By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Japan has lodged a strong protest with China following multiple instances of Chinese fighter jets flying dangerously close to Japanese intelligence-gathering aircraft over the East China Sea. The Japanese Defense Ministry reported that a Chinese JH-7 fighter-bomber came within 30 meters of a Japanese YS-11EB aircraft. Japan’s Foreign Ministry conveyed “serious concern” to the Chinese Ambassador, urging China to prevent accidental collisions and cease such actions. These incidents follow previous accusations of close encounters, occurring amid warming economic ties between the two nations, highlighted by the recent agreement on animal health and quarantine as well as China’s partial lifting of the ban on Japanese seafood imports.
Read the original article here
Japan urges China to stop flying fighter jets too close to Japanese military aircraft. This situation seems to be a recurring theme in the relationship between Japan and China. The core of the issue is that Japan is requesting China to cease what it perceives as dangerous and provocative behavior by its fighter pilots.
The actions in question involve Chinese fighter jets flying unusually close to Japanese military aircraft, specifically intelligence-gathering planes. This kind of behavior raises concerns about safety and potential escalation. It appears these close encounters are happening in international airspace, which complicates the situation. Countries are generally free to operate military aircraft in international airspace, but they are also expected to do so safely and responsibly, which, according to Japan, isn’t happening.
From the information provided, it’s clear that both countries engage in surveillance activities. It’s almost a given that nations will gather intelligence on one another, and it’s expected to include monitoring their neighbors. The problem isn’t necessarily that the aircraft are being tracked, but rather the manner in which China’s jets are performing the tracking. The close proximity and potentially reckless maneuvers are what’s being objected to.
The context of these events is key. Some suggest that Japan’s actions, such as a warship sailing near China’s waters, may have prompted a response from China. Timing and the location of these incidents are crucial. It seems the initial claim by some that Japan’s actions were simply a response, are more nuanced when looked at over time.
The details of these incidents matter, such as the precise distances and maneuvers involved, as well as if they occurred in international waters. If China’s actions involve unsafe intercepts, defined by reckless maneuvers or dangerously close approaches, this would be a violation of international aviation regulations. It would be worth noting the regulations set by the countries, as the United States has already set safe standards with China for their pilots to follow.
The response from China to Japan’s request is not explicitly mentioned in the details, but the suggestion of “or else what?” implies a certain level of defiance or unwillingness to comply. The question of how Japan can enforce its request without escalating tensions is a key consideration given Japan’s constitutional limitations. The relationship seems to be a complex interplay of actions and reactions, with both sides likely seeking to assert their interests and deter each other’s actions.