politics

China commentary questions Abe's sincerity

63 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

63 Comments
Login to comment

Dear China,

China, back off a little. Sometime Chinese are too aggressive towards others.

Abe has not even selected his cabinet members yet. Again, back off and let them settle first. By the way, did you congratulate Abe like Obama did? That's should be the first diplomatic step from China, right? This is very rude.

12 ( +16 / -5 )

Beijing at it again always looking for trouble.... Year 2013 is bad luck for China. Free the Tibetan People from communist Chinese oppression !

1 ( +11 / -10 )

China's commentary shows it is rich not only in economy but in diplomacy as well.

-8 ( +6 / -13 )

@PnoyMafia, every year you think is a bad year for China. Nothing happened. Tibet is still not free for many decades. What makes you think 2013 will be any different?

-6 ( +3 / -8 )

Improved ties if Japan abides by China's terms... Give me a break. Can somebody in Asia stand up to the big bad bully?

11 ( +12 / -2 )

LOL ... always love it when China "preaches" to others about "sincerity" and being "mature" etc.

I mean, does anyone really trust the CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY?

They are completely corrupt and self-serving and despite their children's HAVARD and OXFORD University Educations, they still don't know the meaning of the words "manners" or "etiquette"

11 ( +12 / -3 )

Indeed JanesBlonde. Whereas, Japan's manners and etiquette much much much better and unquestionable. We all should trust Japan's LDP. Always always always trust the party elected in a democracy in Japan, unlike China.

-12 ( +4 / -13 )

Japan to China: We do not appreciate your meddling in our internal matters. When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you.

6 ( +9 / -5 )

@CVHuanDEC. 19, 2012 - 03:52PM JST

Actually I do not really trust any Politician or political party.

That said though, I do not see The CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY as a political party, I see them the same as all other communist and Fascist governments, CORRUPT, SELF-SERVING and Dangerous Authoritarian 'Rulers"

And with all of these "regimes" it is always there own people that have suffered the most.

8 ( +8 / -1 )

“A mature politician would seize the chance to show goodwill and make constructive moves instead of doing the opposite.”

Hahahahahahaha! China said this???

5 ( +9 / -5 )

@ Jeff OgrissegDEC. 19, 2012 - 04:08PM JST Jeff OgrissegDEC. 19, 2012 - 04:08PM JST Japan to China: We do not appreciate your meddling in our internal matters. When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you.

Hey that's the line China uses when the USA comments on why they are imprisoning artists for "speaking their mind".

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@JanesBlonde

Hey that's the line China uses when the USA comments on why they are imprisoning artists for "speaking their mind".

Yup! It would be fun to fling it back at them, see if they get it.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

“A mature politician would seize the chance to show goodwill and make constructive moves instead of doing the opposite.”

Well, much as I doubt China would practice what it preaches in this regard, the comment is bang on.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Hey China guess what? You don't have claim to Japan so keep your opinions to yourselves and instead practice what you preach.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Dear Beijing Government.

We seriously don't care if you are concerned or not. Until you start behaving like a mature nation and stop bullying every neighbor state, then you are in no position to judge another state's policies.

So, some holiday advice China. Do, as soon as possible, get bent.

10 ( +9 / -0 )

China’s state media Tuesday questioned whether Japan’s incoming prime minister sincerely wants to improve ties with Beijing

I think Abe will just do as his masters tell him.

Good boy puppy dog that he is!

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

it is a hardline, but necessary stance. china has disputes with many of its neighbors and china plays hardball with them. abe is simply versed in reapolitiks

0 ( +0 / -0 )

frank07: "abe is simply versed in reapolitiks"

Abe will bow down like the best of them.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Rather I see China toning down their remarks as compared to before implying their preference to seek a soft landing while carefully controlling emotional reactions from their generally frustrated lower class. Putting aside everything else most important is Abe's clear message to prioritize US relations over everything else which will continue to keep China from doing anything drastic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Chinas comments are as imperialist and xenophobic as ever. I think the main question is what China is doing to calm down and build new better relations. Nothing. They want Japan to crawl to them and pay tribute. Same as in the old days.

5 ( +5 / -1 )

“A mature politician would seize the chance to show goodwill and make constructive moves instead of doing the opposite.”

I imagine he IS thinking about goodwill. After the Japanese resort is built on the island, he will offer Chinese people a twenty percent discount on packages. If the Chinese don't tone down the rhetoric, there goes the discount.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Negotiation involves 'give and take'. There is no way even to start any meaningful negotiation if you are not prepared to give. You can ask any boss of any big companies to confirm this.

Negotiation is the only way to resolve conflict among countries peacefully. If he declared he wanted to improve relationship on one day, and he vowed not to give any ground on the other, then he gave contradicting declarations logically. His sincerity should be questioned.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@tian4670 He wants to improve relationships, but does not want to give ground on the Senkaku.

Ultimately, the Senkaku is not a question that can be "negotiated", I'm sorry to say. At the end the problem is sovereignty, and that is a 1-0 value.

Do remember that the Japanese HAVE in a sense been very accomodating. In fact, as far as the area as a fishing zone is concerned, it is IIRC already de facto Chinese.

When really, all they have to do to raise the thereshold of getting it back to war (thus, forcing the Chinese to give up) is to bite the bullet and build a nice little base on it, Korean Dokdo-style.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

Chinese is on the same line on 'sovereignty'. They have same feeling as Japanese towards northern islands and Dokdo. So that is NOT 1-0 value, it is only (-1)-(-1) value, because both countries will become losers.

If you always dream of war, you are not any better than the 'bad' CCP when it comes to peace and war.

What can you do if Chinese Jets cruise above the island? Start a war by shooting them down? Otherwise how are you going to raise the threshold?
-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The Communist China is just blubbing nonsense. In short, full of air now that think they are rich and powerful and can do anything they want now. I blame all the greedy investors and companies who have made communists China very rich. IMO, they are just provoking the new Japan ruling administration to have something to think about giving Abe stress. IGNORE is the best approach to this annoying insects. Nothing to worry about war. China knows it will wipe out anything on earth.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@tian4670 I agree that overall war will make both losers. However, it is important to recognize that there are some issues for which negotiations work. For example, it is possible to make a fishing rights agreement work because both sides can get something. However, the base problem is sovereignty and that is a 1-0 issue.

Some naive people, even in the inteligentsia, say that if only both countries disconnect the rights to the surrounding seas from the island... but for one thing this battle isn't all about economic benefits. Japan currently does not get many economic benefits from the islands, and even the Chinese who by Japanese standards are moving really fast aren't getting all that much.

Besides, if you think long term any "sharing agreement" will have as its basis who owns the islands. For example, suppose Japan gives up sovereignty to China in exchange for 50% of all resources in the region. That might stick for the first length of agreement of say a decade, but then would come the agreement extension. Or perhaps something in the existing agreement needs "clarification".

Maybe if the Island Owner *China in this scenario) doesn't need the resources at all, it'll feel maganimous or be willing to trade resource rights for greater things, but both sides' energy and food needs makes that a slim possibility, So, who gets the bigger slice? Precedent of a previous agreement will keep Island Owner from grabbing 100%, but the fact they are the Island Owner and thus could rightfully claim it all will be a great weight on negotiations. So next time it'll be say 60-40. It will never settle at 100-0 without a big spoiler like a war, but probably 80-20 or 90-10.

In short in the long term, a realist view suggests the disconnection is impossible.

3) I agree. Yet if you don't shoot them down in a situation that you don't have other advantages, you lose effective control quite quickly.

Thus the closest thing to a peaceful solution that's not a complete Japanese defeat (which might be bearable, as I said Japan gets virtually nothing economically from that sector, except it'll whet the currently barely audible Chinese movement for Okinawa, which is much less bearable), I argue, would be to go with the LDP's plan to base something on the island. Once something is based on it, jet and boat intrusions will be of relatively little value in the struggle for effective control so they'll stop simply because they aren't worth the fuel of mounting them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL ... always love it when China "preaches" to others about "sincerity" and being "mature" etc.

They must not have any mirrors in China!

7 ( +8 / -1 )

IMOthis is just another example of two children -- Japan and China -- dressing up and trying to pretend to be adults. But, unfortunately, since both countries have very real naval and air forces, rather than toy ones, mistakes can happen, with deadly consequences. Some maturity on both sides is desperately needed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@herefornow You seem to live in a country that does not have territorial dispute with other country... How lucky...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sadly, the Hatreds go back hundreds of years and are not about to subside....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Butt-out China

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Why not china and japan cut diplomatic relations right away since they hate each other so much?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

china is as same as others , it has been aggressive as it believes its self stronger than the other , but to face the strong one china is as chicken as same other . in fact : every ones knows how product made in china is , of course china must know that even better than others , so china is chicken S H I T to japan that is so normal , i am not wondering why

0 ( +2 / -2 )

My only question is who made china #2 country? Just think, if all these companies never moved to china.. (Sony, Panasonic, Fujitsu, Canon, Honda, Suzuki, Toyota, Mitsubishi, ...1000s of them... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Japan

3 ( +4 / -1 )

is china feeling of ashamed to ask for peace with japan ? being colonized by japan for decades china should know that japan rather to suicide than to ask for peace like as china does now . i dont really know how this fuc ken china understand about the word HONOR , therefore Hong Lie better shut the F U C K up , go to bed hit your head to your pillow to suicide with your S H I T honor

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

PnoyMafia7thFLTDec. 19, 2012 - 03:07PM JST

Beijing at it again always looking for trouble.... Year 2013 is bad luck for China. Free the Tibetan People from communist Chinese oppression !

Why Tibet only? You could have easily ask Japan to let go of Ryukyu first, that is, before anything salvageable in terms of their cultural heritage is left. Then you will have some real moral high ground to stand on.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Tigerta9Dec. 19, 2012 - 03:35PM JST

Improved ties if Japan abides by China's terms... Give me a break. Can somebody in Asia stand up to the big bad bully?

What else? In addition to these, Abe has denied just about any wrongdoing during WWII. Were you to lead China, am I supposed to think you would nod to all this nonsense?

Give me a break.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

KariHarukaDec. 19, 2012 - 04:59PM JST

Hey China guess what? You don't have claim to Japan so keep your opinions to yourselves and instead practice what you preach.

Guess what, if Abe didn't care whether the relationship with China goes up the smoke or not, what China thinks won't matter. Have you ever bothered to ask why he cares so much?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Saul SchimekDec. 19, 2012 - 08:45PM JST

Sadly, the Hatreds go back hundreds of years and are not about to subside....

Maybe not quite. A bad 50 years seems to have a long shelf life, but I hope at least both sides will agree on this part.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In_japanDec. 19, 2012 - 09:51PM JST

My only question is who made china #2 country? Just think, if all these companies never moved to china.. (Sony, Panasonic, Fujitsu, Canon, Honda, Suzuki, Toyota, Mitsubishi, ...1000s of them...

Should we go a bit further back then if you love it so much?

In 1895, Japan didn't just get Diaoyu or even Taiwan, do you have any idea of the size of money China paid? How about 2-3 times of the annual GDP?

Oh, I forgot, that is what Japan deserved, while what you brought up is completely different.

This is, I assume, all these companies have donated year after year to China, something they would never have done if they had put their money elsewhere.

Conclusion: Japan single-handedly rebuilt China for China's sake and now all we get is the ungrateful Chinese, right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

yosunDec. 19, 2012 - 09:06PM JST

Why not china and japan cut diplomatic relations right away since they hate each other so much?

Because neither can afford it. Hence the FTA negotiations among China, Japan and South Korea still took off.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sorry My Keypad went Crazy...

...Japanese. So, i hope hope that Mr. Abe can find some way to reach out to the Communist Regime of China and perhaps some day, the People of China can have the Right to Vote for their own future, instead of having a Communist Regime decide their future for them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kazuaki ShimazakiDec. 19, 2012 - 08:23PM JST

Thus the closest thing to a peaceful solution that's not a complete Japanese defeat

Nobody is that naive to try for a complete Japanese defeat. That is probably why China has asked Japan to recognize the existence of a dispute. And this is still too much.:-)

I read somewhere else the reason that Japan won't even give this little bit is that they know how it would work. That is the strategy they tried with the Russians. The first step is to ask for the recognition of a dispute, then push for more.

The funny thing is, this issue was brought up and put aside over 3 decades ago between them already. At that time, Japan asked and China said 'let's leave it to the future generations'.

Somebody has asked about 'honor' to China, yet even some in Japan acknowledged conversations related to the islands were not included in writing on the Japanese side. So much for honor,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Nhan ThaiDec. 19, 2012 - 09:39PM JST

china is as same as others ,

Uhh, most here tend to say China is different. China is uniquely aggressive. Add the word 'communist' and you have the complete profile of a classical bad guy.

The only awkwardness is Beijing is not alone or unique. On these islands Taipei thinks the same. On the overall Japanese attitude toward history, Korean might be even more pessimistic. And all of a sudden 'communist' is not that powerful any more.

it has been aggressive as it believes its self stronger than the other , but to face the strong one china is as chicken as same other . in fact : every ones knows how product made in china is , of course china must know that even better than others , so china is chicken S H I T to japan that is so normal , i am not wondering why

You got it upside down again. China thinks it has given too much. China assumed Japan agreed its effective control is on the basis of the dispute being put aside. Now that Japan unequivocally said there was no such agreement or understanding at all, what else to do?

By the way, Vietnam claims half of the SCS and nobody seems to wonder why. (That is why, even without China, Vietnam has disputes with just about everybody else.) Nobody seems to remember Vietnam is still communist as well. And how many wars Vietnam has had with its neighbors since independence (by whose help?)

Talk about Hypocrisy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You got it upside down again. China thinks it has given too much. China assumed Japan agreed its effective control is on the basis of the dispute being put aside. Now that Japan unequivocally said there was no such agreement or understanding at all, what else to do?

Take it to ICJ.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

SentimentsDec. 19, 2012 - 05:53PM JST

Chinas comments are as imperialist and xenophobic as ever. I think the main question is what China is doing to calm down and build new better relations. Nothing. They want Japan to crawl to them and pay tribute. Same as in the old days.

History can help if you get it right.

In those 'old days', why would Japan want to lower itself? Maybe you can look at the nature of the relationship a bit closer. If I remember correctly, Japan was more eager to 'pay tributes' than China. With those pantry tributes, Japan got a whole lot more in return. At one point, China had to limit these activities to once a decade or so.

Now you see what China is like? Who is the greedier party?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

from a country (China) Crime, corruption and tax evasion have cost the developing world nearly $6 trillion over the past decade, and illicit funds keep growing, led by China, a financial watchdog group

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan started surveying the islands around 1880 and incorporated them as part of Okinawa in 1894. Is there any history or evidence of Chinese interest to these island prior to 1968? I only have Japanese history books, Does someone have Chinese history books to answer this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NissanNostalgiaDec. 20, 2012 - 12:37AM JST

Japan started surveying the islands around 1880 and incorporated them as part of Okinawa in 1894. Is there any history or evidence of Chinese interest to these island prior to 1968? I only have Japanese history books, Does someone have Chinese history books to answer this?

You might as well go check the Japanese official version first.

It was discovered in 1884.

It was REPEATEDLY surveyed;

It was incoporated in Jan. 1895 once its status of terra nullius had been confirmed, therefore this is not related to the treaty of Shimonoseki and not part of the loot that Japan is bound to return to China by its unconditional term of surrender in 1945.

China only saw it for its potential oil reserve in 1968.

Chinese counter argument:

Chinese found them long ago. The earliest written record is in 1403. The possession continued up to 1895. Evidence for the control during the late 19th century can be found in many official books.

There was only one survey by Japan in 1885. The decision to shelf the issue documented in the Japanese archive is not to affect the relationship with Qing with such minor issues. In Jan 1895, the Japanese cabinet stated the situation has changed and no hurdle remained to prevent their move.

Since this was not made public, China saw it as part of the treaty of Shimonoseki. In any case, the cabinet decision in 1895 would never have happened if Japan had not won the war the year before. So the Cairo declaration applies.

Japan has lost sovereignty in 1945. Since it was controlled by the US up to 1972, whether China has talked to Japan or not didn't matter. When the issue was finally brought up, China, both Beijing and Taipei, talked to the US. It was the handover of the administrative right to Japan that got Japan back into the picture.

Ever since then, the US is officially neutral on the sovereignty issue. She has never said anything about the long gap. As her vassal state, there is no use to go against the master. The US is just following the British in divide and rule.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

China will be against him no matter what. He could appease them for a short time by giving up the islands. Then after a short time China will demand even more of the Okinawa Prefecture. Of course he could give away our Ryukyu freedom for peace, after all they have given up so much of our island to the Americans. Then they would no longer have to pay for the bases and Okinawa. My Yuriko predication is Honest Abe will be spineless. He will bark but make some sort of deal with the Peoples Republic of China to hand over the islands. When the "fishing" boats arrive he will tell the coast guard to leave.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Good flip of perspective Kevin but I think you missed the point. The dominance (rethorics backed by military) was great then and is building up again. From a Japanese perspective, when you experience a great dominance (of various means) there is very little room to manouver. Thus you become forced in to action, like to seek an alliance, to pay tribute in order to avoid invasion, give up your self-respect and commit to maximazing trade and gain on someone elses terms, make your self as small as possible and hope that they dont notice you etcetera. I doesnt take many readings of texts from Chinas representatives to pick up on this pattern. Also the situation in China and prognosis for the coming next 10 years gives an interesting interpretative frame to consider. They need much much more resources of every kind to keep their development going and they feel they need to secure them in order to make the cashflow stable. This is what we see in South and east China sea and northern India. Also, just wait and see what will happen when the water issue, an enormous deficit compared to the growing population and increasing consumition following the modernization. This will cause an increased pressure on the neighboring countries.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sentiments,

I lost my reply. My short answer is Japan's fear is largely unfounded. Nobody will replace the US for foreseeable future.

Neither side seems to very rational.

In terms of resources, China is not the only one to worry. For instance, India will have more people than China very soon. From its attitude to neighbors to taking up resources, is there any real difference? Even now India wants to take part in the SCS.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

nigelboyDec. 20, 2012 - 01:34AM JST

That's irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Why not? Do as I say but not as I do?

What Taipei is hoping for is a fprogress isheries agreement between Japan. There already is in place a fisheries agreement between China and Japan.

What Taipei hopes for is more recognition as a political entity. Fishery rights are the only thing they can do. Japan chooses to negotiate with Taipei and acts tough to Beijing to break any possible alliance. That still doesn't change the fact Beijing and Taipei share the same stance.

So getting back to my original point, both nations (China and Japan) assert ownership with none giving an inch. Hence, the best course of action is to take this dispute over to ICJ.

That requires they both wish so. I am not sure I'd blame them if don't. The US doesn't like it. China has a judge sitting on it as well but has never used it in all previous territorial negotiations. If peace is paramount, one can say no Chinese plane should enter the air space, the other will counter no Japanese military jet should add to the mess.

Now China supposedly only wants Japan to acknowledge the dispute. From your point of view, isn't it more sensible for Abe to say so then the never-let-an-inch line? Theoretically if Japan starts to negotiate with China, it will put tremendous pressure on Korea to sit down as well. On the SCS, China has signed something with others. The hinge point there is about whether China negotiates with others one to one or together. Japan likes to bring up the SCS with the Diaoyu/Senkaku, but the difference in reality is not trivial. BTW, on this Taipei's map is larger than Beijing's. Beijing has given some to Vietnam already and look what they get in return. (Vietnam is Japan's strategic partner now. Good luck, Japan.:-))

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

China is never sincere about anything except the accumulation of riches and territory by any means - including abusing their own people. That's a dictatorship for you. I have to agree with Abe on this one.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Why not? Do as I say but not as I do?

What is postponing the filing of Takeshima case to ICJ has to do with China's avoidance of the word "ICJ"?

What Taipei hopes for is more recognition as a political entity. Fishery rights are the only thing they can do. Japan chooses to negotiate with Taipei and acts tough to Beijing to break any possible alliance. That still doesn't change the fact Beijing and Taipei share the same stance.

I have no idea what your above sentence means but are you under the assumption that it's Japan does causing the Taipei/Senkaku alliance to not materialize in regards to Senkaku? How does that work?

That requires they both wish so. I am not sure I'd blame them if don't

Not really. All China has to do is sign the Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory and Japan has no choice but to comply with the jurisdiction and the judgement. (i.e. Whaling case with Australia). Japan is already a signatory.

Now China supposedly only wants Japan to acknowledge the dispute. From your point of view, isn't it more sensible for Abe to say so then the never-let-an-inch line?

Knowing China, No. Given an inch, take a mile approach seems to be the norm of Chinese diplomacy.

Theoretically if Japan starts to negotiate with China, it will put tremendous pressure on Korea to sit down as well.

What on earth would make you say that?

On the SCS, China has signed something with others. The hinge point there is about whether China negotiates with others one to one or together.

My understanding is that China seeks to negotiate this issue "bi laterally" but much of the ASEAN nations refused (including Phillipines recently) who opted for joint negotiations with the relevant nations.

It's simple Kevin. If China seeks for Japan to recognize this as a "territorial dispute", they could make it better by using a U.N. body platform.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

"I have no idea what your above sentence means but are you under the assumption that it's Japan does causing the Taipei/Senkaku alliance to not materialize in regards to Senkaku? How does that work?"

Sorry. Correct that to

I have no idea what your above sentence means but are you under the assumption that it's Japan that's causing the Tapei/Beijing alliance to not materialize in regards to Senkaku when Ma himself, from the beginning, stated that he would not work with Beijing? How does that work?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The most neutral solution to both China and Japan would be to create a new country which would control the Senkaku islands. But wait... no one lives there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alas Poor Noda, I knew him well.

China did their best to get a hardliner into the number 1 slot. Now that Honest Abe is in they want to forget about the planes, ships and car flipping this fall and ask for diplomacy?

Sorry Charlie. You made your double Diaoyu/Senkaku Burger with Cheese. It's time to eat those words with some large fries and a coke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Xinhua mentioned both Abe’s stance on the islands and reported comments expressing his regret at his failure to visit the Yasukuni Shrine during his last tenure as premier.

Okay, here, let me help. Abe's stance is that the islands are Japanese, and that Yasukuni has been a shrine long before any war criminals got there, so soldiers and other dead folks should be shown respect. Since Noda is out, this is once again the baseline.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gelendestrasseDec. 20, 2012 - 02:45AM JST

China is never sincere about anything except the accumulation of riches and territory by any means - including abusing their own people. That's a dictatorship for you. I have to agree with Abe on this one.

With broad brush strokes like this... oh well, who cares~:-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboyDec. 20, 2012 - 03:19AM JST

What is postponing the filing of Takeshima case to ICJ has to do with China's avoidance of the word "ICJ"?

Because it shows this is more than just the issue of ICJ. Any truly neutral party will welcome that. But even after Japan posed to do so, the US cut her off, preferring the status quo. This is in sharp contrast to the disputes between Japan and China (Beijing and/or Taipei). Here the US has not minded the tension, so long no hot war starts. Given this, unless both Japan and China refuse to let it stay front and center of their relationship, tension will be high anyway. So Japan's filling on Takeshima is a good indicator.

I have no idea what your above sentence means but are you under the assumption that it's Japan does causing the Taipei/Senkaku alliance to not materialize in regards to Senkaku? How does that work?

Did you mean Taipei/Beijing alliance? If so, Japan certainly wants to avoid it.

Although Beijing has called for open alliance with Taipei, Taipei can't and won't do it for a host of reasons, which Beijing doesn't mind. The negotiation of fishing rights is to address the most pressing concern from Taiwan.

Now comes in the background: they have had close to twenty rounds of talks already, always ending with failure due to Japan's refusal to budge. This is the first time that Japan has actively sought to talk.

Japan's hope is to remove the pressure and somehow put a wedge between Taipei and Beijing. But Taipei has reiterated they are firm on sovereignty. I doubt they can risk retreating on that front for the sake of fishing rights, which they know might be negated any time if they are stupid enough to give up the sovereignty claim. It will be made into a favor by Japan that can be taken away. Therefore Japan can plan and Taipei has played along, we will see who will claim what afterwards.

Not really. All China has to do is sign the Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory and Japan has no choice but to comply with the jurisdiction and the judgement. (i.e. Whaling case with Australia). Japan is already a signatory.

Applying your logic, all Japan has to do is be truthful about how they got the islands instead of always starting the sentence with Chinese greed for the resources underneath.

As I said, China has proven record of settling territorial disputes through patient negotiations. Why should China follow your wish? Don not forget China is the one who has called for negotiations and their offer has never been taken off the table. To only Japan who thinks they have the control therefore don't even want to call the dispute as it is.

There is also the issue of whether Japan will agree this time. Any nation, including Japan, can back out of Article 36 (2) (I hope I've got the number right.:-)) any time they want. Here the US is a nice example. The States decided since 1986 to do it case by case. Has any official statement come out on this? No statement made by individual politician counts.

Knowing China, No. Given an inch, take a mile approach seems to be the norm of Chinese diplomacy.

I hope you do know this is what others say about Japan as well. With such mistrust, no wonder nothing can be done. We continue with this pattern of no-dispute-what-so-ever with the call for more military build-up.

What on earth would make you say that?

Because South Korea controls Dokdo, they constantly remind themselves NOT to make it look like a disputed island.

My understanding is that China seeks to negotiate this issue "bi laterally" but much of the ASEAN nations refused (including Phillipines recently) who opted for joint negotiations with the relevant nations.

Yes, Philippine is trying very hard. Vietnam too. But not all of them. Malaysia and Brunei have declined to join force. Philippine has this law which makes any boat entering its water liable with huge fines and/or jail. In recent years they have been quite liberal in their attitude with the Chinese. For anyone who has followed the activities down there, it is not too surprising what China eventually did on The Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island) .

By the way, Philippine didn't bring it up until 1990s. Shall I expect a bit more sympathy for China from you this time?:-)

It's simple Kevin. If China seeks for Japan to recognize this as a "territorial dispute", they could make it better by using a U.N. body platform.

Only if it takes one wing to fly. China would if this is their only choice. But they clearly don't think so. We will see time is on whose side.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I have no idea what your above sentence means but are you under the assumption that it's Japan that's causing the Tapei/Beijing alliance to not materialize in regards to Senkaku when Ma himself, from the beginning, stated that he would not work with Beijing? How does that work?

Just as Japan was not allowed to balance its relationship with the US and Asian neighbors, Ma can not risk losing American support. As an American ally, he can borrow the text from Beijing word for word if he is lazy, but he will nonetheless deny any alliance. For Beijing, it is somewhat awkward, but so long as Taipei sticks to its constitution, Japan's effort in framing this as some sort of communist imperialism won't work. That is enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because it shows this is more than just the issue of ICJ. Any truly neutral party will welcome that. But even after Japan posed to do so, the US cut her off, preferring the status quo. This is in sharp contrast to the disputes between Japan and China (Beijing and/or Taipei). Here the US has not minded the tension, so long no hot war starts. Given this, unless both Japan and China refuse to let it stay front and center of their relationship, tension will be high anyway. So Japan's filling on Takeshima is a good indicator.

I was under the assumption that when U.S. or EU comments on the matter that this pending issue should be settled "peacefully based on international laws" my conclusion was either ICJ or Court of arbitration.

U.S. has a policy of staying neutral on "territorial disputes". Heck. They even said so regarding the Falklands which pi$$ed the Brits off. But it's kind of weird when their State Department refer to the islands as "Senkaku's" instead of the Chinese name.

Japan's hope is to remove the pressure and somehow put a wedge between Taipei and Beijing.

If that's the case, I would be for certain that when Taiwan called for settlement via ICJ, Japan should of encouraged them to do so for in order for a non U.N. members (Taiwan) to file suit to ICJ, they first must seek their permission from the Permanent Members from the U.N. Although China will mostly likely decline, a mere presence of Taiwan in the negotiations of U.N. General Assembly will not doubt bring about the issue of their status as an independent sovergegn state.

To me, I don't think Japan takes time really caring about he balancing act between Taiwan and Beijing while Ma on the other hand, this so-called balancing act with Beijing and whomever is his primary issue in his state's foreign relations.

Applying your logic, all Japan has to do is be truthful about how they got the islands instead of always starting the sentence with Chinese greed for the resources underneath

That's not "applying my logic" at all. It's a simple case of whether or not China themselves are confident in their case about the ownership of the islands based on international law. The basic argument for Japan's side of argument can be found on the MOFA's website with some counter arguments. I must say the counter arguments are "polite" for if I was writing it, I would of simply ended with "China has no case, PERIOD!!"

As I said, China has proven record of settling territorial disputes through patient negotiations. Why should China follow your wish? Don not forget China is the one who has called for negotiations and their offer has never been taken off the table. To only Japan who thinks they have the control therefore don't even want to call the dispute as it is.

I don't think so. China's occupation in South China Sea initially indicates that they will take whatever they can to nations which cannot defend themselves. In other words, they'll take it first, increase their presence, and when the international community condemns them is when they start the camouflage of "negotiating". Some nations who depend on China's economy have no choice but to comply.

There is also the issue of whether Japan will agree this time. Any nation, including Japan, can back out of Article 36 (2) (I hope I've got the number right.:-)) any time they want. Here the US is a nice example. The States decided since 1986 to do it case by case. Has any official statement come out on this? No statement made by individual politician counts.

Not a good example. Your argument goes along the same lines as "he broke the law so there's a chance another person might break it as well!!".

I hope you do know this is what others say about Japan as well. With such mistrust, no wonder nothing can be done. We continue with this pattern of no-dispute-what-so-ever with the call for more military build-up.

I agree. Both don't trust each other with no one giving an inch. So that's why I suggested ICJ.

Because South Korea controls Dokdo, they constantly remind themselves NOT to make it look like a disputed island.

Well. This is a good example of how China should act when both parties cannot give an inch. At least on Japan's part, there was never a "ocean survey" into territorial waters. At least they encouraged Korea to settle this via ICJ for the third time last Fall.

Shall I expect a bit more sympathy for China from you this time?:-)

On the Shoal issue with the Phillipines or the entire South China dispute with other nations?

Only if it takes one wing to fly. China would if this is their only choice. But they clearly don't think so. We will see time is on whose side.

I think the perfect time would of been the 80's and 90's when the islands were virtually more unguarded than they ever were. Now it's on the spotlight with every entry nearby the Chinese surveyor ships reported on the news. You got the next coming cabinet who wants to build a better defence system there. Then you got the issue of amending the constitution which was "taboo" to even talk about it among the lawmakers.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

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