politics

China dismisses Japan plan to buy disputed islands

34 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

Of course China will dismiss the Japanese government's intent to buy Japanese land. What can China do about it? Start a war? Stop all trade? Take their Pandas back? Well that they can do.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Of course they do. Look at how the foreigners in Japan are dismissing it. Pathetic. More so when the government is trying to claim they're running out of money and might not have any by the fall.

-3 ( +3 / -7 )

Instead of all this political rhetoric, like today "Chinese territory since ancient times and China’s sovereignty over them was grounded in an indisputable historical and legal basis." There is a 3 way dispute Taiwan,China and Japan. Let the 3 countries produce their so called historical claims to an independent arbitrator and settle the matter. Because this ongoing political argument is tiresome,childish and pathetic.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan sure has been getting dismissed a lot lately. Like some kindergarten kid running around saying "look at me!, look at me!"

6 ( +8 / -2 )

This could turn nasty. I just hope it ends up with nothing more than a spanked bottom for Japan. Japan certainly doesn't have the means to spank China's....

5 ( +6 / -2 )

“I care so little about it that I do not even want to spend time answering your question,” Medvedev was quoted as saying to reporters during the closing stages of his trip to Russia’s Far East.

Japanese government is taking the role of Russian gov this time...

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Liu reiterated the islands had been part of Chinese territory since ancient times

I don't consider the 70s as ancient times.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

JimizoJul. 09, 2012 - 10:05AM JST This could turn nasty. I just hope it ends up with nothing more than a spanked bottom for Japan. Japan certainly >doesn't have the means to spank China's

Why should it be any nastier than the other 16 territorial arguments that China has with other Asian neighbors? China has only 1 with Japan,

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

gaijinfoJul. 09, 2012 - 09:50AM JST Japan sure has been getting dismissed a lot lately. Like some kindergarten kid running around saying "look at me!, >look at me!"

I agree. Sort of like alot of gaijin living in Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KariHarukaJul. 09, 2012 - 10:21AM JST

I don't consider the 70s as ancient times.

I think you are referring to the 1870s? But yes, China has no legal claim to it since the islands were not reclaimed under the Potsdam agreement. They only started asking for it after gas and minerals were found, a whole quarter century after their last chance to legally claim them.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

tian4670Jul. 09, 2012 - 10:21AM JST

Japanese government is taking the role of Russian gov this time...

Not at all. Russia took those islands under violation of ceasefire AFTER WWII, while the islands here have been in Japanese possession since the first Sino-Japanese war more than a century ago.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

@OssanAmerica Interesting that Yang Yi, a former director of the Institute for Strategic studies at the National Defence University in Beijing has expressed fear of a shooting match over this issue. Similarly, from the Japanese side Kazuhiko Toda, an academic specialising in World affairs had expressed fear over an escalation. China has generally avoided anything which would derail its goal of economic growth, hence its patience regarding Taiwan, but humiliation at the hands of the Japanese could be step too far.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Only World War 3 would settle this.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Jimizo - what humiliation? The islands have been held, and occupied continuously since the 19th century without a peep of complaint from PRC. The ONLY reason they reopened their claim was the discovery of natural gas there in the mid 1970s.

By making this a false issue, they are choosing to humiliate themselves. Japan is not responsible for any loss of face China faces over this.

And of course you are right, China will not do anything which will derail its economic growth - except massacring hundreds of its own citizens in Tienenmen, and arresting thousands more in connection, and getting into shooting wars with Vietnam and Philippines over the spratlys.

Point is that the legitimacy of the CCP overrides all other concerns. It overrides economic groth, national security, justice, human rights, everything. And the legtimacy of the CCP as the sole holder of power in China rests on its credentials as the party that has overseen the reclamation of China's status that it lost since it became dominated by foreign powers in the 19th Century, and more specifically with its success in fighting the Japanese occupation. Which all means that it is more important to the CCP that it is seen to be standing up to Japan and winning, than to maintain peace or economic growth. They could have ignored this whole situation if they hadn't greedily raised this territorial claim out of thin air in the first place. Now they have and so they will need to face the consequences of watching and being humiliated, as Japan continues looking after the islands as privately owned Japanese sovereign territory in the same manner that it has for 200 years now.

They need to find a way to climb down - and in that, they should see the Japanese government as their best friend in all this.

On the purchase itself, I hope that Ishihara buys the islands using all those rightwing private donations, and then gifts them for free to the national government as he says he will do. It puts him out of control of the islands, and means my money isn't wasted on this stunt. Noda will play ball to deescalate this issue when the japan government owns the islands, as it has done throughout the time it has leased the islands.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Hikozaemon: "By making this a false issue, they are choosing to humiliate themselves. Japan is not responsible for any loss of face China faces over this."

I beg to differ. Japan claims it owns these islands hands down, and yet Noda, in a desperate attempt to score points before an election, says Japan needs to buy them. Why? I don't need to buy something I already own. What's more the sheer cost, when Japan is in DIRE need of money and has to talk about raising taxes to get it, is disgraceful!

I agree with you on the points you make about China and human rights and all, but your point about them overriding all concerns is just that -- the point. If China doesn't care about Japan's claim or their attempt to buy the islands and both sides are willing to let things escalate, then we all suffer. And I have no doubt that if push came to shove China would just send military ships over and occupy the islands, and there would be nothing Japan could do about it but talk. So long as they didn't start any violence in the process I doubt the Americans would step in and risk starting all out war.

Anyway, why is Japan so desperate to go to the international courts over Dokdo and the Kuriles but here they will not? And if it's because they feel they don't need to because the islands are indisputably Japanese, again, why the need to buy them? And doesn't that make the other islands belong to the other nations since they also don't need to go to the international courts to prove it?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Here is who owns the islands: the first country with the balls to build a military base there to keep everyone else away. That is how we Americans would do it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

smithinjapanJul. 09, 2012 - 01:54PM JST

Anyway, why is Japan so desperate to go to the international courts over Dokdo and the Kuriles but here they will not? And if it's because they feel they don't need to because the islands are indisputably Japanese, again, why the need to buy them? And doesn't that make the other islands belong to the other nations since they also don't need to go to the international courts to prove it?

Why, because there they are trying to claim land they currently do not administer. They currently administer these islands, so why go to court when you already effectively rule the land? The same logic applies to South Korea and Russia for the other two lands. South Korea's administration of the islands is against strict interpretations of the treaties signed (and the interpretation of the US, official stance is that they were not excluded from Japan under the treaties signed). In the case of Russia, they took over using military force well after the war had ended, and they have refused to sign a peace treaty because of it. Since those two are resulting from WWII, they feel it is necessary to use the international courts to justify peaceful transfer. Since the other chain was originally fully transferred well in advance of WWII, and not excluded from Japan, they hold the stance that there is nothing to refute the status of the islands.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Smith - please, you are smarter than this.

You know, as well as I do that this purchase has nothing to do with sovereignty. This is not a purchase of sovereignty. Only private ownership - the same way that the govt currently leases the islands from the owner.

You also know that the Japanese government wants to purchase the islands instead of Ishihara (hence wasting my taxes) specifically to continue its current policy of not allowing any landings or development of the islands that would antagonize china, while retaining physical control and sovereignty over the territory of the islands. The proposed purchase is not to antagonize China. On the contrary - Noda wants to waste our taxes here in order to APPEASE China.

Personally, I don't care about China in this. So long as my money isn't wasted, Ishihara can build Disneyland on them for all I care. But Noda does and if that is your concern, then goodbye tax money.

But then Ishihara to the rescue - if he transfers the islands to the government for free, then we all win. No taxes wasted, no antagonizing China.

You probably also know that the islands were reverted to Japan with Okinawa from US control - the US gave the islands back to Japan, but has also publicly said in the past that it would not intervene in any dispute over the islands and that Japan and China had to work it out bilaterally. This is another chestnut of Ishihara, who points out that the security treaty with the US is worthless if they don't promise to defend the sovereignty of all of Japan's sovereignty - most of all territory like the Senkakus, that the US had a direct roll in ensuring Japan's continued sovereignty over. He has a point on that too, but I'd rather not see him start a shooting war in order to prove it.

The fact that China is upset however should dictate nothing in this situation. If Japan is willing to concede sovereignty based on a 19th century treaty it now accepts China's revisionist view on as invalid, and is willing to be intimidated and bullied out of control of its own territory (as indeed it was over Takeshima), then I'll have to take the accelerated version of my Chinese lessons so I can make our soon to be future overlords properly welcome when they arrive.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

basroil: "The same logic applies to South Korea and Russia for the other two lands. South Korea's administration of the islands is against strict interpretations of the treaties signed (and the interpretation of the US, official stance is that they were not excluded from Japan under the treaties signed)."

Exactly! So then shouldn't they relinquish their claims to the other islands? Why is it right in some cases and not others, besides the obvious hypocrisy?

" In the case of Russia, they took over using military force well after the war had ended, and they have refused to sign a peace treaty because of it."

Again? The war was not yet over when Russia made the last minute grab for the islands. In any case, it doesn't matter, they own, live on, and administer them. I have flat out said in the past that for the same reasons (save living on them) Japan has the better claim to the islands in question in this article.

Hikozaemon: "You know, as well as I do that this purchase has nothing to do with sovereignty. This is not a purchase of sovereignty. Only private ownership - the same way that the govt currently leases the islands from the owner."

I know that, but at the same time it is simply political, and the central government buying them is a stamp that Japan owns them, as though they do not already.

"The proposed purchase is not to antagonize China. On the contrary - Noda wants to waste our taxes here in order to APPEASE China."

I don't see that being the case, but it's an interesting point.

"But then Ishihara to the rescue - if he transfers the islands to the government for free, then we all win. No taxes wasted, no antagonizing China."

Still don't see that not antagonizing China, especially since Ishihara seems to like doing so, but hopefully it goes that way on THIS side (China still won't recognize it).

"The fact that China is upset however should dictate nothing in this situation"

It shouldn't, but it could very well.

"...then I'll have to take the accelerated version of my Chinese lessons so I can make our soon to be future overlords properly welcome when they arrive."

You planning on moving to the islands? :)

Nah, if it ever got to the point where China tried to take Japan (and by that I mean more than just these islands) by force it would indeed end in all out war, and Japan, and probably the rest of the world, would be obliterated. So language lessons wouldn't be necessary.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Not at all. Russia took those islands under violation of ceasefire AFTER WWII, while the islands here have been in Japanese possession since the first Sino-Japanese war more than a century ago.

So, Russian will be rightful owner of those kuril islands after 50 years of administrating them?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Hikozaemon: The islands have been held, and occupied continuously since the 19th century without a peep of complaint from PRC. The ONLY reason they reopened their claim was the discovery of natural gas there in the mid 1970s.

Complaint to who? Before WWII ends, to Japanese who is busy massacring Chinese? Before 70s, PRC was isolated by the whole world, Taiwan was on life support, who can make the complaint? Before 80s or even 90s, neither PRC or Taiwan has any meaningful navy, what is the point of complaining?

Hypothetically, you stole a Rolls Royce from your neighbor who is so ill that he stayed in hospital life support for 2 years. You show off the car to everyone and claim ownership in the meantime. Will you seriously believe that you are the rightful owner of the prestige car after two years' running?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

How about we just share the islands... !?!? let both countries drill for gas and utilize the fishing there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tian4670 - Between 1890 and the discovery of natural gas in 1973, neither PRC nor ROC had any public objection or claim to the Senkaku islands. What, because they were busy? The WHOLE time? BOTH of them?

China was there at Potsdam and Yalta - they were there when post war boundaries were drawn. They were fighting border wars claiming lost territories against Russia, India, Vietnam, Korea and so on endlessly after WWII. They had plenty of time to assert their imaginary border with Japan before natural gas was found there.

The islands were legitimately transfered to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki and stayed that way.

China's claim is based purely on greed and its hope to claim the nearby natural resources.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Hikozaemon: "The islands were legitimately transfered to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki and stayed that way."

According to whom? I doubt the Chinese, who were still reeling from the massacres, rape, and what not Japan had heaped upon them had any say in the treaty.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Greapper1: "How about we just share the islands... !?!? let both countries drill for gas and utilize the fishing there."

I think they did have a joint venture agreement a while back, until Ishihara stepped up.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The islands were legitimately transfered to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki and stayed that way

Correction Hiko. The islands were incorporated prior to Shimonoseki Treaty and was never part of it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I still think Tokyo should buy the islands from the owner first and have them establish necessary infrastructure. Then sell it to the central government on the condition that JMSDF be stationed there.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Koga san must have some very rich and powerful friends in high places. If you and I have a house with " unclear " title, you think anyone would buy it ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China has become increasingly assertive. There is no flexibility in cooperations with China. Problem for China is that they will have to look at conflict areas like the Senkaku Island area and South China Seas for oil and natural gas needs in the immediate future. There is a rivalry is developing between China and Japan over access to energy resources. With automobile numbers growing at almost 20 percent a year, China could surpass the total number of cars in the U.S. in a couple decade. Also, China is limited by the fact that its proven oil reserves are small in relation to its consumption. China will import 70 percent of the oil from foreign sources by 2020 and will become increasingly dependent on Middle East, Africa, Russian, and Venezuelan oil.

But undoubtedly access to Middle East oil will become a key issue in the relations between the U.S. and China. Clearly, in the short term, China recognizes that its energy security is increasingly dependent on cooperation with the U.S., rather than competition with it. China is banking on oil development projects outside the Middle East, and will insist on improving its relations with the main oil-producing states. However, long-term strategic links with countries hostile to the U.S. could also bear heavily on U.S.-China relations, especially troubling are China's arms sales to the region.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China will continue to take necessary measures to firmly uphold its sovereignty over the Diaoyu island.......The Tokyo governemnt seems not have learning enough lesson after the trawler incident, try to arrest any Chinese ships again and see the consequences! Why didnt Japan get along with China after having a black eye two years ago or they want further black eyes?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The whole world has 'remembered ' the trawler incident and the huge humilation of Japan since the trawler incident, japan cant changes the fact, Japanese laws never valid and she has no soverignity over the Diaoyu island or Senkaku islands(Whatever you liked to call) !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Should China have to pay back the gas she took from the east sea? Certainly not, Japan has released the trawler capatin, the Japanese government has confessed their sovereignty over the natural resource was void!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Thomas Anderson...Only World War 3 would settle this. Hey dude, are you having too much imaginations or being creative? The North Koreans has sunken a south Korean frigate back in 2010, the two Koreas were nasty enough but no big deal North Korea has paid, now China Japan were engaging a gentleman's war sure nobody dies! If Noda bought those isles is a good thing, sure he needs 'face saving' to his own people rather than trapped by the duets between China and Ishihara! Noda is a very weak government and he is at the end of his term almost one year! I will surprised if Noda done nothing rather let ishihara the mad dog to get lose, there is really nasty!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I say we hand Ishihara over to China. Problem solved.

1 ( +1 / -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