along please." This is part of Japan's posture of demonstrating "effective control" over the islands.

Normally, when asked by a JCG boat with a Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm autocannon the fishing boat leaves- because that is Sane even though it acknowledges JApan's effective control.

CAptain Zhan is however out of control - and rams the JCG boat. Now this puts the JCG in a bind. In order to continue to demostrate effective control, they have to arrest the Minjinyu for "interfering with official duties" of the JCG, i.e. public safety on the sea.

But in order to do so, the Japanese side will want China to acknowledge its effective control by giving permission to arrest the Minjinyu. The 12 hour wait before the arrest is likely due (in some part) to the Japanese side trying to get the Chinese to grant approval - only to be rebuffed. China would not acknowledge that, would not want to be seen allowing the Japanese to arrest its citizen in its (PRC's) territory. China has to say no.

Now what will Japan do? Capt. Zhan's action has tested the informal situation of Japan's effective control. The decision Japan makes here to arrest or not to arrest determines whether or not Japan really believes the Senkaku Sea area is its territory or not, as such it has formalized the informal and unspoken situation of competiting interpretations in Beijing and Tokyo - something probably neither side was happy about (China did not need another dispite after ARF).

Thus Japan decides to arrest, without China's permission, in order to maintain the situation of effective control.

in answering the above three therefore,

1/Why did JCG initally act to repell the MinJinYu? In order to maintain effective control

2/Was JCG action illegal? Not if the area is actually Japanese EEZ, but under current understandings probably yes. Although, illegal does not mean unreasonable!

3/Does Japan's act constute a challenge to the status quo? Yes. Although China's not giving permission to arrest and subsequent protest means that the status quo is unchanged by Japanese de facto challenge.

The sad thing is that this could have been handled so much better by both sides. Japan could have not arrested Zhan and detained him with permission from the Chinese by saying (privately) that although something needs to happen to Zhan, it does not consitute challenge to status quo. China knows about deterence. Japan can not simply let a boat which ramms its officials to get away. An understanding was possible here - at least with hindsight.

random thoughts over, back to work.

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

TPP vs the Farmers:

In recent weeks, Kan Naoto has sounded out the possibility of Japan joining the TPP.

Today, the GOJ declared that an Agriculture Reform Promotion Headquarters would be set-up within the National Strategy Office. Together with other reforms to this Office, it is clear that Kan is gunning to run through this office the painful reforms necessary to get Japan on the TPP bandwagon and open up the Japanese economy.

Yamada and other pro-Agriculture voices within the DPJ aside, Kan at least seems determined to push it.

http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/1102/TKY201011010535.html?ref=rss


Monday, 1 November 2010

Dietmen view video of Senkaku collision

The Japanese Diet today saw the video taken by the coast guard of the collision. see, http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/1101/TKY201011010172.html

At least the first collision at 10.15am seems to be a deliberate "attack" act. The Japanese Yonakuni (1350t) is nearly 10 times the size of the Chinese fisher (166t). Damage taken by the Yonakuni is to the aft of the boat belie a Japanese "attack" on the fisherboat (Bin Pu Yu, I think).

The second collision is harder to say, as the Fishermen were clearly running home with a Japanese boat in pursuit. There is a chance that Japanese boat "Mizuki" tried to cut off the BinPuyu. Again, the marking suggest differently (drag in wrong direction) but I am not a forensic analyst. It is likely however that the Binpuyu could have either steered to avoid or simply decelerated to avoid the collision.

The 11 hours wait between stopping the boat and arresting the captain also suggest that the MOFA were involved, as initially thought. The decision potentially an act of Maehara Seiji.

The location of the collisions is also revealing, as is the site of the formal arrest. The decisions here suggest that Japan clearly thought it had authority although see, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/09/30/china-japan-trawler-incident-japans-unwise-and-borderline-illegal-detention-of-the-chinese-skipper/