national

How double-dealing sparked Japan-China island dispute

65 Comments
By Antoni Slodkowski

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

65 Comments
Login to comment

Interesting background. So a wealthy old nationalist needs to be bailed out from his debts, and the entire nation is forced to pay the price, in terms of reduced trade and worsened diplomacy...never mind our tax money.

Someone's laughing all his way to the bank, and it ain't us.

20 ( +20 / -2 )

Someone's laughing all his way to the bank, and it ain't us.

"It's a big club and you ain't in it." - George Carlin

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Maybe China is right:

Chinese documents from the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) record and name the islands as important reference points on the trading route between Foochow (China) and Okinawa. A map drawn by Hayashi Shihei in 1785 shows the "Senkaku" islands with their Chinese names, as Chinese territory.

Thereafter the islands remained unknown in Japan until the late 19th century when they were identified from British Navy references, declared Japanese territory in 1895 and given Japanese names in 1900.

Then the U.S.A. got involved:

In 1972, when Okinawa was returned to Japanese administration, the US Cold War planners anticipated that the Senkakus would function as a "wedge of containment" of China. They understood that a "territorial dispute between Japan and China, especially over islands near Okinawa, would render the US military presence in Okinawa more acceptable to Japan." (Kimie Hara, "The Post-War Japanese Peace Treaties and Chia's Ocean Frontier Problems," American Journal of Chinese Studies 11, No 1 (April 2004: 23)

Bringing the story up to present time, this is what seems to be happening. The US military is making use of the problem to install FUD into Japanese people and encourage them to accept their presence.

Of course, we don't have to listen.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Concrete walls, security cameras and watch dogs? Hmm, that exactly describes a compound here in Yokohama and I was told an "important" yakuza fellow lives/hides there. And then, "They shook hands and gave their word to each other as men, which in Japan is the strongest promise you can make". Hmm, is that a bad joke or something? I am self employed and I have learned the hard way, that a promise means absolutely nothing in Japan, even if it's written black on white. If someone shakes my hand, alarm bells start ringing in my head and I immediately know what time it is, get out/away. But now I read that it's ok, for Kurihara is a real estate broker and then you can lie all you want in order to rake in the yen. So what did Ishihara say, "you reneged on your promise Kurihara!". Kurihara: "Demo Shin-chan, my scheme got you 2 billion yen". Or was that the promise, enriching each other? And now Ishihara wants additional funds to build something on those islands? He forgot already about his 2 billion yen? This whole story just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

The islands, known as the Senkaku in Japan, are also claimed by China, where they are known as the Diaoyu and deemed part of its national territory for centuries.

Or at least since 1969 when oil and gas was discovered...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

BertieWooster Nov. 14, 2012 - 08:41AM JST declared Japanese territory in 1895 and given Japanese names in 1900.

Japan acquired the Senkaku/Daioyu islands in the peace agreement with China as the spoils of war in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. Is the peace agreement valid today? The acquisition of Senkaku was not from the 1931-1945 agression by Japan. The Potsdam declaration does indicate return of the land from the spoils of the war, but can we go back to the spoils of war in the 1800's, and enforced fairly. In the Potsdasm declaration, Japan was not present. Can Mexico demand Texas back from the U.S. or any country that are in a similar situation?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

By the way, is Ishihara going to return the $19 million to the donors? He should return it immediately.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Japan acquired the Senkaku/Daioyu islands in the peace agreement with China as the spoils of war in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895

No it did not. They were incorporated prior to the treaty.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

nigelboy Nov. 14, 2012 - 09:00AM JST No it did not. They were incorporated prior to the treaty.

How? Bogus terra nullius? There was no such name as Senkaku in 1895. Since the Japanese name of Senkaku was originated in 1900, what name did the Japanese use in 1895? Japan used the Chinese name Diaoyu and claimed the islands as terra nullius. If it was terra nullius in 1895, why did Japanese needed to used the ancient Chinese name until 1900?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Sfjp330

FYI, the term "Senkaku" consists of many islands, hence the following term 諸島 or 群島. And no. They do not use any of the Chinese name.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Nigelboy...why don't you write in English if you can of these islands.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Interestingly ironic how the pursuit of business interests by one real estate broker can lead to all this. So now they are promoting a book? Guess this is one very rare example where non-internet driven individual capitalism has completely shaken and overdone the national interests of two of the biggest economies of the world.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Japan's claims that China didn’t dispute their sovereignty over Senkaku/Daioyu islands until the 1970s, after the oil was discovered. This part is really interesting. Could China’s “motive” be used to discredit them legally or diplomatically? Also, on the time factor, under the customary international law, “a state that fails to contest other states’ assertions of sovereignty over its territory can lose its rights for failure to insist upon them." However, the law isn’t clear as to how much time must pass in order for the invader to claim sovereignty. China’s repeated public assertions that they didn’t recognize Japanese sovereignty would of course cut against this claim; but if in fact they didn’t protest until the 1970s, then perhaps they waited too long? In any case, it looks like Japan is setting up an argument for their sovereignty on several, perhaps cloudy grounds of international law, should this dispute end up in an ICJ.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nigelboyNov. 14, 2012 - 09:25AM JSThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands Names

I read it but I cannot find it. Can you translate what was Japanese name for Daiyou in 1895?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I read it but I cannot find it. Can you translate what was Japanese name for Daiyou in 1895?

For Daiyou island specifically, it's called Uotsuri-jima.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Japan's claims that China didn’t dispute their sovereignty over Senkaku/Daioyu islands until the 1970s, after the oil was discovered. This part is really interesting. Could China’s “motive” be used to discredit them legally or diplomatically?

Ummmmm? Yes. It goes to show that in fact Japan did incorporated them under terra nullius.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

In 1972, when Okinawa was returned to Japanese administration, the US Cold War planners anticipated that the Senkakus would function as a "wedge of containment" of China. They understood that a "territorial dispute between Japan and China, especially over islands near Okinawa, would render the US military presence in Okinawa more acceptable to Japan." (Kimie Hara, "The Post-War Japanese Peace Treaties and Chia's Ocean Frontier Problems," American Journal of Chinese Studies 11, No 1 (April 2004: 23)

Bringing the story up to present time, this is what seems to be happening. The US military is making use of the problem to install FUD into Japanese people and encourage them to accept their presence.

Excellent work Bertie.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"They shook hands and gave their word to each other as men, which in Japan is the strongest promise you can make,” she said."

"He broke off talks with Ishihara’s team with a curt message: “I decided to sell the islands to Japan."

Well, this very revealing about promises and honor in modern day Japan. Is it just a facade?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Kuriharas obtained the islands for an undisclosed amount in the 1970s from Zenji Koga, a journalist from Okinawa, an island to the northeast. Before World War Two, his father had run a fish processing plant on Uotsurijima.

Before Zenji Koga run a fish processing plant, Did anyone settle in that Isles? There is no credibility that Koga father was an legal owner unless he made a legal purchase with binding agreement. Chinese called as Daiouyu. Japanese called as Uotsuri-jima. How did Taiwanese fishermen called it as according their dialect in 1895?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Before Zenji Koga run a fish processing plant, Did anyone settle in that Isles?

No. In fact, Koga ran the fishing operation prior to the incorporation without any protests from Qing. Hence, it was another factor which the Japanese government deemed the islands to be terra nullius.

There is no credibility that Koga father was an legal owner unless he made a legal purchase with binding agreement

After the incoporation of the islands by Japan, Koga was awarded the exclusive commercial fishing agreement in the islands. Subsequently, the islands were bought by Koga from the Japanese government.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I think what's really interesting and more insidious here is the involvement of these people with the apocalyptic doom cult 'Kenshokai'. All the fruitcakes named in this article are friends with Kenshokai's incipient megalomaniac leader, Shoei Asai. Scary. This man has been trying to provoke tensions with China for decades as part of his pseudo-religious scare tactics to recruit disillusioned Japanese into his brainwashing neo-Nichiren farce.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Some more Senkaku/Diaoyu history:

Kimie Hara of the Waterloo University in Canada points out the significant role played by the U.S.A. in the creation and manipulation to its own ends of the "Senkaku Problem."

First, under the 1951 San Francisco Treaty post-war settlement, (the U.S.A.) planted the seeds of territorial dispute between Japan and its neighbours:Japan and 90 percent communist China over Okinawa/Senkaku, Japan and 100% USSR over the "Northern Territories," Japan and 50 percent communist Korea over the island of Takeshima/Tokdo. These disputed territories served "as 'wedges' securing Japan in the Western bloc, or 'walls' dividing it from the communist sphere of influence." (Kimie Hara, "Cold War, page 188)

When Okinawa (including Senkaku/Diaoyu) was to be handed over to Japan, both mainland China and Taiwan presented their counterclaims. There was much anger at that time too, until Chinese leader Teng Hsiao-Ping cooled things down with this statement in 1978:

"It does not matter if this question is shelved for some tie, say ten years. Our generation is not wise enough to find a common language on this question. Our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all." ("Sino-Japanese Relations: Vice-Premier Teng Hsiao-Ping's Press Conference in Tokyo 25 October 1978," Survival 21, no. 1 (1979)

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Bertie: You can quote Kimie Hara's "history" all you want, but that doesn't make any of it true.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Wisdom is an important ingredient for resolution.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So a man who was 12 and one that was 2 in 1944 are the catalysts for possible similar event and at the very list the cause of some death. Seems these so called nationalists are more traitors then anything else with a current bill of more than a 100 million.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

shinhiyata:

I think what's really interesting and more insidious here is the involvement of these people with the apocalyptic doom cult 'Kenshokai'. All the fruitcakes named in this article are friends with Kenshokai's incipient megalomaniac leader, Shoei Asai. Scary. This man has been trying to provoke tensions with China for decades as part of his pseudo-religious scare tactics to recruit disillusioned Japanese into his brainwashing neo-Nichiren farce.

True the land owner used to have relations with this cult group through renting out a building in Saitama for use as their headquarters but eventually they were kicked out following series of complaints to police and negative media campaigns. The main driver is that their family business was shrinking and they needed the cash. Don't think it's accurate and appropriate to link this particular sales deal with the cult group at this time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

shinhiyata

Thanks for the info.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When San Fransisco treaty was signed in 1951, both ROC and PRC were not present They have just fought the civil war. Korea war was followed. There was no clear definition of who was a real owner of China back then. Therefore there was a gap for representing PRC and ROC. US wanted to invite the ROC(Taiwan) to represent China, while the UK wanted to invite the PRC as China's representative. As a compromise, neither government was invited. That's why latter on "Treaty of Taipei" was signed under the US witness.

The background of the disputed isles base on they were not part of Ryuku because after Japan’s forceful assertion of its authority over the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1874. Later in a letter dated Sept 22, 1885 by Nishimura Sutezo, the Okinawa Prefectural Magistrate, addressed to the Japan Home Minister that the Okinawa Prefectural Magistrate requested additional instructions regarding the placement of national markers on the Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands. So after JP got Ryuku, Japan further tried to took the isles from China. Qing was so weak with opium and gave up everything according the foreign powers.

After 1895, Japan got them on the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Thus, there is no reason to suppose that reference to Formosa in the Cairo Declaration & Potsdam Proclamation did not include “all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.” Moreover, by virtue of Article 2 of the San Francisco Treaty (excluding both the ROC and PRC), Japan renounced “all right, title, claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.: Lastly, the terms were reiterated in Article 4 of the 1952 Treaty of Peace between the ROC and JP 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.

From PRC side, there is another story because they point to the Joint Communiqué between the PRC and JP signed in 1972 which states that Japan “adheres to stand of complying with Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.” which are further confirmed by the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the PRC and Japan, signed on 1978.

Japan has been transferred as administrator in 1972. Administrator is a trustee who is looking after the asset according the legal definition.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

After 1895, Japan got them on the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki

As stated previously, they did not. It was incorporated prior.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Mostly rocky outcroppings which serve as a home to migratory birds and a herd of wild goats......

Hmmm , does this island have room for a few more old goats, I wonder?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The world is full of territorial disputes based on history. The history argument doesnt work because if an international court should decide to accept such an argument (by itself) it would lead to a flood of claims in most countries of the world. It is impossible to draw a line to say that 2000 years is better than 1000 years of ownership. One old historical document is better than another historical document. It is all self serving interpretations. The fact is that land has changed owners since the beginning of written time and most likely will continue to do soo. China should dig themselves up from their nationalist mud and find other ways to get to the resources around Senkaku, like a businessdeal.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Prior to 1900, the only names for these islands that existed were the names the ancient Chinese had given them. The Japanese renamed them in 1900.

The U.S.A. has been trying to cause a flap about them in recent times in order to justify their military presence in Okinawa.

"Lookee, lookee, rittle Japanese! Big bad Chinee come to get you. But no worry. It OK. U.S.A. tomodachi. U.S.A. here to protect you!"

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@ Bertiewooster

Regarding your three comments.

I do think that you have a valid point here. If not because of the action and predetermined decision of the US of the past Japan and China most probably would not have this dispute and conflict occurred. Both people and societies would flourish and prosper in a mature and friendly environment.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Thank you, Redcliff.

Part of the black PR against China and NK is that "you can't reason with them," "they are incapable of logical argument."

Yet, national pride seems to have gotten in the way of logical argument as far as Japan, NK, China AND the U.S.A. is concerned. These countries are all guilty of omitting facts to try to paint a different picture.

I agree totally with what you say:

Both people and societies would flourish and prosper in a mature and friendly environment.

Let's hope that real and open discussions blow away the lies and half-truths and bring about a mature and friendly environment where these issues can be resolved.

Honest communication that leads to real understanding resolves problems, parading guns and bombs does not.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

For Daiyou island specifically, it's called Uotsuri-jima.

Can you show me which part does it says the island was given the name Uotsuri-jima prior 1895?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Allswell - the island owner's family had multiple real estate involvements with the Kenshokai concerning properties around their family complex near Hikawa jinjya. It was really because of the cult's ongoing (sometimes violent) rivalry with another pseudo-cult - Soka Gakkai - and bizarre claims about the rented buildings being constructed of 'sea sand' and therefore impure and susceptible to earthquakes, that the lease deals were reneged on forcing Kurihara into deeper financial trouble. Ishihara, Kurihara, and the super-shady Sugawara Tsusai have all been involved with the ultra-nationalist self-proclaimed messiah Shoei Asai and his son at some point. Is it because the family lost the cash-cow rent money from the cult that they were forced to sell the islands to the national government? Where did Ishihara get all the donation money for his purchase bid - from cult members? Were some of the people who illegally landed on the islands cult members? Truth is stranger (and scarier) than fiction.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yet, national pride seems to have gotten in the way of logical argument as far as Japan, NK, China AND the U.S.A. is concerned. These countries are all guilty of omitting facts to try to paint a different picture.

The USA has been largely trying to avoid controversy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hansaram-san,

Can you show me which part does it says the island was given the name Uotsuri-jima prior 1895?

Prior to 1895, the Japanese didn't have a name for these islands. In 1870s and 1880s, the English name Pinnacle Islands was used by the British navy for the rocks adjacent to the largest island named Uotsuri-jima in 1900 by the Japanese, called now called Diaoyu Dao by the Chinese and in the 1870s and 80s, it was called called Hoa-pin-su, "Peace Island")

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Nessie,

If truth were known, I think the U.S.A. has been largely trying to create controversy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I respect Japantoday for posting this article. For the most part, Japan's media tries hard to hide embarrassing news like this. This article proves the "patriots" of Japan are nothing more than rats watching out for themselves. It's just sad, while in Japan, the fear these days is all about China this and China that, but the truth of the matter is, the greatest threat to Japan now is from within.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Omiya is not "a sleepy Tokyo suburb". Omiya is in Saitama.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sheesh, and so many people here have been so quick to blame the catalyst for everything on China.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Some interesting article/blog I found related to Senkaku/Diaoyu and all those anti Japanese riot.

Is the Senkaku Island Dispute All Just a Huge Conspiracy? http://www.tofugu.com/2012/09/20/is-the-senkaku-island-dispute-all-just-a-huge-conspiracy/

On Weibo, Japanophobic mobsters are far from the majority http://www.ministryoftofu.com/2012/09/on-weibo-japanophobic-mobsters-are-far-from-the-majority/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MiniTofublog+%28Ministry+of+Tofu+-+Featured+Articles%29

1 ( +2 / -1 )

shinhiyata:

the island owner's family had multiple real estate involvements with the Kenshokai concerning properties around their family complex near Hikawa jinjya. It was really because of the cult's ongoing (sometimes violent) rivalry with another pseudo-cult - Soka Gakkai - and bizarre claims about the rented buildings being constructed of 'sea sand' and therefore impure and susceptible to earthquakes, that the lease deals were reneged on forcing Kurihara into deeper financial trouble. Ishihara, Kurihara, and the super-shady Sugawara Tsusai have all been involved with the ultra-nationalist self-proclaimed messiah Shoei Asai and his son at some point. Is it because the family lost the cash-cow rent money from the cult that they were forced to sell the islands to the national government? Where did Ishihara get all the donation money for his purchase bid - from cult members? Were some of the people who illegally landed on the islands cult members? Truth is stranger (and scarier) than fiction.

You appear to somewhat suggest there to be a huge organized conspiracy behind the sales deal which I don't believe to be the case. The Kurihara family reportedly has 4 bil yen in debt they are seemingly struggling to reduce and it should be fair to assume that the deal is thus financially driven in nature. When you say properties near Hikawa Jinja I suppose you are referring to the shrine based in Saitama which is exactly what I'm saying. You also bring up the name of Sugawara Tsusai who was a well known political fixer for whom Kurihara was at one point hired as a driver but I am not sure how that would bring the whole gang in one place under an organized conspiracy of some sort. For one I was unaware of Sugawara's links to Kenshokai. Pls enlighten me with any reference sources you may have.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hansaram,

Interesting couple of sites.

Gosh, what a lot of fuss about NOTHING!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Japan, China, and Taiwan should just create an alliance to milk the area dry of oil. After that, China and Taiwan probably won't care what happens with the area, so Japan can just keep it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Koriacan-san,

Japan, China, and Taiwan should just create an alliance to milk the area dry of oil. After that, China and Taiwan probably won't care what happens with the area, so Japan can just keep it.

Funnily enough, I had exactly the same idea.

Each country could contribute something and the profits shared.

But I don't think our American friends would like it.

They'd probably much rather have a war.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@paulinusa

You can quote Kimie Hara's "history" all you want, but that doesn't make any of it true.

Precisely. The only thing it proves" is the lengths to which some folks (and its always the same three or four) are willing to go in order to try to discredit the USA. The idea that, in the aftermath of WWII, the Allies planned to use the Senkaku islands as a tool to foment discord between Japan and her neighbors sixty, seventy, eight years down the line is plainly a theory that has no credence whatsoever other than in the minds of anti-American historians and communist sympathizers.

Japan was a beaten country and the communist chinese were basically a third world nation - both decades away from having the wherewithal to spend time squabbling over a few small islands. No "excuses" were necessary to justify American military presence in Okinawa other than the terms spelled out in the surrender and subsequent agreements.

It seems that some posters in this thread actually believe that the Americans put Ishihara up to the plan to buy the Senkaku islands, and are now encouraging the communist chinese to escalate tensions by sending their "patrol" ships into Japanese territorial waters day after day. Such an idea would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

As to the article ..... here I am in agreement with the left wingers . A man sold his property to the highest bidder as people are wont to do .... "gosh, what a lot of fuss about nothing".

As interesting as this article is, none of the information contained has any actual bearing on the roots of the dispute over the Senkaku islands. The communist chinese would be going nuts no matter which Japanese individual/entity happened to hold ownership papers on the islands. The article is just an interesting look at the figures involved in the sale.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Double-dealing? I see more a great bargain done by two nationalist guys: 1) big money from taxpayers and 2) revamping the Japanese national feeling.

At the same time a new political party is born: The Sun rise again....

Mmmmmh!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Kurihara, Ishihara, Sigahara (or Sugawara?) and kenshoukai - interesting group of people.

Japan could do with a couple of hard-hitting current affairs programs. We live in hope.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan’s post-WWII recovery and economic growth was in part a product of an industrialization fostered by the US as a means to support the Korean and Vietnam wars. Japan’s gain was bought at the price of devastation of Korea and Indochina. Japan itself was not only protected from the devastation of war, but enjoyed economic resurgence as a consequence of massive war procurements and was able to recover from the devastation of the Asia-Pacific War without having to divert substantial resources to its own defense. The price has been a permanent subordinate status within a US-Japan client relationship.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Mark-Selden/3848

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hansaram,

Interesting couple of sites.

Gosh, what a lot of fuss about NOTHING!

I'm just glad to see those anti Japanese rioters does not represent the Chinese people in general.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The problem of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is not a simple one.

There is an excellent article by Gavan MacCormack (Link below).

I was going to post quotations from it here, but it really needs to be read in its entirety:

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan’s post-WWII recovery and economic growth was in part a product of an industrialization fostered by the US as a means to support the Korean and Vietnam wars. Japan’s gain was bought at the price of devastation of Korea and Indochina. Japan itself was not only protected from the devastation of war, but enjoyed economic resurgence as a consequence of massive war procurements and was able to recover from the devastation of the Asia-Pacific War without having to divert substantial resources to its own defense. The price has been a permanent subordinate status within a US-Japan client relationship.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the article above ....... but OK, I'll bite. Does your history book suggest that china was blameless in the "devastation of Korea and Indochina"? Or was that just the Americans grubbing for profit and their puppet state Japan scooping up the crumbs where they could be found?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Kudos to Japan Today and so many excellent comments.

BertieWooster Nov. 14, 2012 - 12:12PM JST Chinese leader Teng Hsiao-Ping cooled things down with this statement in 1978: "It does not matter if this question is shelved for some tie, say ten years. Our generation is not wise enough to find a common language on this question"

Teng Hsiao-Ping was wrong.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Can you show me which part does it says the island was given the name Uotsuri-jima prior 1895?

It doesn't on the wiki. But here are several sources from 1885 naming of the islands (including Uotsuri).

http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/senkaku/teikokuhanto/1885-09-21ishizawa.html

The Navy report of 1873 (Taiwan Waterways) also mentions the term "Senkaku" as well as "Uotsuri".

http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/senkaku/taiwancoastpilot-1873/

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Submitted to the "People's Daily" in China, but censored and removed because the truth is too hard to bear:

If what you're saying is true, that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are yours by right of sovereignty, then why have you allowed the US Navy to bombard one of these islands for the last 50 years? The US would not allow China to bombard one of our Hawaiian islands for one minute...without heavy retaliation.

By claiming sovereignty under these conditions, you have embarrassed yourselves, saying that you have tolerated this expression of foreign militarism against sovereign Chinese soil for 50 years. Every time we hear of your surveillance or fishing fleets entering the 12-mile limit of these island, we are embarrassed for you. In the eyes of the world, China has lost face by being so clumsy and maladroit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kcjapan-san.

Teng Hsiao-Ping was wrong.

Sadly true.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

nigelboyNov. 14, 2012 - 01:19PM JST

As stated previously, they did not. It was incorporated prior.

Wrong again, they were incorporated during the Sino-Japanese war of 1895.

And when you are sourcing your outlandish claims, can you give us something other than Japanese rightwing sources, preferably non-Japanese?

Ever heard of objectivity?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Dog,

Instead of slagging other posters, would you mind telling us what you know?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wrong again, they were incorporated during the Sino-Japanese war of 1895.

Dog. You have a serious comprehension problem.

Let's go back to the original statement.

"After 1895, Japan got them on the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki"

My answer.

"As stated previously, they did not. It was incorporated prior."

Your counter.

"Wrong again, they were incorporated during the Sino-Japanese war of 1895"

And when you are sourcing your outlandish claims, can you give us something other than Japanese rightwing sources, preferably non-Japanese?

Why would the original document by the Navy and the Okinawa government report considered "rightwing" sources? I was merely countering some posters claim that the island names (Uotsuri and Senkaku) were derived in 1900 when in fact, the original report done waaay prior counters this statement.

As with most historical issues, not many are translated nor analyzed by non-Japanese sources. The above documents I cited is a clear example of how false information by non-Japanese sources gets repeated over and over and people like you falsely assume it to be so.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

lachance Nov. 15, 2012 - 03:35AM JST If what you're saying is true, that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are yours by right of sovereignty, then why have you allowed the US Navy to bombard one of these islands for the last 50 years?

Until the early 1970's, neither China nor Taiwan expressed objections until the findings of potential oil around Senkaku/Daioyu islands. In the Chinese World Atlas published under Mao Zedong in 1960, the Senkaku Islands were treated as part of Okinawa. Why would the Communist China in 1960 make map like this if they knew it was theirs?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BertieWoosterNov. 15, 2012 - 02:17PM JST

Dog, Instead of slagging other posters, would you mind telling us what you know?

I'm not slagging another poster, I'm just pointing out, like many on here have done, that Nigelboy sprouts inaccuracies as facts and uses selective Japanese rightwing as sources to back the truth of these invented facts.

The Senkaku Islands were annexed by Japan during the Sino-Japanese war of 1895 and just as if I steal someone's bag lieing on a bench, the owner of the bag challenges me, I knock them to the ground and walk off without out a murmur from the beaten owner.. 5 years later I am arrested by the police for the theft. The bag owners enforced beat down and silence which resulted from it, does not justify my ownership of that bag. Nor does the 5 year gap between the act of the crime and being charged with the crime.

The Police charge will be robbery with violence and Japan did very much the same with the invalidated treaty of Shimoneseki. The Chinese after the Sino-Japanese war were in no position to challenge Japan's theft, now they are.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Senkaku Islands were annexed by Japan during the Sino-Japanese war of 1895 and just as if I steal someone's bag lieing on a bench, the owner of the bag challenges me, I knock them to the ground and walk off without out a murmur from the beaten owner.. 5 years later I am arrested by the police for the theft. The bag owners enforced beat down and silence which resulted from it, does not justify my ownership of that bag. Nor does the 5 year gap between the act of the crime and being charged with the crime.

The Japanese were operating on the islands during the late 1880's without any opposition. In fact, the lack of opposition lasted over 80 years until an underground resources were discovered. Hence, I don't think your bag theft analogy applies here.

And what specifically is "right wing" about an original report during that time???

1 ( +1 / -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