national

China says Tokyo survey team acting illegally

96 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

96 Comments
Login to comment

These islands have been under Japanese administration since 1895, except for US control after Japan's surrender in 1945, and were then handed back to Japan. It seems as though the Chinese will go back over a century to kick-up territorial squabbles.

If I were the Japanese I would start patrolling with some pretty heavy-duty naval hardware around that area.

-2 ( +10 / -13 )

Chinese spirit = whine whine whine

Lose a business deal = whine whine whine

1 ( +8 / -8 )

Sll they do is whine like little babies. Is there anything better they can do? They are starting to sound the the South Koreans.

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

"daiyou islands and adyacent islands are part of china" They mean that those islands are chinese territory, including Taiwan.

They can wine. In the end of the day. Those islands are Japanese. and will always be. If china takes a military action over that island. expect JMSDF including USMF blowing all. Its in the PROTOCOL

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Cry us a river China.

Just because they are in the East China Sea doesn't make them a part of China. I love how they think 'ancient times' are the 1970s....

3 ( +10 / -7 )

"Chinese state media said the surveyors were acting “illegally,”

Then come over and arrest them if you can.

“To curb such provocations and ease tensions over the islands, the Japanese government should avoid being crippled by the right-wingers and handle relevant issues from the overall interests of the Sino-Japanese relations,” a commentary on Xinhua news agency said."

Says the state controlled media of a country that's entirely right wing.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Well, China has a much better historical and geographical claim to these islands than Japan, but technically and legally they are Japanese territory at present, so both sides are being rather silly and pathetic right now. The Japanese ARE being provocative by allowing that fool Ishihara to do something like this. A survey team?! Are you joking? If it's such precious and valuable Japanese territory, wouldn't they know pretty much everything about them already? And China just belligerently claiming they are 'theirs' is merely exacerbating the problem. Grow up folks.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

If China has any complaints about the Senkaku Islands why don't take the case to the ICJ?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Can someone recommend sources explaining who really owns these islands?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

In the Cairo Declaration of 1943, it was stipulated that "All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China". China was represented by Generalissimo Chian Kai Shek. It is reasonable to think that of the 3 powers in the conference, (China, US and Great Britain), the Chinese were the main advocates of this stipulation.

And I suppose that when they meant all territories, they did not have to mention every single island that was part of China, including Taiwan.

I used to think they were part of Japan before just by listening to the Japanese news, and because of my love and affinity for Japan.

But As much as I love Japan, after doing independent research, now I have to lean towards the fact that historically and geographically they have been a Chinese territory. And believe me, out of love we sometimes neglect to acknowledge certain facts. Like the fact that they do lie on top of China's continental shelf. It is not hard to prove this fact by looking at Google Earth or Yahoo Maps.

Even Okinawa could have been considered to be a dependency of China. Japan forced itself into the Ryukyus, and through an unfair Treaty, gained ownership of Taiwan. The outcome of WWII reverted back what Japan had taken away through imperialistic aggression.

I do not believe that China asserted its ownership after finding out that there is possible sources of gas and oil in this area. For one thing, the islands were under control of the US, and what would have been the point to argue with the US while China had reverted back to a forced cultural revolution, and a confrontation with the US would have not produced anything.

Two good sources of unbiased opinions provide their analysis in favor of Chinese ownership. In fact, one of them is by a Japanese Scholar, and the other by a New Zealand Scholar, who should have no vested interests in advocating in favor of Japan. Please make time to read them and may you get something out of it, even if it is in favor of your own opinion. www.skycity.com/japan/diaohist.html

http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf

These are my two cents of why I lean in favor of China, (not that I care for it or even want to visit that country). China was already in that part of the World way before the Japanese. Even when the Spanish conquistadores arrived in the Philippines, the ones controlling commerce there were the Chinese, (Sucesos de las Islas Filipines, by Dr. Jose F. de Morga, anotado por Jose Rizal, Events of the Philippine Islands, by Dr. Jose F. De Morga, annotated by Dr. Jose Rizal).

In this book, Dr. De Morga explains not only events taking place in the Philippines, but all the dealing of conquering powers of those days, in the Far East. Great and interesting book and very educational. May the Force be with all of you. Thanks.

12 ( +21 / -9 )

Jackdl, I just posted two sources of debate. It does not mean they belong to China. It just a source of dissertation in favor of China. Very sticky problem and I am even thinking about moving out of Japan because things might turn for the worse.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Tamarama, you pretty much summarized it all. Great post. And let's try not to get sensational about it. I believe it should be a neutral debate leaving personal emotions out. At the end of the day it will not improve our personal conditions.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

In the Cairo Declaration of 1943, it was stipulated that "All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China".

Avigator,

I don't know if you are consciously or unconsciously misrepresenting the issue, but the Cairo Declaration dealt only with Japanese acquisitions since 1914, and not anything before then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Conference_%281943%29

2 ( +6 / -4 )

""All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China".

Therein lies the problem. It is not clear.

Also, if one is talking in terms of "geographic proximity", then yes, China can lay claim. But then they have no claim to either the Spratlys or Scarborough, both of which are closer to the Philippines.

About Japan "forcing itself" onto the Ryukyus, the same can be said for the Chinese invading and usurping both Tibet and Xinjiang.

And yes, these territorial claims are mainly about oil and natural gas and any other natural resources. Interesting how China has a major pipeline project running from the Andaman Sea, off of Myanmar and running thru Myanmar and then back into Yunnan, resources that would rightfully belong to Myanmar, based on "geographic proximity".

1 ( +4 / -3 )

avigator, thanks very much for the references. For me the key historical fact is the 1894 war between China and Japan. It was as a result of that war that Japan gained control of Taiwan and these islands. My conclusion is that Japan's claim to the islands cannot be supported because it can only be based on that war -- and that was an unjust war on Japan's part. I believe the issue of these islands is being used to promote nationalism -- both in Japan and in China. The people of Japan and China should not be enemies. As for leaving Japan to find a better place, keep in mind that these problems are world-wide. Ishihara does not speak for the big majority of the people in Japan.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

"Even Okinawa could have been considered to be a dependency of China. Japan forced itself into the Ryukyus, and through an unfair Treaty, gained ownership of Taiwan. The outcome of WWII reverted back what Japan had taken away through imperialistic aggression."

But that's ancient history. Firstly, if you want to call Okinawa a dependency of China (maybe "suzerainty" is the term you're thinking of), why not consider that Chinese aggression? Okinawa was caught between China and Japan (Satsuma). But, now Okinawa is Japan. I can't see Okinawans wanting to become China.

The longer i observe this, the more I think Senkaku belongs to Japan, and Japan may as well start building on it. Because I can't see China going to war over this. They'll jump up and down, but they don't want to fight over it.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

This entire flare up is because of Ishihara, he started this BS and now look where we are, this guy alone is going to cause WW3

12 ( +14 / -2 )

All land belongs to the Victor.... the lines have and will continue to change. Just because its 2012 does not mean all borders and territories are fixed forever.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

avigator, From the point of your comment regarding the island territories, It seems that you said that the states of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas should be returned to Mexico.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Before China claiming ownership of these islands, It should give up Tibet and Uighur and let them be an independent state first. They don't want Chinese administration there, All China has to do is it better claim it to ICJ, not keep sending boats there.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Cairo Declaration dealt only with Japanese acquisitions since 1914, and not anything before then.

You misinterpreted the Cairo Declaration, it says "Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@kwatt - yeah, I like that idea. The Chinese have no reason to complain after their own behaviour.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Historical ownership means zilch. Whoever acquires the land by force gets it. That, or by negotiations.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@gogogo: you should look outside of the news on JT. The dispute with China is different from those with Russia and Korea. China wants to take total control of East Sea and consequently the (rumored or confirmed - TBA) enormous oil & gas reserve under the ocean. They also want to diverge the attention from their own internal problems (Tibet, eco bubble, religions, etc). They don't give a damn about Ishihara, and Japan is not the only country they want to mess with.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Wikipedia has done a fairly good job with the entry for the Treaty of San Francisco, the relevant document about how things were settled, and has included Chinese and Taiwanese objections to the treaty. As far as the 48 countries who signed it are concerned, it is a valid document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ishihara wants to buy them from their private owners to highlight Japan’s claim

The fact is private ownership ceased in 1945 when Japan lost the war and ceased claiming sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands and Ryukyu islands after 1945. If you don't believe me, just go and find any map of Japan either produced in Japan or published by other countries between 1945 to 1971 and this is what you will see:

http://retromaps.tumblr.com/image/30107477891

That is Japan consisted of only 4 main islands, without the South Kuril islands, Ryukyu chain of islands and Diaoyu islands from 1945 to 1971. So the claim of private ownership is nothing more than a joke.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

avigatorSep. 03, 2012 - 08:17AM JST In the Cairo Declaration of 1943, it was stipulated that "All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria >(Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China". China >was represented by Generalissimo Chian Kai Shek. It is reasonable to think that of the 3 powers in the conference, >(China, US and Great Britain), the Chinese were the main advocates of this stipulation.

Therein lies the first problem with the above, The Sebkakus were never won by war and nt taken from China (then the Ching Dynansty) by force. Thet were incoroprated as Terra Nulius prior to the end and Treaty of Shimonoseki in April 1895 whrein China gavve up territories to thge victor Japan. At that time the Senkakus were not included as both Japan and China considered them Japanese territories. Not to mention that neither side really cared as they wre just rocks. Its only after the 1960s when an economic value was placed and the 1990s when a strategic vakue was placed upon them,

And I suppose that when they meant all territories, they did not have to mention every single island that was part of China, including Taiwan.

I used to think they were part of Japan before just by listening to the Japanese news, and because of my love and affinity for Japan.

But As much as I love Japan, after doing independent research, now I have to lean towards the fact that historically and geographically they have been a Chinese territory. And believe me, out of love we sometimes neglect to acknowledge certain facts. Like the fact that they do lie on top of China's continental shelf. It is not hard to prove this fact by looking at Google Earth or Yahoo Maps.

Even Okinawa could have been considered to be a dependency of China. Japan forced itself into the Ryukyus, and through an unfair Treaty, gained ownership of Taiwan. The outcome of WWII reverted back what Japan had taken away through imperialistic aggression.

I do not believe that China asserted its ownership after finding out that there is possible sources of gas and oil in this area. For one thing, the islands were under control of the US, and what would have been the point to argue with the US while China had reverted back to a forced cultural revolution, and a confrontation with the US would have not produced anything.

Two good sources of unbiased opinions provide their analysis in favor of Chinese ownership. In fact, one of them is by a Japanese Scholar, and the other by a New Zealand Scholar, who should have no vested interests in advocating in favor of Japan. Please make time to read them and may you get something out of it, even if it is in favor of your own opinion. www.skycity.com/japan/diaohist.html

http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf

These are my two cents of why I lean in favor of China, (not that I care for it or even want to visit that country). China was already in that part of the World way before the Japanese. Even when the Spanish conquistadores arrived in the Philippines, the ones controlling commerce there were the Chinese, (Sucesos de las Islas Filipines, by Dr. Jose F. de Morga, anotado por Jose Rizal, Events of the Philippine Islands, by Dr. Jose F. De Morga, annotated by Dr. Jose Rizal).

In this book, Dr. De Morga explains not only events taking place in the Philippines, but all the dealing of conquering powers of those days, in the Far East. Great and interesting book and very educational. May the Force be with all of you. Thanks.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Diaoyu Islands and adjacent islands are part of China’s territory

Just give those islands to them and they will quickly start arguing about Ryukyu Kingdom stolen by the japanese and called now Okinawa. Then give them Ryukyu Kingdom and they will start talking about that big island stolen by japanese called Honshu, and also Hokkaido, then they will check their very old maps about all those stolen chinese ancient territories like America, Asia, Oceania, Africa.

Those guys are all about placing a higher bid. The whole universe including black holes and quasars belongs to them.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The text of the Agreements reads;

"The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.

The Senkakus were never taken by VIOLENCE AND GREED. Hence they were exempt at the end of WWII and the Allied Powers did not take them away from Japan.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Why is Ishihara 'really' so keen to buy these islands? I bet he is on a huge commission offered by the seller.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

As far as the 48 countries who signed it are concerned, it is a valid document. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco

Disagree. Many of these so called countries, for example the South East Asian countries were not even independent countries but merely western colonies in 1951 and should not be signatories of an international treaty at all. And many of the countries in Europe, Central America and South America actually had got nothing to do with Japan's war of aggression and should not be invited in the first place.

On the contrary, China and the two Koreas, the biggest victims of Japan's war of aggression ought to be there for settling disputes and war reparation with Japan. But they were not even invited.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If the Chinese really saw this as an infringement on their land surely they would do more?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"this guy alone is going to cause WW3"

China doesn't know how to fight. All they know how to do is invade the weak by devious means and engage in border skirmishes

China is like a predatory animal in that doesn't go after the strongest prey, but the weakest

And from what I've heard, many African countries no longer want China in their countries, who can blame them when the Chinese build a hospital that is screwed up after several months, all the while China walks off with the pay and never returns it

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The Senkakus were never taken by VIOLENCE AND GREED.

They were. The Diaoyu islands were situated along the route of Japanese invasion from 1894 to 1895 as can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Sino-Japanese_War.svg

The fact is Japan annexed these islands only after it destroyed the entire Chinese navy during the Japanese invasion from 1894 to 1895. Prior to 1872, all major maps of Japan portrayed the kingdom of Ryukyu as an independent country and Taiwan and Diaoyu islands as part of China not part of Ryukyu.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Guru29Sep. 03, 2012 - 11:25AM JST On the contrary, China and the two Koreas, the biggest victims of Japan's war of aggression ought to be there for >settling disputes and war reparation with Japan. But they were not even invited.

All of Asia would disagree that the two Koreas, which were part of the Japanese Empire were one of the "biggest" victims.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

FarmboySep. 03, 2012 - 10:41AM JST Oh I see, avigator is the same poster as OssanAmerica. Paid blogger, I suppose, since there are multiple posts of >the same info.

No my copying error. My position is counter to that of avigatior. And I'm certainly not being paid but I'd be happy to consider it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hence they were exempt at the end of WWII and the Allied Powers did not take them away from Japan.

Then could you explain why Japan ceased to claim sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands and Ryukyu islands after 1945 and all maps of Japan produced in Japan or published by other countries between 1945 to 1971 such as the following did not include the Ryukyu chain of islands and Diaoyu islands as territory of Japan?

http://retromaps.tumblr.com/image/30107477891

And could you explain why Japan gave up these islands in dispute in the San Francisco Peace Treaty for them to be put under a trusteeship which must be submitted to the UN for approval as described in article 3 of the peace treaty?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

China doesn't know how to fight. All they know how to do is invade the weak by devious means and engage in border skirmishes

That also sounds like Japan...

4 ( +8 / -4 )

China is losing their marble. And Korea as well in these days. They do not know what the International law means. Senkaku was part of Japan after Japan confirmed to the world that these islands belongs to no one in 1895. Even Japan received an appreciation letter from China last century when some Chinese fish men were saved after the shipwreck by Japanese at Senkaku island as China stated as within a Japan territory. Even their own map till 70s, they said Senkaku as Japan. Since the UN team found some natural resources and their interest of expansion of their Navy territory, China has changed their attitude for Senkaku. Senkaku is the part of Okinawa officially . In tat case, between 1945 and 1972, the US occupied China?If China insists Senkaku is the part of China. When Okinawa was returned to Japan from America, Okinawa was returned to Japan. So it goes without saying that Okinawa-ken Senkaku Islands were back to Japan. No more issues.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Ossan: "All of Asia would disagree that the two Koreas, which were part of the Japanese Empire were one of the "biggest" victims."

Proof, please.

Tamara said it best, China has the better claims to the islands, historically, but Japan administers them and has for some time, and as with Dokdo being South Korean, these islands should be viewed as Japanese territory as such (although with Dokdo SK also has the better historical claims). As for the survey team, if they had permission from the 'owners' of the island, there's nothing illegal about their visit. If they did not, it is trespassing at least, and yes, illegal.

More than that, though, as China stated the J-government SHOULD stop such visits, not so much for the reasons China states but for the very fact that it increases tensions, which the government is currently trying to do (and obviously failing through acts like this).

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Curiously, this Chinese statement sounds pretty mild to me. Anyone agree?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Historically its hard to build a case against Chinese ownership but anyway we just need to keep level headed and not create more tention between our nations. I sure hope these right wing groups are willing to sacrafice themselves and their childern in an event of war, cause I surely hope my childern dont have to go to war just because of a few extremist acts by a few.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Chamkun: "China is losing their marble. And Korea as well in these days."

And Japan is wholly a victim and entirely perfect in their manners and behaviour, I suppose? As for asking someone to change their handle, it's up to them, not you. There are a number of posters who have handles that could be deemed offensive based on one's political leaning. Heck, I could say the term 'kun' is offensive because it is a diminutive that puts the user in a position above them (I don't actually really think that, just making a point).

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If Red China wants the islands they will need to use military force. The self defense force is waiting for them.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

YuriOtani: I don't know why you always egg for war. If China tried to take the islands by force, they would succeed, and if that resulted in war, we would all lose. The SDF would fail immediately, and the US would not help them over the islands.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

"If China tried to take the islands by force, they would succeed, and if that resulted in war, we would all lose. The SDF would fail immediately, and the US would not help them over the islands."

What a laugh, then what's stopping them???

China is afraid of the U.S. - clear and simple. It's a known fact - the Chinese do not want the U.S. around Japan / Asia.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

TattooVampire: "What a laugh, then what's stopping them???"

Common courtesy and the lack of a desire for war. I would think that is self-evident. If anyone is afraid it's Japan -- why do you think the government is trying to so hard to diffuse tensions? As for 'a laugh', the only thing 'funny' about this is the notion that the US would step in if China took the islands by force. Just yesterday Clinton was talking about how the US and China can work together in Asia (she didn't say anything about Japan in there, by the way), and the fact remains that China is the world's second in terms of economy, and a major military might. Japan just doesn't have the economy or the numbers for the US to back them up over a few rocks. The US would declare it an internal issue, and while I'm sure they would exert pressure for the issue to be resolved peacefully, they wouldn't risk full out war over the Senkaku islands. Japan would be on its own, and they would lose. People like these morons doing the analysis of the islands threaten everything, including the central government's own attempts to make peace with China.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@smithinjapan:

Certainly Japan has a lot to fear in China, but Japan isn't the only one in the region feeling this. And Hilary was giving some lip service even though if you read INTO what she said, there is a bit of prodding at China. And China does not want the U.S. around. Period. And they dislike the fact that the U.S. continues to be aggressive in their relations with African nations

Also, those aren't just a "few rocks" - there are substantial proven energy reserves. This is all about securing resources.

Again - if China wishes to claim the Senkaku Islands, a legitimate argument can be made that they need to get out of the Spratlys and Scarborough.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Tokyo Gov Shintaro Ishihara with his entourage Tokyo city officials have forgotten that when Japan invaded and defeated China. Japan demanded 7.45 million kg of silver, additional 1.12 million kg of silver and annexed/ occupied China territory. But now he said he has raised 1.45 billion yen in private donations to purchased the China island. Now the question is Dioayu belong to China or Japan? That is the problem of Japan mindset by revising history.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Glad this passed off without serious incident. When I first heard about the survey ship, I had visions of it being sunk by a torpedo fired from an anonymous submarine that then swiftly and quietly disappeared. No proof of any particular nation's involvement, but a serious ratcheting up of the tension levels.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well if China wishes to reclaim the Senkakus and does in fact claim them, perhaps the Japanese government should enact new laws prohibiting Chinese and Hong Kong firms from purchasing and owning land within Japan's 47 administrative regions, like these firms do now, especially in Hokkaido, and proceed to null void previous purchases made by those firms, and immediately repossess these lands and provide no return payment.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

seems like japanese will lose that islands, and the kurils also, and korean aswell.And when they will be desperate- they will make some provocations, and will get anotehr nuclear strike.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Well if China wishes to reclaim the Senkakus and does in fact claim them, perhaps the Japanese government should enact new laws prohibiting Chinese and Hong Kong firms from purchasing and owning land within Japan's 47 administrative regions, like these firms do now, especially in Hokkaido, and proceed to null void previous purchases made by those firms, and immediately repossess these lands and provide no return payment."

and what japanese will get? they will lose economic parthership, cheap goods from china, and lack of natural resources, and its only with economical influence...in military case- they will get owned in 2-3 hours, and become a chinese province

3 ( +5 / -2 )

TattooVampire: "perhaps the Japanese government should enact new laws prohibiting Chinese and Hong Kong firms from purchasing and owning land within Japan's 47 administrative regions,"

Japan is in no economic condition to do any such thing, and they know it. In fact, with the economy tanking more than ever and threats of the government running out of money by the end of October, they should be BEGGING for more business. China and Hong Kong would shrug while Japan scratches its head and tries to figure out how to sell more bonds to cover its losses.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Whether China will succeed is a question, last time they were at war was defending themselves agaisnt us... The Chinese don't have enough practice at war. If we dig deeper, we know why China is not going to use force, their culture is similar to ours, deep roots in humanity.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"Whether China will succeed is a question, last time they were at war was defending themselves agaisnt us... " against whom?O_o usa have never been at war with china, my child, get some education....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Tiger: "he Chinese don't have enough practice at war."

As opposed to the current batch of self-'DEFENSE' forces? Japan wouldn't stand a chance against a Chinese invasion. If Japan keeps pushing and China wants to take the islands, they will. The US won't risk everything over a few rocks, so Japan will be done.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The fact is Japan annexed these islands only after it destroyed the entire Chinese navy during the Japanese invasion from 1894 to 1895.

And nobody and nothing was on them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To be honest, this time, the right-wings are really lying and control the media to mislead the citizens, and make the citizens to give huge pressure on the goverment, it is a good opportunity for the right-wings to regain more authorities since WW2 surrender. I don't want to search any evidence indicating who the island belongs to, we just launch google-map and see by ourselves, it belongs to Taiwan obviously, the reason why China didn't administrate it is just that they thought the island consists of useless rocks, but even so, we should never grab anything that is useless for the owner but still belongs to them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As opposed to the current batch of self-'DEFENSE' forces? Japan wouldn't stand a chance against a Chinese invasion. If Japan keeps pushing and China wants to take the islands, they will. The US won't risk everything over a few rocks, so Japan will be done.

China is no doubt one of the most powerful military countries, so it would be much easier for China to invade the islands by its powerful force, however China will not do it though it can, because China is now one of the most responsible international communities. I don't think China would invade a part of Japan which pledged forever renouncing war and did not make any war for 67 year so far. If really China done it, it would very obviously be under a lot of severe pressure from International communities like Iran, Syria suffering severe sanctions from European and Western countries. China would be an very isolated country like Japan was really in the past. That's why China will not do it. Why does not china ask Japan to bring its claim to ICJ in the first place? Japan have been asking S Korea to bring it to ICJ for 3 times so far. China has never done it to ICJ so far in the past.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

kwatt, japan took this islands with power, then lost the war, so they WILL belong to china, in other case, some japanese ships will be sunk, and "responsibility" wont do much effort, since china needs an act of power demonstration.So, it would probably be pity for japan, to get in this situation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

electrokids

Why does not china ask Japan to bring its claim to ICJ in the first place? Japan have been asking S Korea to bring it to ICJ for 3 times so far. China has never done it to ICJ so far in the past.

It seems that what China and you want is surely just War whatever and China still (maybe wants to) long for that miserable days in 20th century

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Same old news every day!!! This is getting old.........

1 ( +1 / -0 )

My two cents, i hope that the forces of nature sinks the island to end this goddamn dispute! Goddamn endless cycle!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I came across a German atlas printed in 1952. Out of curiosity, I looked up the Senkakus, sort of expecting them to be listed a such. But there is no mention of Senkaku; two are listed under the Chinese names (Hoa pin su and Tia Usu) and a third one in English (Raleigh Rock). Interestingly, they are not marked as any national territory.

So, the situation was unclear already then. Except at that time, nobody was interested in the possible gas reserves, in area,,,

just fwie

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

smithinjapanSep. 03, 2012 - 11:56AM JST Ossan: "All of Asia would disagree that the two Koreas, which were part of the Japanese Empire were one of the "biggest" victims."

Proof, please.

You need "proof" to accept that Korea was NOT one of the allied powers? You need "proof" to accept that unlike China or Southeast Asia that was invaded by the Japanese military?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

smithinjapanSep. 03, 2012 - 12:27PM JST YuriOtani: I don't know why you always egg for war. If China tried to take the islands by force, they would succeed, >and if that resulted in war, we would all lose. The SDF would fail immediately, and the US would not help them over >the islands.

The United States has already stated that they would. Over the last few years the JGSDF and USMC have been conducting training based on "re-taking occupied islands". This is not only part orf the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty but part of the current US "pivot" towards countering China in the East and South China Seas. You can't alter reality by simply repeatedly posting a false statement.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Thomas AndersonSep. 03, 2012 - 11:35AM JST "China doesn't know how to fight. All they know how to do is invade the weak by devious means and engage in border skirmishes"

That also sounds like Japan...

No it doesn't, Japan has not invaded anyone nor had any border skirmishes for the last 67 years, China since the 1949 CCP takeover has nad nothing but both.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Found this information in a different forum:

It states that the first (and last) survey that took place happened in 1885 and that following this survey, Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru wrote the following letter on Oct 21 1885.

"Sent Oct 21 Personal No. 38

[From] Foreign Minister Count Inoue Kaoru [To] Home Minister Count Yamagata Aritomo

In response to your letter Annex A No. 38 received on the ninth of this month, in which you requested deliberation over the matter concerning placing national markers on the uninhabited islands of Kumeseki-shima and two other islands spread out in between Okinawa and Fuzhou [China]: after investigating them, I have given much thought to the matter. The aforementioned islands are close to the border of China, and it has been found through our surveys that the area of the islands is much smaller than the previously surveyed island, Daito-jima; and in particular, China has already given names to the islands. Most recently, Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our government’s intention of occupying certain islands owned by China located next to Taiwan, demonstrating suspicion toward our country and consistently urging the Qing government to be aware of this matter. At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers on the islands, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion toward us.* (Orignal: 近時清国新聞紙等ニモ、我政府ニ於テ台湾近傍清国ノ所屬ノ島嶼ヲ占拠セシ等ノ風説を 掲載シ、我国ニ対シテ猜疑ヲ抱キ、頻ニ清政府ノ注意ヲ促シ候モノモ有之際ニ付、此際ニ遽ニ公然国標ヲ建設スル等ノ処置有之候テハ、清国ノ疑惑ヲ招キ候) Currently we should limit ourselves to investigating the islands, understanding the formations of the harbors, seeing whether or not there exist possibilities to develop the island’s land and resources, which all should be made into detailed reports. In regard to the matter of placing national markers and developing the islands, it should await a more appropriate time.

Moreover, the surveys conducted earlier of Daito-jima and the investigation of the above mentioned islands should not be published in the Official Gazette or newspapers. Please pay special attention to this."

Deception comes in different ways and misinformation is one of them. But historical data can never be erased or denied.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

WilliBSep. 03, 2012 - 09:35PM JST I came across a German atlas printed in 1952. Out of curiosity, I looked up the Senkakus, sort of expecting them to >be listed a such. But there is no mention of Senkaku; two are listed under the Chinese names (Hoa pin su and Tia >Usu) and a third one in English (Raleigh Rock). Interestingly, they are not marked as any national territory. So, the situation was unclear already then. Except at that time, nobody was interested in the possible gas reserves, >in area,,,

"A World Atlas published in October 1965 by the National Defense Research Academy and the China Geological Research Institute of Taiwan records the Diaoyu Islands with Japanese names: Gyochojima (Diaoyu Islands), Taishojima (Chiwei Island), and Senkaku Gunto.[48] In the late 1970s, the government of ROC began to recall these books, but it was too late.[48]

A world atlas published in November 1958, by the Map Publishing Company of Beijing, treats the Senkaku Islands as a Japanese territory.[49] A state-prescribed textbook published in 1970 in Taiwan treated the islands as Japanese territories.[50][51]"

Perhaps most interesting is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atlas_1960_Senkaku.jpg Thjis Chinese map from he 1960s clearly shows the Senkakus on the right side (Japan side) of tghe border line and uses the Japanese names. This fact is being buried by the Chinese government. http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20120827p2a00m0na014000c.html

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Ossan: So you're quoting Japanese media now as 'unbiased' proof of your claims? Yeah, like the Mainichi Shinbun is going to publish anything but white-washed history on this topic.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

smithinjapanSep. 03, 2012 - 11:07PM JST Ossan: So you're quoting Japanese media now as 'unbiased' proof of your claims? Yeah, like the Mainichi Shinbun >is going to publish anything but white-washed history on this topic.

Perhaps you are not aware that the media in China are state-run. In contrast the media in Japan are not. They frequently ciover issdues criticial of their lown government like in all democracies, unlike China where such action would bring censorship and government persecution. So you have expanded ytour "white-washing" claims from WWII to current news? The Chinese maps were obtained by the US military and published by the Washington Post. Are you suggesting US media is participating in Japansee "white-washing"?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/20/the_sino_japanese_naval_war_of_2012?page=0,1

War games scenario. Summary.

Quality, not quantity.

Let's not forget the fact that the increase in middle class on top of the one child policy created a whole generation of "spoiled sons/grandsons" where there are reports that mothers are demonstrating in front of the military training compounds demanding that their sons be treated with kid gloves.

The vast number of PLA sole purpose is for civilian control. Any deviation from that could be a nightmare for Beijing to control effectively.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

YuriOtaniSep. 03, 2012 - 10:24PM JST Ossan those exercises are to liberate any islands taken by force. No the rocks or even northern territories.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The excercises are part of a strategic shift in Japanese defenses from the north to the south that have come into force since China started becomming aggressive with all of it;s territrorial claims in both the East and China Seas. This includes the Senkakus.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Give it up smith.

All your counter arguments are based on the premise that the Japanese side is "white washed" when you have provided little or no knowledge of the subject at hand.

China has no legal basis for the claim. There is a reason why they don't even dare mention the word "ICJ". Secondly, they would not take it by force now because of the domestic exposure in Japan as well as running the risk of losing such conducts which would be an embarassment to China's population.

As it stands, the best they can hope for is to make enough noise to appease the population and paint Japan as an "aggressor". However, I doubt the people in Asia other than China and Korea are buying this since SE Asian nations are victims of Chinese aggression in South China Sea.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@smithinjapan why you always suggesting force (if china wants it, they'll get it). Is that how you settle your issues? By brandishing your power?

If china or south korea really has a solid proof that they own these islands then they should settle it over ICJ and get it done and over with.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Ossan: "They frequently ciover issdues criticial of their lown government like in all democracies, unlike China where such action would bring censorship and government persecution. So you have expanded ytour "white-washing" claims from WWII to current news?"

White-washing is a time-honoured tradition in Japan since WWII. Quoting all Japanese sources as your references means there will be nothing but bias. I am not at all suggesting Chinese articles are free of bias or worse than Japanese sources. In fact, I have no doubt the latter are worse; doesn't make Japanese sources or the people that quote them saints.

nigelboy: "All your counter arguments are based on the premise that the Japanese side is "white washed" when you have provided little or no knowledge of the subject at hand."

You argue this time and time again when you know full well the textbooks, and yes I have read them, white wash history. Just look at your friend Abe.... the guy who was PM for, what, the record shortest time? -- who tried to deny the sex slave issue then had to quit because of a tummy ache, and now wants to be PM again. Japanese politicians redefine stupidity, and the people that allow them to get positions of power make sheep look like geniuses. China has every basis for a claim, same as Japan does for the islands they know are not theirs (ie. Dokdo, Kuriles).

"However, I doubt the people in Asia other than China and Korea are buying this since SE Asian nations are victims of Chinese aggression in South China Sea."

As opposed to buying the idea that Japan is the victim of its past? Please!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

bimyou: "@smithinjapan why you always suggesting force (if china wants it, they'll get it). Is that how you settle your issues? By brandishing your power?"

You need to start reading before you post. Never have I suggested force, ever. On the contrary, I've pointed out that force will result in nothing but loss, particularly to Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps the key is to accept those who control. So Japan gets these islands, Korea gets the rocks and Japan settles with 2 out of 4 in the North.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Smith.

You haven't read one if Abe's quotes which denies the policy of IJA kidnapping/ abducting is your best example. You are merely repeating what China and Korea is stating who in turn are in no position to criticize when their textbooks are nothing but pure fantasy novels issued solely by the government.

Contest the contents of the argument instead of screaming "white wash!!" when the stacks are against you.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

smithinjapanSep. 04, 2012 - 01:10AM JST "Ossan: "They frequently ciover issdues criticial of their lown government like in all democracies, unlike China where such action would bring censorship and government persecution. So you have expanded ytour "white-washing" claims from WWII to current news?"

White-washing is a time-honoured tradition in Japan since WWII. Quoting all Japanese sources as your references >means there will be nothing but bias. I am not at all suggesting Chinese articles are free of bias or worse than >Japanese sources. In fact, I have no doubt the latter are worse; doesn't make Japanese sources or the people that >quote them saints.

"Chinese articles are not free of bias" is a gross understatement when the State controls the media and it is actually illegal to hold or express an opinion counter to that of the government, an act which can be prosecutred. That the maps exist have been proven by the United States. Are you saying that the Washington Post is "biased"?

Charges of White Washing are a time honored practice among the J-bashers, and it's actually prettyy funny comming from China supports where deerything is censored from newspapers to websites, and Koreea supporters who are in denial of heir participation in events up to the end of WWII and are playing "victim" by blaming everything on Japan. Charges of "bias" comming from a full time j-basher who posts on a Japan oriented wensite fdor thesole purpose of bashing Japan on any topic is pretty funny,

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

to everyone arguing over those tiny rocks: Who the hell cares about those damn rocks? They want the ocean floor, with plenty of resources. In this scenario, China is the greedier side. Japan is doing the right thing, never yields to China's greed.

I doubt any side would resolve to force. Who started first would lose first, big time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan want to take the profits back they had gotten from WWII and Sino-Japanese War, like Diaoyu Island. This means Japan want to have WWII again for earning more. To be objective, does Japan think if you are more powerful now than you were during WWII comparing with your competitors? Except tragedy, nothing will be left in future.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Johnny JiaSep. 04, 2012 - 04:17AM JST Japan want to take the profits back they had gotten from WWII and Sino-Japanese War, like Diaoyu Island. This >means Japan want to have WWII again for earning more. To be objective, does Japan think if you are more powerful >now than you were during WWII comparing with your competitors? Except tragedy, nothing will be left in future.

No, the Senkakus were not taken in the Sino-Japanese War. That;'s why they remained Japanese after WWII ended. Distortion of history for hge sake of military and territorial expansion will only bring trgedy to China in the long run.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hey OssanAmerica, look this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

Japan’s territory in The Potsdam Declaration Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands

Japanese and US control

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is only Senkaku :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The name is nothing. Please look the time and definition. The English name is firstly called by Western. Japan can say I will take it by my power, but you should not say it is mine leaglely. It is too fake. You should agree this, do not you? I clearly know the world always is running according to The Law of The Junle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory

Look, that's not what it says, and you know it. Also, Japan surrendered, unconditionally. End of story. She had to do whatever MacCarther said, and she got back whatever the the people in charge said she got back. They were in control, not Japan. If China had not been having an internal conflict at the time of the peace treaty signing, it would have had more say, but that didn't happen. It's not Japan's fault...she did what she was told to do. Japan signed a peace treaty in San Francisco, and the current situation stems from that, and from anything negotiated since then. Game over.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

YuriOtaniSep. 04, 2012 - 01:24AM JST Perhaps the key is to accept those who control. So Japan gets these islands, Korea gets the rocks and Japan settles with 2 out of 4 in the North.

The most sensible post about the territorial disputes I've seen here. I would give you +5 if I could. Unfortunately, Japan's position is the problem in two of these three cases.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Johnny JiaSep. 04, 2012 - 05:27AM JST Hey OssanAmerica, look this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SurrenderofJapan Japan’s territory in The Potsdam Declaration Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, >Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku AND SUCH MINOR ISLANDS AS WE DETERMINE."

It was determined that the Senkakus wre not taken by force or greed; ie, not taken by war. Hence they remained Japanese territory, unlike Taiwan and the Pescadores. Furthetmore the PRC did not even exist in 1943 or even 1945. There is nothing from WWII that provides any basis foer a claim from the PRC.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nigelboy: "You haven't read one if Abe's quotes which denies the policy of IJA kidnapping/ abducting is your best example. "

I have, actually -- the thing is, I tend to comment on the topic at hand, unlike you, and use examples of politicians spouting nonsense rhetoric to back up the fact that DUE to said textbooks and nationalists like Abe and co., the kids are being brainwashed just as badly if not worse than in South Korea and China. I have met countless Japanese who have travelled overseas and learned and were shocked by what Japan did throughout Asia during its reign of terror, but here it's simply relegated to a few pages in white-washed textbooks saying, "The colonization of the Korean Peninsula helped create stability in the region", or that it gave Taiwan modern education, bla bla bla. It's amazing you cannot admit the texts are white-washed, especially since they don't include references to sexual slavery (which you blame on Korean prostitutes, if I recall), etc.

Ossan: "It was determined that the Senkakus wre not taken by force or greed; ie, not taken by war."

You need to be proven wrong yet again on this?

"Furthetmore the PRC did not even exist in 1943 or even 1945."

Neither did modern Japan, which was still being led through war by an Emperor. What's your point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YuriOtani: "Perhaps the key is to accept those who control. So Japan gets these islands, Korea gets the rocks and Japan settles with 2 out of 4 in the North."

Agree with the first part, but that would mean Japan relinquishes all claims to the Kuriles, not just 2 out of 4. Japan had that chance some years ago, but thanks to the radical right who screeched and screamed and beat their fists at the idea they have now lost all four for good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan: "Charges of White Washing are a time honored practice among the J-bashers,..."

And here we go with the bottom-of-the-barrel retorts. Next you'll drop to the 'if you don't like it, you can leave' 'argument' that is the failsafe of those who cannot back up their comments with facts or come up with anything decent as a response.

Are you honestly saying, Ossan, that Japanese textbooks are not white-washed at all? It's a fact that they are. HUGE content on when Japan is the victim, such as with the atomic bombings, but a mere few sentences on colonization, no mention of sex-slaves, etc. It's astounding, but not really surprising, Japanese so vehemently claim they have never used white-washed texts when they're so brainwashed they wouldn't know it anyway. It's kind of like people who get all defensive because they know they're guilty. This is part of the reason why Lee visited Dokdo, but clearly the message was lost on Japan, and pointing that out makes people "J-bashers". :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hand them over in exchange for Chinese military support in Japan's claim over Takeshima. Win-win. (Except for Korea).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sick as hell about those stupid islands! The UN should just sink them into the sea!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith in Japan, you really dislike my country. Shakes head something is going on between Japan and Russia. Something may be in the works.

About China they can not be permitted to take these islands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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