politics

10-year anniversary of China-Japan Senkaku dispute comes amid high tensions

19 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

I remember observing for the first time so-called "state-arranged" public protests and violence across China. As public events need permission from local authorities, anti-Japanese campaigns never emerged naturally. Or otherwise you will get detained (without warrant), charged with seditious acts (of course a verdict must be guilty), and brought to a re-education camp.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Happy Anniversary!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Japan should build a permanent Naval base.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The US has not recognized the islands as being Japanese.

they should.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Isn't the U.S. navy, stationed in Okinawa, supposed to secure safety in the South Pacific Ocean and come to help the Japanese when they are being attacked by the Chinese? Why don't they fight the Chinese?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

The U.S. has not recognized Japanese sovereignty over the Senkakus only because of Taiwan's claim. However, despite this the U.S. recognizes Japanese Administration over the islands has made it abundantly clear that any attempt by another country to take them by force with invoke Article 5 of the US-JPN Mutual Defense Treaty. Meaning, the U.S. will defend the Senkakus. But Taiwan's claim was for natral resources and Japan and Taiwan have settled fishery rights bilaterally. It is about time that Taiwan, Japan and the US sit down and agree to fully recognize Japanese Sovereignty as a bulwark against Chinese aggression.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

yappawakanneeiiToday  12:14 pm JST

Isn't the U.S. navy, stationed in Okinawa, supposed to secure safety in the South Pacific Ocean and come to help the Japanese when they are being attacked by the Chinese? Why don't they fight the Chinese?

Because the Chinese haven't attacked.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Because the Chinese haven't attacked.

The mere claim that Senkaku Islands belonged to them can be considered an attack. If this is the case, prevention is better, so the U.S. should initiate a pre-emptive strike!

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

yappawakanneeiiToday  12:32 pm JST

Because the Chinese haven't attacked.

The mere claim that Senkaku Islands belonged to them can be considered an attack

That's not how the world works.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

One of the reasons that China has become so powerful is that it has successfully and enthusiastically engaged with the Western Democracies. Dictator Xi seems to have forgotten that history lesson, and would rather embrace a failed dictator like Putin than continue a successful relationship with the West. The Chinese economy is suffering as a result, and the Chinese military depends on a strong economy.

It would be better for everyone involved if Xi stopped trying to be the bully of Asia.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

In the words of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ,”There is no territorial dispute.” Rip

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Another thing to “Thank” Gov, Ishihara for.

For those who don’t remember or weren’t here. The owner wanted to sell (I THINK but cannot recall for sure because he was in quite a bit of debt. If someone has the facts, I would be “indebted” to them.) and Ishihara wanted the Tokyo government to buy them mostly because he was a race-baiting xenophobic jerk.

Thus he essentially forced the central government’s hand as otherwise it was likely that the Chinese would just up and take them as the Central government would not claim ownership and Ishihara having no weapon but his big mouth.

So the central government bought them and placed them under its direct administration, as I recall hoping it would calm things down. It had the opposite effect.

The Chinese initially thought they could just overwhelm the JCG with ship after ship and flight after flight and that eventually Japanese will would break. They were mistaken. They seem in latter years to have gotten the message and things have settled down (for now.)

(America declaring the islands subject to the defense treaty helped a lot.)

But to be clear: these islands are, and always have been Japanese and that is the way they are going to stay.

The Chinese seem to think that a virtual tsunami of fishing boats coast guard cutters, whatever will break Japanese will. They are sorely mistaken.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The world stands with you, Japan, against any and all Chinese aggression!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

As apology for Japan's attempted conquest of China and South East Asia in the thirtys and forties, Japan could give up its claim to Diaoyu Island which is just a dot of land. It is of little or no use to Japan. Giving up her claim to a tiny dot of land will earn Japan more respect from China and of the world.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Stephen Chin - like wise the respect that China would gain if it gave up it's claims to the Spratly Islands - I have a map from the 50's when Taiwan was called Formosa - and it clearly shows the Senkakus (Japan) on the map.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Nukkuheddo - The South China Sea belongs to China. It is part and parcel and continuation of China's land mass.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

BS. China is in full possession of the Paracel Islands. The Spratleys are an all together different kettle of fish as they stretch all the way down to Indonesia. All parties need to sit around the negotiating table with each country getting those islands (reefs and seamounts) closest to their land borders.

PS. Japan should begin direct negotiations on the status of the Senkaku/Diaoyu. The obvious first step is to put off discussions of sovereignty and negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement on resource development (with environmental standards). Japan currently is either unwilling or unable to begin such activities.

The South China Sea belongs to China. It is part and parcel and continuation of China's land mass.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The South China Sea belongs to China. 

Except it doesn't according to the UN Law of the Sea. Other than that, your "argument" is flawless. Bravo Steve.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Stephen ChinToday  12:17 am JST

As apology for Japan's attempted conquest of China and South East Asia in the thirtys and forties, Japan could give up its claim to Diaoyu Island which is just a dot of land

You obviously don't know anything about PRC history. All matters up to the end of WWII were resolved in 1972 resulting in the signing of the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Friendship. China (PRC) further reaffirmed this treaty in 1978.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites