politics

Abe open to talks with China but no concessions on Senkakus

42 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.

42 Comments
Login to comment

China amaze me. I really can't look at their attempts to bully, coerce and trick their neighbours as anything other than ham fisted childishness. Their 'diplomacy' is nothing short of embarrassing, it really isn't. I think what really irks them is that they have not been able to push their high profile neighbours around. It's just pathetic.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

China really blew it. They've put themselves in a corner now with no way to back out. Either they turn around to their people and admit hey were wrong, the Senkakus are Japanese so let's forget about it. Or they try to take it by force and start a shooting war with the United States. Neither looks easy or attractive.

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

And once again, Japan says they're wiling to 'talk', but what they mean is they demand no one else do anything but listen.

-8 ( +11 / -19 )

Every foreign news outlet from the BBC to CNN acknowledges that there the Isle in dispute.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Under the Japan-China Peace and Friendship Treaty, hegemony and expansionism is prohibited, so don't play knock knock ginger all the time.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Abe cant be trusted.

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

Talks without the willingness to compromise are a waste of time.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Under the Japan-China Peace and Friendship Treaty the Island issue was to be resolved by future generation with an open mind.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

darknutsSep. 28, 2013 - 08:54AM JST Talks without the willingness to compromise are a waste of time.

You're right. How about I come over and we talk about your car which I claim is mine? I'm sure you'd be willing to compromise right?

0 ( +12 / -12 )

Remember that the Senkaku islands are only 300 miles from the China coast, google it, and you will see the issue. Yes, the islands are under Japanese control, but sovereign land? The two have obvious reasons for those islands, ranging from resource to intelligence, they to get to the table. Peace on the seven seas .

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

We hear arguments about this from one side or the other every other day but " there is no dispute"...? If there is no dispute here then I guess there isn't one about Dokdo or Kuril Islands either. Glad to know we are all a one big, happy family again.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Ossan: "You're right. How about I come over and we talk about your car which I claim is mine?"

How many times are you going to make this lame analogy? I mean, maybe he "bought" the car from your dealership and really never paid. Or he stole it from you. Or maybe your car was repossessed after you were destitude and given to someone else without any right to do so.

We're not talking about cars, we're talking about islands that are CLEARLY in dispute but that Abe and Japan ARGUE are not. How do you 'argue' there is no dispute??

darknuts is bang on.... if one side is not willing to listen, it is not a 'talk'. Japan is just trying to look like the 'good-guy' here, claiming to want talks while not actually wanting them, claiming to want peace while bolstering defense and trying to solidify other nations against China, claiming to want to improve relations while saying they are not willing to budge on any issues and calling China aggressors, claiming to want to bury the hatchet while white-washing history, etc. but fortunately the entire world knows there is a dispute, and knows Japan needs to own up to its past.

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

It's all doubletalk by both sides designed to show a willingness to talk but never actually budging from their original position.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Both sides, Japan and China, are making political pastures for their domestic audiences. In additions, Both sides are fully aware that this game are getting both countries hurt.

Here is the thing, even though US does not want to see an authoritarian and undemocratic China to push hegemony in Asia, form pragmatic point of view, to be potentially trapped in an armed conflict that engages three largest economies in the world for distinctions would be unwise or inconceivable.

It's true there is a treaty erected 50 years ago between US and Japan, but please don't forget: the world has changed since then,and the cold war ear has ended already.

The real questions may have to be examined by cooler heads in US are 1) Is it US's best interest to fight. 2) Will a war leave unintended consequences? eg. Iraq and Afghan 3) How much it may cost? 4) Does US have dependable allies if the war breaks? ... Just name few.

Folks, please make no mistakes, Americans today are neither idealists or moralists per se. Those disputable, remote and inhabited rocky isles are simply not US's best national interests to fight for. You could disagree, but reality checks.

I suspect, deep down, Ape's administration knows well that right now and in near future Japan is not in its best position to wage a war with its arising and bigger neighbor. For instance, this month Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications revealed that 1 in every 4 people in Japan is over the age of 65 ( that is 25%) and their population set a record-high of 31.86 millions. Further, the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research estimates: people in Japan who are over 65 years old may even become 1 in 3 people in merely 20 plus years. (When you have some time to spare, you may check how many percent of Chinese people are 65 and above.)

Japan, which is a wonderful country, has been in peace for 68 years should try all its efforts to invest its resources for peace and prosperity. That is the best interests of Japanese people and American people as well.

I am a firm believer on an old adage "Where there's a will, there's a way." If Abe could strengthen his will and leave his ego at the bay to seek a political remedy in island dispute with China rather advocating arm race, there will be fruitful results.

If history can be any guild here, a war between Japan and China can only does harm and no gains. This time around, the table could be turned.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

How do you rule out sovereignty when you didn't have any over these disputed islands? No one is asking Japan to rule out administrative rights. Don't get that confused.

Legally speaking, Japan isn't being asked to give any concession that isn't already true. Stop saving face and face reality. There is a dispute and this is a conflict. You can ignore it, and so will the Chinese. You do understand they can play this game as long as they want and you can play this game as long as you want. If no one is willing to take a step back, then why bother with these news? Next time just say, nothing new, neither sides wish to talk without having an upper hand over the other.

Just let time past and see what happens. Don't get your popcorn yet. Wait for it.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Remember that the Senkaku islands are only 300 miles from the China coast, google it, and you will see the issue.

Hokkaido is 30 miles from Sakhalin. That must mean Hokkaido belongs to Russia. Unless...Russia belongs to Japan!

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Chinese Foreign Minister said that their nukes were for self defense, and not to pose a threat to their neighbors.

Very good. Then they should not criticise Japanese Self-Defence Forces.

Actually Japan has threats nearby, at least two, or maybe three. Ding-Dong Ditch may be get in trouble someday.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Abe:" ....and the islands are under the valid control of Japan,”

Again Abe buried his head under sand like what he mentioned "Fukushima... under CONTROL ". When others' ships/ planes can enter the place whenever they want, it's not called VALID CONTROL; when you request private boats of your country don't go there in avoid of being detained by others, it's not called VALID CONTROL; when you want to send government officials there but you don't dare to do so, it's not called VALID CONTROL! Ok, why not just face the realities and start real communication? and one more thing, pls check what "control " really means!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Why doesn't Japan follow through with their empty threats, and break off relations with China?

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

I suspect, deep down, Ape's administration knows well that right now and in near future Japan is not in its best position to wage a war with its arising and bigger neighbor. For instance, this month Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications revealed that 1 in every 4 people in Japan is over the age of 65 ( that is 25%) and their population set a record-high of 31.86 millions. Further, the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research estimates: people in Japan who are over 65 years old may even become 1 in 3 people in merely 20 plus years. (When you have some time to spare, you may check how many percent of Chinese people are 65 and above.)

To wage war you need young people. Japan just doesn't have the human resources to fight a major conflict. I think China will just keep playing the cat and mouse game until Japan has no choice but to give up the islands. China's military budget is already 3 times Japan's, what happens when it's 10 times? The best solution for Japan is to negociate join development of the resources, the earlier the better.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

I suspect this is becoming less about the rocks and more about creating nationalist sentiments on both sides.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Finally a Japanese PM with a spine!

0 ( +9 / -9 )

splksgt96: "Finally a Japanese PM with a spine!"

Not until he makes any actions on his many, many, promises and threats, or proves things are 'under control' and what not. He's as spineless as any other, and worse for all the lip-service. While the other PMs over the last seven years have lacked the ability to take concrete action, at least they didn't SAY they had taken concrete action when they made none.

Abe IS a strong PM in terms of lip-service, I'll give you that.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Abe IS a strong PM in terms of lip-service, I'll give you that.

that too, I would rather attribute to electronic media !

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The Japanese Kabuki theatrics continues with Abe as lead actor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sad, but is true. China is struggling with her social problems, and she is using the issue only to divert people from domestic issues.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Remember that the Senkaku islands are only 300 miles from the China coast, google it, and you will see the issue

Senkaku is only 170 kilometers from Ishigaki Island which is Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Senkaku_Diaoyu_Tiaoyu_Islands.png

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Let me list several points:

A. Taiwan and China mainland have records that they ownered these islets before Japan incorparated them on the so called "Terra Nullius In International Law".

B. These islets were not on the map of China before Japan incorporated them does't mean these islands had no owner.

C. On the logic that Japan keep stating these islets were not in the map of China so they had no owner before 1895, lots of very small islets arround Japan, Russia, USA, UK, China, etc which have no names and even not been drawed in the maps of the nations today can be freely incorporated by other nations on the basis of "Terra Nullius In International Law ".

If upper three are correct logic, the answer is abvious.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Sad, but is true. China is struggling with her social problems, and she is using the issue only to divert people from domestic issues.

Actually I think it's the other way around. It's Japan struggling with social problems, and using this issue to divert people. When I look at the Chinese media, there's hardly any stories on this, most Chinese simply don't care. Japan's media on the other hand, there's something about China and the disputed islands, and how bad the Chinese are, and how Japan is going defend the islands, virtually everyday.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

When I look in the Chinese media, there's hardly any stories on this, most Chinese simply don't care.

Don't read Chinese news often, now do ya Chucky. But thanks for the laugh anyway!

0 ( +6 / -6 )

we're talking about islands that are CLEARLY in dispute but that Abe and Japan ARGUE are not. How do you 'argue' there is no dispute?

“The Senkakus are an inherent part of the territory of Japan in light of historical facts and based upon international law and the islands are under the valid control of Japan. To our regret, incursions by Chinese government vessels in our territorial waters are continuing. But Japan will not make a concession on our territorial sovereignty.”

I believe Mr Abe's words from the article above answer your question Smith. Nothing he says there is "in dispute". The status quo has been Japan in control of administering the islands, and PRC off hassling some other neighbor about their land. The obvious endgame here for the communists is to grab up the islands, the mineral rights and the strategic advantage. Japan has a problem with that plan, and that's the only thing "in dispute". And since everybody (including the communists) knows Japan will never turn over the Senkakus to PRC, there really is no dispute. There's just PRC .... beating a dead horse.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Chris Lowery Remember that the Senkaku islands are only 300 miles from the China coast, google it.and you will see the issue.

This kind of lack of historical information and lack of legal information make this issue more complicated.

The judicial precedent in an international law. Island of Pal mas Case.

1)The title by geographical approach-ability does not have a meaning in the international law.

2) Discovery itself is immature origin of rights to obtain a sovereignty in international law which is inchoate title.

3) When a foreign country begins to use realistic sovereignty and a discovery country does not protest, the title which uses sovereignty is only larger than the title of discovery.

Until the WW2 broke out, between 1895 and 1940, there was a bonito flake factory and 250 Japanese were resided. Based on this, China is OUT. China did not use the island the way Japan did. In order to avoid war. We must respect how the law prevents it. That is way these 3 conditions are there. I prefer China send the case to ICJ instead of sending ships and planes to Japan territory. China is giving more reasons to Japan to beef its defense capability up.

Many reads might not know one fact for sure,which is the one of the major reasons of this issue left some grey zone is from the US politics. A recording tape WAS FOUND at Nixon Library 3 months ago!

This information is from the tape not any other sources. There was a textile issue negotiation between Taiwan and USA.In those days, that was a big issue in USA. The conversation among ,George Peterson, Henry Kissinger & Richard Nixon.I listened to it very carefully becasue I wanted to know why America stated Japan has an administrative right on Senkaku archipelago instead of sovereignty, According to the recording, Taiwan asked US to keep Senkaku as US territory so that they could keep fishing the way they did in those days or whatever the reasons were. If America kept Senkaku, Taiwan would accept some condition in textile deal as favor for US. So that US could protect the textile industry in South where Nixon needed votes in the area.Peterson's advised Nixon to accommodate the request from Taiwan.

Contrary to Peterson, Kissinger said 'According to San Francisco peace treaty with 48 nations approval,Senkaku was left for Japan. Since it is the part of Okinawa,its county, it must be returned at once as JAPAN. So that,we may say Okinawa is returned to Japan completely. That would be important to keep a good relationship between two nations.

Later, Nixon took the middle way as obviously today. The US returned all Okinawa islands in 1972 to Japan but in the document states that "Japan has a administrative right on Senkaku" The US gave the consideration to Taiwan. But it produced the room for today's Senkaku issue. Since it has been affected by the US politics, Japan must be determined to protect its sovereignty. That is being done everyday by normal countries any way. Japan must be stand by Japan self without rely on USA for this issue.

The bottom line is that if this were who is right or wrong issue? America knows Senkaku is Japan, but they keep it as our tacit understanding because from the grey zone from Nixon administration. China knows it is Japan as well. They published so many maps, news paper, official documents, also China even did not complain even though they had a seat as a UN security council while America was using two islands of Senkaku as their bombing range!!! Based on these facts, still China wants to say? " We knew America was bombing in China then, but we were quite" I do not think so. They suddenly changed their policy after the oil was found in Senkaku area. So at least China then knew the fact as Senkaku is Japan. Today, people were given a lot of fabricated information,so the new generation might sincerely believes it because of a famous China's tactful deception.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

smithinjapanSep. 28, 2013 - 09:20AM JST Ossan: "You're right. How about I come over and we talk about your car which I claim is mine?" How many times are you going to make this lame analogy?

It is not a "lame" analogy at all, but a rather accurate description of China's position, which must be understood in order to understand Japan's response. I will repeat it as long as some people continue to be incapable of grasping it.

" I mean, maybe he "bought" the car from your dealership and really never paid. Or he stole it from you. Or maybe your car was repossessed after you were destitude and given to someone else without any right to do so."

One can create an infinite number of "maybes" but that's what they are and consequently pointless, as are most of your platforms for regurgitating anti-Japan comments, regardless of relevance to the article or discussion.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Chris Lowery Remember that the Senkaku islands are only 300 miles from the China coast, google it.and you will see the issue.

Chamkun said the distance has nothing to do with it. But for someone like Chris Lowery, the distance may be important. From Ishigaki county of Okinawa Japan, Senkaku is only 100 miles away." google it.and you will see the issue."

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Let's see how long this paper tiger will last.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You're right. How about I come over and we talk about your car which I claim is mine?"

If the dispute was such that neither of us could drive the out of fear of retaliation from the other, I would very much be open to compromise. A car sitting in the driveway does neither of us any good. We both lose. Japan and China should toss aside the sovereignty dispute. Agree to dissagree on that and work toward a treaty that would allow for joint use of the island's and resources.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Japan and China should toss aside the sovereignty dispute. Agree to dissagree on that and work toward a treaty that would allow for joint use of the island's and resources."

That makes too much sense, they'll never do that.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Ever since Taiwan had signed that fishing agreement with Japan (which angered China), there has been no problems between the two.....

http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2013/04/japan-taiwan-senkakus-fishing-agreement.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51489397/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/china-angered-japan-taiwan-sign-fishing-agreement/

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"We sincerely hope to properly resolve them through negotiation and consultation with countries directly resolved," Wang said.

In September last year former US Defense Secretary Panetta said in Beijing that the US hopes the issue would be solved peacefully through bilateral talks between China and Japan. Was he in rapport with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi? China in her heart of hearts may be claiming not a sovereignty but a share of resources. That's why they shun going to the ICJ. If the case turns against them out there as it probably would, they will not be able to have a share. Make the best of a fake bargain. Chinese use all the wiles they have including the status of a creditor. By a curious coincidence in today's Yomiuri newspaper Richard Armitage wrote that it is difficult to share the sovereignty over the Senkaku islands but not so difficult to share the resources around the islands, suggesting that Japan come to the negotiating table with China. As it is Abe might come short of superpowers' expectations.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

darknutsSep. 29, 2013 - 02:06PM JST "You're right. How about I come over and we talk about your car which I claim is mine?"

If the dispute was such that neither of us could drive the out of fear of retaliation from the other, I would very much be >open to compromise. A car sitting in the driveway does neither of us any good. We both lose. Japan and China should >toss aside the sovereignty dispute. Agree to dissagree on that and work toward a treaty that would allow for joint use >of the island's and resources.

Taiwan's claim is based on the desire for fishing rights in the area of the Senkakus. Hence, an agreement has been reached with Japan to that effect. In the case of China however, while the initial claim in 1971/72 was based on the possibility of natural resources (oil/gas) in the area, since 2003 the PLA Navy has declared an intent to take control of the entire South and East China Seas, and that their objective was to break the "island chains" in order for them to break out into the Pacific and challenge the United States. China's objectives are not the same as Taiwan's and do not lend themselves to a friendly solution as you describe as they are on a territorial expansion agenda.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Communist Chinese leaders look like idiot and stupid because the way they are acting with neighbors. They do not follow the International rule and law. They are only talking about what they want like children. Leaders should not be behave like children indeed.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

mgglifeSep. 28, 2013 - 09:22PM JST

Let me list several points:

A. Taiwan and China mainland have records that they ownered these islets before Japan incorparated them on the so called "Terra Nullius In International Law".

If China could prove its effective control of the islands before 1895, Japanese government is glad to concede the islands to China. Chinese should get this repeated message from Tokyo ever since PM Tanaka. PM Noda again called for settlement through international law last year. Just prove that China controlled the islands before 1895.

As far as I know, there is no proof that China had effective control over the islands before 1895. There are several old Chinese navigation books that mention the islands. But none of them says that the islands belong to China. Just prove it. I would support China if it could.

-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