The Australian article is wrong on so many levels. It has been the Chinese policy since 1972 that the sovereignty question can be shelved, so resource co-management deals similar to the fisheries agreement can be worked out for the benefit of both sides. Deng Xiaoping famously said “Our generation is not wise enough to find common language on this question. Our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all.”
Since then, the Chinese position has been consistent, and some progress has been made, the 1997 fishery agreement between China and Japan for example. However, extreme right-wing politicians like Ishihara and others within the LDP, periodically use the dispute to stirred up public anger to for their political gains. Combined with other incidents, such as the Japanese refusal to acknowledge its wartime crimes, the visits to Yasukuni, etc, and increased nationalism among the youth of China, the Chinese government has been forced to take a more visibly confrontational stance recently. But the basic premise for negotiation remains the same as far as China is concerned, the sovereignty issue can be shelved. It is the Japanese government that has buried its head in the sand and refused to acknowledge a territorial dispute even exists.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/04/11/2003559323
Taiwan, Japan ink fisheries agreement
DIAOYUTAI ISLANDS:Taipei pushed for the inclusion of an escape clause stating that the pact does not have any bearing on the two countries’ sovereignty claims
By Shih Hsiu-chuan / Staff reporterTaiwan and Japan yesterday inked a fisheries agreement in a bid to end controversies over fishing in waters surrounding the contested Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台). The agreement includes an escape clause which Taipei said allows both sides to set aside disputes over their competing sovereignty claims.
The agreement assured Taiwanese vessels an intervention-free fishing zone in waters between 27° north latitude and the Sakishima Islands, Okinawa Prefecture, and gave Taiwan an additional fishing zone of 1,400 square nautical miles (4,800km2) outside Taiwan’s temporary enforcement line, government officials said.
Under the deal, fishing vessels from both countries can operate in a large area within the designated zone without being subject to the jurisdiction of the other side, while a smaller area of the zone, where Japanese fishing vessels frequently operate, is under joint management by the two governments.
Provisions under the agreement do not apply to waters within 12 nautical miles — a state’s territorial waters — surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands, because the islands are claimed by both Taiwan and Japan, which calls them the Senkaku Islands.
China also claims sovereignty over the Diaoyutais. Japan and China signed a fisheries agreement in 1997, which took effect in 2000, under which both sides co-manage waters above 27° north latitude.
At the signing ceremony at the Taipei Guest House, Association of East Asian Relations Chairman Liao Liou-yi (廖了以) and Interchange Association, Japan Chairman Mitsuo Ohashi hailed the agreement, which they said marked a big step forward in bilateral relations.
The negotiations yesterday were the 17th round since talks started in August 1996.
Taipei and Tokyo initiated fishery talks following incidents of Taiwanese fishing boats being seized, detained or expelled by the Japan Coast Guard after Tokyo ratified the UN Law of the Sea Treaty in 1996 and set up a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone that included waters surrounding the Diaoyutais.
Ohashi said it was “with great pleasure” that the deal was finally signed.
The primary goals were to “maintain peace and stability in East China Sea” and to “strengthen the existing friendly relations with Taiwan,” he said.
At a press conference after the signing ceremony, Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lin (林永樂) said that the agreement did not address the competing claims over the Diaoyutais, as both governments agreed to “set aside the dispute.”
As stated in Article 4, provisions that both sides have agreed to under the deal have no effect on each side’s sovereignty claims over the Diaoyutais, Lin said, adding that the escape clause was written into the agreement at Taipei’s insistence.
“We did not back down one bit over the sovereignty issue in the talks,” Lin said.
Waters within 12 nautical miles surrounding the Diaoyutais were exempted from the agreement because “we insisted that the area is our territorial sea, while Japan upheld its position” that it is theirs, Lin said.
Coast Guard Administration Minister Wang Jinn-wang (王進旺) called on Japanese and Chinese fishing vessels not to operate in waters within the 12 nautical miles surrounding the Diaoyutais and vowed to adopt appropriate measures against Chinese and Japanese fishing vessels to protect the rights of Taiwanese fishermen.
Under the agreement, Taiwan and Japan also agreed to establish a fisheries commission to discuss other issues, including the delineation of overlapping waters in their respective exclusive economic zones above 27º north latitude and waters south of Sakishima Islands, on an annual basis.
Meanwhile, China yesterday expressed concern about the new agreement.
“We are extremely concerned about Japan and Taiwan discussing and signing a fishing agreement,” Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Hong Lei (洪磊) told a daily news briefing.
“We hope that Japan earnestly abide by its promises on the Taiwan issue and act cautiously and appropriately,” she said.
Additional reporting by Reuters
History of negotiations
‧ First two rounds of negotiations, 1996: Both sides insisted on their respective sovereign claims over the Diaoyutai Islands and did not have substantial discussions about fisheries issues.
‧ Third round of negotiations, 1997: Working-level discussions began about fishing grounds, but delimitation was not discussed.
‧ Fourth, fifth and sixth rounds of negotiations, 1998 to 2000: Taiwan proposed that a commission be set up to co-manage fisheries in the area and that fishing grounds be delimited based on “equitable principle.” Japan rejected the proposals.
‧ Seventh to 15th rounds of negotiations, 2000 to 2005: Taiwan demanded co-management of waters below 27o north latitude and that Taiwanese fishermen have the rights to fish in waters between 27o north latitude to 29o18’ north latitude, because this is within Taiwan’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Japan rejected the proposal and wanted to negotiate based on the principle of a “geographic median line.” It also rejected Taiwan’s claim to fish in waters above 27o north latitude because the area was marked as a zone of joint control between China and Japan in their bilateral fisheries agreement signed in 1997.
‧ Sixteenth round of negotiations, 2009: Consensus was reached on four general principles to deal with disputes on fisheries issues. No substantial discussions on delimitation were held.
Prepared by staff reporter Shih Hsiu-chuan
no, China already agreed to a similar fishery deal with Japan back in 1997. Taiwan gained the the fishery rights to the southern part of Daiyu Island without compromising its sovereignty claim. in the long run, this should serve as a model for joint resource development in East China Sea.
You go Earth Warrior!:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Earth_Battalion
Who would be interested in JF-17 but cannot on account of unreliable Russians? Iran?
Russia can veto any JF-17 sell right now, for both political as well as commercial reasons. back in 06-07, the re-export of RD93 to Pakistan was stalled for awhile due to Indian protest to Russia.
Sure it could. That is why planning, having strong defensive measures such as proper escorts to support aircraft, and having the ability to receive real time ISR data and act on that is going to be very important…Not to mention the use of the AWACS and JSTAR/BAMS like sensors to take out the enemies ability to SURPRISE you in FDOW scenarios..I read some where that there is constant satelite and non satelite monitoring of enemy air bases planned just to see the level of activity in real time, in order to reduce surprises..
We will generally see a shift and the SENSOR may well be separated from the PROCESSOR or the C2C , 3-4 TRITON’s with a radar on top ( or a genuine a2a radar) could be the EXTENSIONS ( I use GH as an example, but you can add any future stealthy unmanned platform to the mix) of the C2C constantly beaming information back to the mother ships. Latest 4.5 – 5th gen fighters like the F-35 have tremendous Passive detection and tracking abilities, mate that up with future data links and you have passive sensor gatherers that would also augment the AWACS fleet….As the network becomes WIDER , FASTER and more secure, you have a smaller and smaller MOTHER SHIP required to fulfill the same mission..Look at the P8A, that the USN is possibly working on with the AF for the JSTAR – Lite role…You have a much smaller aircraft, but couple that with the triton (especially if the AF invests to buy some for itself) and the UCLASS and you have a much bigger SA network then with the traditional J-STAR…Same can also be done with the E-3, a Wedgetail like (or slightly bigger) setup, but networked with next gen SAT and DL’s with TRITON like A2A AWACS extensions and you have built yourself a system that has far greater reach and SA with much less risk of being lost by a SNEAKY 5th generation fighter that has broken the defense….
For real extreme cases you could always envision something like this (Although an overkill for anything short of a future cold war like SAC type setup).
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/boeing-awarded-patent-speed-ag.html
If the sensor is separate from the processor, what’s the point of even having the processor on a airborne platform? Why can’t C2C be in a trailer sitting in continental USA and communicating through SATCOM.
Thanks for clearing up that confusion for me Paralay.
Scorpion82, from what I’ve read online, N-011 and Zhuk-27 are both slotted planar array radar, similar capability, but product of two different companies.
N-001 radar on the original Su-27 is a completely different design with twisted Cassegrainian antenna.
Which radar is used on Russian domestic Su-35?
The current generation of AWACS is vulnerable to low observable fighters. Even a L-band radar can only detect a 0.01 target at 50nm. But as bring_it_on pointed out, if I understood him correctly, AWACS is still valuable as a command and control platform rather than as a sensor platform. It just have to stay further behind the front line. In the long run, I think AWACS have to adopt low band radar in order to counter 5th generation fighter.
The biggest obstacle to JF-17’s international competitiveness if of course its reliance on Russian engine. Until WS-13 is in full production, the ability to supply spare parts and support is questionable.
I’m not presenting anything as a fact. We’ve seen pictures of SD-10 on JF-17 during test flights in China, but have yet seen SD-10 on in service Pakistani JF-17. (correct me if I’m wrong. I’m always happy to learn.) The logically conclusion is that SD-10 is still in the process of integration. None of that negative the safe assumption that SD-10 will eventually be integrated, but does that prove it is already integrated with the present block I and II batch of in service JF-17s? I would also believe that SD-10 is already integrated on the few JF-17s for testing purposes in China, which would give an advantage to the JF-17 in mock combat vs the Su-27SK.
Well, since low band radar is the way to counter stealth fighters, you still need big aircraft to carry big VHF radar. With more computing power and high bandwidth datalink, we may see big AWACS UAV in the near future.
So you are saying that a JF-17 is equal to an Su-30MKK in dogfight performance?
Wow, China has a savior for 3rd world countries and Sukhoi needs to go out of business in shame, having been matched by the cheapest fighter jet on the market.
Why is that so hard to believe? The Chinese have been operating Su-27 for a long time, they probably know all its weaknesses. They also have all the data necessary to program the JF-17’s ECM to defeat the N001 radar. N001 Myech/R-27 combination is also at least one generation behind the KLJ-7/SD-10 combo. Given the right circumstances, it is perfect believable that JF-17 will defeat Su-27SK or Su-30MKK for that matter.
I must say that is utter nonsense. I have followed the JF-17 program for the last 10 years, every turn, every rumor, every development. The JF-17 is well known to have integrated a wide range of weapons and is in service with the SD-10 as well as a number of other weapons, including non-chinese weapons. Already integrated weapons include for instance the CM-400 AKG, SDBs, AGMs…
You could be right. I don’t follow the program as closely. But I still have my doubts, because sometimes it is difficult to separate marketing hype, rumor and sometime what seems like disinformation. Just because a weapon is displayed together with the JF-17 at an air show doesn’t mean the weapon is integrated. For example, CM-400AKG has only been seen as a mockup AFAIK. The Jane’s article which quote a Pakistani general saying the missile is in service, contains specs that are inconsistent with what a Chinese technician of the development team told the reporter during an interview. http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-air-force/221101-cm-400akg-pakistans-supersonic-carrier-killer-18.html
There’s been speculation that this missile haven’t even been developed much less in service, that the publicity is a ploy to test market interest. I don’t which is true.
japanese must have learned public relation from the Iranians.
If you follow the discussion on pakdefense forum, it would seems the development of JF-17 is far from complete. Only PL-5IIs are carried operationally. Even SD-10 integration doesn’t seem completed. Much less the integration of targeting pod, jamming pod, or ground attack munitions. Until these developments are complete, I see little chance foreign sell.