national

Japan protests after Chinese navy ship sails near disputed islands

49 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

49 Comments
Login to comment

China in the past has warned Japan not to take any “provocative” action over the disputed islands

And does this in return?

Wow, this is what I call do what I say not what I do situation.

-3 ( +13 / -16 )

China into mischief activities as usual. Trying to provoke all nations which are US allies.

Defence base in South China Sea is a blatant message to US and its allies anyways.

Chinese armies are doing similar mischievious activites on the western front. where they share borders with other asian countries.

Its only matter of time before someone fires the first missile out of sheer provocation or otherwise and the party begins...err..mmm.. I mean a full fledged WWIII.

-7 ( +12 / -19 )

None of the ships violated what Japan considers its territorial waters, it said

...Chinese ambassador was unnecessarily disturbed in the night hour?!

5 ( +15 / -10 )

@Triring

Japan started the chain of actions by nationalizing the islands in 2012. It needs to quit whining like a crybaby. Either give up the islands or be prepared to face the consequences of not doing so. Grow a pair or shut up.

5 ( +21 / -16 )

Japan started the chain of actions by nationalizing the islands in 2012. It needs to quit whining like a crybaby.

Exactly. This wasn't a problem until the islands were nationalized unilaterally by Japan. Japan had no right to do this. Japan picks fights with its neighbors and runs off to Uncle Sam to cry its eyes out. Disgusting.

5 ( +20 / -15 )

@Gaijindesu

Should change your handle to Shinajindesu. No it all started in the 70's when UN released a report that there maybe some natural resources within the region which triggered PRC to declare the area as PRC soil even when they had no records supporting their claim and still have none. On the other hand Japan jumped all the hoops at the end of the 19th century to make claim which the global community had accepted and still acknowledges Japan's claim.

Bye Bye Shinajindesu

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, I don't understand why an ambassador is summoned because a ship from his nation was found being near somewhere claimed by Japan. This actually means the vessel was in international waters. I own a property, but I can't summon the Japanese government to express my concerns when a Japanese person walks near my house. These ships are allowed to sail in waters "contiguous' to Japan.

7 ( +17 / -10 )

Japan started the chain of actions by nationalizing the islands in 2012. It needs to quit whining like a crybaby. Either give up the islands or be prepared to face the consequences of not doing so. Grow a pair or shut up.

Well stated. "They" administer the islands, then "they" should man up & defend the islands instead of whining.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

PM Abe is sneakily trying to provoke a war with China with Uncle Sam in tow.

Hyping the passing of a Chinese ship in international waters near disputed Tiayutai islands in one hand while also accusing Beijing of restricting navigation in the SCS on the other hand is clearly tantamount to a declaration of hostility per se.

What sweet double victory for Abe when former foe USA will fight a very destructive war with former and current enemy China!

Japan will be the sole victor while secretly relishing the nuclear pogroms in both New York and Shanghai!

What a military genius this Shinzo Abe is!

Shooting two birds with one penny!

Banzai!

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

More childish passive-aggression from Japan. And who started it?

"The outspoken politician, infamous for racist gaffes, triggered the ongoing diplomatic row between Japan and China by announcing in April 2012 a plan by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government to purchase three of the five Senkaku islets.

“They asked me what I wanted to do most, so I told them that it’s to fight a war with China and win. I said that as a Japanese citizen,” he said.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/16/national/politics-diplomacy/ishihara-bows-wants-war-china-compares-hashimoto-young-hitler/#.V1kh6OR-ZIU

7 ( +14 / -7 )

It seems that China is outrageouly trying take more territorial water in East China Sea as same as in South China Sea. What a bully!

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

If Japan hadn't nationalized the islands and started all this then there wouldn't be a problem.

2 ( +14 / -12 )

GaijindesuJUN. 09, 2016 - 12:54PM JST

Japan started the chain of actions by nationalizing the islands in 2012. It needs to quit whining like a crybaby. Either give up the islands or be prepared to face the consequences of not doing so. Grow a pair or shut up.

Aly RustomJUN. 09, 2016 - 01:03PM JST

Exactly. This wasn't a problem until the islands were nationalized unilaterally by Japan. Japan had no right to do this. Japan picks fights with its neighbors and runs off to Uncle Sam to cry its eyes out. Disgusting.

I really find it funny that there are still people who believe in this communist propaganda.

Yes, Japanese government bought the property rights of the islands from a group of Japanese citizens. But,

1 Property right is a different issue from sovereignty.

2 Who granted the property rights to the group of Japanese citizens? Their rights are based on a land patent issued by the Japanese government. So, by arguing that the islands were nationalized, Chinese government is admitting the power of the original land patent issued by the Japanese government, and the Japanese sovereignty to issue land patent.

If someone issued a land patent of the moon and later bought it back, only Chinese government would get upset and lament that the moon belongs to the person. All other people would say "he bought it back because the land patent is void."

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

And where is the article about the US reconnaissance plane that got buzzed by a Chinese fighter in the same area?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

At around the same time, three Russian battleships entered waters close to what Japan considers its territory, the Defence Ministry said. The Ministry said it was investigating whether the Chinese and Russian actions were related.

Japan have fully resolved its territorial disputes with China and Russia at the end of WWII by agreeing not to claim any territory as its own as long as it is disputed by China or Russia. In order to avoid a restart of WWII, Japan should really comply with these treaties/ agreements strictly.

For example, Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) says:

"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 (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And Japanese Instrument of Surrender says:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."

The 1972 China-Japan Joint Communique says:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

And Article 2 (c) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty says:

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

Japan even agreed to place the Ryukyu islands, the long chain of islands in-between the Diaoyu Islands and Kyushu under the United Nations trusteeship, the UN system to help former colonies to achieve independence in Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty:

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg. north latitude (that's the Ryukyu islands)...

7 ( +10 / -3 )

@Guru - in accordance with the said declarations, Japan officially renounced the rights to the sakhalin islands and the other little islets that were occupied by the Soviets towards the end of the war. At no time did Japan renounce the rights of the Senkakus but instead had no choice but to follow a hands off policy because of the occupational forces of whom eventually gave back the rights of those islands back to Japan. So in the end, the islands are legally Japanese under international law and there should be no dispute in this matter. Furthermore, China just wants to increase its sphere of influence and provoke the Japanese into an armed provocation, this is a battle to see who would be stupid enough to fire the first shot, hence the reason as to why Abe is trying to prepare the Japanese for any grim eventualities-the chinese will hesitate when faced with a worthy foe and resort to compromise instead of overestimated conquest

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Those who fixate on Japan's "nationalizing" 3 of the 5 Senkaku Islands as the cause of this problem are completely clueless or PRC mouthpiece. This is the excuse that China used to justify their actions which had been planned a good decade earlier, (first island chain, 9 dash line, expanded ADIZs) all aimed at increasing the PLAN's access to the Pacific. Japan "nationzalized" 3 islands how? They BOUGHT them from their JAPANESE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS. China's propaganda machine painted this as the equivalent of Japan invading Chinese territory. Not to mention that one of the 5 islands eas already "nationalized" to start with. having been owned by the Japanese government for decades. So anyone who uses this "Japan nationalized the islands" as an excuse to justify China's now obvious territorial expansion in East Asia exposes themselves as a either utterly unthinking or a mouthpiece for the CCP.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

If China hadn't ceded them in perpetuity to Japan in 1895, there wouldn't be a problem.

If they hadn't discovered that there might be oil below them in 1969, there wouldn't be a problem.

Et al.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

I'm glad Abe is the PM of Japan and Ashton Carter is the director of DOD when China is expanding militarily. Show them weakness and then China will lose to find the point to stop and eventually lead them to a war.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

If China hadn't ceded them in perpetuity to Japan in 1895, there wouldn't be a problem. If they hadn't discovered that there might be oil below them in 1969, there wouldn't be a problem.

The Japanese took those islands on its way to invade Taiwan in 1895 about two decades after colonizing the Ryukyu. But the 1895 Shimonoseki treaty is now superseded by the Cairo Agreements and other WWII peace treaties/ agreements.

I think the East China Sea issue has more to do with security than oil. The dispute would have been non-existent if the US has not militarized the East China Sea in the past 70 years and instead handed the Ryukyu islands to the UN Trusteeship for its eventual independence according to the agreement reached between China and the US in Cairo:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization.""

So in the end, the islands are legally Japanese under international law and there should be no dispute in this matter.

In other words, you are saying the terms of surrender for Japan, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, many other WWII peace treaties and agreements, tens of millions of deaths and the two atomic bombs are nothing but just jokes and need not be taken seriously?

And just because Japan has a hearing disability and unable to pick up any sound wave no matter how loud a dispute is voiced out, it doesn't mean there is no dispute. We aren't living in a world of deafs, you know?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Lots of China side stories. By the way China is a communist single party dictatorship where everything is stated as propaganda, did you know?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Oh, the usual tripe. China claims what is most convenient for them at the time. They complain about imperialism, but they are one of the worst and will of course never admit it.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Soon or later, China is going to find itself in some sort of stupid conflict.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Soon or later, China is going to find itself in some sort of stupid conflict.

As you might understand, it's not only China, a conflict (one between nations) always counts at least 2. However a conflict in relation to China and it's expansion politics might mean up to seven regional nations, including Japan.

I think it is time that a special UN commission takes action. It's still possible to find a political solution.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I notice that some good posts here are based on historical record. Others are based on wild speculation and already ingrained beliefs. Think of my comment what you will. Choose your own mantra.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

C Harald HansenJun. 09, 2016 - 11:01PM JST Oh, the usual tripe. China claims what is most convenient for them at the time. They complain about imperialism, but they are one of the worst and will of course never admit it.

China has a form of state capitalism which can;t be found n any other part of the world. It's rather unique and fed by most western(ized) nations, including Japan. I don't think this needs extra 'made in China' explanation or does it?

Besides the state controlled capitalism, China also does not have democracy and a bad reputation in relation to human rights. Every other nation with lesser geo-economic proportions and importance would have been blamed and shamed on a daily basis by 'free world' politicians.

With other words, it's western hypocrisy and greed which made China what it is now. .

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Soon or later, China is going to find itself in some sort of stupid conflict.

Most likely near one of their artificial air strips in the South China Sea. With their ships, subs and fighters all in the same proximity . . . . like something out of a Tom Clancy novel.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Some think Japan is expanding? like imperial Japan during WW2? that's beyond my understanding. what a twisted minds

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Some think Japan is expanding? like imperial Japan during WW2?

Me too. I don't get it . . . how the liberals come to that conclusion. For one thing, I don't think the japanese would be such fools for a 2nd time. Most young Japanese men aren't willing to fight for Japan anyways.

Plus everyone knows China's military ain't no joke.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Plus everyone knows China's military ain't no joke

Well what they do is nothing but a joke that is for sure.

.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

PRC maps of the 1950s and 60s show the Senkakus to be Japanese. Japan never "took" the Senkakus, they incorporated them as Terra Nullius which was accepted by the entire world. If Japan wanted to "take" the Senkakus all they had to do was include it in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. That it never happened is evidence that both Imperial Japan and the Qing Dynasty did not consider them as anyone's territory at the time. China's behavior in the last several years exposes their territorial expansion agenda and their goal of increasing their strategic advantage vis-à-vis the United States in the western Pacific. China's arguments for ownership "since ancient times" are a laughable attempt to justify their aggressive actions ion both the East and South China Seas. This article is very interesting in that for the first time the Chinese PLAN has come into the picture, albeit not on it's own and strategically timing it with the passage of the Russian vessels. Is this China's response to the FON flights and voyages carried out by the US and it's allies?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

By the way China is a communist single party dictatorship where everything is stated as propaganda, did you know?

And in the meantime... Chinese are maybe positing on the CT board : "By the way, Japan is a country with a single party (alike) situation, anti-democratic vote weight disparities, member's party elite above the law and where re-interpretation is the new propaganda tool to impose the party's will without consulting the people, did you know?"

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Well what they do is nothing but a joke that is for sure.

Really...Just don't crap your pants when the PLA shows up at your door step.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@Citizen2012

It's OK to say whatever you want to say. here in Japan. But if you do the same in China, you are history. Did you know that? "ChinaToday" can never exist in China.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Now, Russia is slowly getting into the picture, but nobody seems to be curious. Two powerful forces will be tilting the the scale. Guess who is running to the master for help?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's OK to say whatever you want to say. here in Japan.

Technically, that is not true, in Japan or any other country. Try issuing a death threat to the PM or president or monarch of the country and see if you can get away with it. I know for a fact that if anyone issues a death threat to the president of the United States, he can expect a knock on his front door real soon.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

OssanAmerica:

Great insight !

Interesting to note both Japan and China are against FON after all!

Realistically hilarious!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You can't tell the difference between Japan's LDP chosen by the Japanese people and CCP in China?

You mean a very select, pampered group of Japanese people that LDP bends over backwards for?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Senkakus control went to Japan in the 1971 agreement along with Okinawa and other parts of the Ryukyu Islands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Okinawa_Reversion_Agreement

The Chinese are annoyed about both the Senkakus AND Okinawa, but don't think getting Okinawa is currently possible. They will someday voice that opinion, and maybe push the point militarily, but not while the U.S. is there. The fact is, any gripe should be with the US, not Japan. The US controlled the area, and handed control to Japan. The US is at peace with the transaction, and maintains that it had a right to do that. China believes the Treaty in San Francisco never happened, since they weren't included.

Wikipedia:

"The Okinawa Reversion Agreement is an agreement between the United States and Japan, in which the United States relinquished in favor of Japan all rights and interests under Article III of the Treaty of San Francisco obtained as a result of the Pacific War. The document was signed simultaneously in Washington, D.C and Tokyo on June 17, 1971 by William P. Rogers on behalf of President Richard Nixon and Kiichi Aichi on behalf of Prime Minister Eisaku Sato."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guru29JUN. 09, 2016 - 06:26PM JST

Japan have fully resolved its territorial disputes with China and Russia at the end of WWII by agreeing not to claim any territory as its own as long as it is disputed by China or Russia.

Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And in 1951, the Senkakus were determined to be Japanese territory by San Francisco Peace Treaty.The Senkakus were trusted under US occupation as part of Okinawa and were returned to Japan in 1972.

Once settled, China cannot re-open the territorial dispute abusing Potsdam declaration.

In addition, Potsdam declaration cites Cairo declaration which says as follows.

The Three Great Allies(US, UK and China) 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.

So, China cannot expand its territory by claiming the Senkakus. There is no record of Chinese who lived on the Senkakus. Japanese lives on the Senkakus for decades before WW2.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Senkakus were trusted under US occupation as part of Okinawa and were returned to Japan in 1972.

Not so fast. US granted 'administrative' rights to Diaoyu to Japan, not ownership. US never did, and has not asserted that the islands belong to Japan. Don't try to pull a fast one there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

kagoshima126JUN. 10, 2016 - 09:56AM JST

Not so fast. US granted 'administrative' rights to Diaoyu to Japan, not ownership. US never did, and has not asserted that the islands belong to Japan.

San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951)

Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

Japan trusted the administrative rights of the Senkakus in Ryukyu Insands to the US in 1951. The trust was possible only because Japan had the sovereignty of the Senkakus. Between 1951 ans 1972, Japan only had residual sovereignty. By recovering the administrative rights in 1972, Japan restored full sovereignty of the Senkakus.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Looks like PLA unit 61398 has been given the "thumbs down" assignment here. LOL

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951)

Say Russia feels particularly generous and decided to gift two of the four northern islands in dispute with Japan to China, and they sign the agreement without consulting Japan. How do you think Japan would feel about it? You think Japan will just let it be? Ridiculous.

Again, Japan has administrative rights to Diaoyu, not sovereignty, no matter what you say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GaijindesuJUN. 10, 2016 - 12:46PM JST

Again, Japan has administrative rights to Diaoyu, not sovereignty, no matter what you say.

OK. Lets start with the fact that Japan has administrative rights of the Senkakus.

Why does Japan have the administrative rights now? Because the US returned the administrative rights to Japan in 1972.

Why did the US have administrative rights until 1972? Because Japan trusted the administrative rights to the US in 1951 as evident in San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Why was Japan able to trust administrative rights to the US in 1951? Because Japan had the sovereignty over the Senkakus in 1951.

You cannot give administrative rights out of nowhere. By admitting Japanese administrative rights, you have to agree to the string of events and the original Japanese sovereignty of the Senkakus.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No matter where we stand on this topic, we probably would agree that the world is becoming a more dangerous place.

This incident seemed to be a coordinated effort by China and Russia to sail close to the islands at about the same time, probably to test the Japanese response.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This incident seemed to be a coordinated effort by China and Russia to sail close to the islands at about the same time, probably to test the Japanese response.

Yes, everyone is testing everyone else's responses, and probably establishing legal precedents for doing whatever they are doing, like, "See, we have always maintained these islands!" The problem is that sooner or later, someone will respond in a bit too aggressive way, and then we will have a mess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I find it really annoying when individuals in each of these affected nations debate over issues just for the sake of having some work to do in their boring jobs, especially the oversized navy of the PRC that are so bored with involving themselves in peaceful maneuveurs but choose to be tools of annoying politics and unnecessary selfish interests. The senkaku islands are not Chinese or Taiwanese for that matter, they are more likely to be Japanese - this is supported and affirmed by international law of which the Chinese a so-called perm member of the U.N has an obligation to follow. They should just go ahead and simply say they just have a problem with the nationalizing because they are distrustful of the Japanese and their cozy attitude towards uncle Sams presence in the region. There really shouldn't be any debate on this matter, it is crystal clear what each nations goals and grievances are most times. Politics and bureaucracy only helps to prolong issues not shorten them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guru

The Japanese took those islands on its way to invade Taiwan in 1895 about two decades after colonizing the Ryukyu.

As Ossan has pointed out, the islands were occupied as terra nullius. The absolute fact is that China has no concrete evidence of ownership of them prior to this. None. Them appearing on maps, or featuring as navigation markers doesn't count.

But the 1895 Shimonoseki treaty is now superseded by the Cairo Agreements and other WWII peace treaties/ agreements.

Which offer nothing specific and concrete either way, I'm afraid. This information has been rolled out time and time again on JT over the last 15 years and the only thing it ever really illustrates is the ambiguity of the arguments by the pro-Chinese side pertaining to the treaties you reference. There is nothing there for you, no matter how much you try to read between the lines.

And this:

The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization.

I always find a little desperate. This means absolutely nothing.

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