national

Owners of disputed isles shun Noda's bid in favor of Ishihara's

61 Comments
By Linda Sieg

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

61 Comments
Login to comment

I fell this will end bad for Japan.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Mean feel of course

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wouldn't it be pointless to buy the islands if other countries don't recognize the current ownership?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Makes no difference. Japanese islands being sold by Japanese civilians to either a Metropolitan government or to the Japanese national government either way is none of China's business. It was stupid of Noda to even get into now, not onl; because the J-govt has had what 117 years to buy them, AND it's obvious that it isn't going to make China reasnable at all anyway.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

sakuralaJul. 21, 2012 - 07:43AM JST

Wouldn't it be pointless to buy the islands if other countries don't recognize the current ownership?

Exactly.

I know Japanese law is primitive, but you would have thought that their jurisprudence would have developed the concept of ultra vires.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Isn’t the Chinese leadership intentionally using the Senkaku incident or so-called Japan card in order to defuse the dissatisfaction and complaints of the Chinese public to the one-party rule over the huge gap between the rich and the poor, the lack of job opportunities, or the suppression of freedom of speech?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

How can a Japanese family just "own" some islands? Because they bought it from someone else?

Doesn't Japan have Eminent domain laws, where they (the government) can just take over the land without the owner's consent but with proper compensation?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan does have eminent domain. It's called 土地収用 (とちしゅうよう).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Badge213Jul. 21, 2012 - 08:11AM JST

Doesn't Japan have Eminent domain laws, where they (the government) can just take over the land without the owner's consent but with proper compensation?

it has very very weak eminent domain laws. Refer to the Narita Airport dispute.

What it does have is very successfull peer nationalistic pressure as witnessed by the governments ease to redevelop West Tokyo before the Tokyo Olympics.

I think this farce will definitely fall into the second example and whatever Tokyo or the central government decide, the so called japanese owners of the islands will be compelled to follow the party line.

I hope Ishihara volunteers his own 2 sons, the LDP politician with the retarded head shape that was definitely a case for medical malpractice at birth and the useless weather talento, for frontline duty on the islands, once he has taken up ownership.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

How much exactly? details people..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those islands are a lot closer to Taiwan and China, so the owners should sell them to either of those two countries - highest bidder, of course - and let those two belligerents add them to their contemptuous disdain for each other. Then, maybe they'll even declare war over them. What a thought, eh? Japanese family gets money, China and Taiwan fight over the islands (remember, they're uninhabited), voila, problem solved.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

TrevorPeace 1Jul. 21, 2012 - 08:36AM JST. Those islands are a lot closer to Taiwan and China, so the owners should sell them to either of those two countries - highest bidder, of course

The value of the land is worthless since you cannot build anything without major political and military conflict. China is getting desperate for new souce of natural gas and oil and they are becoming more and more assertive to the neighboring countries. By 2020, over 70 percent of the oil that China consumes will come from the foreign source. No wonder China is wetting their pants.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

sfip330, Japan is also desperate for natural gas. China wants it and up to the 12 mile limit to the Okinawa islands. We control them now and it China wants them they will have to fight.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Those islands are a lot closer to Taiwan and China

Why do people keep saying this? Check it for yourselves on Google map.

Senkaku →Taiwan 168 km

Senkaku →nearest Chinese island 190km

Senkaku → nearest Japanese island (Yonaguni) 150km

http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm

3 ( +5 / -2 )

definietly this will end badly!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is it now only about money for the islands?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

China and Taiwan only started claiming jurisdiction of the islands in 1971 only after the potential for oil resources buried under the continental shelf of the East China Sea became known. The United Nations conducted an Oceanographic survey back in 1970 and found a potential of over 100 billion barrels of oil reserves there.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"The Kurihama family, which owns four of the islands"

Not according to the Chinese.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Senkaku - nearest Chinese island 190 km"

But the Diaoyu islands ARE Chinese islands, according to the Chinese.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

cleoJul. 21, 2012 - 09:10AM JST

Those islands are a lot closer to Taiwan and China Why do people keep saying this? Check it for yourselves on Google map.

Because if Japan had her way, every little tock in the north Pacific would be part of Japan and they could eventually claim the whole of the north Pacific as their exclusive economic zone.

Let's be real about this and say that the Senkakus are very much closer to Taiwan proper or China proper, than they are close to Japan proper.

Japan cannot, no matter how much she wants to, dictate the international geographical narrative.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Isn’t the Chinese leadership intentionally using the Senkaku incident or so-called Japan card in order to defuse the dissatisfaction and complaints of the Chinese public to the one-party rule over the huge gap between the rich and the poor, the lack of job opportunities, or the suppression of freedom of speech?

Sure it is. But you could say exactly the same about the Japanese government.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

OK but my question is, does China recognize the Kurihara family as the owner of these islands?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So Ishihara wanted to get the national government on board with this, they are now and now this guy has an issue with it? What am I missing??

1 ( +1 / -0 )

iceshoecreamJul. 21, 2012 - 10:14AM JST

OK but my question is, does China recognize the Kurihara family as the owner of these islands?

Of course not. Would you recognise someone who stole your car as the rightful owned of that car and having the right to sell it to whoever they wished?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The fairest way is all calming nations have to bid auction for owning that Islands from USA. After World War II, that Islands are under care of USA. Japan was defeated in World War II by USA. Not China or Taiwan. Even Japan by itself under mercy of Allied force. They surrendered unconditionally in 1945. They did not make pre condition for leaving some Islands for them. In 1971. US transfered administration back to Japan however it did not admit Japan was a rightful landlord. J government made a mess for leasing Islands like apartment. Can someone lease Hokkaido or Okinawa from J government?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"Is it now only about money for the islands?"

I'll answer my own question: For some, maybe it's always been about money.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So there are people who own these islands? This situation just got really pointless on both sides. Plus what are the owners waiting on?

On top of that, How did this family come to own these islands? If it was past down through the family over several generations then that would obviously mean that the islands previously belonged to japan. If they just purchased the islands, who did they purchase them from? Who do they pay taxes to for the land?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Can someone lease Hokkaido or Okinawa from J government?

In the case of Okinawa, yes, the US Military.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japanese has the right to defend its own land and China thinks they can have whatever they please if they have sufficient military power to win the battle. This is not the legal issue since China is not interested in bringing this to the International court. Ask Vietnamese or Philipino about what they think. They have similar problems with China right now.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

By the way Chinese history is all lies, political propaganda based on their grandiose fantasy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It's interesting to watch these disputes from a third-party point of view.

I think things will really kick-off if Tokyo does actually buy the islands.

Imagine if China then suddenly occupied one of the islands as Argentina did on South Georgia in 1982. How would Japan react?

It's fascinating...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I suppose everyone claiming that the Senkakus are Chinese on the grounds that they are nearer to "China proper", or whatever, will also agree that China therefore has no claim to islands in the South China Sea which are nearer to the Philippines or Vietnam than they are to China?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

" Plus what are the owners waiting on?"

It might be best for Mr. Kurihara and family not to overplay their hand and cut a deal as soon as possible. If the political situation were to change they could be left with uninhabited islands not worth one yen.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

ScroteJul. 21, 2012 - 11:51AM JST

I suppose everyone claiming that the Senkakus are Chinese on the grounds that they are nearer to "China proper", or whatever, will also agree that China therefore has no claim to islands in the South China Sea which are nearer to the Philippines or Vietnam than they are to China

Yep.................................

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

tomokiJul. 21, 2012 - 11:36AM JST

By the way Chinese history is all lies, political propaganda based on their grandiose fantasy.

And Japanese history or contemporary interpretation of their place in the big world of everyything is any different?

They're both as bad as each other.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

YubaruJul. 21, 2012 - 11:25AM JST

In the case of Okinawa, yes, the US Military.

US military based in Okinawa for purely defense and strategy reason. It does not need to pay rent either. It does not like Daiyoku or Sensuku Islands sold or leased to someone for commercial interest. US did not control or interfere Okinawa daily life as administration. The more suitable lease can be compared with Hong Kong was leased to Britain for 99 years after Sino British War. HK was under British rule during the lease.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and yes China has been trying to buy these islands for hundreds of millions of yen previously that's why the owner wants to sell these islands to Ishihara...he is fearing for his life.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japanese has the right to defend its own land and China thinks they can have whatever they please if they have sufficient military power to win the battle.

Ironic how the situation has been reversed since Japan tried to take over Asia and China 70 years ago.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This entire episode is a farce. Ishihara, using fear and hate for political gain will only bring misfortune upon Japan. You never show your hand to your enemy until you are ready to strike. In his case, he's screaming at China the pathetic hand he holds. What's worse is Noda took the bait. What's ugly is the general Japanese public have no clue what's really going on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think both Ishihara and China are just using this as a distraction for their lack of political will... This whole thing is pointless and people are being manipulated into getting worked up for nothing.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

China's claim over the islands is based on the description of the islands in their historical documents dating back as far as 14th or 15th century. But the islands were uninhabited for centuries and actually not ruled by any country until 1890's when the Japanese government claimed it and leased (and later sold) it to a Japanese who made a dried bonito production plant there and operated it till it was closed in 1940. The present owner of the islands bought them from the daughter in law of the first owner. During that time China (Qing, the Republic of China, the People's Republic of China) didn't protest against the economic activities by Japanese nor did they claim dominion over the islands until after 1970. It was too late for China to begin claiming as late as in 1970's but national interests seems to be something prioritized on the strength of sovereignty over decorum. So I think it is tact for diplomacy rather than saber-rattling that the situation requires now. Confrontation is easy and maybe diverting. But do we really go to war again? Perhaps such performers as Aoi Sora and Antonio Inoki are more useful figures in these circumstances.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

For sale Belgium and Germany. Bidding starts now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@seiharinokaze "Japanese who made a dried bonito production plant there and operated it till it was closed in 1940. The present owner of the islands bought them from the daughter in law of the first owner. During that time China...didn't protest against the economic activities by Japanese..."

Japanese occupied & operated quite a lot of things in half of China during the Japanese invasion ( or you called it 'entering' into China ) ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

at the end of it all if diplomacy doesnt work is Japan prepared to use force to keep them from China!? I dought it, id be putting my money on China, the so called owners of these islands better take the money and run before the poo hits the fan

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SerranoJul. 21, 2012 - 09:29AM JST "Senkaku - nearest Chinese island 190 km" But the Diaoyu islands ARE Chinese islands, according to the Chinese

All of Asia is Chinese according to the Chinese. Too bad for them that the rest of the world disagrees.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ares7Jul. 21, 2012 - 03:04PM JST This entire episode is a farce. Ishihara, using fear and hate for political gain will only bring misfortune upon Japan.

You could say the same thing about China but on a much much bigger scale.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

akkk1Jul. 21, 2012 - 03:01PM JST Ironic how the situation has been reversed since Japan tried to take over Asia and China 70 years ago.

Ironic that China keeps harping on Japan 70 years ago as if that justifies China acting the same way today.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

PT24881,

Claiming an island which is not ruled by any country and utilizing it is different from invasion. The areas Japan occupied was returned to China (the Republic of China) when the war ended. The Senkaku islands were included in such minor islands as the Allies determined as belonging to Japan. (China was on the Allied side, right?) China's claim is for sovereignty over the islands, not for the restoration of an invaded area. And my point is to settle the issue by taking a diplomatic method (that is to hear China's side of the story) without raising tensions inordinately.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The Senkaku islands were included in such minor islands as the Allies determined as belonging to Japan.

The problem is that this was never made clear. Nobody really knows who the islands belong to. Apparently this problem has been "shelved" diplomatically by both China and Japan.

When PRC-Japan diplomatic relations were established in 1972, both nations found reasons to set aside this territorial dispute. According to negotiator Deng Xiaoping, "It does not matter if this question is shelved for some time, say, 10 years. Our generation is not wise enough to find common language on this question. Our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all."

Apparently, our current generation is no wiser than the previous generation.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

We have no idea who the islands belong to, and the US certainly doesn't recognize it as Japanese territory. Either China, Taiwan and Japan find "a solution acceptable to all", or China will probably just take it by military force. I don't think that Japan can do much about it since US won't be helping them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Let's just wait a bit. With global warming, the sea levels are bound to rise and this will all be a moot point.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Ironic that China keeps harping on Japan 70 years ago as if that justifies China acting the same way today."

Ironic that Japan is playing the victim of their own WW2 actions.

In the interest of world peace, hope these islands go 50' underwater in the next quake and tsunami.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

akkk1Jul. 22, 2012 - 03:08AM JST "Ironic that China keeps harping on Japan 70 years ago as if that justifies China acting the same way today." Ironic that Japan is playing the victim of their own WW2 actions.

Ironic that China whines about being a victim of WW2 yet victimizes all of Asia today. In he interets of world peace hopefully the PRC one party dictatorship will collapse and the Chinese people will attain democracy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Thomas AndersonJul. 21, 2012 - 11:23PM JST We have no idea who the islands belong to, and the US certainly doesn't recognize it as Japanese territory.

No but we recognize Japanese sovereignty over these islands and have declared them to be within US defense paramenters under the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty. Which means a hell of alot more than "recognizing" ownership, something which the US has no authority to do, and is keeping China from trying to take them by force they way they are doing with the other Asian nations.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Who ate all the pies, sorry i meant who claimed all the islands, i must be turning ultra/USA or something similar that is obese.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please sell the islands to Tokyo governor. Don't sell it to the central government because they won't do anything with it. At least the Tokyo gov can place settlers and develop the islands. As the saying goes, possession is nine tenth of the law, occupy it and it is yours!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Where did the Kurihara family get the deed to the islands?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ironic that China whines about being a victim of WW2 yet victimizes all of Asia today.

So many ironies indeed! Japan and China are warped mirror images of each other in many ways.

hopefully the PRC one party dictatorship will collapse and the Chinese people will attain democracy.

PRC can learn from the LDP which has been running the show for decades like a one-party democracy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Let's be real about this and say that the Senkakus are very much closer to Taiwan proper or China proper, than they are close to Japan proper.

Then you have the tricky question of what constitutes 'proper'. The mainland? Japan is a nation of islands large and small. The Channel Isles are physically closer to mainland France than mainland Britain, yet they're British. American Samoa is way closer to New Zealand than it is to the American mainland, yet the name is a giveaway.

A certain distance from the capital? That would put lots of places closer to some other country 'proper' than to the country they are actually in.

Would you say that Okinawa is not part of 'Japan proper'?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So where did the Kurihama family get the deed to these islands?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@cleo

Proper means giving fair voice of residents of Island for their destiny. If disputed Islands are inhabited, geological survey may be a proper way. If Japan gives referendum to Okinawa like UK will give it to Scotland, it is not only proper but also interesting. Okinawa just became part of Japan in 1871 by annexation.

-1 ( +0 / -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