Japan warns of China's military moves as biggest strategic challenge
China's growing joint operations with Russia also pose serious security concerns to Japan, along with increasing tension around Taiwan and threats coming from North Korea, the Defense Ministry said in an annual military report submitted to Cabinet on Tuesday.
'The international society is in a new crisis era as it faces the biggest challenges since the end of World War II,' the report said, citing significant changes to the global power balance while raising concern about an escalation of the China-U.S. rivalry.
The security threats are concentrated in the Indo-Pacific, where Japan is located, and could get worse in the future, report says.
Japan has accelerated its military buildup on southwestern islands in recent years, preparing to deploy long-distance cruise missiles, as it worries about a conflict in Taiwan, which China claims as its territory to be annexed by force if necessary. Taiwan launched 10-day annual live-fire military exercises last week intended to guard against Chinese threats to invade. Japan tested a short-range, surface-to-ship missile at home earlier last month.
Chinese warships' advance into the Pacific has steadily increased, with the frequency of their passage off southwestern Japan tripling in the past three years, including in waters between Taiwan and its neighboring Japanese island of Yonaguni, the 534-page report said.
The report comes days after Japan demanded China stop flying its fighter jets abnormally close to Japanese intelligence-gathering aircraft, which it said was happening repeatedly and could cause a collision. Beijing, in return, accused Japan of flying near Chinese airspace for spying purposes.
Two earlier close encounters in June occurred over the Pacific Ocean, where Japan spotted two Chinese aircraft carriers operating together for the first time.
China's increasing dispatch of aircraft carriers in the Pacific underscores the country's attempt to advance its sea power in distant waters, the report said. It said China's frequent dispatch of bombers for long distance flights in the Pacific by more sophisticated flight routes and fleet organization is seen as Beijing's attempt to show off its presence around Japan and to further advance its operational capability.
The Defense Ministry noted two cases last year — a Chinese warplane's brief violation of Japanese airspace over waters off islands near Nagasaki and an aircraft carrier's entry into a zone just outside of Japan's territorial waters further southwest in the Nansei island chain.
With U.S. President Donald Trump focusing on the strengthening of the U.S. economy and security, Japan and other U.S. allies face expectations to play a greater role for peace and stability in the region, the report said.
North Korea poses 'an increasingly serious and imminent threat' for Japan's security, the report said, noting the North's development of missiles carrying nuclear warheads into the Japanese territory and solid-fuel ICBM that can reach the U.S. mainland.
Russia maintains active military operations around Japan and violated the country's airspace in September, the report added, saying its increasing strategic cooperation with China has posed 'strong concern' for Japan's security.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
40 minutes ago
- Times
I investigated the Afghan data leak. Ministers were gambling with death
At about 10am on Thursday January 25, 2024, I called a senior member of the Ministry of Defence press office, whom I had known for years, to tell them I was aware of a data leak. It had put lives at risk and it was the subject of a superinjunction, I said. I told him I had known about the matters for some time and wanted to join the court proceedings. I did not realise at the time that everything I said during that initial phone call would be written down and submitted to the High Court. It would form part of a 1,568-page bundle of evidence documenting the longest ever superinjunction and the only to be sought by a government. I had no idea of the magnitude of what I was dealing with. I was told I needed to come into the Ministry of Defence as soon as possible. I needed a lawyer. I was joined by Pia Sarma, our editorial legal director, who had been at the company 15 years and had worked on the most serious of cases. At the meeting in Whitehall, surrounded by an MoD legal team, we were asked how I had come to know about the superinjunction. It was a matter of national security. Did my knowledge of it suggest that news of the breach had leaked into the wider world? While I reassured them it did not, as a journalist I was under no obligation to tell them how I came to find out about it. I did not. Then we were 'served' with the superinjunction. From that point on, we could not tell anyone what we knew or even that the injunction existed. A small number of senior individuals at the organisation were brought into the tight circle. As we joined legal proceedings, it was clear how significant the case would be. Tens of thousands of Afghans asking the UK government for help were now at risk of death. In the first hearing we attended in 2024 I stood up and told Mr Justice Chamberlain, the judge overseeing the case, that it could become an election issue. The general election was only a few months away and this was a huge error that had enormous implications on divisive policy areas. 'It is objectionable that the court's order prevents public scrutiny of decision-making on these important topics,' I told the court, as the judge summarised afterwards. Other journalists — Sam Greenhill from the Daily Mail, Holly Bancroft from The Independent and Lewis Goodall from Global media — also stood up and said their part. After that, Sarma led the charge and appointed a barrister, Jude Bunting KC, who had expertise in media law. The four media organisations decided to become defendants, rather than observers to the courts. It was clear we needed to fight this with everything we had. There had been a deliberate decision not to tell tens of thousands of Afghans — who had put themselves at the mercy of the British government — that their lives could be in danger. These were Afghans who had entrusted the Ministry of Defence with their personal information, and that of their family members. If the government had told them they were on a 'kill list', they could have fled before it was too late. Instead the government believed that by telling them, this would increase the risk of the Taliban finding out. One activist believed the Taliban already knew. The MoD came up with threat assessments put together by intelligence analysts. Ministers were gambling with death, based on probabilities. The superinjunction meant the government — and its multibillion-pound plan to fix the issue — avoided scrutiny by the public and parliament. We were forced to fight the case with our hands tied behind our backs because many of the hearings were held behind closed doors when the government wanted to discuss national security issues. We were not allowed to know how the data breach had happened, who had received it, the basis for the intelligence assessments that there was a real risk to life or whether anyone was being held to account. I could not investigate properly myself because I was not allowed to ask anyone who had not been served with the order about the case. Anyone I approached whom I knew had also been served with the order was usually too nervous to speak. As we got close to being able to publish the story, the government delayed crucial decisions, prolonging a review of the risk to Afghans and pushing back court deadlines. Once we were handed a 'gist' of the independent policy context review, saying the threat to the Afghans had diminished over time, it became clear this would be used as ammunition to justify a decision to halt the process of bringing the rest of the 42,000 — those at highest risk — to the UK. The Afghan Response Route, the scheme set up to help the Afghans, was closed down without the public ever knowing it existed. Many questions were left unanswered. I was frustrated, having known for years so many Afghans who had worked alongside British forces during the war. I had reported on their plight for a decade and persuaded successive ministers — Gavin Williamson, Priti Patel, Ben Wallace — that the policy on Afghans had to change. When I found out about the data breach in August 2023 I was on maternity leave. It was shortly before Grant Shapps, the new defence secretary, was granted the superinjunction by the courts to stop the breach becoming public. I was also just about to publish my first book, The Gardener of Lashkar Gah, about Shaista Gul, a gardener and his interpreter son, Jamal Barak, who had helped British troops fight the Taliban. I was in regular contact with Afghans who had been brought to the UK. I knew only too well what they had already been through. Constant delays to the court process pushed the lifting of the superinjunction closer towards the summer recess, with less time for MPs to hold the government to account for its decisions. In the final days, the MoD tried to move the lifting of the superinjunction until after prime minister's questions. After two years of cover-up, there were concerns there would still be no time for proper scrutiny. The judge refused to move the time the injunction would be lifted when the government wanted to align it with their own arrangements for making a statement to parliament.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Russia does not care about Trump's 'theatrical ultimatum', senior official says
MOSCOW, July 15 (Reuters) - Russia does not care about U.S. President Donald Trump's "theatrical ultimatum" about slapping sanctions on buyers of Russian exports unless Moscow agrees to a peace deal in Ukraine, a senior security official said on Tuesday. Trump, sitting beside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, on Monday, announced new weapons for Ukraine and threatened secondary tariffs of 100% on the buyers of Russian exports, of which crude makes up a major chunk. The U.S. president also expressed frustration with Vladimir Putin, saying he did not want to call the Russian leader "an assassin, but he's a tough guy", in an apparent reference to former U.S. President Joe Biden calling Putin "a killer" in a 2021 interview. "Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin," former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in a post in English on X. "The world shuddered, expecting the consequences. Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn't care." The Kremlin has so far not commented on Trump's remarks, but said on Monday it was clear that the United States had continued to supply weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. In Moscow, state television broadcasts led with advances by Russian troops in Ukraine, of which Russian forces control just under a fifth, and an attack on Russia by Ukrainian drones which injured 18 people. State television reports on Trump's remarks focused on the time it would take for Patriot missile systems to arrive in Ukraine and domestic U.S. concerns that the conflict could escalate, then turned to a meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Kommersant, one of Russia's most respected newspapers, invoked William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in its front page headline to suggest betrayal: "Et tu, Trump - the main peacekeeper of Ukrainian conflict joined the 'party of war'". Trump told the BBC that he was "not done" with Putin and that he thought a Ukraine peace deal was on the cards. Putin has repeatedly said he is ready to make peace - but on his terms - and that there is no point even considering a ceasefire until the details of what a peace would look like are nailed down. European powers and Ukrainian officials say they do not believe Putin is serious about peace and have implored Trump to abandon his efforts to repair relations with the Kremlin. In Washington, a White House official said Trump's intention is to impose "100% tariffs on Russia" and secondary sanctions on other countries that buy oil from Russia if a peace deal is not struck in 50 days. Eighty-five of the 100 U.S. senators are co-sponsoring a bill that would give Trump the authority to impose 500% tariffs on any country that helps Russia, but the chamber's Republican leaders have been waiting for him to give them the go-ahead for a vote. China, India and Turkey are the biggest buyers of crude from Russia, the world's second largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia. It is unclear how those countries would react if they faced secondary sanctions for their purchases of Russian oil. Russia exports about 5 million barrels of oil per day.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Netanyahu government rocked as key party quits coalition
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's governing coalition faces instability after the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party announced its withdrawal. The party's departure stems from deep disagreements over a proposed bill that would enshrine military draft exemptions for its constituents, a contentious issue in Israel. This move, which becomes official within 48 hours, will leave Netanyahu with a slim majority, potentially increasing his reliance on far-right parties. The political shake-up occurs amidst ongoing, stalled truce negotiations between Israel and Hamas, with far-right coalition members opposing concessions. The split doesn't immediately threaten Netanyahu's rule due to procedural reasons, and the summer parliamentary recess offers Netanyahu a window for potential reconciliation with United Torah Judaism.
