politics

Aso compares Senkakus dispute to Falklands

82 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

82 Comments
Login to comment

"we cannot avoid increasing defense spending"

Actually, Britain had just gone through some big cost-cutting in its defense budget by the time the Falkands had broken out. It's only real carrier, the Ark Royal, had just been decommissioned. The only "carriers" were stubby little ships equipped with Harriers, low-performance fighters that could, however, do semi-vertical takeoff.

UK didn't win because it had better equipment: but because it had higher quality troops, strategy and were plain smarter than the enemy. With Abe and Aso in charge, Japan doesn't have that guarantee.

13 ( +19 / -6 )

Honestly I don't see much similarity between the Falkland island dispute and the Senkaku problem.

For one thing the Falklands are about as far from the UK as it's possible to get and very close to Argentina. The Senkakus are close to Taiwan and mainland China, but closer to Okinawa, which is part of Japan.

They are also populated. The population in 2012 was 2,932. The Senkakus, on the other hand, are not.

The Senkaku's total area is only 7 square kilometres (2.7 square miles), whereas the Falkland islands cover 12,173 square kilometres (4,700 square miles).

As a British subject, I was intensely embarrassed at the ridiculous two month "war" that occurred in Falklands in the 80's. The problem could easily have been resolved by negotiations between the two countries. As could the situation with China and Japan over the Senkakus. In fact, without American intervention, and American puppets like Abe, I'm sure that this could be solved by negotiation too.

5 ( +24 / -19 )

In fact, without American intervention, and American puppets like Abe, I'm sure that this could be solved by negotiation too.

If that were true, then it would have been solved a long, long time ago.

9 ( +17 / -8 )

This is a most farfetched comparison between Senkau/Diaoyu and Falkland islands. England was not a defeated nation in WWII and has no obligation to obseve the Potsdam Treaty. Japan has to obey Potsdam Treaty as it was a defeated nation in WWII. Of course Japan can count on the support of at least part of the U.S. government, however going by the Falkland Islands experience Japan can be expected to be thoroughly shafted by a different piece of the U.S. government at the same time.

Falkland Islands have people living there for generations who want to stay there and live as Falkland Islanders. The U.K. just happend to guarantee defense as a colonial power, Argentina tries to ignore them. The Falkland Islands will never be ruled by Argentina, as long as the Falkland Islanders wish it to remain that way. Just because you put an Argentinian flag over the Falkland Islands and call them Malvinas does not mean you can ignore the people that live there. If the Argentians had any sense they would be giving the Falkland Islanders free travel, health care etc.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

we cannot avoid increasing defense spending ...

btw, what was U.K's debt that time, not US$10tri. me guess.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Oh! My! Aso is a good and honest man. He speaks all that comes to his mind. He has a very good sense about economy and business. I regret for him that he says such thing when it is calming down.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

JeffLeeAug. 28, 2013 - 07:16AM JST UK didn't win because it had better equipment: but because it had higher quality troops, strategy and were plain >smarter than the enemy. With Abe and Aso in charge, Japan doesn't have that guarantee.

The UK had US intelligence. Japan has that and more. The UK never had a guarantee that the US would protect the Falklands from invasion. Japan does.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

Ladies and Gents .... We have a Japanese George Double Ya~ on our hands! Seriously dude .... shut your trap!

11 ( +17 / -6 )

“A meeting between leaders is not simply for the sake of shaking hands and taking pictures, but to resolve problems,” Chinese deputy foreign minister Li Baodong told reporters [...] If Japan wants to arrange a meeting to resolve problems, they should stop with the empty talk and doing stuff for show.”

And the same goes for China. But they've made their views clear. They want the Senkakus at all costs. They will only agree to meet if they believe Japan is ready to hand them over.

China will have no compunction making the Senkakus another Sansha. I wouldn't be surprised if they redrew the maps in their passports again. Japan needs to change the constitution ASAP and expand the Self-Defence Forces - yes, for defence. It's the only language China understands.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Why is the finance minister making inflammatory comments about defence issues? Aso should keep his trap shut.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

Why is this top page news? There are a lot of similarities between the two...

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

OssanAmericaAug. 28, 2013 - 08:02AM JST The UK never had a guarantee that the US would protect the Falklands from invasion. Japan does.

U.S. will not be involved in defending a tiny rock. They have bigger isssue with economics with China.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

When Britain deployed aircraft carriers to the Falkland Islands, it did not convey its intentions to protect the islands

Did they go for whale-watching?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

sfjp330Aug. 28, 2013 - 08:28AM JST "OssanAmericaAug. 28, 2013 - 08:02AM JST The UK never had a guarantee that the US would protect the Falklands from invasion. Japan does. U.S. will not be involved in defending a tiny rock. They have bigger isssue with economics with China.

This is fallacy so often repeated by those who on hand do not understand the United States or Americans and overestimate China's economic importance by ignoring America's importance to China. The U.S. does not have a history of going back on statements made by the Sec of State and Sec of Defense. When the Japanese launched their "IZUMO" the JMSDF band played the "Gunkan March" followed by "Anchors Aweigh". The true danger of this fallacy is that the Chinese people and government may start believing it emboldening them to take actions which may start a conflict.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

abe never learned his stupid mistakes. keep on like this China and Korea will never forgive Japan. face up the history and sincere to your neighbour, Abe.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

Taro Aso is to the Senkakus what Margret Thatcher was to the Falklands. That's conservatism for you.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

No. The Falklands are inhabited. And inhabited by people who want to be British. It is nothing like the Senkakus.

21 ( +24 / -4 )

It's nothing like the Falklands conflict. For a start, the Falklands were/are inhabited by British citizens who want to remain British. There are no human inhabitants of these rocks in the sea causing so much trouble. They don't necessarily belong to any nation, and maybe they should stay that way. I mean seriously? WWIII over 6 rocks? Haven't you all got something else - something just a little more pressing (hint hint) to worry about?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

OssanAmerica Aug. 28, 2013 - 08:41AM JST The true danger of this fallacy is that the Chinese people and government may start believing it emboldening them to take actions which may start a conflict.

One of the problems of Chinese goverment is the apparent lack of communication between China’s civilian goverment and military leadership. There seems to be a disconnection between China's military and civilian goverment and sometimes you have to wonder who is in command and in charge. This is the reasons why Japan and U.S. needs to improve high level dialogue with China on military issues for more transparency to minimize future accidents. They need to know who is in control of the Chinese military and who has the ultimate authority, and there is doubt that President Xi Jinping and the civilian leadership has control of their military. The recent incident of radar locking raises questions about the role of its Chinese military, as other top civilians apparently were unaware of the military action.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

U.S. will not be involved in defending a tiny rock.

I think nobody actually knows it. but Japan and the US has a long time security treaty. I'm sure the US would be not easy to get involved although there are US bases all over Japan. It seems that the US would have to help Japan eventually when Japanese SDF could not do anything better over Senkaku.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

When Britain deployed aircraft carriers to the Falkland Islands, it did not convey its intentions to protect the islands

Actually that is not correct. Argentina and most other countries didn't think that Britain would actually win the fight that far from home, with the limited resources to do so.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Beware. The headline is utterly false. All Abe said was the Britain did not announce its intentions to defend the Falklands, and so he thinks neither should Japan. His only point is that you should not show your rivals your hand, and that is it.

I despise Abe, but for Pete's sake, can we just stick with legitimate criticisms? There are plenty to choose from without making stuff up.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

And Aso proves yet again he has no grasp of history. Praise and want to copy the Nazis, comparing this to the Falklands. The guy is an utter idiot. The Chinese actually make a lot of sense on this issue;

“A meeting between leaders is not simply for the sake of shaking hands and taking pictures, but to resolve problems,”

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

Calvin,

Good post. Jumping to conclusions without getting the details is never helpful.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I think Abe wants to be Margaret Thatcher. He should take care he doesn't become General Galatieri (sp)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan should upgrade its defense on those islands- radars, anti missile defense and continue to train troops-- I don't get why is Japan still paying for its mistakes 70 yrs ago???? Germany does not get this treatment from its Europe neighbors--neither does Italy--- missile defense, warplanes and elite amphibious assault is key-- China is a big bully bastard- Japan-stand your ground--Japan finally has a strong PM-- If I could speak Japan, I would move there and support Japan nationalism-- GO JAPAN!!!!!

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

“If Japan wants to arrange a meeting to resolve problems, they should stop with the empty talk and doing stuff for show,” wow id have to agree with China on that quote. that about sums up the JGov in whole

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@ BertieWooster

I do agree with you that this dispute should be settled by negotiation for the good of both countries and for Asian region as well. There is a issue I have with your distance of Senkaku/Diaoyu Island, distances between Nations. On checking them from data bank I found them as follow:

76 Nm or 140 kilometers from East of Pengjia Islet, Taiwan's Territory 92 Nm or 170 kilometers from Ishingaki Island, Japan Territory 100 Nm or 186 Kilometers North East of Keelong, Taiwan Territory 220 Nm or 410 West of Okinawa Island, Japan Territory

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Aso and his comparisons.... so who is betting on the date he takes it back?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Aso and Abe needs to be voted out, the arrgression they pose to their neighbours are a reminder of the attrocities committed by Japan in WWII. Only now, China is no longer a sitting duck. In history China has been ganged up on so many times with the 8 nations invading China and all the while the Japanese government was a major player. Its surprising that the Chinese have never got the partiotism in shape, they are still loose and un-united. Once their people learn from the American lower class of servicing their nation and dying for their nation, Japan will be in trouble, so more peace and friendship should solve the problem.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

The government are wasting so much time and money on this issue, there are more important things to do.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This man really needs to brush up on History. Thankfully he is not in a leadership position or responsible for anything important.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Fighting ability, national consensus and informing other countries

Hmmm, in no way an expert on the fighting "ability" of the SDF but it seems to me that having not had much real battle experience in well, ever, I for one am not particularly confident in their fighting ability. Wars, can't be fought from a battle manual and the best generals have been the ones to use creative thinking to outsmart the enemy rather than running plays from a playbook....

Sheer numbers from China would overwhelm Japan no?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Surely, the finance minister and deputy PM should be more concerned about economic issues instead of how to start a war with China. This kind of comment should be vetted through the foreign ministry and military leaders. Just shut up and do your bloody job Aso(L)!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

ProbieAug. 28, 2013 - 08:59AM JST

No. The Falklands are inhabited. And inhabited by people who want to be British. It is nothing like the Senkakus.

Senkakus were inhibited until the beginning of WW2 by some Japanese and they kept the ownership title of the islands. The Japanese owners want to keep the islands Japanese. With all the differences, there are still some similarities.

sfjp330Aug. 28, 2013 - 07:40AM JST

Japan has to obey Potsdam Treaty as it was a defeated nation in WWII.

If China and Japan go by Potsdam Declaration, the Senkakus belong to Japan. Potsdam Declaration refers to Cairo Declaration, which says

"The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion."

Since China cannot expand its territories, Senkakus do not belong to China unless the islands were Chinese before Japan established its territorial rights on the islands. There has been no convincing evidence so far to that effect. I know that there are old Chinese navigation books that mention Senkakus, but they do not say the islands belong to China. Besides, the navigation books mention a lot of ports in Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philipines, and Japan. If any place that is mentioned in the Chinese books were to belong to China, the whole South East Asia and East Asia would belong to China. Rather, the ports and islands mentioned in the old books should be understood as ports and island in foreign lands form Chinese perspective.

Maybe, China may bring forth some convincing evidence someday, but until that happens, I think, based on the facts presented so far, the islands belong to Japan.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Japan should upgrade its defense on those islands- radars, anti missile defense and continue to train troops-- I don't get why is Japan still paying for its mistakes 70 yrs ago???? Germany does not get this treatment from its Europe neighbors--neither does Italy---

Because they have actually apologized properly and show that they mean it at just about every chance they get. Japan is almost polar opposite to that.

missile defense, warplanes and elite amphibious assault is key--

You mean by the boy scouts that are the useless JSDF? "Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...."

China is a big bully bastard- Japan-stand your ground--Japan finally has a strong PM-- If I could speak Japan, I would move there and support Japan nationalism-- GO JAPAN!!!!!

Wow. You trying to be king of the Wapanese?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Why is the finance minister making inflammatory comments about defence issues?

He's trying to justify spending more money on defense with a phony comparison and nationalistic rhetoric. As an outsider, I kind of despair to a solution to the Senkakus with two intransigent governments deadlocked in contrived national pride.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

History will prove if Aso is correct , everyone will say "That Aso was right"" . If Aso is wrong , everyone will say "What a pain in the Aso" !!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Great, and Aso can be Galtieri

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To some extent he's quite right. It's highly unlikely that Argentina would have invaded the Falklands had they thought Britain would make a military response and in fact Argentina was genuinely surprised to end up fighting a war. I think the point that he's making - that projecting a willingness and ability to fight - can sometimes avoid a fight. The worst case scenario is for one side to incorrectly believe that the other will not fight, and then do something that leaves the other with no option but to fight.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Does the population of the Senkakus wish to remain Japanese?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What good is the UN anyway?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why is the finance minister making inflammatory comments about defense issues? I think it's quite natural for finance minister to make a comment concerning to a defense budget. Now Japan has clear intention of defense, and opened diplomatic channel to other countries. I don't think it's a problem.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Are the Senkaku islands worth Japanese lives?

Abe seems to think they are but I don't.....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Thank you for the great laugh Aso. Comparing a set of uninhabited place markers for resources with a colony thats been inhabited for 200 plus years, yeah he doesn't really 'get' things does he.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Does the population of the Senkakus wish to remain Japanese?

Yes, the seals there are unanimous on this point. At the very least, they expressed no objections.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Retracting comment (because it was misunderstood!) in 5...4...3...2...

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

And Japan failed to stand with either side on the Falklands IIRC. Why should the world take an active interest in its 'sovereignty' claims?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Japan will lost Senkakus and even the future of Japan, this is the end of the story, believe it or not . Remember this.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I don't believe China would be so stupid to dance with this guy! Just don't mind and let Aso say whatever he want! Also, all neighbors near Japan know that these right wingers are trying to drag the US to fight with China so as to change the situation for Japan as an "abnormal country".

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Japan needs to keep their effective control on Senkaku island as South Korea is doing it on Takeshima(Dokdo) island. The neighborhood countries has been shouting over governmental official statement which is related to historical issue and territorial issue, but what Japanese government needs to do to unify domestic opinion is that announcing and showing their strong will to Japanese people. They have to do what they believe even ROK and China gets angry to hear that.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The headline's misleading, but most posters didn't even read what Aso said.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

yosunAug. 28, 2013 - 01:45PM JST

I don't believe China would be so stupid to dance with this guy!

I think it has already shown it is, by sending armed government boats to Japanese territorial water around the islands. The Senkakus have been under Japanese physical control ever since 1972 when Okinawa was returned to Japan. Before that, the Senkakus were under US control as part of Okinawa, which was under trusteeship of the US. It is rather silly for the US to say that they do not know which country Senkakus belong to when the US kept the islands as part of Okinawa during the length of occupation of Okinawa.

China should know that China is destroying the peace with Japan. China should stop sending armed boats to the islands, before they get all sunk.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The conflict as it is over the Senkakus are not worth Japanese lives. However avoiding the consequences over loosing the Senkakus the wrong way may be worth it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Excuse my mistake above. In fact. he wants Japan to display intention to apply military force to keep the islands. I had it backwards as others have clued me in. The dangers of posting in the morning!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The headline's misleading, but most posters didn't even read what Aso said.

It often happens on this website.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Er... are there any people on Senkaku who want to be Japanese? The Falklands was basically a rescue mission more than anything else - British citizens had their home invaded and held at gunpoint by an invading army.

I agree that the Senkakus should be Japanese, but please don't compare it with the Falklands Conflict.

“When Britain deployed aircraft carriers to the Falkland Islands, it did not convey its intentions to protect the islands. Argentina saw that (Britain) had no intention of protecting the Falklands and so invaded,” Aso said in a lecture to parliamentarians in Yokohama.

What? Hermes and Invincible were sent to the Falklands AFTER Maggie declared the UK's intention to take the Islands back... as well as a rather large task force of other ships. Argentina would have to have been either naive or asleep not to realise why the ships were heading south. Argentina invaded the Falklands BEFORE the task force were deployed. The only ship in the area was the survey vessel Endurance. Come on Aso... do some research, mate.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This childish argument over the Senkakus is ridiculous and really just an excuse for both countries' governments to boost defence spending and crack down on progressive elements at home.

That said, a clear, tough stance on the Japanese side might be the best way to prevent a situation over the Senkakus escalating. If the Chinese see any sign of weakness, they might, in the case of internal crisis decide to challenge Japan over the islands. It's very unlikely under current circumstances, but in the event of unexpected trouble in China or worse a change of leadership to more authoritarian individuals, there is a risk. If they know there would be no hope of taking the islands they may hush up an issue they know they cannot win.

It wouldn't hurt to declare the islands some kind of national park though and ban all development of them and the surrounding waters, kick the issue into the future by at least 50 years...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Excuse for raising defense budget is not necessary when there is a need to raise defense budget.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@CH3CHO: It's so funny some posters always take use of every chance to argue the sovereignty of the isles which however most of people outside Japan don't support! anyway I don't want to discuss this off-topic issue here. I already said it's Aso's free will to say anything he want, nobody really care! It's like a person in the street shouting something nonsense like " go! go! Hitler" ... quite few people would even take a look except some curious tourists....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The fact that the Falkland Islands are inhabited is relevant because after 180 years of separate existence, the people have the right to self-determination which is a basic human right.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

At that time, Reagan and USA supported UK. Also, UN backed UK. Does Aso think Ban of UN will work to make UN members to support Japan? No comparison is wiser. Strange comment by Aso. It is about time Abe to get rid of Aso or Abe will be criticized what Aso blurt. Get a little more smarter man as Vice PM.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

CH3CHO Aug. 28, 2013 - 11:19AM JS I know that there are old Chinese navigation books that mention Senkakus

Do you know anything about history? In 1895, there was no Japanese name of Senkaku, because it didn't exist. In 1895, when Japanese claimed the island as terra nullis, there was no such name as Senkaku. Even during the treaty, there was no such name as Senkaku. Japan used the Chinese name Daioyu. Japan changed the name to Senkaku five years later in 1900. Japan already knew the Chinese name of the island when they were surveying the island in 1885.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

sfjp330Aug. 28, 2013 - 09:06AM JST "OssanAmerica Aug. 28, 2013 - 08:41AM JST The true danger of this fallacy is that the Chinese people and government may start believing it emboldening them to take actions which may start a conflict. One of the problems of Chinese goverment is the apparent lack of communication between China’s civilian goverment >and military leadership. There seems to be a disconnection between China's military and civilian goverment and >sometimes you have to wonder who is in command and in charge.

You are correct. Anyone who understands Japanese history 1920-1945 should immediately recognize the similarity and risk to regional peace, that China and this "disconnect" poses.

This is the reasons why Japan and U.S. needs to improve high level dialogue with China on military issues for more >transparency to minimize future accidents. They need to know who is in control of the Chinese military and who has >the ultimate authority, and there is doubt that President Xi Jinping and the civilian leadership has control of their >military. The recent incident of radar locking raises questions about the role of its Chinese military, as other top >ciivilians apparently were unaware of the military action.

I believe that both the United States as well as Japan are making efforts to do just that. But it is China that is playing hardball with both countries, especially with Japan even rejecting approaches for a summit.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

sfjp330

Senkakus mean a group of islands, whereas Diaoyu island in Chinese aka Uotsuri island in Japanese is one island in the group. The name "Uotsuri" existed a lot older then that. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Territorial rights are awarded to a country that first established "effective control" over the territory. Japan established effective control over Senkakus by 1895. China has to prove its "effective control" before 1895. Good luck.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

After USA defeated Japan, USA seized Senkaku and then returned them to Okinawa prefecture in 1971 as Senlalu belinged to Ryukyu Kingdom way way before. Shihei Hayashi published sangoku tsuranzu in 1786.

Why PRC and ROC )Taiwan) want Senklaku> Japan released info suggesting oil is under Senkaku. Since then PRC abd ROC claims. Before that, no demand. USA? It gave back to Okinawa and not demanding back to USA at all.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I doubt the Americans will send their sons to die for a few obscure rocks. They were NATO allies of us but did not deploy any men with us in the Falklands, did they? And remember that China can muster more than ten young men for every one of Japan's and still have plenty to spare. I do not wish to see Japan lose the Senkakus but a military solution is not advisable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@CH3CHO

In the years from 1894 until 1900, Japan refer to the islands around Taiwan with Chinese names. Why suddenly Diaoyu/Senkaku became terra nullius after 1894 when Japan annexed Taiwan and other islands? Clearly, the exercise was to pre-empt any counterclaims by China or to legalize what they were stealing Japan surveyed the islands for 10 years and determined that they were uninhabited. That being the case, in 1895 it erected a sovereignty marker that formally incorporated the islands into Japanese territory.

Before Japan defeated China in 1894, Japan went surveying the islands in the East China Sea. the Chinese named since Ming period as the Diaoyu centuries back. Therefore, in 1884 Japan took an interest on Diaoyu ten years before she defeated China in 1894 in the First Sino-Japanese War. China used it as a marker in its route from Fuzhou to Naha, now in present-day Okinawa, and where occasion demands, its fisherman would seek temporary refuge from the raging sea storms, thus its name Diaoyu means “Fishing Platform.”

It just does not make sense that the Japanese, with nothing to gain, would spend ten years meticulously surveying the islands before 1894. Oil or gas had not been discovered or reported to be around the vicinity for Japan to be interested, at that point of time the need for fossil energy was not critical to Japan. Why would Japan embark on a non-viable survey for ten years to determine without any doubt that Diaoyu was terra nullius? If, as Japan claims, the ten years spent surveying the islands would mean they were likely to encounter Chinese fisherman taking shelter there in a storm and not actually terra nullius, would Japan have accepted that the islands were visited by Chinese fishermen?

Then why Japan did not lay claim to Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands before 1894 the year Japan vanquished Qing China’s navy? Why wait until 1896 after Japan forced an unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki on China in 1895 to pass an imperial decree to make Diaoyu a Japanese territory? Surely it is obvious that Japan had not surveyed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands to verify that it is no man’s land or uninhabited, because Japan could not as Japan knew the islands belong to China.

That accounts why Japan could not claim to discover the islands unless by outright war of conquest, which Japan did in 1894, and issued an imperial decree in 1896 to make Diaoyu a part of the Japanese Empire after the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Thus it would appear to me Japan is disingenuous, as Japan well knew long before her 1894 defeat of China, the Senkaku Islands were named as Diaoyu, a fishing platform for Chinese fishermen to take refuge in storms and route markers. To say Japan surveyed ten years the islands she called Senkaku Islands was a pretence Japan did not hear of the name Diaoyu used by China centuries before Japan called it Senkaku Islands.

The truth is very much lacking from Japan. Now, why terra nullius and not res nullius (a thing that has no owner)? To claim terra nullius is to say no one ever lived there before, and at the point of time, the discovery was made. Thus, having ‘proved’ terra nullius, Japan purported to land in Diaoyu and claims it as a discovery. That was what precisely Japan trying to legitimise their theft and answerable to no one with what is suspiciously a big lie.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Aso knows just when to say the wrong thing.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

warnerbroAug. 29, 2013 - 10:51PM JST I doubt the Americans will send their sons to die for a few obscure rocks

But they aren't just some rocks. They are a major step in the Chinese PLAN opening a passage to the Pacific in order to challenge United States strategic superiority. What China has been saying for the past 10 years. Not to mention that they are party of Okinawa Prefecture, home to e largest US military presence in Asia and a gateway to US regional operations.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

sfjp330, keep talking about irrelevant points. It is your time.

China has to prove its "effective control" before 1895. Good luck.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The islands did not suddenly appeared up in the sea. They were there In 1786 , Shihei Hayashi authored book was published. Sangoku TsuranzuSetsu. This book explains about Ryukyu Kingdom and Senkaku. The book was written in that time Japanese language.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

USA betrayed the terms specified in Japanese unconditional surrender, and unilaterally handed China territory to the defeated Japan as appeasement in order to make Japan as a tool for it to exercise imperialist hegemony over Asia with agreed to military base in Japan. Now USA is running around Asia in its evil intention to create fracas and rivalry amongst Asian nations and uses Asian nations for its fear of losing world hegemony by rival China.

China knows territory disputes and historical bickering are hard to resolve, therefore it took a pragmatic approach to deal with those difficult issues, Deng Xiaoping proposed to shelve the disputes and co-develop the disputed areas with claimants in 1978.

Yet China conciliatory approach is taken by the claimants as weakness, with the predatory imperialist USA backing embarked on encroaching China territories aggressively with armed forces and cold war style propaganda.

The game is on. The question is: who will benefit the most? Japan, China or the world warmonger, USA?

It is a 'no win' for Japan even if the case will be heard at the ICJ. If ICJ judges that grabbing territory as war loot is acceptable, then similar judgement will go against Japan for its claims on Takeshima Islands/Dokdo and Northern Territories/Kurile Islands against South Korea and Russia.

Let's also not forget that China is the biggest market for Japan in Asia and growing. Use your brain and not your emotion.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

globallcSep. 01, 2013 - 07:46AM JST It is a 'no win' for Japan even if the case will be heard at the ICJ. If ICJ judges that grabbing territory as war loot is >acceptable, then similar judgement will go against Japan for its claims on Takeshima Islands/Dokdo and Northern >Territories/Kurile Islands against South Korea and Russia.

Although nearly your entire post is absurd the above is exceptionally so because the Senkakus, Takeshima and the Southern Kuriles all have completely different backgrounds and circumstances. You also ignore the fact that it is Japan which wishes to settle all matters at the ICJ and China and South Korea which does not

Let also not forget that China is the biggest market for Japan in Asia and growing. Use your brain and not your >emotion.

Let's also not forget that China's "growing economy" is winding down and the CCP government is using nationalism and disputes with foreign nations as a means of keeping the people in order.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

After WW II, the winner USA seized Okinawa and Senkaku. Then USA returned Okinawa and Senkaku. china has nothing to do. The WW I I winner USA returned to Japan.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

toshiko Sep. 04, 2013 - 03:41AM JST Then USA returned Okinawa and Senkaku. china has nothing to do.

If it's so clear to you, why is U.S. taking a neutral position with regard to the competing claims of Japan, China, and Taiwan, despite the return of the Senkaku/Diaoyu to Japanese administration?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If it's so clear to you, why is U.S. taking a neutral position with regard to the competing claims of Japan, China, and Taiwan, despite the return of the Senkaku/Diaoyu to Japanese administration?

Wouldn't call it "neutral" when U.S. specifically had stated that the territories falls under SOFA and had officially called them "Senkaku".

If China wants to contest the validity of Japan's status quo, they are more than welcomed to do so under the U.N. recognized judicial body.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

sfjp330Sep. 04, 2013 - 04:01AM JST toshiko Sep. 04, 2013 - 03:41AM JST Then USA returned Okinawa and Senkaku. china has nothing to do. If it's so clear to you, why is U.S. taking a neutral position with regard to the competing claims of Japan, China, and >Taiwan, despite the return of the Senkaku/Diaoyu to Japanese administration?

You call the United States telling China that if they attempt to take the Senkakus by force they will be answering to the US military "taking a neutral position"? If that's neutral why did China cry and whine about it? China has lost the Senkaku game. There are only two ways that China can succeed, One is to take it militarily and start a shooting war with the United States. The other way is to take the matter to the ICJ for settlement. But doing so would open China up to other nations taking China to the ICJ for similar territorial disputes. Neither are attractive choices. The final alternative would be to simply give up, but that risks turning the frothing-at-the-mouth nationalism indoctrinated populace turning on the CCP government itself. China has really put itself into a corner. So it continues to move ahead, continuing to feed nationalism, moving towheads militarism and to be painted a threat by all of Asia and all her neighbors moving to "contain" it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

OssanAmerica Sep. 04, 2013 - 05:49AM JST China has lost the Senkaku game. There are only two ways that China can succeed, One is to take it militarily and start a shooting war with the United States.

The solution to the competing claims emerged in 2008, when Japan and China almost reached a principled consensus on joint development of an area that includes the potentially gas-rich Chunxiao/Shirakaba field. If Japan has definite ownership without doubt, why did Japan offer to explore resources jointly with China? Sounds like a big concession by Japan if you ask me. If Japan owns it, they didn't need to ask China. It shows Japan has a weak claim and they know it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

sfjp330Sep. 04, 2013 - 06:19AM JST "OssanAmerica Sep. 04, 2013 - 05:49AM JST China has lost the Senkaku game. There are only two ways that China can succeed, One is to take it militarily and start a shooting war with the United States". The solution to the competing claims emerged in 2008, when Japan and China almost reached a principled >consensus on joint development of an area that includes the potentially gas-rich Chunxiao/Shirakaba field. If Japan >has definite ownership without doubt, why did Japan offer to explore resources jointly with China? Sounds like a big >concession by Japan if you ask me. If Japan owns it, they didn't need to ask China. It shows Japan has a weak claim >and they know it.

The fields are not the same as the Senkakus. An agreement for joint development was reached because CHINA as well as Japan was willing to share as they both recognized each other's territorial rights. Furthermore that was when China still was interested in a good relationship with it's major trading partner. In the case of the Senkakus, which started when a Chinese government agency ordered that Chinese fishing trawler to sail their and instigate an incident, China unilaterally does not respect Japan's territorial rights and has stretched and twisted to come up with some justification for their claim. But as I stated, China has already lost the Senkakus game.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

OssanAmerica Sep. 04, 2013 - 07:04AM JST In the case of the Senkakus, which started when a Chinese government agency ordered that Chinese fishing trawler to sail their and instigate an incident, China unilaterally does not respect Japan's territorial rights and has stretched and twisted to come up with some justification for their claim.

The 1997 China-Japan Fisheries Agreement does show that the Japanese action made a sudden departure from policies that have been in effect for over three decades. The fisheries agreement allows Japanese and Chinese fishermen to operate free of regulation around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. So it's not clear why the Japanese coast guard decided it needs to stop the Chinese boat. The agreement made no decision about regulating operations in the area of the sea around the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. The fishing boats of either country can operate without permission from the other and either country has regulatory rights only over its own fishing boats. In the past, the Japanese Coast Guard never captured or indicted a Chinese fishing boat, even if they chased them. The important question is why the Japanese government now acts to anger China? This is the first time Japanese government has taken a aggressive attitude toward China. These fisherman were minding their own business like they had done for the last two-three decades from the fishing agreement. The point is they didn't land on the island but were arrested. How often prior to 8/11 did the Japanese Coast Guard arrest Chinese fisherman? Hardly any, and why change now?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The 1997 China-Japan Fisheries Agreement does show that the Japanese action made a sudden departure from policies that have been in effect for over three decades. The fisheries agreement allows Japanese and Chinese fishermen to operate free of regulation around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

False. The fisheries agreement does not include the territorial waters. The trawlers were arrested for encroaching the said territorial area.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

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