I’ve written before about China’s ‘inconsistency’ in its approach to foreign policy (actually, I unkindly said hypocrisy). So I’d have to say I broadly agree with Paul Jackson’s take over on Tokyo Notes on the situation unfolding over the detention of a Chinese fishing boat captain by Japanese authorities.
According to news reports, a Chinese fishing ship on Tuesday rammed two Japanese patrol boats near the disputed Senkaku Islands after the Chinese ship’s captain refused to allow his vessel to be inspected or to leave the sea around the islands. He then, it seems, decided to crash into the two Japan Coast Guard ships issuing the orders.
The arrest of Zhan Qixiong has, however, sparked demonstrations in Beijing by protestors who, as Paul says, ‘cannot understand why a fisherman in Chinese waters (from China’s perspective) should be held by the Japanese.’
And the inconsistency I hinted at? Well, last summer saw a comparable example, with Vietnamese fishermen eventually being released after being detained by China for supposedly violating China’s territorial waters (this policy of unilaterally declaring waters its own and off-limits is an ongoing sore spot between these two countries—and indeed with some of China’s other neighbours). The Vietnamese government for its part said the fishermen were operating in Vietnamese waters. The clearest difference (so far) between Zhan’s case and last year’s is that back then it was 25 Vietnamese fishermen that were held—and they were detained for months.
In this latest incident, China has reportedly twice summoned the Japanese ambassador to demand the captain’s release and has warned of diplomatic consequences if the incident is not handled ‘properly.’
It would be nice if the Chinese government didn’t quite so often make itself look as if it is looking for an excuse to be outraged. And, According to RTT News, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman ‘called for the unconditional release of the trawler and its crew,’ terming the seizure ‘absurd, illegal and invalid and which China will never accept.’
RTT goes on to say that she added that a ‘law-enforcement’ ship had been sent to the area to ‘protect the safety’ of Chinese fishermen in the area.
Perhaps it might also do well to keep tabs on its own vessels’ behavior?
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Lac Hong
What goes around comes around. Some Vietnamese fishermen are still wondering why they were attacked inside Vietnam’s territory by powerful Chinese warships pretending to be ‘law-enforcement’ ships.
Tian
Agreed. China does protest too much.
darren lindeman
well the fisher men’s refusal of going along with the Japanese patrols comes from a china’s long dispute of the islands between japan. This reflects on the communist Chinese’s views towards japan and the islands.
In a way all this reflects on the barbarity of the communist chinese people, their ignorance towards their neighboring country.
jim
“According to news reports, a Chinese fishing ship on Tuesday rammed two Japanese patrol boats near the disputed Senkaku Islands after the Chinese ship’s captain refused to allow his vessel to be inspected or to leave the sea around the islands. He then, it seems, decided to crash into the two Japan Coast Guard ships issuing the orders.”
Jason forget to mention that’s Japanese version. Jason again show his bias by forgetting mention Chinese version which is Japanese ships crash Chinese ship.
This is again show Jason’s bias on any issue on China. I wonder why he even posted his opinion on China when he don’t even hide any objective in his piece. No wonder so many Chinese are disgusted by Western media bias.
Jason
Jim: Thank you for taking the time to comment. I’m sorry you feel I am biased against China, but one of the aims of this blog (and all of the blogs at The Diplomat) is to take a critical look at each country. You will notice that our Tokyo Notes bloggers are very critical of the Japanese government. Are they also biased? Our Indian bloggers are regularly highly critical of their own country. Are they anti-Indian for doing so?
You might be reassured to read my very first blog entry, in which I note that much of the criticism of China is in fact just a matter of perspective, and that if ‘China’ were replaced with ‘United States’ there is much critical commentary that could read just the same. It’s at: http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2010/02/16/how-we-see-ourselves/
jim
Jason, you maybe think that your point of view is critical thinking. But you are wrong on that. Every article and/or opinion you wrote is very much mirror to New York Times and/or other western media. If you don’t believe, please google on the web. In general, many articles lack original thought. Again, I question why you even started Chinese blog since your opinion can be found in so many other western web site.
If you want to see more meaningful China blog, check James fallows blog in Atlantic monthly. You will see the difference.
Jason
Jim, thank you for your comment. I suspect that I won’t be able to persuade you, largely because you apparently don’t agree with what I say. However, I would urge you before dismissing every entry I write as in some way anti-China to note that there are numerous times when I have pointed out when I feel criticism of China is unjust or if countries including the United States are being hypocritical. I have a great deal of respect for Mr Fallows, but I am also a great believer in choice. I have a China blog. If people want to keep reading it, they can. If they prefer other China blogs then they are free to read those instead.
All that said, China Power has received some notable praise from other outlets, so it appears at least some people find us a useful resource.
John Chan
Jason, Jim merely pointed out that you are biased against China in the eyes of some of The Diplomat readers. Maybe you should revise your writing style so it is more objective and neutral.
Inst
To begin with, I’m deeply respectful of how you’ve tactfully handled complaints about your coverage.
One comment, however. How do you ram two coast guard boats with a single fishing trawler? That fact seems to strain belief, but the Japanese claim to have videos showing significant damage on their ships while little on the Chinese ship.
Keith
Motion is relative. You say the Chinese fishing boat rammed the Japanese patrol boat, I say it’s the other way around. Even Professor Einstein would agree that you are no more right than I.
Also you are getting confused with your view points in your remark about inconsistency and hypocrisy. From the Chinese point of view, the Chinese boat was in Chinese waters, and the Vietnamese boats were in Chinese waters. There is no inconsistency. This is standard GMAT material.
Jason
Thanks for commenting Keith, though I would note that I didn’t actually say the Chinese were being hypocritical in this case. I was referring to my previous article where I think the claim of hypocrisy was correct.
On the point about motion being relative, I think this misses the point completely. It is about intent to ram – if one or the other vessel intended to ram the other then this isn’t relative, and it has significant implications depending on where the intent lay.
Bill Rich
What’s wrong with “Do as I say, not what I do ?” That is ancient Chinese cultural heritage, and they are sticking with it.