politics

China blasts Japan ahead of legislative session

162 Comments

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

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

162 Comments
Login to comment

Beijing says the islands have been Chinese for centuries, but Japan refuses to acknowledge counterclaims.

The Chinese never had any control over the islands. Even in 1950, the official Chinese stance regarding the Senkaku islands was that they were a part of the Yaeyama islands.

The Ryukyus "consist of three parts--northern, central, and southern. The central part comprises the Okinawa islands, whereas the southern part comprises the Miyako islands and the Yaeyama islands (Sento islets)."

16 ( +19 / -3 )

United States will hold China and anyone else who intends ill will for Japan. First diplomacy, then MOAB .GBU-43/B ...America love's war, war is the fuel for the Industrial Military Complex major Profit....China stand down....

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Japan would “be held solely responsible for all consequences.”

..and it translates to : "China blasts Japan ...?"

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Why does'nt China just lay claim to the rest of the world based on the voyages of Zheng He. You are greedy nation China! Good luck taking on the USA and possibly starting WW3. I hope Japan never concedes a single nanometer to your claims or demands.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

OK press people, let's get back to basics. This piece is supposed to be about a "scathing attack". This turns out to be "If there is a collision, it is all Japan's fault." The rest of the 'report' is the usual cut and paste standard of introduction (repeating the title) and reminding everyone of which islands are in dispute (as if we didn't know). No wonder the comments go round in circles. We can't even comment on what was said because it isn't shown in full.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I'm sure Marko Polo claimed China anyway so no problem don't worry about it Japan

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Ok from what I read above they still lay claim to these islands and imply that any act of aggression will be responded to . Where is the rest of the "scathing" report ? Surely people know the difference between a report and a retort ...lets have the rest of the article put up online here.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The spokesman for the legislature’s chief advisory body, Lu Xinhua, told reporters at a Saturday news conference that if any unintended clash occurred as a result of their patrol boats and planes operating close to one another, Japan would “be held solely responsible for all consequences.

Except everyone in the international community would condemn China of any wrongdoings in Japan's territorial waters. China would quickly realize that what they see isn't what the rest of the world sees.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

China has a problem with borderlines. They have been claiming islands for the past decade. Here in the Philippines, they've been trying to get the Spratly Islands. The Philippines doesn't have the military power to defend herself so she gets pushed and shoved around. I hope Japan can stand firm and defend what belongs to them. If China loses this battle then maybe it'll stop its hunt for land.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

DukeletoMar. 03, 2013 - 09:19AM JST

You are greedy nation China!

Chinese population =1,354,040,000. China's claim of EEZ in the Pacific Ocean = 2,000,000 sq kms.

Japanese population =120,000,000 and shrinking Japan's claim of EEZ in the Pacific Ocean = 4,000,000 sq kms

Who's greedy?

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

The truth is Japan is trying to cover the sky with a hand.

Read from Mr. Lohmeyer's thesis, posted on-line:

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

3.3.2. China’s - Japanese Mediation as a suite to Japan’s Invasion Having been invaded the government of the Ryukyu Kingdom sent envoys to the Middle Kingdom so that they could request military assistance. Being weakened by internal disorder the Qing court could not do much in favour of the Ryukyuans.230 Actually, the former U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant had led negotiations between China and Japan in a private meeting. In this mediation, Japan proposed that from the Okinawa Islands to the north all territories should become Japanese. All the territories belonging to Miyako- Yaeyama islands should remain Ryukyu / Chinese. In this peace negotiation, the Diaoyu Islands were not subject to any discussions indicating that they were not considered Ryukyu territory. In 1881, the Qing government finally turned in and signed the treaty to divide the Ryukyu Kingdom into two parts following the Japanese proposal. The Qing emperor withheld his imperial assent to this humiliation

Hava Nagila!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Japan are so unreasonable! here are some iterms support it:

1.It is impossible that These islets had no onwer before 1895, even the South Pole had been explored at that time, how can these islands left untouched? Besides, China has provided the evidence that these islands had been explored.

2.It is normal Even China had not claimed on these islands , because they are too small to have the need to make the claim. The need is only come when Japan wanted to possess them. Few country named or claimed on every single islets arround them, even Japan just claimed hundreds of islets last year, does this means these islets that claimed last year could be claimed by other nations ? you may say of course not, so why the same logic can't be these disputes islands?

3.Japanese widely believe that these islands were handed over to them in the San Francisco peace treaty. But what kind of treaty it is? these treaties were just for cold war, and extremely not fair, how could the treaty makers handed over other nation's territory to Japan that not belonged to them? why they just handed over them selves territories to Japan? What kind of absurd thing can overtake this? This is why China will not take these disputes to the international court, because even now those counties are still the main numbers there, who can believe them will do the fair thing this time?

4.Japan believe the fact that the US handed over these islands to Japan. but actually, the US can never be the onwer of these islands, not now, not then, It doesn't matter how many US people died there, actually even the whole American people died there, it is illegal to take the islands by the US, let alone handed them to Japan. Here is an potential logic that most Japanese beleve that the US won the war so they took the island and changed the onwer of the islands to the US. Here hides two question: a). At that time, these islands were not belong to Japan. b). the theory come to legal : The onwer of the territory can be change by winning a war. If the onwer of territories can be changed by war and all the nations believe this, where will the peace reside in? every nation can trigger wars to take territories from others.

5.China never want to claim ALL the territories in Asia, let alone the whole world. But we can hear of these kinds of words every day from the mouth of Japanese. How radical and unreasonable is that? All the territories that China is claiming now are those belong to China before and are token by others, nothing more, Can you provide an instance against this? If you can't , just shut up! Actually it is Japanese want to claim territories that may not belong to Japan with at least three counties.

I know my opinions will be opposed by many people, but before doing that provide your reasonable reason here. and I am always delighted to discuss this with you reasonablly. Another request, dont be stubborn be reasonable.

-14 ( +6 / -20 )

Back off China - the world won't agree with you one bit. Keep pushing if you want, you're gonna get slapped down.

It's interesting to see that China sent the baseball team over to Fukuoka to tonight's WBC game - will want to see their antics on the field, let's hope their disgusting behavior doesn't get in the way of sport.

On another note, I was playing BF3 yesterday, and happened to be on a Chinese server which had a message scrolling every couple of minutes saying that "The Daiyou Islands are Chinese territory - sacred and inviolable". How brainwashed do these Chinese get where the average gamer has to scroll such a message on their server!

10 ( +13 / -3 )

IRobin,Japan are so unreasonable! here are some iterms support it: 1.It is impossible that These islets had no onwer before 1895,

Yes it was. The area was researched from 1885 for 10 years, then after the confirmation with Qing Dynasty then. Senkaku were recognized as TERRA NULLIUS by the international law.

Also the official record of the Ming dynasty in 1617 Aug. The official passage, states that the islands were not the part of the Ming dynasty.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

In 1905, China published Great Qing Dynasty(China then) map was published as the first edition did not have any indication for the islands are China.The 5 maps till 1968 since the first edition, none of these maps have what China has claimed since the potential oil was found in 1968. and 5 of them clearly indicating as Senkaku as Japan also the border line was shown as Japan territory in Chinese map.

But the based on the international law, it does not matter. Because in order to avoid this kind of mess, there are laws.

The judicial precedent in an international law. Island of Palmas Case teaches the world,

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.

When did China have the realistic sovereignty based on the law? China's claim can not match these conditions at all.

However, Japan has all conditions to match the law. Japan has a bonito flake factory between 1895 till 1941 and about 250 people lived on the island but the war broke out, the people left then after that, make a long story short, with the 48 countries approval after the peace process of WW2 in San Francisco peace treaty article 3. Okinawa and all its island went back to Japan. Temporarily, Japan only allowed to have only the 4 main islands right after Japan accepted the Potsdam declaration until SF treaty was approved by the international community. However, Okinawa and all its islands were taken by the US as Japan NOT USA took them as China. Two islands of Senkaku were used as bombing range of US. China said nothing. The based on the common sense, I can not believe that the world allowed America to use Chinese islands for that reason. Okinawa and its islands were returned to Japan by the US in 1972. China only started to claim after the oil was found.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

In 1905, China published Great Qing Dynasty(China then) map was published as the first edition did not have any indication for the islands are China.The 5 maps till 1968 since the first edition, none of these maps have what China has claimed since the potential oil was found in 1968. and 5 of them clearly indicating as Senkaku as Japan also the border line was shown as Japan territory in Chinese map. - See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/china-blasts-japan-ahead-of-legislative-session#comments

People's Republic of China was established in Beijing on 1 October 1949, what do you do with the present government which does not recognize (to their advantage only) what was anything prior to their establishment? This is exactly their mindset right now, especially with the discovery of those resources

5 ( +5 / -0 )

IRobin, Japanese widely believe that these islands were handed over to them in the San Francisco peace treaty. But what kind of treaty it is?

What kind? After Cairo and Potsdam declaration, the allies worked how to bring Japan back to the international community again. After the whole process includes the result of The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, in 1951, the treaty was promulgated and it became the foundation of New Japan today. If you take Cairo and Potsdam declaration but not SF treaty? That is some contradiction there.

IRobin,

It is normal Even China had not claimed on these islands , because they are too small to have the need to make the claim.

That is the common sense of China not the world. The based on the law, '' China had not claimed on these islands , because they are too small to have the need to make the claim.'' does not work.

IRobin the US can never be the owner of these islands, not now, not then,

Yes, they had. At least the world thought that way. We needed the US visa to visited Okinawa prefecture before 1972 and used US$ there. My aunt who was a Okinawan had US passport to visited Tokyo then. Senkaku is Okinawa prefecture Ishigaki county.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@ChamkunM,

Thank you very much for your opinions, I am very glad to get your response. I like this kind of disscusion.

About your item 1,2,3 , please refer to my iterm 2 upper.

2."250 people lived on it can prove nothing", can sam up how many Chinese people lived on it temporily for the reason of fishing in almost 500 before 1985?

3.For the 48 counties' approval, those gansters had no right to do that. please refer to my item 3 upper.

For the US thing, he didn't have the right to do that either, by doing these they because robber for some sense.

"Okinawa and its islands were returned to Japan by the US in 1972." Also, the US did not have the right here. Because Okinawa is not territory of the US, let along the legality.

5."China only started to claim after the oil was foundf" Do you really believe this by yourself?

About China in your arguments, there are two, one is for Taiwan, one is for Beijing. Maybe Taiwan said nothing, but Beijing did. Actually as a small island of Taiwan, it could not represented CHINA at all.
-4 ( +2 / -6 )

orosushi People's Republic of China was established in Beijing on 1 October 1949, what do you do with the present government which does not recognize (to their advantage only) what was anything prior to their establishment? This is exactly their mindset right now, especially with the discovery of those resources

1)In Jinminnippo(Communist party News paper) on Jan. 8th 1953.That they can not deny the fact. It states Senkaku as Japan.

2)Chinese Gov.maps in1953, 58 ,60 ,67, which were edited or at least they knew about it by China today, all those maps were shown Senkaku as Japan. There were on the Internet till around Aug.26 2012 in China. Now they have gone. But this kind of fabrication and historical manipulation could not be the fact. at ICJ. This can be considered as a deception for even their own people and the world.

3) While the US was using the islands as their bombing range and shooting range, that was after China today was established. This fact shows that China did not have the realistic sovereignty based on the law.

4) The unilateral maritime law that China promulgated in 1992 has no meaning to the international law.

5) The except China, the way draw the line of border at sea, every nation in the world draw the line the way Japan does and China did that till early 70S but the finding the oil changed their point of view. China last year worked very hard to bring their way of draw the line between nation and nation to UN. But the still it has not determined. If that is accepted as a new measure, I am not sure how it will affect the world map today.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Oh just blow up the islands then nobody can have then! They're only after what's under them, anyway! Stupid governments!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Japan claimed what theirs simply because Japan is ex-imperialist. Just like British claimed Falkland Islands is theirs. Tho war is not a good solution. How about just give it to UN?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

@ torosushi

Why do you think China's map in 1905 is the first edition in Qing Dynasty? what about the map in Ming Dynasty? Once again, did Japan name and put all the islets around Japan before the year 2012 ? Does this mean if there is an islet about 0.5 squre kilometers around the US that has no name and can't put into the map , is it legality to Claim it as Japan's territory? I have stated this view upper in item 2. why you can't read the whole sentence?

For your second view PRC was funded in 1949, why did you call she China in 1905 and think of PRC as China now?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

torosushi:People's Republic of China was established in Beijing on 1 October 1949, what do you do with the present government which does not recognize (to their advantage only) what was anything prior to their establishment?

One more additional point is that they have been a part of UN as a member of Security council. The treaty was promulgated in 1951. They could not deny the fact that they did not know that does not work.

Why China said nothing till the oil was found? And now their conspicuous interest to expand their NAVY. If this is the reason they started to claim, I do not like it but makes sense at least. That is many people's tacit understanding anyway.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Chamkun,

about your contradiction of treaties, I never told the whole fair of both but one thing is fair, Japan should return back all the territories before the war . Japan caused the biggest disaster in Asia, is it reasonable to return them back after she was defeated?

"That is the common sense of China not the world. The based on the law, '' China had not claimed on these islands , because they are too small to have the need to make the claim.'' does not work. " for this opinions of yours, maybe I will believe that you are right after reading your reasons here. Thank you in advance for them.

For the US rights there, please refer to my first comments here in item 4 and read it all. and I am sure you will find how this kind of logic absurd and dangerous.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@Chamkun,

About the treaty that was promulgated in1951, which one do you prefer? For the San Francisco peace treaty, lots of counties absent from it because it worked for the cold war.

"Why China said nothing till the oil was found?" I have answered this once. This kind of view is not truth.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@Chamkun,

about your view bellow: "And now their conspicuous interest to expand their NAVY."

To protect the islands especially ocupied by Japan. How about this reason? Isn't it reasonable?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

China is just greedy because they outsourced themselves. ****

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Marlin Hughes,

LMAO, how about change the word "China" in your sentence into "Japan".

For the greed outsourced themselves , she was keeping triggering war in 100 years from 1840 to 1945, and now even she was defeaded, she claim the territories of S.Kerea and China.

At least for my opinions I always provide instances. why cound not you?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

IRobin, you have clearly been brainwashed by the CCP propaganda machine - well done. Go back to your disgusting smog hole - I'll wager that you'll say Japan caused that too. Japan and the international community pulled you out of the doldrums, otherwise you would still be fighting each other and starving millions of your own people to death.

I agree that militaristic Japan caused havoc in Asia after the turn of last century, yet Japan today is not Imperialist Japan in the 1930s - Japan today plays by international regulations and rules, and has been a reliable partner in every aspect and facet of trade and law for more than 60 years. In the same 60 years, China is just as evil as ever, taking over territory (ask people in Tibet, fishermen in the Philippines, etc) and threatens peace and stability in the China Sea. China should at least take a leaf from their democratic brothers in Taiwan - of course China doesn't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country - instead it's a "renegade state" just like Tibet!!!

This "Daiyou/Senkaku" tirade is all just a way for the CCP to turn the public's attention to outside events rather than internal corruption and inequality. I eagerly wait for the average citizen to rise up against the CCP and topple the corrupt system that is in place today. It will be bad and bloody for the general public for a decade, but the tens of separate states that will result (like all the XXX-stans after the Soviet collapse) will be far better for the international community as a whole, as well as the average person on the street in your poor, disillusioned country.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

EngrHassanASabiMar. 03, 2013 - They have been claiming islands for the past decade. Here in the Philippines, they've been trying to get the Spratly Islands.

You're wrong! Spratly Islands belong to Taiwan(ROC) according to Taipei treaty signed by Japan and ROC and witnessed by the US in 1952. Pls refer to the following:

'Article 2 "It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands."'

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This issue won't be finalized until all involved parties would like to sit down together and negotiate about how to peacefully solve it. Also it's clear that no one's points of view can persuade each other into his believing after so many arguements here!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Robin China is polluting the world in the name of industry. Study your recent history. China pushes the Dalia lama and other surrounding countries uncluding Taiwan! The Chinese government needs to learn some manners. The Chinese people are great but the Communist government sucks!

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Personally the Chinese people I know, I truly do like, I am even married to an Asian Women, they have to realize this is not addressed to them, except the truth has to finally come out, China is making claims to land they have no right to by international Law, China is no different then any other country, their should be sanctions paid to Japan, With this said! It is truly time to put china in its place, they have violated the currency exchange dictating they are a third world county and now they want to start WWIII well we as Americans are ready to stop China and make them pay the real price not just to Japan and America but to the Whole world, in 1946 with the unconditional surrender china did not stop the signing of that surrender granting Japan those Islands, now China wants them for the money in oil and Gas, well this is not going to happen, China and its dictators and suppression of world news to its people will stop, if China believes it has the capabilities to take on the world super power well just cross that Line as I and all of America has backed congress in the poles at 92% to take out China. And make them pay for the Junk they have placed into the market place and their acts of poor to charge 1/3 of the rest of all imports. Go China Make your move! Your finished as any Power in this world! It is time for the rest of the world to wake up to this disease of express demands using the power of threat to kill, we all should be beyond this and start to live together and love each other as families do, it is Gods way that anyone that violates his law will lose, you can bet your last dollar we will eradicate all evil powers to unite this world and make it free from Bullies like China!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@Joseph12345,

"China is making claims to land they have no right to by international Law" -- You should make it more clear that the word "land" is which land. and what international Law. Because this is one of my evidences to prove that Japanese are unreasonable.

"China wants them for the money in oil and Gas", --- This is kind of throwing mud at others, and alse proveing that Japanese are unreasonable.

I feel very sorry of you, just check all your views here, how radical they are!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Marlin Hughes,

Whatever China had done and will done with Taiwan and Dalialama, it is the domestic policy and events. When the activity of Occupy Wall Street in the US, what do you think of the US government's supress?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

May I suggest all JT posters to read "Okinawan view on Diaoyutais" run on February 5 Taipei Times online (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2013/02/05/2003554252)?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The problem here is as far as I know there is absolutely no proof that PRC and Japan signed an agreement that clearly show those islands belong to either one of them.

I see many people around here bash China and Japan all day but may I ask is there any official document signed by PRC and Japan since 1971 where PRC replace ROC as UN member declaring that those islands belong to Japan? Instead it was during that time where the disputes started until today and it's crystal clear that no country in this world include US can intervene as the so called evidence is simply way too fragile to identify who is the real owner.

That is why we have negotiations.

As far as I know, China recently has never demanded Japan to completely hand over those islands to China without any conditions. They do however willing to negotiate which in my opinion they can administer those islands together as a symbol of strong relationship and peace between both countries.

No offence for those leaning on Japan, I find Abe's "there's no room for negotiations" as a bad approach and yes I understand if China wants to claim Okinawa but those tiny islands are indeed disputable and should look forward a win win situation through cooperation rather than maintaining cold war status.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's called a "pre-emptive strike." China is planning a war and have already blamed Japan for starting it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It must really hurt China's pride that they can't seem to bully Japan around the way they have been doing to their southeast Asian neighbors.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

yosunMar. 03, 2013 - 02:38PM JST "EngrHassanASabiMar. 03, 2013 - They have been claiming islands for the past decade. Here in the Philippines, they've been trying to get the Spratly Islands". You're wrong! Spratly Islands belong to Taiwan(ROC) according to Taipei treaty signed by Japan and ROC and >witnessed by the US in 1952. Pls refer to the following: 'Article 2 "It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands."'

Yosun, Article 2 states that Japan must give up the Spratly Islands.It does not say who owns them. And note that it does not say "Okinawa" or "the Senkakus".

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica

It must really hurt Your pride that you are throw mud on China partially. I have posted here twice, China is only interest in the territories that belong to She before and are taken by others, nothing more. If you can not provide an instance against this , please shut up your Japanese unreasonable mouth.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@T-Mack. "America loves war"?

Please speak for yourself. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say. We love war. We don't wake up in the morning and polish bombs. I need to lube and check the trigger mechanism on my Semi-Automatic weapon.

Please d not try to portray my home country as such. Above all your mistaken if you think American citizens will be in support of Japan's possible war. Nobody desires this. We are not Barbarians or war hungry trolls. We love the smell of eggs and bacon in the morning, not napalm for all you moviegoers that believe everything you see on screen.

This is your nation, Japan. You live here, you should defend. Not to be offensive but you must spill the blood of your sons and daughters before we send ours. No where is it written that Americans shall die for Japanese who are playing Pachinko or watching JRA.

If you want war then you need to muster your own forces first.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@IRobin

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate for your attention.

I personally respect what you said but we must govern the world order based on the law. If the world use to decide the world border lines based on some ancient time story which can not prove even the exact location especially so many rocks are on the area. We must respect the law and no nation should not be above the law.

You said having a Bonito flake factory on the island which was established by Mr. Koga after Senkaku was registered officially and legally with the consensus of China's former government, in 1895 then continuously Japan governed the Senkaku as Okinawa which has nothing to do with WW2 by the way, then Japan kept the conditions which is required by law in order to keep the islands as Japan till the end of WW2. If you bring up a history aspect you did. In 1920, your former Government sent a letter of appreciation when Japaneses people at Senkaku rescue Chinese fishermen the time of trouble, the letter is indicated officially by China to Senkaku Japan. http://blog.goo.ne.jp/hm-library/e/018d4b89474d0171751e3baa51d4f6ff

You said 250 Japaneses who lived on the island means nothing. May be nothing to you or China but it means colossally for the law. Again I paste here again how the International law see the territory issue. ''Discovery itself is immature origin of rights to obtain a sovereignty in international law which is inchoate title. 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. Even when Japan confirmed about the islands to Qing Dynasty, they did not say what China is saying today. As a result, the first map in 1905 was published by China, it was indicated as Japan territory. 118 years have gone, Japan used Senkaku in realistic sense and America took over based on SF treaty, now China claims 500? years ago, as many Chinese say that because China found the islands so it is Chinese territory. The law I indicated does not work that way. If this unilateral claim changes the sovereignty, the world would lose the order. Manhattan Island used be owned by not America but Dutch. That dose not affect today's geographical map. In case of Dutch, that is a historical fact with many documents but the case of Senkaku, no one can really prove who was there and which rocks they were talking about 500 years ago with out any indication of latitude-longitude coordinate system. That is why we must follow the law which as prevent a war. Even if this Chinese claim is true, it will not mean anything by law as I mention. This is a fact not my opinion.

When Japan did research in 1885, that was clearly in the condition of TERRA NULLIUS status. As small as an individual real estate to any nation's territory should be handled by law. Other wise, it will escalate to a war like the 19, and first half of 20 century. Those days are gone. The definition of TERRA NULIUS is this '' If judged as "undeveloped country, "no national sovereignty was approved and the relevant region was judged as "terra nullius." At that time, based on this condition, Japan merged the islands as Ishigaki county of Okinawa 118 yeas ago. China has no legal right for these islands that is for sure.

IRobin asked me "China only started to claim after the oil was found" Do you really believe this by yourself? '' I would say, yes I do.Of course, I do not know the true motivation of China, but at least I did not hear about China's claim before 1968 that was the year the potential oil was found. The last map which China published Senkaku as Japan was 1969,70.or 71 one or two of these years. 1972, the border sea line was pushed to East so, Senkaku area became Chinese territory. I saw the both maps.

IRobin ''about your contradiction of treaties, I never told the whole fair of both but one thing is fair, Japan should return back all the territories before the war''

Yes Japan did. What Japan needed to return were listed the article 2 in San Francisco treaty so Japan follow the all conditions. But many Chinese people I know that they do not respect but the world did respect. It became the base of today's world. The article 3 listed what Japan may keep. Okinawa and all its islands were listed in the article 3.

IRobin: ''Bring back to the way it was before the war'', Senkaku was Okinawa. So I see that Japan returned everything what Japan gained during WW2. These territory has nothing to do with the war.

Former President of Taiwan Mr. Lee Teng-hui admitted based on the law, the sovereignty of Senkaku belongs to Japan many times. I heard directly from his translator. But for a utilitarian reason, many Taiwan people were fishing there as a fact.Japan needs to negotiate with Taiwan how we do things from now on since Taiwan is claiming the sovereignty of Senkaku. I personally feel Japan and Taiwan can have a good negotiation even it might take time for the usage of the islands.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@A Realist,

Let me show you how unreasonable Japanese are here.

1 , China is only wanting there islands that stolen by Japan back, isn't this reasonable?

2, It is Japan made a absurd trade on these islands last year that cause the escalating of the intense and then keep blaming this on China.

3, It is absurd to distinguish the government and Ishihara, they are all Japanese for outside countries, for this there are no difference. It is like a family, we can call the family a doctor family whatever the farther is a doctor or the son, they are the same family for other families. So the conclusion of 'Japanese is the sponsor of these tension' is correct.

More yours this kinds of arguments posted here the More evidences that Japanese are unreasonable and greedy.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@IRobin,1 , China is only wanting there islands that stolen by Japan back, isn't this reasonable?

When and How?

2, It is Japan made a absurd trade on these islands last year that cause the escalating of the intense and then keep blaming this on China.

The private Japanese owner Mr.Koga family sold to Mr.Kurisu then Kurisu sold to Japan. Which is a domestic transaction which has nothing to do with China.

Has ever China sent a real estate tax bill to Mr. Kurisu? If not, Senkaku had not been governed by China.

Thank you.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

if china's claim is so reasonable and legal, why do they refuse to go to the ICJ to get a judgement? that would be the peaceful civilized way to resolve this.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@ fds,

I have mentioned this in the first comments here.

The only reason is ICJ doesn't play fair! How could 48 countries agreed to give some other's territories to Japan instead of themselves ? And those counties are still the main number in currect ICJ. They had done the unfair before, Who can believe they will not do the unfair again?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@4649Julian,

I am sorry I can't follow your question about "When and how". I dont know what answer you want from me.

2.For you second view, the point is the transaction is made on something that belong to other's even other nation's. If two American people make the transaction over Tokyo, what would you think about this?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Chamkun

I am so glad you anwsered me. I am very appreciate this. Following is the answers of parts of yours. ^_^, because you are so kind to answer me so much.

Yes, the world need orders to be based on. but not unfair laws, this kinds of law will never truly solve problems, never, so this kinds of law need to be abandoned. And that is why these islands disputes keep emerging.

Whatever the action of official and legal register you said that Japan had done can't deny the fact that all the actions are token on someone else's territories. For this point, it just like whatever the other nations do whatever actions the other countries make on city Tokyo, it will not help to prove that Tokyo is not belong to Japan. Can you understand this?

3."any nation's territory should be handled by law " I share the same view with you here , exclude the unfair law. Can we from now on make the conclusion on the fair laws?

4."I would say, yes I do.Of course, I do not know the true motivation of China, but at least I did not hear about China's claim before 1968 that was the year the potential oil was found" --- Can you just find that this is just conclusion drawed from imagination? by saying : you can't find the claim before, so you think so, Why do you believe in yourself? why couldn't there be other reasons? Just make conclusion that based on yourself, this is reasonable? 5.''Bring back to the way it was before the war'', Senkaku was Okinawa So I see that Japan returned everything what Japan gained during WW2 ----- actually before the war even Okinawa was not belong to Japan, let alone Senkaku/Diaoyu.

Taiwan can't represent the whole China, let alone Mr. Lee Teng-hui.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Chamkun

here I will tell a story:

if someone robbed a wallet, he took all the actions he could, repainted it, renamed it, added some money into it, even asked this lawer brother to help to prove this was his wallet, ask his president father to write into law that this was his wallet, When finally the police came to him, do you think this wallet is really belong to him at last?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

irobin, punctuation.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The spokesman for the legislature’s chief advisory body, Lu Xinhua, told reporters at a Saturday news conference that if any unintended clash occurred as a result of their patrol boats and planes operating close to one another, Japan would “be held solely responsible for all consequences.”

And with 6 little words, China goes from neighborhood bully to neighborhood lunatic. Well done Spokesman Lu.

Here's a thought (and you can ask your Mum or a 12 year old to explain, if its beyond your capacity to understand): Maybe, if China stopped sending its ships and aircraft into Japanese territory, 'unintended clashes' won't occur?

Your bellicosity and war-mongering earns China no respect from the international community, only contempt derision.

I'm not sure if making China look ridiculous is a viable diplomatic strategy, but I guess Spokesman Lu knows best.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ SecularBeast,

haha....

"China goes from neighborhood bully to neighborhood lunatic" --- Once again to prove my opinion on the unreasonable thing. ^_^.

If you put China on the position of the real owner of these islands and Japan as the theft, all the actions of Chia will become normal. Why can't you just think of both sides of this? and provide more neutral views?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

IRobin

Bring back to the way it was before the war'', Senkaku was Okinawa So I see that Japan returned everything what Japan gained during WW2 ----- actually before the war even Okinawa was not belong to Japan, let alone Senkaku/Diaoyu.

You are wrong in historical accuracy. Okinawa Islands was annexed by Japan back in 1872. Ryuku was also grabbed by Japan back in 1879. Therefore Okinawa was already part of Japan before sino Japanese war of 1895 or WWII of 1937-1945.

There is one thing Japanese history can not convince me that Senkaku was part of Okinawa. Okinawa was fully became part of Japan in 1879. Senkaku became part of Japan in 1895. It may be a bit earlier than Sino Japanese war. However there were many years gap between 1879 to 1895. It is absolutely obvious that it was later land grabbing and forced inclusion into Okinawa prefecture.

Geographically it is far away from Okinawa chain too. If we follow all dots along the Okinawa, it will reach to Hainan. Is Hainan also part of Okinawa? Taiwan is more qualified as chain Island for Senkaku. Distance is 200 km.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Flyfalcon,

Thank you very much for the correction. ^_^

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@ IRobin, Even IF I agreed that China was 'the real owner', their behavior in this situation has been ham-fisted and childish. In international diplomacy, issuing threats and 'sending in the ships/aircraft/troops' are the last resort, but the CCP have made it their primary approach for dealing with disputes with all their neighbors. I've been keeping track of both sides of this argument, and China simply hasn't presented a convincing argument for claiming the Senkakus as their own, much less any reasons that justify them throwing their weight around and issuing threats like Spokesman Lu. Sorry, but one can't be neutral with bullies, if you don't stand up to them, it just encourages them to keep misbehaving. We've recently had a PLA General Luo Yuan threatening Australia over our alliance with the US and dire consequences if we side with them in this dispute. This isn't the way to win friends and influence people, and if I met the General in person, I'd kick him in the nuts him for threatening me and my country. The hubris of the CCP and PLA is out of control and their words and deeds gives the impression to outsiders that they are nothing more than a gang of unreasonable, bullying, petty tyrants.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Senkaku became part of Okinawa because Japan was the first state to claim and exercise control over the islands.

It's that simple. No dynasty of China ever considered the Senkaku islands as being a piece of China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

iRobin, What in your opinion would be the minimum China need to do to own a piece of land or these islands?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Viking68,

China also has no right to claim any territory that never belong to them such as Okinawa. But has rights to get back the islands of Senkaku/Diaoyu islets.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@irobin

When did China own the Senkaku islands? Why did the Qing dynasty never put them down in any map of China?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

IRobinMAR. 04, 2013 - 02:53PM JST @Viking68, China also has no right to claim any territory that never belong to them such as Okinawa. But has rights to get back the islands of Senkaku/Diaoyu islets.

iRobin, That is not an answer and avoids the question. I'll try again . . .

In your own opinion, what does "belong to [China]" mean for China, and you for that matter? What is the minimum China needs to do to own a piece of land?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan would “be held solely responsible for all consequences.”

Held responsible by whom? Is there a new sheriff in town?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@SecularBeast,

@SecularBeast,

In the recent century, China was on her knee, she could't protect her territory. but no one can deny that China found these islets first, and owned these islets first. If you stand on the position of China, you will find those abnormal actions of China in your eyes changed.

The situations are inconvenient for China, Japan keep showing the will of negotiations but not onwership of these islets, but actually the onwership is the essence, without that everything lost its meaning. In this situation what can China do? Just sending planes and ships is the only way that China can take.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

When did China own the Senkaku islands? Why did the Qing dynasty never put them down in any map of China?

According my research, Japan started annexation to Okinawa after Meiji restoration of late 19th century. Long before Meiji was born, there were Chinese name of Diaoyu existed for Senkaku. Taiwanese fishermen have been fishing there before Meiji was born too. Emperor Meiji of Japan modernization was born on November 3, 1852.

But annexation through military force does not confer legitimacy upon the act of conquest. This is why when Japan was defeated in the Second World War the victors who included China and the US recognised that Diaoyu was Chinese territory. Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration acknowledged this though for administrative purposes Diaoyu was placed under US control as part of its governance over the Ryukyu Islands.

It was referred from http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-china-japan-dispute-over-diaoyu-islands-historical-analysis/5306206

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Viking68

I am sorry maybe I can't following totally. I had said that China has the right to get these islets back without any condition. Whatever Japan had done to the islands make no sense.

Japan should return the islets without conditions.

How about this suggestion?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Viking68

If you think this is unfair, an conditional return back maybe also helpful to the current intension. At least the Abe's "there are no disputes on these islands" should be changed.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

IRobot, apologies, the question was clear, but I will try to restate it for you.

If you were in a court of law (which you have previously admitted as being unfair), what standard would you say that China has met to claim the islands?

For example:

Has someone from China lived there? Has the Chinese government established an office there or imposed real estate taxes on its citizens that lived there? Did an explorer look at the island from a ship? Did an explorer spend a night or two on the islands? Did the Chinese government plant a flag there?

So, I am asking what China did to enable it to claim the islands? What has China done?

And no, Japan should not just unconditionally give the islands to China just because it is demanding that it happen.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Octagon

Japan did not annex the Senkaku Islands through military force. It was a peaceful annexation of land considered to be terra nullis.

The Senkaku islands were not owned, controlled, or recognized as being part of China by the Qing dynasty at any point of its existence. This is why the islands do not appear in any maps of Qing dynasty China.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@viking68,

Thank you so much for your patient explanations.

China found it firstly and used it as the fishing places, and wrote down in the books maps, and China is the nearest country. When Japan took them and claimed them, it was the time of the weekest of China even without a formal government, even at that time the Chinese people sponsor campaigns to protest the occupy of Japan. And refused to attend the San Francisco peace treaty. As a country that had no more power to use, Chinese had done what they can do. It need time for me to collect all the evidences here for you.

Actually, all those protest doesn't matter, the fact is these islands belong to China before, that is enough.

Because these islets are too small the make the claim before the occupation of Japan, just like Japan claim hundreds of islets last year, who could believe that Japanese had done that invasions.

But you must admit that these islets had owner at that moment and were occupied by Japan afterward.

This is enough!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@viking68,

I have told the story of "Wallet" here before, Couldn't that answer your questions pretty well?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@IRobin

Why were the Senkaku Islands not included in Qing dynasty (1644–1912) maps of "China"?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let me ask a question, how do you guys prove a car belongs to you? What kind of documents are needed to show that you are the rightful owner?

Japan did not provide anything that shows the Qing Dynasty(1644 to 1912) officially signed an agreement that those islands belong to Japan in 1895.

However the the Qing Dynasty did signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki where Taiwan and its surrounding area to be ceded to Japan until the Treaty of Taipei took place but it was not recognized by PRC and in fact Japan abrogated the treaty once they establish diplomatic relation with PRC in 1972 thus leaving the conditions after the war hanging until today which is the status of the disputed islands.

Thus here we are, PRC and Japan began to dispute those islands but neither one of them could present any official agreement between them which proves the ownership of those islands since 1895. Take note the Treaty of Shimonoseki did not mention anything about the status of those islands whether it's part of Taiwan or Okinawa.

The status of those islands were on silent mode until around 1971 when potential oil and gas reserves was identified.

China since then started to negotiate the issue with Japan when it was given to them by US in 1972. In fact even the US themselves do not claim those islands belong to either China or Japan but merely administrated by Japan as US did from 1945 to 1972.

I'm not saying it's either me, Japan or you, China but rather the possibility of we administering those islands together but which one of them refuse to negotiate on the issue? That is what causing the cold war and the endless arguments at Japan Today.

Do you guys really enjoy to see either China or Japan winning the cold war? I may not from China or Japan but I believe working together on the islands and continue pursue better relationships would be the ideal approach as there is no "winner" when someone else loses if you understand what I mean.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Upgrayedd

This question is unvaluable.

Because at the first part of Qing, these islands are too small to put it in the map, and not that necessary, Who believed that Japan will took them in the future of that moment? Just like the Japan government named and putted hundreds of islets in map last year to prevent others do the same thing like Japan did.

Whatever they were or not in the map of Qing dynasty, You must admit that they belong to China before. If this is a truth, then Japan took them afterward is an other truth.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Upgrayedd Mar. 04, 2013 - 04:44PM JST

Japan did not annex the Senkaku Islands through military force. It was a peaceful annexation of land considered to be terra nullis.

It is untrue. In 1885, the Japanese governor of Okinawa, Nishimura Sutezo petitioned the Meiji government to take control of the islands. However, Inoue Kaoru, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, commented that the islands were near the border of the Qing Empire, and that the islands had already been given Chinese names. Inoue was concerned that if Japan proceeded to erect a landmark stating its claim to the islands, it could stir up a conflict with the Qing Empire.

On January 14th 1895, during the First Sino-Japanese War, Japan incorporated the islands. It was because of Qing unimaginable weakness. Pls refer to

http://www.tokyoweekender.com/2012/09/senkaku-island-dispute/

Okinawa was part of Japan before Sino Japanese war. However Senkaku was never part of Okinawa before the war.

Okinawa chain became part of Japan in 1879. Senkaku became part of Japan in 1895. What took it so long for Senkaku becoming part of Okinawa? One factor is long distance from Okinawa chain Island. One factor is Japan is waiting for right moment and valid reason for land grabbing.

It was according http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands

Why were the Senkaku Islands not included in Qing dynasty (1644–1912) maps of "China"

During the Qing dynasty, China was opium addicted and surrendered according demand by foreign powers. That map you mentioned was drawn by foreign powers according their wish.

Even Terra nullus was not Japanese name. Japanese name was not existed until 1895.

In 1870s and 1880s, the English name Pinnacle Islands was used by the British navy for the rocks adjacent to the largest island Uotsuri-shima /Diaoyu Dao (then called Hoa-pin-su, 和平屿, "Peace Island"); Kuba-shima /Huangwei Yu (then called Ti-a-usu); and Taishō-tō/Chiwei Yu.[18] The name "Pinnacle Islands" is used by some as an English-language equivalent to "Senkaku" or "Diaoyu"

It was according http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Octagon

Good. Why do not we bring the case to the International Court of Justice as proposed by Prime Minister Noda last September? China ignored his proposal and sent patrol ships near the islands, probably because it knew that it would lose in court of law.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

CH3CHO, can you provide the link where PM Noda propose this issue to bring to the International Court of Justice?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Octagon

It took ten extra years for the Japanese to bring Senkaku into Okinawa because they were not considered to be part of Okinawa at the time and their distance to Taiwan made the Japanese nervous about moving in.

Now here is the important part...

They were not considered to be part of China either. They were considered terra nullis, which is latin for "no-mans land". It isn't a name made up by westerners. The islands belonged to no state. Terra nullis means the islands were open to whoever gets there and develops them first. That was Japan.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Just a tip.

Historical evidence is not always a decisive bolster in territorial disputes because it's often the case that someone digs up counter-evidence to what has been believed to be a self-evident truth. A professor from Nagasaki Immaculate Catholic University recently told a news conference he called for that he had found a description in the official Ming Dynasty journal, in which Ming's prefect tells a Japanese envoy that China's border extends as far as the Matsu Islands, outside of which anyone can voyage freely. The news was widely reported by the Japanese media but I doubt if anyone outside Japan knew about it. (See Daily Yomiuri Online Jan. 21).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

They were not considered to be part of China either. They were considered terra nullis, which is latin for "no-mans land". It isn't a name made up by westerners. The islands belonged to no state. Terra nullis means the islands were open to whoever gets there and develops them first. That was Japan.

Upgrayedd, may I ask how did Japan verified and confirmed those islands and its surrounding area which situated very close to Taiwan does not belong to China? Have Japan check the matter with the Qing Dynasty?

Japan however invaded and taken over Taiwan just few months later and even so correct me if I'm wrong that Japan never mentioned anything about declaring those islands as part of Okinawa not Taiwan towards the Qing Dynasty in official manner that has absolutely nothing to do with the war which resulted the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

If only Japan signed an agreement with China since those islands obviously nearest to them then we would not end up discussing such issue here as there's black and white on the ownership of those islands.

Again which is why it's the best for all sides to cooperate and develop the area together and yes such plan did happened in the past but was stalled but for the sake of peace why not continue to move towards that direction rather than moving away from it? It simply generates cold war.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Upgrayedd, may I ask how did Japan verified and confirmed those islands and its surrounding area which situated very close to Taiwan does not belong to China? Have Japan check the matter with the Qing Dynasty?

It's not necessary. What is more important is how China handled Japan's incorporation when they first knew about it which is nothing. Any person with common sense will tell you that China had no interest in the islands before or after the incorporation.

Pratas island, for instance, is a good example where Qing actually protested to the Japanese government who tried to incorporate them around 1907. When Japan was trying to incorporate them under Taiwan (Taiwan was under Japan at that time), the official of Qing protested to the Japanese government where both parties agreed that it was under the administration of Guandong Province.

Secondly, if Senkaku was actually taken as a result of Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan would of ordered the islands to be under jurisdiction of Taiwan instead of Okinawa.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Upgrayedd Mar. 04, 2013 - 09:35PM JST

It took ten extra years for the Japanese to bring Senkaku into Okinawa because they were not considered to be part of Okinawa at the time and their distance to Taiwan made the Japanese nervous about moving in.

When Okinawa chain Islands were annexed by Japan, not all Islands were grabbed at the same time. Firstly smaller Islands were started for annexation in 1872. Ryuku of main Island was became part of Japan in 1879. That logic applied to Senkaku too. Because there are many Islands sprading accross South China Sea. As a new observer or intruder, Japan was nervous about their illegal intrusion and land grabbing.

Morally, Legally and Geographically Taiwan is part of Chain Island with Senkaku. Japan and China make a lot of noise. However their claim is weak.

Another logic is the tree on drive way inot garden. It has no inhabitants or residents live there. However it is very close to your fence. If I am your neighbor. I come and make a hut on that tree, it was obvious that it was stealing.

Logically, Geographically or Morally I have no rights to claim anything on your drive way as my property. Qing dyansty was weak with opium addiction. I could not ask one person who is drunk or confusion with drug to sign the legal document. It was forced demand without his natural feeling. Therefore, it was voided.

If North Korea claim Hokkaido as their territory, how will Japan response? It was unreasonable, out of touch and unrealistic. At the end, all parties have to settle in the ICJ instead of confronting like spoiled kids. Truth can not be changed by fabricated history.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Correction to first sentence of third paragraph as tree on drive way into your garden.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's not necessary. What is more important is how China handled Japan's incorporation when they first knew about it which is nothing. Any person with common sense will tell you that China had no interest in the islands before or after the incorporation.

If China did nothing on such issue why are you and me along with others discussing this matter on Japan Today? Why is it there's no development until today by Japan, are you telling me in common sense that Japan has no interest on those islands? What does interest relates anything on sovereignty?

Yes China did consider it as part of Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki but after the war only when US was giving it back to Japan both PRC and ROC realized it which started the dispute until today since around 1971.

If however Japan did informed and verify the status of those islands, signed official agreement with Qing Dynasty before the surrender where Treaty of Shimonoseki was no longer in place, PRC and ROC can pretty much dream about it but sadly that was not the case.

Yet again negotiation which leading to cooperation would be the best approach at this moment in solving the issue but it can only be accomplished on both sides but in my opinion looking at the current situation, cold war would be the likely choice thus we can only wait and see which one of them would remain victorious.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

neobios

http://gadebate.un.org/67/japan

Japan recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and led the world in its personnel and financial contributions to international judicial institutions. There were a number of territorial and maritime disputes around the world and Japan was determined to settle disputes peacefully and in line with international law.

The statement is written in diplomatic language, so it is rather vague, but what he meant is "Bring the case to ICJ".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Neobis,

When I mean doing nothing, I'm talking about the period between 1895-1968. Both ROC and PRC never asserted their claim of the islands whether it be through diplomatic correspondence to another nation or even their own domestic newspaper. In fact, both states went as far as naming them under Japanese names and marking them as Japanese territories in their own published maps during that time.

Using common sense, it's clearly apparent that Japan did incorporate them under terra nullius and therefore, Qing, ROC, and PRC didn't care about them and continually recognized them as Japanese territory.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

When I mean doing nothing, I'm talking about the period between 1895-1968. Both ROC and PRC never asserted their claim of the islands whether it be through diplomatic correspondence to another nation or even their own domestic newspaper. In fact, both states went as far as naming them under Japanese names and marking them as Japanese territories in their own published maps during that time.

Using common sense, it's clearly apparent that Japan did incorporate them under terra nullius and therefore, Qing, ROC, and PRC didn't care about them and continually recognized them as Japanese territory.

Taiwan and its surrounding area was given to Japan from 1895 to 1945 and the Qing Dynasty cannot claim it back as it would violate the Treaty of Shimonoseki. China consider those islands part of Taiwan which means it belongs to Japan under the treaty but after the war ends it was nullified with Treaty of Taipei on 1952 between ROC and Japan.

When was those letter and newspaper mention about Senkaku? I know one letter dated 1920 but Treaty of Shimonoseki was still intact obviously. The very least does it mention it was already under Japan control before the Treaty of Shimonoseki? What's more important that is there any official documents which involves China's acknowledgement on Japan's soverginity on those islands before the treaty?

From 1952 until 1972, USCAR was the government in Okinawa but no one mention anything about those islands until studies of potential oil and gas reserves in 1968 where only by then Japan, PRC and ROC starts to claim them. In fact PRC and ROC never even knew those islands were incorporated by Japan in 1895 and believed to be returned once Treaty of Shimonoseki was ended.

From http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/:

The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government's partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map's colophon: certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).

That is why both sides need to negotiate on such matter rather than just shoving it aside. There are way too many controversies and issues that need to clarify not just among themselves but the public as well.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

neobios

That is why both sides need to negotiate on such matter rather than just shoving it aside.

In 1972, when joint communique of Japan and People's Republic of China was concluded, Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka asked Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai of his idea about Senkaku Islands. Zhou said he did not need to talk about the islands. In 1978, when Peace Treaty between Japan and PRC was concluded, Deng Xiaoping said they did not need to talk about Senkaku. During all that time, Senkaku was under Japanese control.

Japan gave China at least 2 chances. China gave up both of them. Why do we need to talk about it now?

Another question is if talking about Senkaku contributes to the friendship between the 2 nations. The talk has no chance of fruitful result. The talk is most likely to go on for ever, creating haterid in either of the nations. That is why I prefer arbitration at ICJ because, with ICJ judgment, the dispute ends one way or the other.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@CH3CHO,

TAlking about Senkaku/Diaoyu contributes to the friendship between the 2 nations?

Then why is now that the intension becomes to the greatest one in Asia? How about we say that Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping did not want to talk about these islets just because they could forsee the possible intensions that current Japan government keeps intending to.

why is the kind behaviors be distorted by you and became the evidences of yours to annex territories from others?

So Typical Japanese unreasonable logic

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

IRobin, I do not understand your English. What intention?

to annex territories from others?

It is Japanese territory more than a hundred years. Back in the days, Japanese government issued the title of the islands to a Japanese citizen. Japanese government bought the title back from a Japanese citizen last year. The purchase last year is not called annexation.

Now, why do you think PM Noda bought the island? Contrary to what Chinese think, he bought the islands to make it easier to dispose the islands. If there is an individual owner, Japanese government cannot freely dispose the islands. If you want to give a present, you have to buy it first. Do you understand? But Noda is out, and Abe is in, China has no chance of getting a present.

Japanese government bought the title issued by itself. If China thinks the islands belong to it, it should just call the title invalid, and forget about the purchase.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@CH3CHO

Sorry for the mistake of word intention, it should be intension.

Those hundred years only denote that Japan has occupied other's territories for more than 100 years, they are not Japan's, can you understand this? If you stole a wallet from others, It doesnt matter how long you had kept it, even 1000 years, this doesn't change the stealing thing. Why can't you understand this? Huh?

What kind of absurd transaction it is had been done by PM Noda, they did the transaction on someone other's property ! Why didn't they make the transaction on London? What kind of individual owner here? he was just a theft that stole property from another theft. I doesn't matter how many thefts here , the property only has one onwer. Why you just keep denying this?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

IRobin, just bring the case to ICJ. Why not?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@CH3CHO

Because the ICJ may not play fair !

how could they handed over other nation's territory to Japan that not belonged to them? why they just handed over them selves territories to Japan?

This is why China will not take these disputes to the ICJ, because even now those counties are still the main numbers there. who can believe them will not do the unfair thing this time?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

CH3CHO

Premier Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiao Ping mentioned they wanted to let the future generation to discuss on the issue but they did not say anything about abandoning the dispute.

From wikipedia:

When PRC-Japan diplomatic relations were established in 1972, both nations found reasons to set aside this territorial dispute.[79] 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."

Also it's not just China but Japan as well does not want to bring this matter to ICJ. PM Noda in fact never asked China to bring the matter towards ICJ.

From http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201210/01kaiken_e.html:

Therefore, as there exists no issue of territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, Japan will not institute proceedings before the ICJ as we have attempted with Takeshima. So far, China has also not attempted to institute proceedings before the ICJ, nor has there been any sign of movement toward that end. Therefore, I believe that there is no current prospect of having proceedings before the ICJ as you suggested.

"We are not considering using the ICJ," Noda said at a press conference, emphasizing there is no doubt the "Senkaku Islands are an integral part of Japanese territory both internationally and historically."

PM Noda however did ask South Korea to bring their dispute towards ICJ but was rejected.

Now I do not know much on the credibility of ICJ but I respect the country's decision whether it's Japan, America or China if they do not wish to bring it up towards ICJ as it's their right to do so.

I'm not sure how long the cold war last but eventually I think there will be a time where one of them would have to summit and began negotiations or face something much worse than losing those islands.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@FPSRussia, Number one export is Weapons, Number two is Aircraft. That's what I mean when I say America Love's War, we then sale more weapons and aircraft.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taiwan and its surrounding area was given to Japan from 1895 to 1945 and the Qing Dynasty cannot claim it back as it would violate the Treaty of Shimonoseki. China consider those islands part of Taiwan which means it belongs to Japan under the treaty but after the war ends it was nullified with Treaty of Taipei on 1952 between ROC and Japan.

Neobis

You are under false assumption that Qing Dynasty relinquished the rights of Senkaku as a result Treaty of Shimonoseki when there are no such evidence to support this. If in fact ROC actually believed that Senkaku was part of Taiwan, they would of surely asserted their claim to U.S. when at that time, ROC was considered a sole government of China by U.S. even having an embassy in Washington D.C. No such correspondence between ROC and U.S. exists.

Also it's not just China but Japan as well does not want to bring this matter to ICJ. PM Noda in fact never asked China to bring the matter towards ICJ.

Of course they don't. Why would the plaintiff file a lawsuit/charges on behalf of the defendant? This simply does not make sense. If and only if China suggests this (ICJ settlement) and Japan reject them, you can cry "double standards."

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

nigelboy, I agree with Neobis though. The dates of the incorporation of the islands and signing of Treaty of Shimonoseki were too close together to ignore. It would make a difference if they were years apart, but those events happened one right after the other. The existence of an embassy in the US has nothing to do with anything at all, especially when Taiwan relied so much on the US at the time. You also used an analogy of criminal case which is irrelevant. Only if Japan admits that there is a dispute, then Japan can also bring it up in court. But Japan has no intention to use the ICJ all along.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

flowers Mar. 06, 2013 - 07:41AM JST Only if Japan admits that there is a dispute, then Japan can also bring it up in court.

Japan has already admit that there is a dispute. In 1978, there was signing of a treaty between China and Japan for Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute. At the time, PM Nakasone accepted the treaty that states "the dispute shall be posponed". This was first Japanese representative to admit that there was dispute over the islands. Today, Japan goverment states "there is no dispute".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Flowers,

It's not surprising that you agree with Neobis but it's irrelevant how the date of incorporation and the Treaty of Shimonoseki are less than year apart under international law. The fundamental issue still boils down to whether or not Qing dynasty had ever exercised any administrative, legislative, and or judicial control of the islands prior to Japan's incorporation and the answer is negative. Secondly, does the Treaty of Shimonoseki or the agreements thereafter ever cover Senkaku and that answer is still negative.

As to the ROC silence despite having an embassy in Washington D.C. At that time, it does not matter which country had the power for ROC was preferred over PRC by U.S. at that time and being a key ally against the cold war, there is no doubt both relied on each other as stragic allies.

Post Date:2012/3/30 "The Republic of China (Taiwan) and the United States have always had a strong partnership, built on a foundation of cooperation and trust. The two countries were close allies during World War II. After the Republic of China (ROC) government relocated to Taiwan in 1949, the United States continued to recognize the ROC as the sole legal government of China. In the aftermath of the Korean War, given the continued strategic importance of the Taiwan Strait during the Cold War era, the ROC and the United States signed the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty in 1954 to consolidate their military alliance. This action established the ROC as part of the collective security system in the East Asian and Pacific region.

As Taiwan's security gradually strengthened, its economy began to flourish and grow with American economic aid. During this period, the ROC continued to maintain its seat at the United Nations and in most other major international organizations."

http://www.taiwanembassy.org/US/ct.asp?xItem=266456&CtNode=2297&mp=12&xp1=12

To say that ROC was too powerless to assert her claim to her key ally at that time is just wishful thinking.

Why is my civil case reference analogy irrelevant?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

fsjp330, you are probably right. One day they said there was a dispute, and then later they just backtracked and said there was no dispute. It is very hard to believe or trust a statement coming out of J govt. There have been so many contradictory and inconsistency in their words as though they were not sure what they were doing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nigelboy Mar. 06, 2013 - 08:40AM JST but it's irrelevant how the date of incorporation and the Treaty of Shimonoseki are less than year apart under international law. The fundamental issue still boils down to whether or not Qing dynasty had ever exercised any administrative, legislative, and or judicial control of the islands prior to Japan's incorporation and the answer is negative.

You keep talking about the international laws, but was Japan following the international laws? China was neither notifield about the Japan's incorporation nor were any formal acts carried out, which could have been regarded as Japan's symbolic incorporation. How can the Japanese explain these clashing differences in procedure? Why did the J-goverment deviate from its previous incorporation procedures? The Ogasawara Islands were made public in the Officail Gazette bearing the Imperial Degree, including the exact names, coordination, and the local authorities. However, on the contrary, the Cabinet Decision about the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands incorporation was conspicuously made. And you talk about international laws? How bogus.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nigelboy, a lot of posters already mentioned that China has the title based on discovery and use, therefore, illegal occupation of the islands thereafter whether with or without controls has no bearing in international laws, especially when Japan has to comply with the post-war orders. As for the Treaty, if it meant for Taiwan then it meant to cover all territories including the islands. About the embassy, “strategic allies” are the key words here, why would you think that China or Taiwan should have complained to the US when the US is the third party? Even now is there an official letter sent to the US about the islands? It doesn’t make sense right, the dispute is only between China and Japan, and not with the US. I can say again the existence of the embassy is irrelevant. Your analogy is also irrelevant because either side can institute the proceeding, but Japan insists that there is no dispute to avoid going to the ICJ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Flowers,

How could U.S. be just a "third party" when they were the principle in drafting the Treaty which is to decide which territories Japan has to renounce (or keep)? It's not about complaining to U.S. It's about "mentioning" to U.S. like,

"Hey, Secretary of State. Those islands that's near Taiwan is actually ours."

No wire cables needed. Just a hand delivered memorandum via messenger.

How do you think ROC managed to get Penghu islands back? Are you seriously going to say that ROC and their embassy in Washington D.C. had nothing to do with implementing this in the treaty?

Common sense please.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sfjp330

Japan has already admit that there is a dispute. In 1978, there was signing of a treaty between China and Japan for Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute. At the time, PM Nakasone accepted the treaty that states "the dispute shall be posponed". This was first Japanese representative to admit that there was dispute over the islands. Today, Japan goverment states "there is no dispute".

What a shameless person you are. In 1978, Japanese Prime Minister was Fukuda Takeo, who signed the China Japan Peace treaty. Mr. Nakasone was Japanese Prime Minister 1982-1987. Would you name the "treaty between China and Japan for Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute", which I believe never exists?

neobios

Japan will not institute proceedings before the ICJ as we have attempted with Takeshima. So far, China has also not attempted to institute proceedings before the ICJ, nor has there been any sign of movement toward that end. Therefore, I believe that there is no current prospect of having proceedings before the ICJ as you suggested.

That is because Japan is a defendant in Senkaku case. The party who has a complaint, which is plaintiff and in this case China, starts the legal procedure. If China started the ICJ procedure, Noda would have accepted the case. Abe may not. China has lost a very good chance of getting Senkaku.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

neobios

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."

Yes, I know that story. China unilaterally shelved their claim to Senkaku, which was under Japanese control then and is under Japanese control now. We can safely say that China knew very well that their claim to Senkaku was very weak.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You are under false assumption that Qing Dynasty relinquished the rights of Senkaku as a result Treaty of Shimonoseki when there are no such evidence to support this.

nigelboy, I did not make any false assumption, I said China not me and I did not assume or mention anything that those islands were belong to China.

Everything happens without any significant notification by both sides since 1895 until around 1968 about those islands being incorporated into Japan. There is absolutely no official documents signed by both sides verifying the ownership of those islands.

Have you own a car nigelboy?

Now a scenario, I found your car near my house with your keys inside and I immediately changed its plate, color and then drive around few days posting pictures on facebook of my ride while all my friends believed I bought the car.

I was however caught and fined, why? I do not possess any legal documents but nigelboy you have those stuffs. Those loan agreements, insurance, receipt, car grant, servicing records and so forth is what verifies the ownership as my plate was found to be fake.

Now where's the official documents on those islands? Don't tell me it came from China or Japan or some maps or newspapers and such but I want to see officially signed agreement between them not blank signature. I want to see exact descriptions of the area preferably with detailed illustrations. I want to see them signed by the appropriate officials not some unrelated people that might not even work with the government.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That is because Japan is a defendant in Senkaku case. The party who has a complaint, which is plaintiff and in this case China, starts the legal procedure. If China started the ICJ procedure, Noda would have accepted the case. Abe may not. China has lost a very good chance of getting Senkaku.

Yes, I know that story. China unilaterally shelved their claim to Senkaku, which was under Japanese control then and is under Japanese control now. We can safely say that China knew very well that their claim to Senkaku was very weak.

CH3CHO,

China has been sending patrol ships since last year and Japan do nothing much about it. If China's claim is really that weak why Japan does not accuse China of territory intrusion by bringing this matter towards ICJ?

I can understand if China do nothing about it except babbling but that's definitely not the case as we can see right now, who is defending those islands at the moment?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

neobios

who is defending those islands at the moment?

Japan of course. Japan holds the Senkaku Islans and repelling Chinese ships that are trying to come into the territorial water around the islands. Did you think that China holds the islands? I just feel sorry for you because you are just a victim of information manipulation by your country.

China should stop sending patrol ships to Senkaku. If it continues "might is right" policy, Japan will no longer continues its soft policy. It will unite all the countries surrounding China, especially India, Vietnam, Soviet Union, to demand China to stop its expansionism, and to demand independence of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Uyghur. If you do not want that head on clash and possible war against all of your neighbors, stop that stupid gunboat diplomacy.

My suggestion is peaceful resolution though ICJ.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sorry, make it Russia rather than Soviet Union.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan of course. Japan holds the Senkaku Islans and repelling Chinese ships that are trying to come into the territorial water around the islands. Did you think that China holds the islands? I just feel sorry for you because you are just a victim of information manipulation by your country.

China should stop sending patrol ships to Senkaku. If it continues "might is right" policy, Japan will no longer continues its soft policy. It will unite all the countries surrounding China, especially India, Vietnam, Soviet Union, to demand China to stop its expansionism, and to demand independence of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Uyghur. If you do not want that head on clash and possible war against all of your neighbors, stop that stupid gunboat diplomacy.

My suggestion is peaceful resolution though ICJ.

CH3CHO,

I'm from Malaysia.

I think this would be my final comment for this article as I believe you are offended and I apologized if you got heat up by my comments. If you believe in freedom of expression then I hope you can respect my opinion as I would respect yours.

I'm not sure but from your comments, I sense anger and discomfort when you mentioned of getting many countries together to bring this conflict into a possible war as well referring me as brainwashed for my opinions.

Please calm down we all want to see this incident to solve as peaceful as possible, don't we? Soviet Union no longer exist by the way.

Anyway here's my final comment, I do not think neither China or Japan holds the islands completely. I do not see any country in this world shown any intention of intervene despite Japan has mentioned this issue during UN meetings as well visits to Europe and South East Asia.

I'm afraid this dispute is between China and Japan only at the moment as there's nothing out there that is changing the status quo we looking at right now.

Let's us hope this dispute would not escalate much further and an official peaceful agreement will be made.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

neobios

Sorry, I though you were Chinese.

India, Vietnam and Russia all have territorial disputes with China and China started wars against each of them over the disputed territories after WW2. (It was Soviet Union which China started war against.) All of them are resentful of the expansionism and aggression of China. If someone calls for a coalition against China, all of them are likely to join the coalition. I call it a bad scenario. But if China plays tough, bad scenario becomes more likely.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I highly value the controversy going on this thread. I post the following as food for your thought.

There's a now-uninhabited island called Kuba-jima (or Kuba-shima) in Okinawa Prefecture, which I presume is the origin of Kuba-shima's namesake in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Both Kuba-jimas look alike as if they were twins. China calls the island "Huangwei Yu (= yellow tail)." Why "Huangwei"? Did the ancient Chinese believe there were some mythic animals living there with yellow tails?

During China's Ming and Qing periods, Ryukyu seamen made the island an important landmark in round trips to and from Fuchiang for trading and tributary purposes. They had such well-versed knowledge of the Senkaku/Diaoyu waters that, in 1534, Ming's royal emissary Chin kan (Japanese pronunciation of - Sorry, Chinese characters can't be typed in) had to ask them about the details of the route from Fuchian to Ryukyu before his mission departed to Ryukyu to crown Shosei the king of the Ryukyu Kingdom. A later emissary records the name of the island as "Huangmao (= yellow hair or skin)."

The k-sound in Ryukyuan and the h-sound in Chinese correspond well, so that one cannot deny across the board the possibility that "Huangwei" or "Huangmao" might be a phonological translation of what they heard from Ryukyu seamen.

The Chinese name "Diaoyu" needs to be carefully scrutinized. It means "fishing." From this naming, people often fantasize that a horde of Chinese fishermen went there to catch fish like commercial fishing of today. Remember, though, the times were the 16th century when the technology of freezing deep water fish was unknown.

Naming geographical objects is not always ad hoc like common nouns. Oftentimes, there's reasons behind.

Historically, local Ryukyuan (Yaeyama islanders) have called the Senkaku/Diaoyu by the name of "Iigun-jima" meaning "the island of a dive-fishing spear" because the shapes of the first two islands approached from the southern island (Ishigaki of Yaeyama Islands) looks like spear-heads. The explorers of the British HMS Samarang called them "Pinnacle Islands" because they were impressed with the similarity of the shape between the southernmost island of "Minamikojima" and Bartolome Island in the Galapagos, which is famous for its Pinnacle Rock.

Can one take the theory of "Senkaku/Diaoyu as China's integral part historically" for granted? This is a moot question that must be subject to a close scrutiny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Addenda:

British HMS ships anchored at Ishigaki Island three times. And it was on their second voyage that they explored the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Probably, on their first voyage, they might have heard from Ishigaki islanders about uninhabited islands lying northward. So, on the second voyage, they set sail from Ishigaki for Senkaku/Diaoyu for the exploration and was surprised, as I mentioned above, to find a Pinnacle Rock on the first island they approached. The fact that the British explorers were told by the Ryukyu side, and not by China, about the existence of those islands can't be made short shrift of, I believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

neobiosMar. 06, 2013 - 02:13PM JST

I do not see any country in this world shown any intention of intervene despite Japan has mentioned this issue during >UN meetings as well visits to Europe and South East Asia.

Did you miss the statements made by the U.S. Secratary of State and Secretary of Defense? U.S. military intervention, in the event of a Chinese military effort to resolve this issue is a declared certainty. Many countries in Asia have bilateral and collective defense agreements with the United States, Any Chinese effort to use military force will bring on a conflict with most of the world.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nigelboy, I still don’t see your logic in expecting China or Taiwan to “mention” or complain to the US. Are we talking about the same treaty here, the Treaty of Shimonoseki? You must be referring to the SF Treaty which both China and Taiwan were not a party to. Now, why would you expect China to “mention” about the issue to the US when China considers it to be illegal? Both China and Taiwan never want to get the US involved in this dispute in the first place. The existence of the embassy in the US has nothing to do with anything at all, even without the embassy if China wanted to get the US involved she would have found a way to get the message across. If China or Taiwan were invited to be part of the Treaty then your logic might come into play, but that was not the case. You will never find any official letter from China to the US discussing about the dispute because the dispute is between China and Japan. And, please don’t bring in another theory to back up your original theory because it is still a theory and not fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CH3CHO, you have to understand something, neither Japan nor China wants to bring a case to the ICJ. Why do think Japan keeps using a “no dispute” claim. Because there cannot be a case if there is no dispute. If Japan admits that there is a dispute, then she can also institute the proceedings first. The problem with “no dispute” claim also affects the bilateral negotiation because Japan insists that there is nothing to discuss. Now, who do think is worse, one who doesn’t want to talk or one who is always open for talk? You also got a wrong idea about the coalition. The only two countries that favour Japan are Vietnam and the Philippines for which Japan spent a great deal of money for their support. Japan can’t even approach Russia without being kicked in the butt. India says it outright that she does not want to get involved. Japan went to Europe and SE Asia for support but was so much disappointed. Are you not curious that India and Russia both have territorial disputes with China but recently their relationships with China are even much closer in both military and economic ties? China’s policy has been consistent that is a “peaceful rise”. You don’t see China engages in a war for decades, but we can’t say this about the other super power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neobis,

Perhaps I should re-word it. You're making an assumption that China already owned the islands and that for the islands to be transferred to Japan, there must be some type of an agreement my both parties accepting the said transfer.

Your theory would be correct if in fact China had established effective control of the islands prior to Japan's incorporation but as I stated previously, there are no such records. Hence, it's deemed terra nullius.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You must be referring to the SF Treaty which both China and Taiwan were not a party to. Now, why would you expect China to “mention” about the issue to the US when China considers it to be illegal?

Flowers.

ROC and PRC were not signatories to the Treaty itself for there was a disagreement among the U.N. Permanent members about who should represent the official government of China. However, ROC was in fact, part of the U.N. member who prior to the execution of the SF treaty, negotiated and had input on the drafting of the treaty along with U.S., Britain, France, Australia and even Korea which was not even a "state" which territories Japan would have to renounce. For example, how do you think the SF Treaty was able to manage to include Pescadores (Penghu) as part of territory to be renounced by Japan? It does not take but a common sense to realize that ROC was involved in defining the areas. So where is correspondence between ROC and U.S. between 1945-1951 where the former is asserting or even questioning the status about the Senkaku to U.S. or any other Allied members?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

nigelboy, why used common sense when the facts are right in front of your eyes, only you have to accept them. China’s consistently and officially said that SF Treaty is illegal because China was not a part of it; that is a fact. What else you do need? You are trying to bring in other theories to confuse the facts. Another fact is Potsdam Proclamation specifically stated in precise term that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." Everything is in black and white, so don’t try to come up with a theory to bend the truth.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

CH3CHOMar. 06, 2013 - 10:45AM JST If China started the ICJ procedure, Noda would have accepted the case. Abe may not. China has lost a very good chance of getting Senkaku. My suggestion is peaceful resolution though ICJ.

We already know this many times over. What a worthless comment. What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing. Regardless if Japan or China went to ICJ, there is no guarantee that loser of the case will not follow the ruling that was not in their favor. Nobody is going to enforce the ruling anyway. So what does it matter? What is important the most for Japanese or Chinese politicians is the public opinion, and they will not respect the ruling that is not favorable on the sovereignty of Senkaku/Daiyou. So your back to square one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why used common sense when the facts are right in front of your eyes, only you have to accept them. China’s consistently and officially said that SF Treaty is illegal because China was not a part of it; that is a fact.

When you say "China", do you mean PRC or ROC? Why would the Treaty be illegal?

Another fact is Potsdam Proclamation specifically stated in precise term that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

U.S., Britain, and ROC did "determine". Please refer to the post before.

Everything is in black and white, so don’t try to come up with a theory to bend the truth.

You"re the one that is coming up with theory based on unsubstantiated fact with an added lack of common sense, IMO.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What can ICJ do?

They can at least determine which party has merits based on international law instead of both parties claiming that they do over and over.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

nigelboy, I think you are confused with too many theories. The fact is both China and Taiwan were not invited to be part of the SF Treaty and this had been mentioned by a number of posters before. That is why the Treaty is illegal. So, whatever theory you have is invalid. Now, about Potsdam Proclamation I couldn’t find the post that you said they did “determine” only your theory. If they did “determine” China wouldn’t be mentioning it so many times in the media. And, there is no theory on what I said, I only pointed out the facts that both China and Taiwan were not a party to the Treaty therefore it's illegal and the Potsdam Proclamation clearly stated what should be Japanese sovereignty. Your last sentence seems to be out of place.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Flowers.

Like I said, the point I'm trying to make here is that ROC was a party to the drafting of the treaty (this is the "we determine" part of the Potsdam unless you missed it) but not a signatory. The mere fact that ROC did not assert or question the status or the disposition of Senkaku during these drafting process is a clear indication that ROC did not think the islands were theirs. Furthermore, the fact that ROC and even PRC recognized them in Japanese names and boundaries on their own respective maps until the discovery of the underwater resources clearly indicates their 75 year position (1895-1970) of recognizing them as Japanese. In other words, their "silence" speaks volumes.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

nigelboy, you came up with another theory again. How did you get the idea that Taiwan was a party to the Treaty? And, don’t assume that because Taiwan was on the UN. I have checked the link on the Treaty of San Francisco but only see that both China and Taiwan were absent and did not participate in the drafting of the Treaty. They were having a dreadful time fighting each time. Also, I don’t understand how you could connect the “we determine” part of the Potsdam Declaration to the Treaty. According to China nothing was determined, that is why they keep mentioning about Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation. Now, we are on the subject of maps again, China also came up Japanese maps and foreign maps that showed the islands belong to China. Yes, the discovery of the resources might bring up the question of ownership of the islands then but that does not preclude the fact that the islands belong to China. Remember that Japan did not publicly announce the incorporation of the islands so the title shall be based on the discovery and use which support China’s claim.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

flowers

CH3CHO, you have to understand something, neither Japan nor China wants to bring a case to the ICJ.

Read the speech by PM Noda at UN general assembly last September. http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/67/JP_en.pdf

Once again, in cooperation with the United Nations, I call for nations to recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ as Japan did and for non-member countries of the ICC and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to join at an early date. There are still a number of territorial and maritime disputes in many parts of the world. It is the philosophy of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as a shared principle in the international community, to settle disputes in a peaceful manner based on international law. Japan, under any circumstance, is determined to comply with the principle and seek peaceful solutions based on international law. The world should pay more attention to the role the judicial institutions can play in the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

Japan, or Former Prime Minister Noda at least, wants the case settled at ICJ.

Why do think Japan keeps using a “no dispute” claim.

Do you think admitting "dispute" will contribute to anything? Do you think that the 2 nations can solve the dispute through diplomatic negotiation? If you think so, you are too unrealistic. Admitting dispute will just create a never ending problem with no solution between the otherwise friendly 2 nations. What do you want to achieve creating such a situation? That is why Japan does not admit dispute. However, arbitration at ICJ is acceptable because the dispute ends one way or the other at the end of legal procedure.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Flowers

Republic of China, I repeat, did participate in drafting the Treaty of Peace with Japan. There are literally hundreds of pages of archives displayed in the Foreign Relations archives in the U.S. which includes (pg 1059)

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1951v06p1.p1076&id=FRUS.FRUS1951v06p1&isize=M&q1=mandate&q2=trusteeship&q3=china

Republic of China are parties to Potsdam. Check. Republic of China participated in the drafting of the Peace Treaty with Japan in which they agreed to the disposition of territories that did not include Senkaku. Check. Republic of China signed a separate treaty in 1952 with Japan acknowledging the 1951 Treaty. Check.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

CH3CHO, let me say it again, neither Japan nor China wants to bring a case to the ICJ. You are generalizing from Noda’s statements; his words were meant to make Japan look good to the general public. You should read the last few paragraphs in the following link:

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201210/01kaiken_e.html

You will notice that Japan has no intention to use the ICJ and certainly Japan can institute the proceedings but doesn’t want to. Hence, the “no dispute” claim to avoid facing the court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy, note that it is the Foreign Relations of the US gathering the viewpoints of various nations for which you will notice also that it includes Thailand and Burma, for examples, who were not parties nor signatories to the Treaty. This does not mean that China participated in the drafting of the Treaty itself. And, if you read carefully, you will see that it also mentioned Formosa which meant to cover all the islands pertaining to Taiwan. When it comes to reasons, both China and Taiwan were not invited to take part in the Treaty nor becoming a signatory to the Treaty, would you hold them accountable for their own viewpoints?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes Flowers. It's gathering viewpoints of various nations including Repubic of China which is in essence, participating in drafting of the Treaty. For instance, Republic of China states "will raise no objection to the present form of Article XX in the event that xxxx" What we see here Republic of China making requests for amendment. Nothing of that in regards to Senkaku is given.

At least now you admit that there were actual correspondence between U.S. and ROC during the drafting of the Treaty. On top of that, they are making requests to U.S. I'm glad we can finally put this to a rest.

And, if you read carefully, you will see that it also mentioned Formosa which meant to cover all the islands pertaining to Taiwan

Yes. So? What does it have to do with Senkaku?

would you hold them accountable for their own viewpoints?

It's clearly evident that China's viewpoints CHANGED upon discovery of the underwater resources.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nigelboy..It's clearly evident that China's viewpoints CHANGED upon discovery of the underwater resources.

It's clearly evident that Japan's viewpoints changed upon discovery of the underwater resources. In 1978 Japan agreed to postpone the disagreement of the islands issue. Now? There is no dispute?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy, viewpoint is viewpoint, it is not the same as participation. You cannot use a viewpoint as a basis for a treaty. China did reject it and declare it to be illegal; that is good enough to show that there was no participation. Also, read my post again I did not admit anything. Don’t make up something that is not there. And, Formosa or Taiwan consists of many islands which also include those islands in question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no dispute?

sfjp330

Why should there be? Japan states that there is no question that it belongs to Japan historically and on the basis of international law. If China disagrees, they are more than welcome to submit their case to ICJ which decides the merits of each parties claims. China hasn't done so going on for god knows how many years now. So yeah. If you can't come up with additional evidence to support her claim nor show any willingness to submit the dispute to ICJ, it's long overdue to call it a "dispute"

Flowers.

Viewpoint is viewpoint but what's in discussion here are viewpoint of ROC in regards to those islands from 1895-until the underwater resources discovery. As to Taiwan consisting of islands including Senkaku, I ask for proof once again. Simply wishing it doesn't make it so.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

nigelboyMar. 08, 2013 - 06:45AM JST Japan states that there is no question that it belongs to Japan historically and on the basis of international law.

You keep talking about the international laws, but was Japan following the rules and procedures of international laws in 1895? I doubt it. China was neither notifield about the Japan's incorporation nor were any formal acts carried out, which could have been regarded as Japan's symbolic incorporation. How can the Japanese explain these clashing differences in procedure? Why did the J-goverment deviate from its previous incorporation procedures? The Ogasawara Islands were made public in the Officail Gazette bearing the Imperial Degree, including the exact names, coordination, and the local authorities. However, on the contrary, the Cabinet Decision about the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands incorporation was conspicuously made. And you talk about international laws? How bogus Japan is.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sfjp330

You doubt what? Notification to other nations is not a requirement under the international law but what is most important is how other nation acted after it was discovered that it was incorporated. The inaction not only proves that China never had exercized control of the islands (please remember that Koga was already operating his fishing activities there without disruption), it supplements the fact that it was indeed incorporated under terra nullius.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Nigelboy...When your neighbor went to vacation for one month and you try to assemble the other neighbors to decide to disown your neighbor house, is it legal? Try to raise your standard a little bit when put out this kind of look alike facts. There are many intelligent and high caliber readers here.

I do not know this kind of selective recognition has any merit at all. When the Japanese say they "discovered" the Diaoyu in 1884, they had never let any country know about it. Even worse, in 1895, few months before the Japanese invasion of China war would end, and the Japanese knew very well that they annexed them. The Japanese governments from the Meiji till now have been fabricating history. If you are a rational, conscious, and law binding person, you will never believe this kind of claim to territorial sovereignty. Before you try to concentrate on the so called draft and unsigned document, or try to revert others to something else, go back to the facts in 1884, then 1895 and examine the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The Japanese government is still try to manufacture history to their favor.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

flowers http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201210/01kaiken_e.html

PRIME MINISTER NODA: Therefore, as there exists no issue of territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, Japan will not institute proceedings before the ICJ as we have attempted with Takeshima. So far, China has also not attempted to institute proceedings before the ICJ, nor has there been any sign of movement toward that end. Therefore, I believe that there is no current prospect of having proceedings before the ICJ as you suggested.

REPORTER: What if China does take the matter to the ICJ?

PRIME MINISTER NODA: I have nothing to say on that, as there has been no sign that this will happen.

It makes perfect sense. Japan does not start ICJ proceedings because it holds the islands. If China starts ICJ proceedings, Japan will accept it because he did not deny.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

sfjp330

Nigelboy...When your neighbor went to vacation for one month and you try to assemble the other neighbors to decide to disown your neighbor house, is it legal? Try to raise your standard a little bit when put out this kind of look alike facts. There are many intelligent and high caliber readers here.

I don't quite understand your analogy but as an owner of the house, I would definitely raise an issue about such conduct.

I do not know this kind of selective recognition has any merit at all. When the Japanese say they "discovered" the Diaoyu in 1884, they had never let any country know about it.

I don't think that's what Japan is claiming since the Ryukyu Kingdom knew about the islands long ago. And again, going back to Palmas case, a mere discovery alone is an incomplete title under international law. It's the execution of effective control and the continuity of this favors sovereignty of the territory under international law. In light of the fact that Koga was able to operate his business on the islands even before the actual incorporation and continue without any disruption or argument from Qing government clearly indicates that they had no effective control whatsoever.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

nigelboy -

Sfjp330, I agree with your points. It is definitely illegal, that is why China published statements denouncing the Treaty in 1951. Palmas case does not apply in this case because the incorporation of the islands was not publicly announced, it was done in secrecy; therefore, the basis of first discovery and use supersede other sovereign’s subsequent controls. The secrecy proves that Japan's claim of sovereignty over the islands does not have legal effect under international law. Here are various forms of sovereignty assertion during the period: China has enacted domestic laws, which clearly provide that the islands belong to China. In 1958, the Chinese government released a statement on the territorial sea, announcing that Taiwan and its adjacent islands (including the islands in question) belong to China. The statement on Sept 18, 1951 made it very clear that China has never recognized any provision of the Treaty of San Francisco regarding Chinese territory. That naturally included the islands. The claim that “Koga was able to operate his business on the islands even before the actual incorporation …” is false. The truth is it took three times for Koga to apply for the lease, twice rejected due to unclear title of the islands and the last attempt got through only 1 month after the islands were incorporated and just before the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed. Do you not find it strange with all these secrecies and cunning ways in the attempt to grab the islands?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Palmas case does not apply in this case because the incorporation of the islands was not publicly announced

Did China ever incorporated the islands? Show proof. Did China ever public announce such incorporation if in fact it existed? Again show proof.

And as to your "China", Republic of China, who is the party to Potsdam as well as fact that they were official member of U.N. at the time, accepted the terms of Articles of Peace Treaty of 1951 (see my link previously), they acknowledge the aforementioned treaty with a separate treaty with Japan in 1952. Case closed.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

nigelboy, China has proof from various documents including foreign sources to back up its claims. The discovery by China in 14th century was done long before the international law took effect in mid 19thcentury, but that is not the case for Japan. For Japan the incorporation as well as public announcement were parts of the condition in declaring sovereignty. Both China and Taiwan claim sovereignty over the islands so the relevancy of any treaty thereafter is questionable, what should be a concern is Japan has challenged post-war international order according to Cairo and Potsdam Declarations by not returning the islands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The discovery by China in 14th century was done long before the international law took effect in mid 19thcentury, but that is not the case for Japan.

That's not how it works, hence the Palmas ruling.

For Japan the incorporation as well as public announcement were parts of the condition in declaring sovereignty.

Not necessary. The mere fact that Qing nor ROC protested the incorporation afterwords leaves no doubt the islands were incorporated under terra nullius.

Both China and Taiwan claim sovereignty over the islands so the relevancy of any treaty thereafter is questionable, what should be a concern is Japan has challenged post-war international order according to Cairo and Potsdam Declarations by not returning the islands.

I already addressed it @ Mar. 08, 2013 - 12:28AM JST and on many occasions regarding the acceptance by Republic of China who was the recognized government of China at that time by U.N.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

nigelboy Mar. 09, 2013 - 04:16AM JST The mere fact that Qing nor ROC protested the incorporation afterwords leaves no doubt the islands were incorporated under terra nullius.

How ridiculous. Since you mentioned that Japan was following the international laws, can you tell me which countries Japan notified by law of the terra nullius? How could they protest if no country knew? There was no such name as Senkaku in 1885 or 1895. Japan changed the Chinese islands name from Daioyu to Senkaku in 1900, five years after Japan won the war in 1895. Japan already knew that Chinese already had a name Daioyu from many centurie and Japan decided to claim as terra nullius?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nigelboy, yes, that is how it works. How do you expect the incorporation and public announcement by China in 14th century? Maybe they should have sent messengers around the country and to other countries to make announcement, right? Get real. So, Palmas case has no use for Japan. How could China protest when China didn’t even know about it until years later? Also, taking into account the change of the islands’ name, who would have known they were talking about the same islands? But the fact is Japan knew that the islands were not terra nullius at the time from their own various documents and waited ten years until the war to incorporate the islands proves beyond reasonable doubt that the islands do belong to China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How ridiculous. Since you mentioned that Japan was following the international laws, can you tell me which countries Japan notified by law of the terra nullius? How could they protest if no country knew?

Like I told Flowers, it's not a requirement. Notification under Berlin Act by M.F. Lindley states,

"These isolated agreements with the fact that apart from the region dealt with in Article 34, notification have been the exception rather than the rule, serve to emphasize the point that such notifications were not required by the general law"

There was no such name as Senkaku in 1885 or 1895.

Again. Repeating the same falsehood. The Navy report of 1873 specifically mentions Senkaku.

http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/senkaku/taiwancoastpilot-1873/02.jpg http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/senkaku/taiwancoastpilot-1873/06.jpg

Japan changed the Chinese islands name from Daioyu to Senkaku in 1900, five years after Japan won the war in 1895

Japan never called them "Daioyu". (釣魚) For that island, Japan called them "Uotsuri" (魚釣)

This 1885 report specifically states "Uotsuri"

http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/senkaku/teikokuhanto/011.jpg

Japan already knew that Chinese already had a name Daioyu from many centurie and Japan decided to claim as terra nullius?

There goes that theory. In any case, discovery (mapping/naming), as per Palmas case ruling, is an incomplete title with no weight.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Japanese changed the name of the Diaoyu Islands to "Senkaku Shosho" based on the English name "Pinnacle Islands" used by the British Navy, and then renamed it "Senkaku Islands" in 1900, nearly 500 years later than the islands received its Chinese name. It has been proved repeatedly that Japan's intention of renaming the Diaoyu Islands can only backfire, instead of helping it gain sovereignty over the islands.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So, Palmas case has no use for Japan. How could China protest when China didn’t even know about it until years later?

Flowers.

Many countries do and have done so in the past including Qing's protest to Japan in regards to Pratas island.

Also, taking into account the change of the islands’ name, who would have known they were talking about the same islands?

What you are basically admitting is that Qing didn't have effective control of the islands before or after the incorporation. Look at the Pratas island scenario. This island was an unmanned island for a very long time but was part of the Guangdong Province. When Qing official found about Japanese fishermen starting to operate there (much like Koga in Senkaku) and the Japanese government were in a process of incorporating the islands, the official complained and had the incorporation cancelled.

But the fact is Japan knew that the islands were not terra nullius at the time from their own various documents and waited ten years until the war to incorporate the islands proves beyond reasonable doubt that the islands do belong to China.

If the islands were in fact known to Japanese officials that they were of Qing's property, they would of stated exactly so in their internal correspondence. What you are basically doing here is just "reading in" to the reluctunce of Japan's immediate incorporation.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

In Treaty of Taipei in 1952, the Treaty of Taipei was concluded between the ROC and Japan, where Japan basically re-affirmed the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and formalized the peace between the ROC and Japan. It also nullified all previous treaties made between China and Japan, implicitly repealing the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Article 10 of the treaty specifies:

Treaty States: "For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores)."

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Thank you sfjp330

You basically confirmed that Republic of China agreed to Japan's relinquishment of the territories that does not include Senkaku.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

nigelboy, you are trying to equate something that is not there. Don’t mislead the public. Japanese people committed grave atrocities on Pratas island leading to Qing’s protest. This also shows the aggressive side of Japan. So, the cases are not the same at all. Here is a piece of evidence that shows Japan knew that the islands were not terra nullius: In 1884, a Japanese man claimed that he first landed on Diaoyu Dao and found the island to be uninhabited. The Japanese government then dispatched secret facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao and attempted to invade and occupy the island. The above-mentioned plots by Japan triggered China's alert. On September 6, 1885 (the 28th day of the 7th month in the 11th year of the reign of Emperor Guangxu of the Qing Dynasty), the Chinese newspaper Shen-pao (Shanghai News) reported: "Recently, Japanese flags have been seen on the islands northeast to Taiwan, revealing Japan's intention to occupy these islands." But the Japanese government did not dare to take any further action for fear of reaction from China.

After the secret facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao, the governor of Okinawa Prefecture sent a report in secrecy to the Minister of Internal Affairs Yamagata Aritomo on September 22, 1885, saying that these uninhabited islands were, in fact, the same Diaoyu Tai, Huangwei Yu and Chiwe Yu that were recorded in the Records of Messages from Chong-shan (Zhong Shan Chuan Xin Lu) and known well to imperial title-conferring envoys of the Qing court on their voyages to Ryukyu, and that he had doubts as to whether or not sovereignty markers should be set up and therefore asked for instruction. The Minister of Internal Affairs Yamagata Aritomo solicited opinion from the Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru on October 9. Inoue Kaoru replied in a letter to Yamagata Aritomo on October 21, "At present, any open moves such as placing sovereignty markers are bound to alert the Qing imperial court. Therefore, it is advisable not to go beyond field surveys and detailed reports on the shapes of the bays, land and other resources for future development. In the meantime, we will wait for a better time to engage in such activities as putting up sovereignty markers and embarking on development on the islands." Inoue Kaoru also made a special emphasis that "it is inappropriate to publicize the missions on official gazette or newspapers." As a result, the Japanese government did not approve of the request of Okinawa Prefecture to set up sovereignty markers.

I also have another piece of evidence to show about the incorporation and announcement: the Qing court not only incorporated the Diaoyu Dao Islands into the scope of China's coastal defense as the Ming court did, but also clearly placed the islands under the jurisdiction of the local government of Taiwan. And they even announced it in a tour of duty.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nigelboy,

“You basically confirmed that Republic of China agreed to Japan's relinquishment of the territories that does not include Senkaku.”

How did you come up to this conclusion? Does that mean other islands not mentioned in the Treaty also belong to Japan? This is a funny inference. The islands were under jurisdiction of Taiwan as such the term “Taiwan (Formosa)” used also includes all the islands under its jurisdiction.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This topic of discussion will just go on circles. Hahahahaha. The best way is for that certain World Organization as the court to decide who own this Islets. Let all those claimants seat in court and proved their claims. The problem, China does not want to. It was also proven between Philippines and China dispute of Scarborough Shoal. Philippines willing to settle the dispute with China intelligently and diplomatically in the world court. But China, keep on ignoring it. THERE IS REALLY SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS COMMUNIST COUNTRY WAY OF THINKING. If it really belong to China as they claim, what is their reason to ignore and go to court. Scared? , The court will be UNFAIR? Geeezzzzzz

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy, you are trying to equate something that is not there. Don’t mislead the public. Japanese people committed grave atrocities on Pratas island leading to Qing’s protest. This also shows the aggressive side of Japan. So, the cases are not the same at all. Here is a piece of evidence that shows Japan knew that the islands were not terra nullius:

What "atrocities" on Pratas Islands? And those aren't evidence. They are bascially a copy/paste from CCP's white paper that was published last year which is just a poor attempt to distort Japan's process to incorporation which conveniently leaves out the fact that Qing didn't do anything despite the activities.

The Shanghai Newspaper report, for instance, clearly indicates that Koga started his operation at that time which Qing knew about it but did nothing just referring to the activities on "set of islands Northeast to Taiwan" where there is no mention of the specific islands nor mention that those islands were part of Taiwan. Upon request of Koga request to get an exclusive operating license for the islands, the mission from Kumozumaru vessel indicated that there was no indication of the islands being owned or having control from the Qing. The said report was relayed to the Interior Minister to Foreign Minister on October 9, 1885. However, to avoid any complications (exact word used by Foreign Ministry), they decide to hold off on erecting markers at a more appropriate time and that more fact finding were needed to assure that the islands were indeed "terra nullius" . This is followed by another mission by vessel named Kongou in in 1887. In 1891, another businessman from Kumamoto named Izawa conducts his commerical operation. Another vessel Kaimon in 1892 conducts another survey which again confirms that the islands have no evidence of Qing ever having control of the islands.

The commercial acitvities conducted by Japanese in the islands during that time as well as at least three fact finding survey's conducted at that time, without any disruption from the Qing clearly indicates that they had no interest in the islands nor ever having control of the islands in the past.

How did you come up to this conclusion? Does that mean other islands not mentioned in the Treaty also belong to Japan? This is a funny inference. The islands were under jurisdiction of Taiwan as such the term “Taiwan (Formosa)” used also includes all the islands under its jurisdiction.

Nope. Republic of China, being a member of Far East Commission of U.N. as well as the fact that they did not object to Article 3 of the treaty (linked already) in which the Senkaku would be placed under trusteeship clearly indicates that they were not part of the "Formosa".

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

nigelboy, you are trying to distort the history again. Read the history of Pratas Islands and who committed the atrocities there. Say out that country by name please. You should also read Koga’s bibliography, he mentioned about the islands and how he called them the victory for Japan. Also, those Japanese documents mentioned the islands by names, how could that be wrong? Don’t form your own theory here. The facts are the survey was never completed, Japanese documents clearly showed Japan’s attempts to grab the islands, Japan waited ten years to incorporate the islands and did so in secrecy, the incorporation took place right before permitting the lease application to Koga and just before the signing of Treaty of Shimonoseki . Who would expect any reaction from China after signing the Treaty? This is islands grabbing in a sneaky and cunning way. I also don’t see the relevancy of ROC being a member of the UN and the islands being under trusteeship had to do with anything that you said, the islands were served as strategic location beneficial for ROC in preventing the advancement of PRC at that time. If you believe in your logic, then please explain why Taiwan’s other islands not mentioned in the Treaty still belong to Taiwan? Shouldn’t they belong to Japan as well?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Flowers

Your fundamental flaw in your argument has been to completely avoid the reasons for inactions of Qing and Republic of China fir 70+ years despite each government's knowledge of Japan's as well as U.S. activities there. For instance, Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge where Singapore asserted this "secrecy" argument but was denied.

•The Court is not able to assess the strength of the assertions made on the two sides about Malaysia’s knowledge of the installation. What is significant for the Court is that Singapore’s action is an act à titre de souverain. The conduct is inconsistent with Singapore recognizing any limit on its freedom of action.

In other words, it does not matter if one party perceived as been done secretly or not. The inconvenient fact that Qing nor Republic of China asserted her soverignty of over the islands despite commercial activities of Koga as well as the continuos administrative and legislative control of Okinawa government for decades clearly proves that the islands were of no interest to Qing/Republic of China and that Japan did in fact, incorporte them legally under terra nullius consistent with international law.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

where Singapore asserted this "secrecy" argument but was denied.

Change that to Malaysia.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

nigelboy, you came up with another case which I admit a little better than the Pratas Islands and Palmas case. You still avoid answering my direct questions though. Anyhow, this case between Malaysia and Singapore is relevant only in supporting China’s claim that the islands were not terra nullius. That case shows the silence period was over 130 years and Malaysia admitted that the question of sovereignty over Pedra Branca was "not very clear" to Malaysia. However, in China’s case, during 70 years period, the claims of silence due to Treaty of Shimonoseki preventing China from any actions as well as the deceitful events leading to the Treaty, and Cairo/Potsdam Declarations showing the returns of the islands to China would come into play. Chinese leader also publicly denounced the Treaty of San Francisco which by indication disputing the transfer of sovereignty. Any actions by the Japanese side during the period of illegal occupation are irrelevant. There was never a transfer point of sovereignty. Conduct à titre de souverain never took place because of the existence of theTreaties and Declarations. Therefore, Japan did not comply with the post-war international orders as well as the International laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

However, in China’s case, during 70 years period, the claims of silence due to Treaty of Shimonoseki preventing China from any actions

Now you're just repeating the same rhetoric which was already answered several days ago, Flowers. If the islands were in fact part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki as you stated, it would of been under the jurisdiction of Taiwan after the transfer instead of remaining within the jurisdiction of Okinawa. Sorry Flowers. This is yet again, another "wishful thinking".

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

nigelboy, I was confirming my points based on the case. As I mentioned before the islands were placed under the jurisdiction of Taiwan way before the Treaty of Shimonoseki. If you are disputing that, then answer my previous question: why Taiwan’s other islands not mentioned or included in the Treaty still belong to Taiwan? Therefore, all the islands under Taiwan's jurisdiction should belong to Taiwan including those islands in question whether before or after the treaty. Now, come up with another case, please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taiwan’s other islands not mentioned or included in the Treaty still belong to Taiwan? Therefore, all the islands under Taiwan's jurisdiction should belong to Taiwan including those islands in question whether before or after the treaty. Now, come up with another case, please.

I already addressed this. It was agreed " Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters" and that "it would be preferable to specify only the territory over which Japan was renouncing sovereignty".

Therefore, you need to prove that in fact, Senkaku was in jurisdiction and administrative control by Taiwan prior to Treaty of Shimonoseki and that Republic of China had asserted her claim during the negotiations with the Allieds when boundaries were being discussed.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Notwithstanding the validity of the SF Treaty and Treaty of Taipei, the term used in renouncing sovereignty clearly stated Formosa (Taiwan) which meant to include all the islands. ” In 1972, the United States "reversion" of the Ryūkyūs occurred along with the ceding of control (not sovereignty) over the nearby (uninhabited) Senkaku Islands. Both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China argue that this agreement did not determine the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands.” There wouldn’t be any argument if your theory is correct. Here is the quote I got to confirm the jurisdiction, ” the Qing court not only incorporated the Diaoyu Dao Islands into the scope of China's coastal defense as the Ming court did, but also clearly placed the islands under the jurisdiction of the local government of Taiwan.” What you should prove to me is at which point in time that the transfer of sovereignty took place and why it was so? Your above argument seems to point out that the transfer of sovereignty took place after the SF treaty and not before.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Notwithstanding the validity of the SF Treaty and Treaty of Taipei, the term used in renouncing sovereignty clearly stated Formosa (Taiwan) which meant to include all the islands.

Which excludes Senkaku. This is acknowledged by Republic of China.

” the Qing court not only incorporated the Diaoyu Dao Islands into the scope of China's coastal defense as the Ming court did, but also clearly placed the islands under the jurisdiction of the local government of Taiwan.” What you should prove to me is at which point in time that the transfer of sovereignty took place and why it was so? Your above argument seems to point out that the transfer of sovereignty took place after the SF treaty and not before.

Do you read people's posts? Your whole premise is based on the assumption that Qing had sovereignty over the islands. Prove that first for my argument has been it was incorporated under terra nullius in 1895.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Readers, please stop going around in circles.

0 ( +0 / -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