national

Japan-China dispute: little islands, big problem

33 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

33 Comments
Login to comment

No one cared till they found oil and gas reserves.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

When Okinawa was handed back to Japan in 1972, the Senkakus were returned to Koga’s son Zenji.

I believe it was Koga's during the occupation period as well since it was the U.S. that was paying rent for the use of the facilities.

In any case, there was an interview back a while ago when Kurihara stated that he was offered $35 million for the islands from a foreign individual. Didn't specify but my guess is China.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

"My brother promised Mr Koga that he will never do anything to sever history," I would appreciate anyone here who could give me an explanation to the "sever history" sever and history I understand, but in this article this sentence confuses.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

They will have a even bigger tax if the islands are sold.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No one cared till they found oil and gas reserves.

Not true. The caring began with Japan's imperialism. The resources just made it more desperate.

As has been said many times, China could not file a claim until they were recognized by the U.N. They filed that claim as soon as they were recognized, and it practically coincided with the discovery of the resources. But no one has been able to say which came first. But you will astutely note that the anti-China side never bring up the bit about recognition or so much as acknowledge it, so you can be sure they are just spinning the issue and have no interest in justice whatsoever. Definitely beware of people hiding and ignoring facts like that.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

"Japanese family that owns Senkaku islands"

According to who? Them?

"Taiwan says it would like them back"

Heck, let Taiwan have them until it all becomes China.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Don't give up Senkaku, there is more at stake... I guess the whole Japanese archipelago:

http://japandailypress.com/china-now-arguing-claims-to-okinawa-along-with-senkaku-islands-247227

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Japan-China-Korea dispute: Little men, big problems.

These clowns need to stop this right away but I guess all countries have their agendas and reasons for letting these people swim or sail or whatever it is they do to some uninhabited islets, miles and miles away from anything.

So OK, Japan was mean to you 50 years ago. And before that China was mean to Korea. And before that the Mongols were really mean. And let us not forget Atilla The Hun. He was a meanie...

These three countries (four with Taiwan) should accept that we live in a modern (somewhat) world and do what modern people do. Sit down, have a few drinks and g a m b l e about the islands. The winner takes it all. Problem solved.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

As has been said many times, China could not file a claim until they were recognized by the U.N. They filed that claim as soon as they were recognized, and it practically coincided with the discovery of the resources. But no one has been able to say which came first. But you will astutely note that the anti-China side never bring up the bit about recognition or so much as acknowledge it, so you can be sure they are just spinning the issue and have no interest in justice whatsoever. Definitely beware of people hiding and ignoring facts like that.

False in so many aspects.

First and foremost, one does not have to be a member of the U.N. in order to negotiate and/or plea their claim to U.S. who were administering the territories under trusteeship at that time. (See Korea/Rusk documents as an example). Secondly, ROC (currently Taiwan) was still a member of the U.N. but at no time did they address the issue of Senkaku for up until the 70's, they have officially recognized them as Japan's territory including the 1965 map which their government produced.

http://richter.pixnet.net/blog/post/18881937

As for PRC, it's basically the same argument.

"Inside the Ring has obtained a classified Chinese map that is likely to further muddy Beijing’s territorial claims. The 1969 map, produced by the People's Republic of China map authority and labeled “confidential,” lists the islands as “Senkaku,” the Japanese name, and contains a dividing line south of the islands indicating that they fall within Japanese territory" Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/15/inside-the-ring-145889960/

0 ( +4 / -4 )

“We are worried that the government cannot cope with the situation over the islands,” said Kurihara."

Mr Kurihara may be right. The current J-adnministration is weak kneed in the face of China. He should sell or lease it to the US Navy and we can put a massive SXB station on it to watch the Chinese PLA Navy and Pyongyang's missle launches. Of course such an asset would be heavily guarded and you'll nver see any Chinese activists attempting to land there again. Ever.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Cooler heads have to prevail. China, Korea, Japan all need to concede and negotiate either a binding treaty where no one owns their respective lands. Or that it will be manned by private/non-political entity. Or that it be manage by both interested parties. And let's be real its the gas/mineral deposits, rich fishing grounds, everyone is really interested in, not the islands. What the heck is the UN doing?? They need to do a better job of interceding and mediating between all interested parties. Because this is only going to escalate and get a whole lot worse. Politicians are using this ploy as political tool to rally support and increase their constituencies.

Let's see Japan will potentially have an election, China is going to have a new leader, and Korea is electing some one new this fall. Hmm...something looks awfully similar.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Cooler heads have to prevail. China, Korea, Japan all need to concede and negotiate either a binding treaty where no one owns their respective lands.

Please dispense with the "sky is falling" rhetoric. This is nothing compared to the demonstrations during the Koizumi era which really did not hamper the econimic ties between the two countries.

Let's break it down. This isn't a democratic society where this is as a result of the free thinking "will of the people". This is basically a result of the garbage that CCP fed to these people which resuled in such actions. It's basically reaffirmed, to an extent, that their propaganda is working and that diversion tactic was successful.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

What about joint jurisdiction?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I never said the sky is falling, I was asking why there wasn't any involvement from the United Nations? Isn't the whole point of diplomacy to stop situations like this from developing any further. And your position that their won't be any economic or social repercussions in the future is presumptive.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Ohayo206

I apologize for the tone. It's just that there is already a precedent during the Koizumi era that I'm basing my argument.

As to the territorial tensions, I agree that U.N. should address it somewhat but the tensions are much more in the South China Sea area where it's unchecked IMO.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Beijing need to shut up about bs propaganda of 'history' as it is clearly obvious they just want the oil to drive their economy of fake garbage products

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

These islands are 2,000 kilometers from Tokyo but less than 200 kilometers from Taiwan. I wonder if the family used slave labour during the war for their business?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Anyway, how does he prove that the islands are his? What is China man Fu Man Chu lived on th island 200 years ago? What is Yamada San lived on the island 240 years ago and married his daughter to Fu Man Chu? Very complicated.....

The oil will only be worth drilling up if the price for oil hits $240 a barrel, so lets not get too upset and restrain from both sides required. Fortunate that the ultra right make up only a small fraction of the population, else democracies may give rise to the next Hitler.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Let's settle this with a water balloon fight !!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Garbage CCP feeds to their own people? What about the garbage fed to Japan's own people?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

chucky Umm..can you explain please? Ive read some of your pro-Korean nationalistic point in KoreaBang. I am not sure what you are doing here.

In regards to this article, the owner is known to be a nationalistic guy so I understand where he is coming from.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hard to believe the Senkakus might become Asia's next Falklands, but wars have been fought over less.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

" His powerful merchant family are the legal owners of four of the five islands in the Senkakus, an archipelago some 2,000 kilometers from Tokyo but less than 200 kilometers from Taiwan. "

That line in the article struck me as weird. Why compare Tokyo and Taiwan? If he writer wants to write about distance to the neares land, why not mention the distance to Okinawa? If is about distance to the nearest capital, why not state the distance to Peking?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Greedy China thinks that because it is now a superpower, it is going to step on its neighbors. Let me tell you, CHINA, you are so WRONG. China, you have to RESPECT.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Rounin78: Greedy Japan thinks that because it is a superpower, it is going to step on its neighbors (South Korea, China, and Russia). Let me tell you, JAPAN, you are so WRONG. Japan, you have to RESPECT. -fixed-

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I don't get the ownership thing of the past. How land became private? Anybody can clear this for me?

My way of thinking is that all the treasures are in the regulation of the state and private owners buy land from the state. How come someone found uninhabited island and claimed it as private? Why now state has to buy back this island, etc., etc...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What happened to the previous 16 generations of owners? Inheritance taxes have only just now become unbearable?????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The one who kicks off the dispute was The heritage foundatio' a rightist think tank of america! They provided the platform for rightist Ishihara that kicks off a trouble! America is weak, she needs a conflict in asia to maintain her presences in japan!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

why bother going to war, when people in all three nations are suffering. Its called political expediency, nationalistic fervor to blind the masses from the chronic problems the nation faces. The falkands war, was just such an example. Wars are stupid, but a deceptive peace, is far-worse..

Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding - A.Einstein

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Japan's claim over those islands in dispute is clearly a violation of the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan.

In the Potsdam Agreement, it was clearly stated that:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Since Japan agreed with Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The 4 party Potsdam Declaration became 5 party Potsdam Agreement, the primary peace treaty or instrument of peace that enabled the ending of WWII when Japan publicly announced the acceptance of it in the Imperial Rescript of Surrender and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Guru29Aug. 21, 2012 - 11:55PM JST Japan's claim over those islands in dispute is clearly a violation of the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, >China, Russia and Japan. In the Potsdam Agreement, it was clearly stated that: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of >Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." Since Japan agreed with Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands >it colonized before WWII.

Guru29Aug. 21, 2012 - 11:58PM JST The 4 party Potsdam Declaration became 5 party Potsdam Agreement, the primary peace treaty or instrument of peace >that enabled the ending of WWII when Japan publicly announced the acceptance of it in the Imperial Rescript of >Surrender and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

Guru- I have replied to yopr posts pointing out that the Senkaku Islands remained under Japanese control because they were not taken by force or greed, and the same powers who drafted the Potsdam Agreement. THe same powers determined that they were minor isalands. You have ignored my correcting your posts and continue to post the same thing on multiple threads. This is normally called Trolling. I do not undrstand why the MODERATOR is allowing this.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

OssanAmerica Aug. 22, 2012 - 05:02AM JST I have replied to yopr posts pointing out that the Senkaku Islands remained under Japanese control because they were not taken by force or greed, and the same powers who drafted the Potsdam Agreement. THe same powers determined that they were minor isalands.

If this was so clear cut to you, why does the same powers that drafted the Potsdam Agreement, especially U.S. remain neutral on the issue of sovereignty? Japan has the administrative rights for Senkaku but sovereignty are separate issue and still undefined. The Cairo Declaration of 1943 decreed that Japan must unconditionally return all Chinese territories annexed or stolen by her up to 1914.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

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