Abe cites Thatcher reflections on Falklands war over rule of law at sea

Good speech for Diet members, world will find it difficult to understand and agree except that Japan enjoys cornerstone relationship with US.

Great now he's quoting Thatcher ! Who next, Hitler ?

**MARGARET THATCHER re FALKLANDs : ...........I'm standing up for the right of self-determination. I'm standing up for our territory. I'm standing up for our people. I'm standing up for international law. .....................I'm standing up for all those territories - those small territories and peoples the world over - who,IF SOMEONE DOESN'T STAND UP AND SAY TO AN INVADER "ENOUGH STOP" , WOULD BE AT RISK.

The falklands war was a sham, a smokescreen to get flag-waving brittons united agianst a boogey-man and boost Thatchers popularity. In the same way Hawkish Abe is using this island issue to change the constitution, boost national pride and deflect attention away from all the other issues that need fixing.

Honestly, the amount of Japanese people I've spoken too, and none of them seem to know anything about Thatcher, other than her being a 'Strong woman'. It's as if the media here painted her as a saint or deity.

I don't know who's "right" or "wrong" in either the Falklands case or the Senkaku case but by just having a look at the map, it's interesting to see that both island groups are far away from both "winning parties" mainland. In the case of the Malvinas/Falklands it is pretty eveident that they must have been claimed by the seafaring Britain on one of their conquering journeys around the world. It makes as much sense that the Falklands are British as it does that HongKong, Australia or Pitcairn are. I can understand Argentinians who think those islands (who are close to Argentine territory) belong to them.

In the Diaoyu/Senkaku case, same thing applies. Have you seen how far these islands are from Japan? I don't know why Japan claims these rocks to be theirs but I can see how the Chinese feel they are theirs due to geographical reasons of vicinity.

USA has nurmerous islands , especially in the Pacific region, that now belong to USA . They are USA domain or under USA proterorate. . . .These islands historicaly belonged to some other power . . . . . But because they now are part uf USA territory, ANY military incursion of their marine space by foreign power would equally be deemed a threat,

Margaret Thatcher. My hero of heros!

Seriously, though, although I support Japan's position re: Senkakus, there's not much of a correlation with the Falklands, as the latter are inhabited and the former are not. Britain was supporting the Falklands self-determination before oil and gas were discovered and thus an uneconomical drain on the budget. If the East China Sea weren't so resource-rich, would Japan bother defending the Senkakus so vigorously?

@Ewan Exactly. The Falklands conflict was a roll of the dice by Thatcher to try to win an election. Soldiers died in this filthy and immoral attempt to boost her poll standings. Abe seems to be cut from the same cheap cloth. @Steven C Schulz Hero? I was brought up in the Thatcher years in a county whose unemployment rate ballooned to 25%. When Abe quotes Thatcher, a shiver runs up my spine when I think of dead soldiers and the appalling, destructive effects of mass unemployment.

Quoting Thatcher huh? Abe must have put on his big boy pants this morning.

@Jimizo

At the rish of being off-topic, but I can't let my silenve be interpreted as concession.

25% unemployment is what happens when you stop paying militant unions not to work.

Jimizo: The UK unemployment rate peaked at 12% during the Thatcher era, not 25%. Also, do you expect a country to abandon its citizens and do nothing whilst another country invades its territory? Nobody would have died had the unelected Argentinian dictatorship not invaded the islands in the first place.

@steven The majority of people thrown onto the dole in the Thatcher years were not unionized.

Knox Harrington Mar. 01, 2013 - 08:49AM JST

but I can see how the Chinese feel they are theirs due to geographical reasons of vicinity.

I agree your logic. If we test the DNA of rocks and soil from Senkaku, it is neighter relative with Japanese or PRC rocks and soil. Taiwan is a chain of Islands. Geographically or Geolgogically it has similar DNA as Taiwan.

Abe wants to become an Iron lady as Margret Thatcher. The problem is not many new generation of Japanese know about her. He should ask schools to teach Falklands War as nationalist propanganda.

@Scrote I said in my 'county' not 'country'. Unemployment on Merseyside was around 25%. Even the Daily Mail admitted it.

Rocks do not have DNA.

Mrs Thatcher was insane and Abe has similar traits. There is a lot of difference between these islets and the Falklands which are inhabited, Abe does strike me as rather odd and he does say some queer things that upset people. He is not real evil like Blair who hides his cruel intentions behind a fake smile, he seems genuine in his oddness.

Back on topic please. From here on, posts that do not focus on Abe's comments will removed.

Knox Harrington

In the Diaoyu/Senkaku case, same thing applies. Have you seen how far these islands are from Japan?

Do you know Okinawa is an integral part of Japan? Senkaku is very closes to other Okinawa islands.

I don't know why Japan claims these rocks to be theirs

They are not rocks. About 200 Japanese lived on Senkaku Islands until the begining of WW2.

Nathaw

If we test the DNA of rocks

What? I know what China will say next. They will claim entire Asia, Europe and Africa because land is connected to Chian and the DNA of the soil is similar to that of Chinese.

By quoting Thatcher in this way it can only be hoped that Abe is ready to face the consequences.

The Falklands are inhabited by a long-established community of Britishers and no one else. Japan's "territories" are deserted outcroppings. A bogus comparison, indeed.

If the Senakakus had Japanese living on them for 100 years or so, China and others would respect their sovereignty and this whole thing would never had happened.

Abe went on to quote a remark from Thatcher's memoirs, reflecting on the Falklands war, in which she said Britain was defending the fundamental principle that international law should prevail over the use of force.

Then why doesn't he use international law to decide the issue of the Senkakus?

Nothing will be resolved by trying to ignore the problem and scrambling fighter jets every time a Chinese plane goes anywhere near the islands.

Abe is creating the problem.

Maybe that's his plan.

Or the plan of the person(s) pulling his strings.

This is an irrelevant comparison because there were people on the Falklands who wanted to remain British. This puts a wrinkle in his entire argument. But he's looking for justifications, so the USA should be worried

JeffLeeMar. 01, 2013 - 11:39AM JST "The Falklands are inhabited by a long-established community of Britishers and no one else. Japan's "territories" are deserted outcroppings. A bogus comparison, indeed. If the Senakakus had Japanese living on them for 100 years or so, China and others would respect their sovereignty >and this whole thing would never had happened.

103 years ago about 200 Japanese lived and worked a Bonito processing plant on the Senkakus. The remains of their building structures are the only remnants of them ever having been inhabited. There is no evidence or records of Chinese ever having lived on them.

He did score some very high points with the speech. The Chinese have no way to justify their actions in the context of the modern world.

i dont think international law states that you are allowed to buy any islands you want and then claim them. Abe put his own foot in his big mouth.

I agree your logic. If we test the DNA of rocks and soil from Senkaku, it is neighter relative with Japanese or PRC rocks and soil. Taiwan is a chain of Islands. Geographically or Geolgogically it has similar DNA as Taiwan.

Hahaha! Test the rocks DNA? Why don't you take it's pulse while you at it?

Anyway, then by your logic, Taiwan should be part of China.

The Falklands Islanders see themselves as British citizens. The Senkaku islands are uninhabited. How Abe thinks he can connect the two, is weird.

CH3CHO Mar. 01, 2013 - 11:12AM JS

What? I know what China will say next. They will claim entire Asia, Europe and Africa because land is connected to Chian and the DNA of the soil is similar to that of Chinese.

I have never heard about China empire before. Japanese empire size was 7.4 sq km expanded to other continents back in 20th century. Therefore I have to correct your sentence as Japan has already claimed entire Asia back in 1942. Abe wants to be reignite the glorious days of 1942. He wants to follow his grandpa unfinished business of WWII.

http://empires.findthedata.org/q/36/2513/How-large-was-the-Japanese-Empire-at-its-greatest-extent

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

He will claim as Senkaku likes a Falklands for nationalist movement. Later on he will claim other dispute territories. Margaret Thatcher is his role model. However she surrendered HK to China according the Sino British war treaty.

If he wants to follow Margarat Thatcher way, Japan has to surrender Senkaku to Taiwan according Taipei treaty singed in 1952.

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/taipei01.htm

Okinawa or Ryuku was annexed in 1874 by Japan. Senkaku became part of Japan in 1895. One question is If Senkaku belong to Okinawa, Why was many years gap between 1874 to 1895? It was obvious that Senkaku was later land grabbing. As a resource poor nation, Japan has a history as land grabber. That year is 2013 and 1942 will never come back for Abe and his followers.

Nathaw-san,

Margaret Thatcher is his role model.

No! Really?

So we can expect Abe to dye his hair purple and wear a skirt!?

That would be interesting!

BertieWooster San

I agree with you. It would be not only interesting but also entertaining. Obviously you are knowledgeable about Margaret Thatcher! Why did she get the name of Iron lady? Has she ironed before she became a PM? I am sure Abe has never ironed before in his entire life.

Abe comments: "I want to appeal to international society that in modern times changes to the status quo by the use of force will justify nothing.” Allow me to focus on his use of the word "modern." That his comment includes the word modern is telling because it absolves nations, including Japan and Great Britain, from any responsibility for territories gained by use of force in times not defines as "modern."

Athletes-san,

I'm not very knowledgeable about Margaret Thatcher, I'm afraid, or whether she ironed professionally prior to her life in politics. I believe she was given this nickname because of her "unbending," i.e. stubborn and unyielding nature.

Continuing the analogy, I do not think Mr Abe will not be known in the future as the "Iron Man" even if he does dye his hair purple, wear thick beige stockings and marry someone called Dennis.

It's more likely that he will be known as "Titanic" Abe.

Not because of his resemblance to "Titan," but because he sank like the famous ship.

Nathaw: As a resource poor nation, Japan has a history as land grabber

Oh common, China is the biggest shameless land grabber from its neighbors: Tiben, Uigur, Inner Mogol, India, Vietnam , USSR, ...

It would be better for Abe to concentrate in lower the tension in the Island dispute rather then sighting unnecessary past world figure statements and continue giving conflicting views. It is pointless to continue emphasize the importance of Sino-Japan Relation and then turned around shooting off his mouth of negativity about China. This sort of double talk does no one any good.

I hope this is on topic and I keep saying it over again, those contested islands belong to China since ancient times. Just because Japanese took them away in they expansionist movement, does not mean it belongs to them. Japan and Okinawa were basalt states to China, yet China never intended to annex them. The last negotiation about the Ryukyus was mediated by Present Ulysses S Grant and Japan agreed on a formula where Japan could keep Okinawa and islads north of it. China would keep Miyako and the Yaeyama islands. There was never a mention of the Diaoyu islands because its ownership was not in question. But Japan was just buying time to develop its navy so it could grab not only the whole of Okinawa, but also impose onerous conditions to China during its surrender. It is a long thesis, but worth reading. And, very objective. Read at:

http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf

Thanks. Good night.

Both China and Japan have something to say about the ownership of these islands. It's not a simple matter. In a situation like this, leaders from both sides have to sit down and work it out.

Let's say that you always park in slot number 7 and one day you can't park there because someone else's car is there.

How would you solve the problem?

By locking yourself in the bathroom and crying. By wishing it weren't a problem. By wondering what you had done to deserve it. By prayer. Or, by spreading around the story that you got big friends and that anyone who parks in your space is going to get it!

Wouldn't it be best to find out who it was and talk with him about it?

There doesn't have to be a fight. It doesn't have to be a "we win - you lose" situation. Maybe it's a big enough space that you could share it.

So maybe China and Japan could jointly develop the oil there and share the profits. That I believe has been suggested by China.

But Abe doesn't want direct communication. He'd rather mouth off to his friends and the media behind China's back about "taking a tough stand." But if someone from China came over to talk to him about the islands, he'd probably get an attack of the tummywobbles and spend the rest of the morning in the smallest room in the office.

He's the leader of his party. And his party is in power. Why can't he get on a plane, go to China, Go to NK and talk to these guys?

He should be solving problems not creating them.

Bertie:

Maybe it's a big enough space that you could share it.

That would actually be incredibly innovative and progressive. Imagine Japan and China saying: "OK, we have decided on making these islands a shared territory. They will be both Chinese and Japanese."

Is that even possible? It would be a world first, wouldn't it?

Makes some sense that he's citing Thatcher, when you think about it. In 1982, Margaret Thatcher was under attack from all sides for a flagging economy, soaring unemployment, and economic policies that horrified most of the country and would eventually leave entire communities without work or prospects for generations, while siphoning all the country's wealth to her pals in the City of London.

The Falklands War, for all that it was necessary to defend the rights of the Falklanders, was a shamelessly exploited opportunity for Thatcher to rally the country against an external threat to legitimise her as a strongwoman and to divert attention away from the ignominious effects her policies were having at home.

Meanwhile in 2013, Shinzo Abe...well, you get the idea. The parallels are rather striking, except that neither Japan nor Abe have the clout to back it up, and will promptly go and hide under America's skirts if the situation starts getting ugly when they do something stupid.

Abe, Maggie calling and she demand you don't associate her name with you!

Knox Harrington,

What I mean was why don't China and Japan jointly develop the oil or whatever the Senkakus have got that both want?

From what I can see there are arguments for both sides.

So, why don't they cooperate?

Well, if an abstract person A wants to get a title of "Iron Lady", they have to practice "iron statements". Even though, in the current situation it may be wiser to act rather than disturb air. How about agreeing with the allies, the US, Vietnam, Philippines, maybe even India, Australia or whoever, and setting up a permanent active military presence in the area, in international waters closer to Chinese zone, for research purposes. If you can't prevent trespassing and buoy planting, try to move the "hot" zone further away from you and closer to your opponent.

The late British PM Mrs. M. Thatcher was a world class leader who has brought forward far- sighted strategies & policies & a genuine strong will.. It is out of question for this man to inspire her charisma !

S. Abe, history will tell how he, an ex-PM, gave in & stepped down just because of stomachache !?

@PT24881 - Thatcher's not dead yet.

The focus is : The Diaoyiu Islands property ; Mr Abe is triple playing in order to create confusions and problems not real solution !! I believe these Islands belong to China or Taiwan . and . !!!

Makes some sense that he's citing Thatcher, when you think about it. In 1982, Margaret Thatcher was under attack from all sides for a flagging economy, soaring unemployment, and economic policies that horrified most of the country and would eventually leave entire communities without work or prospects for generations, while siphoning all the country's wealth to her pals in the City of London.

The Falklands War, for all that it was necessary to defend the rights of the Falklanders, was a shamelessly exploited opportunity for Thatcher to rally the country against an external threat to legitimise her as a strongwoman and to divert attention away from the ignominious effects her policies were having at home.

Meanwhile in 2013, Shinzo Abe...well, you get the idea. The parallels are rather striking, except that neither Japan nor Abe have the clout to back it up, and will promptly go and hide under America's skirts if the situation starts getting ugly when they do something stupid.

but china is not argentina. if there's a war between china & japan, you'll see more casualties in the first hour than the whole of the falklands war.

BertieWooster

What I mean was why don't China and Japan jointly develop the oil or whatever the Senkakus have got that both want?

Because Japan has better foundation of the sovereignty of the island than China does.

Last September, Prime Minister Noda proposed use of International Court of Justice to settle this dispute. China ignored his proposal. I think China knows its argument has no chance in ICJ.