national

Abe warns China on use of force as jets scrambled

70 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

70 Comments
Login to comment

The only one need to worry about this unstable situation is Taiwan, so just see what those JP right wing extremists have done to Taiwanese. It's just like that you can't enjoy peaceful life if you live in a community where your neighbors are crazy and always shouting outside. People should know that it's not necessary for Taiwan to always side with US-JP all the time.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Just what is Japan seeking with China and vice versa?

A war?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

but did not violate Japan’s airspace, the reports said.

then why is japan getting so excited or nervous?

3 ( +9 / -6 )

"Japan has scrambled fighter jets for two days running in response to four Chinese military aircraft flying over international waters...."

Last I checked, "international waters" meant "international waters", and China has committed no wrong doing. Perhaps the Japanese government and military are a little paranoid after their dear leader's speech the other day? Is Japan also going to claim the international waters?

-6 ( +11 / -17 )

both these Countries are just wasting Tax Payers money burning the Jet Fuel.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

" Last I checked, "international waters" meant "international waters", and China has committed no wrong doing."

@smith, put the shoe on the other foot. If Japan, or any country, were frequently sending ships and planes right up to China's borders, songwriter you think the Chinese govt would be in a tizzy? How about if the Chinese did the same to the US or UK?

3 ( +15 / -12 )

Jean Val-Jean: "@smith, put the shoe on the other foot. If Japan, or any country, were frequently sending ships and planes right up to China's borders, songwriter you think the Chinese govt would be in a tizzy? How about if the Chinese did the same to the US or UK?"

You'd have less paranoia, that's for sure. Nonetheless, if any of these fighters did ANYTHING in international waters it would be an act of war whereas the nation merely flying in said waters did nothing wrong. Do you deny that? Do you also deny that, perhaps, this is in response to a certain PM' 'I would be more assertive' speech? Surely you expected nothing less.

It would be nice to see these governments working together instead of provoking each other, but in this case, while China is obviously responding to Japan's rhetoric, they are not committing any wrong doing. So what's all the fuss about?

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

During the cold war, US and Soviet planes played the same sort of cat & mouse games up by Alaska in the Chukchi Sea and Bering Straight. Had the internet been around then, well you can imagine how many Americans and Russians would have had their panties in a bunch. This kind of reporting is simply irresponsible. It only infuriates and provokes. It's all much ado about nothing.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

realteacher: "This kind of reporting is simply irresponsible. It only infuriates and provokes. It's all much ado about nothing."

Exactly.

Jean Val-Jean: "songwriter you think the Chinese govt would be in a tizzy? How about if the Chinese did the same to the US or UK?"

I'm not a songwriter. Not sure where you got that from. Obviously not from Les Miserables.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Last I checked, "international waters" meant "international waters", and China has committed no wrong doing. Perhaps the Japanese government and military are a little paranoid after their dear leader's speech the other day? Is Japan also going to claim the international waters?

China is "testing" Japan, and Japan is showing they can react. Recall the Cold War if you will, and regular sorties for UK fighters to intercept CCCP bombers. I think some call it Sabre rattling. Anyway, as odd as it seems, it actually a good way for both sides to stay sharp, and learn about each others tactics. The only odd thing is that it actually gets reported.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Do you also deny that, perhaps, this is in response to a certain PM' 'I would be more assertive' speech? Surely you expected nothing less

I agree with smith for that sentence. Since he became a PM for second time, he provoked and intimidated neighbors. Now Abe is showing off fire power to both SK and PRC with Youtube propaganda. The problem of Japan is not about the territory dispute. It has insecurity and frustration about the rising SK and PRC. Abe wanted to bash them with harsh words for promoting his political agenda. Reality is Abe is pleasing his electorate with nationalist sentiment.

In other thread, he intimidated PRC for Japan is getting assertive. However there has been no shots fired yet. It is not according his assertiveness. However it has been a long time since 2007 when he was a PM as first term. He can not sleep well without confronting with neighbors.

Abe should be friendly and tolerate with neighbors. Everybody needs good neighbors. Japanese PM will come and go as wind. Neighbors will be forever and unchangeable. They will be last longer than Senkaku and Takishima rocks.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Testing Testing.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Abe warns China. Somebody is starting to believe his own publicity.

He is asking for a reality check.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I believe Abe makes statement like this to get headlines and make Japanese people think their enemy is China and they have to worry about what China does, which could not be further from the truth. Abe's policy, both political and economic are more of a threat to Japan and the Japanese people than anything China has done.

Statements like this keep real problems, rather than imagined ,ones off the front page.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

gaiintraveller: "Abe's policy, both political and economic are more of a threat to Japan and the Japanese people than anything China has done."

Precisely. Abe likes to toot his own horn about his work, then when it's questionable toot again and suggest it's someone else's fault he should be loved. This guy is the biggest threat to Japan since WWII -- in which his granddad was a war criminal, BTW.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

The wonders of Viagra

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Problem is nobody local is complaining about it. He will get what he wants, as long as the economy is picking up.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Another publicity stunt to divert attention from real concerns.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The U.S.A. wants a war with China but they cannot do it directly, so they are doing it by proxy.

Is it impossible to have a Prime Minister who actually represents his country, rather than an American puppet?

The greatest danger in the Pacific is not China, it is the U.S.A.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

Mike45: "Problem is nobody local is complaining about it. He will get what he wants, as long as the economy is picking up."

He's actually pretty clever in that regard, or the people here not that smart. He institutes all these radical economic changes favoring corporations and government while screwing the people, then when 'Abenomics' (which people here kid themselves is some kind of world-wide term) starts to falter the talks about the Chinese threat to divert attention. He says taxes need to be raised, which will take place next April, so it looks like the economy is being bolstered because everyone is starting to buy more before that takes place. Watch the economy start to tank and the biggest debt in the world increase once April and the tax increases take place -- you can bet there will be a whole lot more 'aggressive stances' against China (whilst hiding behind the legs of the US) because Abe will need to deflect from his failure.

That, or he'll get a tummy-ache, quit, then line up to be PM again in a couple of years, claiming he did no wrong.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The U.S.A. wants a war with China but they cannot do it directly, so they are doing it by proxy.

Oh Bertie, poor Bertie, take your anti-American rhetoric and get stuffed. This has nothing to do with war by proxy, rather, it has to do with so-called news networks inflaming it's readers with nothing more than.... fluff. It is nothing.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Sounds familiar..............

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

On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals intelligence aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China, called the Hainan Island incident.

The EP-3 was operating about 70 miles (110 km) away from the PRC island province of Hainan, and about 100 miles (160 km) away from the Chinese military installation in the Paracel Islands, when it was intercepted by two J-8 fighters. A collision between the EP-3 and one of the J-8s caused the death of a PRC pilot, and the EP-3 was forced to make an emergency landing on Hainan.

Now who's doing what on international waters?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I strongly condemn these latest provocative words and deeds from the Japanese government. These grave provocations will not yield any positive results other than further isolation for Japan in Northeast Asia.

The Chinese and Korean people shall never forget this.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Abe did the right thing, China though that nobody will stop her actions towards the economy and the region!

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Abe is an idiot!

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

smithinjapan

It would be nice to see these governments working together instead of provoking each other, but in this case, while China is obviously responding to Japan's rhetoric, they are not committing any wrong doing. So what's all the fuss about?

Just stop and think about what you are saying for a second.

You know that the Senkaku Islands are currently under Japanese administration at this time. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant - they are Japanese territory as we type. China knows this also. So, in order to avoid escalating tension, committing to a path of peace, and to make sensible and rational decisions, you make sure your planes give them a wide berth. Japan, like any country, is perfectly entitled to patrol it's borders, which is all they are doing.

The provocation is entirely China's responsibility here - and Mr Abe has a right to call China out on it. They aren't listening to polite requests to refrain from doing so, therefore, at some point you have to take a tougher stance.

Would you prefer Japan roll over on it's back like a cowering dog and allow China to bully them into submission? I wouldn't.

China are completely duplicitous in word and deed at present. They aren't choosing peace, they are choosing provocation. They are intentionally poking their neighbours with a stick, then trying to hide it behind their back and plead innocence. It's a nonsense.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Obviously, there are many Chinese here. I wonder if Chinese jet fighters fly over the USA's airspace and do no wrong, just flying...what would be the reaction of America?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Every time Abe does this I'm sure Toyota, Nissan, and Honda must cringe. More disappointing sales in China. The days when corporate Japan and the Government worked together are over. Pretty soon you'll start seeing Japanese companies move their Headquarters outside of Japan. JAL is suing the Government of slot allocations at Haneda.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

“The security environment surrounding Japan is becoming increasingly severe. This is the reality,” he said. “You will have to completely rid yourselves of the conventional notion that just the existence of a defense force could act as a deterrent.”

Well, there we have the real motive for all Abe's barking the last few days. Setting the stage for amending the constitution, which he has been waiting patiently to do

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Yabe says: Don't touch me! Please don't touch me! I know I have been behaving badly lately; like a fool shooting my big mouth off without my thoughts going through my brain. By the way, did you see my brain?????????????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abe is the mastermind of Japan. God job sir.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Beijing warned Tokyo that any hostile action in the skies against Chinese drones would be construed as an “act of war”.

And China would be right. It would be an act of war. A justified act of war In response to China's an act of war by invading Japanese airspace.

China is biting of more than she can chew with this rhetoric. I trust Chinese leaders are, at this point, not stupid enough to fall for their bluster. As we've seen time and again throughout history -- and reaffirmed clearly enough on this website -- simpleton nationalist and would-be policy makers, unfortunately, will always fall for the rhetoric, and muck everything up for the rests of us.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Abe wants a war.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

So it shouldn’t take that path, and many nations expect Japan to strongly express that view.

i don't think many nations expect japan to express that view or i might be wrong. true that there is a security pact with the US, but the US sometimes confirm that they are not going to take sides in such disputes. i think japan should not depend on the US (no matter what the security pact means) as it is a developed country itself, so perhaps it should develop its own network to try and solve this rather than waiting for another round of scrambling jets, and warning each other, etc.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

“If Japan takes enforcement measures such as shooting down aircraft, as it says it will, that would constitute a serious provocation, an act of war of sorts, and we would have to take firm countermeasures, and all consequences would be the responsibility of the side that caused the provocation.”

Honestly, I do not understand what Communist Chinese leaders are thinking. If they think Japanese Government will quiet and no reaction to their threat and then it will be wrong. Japanese Government has right to defend its territory. Communist Chinese drone had invaded into Japanese airspace and they are angry about Japanese Government decision to shoot down the any invader drones.

Communist leaders are arrogance, reckless, stupid and selfish if you look at what they are doing to Japan and its neighbor countries. Communist leaders’ reckless provocative action will lead to war between Communist China and Japan-US alliance. Japanese businesses in China should prepare for lose and destroy by Communist Government’s thugs. I will not be sympathy for Japanese Company and Businesses if they were attacking by Communist Chinese mob.

Communist Chinese leaders must stop reckless provocative act and bully tactic at once for sake of both citizens.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Kuuku

You writ you think japan should not depend on the US (no matter what the security pact means).

Japan does, and that is why Abe is able to take the hard-line. He, or rather Japan's diplomatic core, has worked this out with the US. The US has Japan's back.

What's more, while you may doubt that, China does not.

And that is the important thing.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

justbcuzisayOct. 27, 2013 - 09:57PM JST “The security environment surrounding Japan is becoming increasingly severe. This is the reality,” he said. “You will have to completely rid yourselves of the conventional notion that just the existence of a defense force could act as a deterrent.” Well, there we have the real motive for all Abe's barking the last few days. Setting the stage for amending the >constitution, which he has been waiting patiently to do

And it is China that has forced Japan to change it's position where 63 years of U.S, pleading and pressure has failed. And because of China's belligerence all of Asia besides China and it's tributary states the Koreas welcome it.

chucky3176Oct. 27, 2013 - 10:56PM JST Abe wants a war.

Incorrect. Abe, as are all leaders of Free Countries, is attempting to prevent war. It is China that "wants a war". Don't believe me? http://www.voanews.com/content/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-pla-prepare-for-war/1585348.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16063607

We have the world's largest and most powerful dictatorship intimidating it's smaller Asian neighbors, on a military and territorial expansion agenda, and we are very concerned if the Chinese government itself is in full control or is their military flexing it's muscles. This is 1930s Imperial Japan all over again only ten times as dangerous.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

China is trying to provoke Japan into a military action so that they can say that Japan started it.

Don't fall for it Japan. Let China screw up first (even if that will result in loss of Japanese lives) and then you will be able to defend yourselves for all the world to see.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Japan does, and that is why Abe is able to take the hard-line. He, or rather Japan's diplomatic core, has worked this out with the US. The US has Japan's back.

well, that might be the meaning of the security pact, having each other's back. but i think the security pact was there as well as a means to deter the rise of china, but not to solve any disputes of any sort. and i don't think japan should use it as a means to give warnings to china, etc.

while the US still tries to sort out its probs as well in the middle east through diplomacy (under the current govn't) rather than military, well i think japan can maybe try that as well, but looks like leaders never tried to do that. don't expect china as well to go to the ICJ - they will never do that i think.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Someone asked if The Chinese bombers were flying in international waters why is Japan scrambling jets? Let me try to explain so you understand. If there is a mob of twenty people with weapons in the street marching directly towards your house, even though they have every right to be in the street as it's not yours it's everyone's , do you 1. Do nothing. 2. Lock your doors and load you rifle and keep a close eye in them . ? I would chose 2 if you don't I feel sorry for your family.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

abe's using one of the oldest tools for a country's leaders: unite the population through a common enemy and use that to push through your domestic agenda. don't forget japan instigated this just as its economy was tanking.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

We will express our intention as a state not to tolerate a change in the status quo by force.

Even the US says it doesn't recognize Japan's claim of sovereignty over those islands. So what change in status quo is Shinzo Abe talking about?

Actually, Japan has given up its claim not only to these islands but also to the Ryukyu islands, the long island chain in-between Japan and the Diaoyu islands in the whole series of WWII peace treaties/ agreements such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan).

Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty says:

"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 but excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between 25 to 26 degree north latitude)..."

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced back to the following agreement made between China and the US during the Cairo Conference:

"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 (UN trusteeship for decolonization)""

By the way, the UN trusteeship system did help many former colonies throughout the world to gain independence since its foundation as can be seen from its website:

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml

And from Wikipedia,

"The United Nations Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations, was established to help ensure that trust territories were administered in the best interests of their inhabitants and of international peace and security. The trust territories—most of them former mandates of the League of Nations or territories taken from nations defeated at the end of World War II—have all now attained self-government or independence, either as separate nations or by joining neighbouring independent countries."

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Guru29Oct. 28, 2013 - 01:44AM JST "We will express our intention as a state not to tolerate a change in the status quo by force."

Guru, please stop flooding the thread with your constant copy & pasting volumes of text that do not prove anything.

Even the US says it doesn't recognize Japan's claim of sovereignty over those islands. So what change in status quo >is Shinzo Abe talking about?

"WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has sent a clear warning to Beijing, which lays claim to the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, saying Washington opposes any unilateral action that would weaken Japan’s control of the chain." http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/20/national/u-s-warns-china-to-steer-clear-of-senkakus/

""And so we oppose any unilateral or coercive action that would somehow aim at changing the status quo," Kerry said." http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/04/15/Kerry-spells-out-policy-on-Senkaku-Islands/UPI-20751366006285/#ixzz2iwdn3nzM

"US Takes Japan's Side On Disputed Territory in East China Sea, Saying 'Senkaku Islands' Fall Under 'Security Obligations' http://www.ibtimes.com/us-takes-japans-side-disputed-territory-east-china-sea-saying-senkaku-islands-fall-under-security

Actually, Japan has given up its claim not only to these islands but also to the Ryukyu islands,

LOL. That is called Okinawa Prefecture and is home to the largest US military presence in Asia,

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I find this quite funny. Not the article, but the comments. When Russia started probing UK airspace with bombers, and the RAF scrambled jets to warn them away, hardly anyone paid any attention. Usually just a sigh of "There goes Russia again, flexing its Communist muscles at the Capitalist Western nations." Yet when Japan takes similar steps to respond to a POTENTIAL Chinese threat (emphasis on the word potential is needed, because people seem to miss out the important keywords of any argument or statement), everyone gets in an uproar, and they criticize Japan for being "warmongers". No-one said the same about Britain, yet this is virtually the same situation. The only difference is that Russia's probing had nothing to do with an island dispute, it was just Vladimir Putin showcasing Russia's strength, making a statement about Russia still being one of the major Superpowers of this world. That's the only difference, no island dispute. So people shouldn't be criticizing Japan. What they did was right. They identified a potential threat and scrambled jets to counter said threat. As with the aforementioned Britain/Russia clash, there was no use of force, just a rapid response that ended without conflict. Chances are this is all that that incident is; China mimicking Russia, and Japan responding just as Britain did. I know it's hard for some people from America or China to remember this sometimes, but Japan and Britain are quite alike. Both are smallish island nations located near to larger mainland countries. Both have engaged in island disputes, taking whatever steps were necessary to defend their sovereign claim. And both are being constantly underestimated due to their small size and relative isolation. Right now, Britain holds a relatively stable relationship with Russia. We don't always see eye to eye, but we get along well enough on the big issues, and we're not afraid to compromise. We hold this relationship despite the Russian incursion into British Airspace. The same can happen with Japan and China, if they can take a step back and look at the bigger picture, allowing cooler heads to prevail. That's not going to happen while they're arguing over islands though. Which is a shame, because any conflict between these two countries, regardless of how large or small, is bound to have a global impact. Other countries shouldn't have to suffer because two countries can't settle their differences, bury the hatchet, and leave the past behind them.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

as are all leaders of Free Countries, is attempting to prevent war.

Oh please. Bush ring any bells?

Stop spreading misinformation. Instead, head the words of one of our founders:

Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Bad economy in CHINA makes a good time for CHINA to try to rally the masses against the pesky little island country, no, no not Taiwan, but Japan, this is the oldest trick in the book. The USA should send drones around China, etc.and say, you know, we do not mean any hard feelings, and if you dare lock on to US drones, time for Beijing to get a REALITY CHECK and accept that Beijing is big in CHINA but the rest of the world?? Sorry, take on Al Qaeda, take on terrorists not just in your own country but around the world, then you will start to get the RESPECT the USA has around the world, but sorry Beijing, no, no not yet, now just a big baby trying to keep power in the hands of a few, kind of like the REPUBLICANS in the USA.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

JTDanManOct. 28, 2013 - 04:00AM JST "as are all leaders of Free Countries, is attempting to prevent war. Oh please. Bush ring any bells? Stop spreading misinformation. Instead, head the words of one of our founders:

Nonsense. My statement stands, the major countries of the world prefer peace, and military force is to serve as a deterrent to war breaking out. Today we have a powerful dictatorship with an authoritarian government that is not party of the "free world" and has a military eager to flex it's newfound muscles at the expense of it's smaller neighbors. They have said so openly. The purpose of our "pivot" to the Pacific is to prevent war from happening. The world has no interest in containing China's economic rise only to contain it's expansionist aspirations. Bush beating is so old and not applicable to this scenario. Nobody is trying to lead a charge on Beijing.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ossan

Bush beating will get old when the US and the mid east recovers from the harm he inflicted.

Moreover, you will recall, Bush justified his stupid adventurism in Iraq with, wait for it...

Yeah, "spreading Democracy."

BUt all that is only material because it supports the primary point: there is no evidence to support your claim that democracies are any less warlike than countries with other forms of government. Its not a question of preference, my man, but rather one of empirical fact.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Abe wants a war with a nuclear state?

What a bright individual Abe must be.................

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Abe will start war against china and north and south korea.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Guru29

Even the US says it doesn't recognize Japan's claim of sovereignty over those islands.

When did the US say that? The US said USA does not take a position for a sovereignty issue. But the official name they call these islands are Takeshima. What does it mean? Also they clearly say Senkaku include the area where covered by US Japan treaty. What does it indicate? What you said is just non sense. I can not believe USA would say so if they do not recognize it is a territory of Japan.

Actually, Japan has given up its claim not only to these islands but also to the Ryukyu islands, the long island chain in-between Japan and the Diaoyu islands in the whole series of WWII peace treaties/ agreements such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan).And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced back to the following agreement made between China and the US during the Cairo Conference:

This is one of the typical Chinese tactful deceptions you are using here. It is conspicuous that Cairo and Potsdam Declaration are before San Francisco treaty. In international law, the latest treaty is the one which is effective. They are not even relevant. There was a process to finish the final version on SF treaty which only the effective one.The China and US talkyou are talking about was not reflected to the latest version for reasons. Again, the world is not interested in the process. What is stated determines the fact.

Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty says: "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 but excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between 25 to 26 degree north latitude)..."

Did you change the original sentence??? The original Article 3 does not say Diaoyu Islands. It said: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 29deg. 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. If " but excluding the Diaoyu Islands" were the case, how USA were using two of these islands as their bombing range? The world did not think USA was bombing on Chinese territory then as well as now.

Any way, before WW2 from 1895, there was a Bonito flake factory and 250 Japanese were living there constantly. After US took over, two islands were used their bombing range. China said nothing over 70 years.Then right after the oil was found, this issue started. America returned Okinawa to Japan in 1972 with the administration right of Senkaku. If China really thinks they are right, sue Japan at ICJ. Japan can prove with many documents of China to show the perception of China how China was seeing these islands with the letter from Chinese government in 1919, the official maps, from an article of Jinminnippo,,,etc even Japan do not have to use Japan's documents. What China is saying today like a big crying baby has no legal base and no substance to any of these.

A reality is that, China wants OIL,Gas, China wants to have a free open sea territory for their navy expansion. They can release any deception to obtain what they want. Poor Chinese people are manipulated by that.

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands.

Forget it, because the above reasons.You put just selective information here. The during this conversation right there, China said NO. We need a full context to prove some fact. It would get too long, I would not put here but few months ago, a recording tape was found at American Achieve center which contains a conversation among Henry Kissinger, Henry Peterson and Nixon. I recommend you to hear it. It is explaining clearly how Taiwan asked USA before Okinawa was returned to Japan. But Kissinger was strongly tried to keep the spirit of SF treaty and return Okinawa include Senkaku as well but the textile industry in South which Nixon needed a lot of vote, Peterson advised that accepting a condition from Taiwan which exported a cheep cost for textile then, Nixon decided to be diplomatic to Taiwan. As a result, USA calls not returning sovereignty but administration right to Japan. China was a out of their picture in this conversation.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Chinese military is purposely sending a round trip to the border of the japan territory to see how long their war planes take to fly to put into calculations in military attack strategy. Russia does the same thing too. Countries who do this to their neighbor cannot be called as 'friends'. What kind of friend will consider how to attack its friend unless its worst then a true enemy, a hypocrite! (does japan do the same thing too?)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The US is cleverly very quiet at this time and rightly so. So Japan has to shout louder and spread paranoia!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tamarama OCT. 27, 2013 - 09:23PM JST

You know that the Senkaku Islands are currently under Japanese administration at this time. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant - they are Japanese territory as we type.

When you research San Francisco treaty, Chinese reps were not invited. US wanted ROC as rep of China. UK wanted PRC as rep of China. At the end, no party was invited. It is understandable that they do not accept any backroom deal without their presence. All parties should attend and sign as real legal document. As a loser of war, Japanese government accept that their territory were Honshu and adjacent Islands.

When US handed back to administration to Japan, it did not state as Japan as sovereign ownership. For PRC and ROC, it was acceptable for US was a owner because it was a winner and major contributor. However they did not accept any backroom deal without their presence.

As your usual post, there is confusion for the legal definition. I am a current administrator of my grandma estate for my nephew and niece. Whether you agree the meaning of "administrator" or not, I am not a owner of that estate. When the trust is matured, I have to hand over back to someone who has a valid legal entitlement. It is similar to the mini constitution of will. I am an current administrator means temporary landlord. If I declared as I am a owner, it is not only breaching the rules of trust, I have to admit that I am a thief of my relative property

Pls research more before you post.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

" He's actually pretty clever in that regard, or the people here not that smart."

@smith, I'd say the latter, especially considering the general apathy of the population except where they may be at risk of losing some sort of handout.

BTW, smith, spellchecker oddly inserted the word 'songwriter' but I didn't notice it. Really wish we could edit our own posts...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

When you research San Francisco treaty, Chinese reps were not invited. US wanted ROC as rep of China. UK wanted PRC as rep of China. At the end, no party was invited. It is understandable that they do not accept any backroom deal without their presence. All parties should attend and sign as real legal document. As a loser of war, Japanese government accept that their territory were Honshu and adjacent Islands.

ROC was a participant in drafting the Treaty of Peace as evidenced by the below link including the pertinent parts relating the Senkaku (Article 3)

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1951v06p1.p1217&id=FRUS.FRUS1951v06p1&isize=M

Pg 1058-1200

In lieu of being a participant in the Treaty of Peace (SF), it was recommended that a separate treaty between Japan and ROC take place (Treaty of Taipei) whereby the said treaty only states the territories in which she renounces. The treaty of signed and ratified by both Republic of China and Japan.

The point here is that the "minor islands" that 'we' (U.S., British, and ROC) persuant to the Potsdam Declaration was in fact "determined".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ingle boy

I have read countless Japanese altered version from many treads. Nothing will change the fact that Japan was a loser of war. If you ask Germany, Germany has lost all territories of pre WWIi with France or Poland. ROC president Chang kei shaik was unable to present at San Fransisco back in1950. If Japan was a winner back then, all of PRC and ROC were belong to Japan and all of their citizens are speaking Japanese now.

Due to civil war, ROC retreated to Taiwan. Later on ROC signed Taipei treaty with US witness. Both ROC and PRC were not present at SF treaty as you said. Athletes was correct that it was a backroom deal. Japan did not honor the Taipei treaty either.

Anyway, there will be no forceful solution from PRC or ROC for another 100 years as Abe and Ishihara PR.If you check the birth rate of Japan, it is too low for sustaining the current level of population. Uncomfortable truth is Japan will be gradually disintegrated in the future due to the demographic factor. It will come from internal factor. Not from external threat.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Athletes

Are the Senkaku Islands currently administered by Japan?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tamarama

Yes! and Of course! As an administrator by myself I will never imagine I will declare myself as owner of my grandma estate! The most sinful act on that earth was trustee myself misinterpreted and misconducted of the trust of my grandma and all parties.

Imagine WWII allied force was a my grandma. US is our estate security guard. Taiwan and PRC are my niece and nephew. If I or Japan declare as Owner of estate without their consent or presence, will you or legal community accept whatever I have done as I pleased? In the perfect world, it is OK like Captain Cook land grabbing. However Captain Cook by himself will not accept my dishonesty and fraudulent act!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

if japan bought the islands then they are japans islands. china should just forget about it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Octagon

What you and many others fail to understand that the Allieds determined what was taken by force (which had to be renounced by Japan). As much as you "wish" to believe Senkaku was part of this, the reality is that they are not as evidenced by ROC complete acceptance of the contents stated in Article 3 in the FRUS archives above. Both ROC and PRC never thought that the islands were theirs to begin with as evidenced by maps and newspaper articles published by both governments during the 50's and 60's further proving that the islands were in fact incorporated under terra nullius.

From a paper trail standpoint (treaties, agreements, etc.), China has absolutely NO CASE. They might as well just stick to "XXXXXX was part of China since beginning of time" BS line.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Ingle boy

If you look at map, ROC or Taiwan is the nearest one to Senkaku. You can debate it is closer to Okinawa chain. If you ask Okinawa natives, they do not agree that Okinawa is part of Japan. If Japan will do a referendum like Scotland,,Okinawa is willing to separate from Japan. In Okinawa, many descendants have Fujian ancestor like Taiwan.

According your logic, Senkaku was inhabited. It is hard to prove that PRC or ROC ancestors heritage. However Ryuku people have proof that they have never been Japanese entity until annexation. Senkaku is chain Island of Okinawa. Not Honshu or Kyushu or other Japanese mainland chain. If Okinawa is independent, it will be another claimant of Okinawa. Japan is the farthest nation without Okinawa. Even Japan could not annex Okinawa chain Islands together at once. Small Islands were grabbed first. The largest one was the last. If we follow dot line of Okinawa, Hainan was part of Okinawa chain too. However it is so close to PRC.

Meiji will admit you Okinawa and Senkaku were never part of Japan if he is still alive.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Athletes

Yes!

No need to go any further than that.

Then, China are being provocative by sending planes and ships there. Period. Plain, clear, simple logic. China are the provocateurs. China are inflaming tensions. It's very easy for everyone except China to see this.

it is OK like Captain Cook land grabbing. However Captain Cook by himself will not accept my dishonesty and fraudulent act!

I really don't understand your obsession with James Cook. Somehow, you manage to bring him into just about every thread you have posted in.

IT"S COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT TO THE SENKAKUS ATHELETES!!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tamarama

I am not sure whether you have been in Japan is 1970s. Back then Japan also have territory dispute with all neighbors. Back then Japanese PM Tanaka has never made noise and opening intimidation with any of neighbors. There were many conflicts back then too. Life were good and everything was solved diplomatically. If Tanaka can handle the issue with peaceful manner, why not Abe can handle like him!

It is not wise for nation of population with more than 120 millions people is confronting 1.3 billion people. As you knew, Abe was a PM back in 2007 and he was a loose canon and conflicting with neighbors . The consequence was he was kicked out from office shortly. PM is not a drunken sailor. Intimidating, challenging and provoking are not the routine duties of other PMs. Winston Churchill said we can carry the stick with no noise. As you know Japan has unpleasant memory of war time atrocities. It is not well behaved for screaming thousand times for getting assertive with cocky exposure. Since 2007, the sentence is same old story. However the real shots have not come from loose canon yet.

You know many nations in the world have territory dispute. Ask Russia, India, Greece and Turkey. Not only Japan! If other nations life can goes on, why not Japan can tolerate and negotiate with neighbors. He should follow the PM Tanaka as role model. He is brain washing the new generation with nationalistic political agenda. Demographically Japan is an ageing society with very low birth.It is obvious that when your children grow up, they do not want to carry forward the burden of Abe and his war criminal grandpa unfinished business. Japan can not change the past. However it can make the better future. Bygone is bygone.

IT"S COMPLETELY RELEVENT TO THE SENKAKUS and TAKISHIMAS TAMARAMA! Captain Cook was a explorer and opportunistic land grabber. Whenever he landed the new Islands, he flied the union jack flag. If Senkaku and Takishima have been landed by Captain Cook and his crew, they became estate of Queen of the great Britain. Back then there were no justice and international rules and regulation about his arrogant actions. He could do whatever he pleased as Japan transforming as owner from administrator. Both Captain and Administrator were professional thieves obviously.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Athletes

It is not wise for nation of population with more than 120 millions people is confronting 1.3 billion people.

They aren't, they are defending their territory - perfectly acceptable. Your veiled threats just show how little Chinese people want peace. You don't want peace.

You know many nations in the world have territory dispute. Ask Russia, India, Greece and Turkey.

And of those examples, how many involve the other party regularly flying planes into territory, and sailing ships into the same territory? It's your example, so you tell me.

It is obvious that when your children grow up, they do not want to carry forward the burden of Abe and his war criminal grandpa unfinished business

And, there it is. THIS is what it's REALLY about, isn't it Athletes? You can't forgive and forget. You don't want to. You want to continue to punish Japan for it's past. For how long? How much foreign aide do they have to give you before you stop demanding from them? Huh? How much land, how much territory? Will it EVER stop?

If Senkaku and Takishima have been landed by Captain Cook and his crew, they became estate of Queen of the great Britain.

If = didn't. So it's not relevant at all.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tamarama

They aren't, they are defending their territory - perfectly acceptable. Your veiled threats just show how little Chinese people want peace. You don't want peace.

I am not a pro Chinese or pro Japanese poster as you mentioned. Some posters with J spouse or C spouse have biased toward particular nation without black and white. If China want to use force, they have not waited for so long. Remember their soldiers fought with bamboo sticks during Korean war. They can afford to lose more man power than any nation on that earth. 127 millions is less than 10% of their population. They have waited HK for patiently for 100 years. They did not fight with UK for using single bullet like Argentina. Therefore I do not think PRC or ROC do want peace . War mongering Abe and his right wing supporters revising their forefathers adventures.

And of those examples, how many involve the other party regularly flying planes into territory, and sailing ships into the same territory? It's your example, so you tell me.

Russia planes have intruded Japan air space before. US spy plane have intruded and landed in Hainan incident before. Greece and Turkish planes, Lebanon and Syria have played cat and mouse game before. If you were born in coldwar time, US and USSR have almost hit each other in some worst case. Back then no internet and youtube PR. According your logic, if they had to settle with force, there were pies of bodies have floated.

And, there it is. THIS is what it's REALLY about, isn't it Athletes? You can't forgive and forget. You don't want to. You want to continue to punish Japan for it's past. For how long? How much foreign aide do they have to give you before you stop demanding from them? Huh? How much land, how much territory? Will it EVER stop?

If you read my post again I said Bygone is bygone. I have never punished Japan for it's past. I am not a PRC resident therefore foreign aid to PRC is not my concern. You have to distinguish between development aids and humanitarian aids. Development aids have long term commercial interest. For instance Taisei co-operation got a contact with Japan airport consultant for building airport in any nation. When the airport is ready, Japan will share the landing fee. During the project, Japan will dominate the supply base, design and implementation. If you review, Abe and Ishihara speech, most of them are military, military and military. Japan is not the peace loving nation according their speech. How about the book titled as " Japan that can say NO" ?

If = didn't. So it's not relevant at all.

As geography it is not relevant. As an opportunistic action there are some similarities. Thanks for your interesting debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JTDanManOct. 28, 2013 - 08:34AM JST Ossan Bush beating will get old when the US and the mid east recovers from the harm he inflicted. Moreover, you will recall, Bush justified his stupid adventurism in Iraq with, wait for it... Yeah, "spreading Democracy."

So because Iraq is a country with an outdated religion and the people are unable to unite, as did Germany and Japan in the 1940s, we should give up on "spreading democracy"? What should we be doing, "spreading divine monarchy"?

BUt all that is only material because it supports the primary point: there is no evidence to support your claim that >democracies are any less warlike than countries with other forms of government. Its not a question of preference, my >man, but rather one of empirical fact.

Tell you what "my man". Show me a list of global military conflicts. Start anywhere you want, 1800s 1900s is fine. Let's see how many democratic nations fought wars with other democratic nations. There won't be many.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If you look at map, ROC or Taiwan is the nearest one to Senkaku. You can debate it is closer to Okinawa chain. If you ask Okinawa natives, they do not agree that Okinawa is part of Japan. If Japan will do a referendum like Scotland,,Okinawa is willing to separate from Japan. In Okinawa, many descendants have Fujian ancestor like Taiwan

Proximity is irrelevant as per Palmas Island case. As for Okinawa residents willingness to detach themselves from Japan, it's simply a wishful thinking on the part of Chinese.

Chosuke Yara, who ran for the Okinawa government under platform of independence received 0.93% of the votes in 2006.

According your logic, Senkaku was inhabited. It is hard to prove that PRC or ROC ancestors heritage. However Ryuku people have proof that they have never been Japanese entity until annexation. Senkaku is chain Island of Okinawa. Not Honshu or Kyushu or other Japanese mainland chain. If Okinawa is independent, it will be another claimant of Okinawa. Japan is the farthest nation without Okinawa. Even Japan could not annex Okinawa chain Islands together at once. Small Islands were grabbed first. The largest one was the last. If we follow dot line of Okinawa, Hainan was part of Okinawa chain too. However it is so close to PRC.

Again using the proximity argument which was not my point at all.

The point is not about whether or not there were inhabitants in ancient era as well for under the precedence set forth by international law, it's the state that has exercized effective control and administrative authority that gets the upper hand.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

nigelboy Nov. 01, 2013 - 03:13AM JST The point is not about whether or not there were inhabitants in ancient era as well for under the precedence set forth by international law,

If you talk about the international law, why didn't Japan notify China 1895? That the Japanese government acted in bad faith seems clear. Certainly, the secretive implementation of terra nullis deprived China of constructive knowledge and a chance to lodge a formal protest against Japan’s action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330Nov. 01, 2013 - 03:52AM JST "nigelboy Nov. 01, 2013 - 03:13AM JST The point is not about whether or not there were inhabitants in ancient era as well for under the precedence set forth by international law, If you talk about the international law, why didn't Japan notify China 1895? That the Japanese government acted in >bad faith seems clear.

If there was no evidence that it was owned by China why should Japan notify them? I don't think Japan notified Russia or Australia or Canada or Madagascar either. There was no evidence that they owned it either. And there is ample of evidence that China was aware that the Senkakus were Japanese because Chinese maps from the 1950s and 60s show them as Japanese territory. The real question you need to answer is why did China not make a claim until 1970?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites