national

China, Taiwan slam Japan for naming disputed islands

53 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

Why can't Japanese and Chinese interests get together and jointly harvest the oil reserves?

There is no other use for these barren rocks.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Okinawa is a pain in the neck but the islands may be important in view of these disputes. If we lose Okinawa, we will lose a ground to claim the territories there.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The "South-west Islands" it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These islands are part of Okinawa, not China or Taiwan.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

YuriOtaniMar. 04, 2012 - 07:35AM JST

These islands are part of Okinawa, not China or Taiwan.

Not according to the Japanese (Tokyo high court ruling 1942, Miyazaki v Taiwan and concerning who had jurisdiction over the islands). I wish the Japanese would obey their own laws and judicial rulings, then this problem wouldn't exist.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

johninnahaMar. 04, 2012 - 07:17AM JST

Why can't Japanese and Chinese interests get together

Japan has an inability to get on with any of her neighbours. South Korea over the the Dokdo Islands. Russia over the Southern Kuriles. China over the Senkaku Islands. Taiwan over the Diaoyutai Islands. North Korea over the abductees.

I'm just glad that my own country isn't a neighbour of Japan.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Sorry.... Tokyo High court ruling 1942. Ishigaki v Taiwan

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan has an inability to get on with any of her neighbours...

If by "getting along" you mean rolling over and playing dead then I'm glad Japan is willing to stand up for it's own interests. BTW, I highly doubt that any high court in Japan in 1942 would be recognized by any other country in Asia unless it happened to support an interpretation that gave them an advantage. The only time China wants to think about history is when it suits their purposes.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

gelendestrasseMar. 04, 2012 - 09:15AM JST

BTW, I highly doubt that any high court in Japan in 1942 would be recognized by any other country in Asia unless it happened to support an interpretation that gave them an advantage.

We're not talking about other Asian countries recognizing a 1942 Japanese high court ruling, we're talking about Japanese accepting a ruling of their own high court, which they are quite clearly not doing by claiming the Senkakaus fall under the jurisdiction of Okinawa.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It does not matter, we control them and they do not. They would have to take them by force. It would take a war for China to get them. The court ruling? Oh how silly there was no Taiwan back then.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

If nothing is there then the only reason they want it is for military strategy. This makes it pointles for japan to even try to get the island as japan, by their own law, should not even be thinking about military strategy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

To YuriOtani,

These islands are part of Okinawa, not China or Taiwan.

That's right!!! These islands belong to the Japanese people, end point.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

So what? Many Americans still refer to Formosa when they think they are talking about Taiwan. Possession is 9/10th of the law.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

China can not base claims to territory based on the holdings of the Qing dynasty. If those were valid then china would rightfully own Mongolia, Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Nepal, Bhutan , parts of Laos, Cambodia, Russia.

The best solution is to make the islands a territory of the United Nations and then anyone can fish, drill there. Provided they pay fees and share profits to the UN.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

YuriOtaniMar. 04, 2012 - 09:54AM JST

there was no Taiwan back then.

Sorry, I don't understand the above The name Taiwan for the Islands, among other names used before and at the same time, has been in existence since the 18th Century.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Back on topic please.

It does not matter, we control them and they do not.

It might be best to begin with the point rather than being by throwing sand in our eyes and get caught doing it?

Yes, the Japanese control the rocks militarily. Please, don't anybody call them islands, because that is just more sand in our eyes. They are just rocks.

Yes, these rocks already have Chinese names. But best that no one make a big deal of the renaming, or it will grant the Japanese some validity beyond the validity of military muscle in their land grab. No. Let them rename the islands, then chuckle about their bully-like attempt to alter history later.

I can't wait until the Russians rename the Kurils just to see the Japan government reaction. The hypocrisy of the Japanese government is always good for a laugh!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan can name the islands and maintain physical control over them, but China will continue to extend its operations further into the EEZ claimed by Japan in that area to get at as much of the mineral resources as possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, these rocks already have Chinese names. But best that no one make a big deal of the renaming, or it will grant the Japanese some validity beyond the validity of military muscle in their land grab. No. Let them rename the islands, then chuckle about their bully-like attempt to alter history later.

Heh, the Japanese land grab? Really? They have been a part of Japan for a long time. Certainly they belonged to Japan before the 1970s when China after learning there might be oil and gas nearby, decided they ought to belong to them.

I can't wait until the Russians rename the Kurils just to see the Japan government reaction. The hypocrisy of the Japanese government is always good for a laugh!

Hmm, so there is absolutely no distinction in your mind between some islands that have belonged to Japan for a long, long time, and which are uninhabited, and 4 islands that were occupied at the end of WW2, and whose residents were then evicted from their homes.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Right on Musashi!!! I totally agree!!!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

issa1, they belong to the people of Okinawa! The revenues of the oil and gas fields will make a big difference. Our economy needs something more than tourism and growing pineapples. The Peoples Republic are thugs and the Nationalists are sucking up to them.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Too many lawyers spoil the soup. This is like an episode of the Three Stooges, with the fourth (USA as Shemp) thrown in. Here's an idea;Ask the residents! Oh, that's right, there ARE none. How about the most recent ones, or the most recent owners? That would be descendents of the owner Koga who got them after the Chinese lost them to Japan in the Sino-Japenese war. Possession after that was never clearly transferred. Who cares who saw them first, or landed on them first! Does anyone claim the moon? Oh, we saw it first, so it's ours. Or we landed on it first, so it's ours. Nonsense. The closest thing to being inhabited was from 1910 - 1940. They're not clearly within anyone 's obvious territorial waters. How about just blowing them to smithereens just so no one argues about them, like Solomon offered to cut the baby in half. They belong to Japan. Get over it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"slam Japan" ? slams? are you kidding me? I read the article and I read something about protests, but no slamming... whatever JT

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

.. how can 1.4 billion Chinese (population dwarfs every country) not out produce US + Europe together. US (12 trillion) + Europe (14 trillion) = 26 trillion in gross domestic product and China (around 4.5 trillion, about the same as Japan with more than 1/10 of the population).

Umm - probably because it is a developing economy - as opposed to developed- and in Japan's case, declining. You could say the same about India - why are they not able to out produce the US and Japan? When I was a child, my nation - Australia - had a bigger economy than China. Japan has been developed since the 1950s.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

YuriOtani: "These islands are part of Okinawa, not China or Taiwan."

And your defense of this is that historical rulings don't matter, only the control of the islands does?

"It does not matter, we control them and they do not."

So the other island disputes, by your own admittance, are no longer disputes -- the Southern Kuriles belong to Russia, and Dokdo to South Korea. Or wait... are you going to say that 'control' of THOSE islands isn't a factor in ownership, only these ones? That's the usual double standard.

Anyway, when China starts in on the gas fields there there is NOTHING Japan can do but whine and cry, which will fall on deaf ears given they never listen to their neighbours.

"issa1, they belong to the people of Okinawa!"

They don't, actually.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The issue is not really the Islands, as in the end, no part is really concerened about these barren rocks, it is a dispute about EEZ and mineral rights.

China and Japan have overlapping EEZ's and to Japan's credit they have suggested a mid way point, which incedently put the island within Japan's Contol, But the Chinese are not willing to compromise at all. It is the same in the south China sea, Where they claim control to within 12 miles of different countries coasts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Dog

Would you please show me a link to "Tokyo high court ruling 1942, Miyazaki v Taiwan"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

American history books referred to Taiwan as Formosa for many years. The point is there is no value in the name. It is possession, which China will soon have.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Just got a brilliant idea!

These islands would be the perfect place to build US bases!

Transfer the marines and US air force from Okinawa to the Senkaku islands!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Johninnaha: "Transfer the marines and US air force from Okinawa to the Senkaku islands!"

Why, so Japanese who actually and legally claim the islands as their official residence can move there, build homes and businesses around the bases, depend on them for protection, then whine about them as they get older?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

These rocks belong to Japan not China. China only started trying to make a claim after getting wind that maybe there was a massive oil/gas reserve under these rocks. Haven't they ever heard of the phase ''The early bird gets the worm''?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

CrazyJoeMar. 04, 2012 - 03:45PM JST

@Dog

Would you please show me a link to "Tokyo high court ruling 1942, Miyazaki v Taiwan"

There are a few sources, if you search for them, even though the Japanese try to hide them away, like a dirty secret. Unit 731 and comfort women all over again. The Japanese claim the papers on the ruling were ‘lost’ at the end of the war, but if you do some research, the contemporary news sources of the times, in Japanese, refer to the ruling on who had the fishing rights to the disputed area, the Ishigaki fishermen or the Thaihako /Tapei fishermen? The Tokyo high court ruled that the Thaihoku prefecture had jurisdiction over the disputed Islands and therefore the fishing rights. The most recent mention was in ‘The Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands Dispute by Martin Lohmeyer (pge 70-71).

A good paper on that Japan might be boxing above her weight with this issue is Gavin McCormack’s ‘Small Islands – Big Problem: Senkaku/Diaoyu and the Weight of History and Geography in China-Japan Relations’. According to McCormack, who is well in the know, the US has warned Japan that the Island dispute and any conflict that arises from it is not covered under the AMPO terms.

This whole issue of facts, from the Japanese side, on this issue, is a classic case of a rabbit having 2 feet, rather than 4. Same with the Southern Kuriles, when Shigeru Yoshida admitted in San Francisco 1952, that the four islands were part of the Kuriles.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Okinawans (people from Yonaguni and the Yaeyamas) have been fishing off these islands for over a century.

Give them a name in one of those islands' native languages -- something neither Japan nor China can argue with -- and be done with it. Something relating to "iyutui" (fishing), like both the Chinese and Japanese names (魚釣 for the main island in Japanese、釣魚 in Chinese), should do the job just fine and be totally neutral.

Alternatively, how about not trying to control the names of things even in languages nor your own? Let Japanese speakers say Senkaku and let Chinese speakers say Tiaoyu/Diaoyu and let English speakers say Pinnacle Rocks. The rest of the world has no problem with this -- London is Londres in Spanish and Londra in Italian and you don't see British people going around demanding to hear "London" in all languages -- so do it here too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The rest of the world has no problem with this -- London is Londres in Spanish and Londra in Italian and you don't see British people going around demanding to hear "London" in all languages -- so do it here too.

I don't see the English complaining about the French calling the English channel La Manche (although I suspect they do have a problem with Malvinas).

Musashi:

Also, time for China to free TIBET!!!!

The whole of China needs freeing. You may not be aware, but human rights abuse knows no racial bounds. In a few decades, I'd like to see how many people can still speak a Ryukyu or Ainu dialect. Let's go further. Give back independence to these: Ryukyu, Ezo, Hawaii, Aboriginal Australia, the WHOLE of the Americas.

Yuri and Issa:

It does not matter, we control them and they do not. They would have to take them by force. It would take a war for China to get them.

It's funny, when Russia says they control the S. Kurils. Japan says there's a dispute. When Korea says it controls Dokdo, Japan says there's a dispute. One word - hypocritical. I'd be more on your side if Japan would just shut up and forget Dokdo and S. Kurils. Sorry but you can't have your cake AND eat it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To YuriOtani,

they belong to the people of Okinawa! The revenues of the oil and gas fields will make a big difference. Our economy needs something more than tourism and growing pineapples. The Peoples Republic are thugs and the Nationalists are sucking up to them

I agree with you YuriOtani,but Okinawans are Japanese or not ?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Heh, the Japanese land grab? Really? They have been a part of Japan for a long time.

They have been part of Japan for that time because of the land grab. The situation is ongoing. The land grab continues. The renaming is part of it.

Hmm, so there is absolutely no distinction in your mind between some islands that have belonged to Japan for a long, long time, and which are uninhabited, and 4 islands that were occupied at the end of WW2, and whose residents were then evicted from their homes.

Of course there is a difference between inhabited and uninhabited. But the Japanese are still hypocritical, as pointed out by SmithinJapan. But if the Russians renamed the Kurils, the Japanese government's position would be completely different on the score of renaming. Guaranteed. They would not utter a peep about self-determination. They would whine about history and mumble about "integral parts of Japan". And that despite having stole that land from the Ainu!

Japan stole these rocks from China in 1895, and soon after, Taiwan itself. The rocks were administered as part of Taiwan, just as they were before Japan took them. Later Taiwan was returned, but not these rocks. Japan claims they can have them because they were uninhabited. But, simple question. Are they inhabited now? No they are not.

Japan has them by one means only, and that is military might. So be it. Or so I would be happy to acknowledge if only Japan were willing to accept that with regards to other disputes, such as Dokdo. But Japan doesn't do this.

Certainly they belonged to Japan before the 1970s when China after learning there might be oil and gas nearby, decided they ought to belong to them.

China's complaints also coincide with the reversion of the rocks from the U.S. to Japan. And given that China was in the middle of the cultural revolution at the time, I would sooner link the official complaints to the reversion than suspect that the Chinese noticed the bit about the oil. But of course, if you only have eyes for Japan, I doubt the insanity of the cultural revolution means anything to you.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Senkaku islands are no more Ryukyu islands than they are Chinese or Taiwanese.

They are a bunch of uninhabited rocks that NOONE cared about until they found there is oil under them!

Then suddenly, everybody claims them as their own.

Why don't Japan, Okinawa (Ryukyu), Taiwan and China join together in a joint project to mine the oil and gas reserves?

We are all living on the same planet, guys!

Let's share what we got!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Let's share what we got!

As idealistic as this sounds, it will never happen. This is a dispute between Asian governments, not the general public (who couldn't care less). Even if they joined, governments would find something else to bicker about.

In Asian countries, the Government > The People.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan, the Northern territories have displaced Japanese population. Hey Putin Free Yuri-to! The Liancourt Rocks, well Japan should drop all claims to them. There was never a population on these rocks. Korea is in control of them, let them go! The Senkaku's have been part of the Ryukyu Kingdom for hundreds of years. Okinawa fishermen have been fishing there for generations.

issa1, Okinawa people while not ethic Japanese are Japanese nationals. The oil revenue belongs to them like the oil revenue in Alaska belongs to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is with the name....hehehehehe... just measure the distance of that disputed islands to the nearest country where it should belong...and the fightling is over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DogMar. 04, 2012 - 08:08AM JST YuriOtaniMar. 04, 2012 - 07:35AM JST "These islands are part of Okinawa, not China or Taiwan. Not according to the Japanese (Tokyo high court ruling 1942, Miyazaki v Taiwan and concerning who had >jurisdiction over the islands). I wish the Japanese would obey their own laws and judicial rulings, then this problem >wouldn't exist.

They actually are obeying their own laws and judiucial ruilings, as well as the San Francisco Treaty. Taiwan was part of Japan since 1885. So it was Japanese territory back in 1942 then. Ater 1945 Japan lost all territories it took by force. These island did not fall into that category.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan officially recognises China rather than Taiwan but maintains close trade ties with the island.

Why wouldn't Japan officially recognize Taiwan? Fear perhaps?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Green PandaMar. 05, 2012 - 06:34AM JST Japan officially recognises China rather than Taiwan but maintains close trade ties with the island. > Why wouldn't Japan officially recognize Taiwan? Fear perhaps?

No, same reason as the US, UK, France all other countries. Seems like instilling fear is a Chinese characteristic these days.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

hot_dog_dynastyMar. 04, 2012 - 09:17PM JST Japan stole these rocks from China in 1895, and soon after, Taiwan itself. The rocks were administered as part of >Taiwan, just as they were before Japan took them. Later Taiwan was returned, but not these rocks. Japan claims >they can have them because they were uninhabited.

They stole them from whom? Nobody. They were uninhabited and considered Terra Nullis. They were incorporated into Japan through proper international protocal and so recognized. Not taken by force or through war.The Ching Dynasty never complained because they didn'tconsider it theirs. Nor was it included in Ching territories handed to Japan at he end of the Sino-Japanese War (Like Taiwan) because they were never considered Ching territory. The Ching Dusnatsy is log onmg gone and the CCP Chinese government suddenly decides they own them after 197- when oil is discovered. Couldn't be more obvious if you tried.

Japan has them by one means only, and that is military might.

No they legally own them. But their ownership is backed by the US Military.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Dog

Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They stole them from whom? Nobody. They were uninhabited and considered Terra Nullis.

OssanAmerica is correct here (though it's "nullius", not "nullis"), Hot Dog Dynasty. Japan didn't steal them from China because China never owned them. The only people to have made use of these islands are the Okinawans who fished in the waters around them (and still do), and the only people to live on the actual islands themselves were in fact mainland non-Okinawan Japanese (Mr. Koga, from Kyushu).

These islands are not just well easy of Yonaguni (Japan's westernmost point), but are in fact further from Taiwan than some of the northernmost Philippine islands are, so the "distance" argument is in Japan's favor too.

And lurking behind the whole discussion -- here China's 50-cent brigade will be out in force to vote me down -- is the fact that Taiwan is an independent country, the Republic of China, and is not part of the People's Republic of China. China proceeds with these discussions under the presupposition that Taiwan is little more than one of their provinces and that once these islands become part of Taiwan they'll then be a part of the PRC. This position is even more thoroughly distasteful as the one claiming that these islands aren't part of Okinawa.

PRC, you have plenty of land, a capable and hard-working population, and the largest economy in the region. Leave these little islands alone.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Countries like China and Russia need a constant foe to maintain control. China getting control of these islands does not mean peace. Appeasement never works with thugs.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm thinking about occupy those Islands with my 14 wives, 29 children and 9 grandchildren. I may be invited a group of occupy Wall street and given one Island.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Tokyo high court ruled that the Thaihoku prefecture had jurisdiction over the disputed Islands and therefore the fishing rights. The most recent mention was in ‘The Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands Dispute by Martin Lohmeyer (pge 70-71).

"The Court’s decision is neither known nor does the Court’s procedure have a solid legal value. Children of former witnesses reported about the Court procedure. The Court procedure, which has only allegedly taken place, lacks reliable sources. But it cannot be proven that the procedures took place or that a ruling was given."

Thanks for nothing.

The above BS is explained here.

これはおそらく那覇在住の中国人陳哲雄氏あたりからの情報のように思えるが、だいだい尖閣列島の領海内は、 戦前戦後を問わず漁業権の設定されているような水域ではなかったことである。このようなところで漁業権をめぐる争 いが法的におきる余地はない。またある記事は一九四四年といったり、陳氏は大正年間といい、常氏は年代をいわ ず、他方陳氏は大審院、常民は最高裁といった具合に、年代も一致せず、事件の内容もあきらりかでなく、具体性が まったくない。戦前の大審院と戦後の最高裁が、あたかも同一のものであるかのように扱われている。最高裁にせよ 大審院にせよ、最終審であるから、その前に事件か下級審で審理されたはずである。しかしこれらのことにはまった く触れていない。

To summarize, prior to the Pacific war, Japan did not set/stipulate fishing zones within domestic prefectures/territories. One article states that this so-called hearing took place during 1944, while another person claims it was done during the Taisho era, and another doesn't even state the year such hearing happened. In addition, one claims this took place at (大審院) which is the highest court before the end of the war while the other claim this happed in high court 最高裁 which is post war. In either case, if such hearing happened in those highest courts, there must of been a decision made by the lower courts prior to submitting this case to the higher courts.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

China and Taiwan are basically breaking international treaties and agreements that they have agreed to in the past. The islands belonged to no one. The Japanese central government formally annexed the islands on January 14, 1895 with international agreements. Atfer WWII the islands were under US government occupation authority from 1945 until 1972. The islands reverted to Japanese government control in 1972, the mayor of Ishigaki has been given civic authority over the territory.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Thank you for the reference to McCormack’s paper Dog.

Ossan says "They stole them from whom? Nobody. They were uninhabited and considered Terra Nullis. They were incorporated into Japan through proper international protocol and so recognized. Not taken by force or through war.The Ching Dynasty never complained because they didn't consider it theirs."

McCormack says "it stretches common sense to see the absence of Chinese protest or counter-claim as decisive under the circumstance of war, the more so as the appropriation of the Senkakus was followed just three months later by the acquisition of Taiwan, under the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

Nearly 40 years have passed since Kyoto University’s Inoue Kiyoshi reached his conclusion that, “Even though the [Senkaku] islands were not wrested from China under a treaty, they were grabbed from it by stealth, without treaty or negotiations, taking advantage of victory in war.”

McCormack does not explain why CCP did not demand them at the end of WW2, however.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In Asian countries, the Government > The People.

can pretty much say that about any govt.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Countries like China and Russia need a constant foe to maintain control.

you left out the u.s. - which needs constant WAR(S) to maintain their military industrial complex.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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