More analysis of the collisions
1) Which ship has made a change in direction before the collision of Mizuki and Minjinyu 5179
2) What was Zhan Qixiong plan when he was intercepted by Yonakuni?
Update 2:
Some discussion in the comment. I would recap here.
How the collision happened, and the routing of the JCG ships and the Chinese boat are pretty clear after viewing these videos.
This is actually quite similar to the case of the Hainan flight collision between a Chinese fighter and American spy plane in April 2001.
Now the issues (and comparison) really are:
1) From Japan's perspective, the JCG is 'enforcing' its law in its water. The question is comparable to whether a police boat should block the course of a civilian when it disobeyed order. And whether the enforcement should be as aggressive in certain disputed area with a foreign boat.
2) From Chinese perspective, Japan simply has no right to enforce its law in this area.
3) From a third party's view. The issues are
a) shall enforcement be this aggressive, assuming even if this area belong to Japan (as many Japanese would say, the Russian were much more aggressive, and opened fire in South Kuriles)?
b) shall the fishing boat change course (or is it possible for it to do so technically, given it is much slowed to control the speed and direction of a boat than a car)?
c) has the captain been avoiding such collision for the whole 4-5 hours of hide and chase game, and eventually lose either concentration or patience and gave up on steering control?
d) the area seems to be within 12 nm of the island (as you can see the islands in the background in Yonakuni video). so this is not the high sea. but again, it is disputed area and enforcement should be more scrupulous.
Related links
1) ESWN: Hong Kong Media Reaction To Diaoyuatai Collision Video
2) 日艦故意讓「閩晉漁」撞上 操弄錄影片段枉費心機
3) 釣島撞船片外洩 中日矛盾惡化
4) 故意不播周旋過程
5) 專家：日艦違慣例強攔漁船
---
Update 1:
1) 282 DVDs discovered in JR Station, with leaflet of "This shows the truth about DPJ. Please help yourself for free"
2) Asahi's speculation of the rationale for the leak.
---
The two collision videos are finally viewable -- just as I suspected before, Kan government clearly has every reason to keep the videos to themselves, But LDP will not let go of this opportunity to discredit its political rival. I suspect the leak is from DPJ's political enemies. (The leak's youtube ID is Sengoku38. While Sankei tried to explain the connotation of 38 as gossip women in Chinese. 38 are also good fortune number is South China. So it might as well be Chinese hacker who leaked the video)
1) This is taken by crew on Yonakuni. You can see Yonakuni started from the right flank of Minjinyu 5179, cut in front of it (and obviously doing this very slowly or even 'parked' in order to intercept the fishing boat). Minjinyu's direction did not change much throughout the video and its velocity was not fast and didn't change much. When the boats collide you can see the white wave track left behind by Yonakuni, showing that it had just crossed in front of Minjinyu. From the track you can see Yonakuni's speed was much faster than Minjinyu. It makes one wonders why it slowed down (instead of sped up) while parked in front of Minjinyu.
See the white track behind Minjinyu. Yonakuni had came from behind Minjinyu and circled it from its left aft, right aft, right flank, then cross in front of it. See all that Minjinyu left no visible track, showing that its speed was much much slower than Yonakuni. The fact that Minjinyu did not crossed the white track behind also indicated that the amount of time Yonakuni has to circle Minjinyu was less than the amount of time Minjinyu has taken to go across the circle (for a perfect circle, the speed ratio will be at least pi/2=1.57 times)
1A) White track behind Minjinyu
Compare this with earlier CGI released by Japan you will understand why CGI is preferred over the real thing for Japan.
2) This one was taken by another JCG ship, Hateruma. In the first second of the video, it shows that Mizuki has just sped past Minjinyu and turned around in front of Minjinyu (see the semi-circle white wave track). Mizuki then sailed toward the Chinese fishing boat, then did a quick turn around right in front of Minjinyu, slowed down and parked and got hit by the Chinese boat which apparently could not brake nor turn (or reluctant/slow to turn).(for English subtitle version see here)
2A) Mizuki Turn around in front of Minjinyu to intercept
This is taken on Mizuki. It very clearly shows the JCG ship Mizuki sped up to intercept the Chinese Fishing Boat. In the beginning of the video, the two boats almost sailed side by side. Note also that a lot of black smoke came out from Mizuki a few seconds BEFORE the collision, similar to what you see when one pushes the pedal suddenly on a truck uphill.
This is taken a second before the collision, Note the thick black smoke from Mizuki.
The JCG boats seem determined to intercept the Chinese fishing boat. The Chinese fishing boat (Minjinyu 5179) seems determined to get out of the encirclement. The JCG boats are 3 times in length (translates into 27 times in size/volume/tonnage - Yonakuni is 89 meter long, 1300 ton displacement, vs Minjinyu 5179's 30 meter length and about 40 tons in displacement) and much faster than the fishing boat. As I had earlier speculated, it is extremely unlikely that any sane skipper will want to run into ships 27 times its size with much stronger steel body, nor that a much slower fishing boat would be fast enough to chase up the JCG ship. This looks like a replay of the 2008 Lien Ho Incident.
Relative size of A JCG ship and Minjinyu
- Hateruma: 89m, 1300 ton (speed about 60km/hr or 30-40 knots)
- Yonakuni: 89m, 1300 ton (speed about 60km/hr or 30-40 knots)
- Mizuki: 46m, 197 ton (speed about 45-45 knots)
- Minjinyu5179: 30m, 40 ton (speed about 15km/hr or 10-15knots)
In short, these videos do not help with JCG's case against skipper Zhan. It explain why Japan had to release the captain.
The Chinese MoFA spokesman Cui Tian Kai is now very adamant, "[Regarding what actually happened], The facts are very clear..."
30 comments:
Look at your picture of the Chinese boat just before it collided with the Japanese boat, Mizuki. The Chinese boat is clearly at a sharp angle with its wake. So, it seems obvious that the Chinese boat abruptly steered toward the Japanese boat.
Also, the Chinese captain's fault in the first collision seems incontestable, but leave it to a Chinese person to deny any wrongdoing, even when caught red-handed.
I seen the entirety of the video. The facts are indisputable. The Chinese vessel never made any sharp turns, while, as the article has shown, the wakes of the Japanese vessels demonstrate the aggressive maneuvering of their larger and faster coastguard vessels.
Spin it however you wish, it is actually the Japanese who have been caught red handed in a video they took themselves. No wonder they wanted to keep it under wraps.
Anon 1，
If you have ever been on a boat and watched the boat next to you moving, you would know that it is very hard to detect relative motion. e.g. distinguish whether your boat has changed course, or the other boat has. So watching the video taken from Mizuki tells you almost nothing.
However, the video taken from Hateruma about Mizuki shows you very clearly the course of Mizuki. That is hard to dispute, even though it is far away from the video cam.
BTW, how the collision happened, and the routing of the JCG ships and the Chinese boat are pretty clear after viewing these videos.
This is actually quite similar to the case of the Hainan flight collision between a Chinese fighter and American spy plane in April 2001.
Now the issues (and comparison) really are:
1) From Japan's perspective, the JCG is 'enforcing' its law in its water. The question is comparable to whether a police boat should block the course of a civilian when it disobeyed order. And whether the enforcement should be as aggressive in certain disputed area with a foreign boat.
2) From Chinese perspective, Japan simply has no right to enforce its law in this area.
3) From a third party's view. The issues are
a) shall enforcement be this aggressive, assuming even if this area belong to Japan (as many Japanese would say, the Russian were much more aggressive, and opened fire in South Kuriles)?
b) shall the fishing boat change course (or is it possible for it to do so technically, given it is much slowed to control the speed and direction of a boat than a car)?
c) has the captain been avoiding such collision for the whole 4-5 hours of hide and chase game, and eventually lose either concentration or patience and gave up on steering control?
d) the area seems to be within 12 nm of the island (as you can see the islands in the background in Yonakuni video). so this is not the high sea. but again, it is disputed area and enforcement should be more scrupulous.
Anon 1 here.
Sun Bin, for years Chinese people have been trying to convince me to follow their "logic." I know you can't stand when Westerners think independently. I'm not sympathetic.
I actually have a house on the Atlantic Ocean and several boats. I have no difficulty keeping track of the relative velocities of vessels on the water. It's humorous that in your arguments you often point to wake left by Japanese vessels, but when I comment on the angle of the Chinese boat to its own wake, you ignore my observation and instead assert you know better than I what it is like to be aboard a boat. You're as much of an expert as Zheng Qingyuan.
Then, you move on by simply stating again that the video makes clear how the collision happened. Again, leave it to the Chinese to stick to their guns, no matter what arguments others make. The CCP can't even admit that the video exists, instead calling it "the so-called video."
Your explanation of the issues is also humorously slanted. The way you recount Japan's perspective on the matter seems to dispute their right to enforcement, a point you emphasize again when discussing China's perspective. You continually harp on how allegedly aggressive the Japanese side was, during both your delineation of the Japanese perspective and a made-up third party's perspective. If you want to get a third party's perspective, I suggest you read reports from the international media, instead of trying to commandeer the narrative.
Your comparison of this Japan-China conflict to the US-China incident in 2001 is a bit attenuated. Sure, in terms of how China's political cogs turned, the incidents have similarities: both were used to spark nationalistic sentiment. Your blog entry is like watching Ip Man 1 and 2 in reverse order.
I don't understand why the Japanese leaked their own video. Furthermore, there is no such thing as opposition parties in Japan, every party is basically part of the whole and incompetencies that lead to resignations are an elaborate plan for the voice of reason i.e. the return of an imperial leader e.g. Dong Fang Bu Bai to take control after no one else has proven to be qualified.
Anon 1,
I tried to reason with you. But you shot back with loads of accusation and polemics, without much fact or evidence regarding the images in the video. The only seemingly relevant point is your experience of owning several boats. I assume your boats are much smaller than the Chinese fishing boat Minjinyu, for which you will feel the rough of the sea and sense the motion. I am not sure if you have ever taken a video while on a slightly larger (hence more stable) boat, of an adjacent boat. Try it, and try it with you moving, and compare it with the other boat moving, in the open sea with no background object of reference.
On the other hand, all you need to watch is the first video shot by Heteruma, which clearly indicated the change of direction of Mizuki (See screenshot 2C above, showing that Mizuki made a sharp U turn right before the collision trying to intercept Minjinyu). You have not responded to that video at all. We cannot proceed with rational discussion if you just continue to ignore evidence from the Heteruma video. I am open to challenges, as you said, let's try to "think independently" and tell me what you make of the Hateruma recording?
Sun, Anon 1 has decimated your arguments. It is quite clear in the video.
1. As the Chinese boat begins to execute its turn, the Japanese voices rise in pitch and volume, indicating great agitation. If they planned to ram the Chinese vessel, why are they agitated? The answer is obvious -- they are agitated because they know the Chinese have executed a turn, which they have seen, and are now about to ram them.
2. As the Chinese vessel executes its turn you can clearly see the vessel tilting, indicating it has changed its direction.
3. As the still you have posted there clearly indicates, the Chinese vessel has a curving wake which clearly indicates that it changed course toward the Japanese vessel.
4. Finally, watch the crew of the Chinese boat. At ~:50 there are six men visible, five on deck and one in the pilothouse. As the Chinese vessel executes its turn toward the Japanese vessel, they all begin crowding into the cabin. Clearly, they know what is coming.
I want you to concretely explain, Sun Bin, why the wake of the Chinese vessel curves, if it is not changing course. That curved wake is a dead giveaway about who is doing what.
Note that I am not discussing who owns the Senkakus. So there is no need to get into that. Just explain that curving wake behind the Chinese fishing vessel.
Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan
On to the Heteruma video: same problem in both cases. The video clearly shows that the Chinese fishing vessel accelerated into the Japanese boat, and also clearly shows that the wake behind the Chinese fishing vessel is curved TOWARD the Japanese ship.
In both cases the curving wake is the thing that needs explaining. Had the Chinese vessel never moved, or turned to starboard, there would have been no collision.
Mr. Turton,
I have two newer posts analyzing the collisions. There are drafted route charts you can criticize and correct.
1) Which ship has made a change in direction before the collision of Mizuki and Minjinyu 5179
2) What was Zhan Qixiong plan when he was intercepted by Yonakuni?
Regarding your question
1. Yes, the voice sounds agitated. I would assume the crew on Minjinyu were even more agitated or scared. But being agitated can mean many things, it can also mean they were agitate because the trawler tried to evade and Mizuki tried to block.
2. I can see there is small tilting, both to its left and right. the change in course is very small, could even be wind. Well, you may be right that the direction has changed by 10-20 degree, but this is too far from anything conclusive and it just can also be wind or wave. Compare this with the 270 degree sharp turn of the Mizuki and how do you expect the captain of a much smaller boat in panic to steer?
3. Yes, I noticed the wake, which is too small compared with the 270 degree change. see above.
4. If you see a much larger boat blocking your way and your boat is heading toward a collision. Yes, you would hide as well. In fact, this can be strong evidence that the crew on the trawler wanted to avoid the collision. If they really want to collide, why would they end up just touching the side board?
See the chart in my other post and we can continue.
Re: the Hateruma video,
Minjinyu did not change speed. Small change in direction is hard to see in that angle, but it shows that Minjinyu did not change direction as far as what we can see in that angle and distance, while Mizuki made an acute turn almost a U-turn.
I had actually tried to chart the position every 10 seconds and estimate the speed. Do the same, you will see the speed of Minjinyu slowed a bit (but not much, boats are not cars, no wheel or brake), while Mizuki was almost stationary for 20 seconds before the collision, clearly trying to block its escape route.
Sun Bin, in both collisions the Chinese vessel has a curving wake. In both cases it executed a turn which enabled it to ram the Japanese patrol vessel -- it turned toward the Japanese vessel. In both cases the Chinese vessel took actions which it did not have to.
Your charts, alas, are a triumph of ideology over evidence.
If you see a much larger boat blocking your way and your boat is heading toward a collision. Yes, you would hide as well. In fact, this can be strong evidence that the crew on the trawler wanted to avoid the collision. If they really want to collide, why would they end up just touching the side board?
As the second collision video clearly shows, the Chinese vessel executed a turn -- that is what the curving wake means -- which enabled it to ram the Japanese vessel. Had it not executed that turn there would have been no collision. Because the relative speeds of the two vessels, it could not hit the Japanese vessel any harder. It was likely going for the rudder. In fact, both attempts to ram were aimed at the rear of the Japanese vessel.
Engaging in desperate obfuscation of things as clear and simple as a ship's wake simply shows how far gone from reality the nationalist Chinese position is.
I will leave you with Lyle Goldstein:
Finally, there is the strong likelihood that Beijing will continue to use the Chinese strategy of "defeating harshness with kindness" (yi rou ke gang) and thus deploying unarmed fishing vessels or fisheries enforcement vessels to confront foreign vessels operating in its EEZ and claimed waters.
Michael
I took the time to plot the chart of movement for all vehicles in both collisions. I would encourage you to do the same. Instead, you refused to comment on the charts and stayed here repeating your ideology. So let's just keep it as that here. I am sure the other readers will form their own judgment, and will also check my other two posts.
They will also be able to see the video for themselves and check who is stretching the facts. Let them do it themselves.
The facts were fairly simple. JCG tried to block, the trawler disobeyed and tried to evade; JCG cut in front and slowed down, the trawler either kept going or did not have enough time to turn. I analyzed this in the traffic perspective, but if you believe Japan has the sovereignty and hence the right of way, then of course you will come to a different reasoning and view.
p.s.1. speculating on motivation was not the main point. i was just responding to your speculation of 'deliberate collision'.
p.s.2. goldstein's sounds like a good strategy. but in this specific case the trawler is so ill-prepared that it is most likely just a real fishing trip (will carry video-cam/etc if otherwise)
I am Chinese and have viewed all the videos posted by Sun Bing and here is my personal conclusion. The Japanese boats were trying to intercept the "intruding" Chinese fishing vessel in a disputed area. Interception by naval and law enforcement standard includes circuling the intruder, coming alongside and even cutting in front of the intruder, albeit at a safe distance. These manuveurs were done by the Japanese boats and are acceptable by international law and practise. So there is no need for the Chinese government to argue otherwise, since we do it to the Vietnamese all the time in the South China Sea.
International Law also allows Boarding of Vessel and even Firing Across the Bow of the Vessel when there is a violation of territorial sovereignty or relevant laws. Clearly, for the last 3 decades the Japanese considers Senkaku to be Japanese territory while the Chinese considers it as Chinese territory.
Normally, where there is territory dispute with a neighbor, citizens of both countries are wise to steer clear as the risk of being detained or shot at is very high. And that's exactly what happened here. Not smart.
China and Chinese citizens cannot run freely and wildly into every disputed territory in the Himalayas, Heilongjiang area, South China Sea, East Sea or the Pacific Ocean just because China has pending claims on those disputed territories. All disputed territories should be settled PEACEFULLY Billaterally or theough International Court of Justice at The Hague. In fact, the latter is used by most countries to settle such disputes. China has also "settled" billaterally (maybe "gave-up" is more appropriate) >1 million square kilometers of Outer Dongbei (Outer Manchuria) with Russia in 2004.
If China wants to enforce it's territory sovereignty with Japan, it should send the Chinese Navy and not ignorant fishermen. Why hasn't China done this? This is China Territory !!! Why, Sun Bing? Why? Why not kick the Japs out now? Why the 1,3 billion Chinese not demand the Chinese government send its military? Why???
Like i said, I watch all the videos you posted here, and my conclusion is: the Chiense boat did ram the Japanese boat - no question at all. Even that last "shot" you posted showed the Chinese boat veering at least 30 to 40 degrees to her left to ram the Japanese boat. You can tell from the wake trail left by that boat. The Japanese had slowed down and was running parallel at the same speed to the Chinese boat, yelling at them to get out of "Japanese territory". Suddenly, the Chinese boat veered to her left and ram the Japanese at the rear end. You could see that the Japanese had sounded an alarm to get out of the way but it was too late.
Even to use your logic that the Japanese crossed the "T" of the Chinese boat and remained there, the Chiense vessel should ahve Stopped or Veered Right to avoid Collision with a Naval vessel. Every boat captain knows that rule. In fact, the captain should have stopped dead in water - that's the normal practise. Why did he not stop?
You said that no "sane" captain would ram a boat but that logic applies even more to the Japanese naval commander. They are highly trained naval professionals and steering a multi-million dollar vessel. Are they so stupid to cross the T and allow another boat to ram their expensive boat with all hands on deck? That captain would face court martial !!!
I am Chinese and my grandfather was almost tortured to death during WW2 so I am no lover of the Japanese. However, I remember Old Deng said we should "seek the truth". I am in my late 40s and I have seen a lot of BS so I don't need anymore. Try to be objective and honest with yourself. You are not here to convince foreigners about the righteousness of the Chinese race. Truth speaks louder than fart.
Sun Bin, your diagrams do not illustrate anything that is different from what you have already said. You repeatedly ignore others' arguments and blame them for not explicitly mentioning your drawings or quoting your weak analysis.
Your most recent blog entry attempts to establish a narrative that casts the Chinese captain as a poor, helpless fisherman who was bullied by the Japanese? Why not cast him as a lawbreaker? (After all, it would be negligent for a local fisherman not to know that Japan has exercised control over those islands for quite some time.) Why not depict the Chinese captain as reckless for refusing to communicate with the Japanese Coast Guard? (In country's that respect the law, the practice is to do what enforcement authorities tell you to do and then follow-up by the proper procedures.)
Also, your narrative, perhaps unintentionally, admits exactly what you are trying to dispute: the Chinese Captain rammed his boat into the Japanese ships. So, you can go on trying to make the Chinese captain seem innocent, but you've been right about one thing: others will measure how far you've stretched the truth. My observation is that everybody who isn't Chinese disagrees with you.
To my point of view after watching these video, the Japanese patrol boat intentionally put themselve in direct collision course with the Chinese trawler.
When the Japanese patrol boat and Chinese trawler were facing each other, it is to my understanding the Chinese trawler captain made a wise decision to keep is boat moving at a straith line with a minimum speed. Because even if the Chinese trawler make a turn, it will put itself in danger of being collided by the side by the Japanese patrol boat. A collision by the side is more dangerous then the front. A front collision can be minimize the impact if one or both make a slight turn a few second before a two front collision. To do that it need to keep the boat moving.
If I were the captain of the trawler, I would had thought the Japanese boat would intentionally ram into my boat, so I would not stop my engine to be a sitting duck. I would keep my boat moving at a steady speed so as to avoid the Japanese boat collision to the side of my boat by always facing the front of the Japanese patrol boat. If I make a turn of my boat, the Japanese patrol boat could hit the side of my boat.
The white line behind each boat before the collision indicate the Japanese patrol boat was moving faster then the Chinese trawler because it white line was longer then the trawler. The trawler was moving slowly because it white line was very short. This give the impression the Japanese patrol boat was going to collide with the trawler.
Therefore the fault lies within the Japanese patrol boat because it intentionally put itself into danger by keeping a high speed when it was front to front with the Chinese trawler. The Chinese trawler speed was low while the Japanese patrol boat speed was high. The Chinese trawler have the right to protect itself by not turning and become vunerable to a front collision by the Japanese patrol boat to it side.
"Proudly Anon1",
Since you guys share the same IP address, I am replying to you two together. I don't really mind anonymity but a different ID each time just makes the dialogue a lot harder to follow. Having different handles does not mean you have more vote on what you said, only reasoning counts here.
BTW, I am not proud to be a Chinese, especially if one compares how long it took China and Japan to modernize in the past 150 years. And I have great respect and admiration for the Japanese people. So I am totally against your suggestion of sending the military to a confrontation. (I also do not think the fishermen were "sent to", since they are so unprepared)
Anyway, since you have said this is a policing action and there are different rules which would apply to such actions (eg a police car sure can block the traffic, though usually it will cut the line and then slow down in front of you to provide you time to decelerate), and I have earlier stated that this will be related to the sovereignty issue which is well covered by main stream media, I am going to only respond to your comment regarding the collision traffic. All I want to ask from you is the links to back up your interpretation of "international laws".
1) regarding motives. the trawler captain will be directly responsible for the financial loss (and loss of life) on a collision and he does not have much money. the JCG crew do not have to be responsible financially for any loss. All they need to convince their superior is that they were enforcing law, for within Japan there is no dispute on the area. All they need to do is not to run their head into the trawler, but letting their tail in front of the trawler are probably okay -- this is probably the guidance laid after the Lien Ho incident in 2008.
2) regarding the wake, yes, it looks like Minjinyu had a small angle of, about 20 degrees, in its collision with Mizuki. But it is so small that it is really not anything conclusive. wave, wind, I am not going to repeat again. All I am going to say is that, Zhan has the benefit of doubt.
Remember also Mizuki turned 270 degrees, and Yonakuni 90 degrees.
And they both were moving quickly before suddenly parked in front of Minjinyu.
3) I am not saying the captain is totally free of responsibility. I am saying that JCG captains have as much (or perhaps even) larger responsibility for causing the collisions. But yes, for an accident to happen, in most cases both drivers do not do a perfect job.
4) Regarding whether the skipper knows the delicate issue of EEZ dispute, I would like to quote from the Japanese blogger Jun Okumura in a previous discussion, "based on what I know, I think that it is far more likely that the Chinese fishing boat was just one of many in the adjacent seas and that it decided to augment its catch and slipped into the Senkaku territorial waters, which is explicitly beyond the scope of the Japan-China Fishing Agreement (a fact whose significance many commentators overlook). I’m sure that it happens not infrequently, because the territorial waters must be tempting—think, the lush wildlife in the Korean DMZ—given the inevitable overfishing in the adjacent EEZ, where the two nations exercise jurisdiction only over their respective national fishing boats. This time, it got caught and bumped the Japanese Coast Guard vessels in territorial waters, which is a crime under Japanese Criminal Code."
Sun Bing, I do not share the same IP address with any of the other people commenting on your blog. Like I said, I am Chinese.
From the videos posted, it is very clear that the Japoanese was running parallel with the Chinese boat after the former did a U-turn to come to the latter side. It is an acceptable naval manouveur. The Japanese vessel did not cross the "T" of the Chinese vessel during this last encounter. It may have done so much earlier but that was at a great and safe distance away.
It will be very different if the Japanese vessel did cross right in front of the Chinese vessel to deliberately cause a collission but it does not appear to be the case. After viewinig the videos, I am convinced that the Chiense vessel is at fault and did ram the Japanese vessel.
Proudly,
I apologize if I mixed up your IP.
When you said "running parallel after a U-turn", I suppose you were talking about the Mizuki video.
There is actually something strange when you compare the 2 videos taken for Mizuki. From the one taken by Hateruma (from a couple hundred meters away), the two boats were NEVER in parallel. Mizuki turned about 1-2 boat-length in front of Minjinyu. That is one of the reasons I came to the conclusion that the video taken from on board Mizuki is zoomed at different level and could be misleading. i.e. you really do not know which boat changed course, all you see is relative motion.
When I got time, I will use the collision time and calculate the exact time when the "parallel image" was taken, I suspect it is around 1:00 when Mizuki was in the midst of its turn, when a T was temporarily formed.
I also counted the time, Mizuki's motion has been halted for the 20-30 seconds right before the collision. I am not sure how you would classify that in terms of your understanding of "acceptable maneuver". I suppose they expected the trawler to be able to come to a full stop or turn in about 50m's distance, at the same time being able to predict Mizuki's motion (or non-motion) in the next 30-90 seconds.
P.S. I do not think JCG "deliberately cause a collision". I think they just want to block the trawler. If avoidable, I believe nobody wants a collision. They were just trying to capture the boat in a very aggressive way and are not afraid of risking into a collision. The trawler may also have made a mistake but I find it extremely hard to believe why would any one ram his own 40t boat into something 30 times its weight (1300t).
I think the Japanese vessel was running parallel to the Chinese boat and so it is an "acceptable manuveur" but if the former did cross right in front of the latter at such a ridiculous short distance, then it is a deliberate attempt to allow one's boat to be rammed. In the critical seconds after the Japanese "caught up" with the Chinese boat, the former had turned parallel to the latter. It seems very clear that both vessels were parallel to each other at that time. From other angles it may seemed that one boat was turning but it's an optical illusion, especially in open seas where there is no reference point. Both boats were possibly turning at the same time but from the camera angle and the wake of the Chinese boat, it does seemed like the chinese boat had veered to the Left at > 30 degrees, sufficient to ram into the rear of the Japanese boat. I think the Japanese commander was foolish to allow his vessel to come so close to another boat under such circumstances but that doesn't mean his boat could be rammed deliberately.
You see, a naval craft is not like a thin can police car that does a roadblock to stop the runaway fugutive. Naval commanders are drilled into them not to have their ship aground, damaged or destroyed in any situation. Naval captains are trained not to endanger their ships even to avoid conflict wherever possible. It is inconceivable for a naval commander of any nation to put his vessel directly in front of another vessel to try to stop it. It is simply not in any naval doctrine, manual or practice. If the Japanese commander did do this, then he is in for court martial regardless of how the politics turn out. The naval high command will see to it that he is court martial. Furthermore, in the Japanese psyche, it is a disgrace and dhishonor for the individual who allowed his vessel to be rammed deliberately. No modern naval warfare has practise ship ramming since the medieval period. This Japanese will have to commit seppuku if he has done this. It is a disgrace due to dereliction of duty of the highes order that even his children and children's children will be ashamed of. That's the Japanese psyche.
As for the "sanity" or logic of the Chinese captain, I cannot be sure. One thing I know is I have seen too many altercations on the streets of Shanghai to know how some people will react illogically or insanely to a simple situation and gets out of hand immediately.
If you drive an expensive imported car, you don't go ramming into other people's car. The Japanese boat cost > $30 million so that guy is going to steer it carefully and not use it like a battering ram. I have been on the receiving end of two such traffic accidents in Shanghai where the other driver just rammed to the right rear side of my car just because they were upset or wanted to cut into my lane. Both came out screaming at me and after the cop arrived, both were severely dealt with by the "Gong An". The people that did these sort of things were educated white collar people so I think the Chinese boat captain is quite capable of irrational thinking at the spur of the moment. I have seen too many fights on the streets, supermarkets or restaurants of Shanghai to know that there are many irrationl hot tempered people around who always regretted their actions after the cops arrived.
Anyway, time to move on. This episode has been milked by politicians and officials from both sides for their domestic audience and political value.
The Japanese patrol boat is at fault even when is turn the boat 180 degree before the collision.
The trajectory of the Japanese patrol boat toward the Chinese trawler did not change even if it turn 180 degree because of it initial momentum before the turn. Look at the following Youtube video of a car making a 180 degree turn while still sliding toward it trajectory path.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHi2f50E0lA
The car keep moving in the direction of the trajectory path while turnning 180 degree is cause by the car initial momentum, only friction of the tires with the road manage to stop the car.
With the boat, the friction between the water and boat is less pronounce then between the tires and road, so the Japanese patrol boat would have continue it trajectory path toward the Chinese trawler even after the 180 degree turn.
Both boats was on collision course unless the Japanese boat accelerate in the same direction as the Chinese trawler. Except the Japanese boat seem to stop it engine after it 180 degree turn. So it was moving toward Chinese trawler cause by it initial momentum.
The fault is the Japanese patrol boat. The Chinese captain is a hero because it kept it crew safe from a potential collision by the Japanese patrol boat to the side of his boat.
I want to correct a mistake, there are no friction between the boat and water. The resistant to the movement of the boat from the water is refer to as wave resistance drag.
Proudly,
I watched the 2 videos a couple times more. Comparing the wake behind Minjinyu, it does seem like it turned some 20-30 degree. When compared with the Hateruma video, which is far from clear, there were indeed some moment when Minjinyu was not facing the left (sort of is similar direction as Mizuki). So yes, Minjinyu did turn. What is unclear is how much Mizuki turned at the same moment.
I will update my chart accordingly in the other post.
I can concur with most of what you said in your last comment. Except to note that, in your luxury car analogy, imagine the it is a luxury truck and you are the employed driver with insurance, and you have a job of completing certain task which could risk some small scratch. plus, I am not sure if the JCG captain feel foolish at the event though. He does see no fault in his action.
And Sun Bin starts to come around... Now if he could just figure out what made him vigorously defend his arguments for so long before finally addressing the point I made in the very first comment to this entry...
Anon 1,
Thanks for coming back :).
I am always open to challenges and comments, and ready to be convinced with reason. I was not vigorously defending my argument. I don't really have an argument either way. I just want to make sure we cannot rely on one video which shows only relative motion. (I have always think the trawler may made a small turn as well).
Regarding the second line of your very first comment, still I wouldn't use the word "incontestable" as you did for the Yonakuni collision. Actually, even for the Mizuki collision it is not incontestable either -- for both sides.
Japan needs to release all its video to help us reach a better judgment. But, again, traffic movement is what we can judge, territorial dispute and accepted practice in the disputed area is a totally different issue.
In the following video we hear a collision of a Japanese patrol boat with the Chinese trawler after the 2 minutes mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CmVvwuIJfA&feature=player_embedded#!
This video is at different time then this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1HLj4snU5o&feature=related
In the next video, there is actual footage of a collision between the Japanese patrol boat and the Chinese trawler after the one minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C12tQTpd6iM&NR=1
These video are at different times.
I conclude there might be more than one collision during the Japanese patrol boats and Chinese trawler encounter.
Who started the collision is still a mystery to me.
It seem the Chinese captain did navigate his boat toward the Japanese patrol boat in video 1. In video 2 it was the Japanese who actually endanger themselve by parking next to the moving Chinese trawling. In video 3, it seem the Japanese patrol boat try to cut throught the path of the Chinese trawler.
My previous comment was related to the second video.
The Japanese patrol boat should not harass the Chinese trawler. I believe the Chinese are ready to defend the claim on the region of Daiyutai Island.
The Chinese will remember what the Japanese patrol boat did to the Chinese compatriot from Taiwan in 2005.
"Japanese Coast Guard vessels intercepted Taiwanese fishing vessels found in "Japanese waters." Armed Japanese Coast Guard personnel arrested Taiwanese fishermen, forced them to kneel before their captors, slapped them in the face, spit on them, and screamed racial epithets in their ears. Japanese authorities impounded Taiwanese fishing boats and levied fines amounting to tens of thousands of US dollars on their owners. "
http://thechinadesk.tripod.com/diaoyutai_and_pan_green_self_delusion.htm
I hope this will be the last time the Japanese patrol boat board a Chinese vessel. The next time the Chinese government will need to show that it is capable of defending the Chinese vessel in the disputed region of Daiyutai and it could become violent.
No one bothered to send me a telegram that the reason that the Japanese leaked their own video was to have an excuse to hold a response anti-China rally. You're kidding me, right? They let go of their OWN video. That's what this was for? Like always, Western media is going to put out a couple of lower level talking heads to stroke Japan by telling it what it wants to hear but that's not reflective of the effect of their "decision" to release their own video. I just can't believe they did that. Great, what kind of moron would descend to their level and discuss this in bullshit detail. I'm so glad that the enemy is worthy, such genius intellects. See you at Harvard. You really belong there.
Oh, but Japanese people don't want to attend to Harvard, do they? After all, it is in America, Land of the "Simple Minded" according to Japanese politician Ichiro Ozawa "“I like Americans, but they tend to be simple-minded,” he said during a speech in the capital, using a Japanese idiom that literally means ‘monocellular’. He also offered some back-handed praise for U.S. democracy: ”I don’t think (Americans) are very wise,” he said, “but I highly rate their ability to put their choices into practice.”
Anonymous said...
Look at your picture of the Chinese boat just before it collided with the Japanese boat, Mizuki. The Chinese boat is clearly at a sharp angle with its wake. So, it seems obvious that the Chinese boat abruptly steered toward the Japanese boat.
Also, the Chinese captain's fault in the first collision seems incontestable, but leave it to a Chinese person to deny any wrongdoing, even when caught red-handed.
6/11/10 15:40
----
I concur, any one who has seen a boat suddenly turn recognizes the tilting motion of the Chinese boat as the captain jammed the rudders hard left to ram the Japanese coast guard... you can spout as many theories as you like and draw lines all over the pictures playing oceanic CSI but you can't deny reality
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/policy/110107/plc1101071127009-n1.htm
海上警察権強化へ、馬淵国交相が方針発表 自衛隊との連携には踏み込まず
2011.1.7 11:53
このニュースのトピックス：尖閣諸島問題
馬淵澄夫国土交通相は７日、沖縄・尖閣諸島沖の中国漁船衝突事件などを受けて、海上保安庁の「海上警察権」を強化する基本方針を明らかにした。領海侵犯する漁船や不審船に対する強制的な調査権限の拡大や、立ち入り検査なしに退去命令を出したり度重なる場合は制裁金を課せるようにするため、関連法の改正を検討する。
一方、海上自衛隊との協力態勢など、他官庁との連携については「調整に時間がかかる」として踏み込まなかった。
海保の海上警察権力をめぐっては昨年１２月、馬淵国交相の指示で国際法や行政法の専門家からなる有識者会議を設置。海上保安官の権限などを定めた海上保安庁法、不審船などへの対応を定めた領海等外国船舶航行法について、問題点や課題などが協議されてきた。
今後は国会への関連法案提出も視野に、庁内で検討会議を実施する。ただ今回の基本方針では、中国の漁業監視船などの公用船については国際法上の権利として立ち入り検査が免除されており、対象とならない。
馬淵国交相は「根本的には（公用船についての）議論が必要だとは思っているが、外務省など他官庁が絡む話であり、相当な時間がかかる」との認識を示した。
Post a Comment