Chinese ships seen near Senkakus for record 216th straight day

Typical provocation from our tiresome, totalitarian neighbors.

Let's see the usual suspects try to dismiss it as "innocent passage," or "an inalienable part of China's territorial integrity since ancient times with Chinese characteristics and common prosperity and new productive forces in win-win cooperation."

Or whatever their masters command them to call it this week.

Contiguous waters are international waters.

Do you agree?

This non story brought to you by a three letter USA agency.

JJEToday 12:33 pm JST

Contiguous waters are international waters.

Do you agree?

No, I don't.

They differ from international waters (beyond 24 nautical miles), as states can exercise some control over them (though not as much as territorial waters).

And, in any case, what China does is not "innocent passage," but "loitering," which is not allowed. Plus, its ships/aircraft have entered Japanese territorial waters/airspace before, even as recently as last month.

So, I stand by my assessment.

Contiguous waters are international waters. It's as simple as that.

Assessment dismissed ...

So, I stand by my assessment.

Chinese coast guard ships were spotted near the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea for the 216th consecutive day,

They just cant get enough of sight seeing Japans territories. I hope they are being charged for admission!

isabelle, those Chinese are coming for you, you know it already. They are after world domination and the subjugation of all and they are seeking you specifically.

That CCP black book has your name etched at the top. Be scared, be very scared.

The Japanese coast guard said four Chinese coast guard ships equipped with autocannons were confirmed to have sailed in the contiguous zone outside Japan's territorial waters.

Nothing significant happening but kyodo determined to stir up something in the news =)

I guess this would be daily news from now since it would record number of days everyday

Well it is their territory after all.

China can't claim to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, citing history so nonchalantly.　Here's my reasoning why:

Common nouns in a language are very ad hoc in naming objects. There's no reason why things are called as they are in languages. However, proper nouns are different from common nouns in that there's always reasons behind -- why they are called by such and such names.

Kubajima (久場島）or Huangwei Yu （黄尾鱮）in Chinese in the Senkaku/Diaoyudao Islands was an important landmark for ancient Ryukyu (Okinawa) seamen and traders navigating on the Okinawa-Fuchuan sea lane. These seafarers, who were thoroughly familiar with the Senkaku waters more than anyone else, called this landmark "Kubajima" because, according to one theory, the island was covered full with “kuba” (or Areca) palms. But I think it was called by that name because the island's shape is quite similar to that of another island called Kubajima, that is located about 40 km west of Naha, Okinawa Island, on the same sea lane. When necessary, the former was called "Iigun Kubajima" to distinguish it from the latter.

Wasn't Chinese "Huangmao (Yu)" （黄毛）as recorded by Chen Kan （陳侃, 1534）and "Huangwei (Yu)" recorded elsewhere, meaning yellow hair or tail, a phonetic conversion of Kuba(-jima)? Note that the k-sound of Japanese (and Okinawan) ordinarily corresponds to the h-sound in Chinese. Or did the Chinese think the island was inhabited by mythic animals with yellow tails or hair and so named it as such?

The easternmost island in the chain is officially called Taishojima in Japan, but historically it used to be called Kumi-Akajima by Ryukyu seamen. Here, too, we see the same mechanism of nomenclature as in the case of Kubajima. There's an island called Akajima in the Kerama Islands whereby Kumi-Akajima in the Senkakus must have been named after this with Kumi added to differentiate it from the original.

The Chinese call this island Chiwei Yu (赤尾鱮), meaning "red-tailed island." Does it mean the Chinese believed the island was inhabited by animals with red tails? Isn't it a semantic conversion of what Ryukyu seamen called Kumi Akajima (久米阿嘉島）, which could mean "Kume Red Island" if interpreted in folk etymology?

The name "Senkaku" comes from English "Pinnacle Islands." The HMS Samarang made a port at Ishigaki Island three times and on its second port calling in May, 1845, it launched out upon an exploration of the "hitherto unheard-of" island group which the islanders called Iigunjima. Approaching the islands northward from Ishigaki Island on May 8, they must have been struck with the similarity of the first approaching island to Bartolome Island in the Galapagos, which is famous for its Pinnacle Rock, therefore calling the island group Pinnacle Islands. The Japanese name "Senkaku" was coined after this by a natural history teacher named Hisashi Kuroiwa, in 1900, who hailed from Kochi Prefecture in Shikoku and taught at Okinawa Normal School.

The Meiji government called the largest island in the chain "Uotsuri-jma", which is an apparent translation from the Chinese "Diaoyudao". It also called the adjacent islands lying southeast of it "Kita Kojima" (North Islet) and "Minami Kojima" (South Islet) respectively. The Chinese names "Bei Xiaodao" and "Nan Xiaodao" definitely come from these Japanese names.

Ancient Ishigaki fishermen called the island (group) "Iigun-jima." "Iigun" （the initial part of the word rhymed with "eagle") means the head of a spear used in dive-fishing, a fishing method probably unknown to the mainland Chinese. The reason why it is called so is similar to why the highest mountain in the Japan Alps in Honshu is called "Yarigadake." The top of the rugged mountain reminds one of the head of a spear ("yari").

The HMS Samarang's crew must have been struck with the similarity between the pinnacle rock in the Garapagos, thus starting to call the island group the pinnacle Islands.

Probably, Chen Kwan must have thought of Diaoyu Castle back home when he heard the Ryukyu seamen's description of the island's name.

A surprise, surprise. There are two people who give a negative appraisal to my post above. I wonder how they would refute my contention. 

Come out and discuss it squarely.