national

4 Chinese gov't ships spotted in waters around disputed isles

89 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


89 Comments
Login to comment

What is your point? This treaty doesn't mean nothing. The separate treaty between Japan and Republic of China (Foremosa) in 1952 is invalid and does not exist to Mao's Chinese communist goverment.

And neither were Mao's Chinese communist government who were never part of the Allies that defeated Japan. Than you. End of discussion.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nigelboyOct. 04, 2012 - 04:00AM JST Separate Treaty between Japan and Republic of China was signed in 1952.

What is your point? This treaty doesn't mean nothing. The separate treaty between Japan and Republic of China (Foremosa) in 1952 is invalid and does not exist to Mao's Chinese communist goverment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just read the analysis in this URL that can give you some insight. Treaties or no treaties. It doesn't matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnlr_OBN2uw&feature=share

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy:

Thank you for the reply. I got it!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The condition you are insisting about is in 1946.

That's what I stated to sfjp330. The SCAPIN issued during the occupation period became void when the Treaty of Peace was ratified especially the U.S. where under their constitution, the treaty in of itself has a supremacy clause.

Whether China (ROC or PRC) not being part of the Treaty of Peace (San Francisco) is irrelevant in light of the fact that what we're discussing here is Senkaku's which based on prior evidence (peaceful and effective control by Japan since 1895) and both ROC/PRC's inaction (in a form of a protest, communique, statements and complaints in reference to Senkaku) was completely absent during the negotiations that lead up to the final draft of the treaty and thehe fact that during that time and decades there on where both PRC and ROC recognized Senkaku as part of Ryukyu basically means that Japan did in fact incorporate the islands under terra nullius in 1895.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

flyfalcon:

Territory loss and gain are nothing to do with International Law.

You may be right in that context but read the context I said. I answered to specific saying by maitake. How is close to which country has nothing to do with its sovereignty according to the international law that what I said. Senkaku was TERRA NULLIUS status till Japan registered it as Japan according to the definitions of the international law. I was explaining how Senkaku became Japan in 1895 and how Senkaku is recognized by international law today.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nigelboy

How would you explain the San Francisco peace treaty article 3? Chronologically this contained the ultimate decision. This was promulgated in 1951 with 48 countries approval. According to this, Takeshma is Japan. All Okinawan islands include Senkaku became USA. USA never ruled Chinese territory.

SF treaty was composed and of course Japan did not get involved for its contents of the treaty.The treaty was made by allies after Japan took the responsibility from all decisions of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.The condition you are insisting about is in 1946.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is no ratified treaties with China at all. Why would it overrule if cuurent China goverment never signed any treaty?

Separate Treaty between Japan and Republic of China was signed in 1952.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nigelboy Oct. 03, 2012 - 10:35PM JST You disagree that a military directive which was issued during the occupation period overrules the subsequent ratified treaties? Try that argument in the U.N. and see how far it goes.

There is no ratified treaties with China at all. Why would it overrule if cuurent China goverment never signed any treaty?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher

Maitake, you are willing to let your next door neighbor to take over your house then while you have been paying all your mortgages, right?. I understood.

Whoever said that it was "my house"? your analogy doesn't work, try another one genius.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

disagree. On V-J Day, U.S. President Harry Truman appointed General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), to supervise the occupation of Japan.

You disagree that a military directive which was issued during the occupation period overrules the subsequent ratified treaties? Try that argument in the U.N. and see how far it goes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

yosunOct. 03, 2012 - 01:34PM JST Do you know how to use ; and ,? I don't know if JP ever recall ambassador or not. I do know JP coast guards ever arrest CN ship's captain and sank TW boat. Is it clear?

Your claim about the Japanese ambassador was made up also your claim that the Japanese Coast GUard sunk Chinese ships was also made up.

Do you know what 'supposition' means? You made a statement that was based on zero facts and expect people to give you a pass?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why Senkaku Islands belong to Japan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnlr_OBN2uw&feature=share

0 ( +1 / -1 )

JoeBigs: Recall ambassador from China; arrest CN ships' captain, sank TW boats like JP did before ...etc. When exactly did this all happen?

Do you know how to use ; and ,? I don't know if JP ever recall ambassador or not. I do know JP coast guards ever arrest CN ship's captain and sank TW boat. Is it clear?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

JoeBigs: Recall ambassador from China; arrest CN ships' captain, sank TW boats like JP did before ...etc.

When exactly did this all happen?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

ChamkunOct. 03, 2012 - 04:11AM JST

The title by geographical approachability does not have a meaning in the international law. Other wise why Guam is America?

Territory loss and gain are nothing to do with International Law. US singed many treaties with Native America, Mexico and Spain. After that, US dumped all treaties and took more territories. New York was bought with one dollar from Native. Was that acccoding the international law. It was obvious that someone cheated someone who could not read and write. US has no moral high ground for lecturing others.

After WWII, General Macarthur was very powerful and he thought himself as Son of God for many biased treaties. Taiwan, South Korea are US allies. However they will not happily abide the rules of that biased treaties. For Sanfransico, Taiwan (ROC) was not invited.

There are always two sides of story. Taiwan has own armed forces and willing to die for their interest. Founding fathers of ROC scrafice will not vain like smoke in the air. New gerneration are willing to settle their unfinished business.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

JoeBigs:

JoeBigs: yosunOct. 02, 2012 - 11:51PM JST Suppose JP is so confident about all ownship evidence and the US protection of these islets, why not show the world some real actions instead of bla bla bla............. What do you mean?

Recall ambassador from China; arrest CN ships' captain, sank TW boats like JP did before ...etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Chamkun:I simply do not understand why the article 4? has something to do with Senkaku?

If you were taiwanese, you know that JP took taiwan and Diaoyutai and related islets together from Qin dyn since 1895. During the time JP occupied Taiwan, JP assigned taiwan governer administer Diaoyutai also. article 4 renounce whole taiwan and related islets which including Diaoyutai as well. Actually JP emperor called that isles "Diaoyutai" as well before 1895. PRC at that time had no relationship with most countries so all related isles returned to ROC(Taiwan), not PRC.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yosunOct. 02, 2012 - 11:51PM JST Suppose JP is so confident about all ownship evidence and the US protection of these islets, why not show the world some real actions instead of bla bla bla.............

What do you mean?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

nigelboy Oct. 03, 2012 - 08:17AM JST It doesn't since they are basically military directives which is subordinate to a ratified treaty.

I disagree. On V-J Day, U.S. President Harry Truman appointed General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), to supervise the occupation of Japan.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This came from the top of the Allied Forces, The Headquarters of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. China can use this SCAPIN677 document that states:"The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives." Whick means that definition of peace treaty for the future borders dispute is defined on this 1946 SCAPIN document.

It doesn't since they are basically military directives which is subordinate to a ratified treaty.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nigelboy Oct. 03, 2012 - 07:59AM JST I don't think so since the directives issued under SCAPIN didn't involve China to begin with.

This came from the top of the Allied Forces, The Headquarters of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. China can use this SCAPIN677 document that states:"The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives." Whick means that definition of peace treaty for the future borders dispute is defined on this 1946 SCAPIN document.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It makes a huge difference. Since China didn't sign 1951 San Franciso Treaty or any peace treaty with the west, they can go back to 1946 records and use this as facts of what was instructed by the Allied forces. So this is a valid document.

I don't think so since the directives issued under SCAPIN didn't involve China to begin with.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nigelboyOct. 03, 2012 - 07:31AM JST So what?

It makes a huge difference. Since China didn't sign 1951 San Franciso Treaty or any peace treaty with the west, they can go back to 1946 records and use this as facts of what was instructed by the Allied forces. So this is a valid document.

You notice that Senkaku is defined as south of 29 degrees north latitude. But on the SCAPIN677 in 1946 Senkaku was not included because Senkaku was outside of this area.

SCAPIN677 STATES:

"For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands NORTH OF 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island, (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands SOUTH OF 30° North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all the other outlying Pacific Islands [including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges (Nakano-tori) Islands], and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What treaty are you talking about? China did not sign the 1951 San Francisco treaty.

So what?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

nigelboy Oct. 03, 2012 - 07:24AM JST Yeah. The ultimate directive being the Treaty of Peace. Duuhh!

What treaty are you talking about? China did not sign the 1951 San Francisco treaty.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The SCAPIN677 saids "The definition of Japan contained in this directive SHALL ALSO ALLY to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein

Yeah. The ultimate directive being the Treaty of Peace. Duuhh!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Robert AbenzOct. 03, 2012 - 05:57AM JST Actually, if US and Japan doesn't have that mutual defense treaty, the CCP might have already attack Japan right >now.

The U.S. has bilateral defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, and Phillipines. It also has a defense treaty with Australia and New Zealand. Then there is the Southeast Asia Treaty of collective defense between the United States , Australia, France, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. There is also of course perhaps the least straightforward but greatest hindrance to China's plans, the U,S. Taiwan Relations Act. Both Vietnam and India are in the U.S. camp vis-a-vis China.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Correction: Shall also apply

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy Oct. 03, 2012 - 06:26AM JST Your point? The document clearly states that "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration" so why use this document as a determination of ultimate soverignty? Why bring it up?

The SCAPIN677 saids "The definition of Japan contained in this directive SHALL ALSO ALLY to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein. Directive shall apply to "located south of 30 degrees north latitude"?.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

m&musaOct. 03, 2012 - 12:09AM JST To tokyomusing: Why do you have to drag the US into the conflict? Man up and fight China on your own! You will either have another 100 years of good time against them, as your barbarian ancestors had gambled, or get defeated completely so they get their revenge with a Tokyo masscre.

China is funny, they wish to tangle against smaller nations, but the moment someone mentions the United States thier supporters start dancing in circles..

You do understand that the United States has a smaller population than China right?

Do you understand that the US and Japan's populations combined equal to less than a third of China's population, right?

But, you guys squirm like "school girls on your first date" when someone mention the fact that if China makes a move again Japan, the United States will back fight on Japan's side.

You guys are too funny.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This was specifically U.S. response after the facts and not the U.N. reply. Remember, U.N. was weak and was dictated by U.S. at that time. The U.N. Supreme Command HQ issued Order No. 667 on January 29, 1946, shortly after US troops occupied Ryukyu. Article 3 clearly stipulated the extent of Japanese territory, namely Japan's four main islands-Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu, and 1,000-odd neighboring islands, including Tsu-shima and the Ryukyu Archipelago, located south of 30 degrees north latitude. The Diaoyu Island chain was definitely not included.

Your point?

The document clearly states that "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration" so why use this document as a determination of ultimate soverignty? Why bring it up?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nigelboyOct. 03, 2012 - 05:50AM JST Sigh. The document is called SCAPIN 677 issued in January 29th of 1946 which also states "6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

The SCAPIN 677 states "located south of 30 degrees north latitude". Now where does it say 29 degrees where Senkaku is at?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nigelboy Oct. 03, 2012 - 05:50AM JST"6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

This was specifically U.S. response after the facts and not the U.N. reply. Remember, U.N. was weak and was dictated by U.S. at that time. The U.N. Supreme Command HQ issued Order No. 667 on January 29, 1946, shortly after US troops occupied Ryukyu. Article 3 clearly stipulated the extent of Japanese territory, namely Japan's four main islands-Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu, and 1,000-odd neighboring islands, including Tsu-shima and the Ryukyu Archipelago, located south of 30 degrees north latitude. The Diaoyu Island chain was definitely not included.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Actually, if US and Japan doesn't have that mutual defense treaty, the CCP might have already attack Japan right now.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

After Potsdam decalration in 1945, there is a document called " United Nation highest command order No. 667" in 1946 which set the Japanese border, except the major four islands, including 1000 Mazhu Island, islands of south of north latitude 30 degree, totally 1000 small Islands. which is not included Diaoyu Islands.

Sigh. The document is called SCAPIN 677 issued in January 29th of 1946 which also states

"6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

1 ( +4 / -3 )

According to the Washington Times, a classified 1969 map produced by the People's Republic of China official map authority lists the “Senkaku Islands” as Japanese territory. (washingtontimes. com /news/2010/sep/15/inside-the-r) This is one of the evidence that the PRC knew that Senkaku Islands were territory of Japan. The PRC started to claim the sovereignty after the oil was found in that area.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

kazetsukaiOct. 02, 2012 - 05:31PM JST Let's get REAL everyone. Talking can be either by economic terms or by military terms. Since the USA has basically "abandoned" the >Japanese when it comes to the "islands" issue, military negotiation is NOT possible

How do you reach this conclusion? The United States has stated that it will take no sides on the issue of sovereignty of the Senkakus. The United States has also stated that it wil, defend the Senkakus from attack under Article 5 oft the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treeaty, and China has been complaining about it since. China obviously takes a very different view from you since for all the ships that China is sending to annoy and harass Japan, they have yet to send a single PLA Navy vessel because hey know what that would trigger. Chineser PLA Navy....73 vessels Japanese MSDF........48 vessels US Pacific Fleet..........60 vessels Military negotiation is something that China is trying to avoid for obvious reasons.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

the US would probably love to go to war with China, then they could erase ~$1trillion of debt they owe.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

nigelboy Oct. 03, 2012 - 02:25AM JST Now prove that Senkaku's were part of the islands that Japan acquired via Shimonoseki Treaty then you have a case.

After Potsdam decalration in 1945, there is a document called " United Nation highest command order No. 667" in 1946 which set the Japanese border, except the major four islands, including 1000 Mazhu Island, islands of south of north latitude 30 degree, totally 1000 small Islands. which is not included Diaoyu Islands.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yosun:

The terms were reiterated in Article 4 of the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan signed at Taipei on April 28, 1952 which stated, Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu(the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands… all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between China and Japan have become null and void as a consequence of the war.

I simply do not understand why the article 4? has something to do with Senkaku?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Maitake:

getting so sick of seeing this same headline in the news... if you look at the map, they are practically a part of Taiwan.

The title by geographical approachability does not have a meaning in the international law. Other wise why Guam is America?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Good Yosun

Now prove that Senkaku's were part of the islands that Japan acquired via Shimonoseki Treaty then you have a case.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Globalwatcher: No facts in history in their claims. Bring me the facts, then we can talk in civil manner. Thanks.

The terms were reiterated in Article 4 of the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan signed at Taipei on April 28, 1952 which stated,

Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu(the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands… all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between China and Japan have become null and void as a consequence of the war.

This provision completes the chain of treaties and agreements that legally require Japan to renounce its claim to Taiwan and, by implication, all the islands that appertain to or belong to Taiwan. Also as a result of this provision, the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki became nullified. Viewed together, the above treaties and agreements form the legal basis of the ROC’s claim to the disputed islands.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

4649 Julian: I completely agree with your post on every point - Well Defined. We all need to look at the Big Picture here when it comes to dealing with Communist China. Look they have NO RESPECT for ANY LAWS: Copyright Laws, or International Sovereignty Rights what so ever when comes to their LUST for Wealth and Power. International Laws mean little to nothing to their Regime of Thugs they coin as "The National Peoples Congress". And Yes, they are Thugs. They talk like thugs, they behaive like thugs, they torment and harass their neighboring Asian Countries like Thugs - They even acted like thugs in their own homeland; Rioting, Looting, Assaulting Japanese and Chinese Citizens that owned Japanese Restraunts including various other businesses and Shopping Centers, AND They attacked the U.S. Ambassadors Limo, Ripped off the American Flag AND they Burned an America an Flag right out on the streets of Beijing! Right in front of their Government Leaders who just stood there watching. Sure, they can wear a Suit, Glasses, Part their greasy hair to the side, put on a Fake Commie Smile, and Shake Hands with World Leaders who are Real Gentlemen that respect Sovereign Laws & Rights, but at the end of they day, they are nothing more than just Dirty Commie Thugs. You can put Lipstick on a Pig but at the end of the day - its still just a Pig.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I expect that this lunacy will continue until after the communist party meetings have concluded and a new leader is announced.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

MaitakeOct. 03, 2012 - 12:18AM JST

getting so sick of seeing this same headline in the news... if you look at the map, they are practically a part of Taiwan. Just let Taiwan have them.

Maitake, you are willing to let your next door neighbor to take over your house then while you have been paying all your mortgages, right?. I understood.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Here we go...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

getting so sick of seeing this same headline in the news... if you look at the map, they are practically a part of Taiwan. Just let Taiwan have them.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

AsianhometownOct. 02, 2012 - 04:26PM JST

Treaty signed with a gun pointed to your head? When japan lost the war, it means Japan had to give back the territories that it took during the war..Japan must fully come to terms of the war like Germany did and fully admit their wrong and move on. Until then, Japan will never become a nation respected by its neighbors.

Asianhometown, this is a typical response among Chinese. No facts in history in their claims. Bring me the facts, then we can talk in civil manner. Thanks.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

To tokyomusing: Why do you have to drag the US into the conflict? Man up and fight China on your own! You will either have another 100 years of good time against them, as your barbarian ancestors had gambled, or get defeated completely so they get their revenge with a Tokyo masscre.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012Diaoyu/2012-10/02/content_15795499.htm

Chinese ships patrol around Diaoyu Islands

BEIJING - Chinese maritime surveillance ships conducted Tuesday another patrol in waters off the Diaoyu Islands, keeping close watch on the illegal entrance of the Japanese right-wingers in the areas, according to the State Oceanic Administration.

Four Chinese marine surveillance ships patrolled in the waters off the Diaoyu Islands on Tuesday after the Japanese right-winger's intrusion, the Foreign Ministry also confirmed.

China is strongly dissatisfied with and firmly opposes the Japanese right-wingers' illegal entrance into the waters off the Diaoyu Islands and is keeping high vigilance to their intention and purpose, FM spokesman Hong Lei said Tuesday at a regular press briefing.

The provocation of this kind will make the situation more complicated if not stopped, said Hong Lei.

The patrol team -- composed of Haijian 50, Haijian 15, Haijian 26 and Haijian 27 -- are carrying out normal rights-safeguarding activities around the Diaoyu Islands, according to a statement from the State Oceanic Administration.

4 Chinese gov't ships spotted in waters around disputed isles

GOVERNMENT is a key ward. here.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Suppose JP is so confident about all ownship evidence and the US protection of these islets, why not show the world some real actions instead of bla bla bla.............

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

kevininjapan After WWII, Japan's territory was decided. Were these islands included at the time? I don't know where you get this idea of Japan's border could change over time.

You are right. after WW2, Potsdam,Cairo declaration were accepted by Japan, we only had 4 major island only.

Kevininjapan: I don't know where you get this idea of Japan's border could change over time.

After The International Military Tribunal for the Far East and other process were finished, Japan finally reached to signed on San Francisco peace treaty in 1951 which was singed by 48 countries according to Wikipedia.

In this sense, chronologically speaking, the declarations right after WW2 were the preparatory document. Always the latest draft, or document has power in the international law.

The finalized border was in the article #3.which shows the list of territory islands Japan may keep.Takeshima was Japan immediately. Okinawa and all its islands were taken by America. Then they were returned to Japan 1972. I was taking about that fact. SF treaty is not just American's idea.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Now China gets to show the world the overwhelming evidence of her ownership of these islands before 1895.

Yawn. And we're all waiting.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

hamkun..Please check Chinese history dating back to the Ming dynasty. Ming dynasty clearly maps the island as belonging to China therefore how can the Japanese claim that they have research the area for 10 years and claimed no one has claimed the island..The Taiwanese who were part of China were fishing in those waters for thousands of years..Again, please check your facts and not only listen to the Japanese media and politicians..

No sense being made here... Let's go back and check Roman maps from 0AD - shall we give back Great Britain/France to the Italians based on that fact? They did after all own that land for more then a few generations.

Australia was mapped by the Dutch before the English arrived - does that mean that those lands could be claimed by them? This sort of assertion is just ridiculous.

If war breaks out between Japan and China over these stupid islands then the US will not come to Japan's aid fearing WWIII..US will avoid war China at all cost nor will the American people support it.. Amercians have not forgotten Pearl Harbor..Even though Japan is considered an Allies, normal Americans don't care what happens in Asia..Most Americans don't know where Japan is even located on a map..

Incorrect. If war broke out, the USA MUST go to war against China. Lets assume they didn't honour their treaty commitments - every country in the world with a US military base would say "why bother with the cost and injustice of having a foreign military base on our soil if they might not come to our defence as well?". I'll bet you'd have South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, perhaps even Germany, demanding US forces vacate their bases as their presence would no longer be seen as an effective deterrent against enemy attack. The USA would then lose it's place as the 'world' leader and lose even more face then anyone else. The US government relies on a public which believes in their manifest destiny to be world leaders - a common and external focus for the public has been a key US government stance since World War II. Do you honestly think the American public would accept being 'defeated' by China?

Make no mistake - the USA has the most potential to lose in this little fracas and they know it. They're heavily invested in both China and Japan and any problems with those two economies and/or relationships would be catastrophic to the US government.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Asianhometown: .Please check Chinese history dating back to the Ming dynasty.

For the territorial dispute. I am not interested in Chinese history. For that matter, I am not interested in Japaneses or Taiwan history, either. But the world history that I only pay my attention. Also, San Francisco treaty which was signed by 48 countries admit Senkaku is Japan in article #3.

I can not see your Logic at all.This sounds one day, China will say everything is China. That is most likely what Sinocentrism is the base.

Now Japan is not only one county worry about it, Vietnam,Philippine also worry. The Foreign Minister of Philippine 12 hours ago made an announcement at UN.

If Asianhometown is right, why the islands had a status as TERRA NULLIUS until 1885? That is not Japan created. One thing is for sure. China did not take care of what China needed to do. When Japan could legally register the islands, that was a TERRA NULLIUS status. China can not complain about that for Japan.

Any case, even no one could say for sure if Ming Dynasty could locate exactly such a small rocks which is 330 kilometer away with objected poof for today's standard. That is why in order to minimize any conflict, the international law today does not give too much credit for the geographical approachability also discovery itself is immature origin of rights to obtain a sovereignty.

why Shincho (China in 1895) was asked by Japan, China could have insisted their sovereignty then? It is too late now.

Why did Chinese government send an appreciation letter to Japan in 1920 for the rescue work by people in Senkaku? That states Senkaku Japan. It shows how they treated the area.

Why did Jinminnippo states Senkaku as Japan on 1953 Jan.8th issued news paper?

Why there are so many Chinese issued maps states Senkaku as Japan territory? At least I saw 4 of them which were published in 50s and 60s.

But when ECAFE found the potential oil, suddenly China claimed Senkaku is China. The Chinese geographical text book shows Senkaku as Japan before but after that the territory line was removed to more toward to East.

I personally do not care about these islands but I care more about the security and economical impact from this dispute. China should stop its claim if China can respect the law.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

It's not necessary whenever China/ Taiwan ships go there and posters here argue again and again for exact same reason. Because I bet from now on, China/ Taiwan ships will go there very frequently, and no one can really develop resource over there. So it's not important whoever claim it or not, nobody could really own it, that's all! If you're not happy about it, SO ?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China seems to be intent on creating a lasting conflict by trying to provoke Japan into doing something rash. Do its leaders really believe they are on the winning edge by stirring up nationalistic sentiments on both sides? If they do they are dumber than most had given them credit for. What they are doing now is watched by the whole world and the impression created is one of distrust and boorishness and even the African countries where China has made its presence known won't fail to notice.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@JoeBigsOct. 02, 2012 - 07:17PM JST

History repeats itself, in 1894 China thought it too was a super power and they tried to bully their neighbors.

The Chinese military was larger, over confident and belligerent, but in the end they lost their mighty Beiyang Fleet to a smaller nation and they fell apart into civil war.

China is pushing again and if it pushes too much it may lose everything."

It is not what your dear Primer minster said. Noda said all he wants to do is to follow the international laws. He has never dared to bring up the past the way you have. If only he had. At least no more pretense.

Here we are. Japan broke her words. Now China gets to show the world the overwhelming evidence of her ownership of these islands before 1895. Whatever you want to say or believe, no Japanese official has ever tried to get close, let alone to come up with a denial or rebuttal to the documents. All Noda can do is to repeat the same old thing: there is no dispute and we follow the international laws. What an interesting fellow!

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Unless I am wrong....

There is an "escape clause" for the USA when it comes to defending Japan. USA will defend Japan "IF ATTACKED" and NOT when Japan "initiates" a conflict. That is something that China is trying to force Japan into by intimidation and confrontation.

Whether there is actual armed conflict or not, either way it turns out, China can take advantage of their economic position with enough manufacturing capability and growing capability under their control and roof to affect Japan to demand a ransom.

As for actual territorial rights of ownership, what matters now cannot reference "ancient history" but current history. Till recently the islands were "owned" by private people who are Japanese and NOT governments. Till now NO ONE made an issue of it. The problem started ONLY after resources were found around and under the islands.

If you go back far enough, ALL land was "never" owned by anyone, only used it. Now the right to use has become ownership. And now man "carves" and "defines" the limits calling it territory, and under what is defined as nation states with territorial rights and boundaries. It's like the animals carving out hunting and foraging territories for their clan with "markers". If that is still acceptable, then fights, battles and wars determine what territories belong to a group.

Today we have MONEY that can BUY such territories. A good example is the USA. USA bought almost 1/2 of the country, including Alaska. So the only way to avoid a conflict appears to be by economic means.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Thunderbird2Oct. 02, 2012 - 09:06PM JST

Treaty signed with a gun pointed to your head? When japan lost the war, it means Japan had to give back the territories that it took during the war..Japan must fully come to terms of the war like Germany did and fully admit their wrong and move on. Until then, Japan will never become a nation respected by its neighbors.

The islands were NOT taken by the Japanese during WW2, but they were signed over in 1895. So why should they have handed them over to the Chinese at the end of the War?

Numpty."

Because Japan surrendered and the following Declarations were in the terms of surrender.j

Because Podsdam Declaration said:"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943."

And you know what is in the Cairo Declaration? "All the territories Japan has stolen from China such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China."

China has documents to show Diaoyu were Chinese territory before 1895, so they should be returned.

Even if they don't, these islands have nothing to do with Japan anymore. Not until the Allies change their minds. Have they?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@ChamkunOct. 02, 2012 - 09:16PM JST

AsianhometownOCT. 02, 2012 - 04:26PM JST Treaty signed with a gun pointed to your head? When japan lost the war, it means Japan had to give back the territories that it took during the war..

Please Check the history,and SF Traety article#3.

Senkaku officially recognized as the Japan territory since 1895. When Japan had started research for 10 years between 1885 and 1895 before Japan registered of these islands as Okinawa prefecture, they were recognized as TERRA NULLIUS by the international law. Therefore Japan could make it as Okinawa in 1895.The war has nothing to do with it. "

Please go read the documents at that time again. Why do you think it took over a decade before Japan grabbed them? Terra nullius? Read again what the Japanese government thought then. They clearly didn't dare to take the islands for they belonged to the Qing Dynasty. Not until Japan won the war in 1894. Even so they took the islands ever so quietly to the point that no official announcement was made. You don't have to believe me. There are enough old Japanese documents around if you care to find out.

After WWII, Japan's territory was decided. Were these islands included at the time? I don't know where you get this idea of Japan's border could change over time. It is Noda who said Japan follows international laws. So isn't it the most natural thing that at least the terms of surrender should be strictly followed?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

With regard to the comments:

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi Affirmed that the islands are Japanese by the treaty signed in 1895!!!!

so,China WTF ??

China already admitted to signing the islands away in the 1890's just last week.

This looks like a Chinese admission that the islands being Japanese, but in fact it is the reverse.

This is because If the Chinese did sign them away in the 1895 treaty, as they are now saying, then that would imply that they were part of the territory that Japan possessed as a result as spoils of first war with China. And if so then the Japanese I believe also agreed later to return such spoils of war.

However the Japanese position is that, no, the Senkakus were claimed as "terra nullius", not part of any war, under "international law" so subsequent agreements to return all spoils of war, did not include the Senkakus.Therefore, the agreement that we made to return our spoils of war does not apply.

The retort to this Japanese argument is that 1) It was 'under cover of war' (a Japanese scholar's words I believe) that the terra nullius claim was made. 2) The Japanese cabinet records of the time are now made public and in them the Japanese say that they can't make the terra nullius claim prior to the war but during/immediately after the war they say that now they can do so. 3) The "international law" regarding terra nullius was not "international," at that time. 4) The islands were not terra nullius in the first place. We (the Chinese) knew about them, and (thought/believed that we) owned them.

The issue is very grey. Each side says that it is the fault of mistaken textbooks that makes the other side think that they own the islands. The truth is very grey, imho.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@JustyHOct. 02, 2012 - 08:22PM JST

Sure thing China, as soon as you give up Tibet then you'll be seen as the weak little sister again. Until then just shut up."

Go read the terms of Japan's surrender in 1945 before you talk. Noda has said Japan will follow international laws. Yet, when it comes to Japan's territory, when it is so clear to everybody what Japan's border ends. Four main islands and other small ones WE the Allies decide. Were Diaoyu/Senkaku left in Japan's hands right after WWII? Shouldn't that be clear enough that these are no longer Japan's anymore?

Apparently not. In fact Japan even has the guts to call China greedy, to cry foul about the timing China spoke up. Talk about shamelessness. That is none of Japan's business. And you ask who to shut up?

Since when the Allies have allowed more territories for Japan? Show me the evidence. Don't pretend you can replace it with American words only. And even Americans don't want to say these islands are Japan's, not even when Japan tried to put the words in their mouth.

Japan has patrolled these islands without disruption because favor from China. China thought they had reached understanding with Japan. Japan seems to think they could just pretend the understanding has never existed and show off their control as evidence of sovereignty.

Sneaky as usual. Unfortunately, this sort of cheap tactics can't last forever.

P.S: Tibet? We are talking about Japan taking China's islands. If you have no counter argument, you should shut up. Instead, you are trying to start another line of argument. Is that all you can come up with?

If you really can't wait, go back read the terms of Japan's surrender again. Now you see it? Right, not only Diaoyu/Senkaku but also Okinawa are not Japan's.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

spudman

Looking at a map from a common sense perspective, it's a stretch to say they have always been Japanese.

I know what you're saying, but by that reckoning Taiwan should give up any claims of independence and be subsumed into China, so too Tibet and Outer Mongolia then.

In history, land has always been taken and kept. Britain used to belong to the Celts but got taken over by the Romans, who in turn gave it up to the Angles and Saxons, only to be invaded by the Normans. And what of the USA and Texas, or Hawaii, or Saipan or Guam?

China could have filed claims for the Senkaku Islands in 1945 when Japan was forced to surrender. The big question is, why didn't it? Why wait until the 1970s? If China had staked its claim after the war, the USA would have only taken Okinawa and given the Senkakus to China. End of argument.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

AsianhometownOct. 02, 2012 - 09:35PM JST chamkun..Please check Chinese history dating back to the Ming dynasty. Ming dynasty clearly maps the island as belonging to China therefore how can the Japanese claim that they have research the area for 10 years and claimed no one has claimed the island..

If you justify your modern existence from privous history then going by your logic China should go all the way back to the Qin Dynasty and give up every claim it has ever made.

Mordern times mean modern thinking, stop living in the past and you will advance.

Stay in the past and never move forward.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

If war breaks out between Japan and China over these stupid islands then the US will not come to Japan's aid fearing WWIII..US will avoid war China at all cost nor will the American people support it.. Amercians have not forgotten Pearl Harbor..Even though Japan is considered an Allies, normal Americans don't care what happens in Asia..Most Americans don't know where Japan is even located on a map..

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

chamkun..Please check Chinese history dating back to the Ming dynasty. Ming dynasty clearly maps the island as belonging to China therefore how can the Japanese claim that they have research the area for 10 years and claimed no one has claimed the island..The Taiwanese who were part of China were fishing in those waters for thousands of years..Again, please check your facts and not only listen to the Japanese media and politicians..

-15 ( +0 / -15 )

Shumatsu_SamuraiOct. 02, 2012 - 04:30PM JST

Treaty signed with a gun pointed to your head?

Yeah, like how Tibet was forced to join the PRC. China can't have it both ways. Either "unfair" treaties are acceptable or they're not.

When japan lost the war, it means Japan had to give back the territories that it took during the war

Japan was allowed to keep certain islands. The Senkakus were considered part of the Okinawa island chain, which was administered by the US and then handed back to Japan."

Japan was allowed to keep four main islands and others decided by whom? Did that ever include Japan itself?

China has provided evidence that these islands belonged to China before 1895. So after WWII, they should be returned to China. That Japan pretended they didn't understand is slowly but surely more and more widely known.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

"darknuts" I hope you are correct. Rhetoric and action is quite different.

Panetta only "promised" the installation of radars, which may take "years" to build and install. Clinton clearly stated more than once that the issues must be resolved between the countries involved.

The conflict is now and not years later. Granted the USA has economic as well as security interests here. However, under the current administration, ALL OVER THE WORLD, the USA has not backed up nor supported nor fought for the "allies", starting from Israel to Egypt to Iraq where the US Ambassador was killed. Instead of sending troops to support the remaining US troops in from being ambushed, the USA is withdrawing.

Granted USA has troops based here in Japan and in S. Korea and Taiwan, and but USA is still not willing to "mediate" the territorial issues among the allies. Knowing any provocation and confrontation with government vessels can result in escalation to war, nothing is being done. So for the many who do not have access to classified information, action speaks louder than rhetoric. And, we must take precautions based upon what we actually experience and see with our own eyes, and not what we imagine to be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AsianhometownOCT. 02, 2012 - 04:26PM JST Treaty signed with a gun pointed to your head? When japan lost the war, it means Japan had to give back the territories that it took during the war..

Please Check the history,and SF Traety article#3.

Senkaku officially recognized as the Japan territory since 1895. When Japan had started research for 10 years between 1885 and 1895 before Japan registered of these islands as Okinawa prefecture, they were recognized as TERRA NULLIUS by the international law. Therefore Japan could make it as Okinawa in 1895.The war has nothing to do with it. It has never lawfully been China except some ancient story China brought up sometime in the14 or 15 century. The world map today could not be affected by that baseless claim. Otherwise, the world would be chaos and the order would be destroyed. 500~1000 years ago, the world was divided in differently. No country should claim its sovereignty based on those ancient story even without the exact location.

Anyone who has any question who owns the islands, check SF treaty article#2 that lists what Japan lost. Senkaku was not listed but what Japan could keep is in the article #3 that Senkaku is listed along with other Okinawa 's small islands since it had been Japan before the war.

Since Okinawa and all the islands include Senkaku were ruled by America till 1972 based on the SF peace treaty, 100% Senkaku is Japan, If China claims Senkaku is China. One serious question I must ask them is if they had put the fact in Chinese history that the part of China called Senkaku/Diaoyu was occupied by America till 1972?

I remember, in order to go to Okinawa then, we needed to have a US visa and the money which was used there was $US. This is the fact. American or all allies history books do not state that based on the SF treaty, America snatched Senkaku/Diaoyu from China.

If the islands had been China then, America would have occupied China. That is nonsense.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Treaty signed with a gun pointed to your head? When japan lost the war, it means Japan had to give back the territories that it took during the war..Japan must fully come to terms of the war like Germany did and fully admit their wrong and move on. Until then, Japan will never become a nation respected by its neighbors.

The islands were NOT taken by the Japanese during WW2, but they were signed over in 1895. So why should they have handed them over to the Chinese at the end of the War?

Numpty.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The Chinese can try joining forces with green peace and the Sea Shepperd, (in their cause to stop whaling), by promoting a total World boycott of Japan Inc. A bankrupt country will then have to rethink its priorities.

And what can japan do? Maybe it can stop exporting manga to China and sending AKB-48 on tours to China.

If Shintaro haf not started the whole thing, we would not even be so stressed about what to post and on to what side to support.

Most of Japan's claims are pretty much a make belief story. Because they robbed the islands and China, (in it period of weakness), waited for the right time to make its case, the japanese claim that is a sign or evidence that they belong to japan. Japan has tried to disguise itself as a leading country, but the truth is popping out like a pimple in a teenager's face.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Sure thing China, as soon as you give up Tibet then you'll be seen as the weak little sister again. Until then just shut up.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Japan lost the war!!! Period..any treaties it forced upon its neighbors are void...Wake up!!!

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

Those islands are not worth a single life, I agree Elbuda, that said there are some hot heads on both sides who would relish a skirmish.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

History repeats itself, in 1894 China thought it too was a super power and they tried to bully their neighbors.

The Chinese military was larger, over confident and belligerent, but in the end they lost their mighty Beiyang Fleet to a smaller nation and they fell apart into civil war.

China is pushing again and if it pushes too much it may lose everything.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

These islands are right under the Taiwanese noses, so making Taiwan angry at Japan and China is possible, but little Taiwan is no match for Japan and no way in hell is it going to have a suicidal war against China. We all have to work together, and it behooves all parties involved to think with cool heads, money and lives are not worth dieing for, IMHO.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Looking at a map from a common sense perspective, it's a stretch to say they have always been Japanese.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Since the USA has basically "abandoned" the Japanese when it comes to the "islands" issue, military negotiation is NOT possible.

The US has not abandoned Japan. Pancetta has already publically stated that the senkakus fall under the security treaty and that the US will back Japan if attacked. He has also given a direct warning of this to Chinese officials when he visited Bejing. It's china that is boxed in here. They will not get the islands via economic or diplomatic means and they won't go to war if the US will get involved.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Let's get REAL everyone.

There are only two areas for negotiation: 1) ECONOMIC and 2) MILITARY..... there are NO political Solutions. Neither nation will "give in" to the other and lose its sovereignty.

Talking can be either by economic terms or by military terms. Since the USA has basically "abandoned" the Japanese when it comes to the "islands" issue, military negotiation is NOT possible. Especially with the Aircraft carrier which carries 50 planes, even the US military personnel presence in Japan and Okinawa does not mean much. The ONLY negotiating terms are Economic.

Even with that China has the upper hand over Japan in the area of manufacturing and production. As far as economic STABILITY, China may be at a much riskier situation than Japan. So China may be playing the cards to "extort" FREE financial aid in the guise of avoiding a war and for the "atonement" of past war atrocities.

Regardless... for now it is the Japanese people who will feel the economic impact either by higher prices or taxes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oh my god!! Them Chinese are trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! Everybody run for the Tibetan hills??

0 ( +8 / -8 )

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2012/09/23/is-china-burning/

Unfortunately, Beijing in recent years has lost its ability to compromise its territorial claims, some of which are outlandish. Beijing has laid down a marker for itself and cannot yield an inch. This makes each claim a flashpoint. And Tokyo is beginning to realize there is no appeasing Chinese leaders. On the 14th, the official China Daily, by making a reference to Kume in the Ryukyus, laid the historical groundwork for raising a claim on that Japanese island chain, which is near the Senkakus. Said Hissho Yanai, a Japanese activist, to the New York Times, “If we let them have the Senkaku Islands, they’ll come after all of Okinawa next.” In fact, Beijing officials have talked about taking the Ryukyus after they get the Senkakus. And we should not think the Chinese are limiting their anger to the Japanese.

Japanese should know that things are not going to get better with China. It was a bad idea to do business with China as Japan and others are learning the hard way.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Treaty signed with a gun pointed to your head?

Yeah, like how Tibet was forced to join the PRC. China can't have it both ways. Either "unfair" treaties are acceptable or they're not.

When japan lost the war, it means Japan had to give back the territories that it took during the war

Japan was allowed to keep certain islands. The Senkakus were considered part of the Okinawa island chain, which was administered by the US and then handed back to Japan.

17 ( +20 / -3 )

Treaty signed with a gun pointed to your head? When japan lost the war, it means Japan had to give back the territories that it took during the war..Japan must fully come to terms of the war like Germany did and fully admit their wrong and move on. Until then, Japan will never become a nation respected by its neighbors.

-19 ( +5 / -24 )

China already admitted to signing the islands away in the 1890's just last week.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Japan should simply ignore them and avoid any rhetoric whatsoever. Eventually they will get bored and go away.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi Affirmed that the islands are Japanese by the treaty signed in 1895!!!!

so,China WTF ??

8 ( +11 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites