MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands: Another Falklands?
By Gwynne Dyer - Chinese survey vessels go into the waters around the disputed islands and Japanese patrol ships tail them much too closely. Twice last month Chinese maritime surveillance aircraft flew into the airspace around the Japanese-controlled islands and Tokyo scrambled F-15 fighters to meet them. On the second occasion, China then sent fighters too. Can these people be serious? Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOnce again, I do not see a connection?
Mar 04th, 2013 - 06:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0' hey dis rice tastes rubbery'
Mar 04th, 2013 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0'faank yoah, I make it myself'
”because it is not run by a drunken and murderous military dictator (as Argentina was when it invaded the Falklands in 1982).”
Mar 04th, 2013 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn't sound TOO dissimilar from Argentina's current dictator.
Allthough the article makes some sensible points, it overlooks a very important one- that a stupid war that costs both sides dearly can be started by the agression and/or stupidity of just one side. The side that has been attacked finds itself at war even if it has done nothing at all to provoke the attack. This was the case in the Falklands in 82.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0The difference is in the balance of raw power between the protagonists.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0China -v- Japan/USA/(Tiawan)/Phillipines/etc can be seen as (locally) 'pretty even'.
c.f.
Argentina -v- the UK/TFI is a 'walk-over'.
Even ..
Unasur -v- the EU/NATO is a 'walk-over'.
But, true, the general principle is similar.
The trick is in diffusing and dividing, or in diffusing and maintaining where appropriate.
Face-saving is important in the public perception of international power-plays.
There will come a time soon where the world will rue the day that it allowed the lunatic minnows to take over the only world-scale face-saver - the United Nations.
5 GeoffWard2
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually Japan's military alone would be a pretty good match for China's. Taiwan wouldn't be involved in any way, so I don't know why you mentioned them. They have come to grips with their relationship with China and don't much want to change it. Philippines is inconsequential, not worth mentioning. When you add USA power to Japan, China would be very decisively beaten. They have a lot of people, but very little, and very dated equipment, as well as no combat experience whatsoever, and very little training.
Aside from any other considerations, Taiwan wouldn't get involved supporting Japan because they're also claiming the islands, so by rights it should be called the Senkaku/Diaoyu/Tiaoyutai Islands dispute, or the Pinnacle Islands for ease of reference.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My personal opinion is that given that of the eight “islands” three are uninhabitable rocks and the other five are inhabitable (using the broadest definition) but uninhabited, the Falklands is perhaps not the best model, but Rockall might be.
Declare the five islands a UNESCO World Heritage Site, make it an offence in all three parties to go ashore there without good (i.e. agreeable by all parties) reason, let one country stick a navigation beacon on them to help everyone keep clear and then completely ignore them for the determination of EEZs (which I'm sure is the real issue here).
@7
Mar 04th, 2013 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree Rufus. It would be far better if they were declared a world heritage site, with the resources of the seabed/fisheries shared out exactly the same way the Russians & Norwegians agreed.
As for the Islands, they could place 4 flagpoles on the Islands. The biggest being the UN flag with the flag of each claimant at equi-distance from each other. National pride is taken care of, because their claim to the sacred land is recognised & shared, whilst each country benefits from the territory.
These Islands are really too small to be inhabited. They could have a lighthouse on them, but there is no reason that this could not be an unmanned one.
As for the parallel with the Falklands, it is only a partial. There are not three claimants to the Falkland Islands, because Britain has given the Falkland Islanders autonomy. They have their own government, so they only need the UK for protection.
The Falkland Islanders have always been willing to discuss matters of mutual interest concerning the exploitation of seabed resources, but Argentina unilaterally withdrew from any discussions, most likely because they believed that if they recognised the rights of the Falkland Islanders to negotiate, then they also had to recognise their rights to Self-Determination.
I'm very glad that the Chinese are paying attention to the Falklands Referendum & I hope the Japanese, Americans & Taiwanese also come. It would show that there is a non-violent way to sort out disputes like these, by talking - something that Argentina refuses to do with the Islanders.
To compare them with the Falklands,
Mar 04th, 2013 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just confuses the real issue,
These islands are [as stated] to small to support people
So should the UN get involved and use it for something,
The answer is NO,
The UN involvement would and may well escalate the problem,
I think,
The real reason this is ,in any dispute at all,
Is not really the islands,
But once again what is under and around them,
Wealth and minerals,
,is this not the real reason for the dispute today.
I may be totally wrong,
But I wont be that far out.
mmmmm
.
It's a mixture of both national pride and resource exploitation. That's why the Chinese believe there is a parallel between these Islands and the Falklands.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you examine the history of the Islands, you would feel sympathy for the Chinese position. The Islands were taken away from them at the end of a war, but given away by Japan at the end of WW2 & held by the Americans. They should have been returned to China, but the situation was complicated by the existence of Taiwan. That's why a tri-national solution would allow all sides to win.
It's Game Theory. No side can get everything they want, but they can get something that satisfies them, restores national pride and means that all three countries are partners in exploiting the resources, without any one nation dominating the others.
A UN flag surrounded by an equilateral triangle of the other three flags, no single ownership of sovereignty. All three having sovereignty, but none exclusively owning the rights.
The same solution could not be applied against the Falklands, because the islanders have earned the sovereignty through peaceful prescription, whilst Argentina lost it through extinctive prescription. The only flag that flies over the Falklands will be the flag(s) that the Islanders want.
The UK armed forces are a joke.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina would defeat them very quickly.
Malvinas are an easy target.
Not much the UK can do.
PS: god bless the exocet.
10
Mar 05th, 2013 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can the UN be trusted to act fairly ?. Would not trust the UN going by the antics of the C 24 Committee.
@11 - olibeira
Mar 05th, 2013 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0God bless the exocet? So you are going to invade the Falklands using a weapon that is more than 30 years behind everything the UK has?
The UK's anti-air defenses on the Falklands would destroy any missiles that Argentina could launch, despite the fact that you don't actually have any missiles that could cover the distance from the mainland to the Falklands.
Nor do you have any aircraft that could evade our defences, or any ships that...well don't sink in their own ports.
Keep dreaming. In a few days time the Falklands will tell the world what they want, and Argentina's colonial ambitions will be ended before they ever really got started.
Your neighbours, Chile and Brazil, are racing ahead of you economically, militarily and democratically. They are becoming major players on the international stage, while Argentina isolates itself further by forming alliances with pariah states like Iran.
Argentina, the country that could've been, has been reduced to a never was. You're not even important enough to be has-beens.
Sad really. And all you can do is make impotent threats.
@12
Mar 05th, 2013 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't let the antics of the C24 committee colour your view of the United Nations as a whole. Whilst there are some groups who act for their own selfish interests, the Security Council is still there to prevent major trouble.
It must hurt the Secretary General, that despite all the work he and the secretariat do to try and resolve disputes peacefully, the majority of countries act no better than children.
In the end, it comes down to the permanent members negotiating over difficult problems to keep the world from descending into the abyss. That's why any moves by lesser nations to remove these permanent members would be very dangerous indeed.
Just look at the past 3 years, in matters such as Libya, Syria or Mali, it's been the same nations pushing for a solution that prevents massive loss of civilian life. Although some might say that Russia & China have been supporting the wayward regimes, it's more to do with protecting a client state or protecting their own strategic interests. As dictatorships, both Russia & China are reluctant to see other dictatorial governments fall. It's a reminder that they are working on borrowed time. Inevitably, all autocracies fall before democracy.
That's why Argentina does not have long. The Argentines will only tolerate so much economic upheaval before they get rid of the 'Bitch'.
13 LEPRecon
Mar 05th, 2013 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're right about everything.....except Brazil racing. Brazil is too poorly managed to race even a turtle. Chile, on the other hand, yes, is already at least a decade ahead of Argentina and picking up steam. Chile can hardly still make out the form of Argentina in the rear view mirror.
13, what air defence?
Mar 05th, 2013 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That thing can be jammed. So It's no biggie.
PS: Argentina has ballistic missile technology too. Much better than anything the UK has.
@16
Mar 05th, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What utter rubbish. When CONAE launched a satellite in 2011, they had to reply on a NASA Delta II launch rocket from Vandenberg.
Argentina does not have any rocket technology, except fireworks for children. You're lying again. Every time you post a lie, it ruins your credibility yet further and proves that Argentina cannot be trusted.
#16
Mar 06th, 2013 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see by your post that you have given your age as 13----or is that your IQ.
How many exocets does Argentina have.
How are you going to launch them. No ships that can go to sea.
You would have no aircraft now or in the future that could survive against a Typhoon.
Exocets can be fooled and diverted by firing aluminium foil decoys.
You are having wet dreams. Chile, Brazil and probably Venezuela could take your country apart without raising a sweat. You are a technically backward country whose only military technique is bluster.
Read some technical journals on military capabilities.
Of course you were world leaders in throwing nuns out of helicopters. The patriotic videos on youtube are NOT TRUE. Stay away from the big boys, you will get seriously hurt - a friend.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!