The Quote
does not hold true because using defense power as tool to resolve disputes cannot be peaceful.... and in the case of Japan China has taken very strong stands in the past ......
Civilian maritime security agencies such as the Fisheries Law Enforcement Command, Maritime Surveillance and Coast guard vessels patrol and exercise China's sovereignty in territorial (including disputed) waters, not the PLAN, which does not count as "defense power". Many countries around the world, including Japan use a similar policy.
In numerous clashes in around the "Spratly Islands" and "Scarborough Shoal", China has employed civilian maritime authority vessels and personnel, even when Vietnam and the Philippines were deploying their frontline naval vessels ( though in the Philippines case, its flagship is a retired USG cutter).
China makes regular use of China Coast Guard ships to assert and defend its maritime territorial claims, with Chinese Navy ships sometimes available over the horizon as backup forces. Chinese Coast Guard ships are unarmed or lightly armed, but can be effective in asserting and defending maritime territorial claims, particularly in terms of confronting or harassing foreign vessels that are similarly lightly armed or unarmed.
In the case of Japan its a deadlock for you as they do have strength to give you a tough flight....
I agree. The clashes in the ECS around the Diaoyutai's have often and mostly involved coast guard and maritime surveillance vessels, not the warships of the respective Japanese and hinese Navies, though some confrontations have occurred.
I am referring to
Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia source for info.... so if any ambiguity is there do let me know...
on the other hand China has been following a strategic move claiming a large mass of land which is not under theer control stating old dynasty maps and all....
Same is the issue between India and China....
do correct me in case of any ambiguity or error....
That's a stark misrepresentation of history. the PRC and the RoC before it have always laid claim to the Diaoyutai's(which China administered before the Sino-Japanese war in which Japan forcefully seized them. even now, the RoC government in Taiwan has the exact same territorial claims that the PRC does. A fact often overlooked by geopolitics pundits when they're claiming that China is an "expansionist" "hegemon" "strategically" claiming territory.
The map of the nine-dash line, also called the U-shaped line or the cow tongue,26 predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. The map has been maintained by the PRC government, and maps published in Taiwan also show the nine line segments.27 In a
Another fact often overlooked is that the US unilaterally bestowed administration of the Diaoyutai's on Japan at the San Francisco Treaty which the PRC and the Soviet Union denounced and where excluded from despite the fact that conquered territory (including Chinese territory like Taiwan - called Formosa at the time - and the Diaoyutais) liberated from Imperial japan where being parceled out to its neighbors and some annexed by the US itself. A move China has often and loudly proclaimed to be an "unequal treaty". This narrative that China only started contesting Japanese administration of the Diaoyutais after "oil" was discovered under the seabed there in the 1970's is pure misrepresentation of historical realities. (Please refer to the Wikipedia link you posted).
The Soviet Union's objections were detailed in a lengthy September 8, 1951 statement by Gromyko.[10] The statement contained a number of Soviet Union's claims and assertions: that the treaty did not provide any guarantees against the rise of Japanese militarism; that China was not invited to participate despite being one of the main victims of the Japanese aggression; that the Soviet Union was not properly consulted when the treaty was being prepared; that the treaty sets up Japan as an American military base and draws Japan into a military coalition directed against the Soviet Union; that the treaty was in effect a separate peace treaty; that the draft treaty violated the rights of China to Taiwan and several other islands; that several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States despite the U.S. not having any legitimate claim to them; that the draft treaty, in violation of the Yalta agreement, did not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands; and other objections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco
Text of Gromyko's Statement on the Peace Treaty; Contrast With Other Treaties Cites Expansion After 1937 See Japan as a Military Base Soviet Delegate Says 'Separate Peace' May Embroil Far East in War, With Japan as Base U. S. Delegates Assailed Calls It Separate Treaty Sees Gross Injustice to ChinaDenies U. S. Consulted Soviet China's Claim to Islands Lists Soviet's Amendments
On August 15, 1951and September 18, 1951 the PRC published statements denouncing the treaty, stating that it was illegal and should not be recognized. Besides their general exclusion from the negotiation process, the PRC claimed that Xisha Paracel Islands, Nansha Spratly Islands and Dongsha Pratas Islands in the South China Sea were actually part of China.[12] The treaty either did not address these islands, or in the case of the Pratas Islands turned them over to the United Nations.
You don't have to be a historian to see that many of the Soviet and Chinese objections that where ignored by the US at the time have sown the seeds of the emerging conflict we see today. But would the US ever acknowledge any accountability for its part? The blame "Chinese aggression" campaign that has become ingrained in US foreign policy in the Pacific answers that question fully. when looked at in this context, US calls for adhering to "international law" dictated by non other than the US for its own interests, its clear that post WWII treaties like the San Francisco Treaty were self serving UNEQUAL treaties that mainly benefited America and US-aligned countries in the Paific.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C0DE3DE1031E23BBC4153DFBF66838A649EDE
One last fact I'd like to bring your attention to is the SCS dispute over the Spratly's, which is always portrayed in mainstream media as China "bullying its weak ASEAN neighbors despite all four claimants having overlapping claims. China(the RoC and the PRC) and Vietnam claim all of the Islands, whilst the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei have claims to parts of the Island group. Vietnam claims all of the Islands despite less than 1% of the islands being in Vietnams EEZ, yet Vietnam( and to a degree Taiwan) is rarely if ever accused of violating UNCLOS or "international law" as China is by the "international community" ie the US and its alliance system (Australia, Japan, the Philippines etc).
the Spratly Islands in the SCS, which are claimed entirely by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and in part by the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, and which are occupied in part by all these countries except Brunei;
The EEZs shown on the map do not represent the totality of maritime territorial claims by countries in the region. Vietnam, to cite one example, claims all of the Spratly Islands, even though most or all of the islands are outside the EEZ that Vietnam derives from its mainland coast.
Look through this congressional report for some facts( though most parts are a self-serving narrative of events on the part of the US) on the territorial disputes involving China in the SCS and ECS.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42784.pdf
PS. I'm getting a little uncomfortable with all these OT exchanges. If you wish to continue this discussion, please reply my duplicate post on
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/china/2716-rise-china-strategic-implications-38.html thread.
