politics

China says it is ready to talk if Japan admits isles are disputed

111 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

111 Comments
Login to comment

Good grief. The CCP thinks it has a 'cunning plan'; a CCP diplomatic masterstroke that is so clever that those pesky Japanese and Americans are sure to fall for it. Trick the Japanese into 'admitting' there's a dispute, to 'open dialogue'; then the only dialogue will be, 'you admitted we have a claim, so hand over the islands'.

It's also clear that the CCP is attempting to drive a wedge between the US and Japan: Where Wang says, "that China and the United States “should genuinely respect and accommodate each other’s concerns and interests” in the Asia-Pacific," its simply code for 'let the CCP and PLA do whatever it wants.' By continually pushing the Senkakus issue, its clear that they don't respect the US position on the islands and their support for Japan.

22 ( +27 / -5 )

“Rather, we hope the United States will play a positive role in safeguarding peace, stability and development in the Asia-Pacific” region, he said.

Staying out of it is the best way to play a positive role in the situation.

Wang said he spoke to U.S. officials about setting up a “reasonable threshold” for the resumption of long-stalled talks on ending North Korea’s nuclear program.

Blackmail is a sign of underhandedness, described perfectly by the very rare Japanese word “さもしい ”. You may have underhanded coworkers, but you keep trade relations with them and otherwise try not to mind their presence for the sake of overall peace. But you can never trust or befriend such a person.

I don’t think China understands America’s core principals if it thinks it can shift blame, downplay its aggression, and use blackmail to get what it wants.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

The two nations, Japan and China originally agreed the islands would remain disputed. It was Japan that then cunningly purchased the islands which has led to this entire uproar. . And now the US has to defend it because of their commitment to Japan under the alliance.Its ridiculous.

-33 ( +6 / -39 )

Chinese think that constantly repeating the same lies somehow makes something valid. Senkakus are part of Japanese territory so chinese liars should go away and mind their own business.

29 ( +33 / -4 )

Have you heard of Obama's red line. Do you think if China takes over the islands, Mr Obama will come to Japanese aid? No one cares about these islands. And we Americans will not sacrifice our lives for these islands.

-27 ( +6 / -33 )

Chinese are so kind !

These islets are belong to China/Taiwan and they even accept these as disputs.

Abviously these islets were taken by Japan in 1895 and given by the USA rediculously to Japan in 1950s because these islets are not belong to the USA, It just like you can't give London to Spain and Tokyo to Belgium by the third part. because they are not owners.

It is impossible that no owner before 1895, even Antarctica was explored at that time, how come these islets left ? and it could not be okinawa's, because of the distance and sea trench, it is difficult for okinawa people to get there, and okinawa can't prove these islets belong to them.

Even base on upper, China want to admit the "disput" solution, what shall we say?

-34 ( +5 / -39 )

>seraphineSep. 21, 2013 - 05:40PM JST

The two nations, Japan and China originally agreed the islands would remain disputed. It was Japan that then >cunningly purchased the islands which has led to this entire uproar. .

You are mistaken on all counts. There was never an agreement that the islands "would remain disputed". There was allegedly a verbal understanding that the issue will not be discussed and the 1973 Treaty does not mention the Senkakus at all. Japan did not "start this uproar". China has been aiming to take these islands since they laid claim in the 1970s. In 2010 the Chinese government through their "East China Seas Fishery Research Agency" ordered a Chinese trawler to the Senkakus for the purpose of creating an international incident. When the J-govt purchased 3 of the 5 islands from a Japanese civilian, China decided to use it as an excuse to go fully open with their intent. The J-govt has always owned 1 of the 5 islands, so how does it buying 3 more make any difference to China? None. The cause of this "uproar" is China's planned territorial expansion agenda, period.

IRobinSep. 21, 2013 - 10:01PM JST Chinese are so kind !

China is a thief which thinks that it's increased economic and military power can be used to bully and threaten all of it's asian neighbors. Yes the islands were LEGALLY incorporated in 1885, not taken because NOBODY owned them. Not one record of any Chinese having lived there so it's not impossible that no one owned them, no one simply cared. Chinese and Taiwanese maps showing them to be Japanese exist from the 1950s/60s. Since the islands wre LEGALLY incorporated by Japan, China is free to take to issue to the ICJ and try to take them LEGALLY. Dare you.

16 ( +26 / -10 )

@OssanAmerica,

"LEGALLY " you mean by after a war, right? what is the "LEGALLY" base on?

it's not impossible that no one owned them, no one simply cared.

why no one simply cared? I care. So I raised the quesion.

I Dare to take this issue to the ICJ, I think All Taiwan people or Gov't Dare. Dare you to judge this with Taiwan people in the ICJ?

-22 ( +2 / -24 )

Yes I agree if China also hands back Tibet and the rest of it's stolen territories I'm all for a day in the courts.

23 ( +25 / -2 )

IRobinSep. 21, 2013 - 11:51PM JST @OssanAmerica, "LEGALLY " you mean by after a war, right? what is the "LEGALLY" base on?

After what war? The Senkakus were incorporated as Terra Nul;us before the Sino-Japanese War was concluded and finalized at the Treaty of Shimoseki. If you think these islands were taken by war please tell me the details of the "Battle of the Senkaskus". What were the Chinese casualty numbers?

it's not impossible that no one owned them, no one simply cared. why no one simply cared? I care. So I raised the quesion.

Fine but you are not a representative of any sovereign government are you? As I said, nobody cared.

I Dare to take this issue to the ICJ, I think All Taiwan people or Gov't Dare. Dare you to judge this with Taiwan people >in the ICJ?

Again, you as an individual can not take a case to the ICJ. Only sovereign governments can do that. Taiwan, like China is not a signatory to an agreement that makes ICJ rulings binding. Japan is. Additionally, does Taiwan have the right to bring an action at the ICJ being that it isn't a "sovereign country" according to China?

13 ( +20 / -7 )

@wildwest,

you know it is defficult to explain something clearly when we are talking about A, you are talking about B.

And if you know this, you are surely want to make something confusion.

-24 ( +1 / -25 )

It is impossible that no owner before 1895, even Antarctica was explored at that time, how come these islets left ?

Here is the underlying problem. Virtually no islands were unexplored and unclaimed at the time. But no global system for global claims to land existed in the 19th century, so for every nation to hold onto its perceived belongings it was required that all of those belongings be registered in the 20th century. The registry holds that Japan owned the islands prior to World War II, and maps that have escaped Chinese destruction have confirmed this. Hence America followed the rules and returned the islands to the owner that had registered them: Japan.

Again, China is constantly questioning who registered the islands, but the global community already knows the situation and we all know the legal status of the islands. If China was of a less morally questionable status the world may be willing to lend an ear, but the facts are the China has done nothing but take provocative measures and even use blackmail to try to get the islands, and this only started suddenly when the islands were revealed to have possible valuable resources. Before that was revealed, China was quite content to let things be. It’s really no wonder why no one can trust China at their word…

16 ( +19 / -3 )

@OssanAmerica,

I said I care, why nobody cared? To say nobody cared is to ignore the original owner, this is to cunning right?

I have no idea what is "Terra Nul"? can you explain this? why It can be incorporated as Terra Nul if these islets had owner at that time?

You ask me first Dare I to raise this to ICJ, You said I am individual to take this to ICJ. It's all your saying. what you really want me to do?

Actually, this is the cunning of yours to ignore Taiwan for the reason of not "sovereign country", because Taiwan have more evidence to own these islets. and then use another cause that Taiwan is not in China totally, so China has no enough evidence , right? Why are you so cunning ?

you also didn't answer my question , what is the "LEGALLY" in your meanings?

-23 ( +1 / -24 )

This proposal makes very little sense. If PRC wanted Japan to acknowledge that there is a disupute over the island, PRC can simply file a complaint to ICJ in which ICJ will recognize that there is a dispute.

Japan has nothing to gain from PRC's proposal so why should Japan accept?

There is no "Joint" way in sovereignty over territory there is only my territory or not my territory and Senkaku isles are cleary not PRC's.

20 ( +21 / -1 )

Clearly they don't wanna talk offering up that pre-condition.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

IRobinSep. 22, 2013 - 01:00AM JST @OssanAmerica, I said I care, why nobody cared? To say nobody cared is to ignore the original owner, this is to cunning right?

I have no idea what you mean.

I have no idea what is "Terra Nul"? can you explain this? why It can be incorporated as Terra Nul if these islets had >owner at that time?

That is a typographical error of Terra Nullius In International Law 'terra nullius' describes territory that nobody owns so that the first nation to discover it is entitled to take it over. Naturally research and investigation must be conducted prior to incorporation to assure that no one owns or inhabits the islands. This was done prior to January 1895.

You ask me first Dare I to raise this to ICJ, You said I am individual to take this to ICJ. It's all your saying. what you >really want me to do?

I would like you cease flooding the forums with CCP propaganda attempting to justify China's actions, and explain why China refuses to take their claim to the ICJ.

Actually, this is the cunning of yours to ignore Taiwan for the reason of not "sovereign country", because Taiwan have >more evidence to own these islets. and then use another cause that Taiwan is not in China totally, so China has no >enough evidence , right? Why are you so cunning ?

Thank you for calling me cunning. You are giving me far me credit than I deserve. If I understand you correctly, you argue that the islands belong to China. Then you argue they belong to Taiwan. But is China claim based on the argument that the Senkakus should be part of Taiwan and therefore part of China? If so this is a ridiculous argument because Taiwan itself does not consider itself part of China. If you are arguing that the issue is between Taiwan and Japan, then they can discuss like civilized countries. I do not see the Taiwan Coast Guard cruising the Senkaku waters every day, do you?

you also didn't answer my question , what is the "LEGALLY" in your meanings?

LEGALLY, means not just to me but to everyone on this planet in accordance with law. In this instance that would be International Law. As long as China refuses to take this issue to the ICJ is acting ILLEGALLY by conducting a harassment operation.

13 ( +19 / -6 )

Ok so let me get this straight, Japan purchased these islands from a private owner and China is upset about it? Shouldnt it legally be Japan's islands because they bought them? China wouldnt have a right to say that the islands belong to them, if that is true.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Translation: "We (China) will negotiate as long as you (Japan) agree that we are right!" But US people, don't worry because we do not expect you to help with military in the crisis. We do not think you can help. The US that defeated both the Japanese empire and the German empire no longer exists. They couldn't win in Viet Nam and now they can't even win in Iraq and Afganistan, where the leaders wear dresses and ride camels and live in caves. The new American is simply not strong, unlike the Greatest Generation. You don't stand a chance against China.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Hope this dispute will end soon for the safety and peace of China and Japan. Let's hope the best!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Japan cannot interact decently with an imperceptive nation like China who suddenly declares the Senkaku Islands as their own.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

The only thing that one can hope for is either a regime change in China, which will be dirty because they can't be voted out of office, or a complete change in direction by the current CCP leaders. The question is whether anyone can and is willing to stand up to the PLA generals and admirals. Obviously this "willingness" to discuss the matter with the condition that Japan agrees that there is a dispute is a joke, there's absolutely nothing in it for Japan. This is the classical "What's mine is mine, and let's negotiate over what's yours" diplomacy that China is under the misimpression that the world will buy.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

The American will either keep its obligation to defend Japan or not. They can not be pro Chinese and pro Japanese at the same time. If Japan loses the war with China there will be tens of thousands of dead Japanese. Obama and the US Government can only attack the weak. Even we do not lose the treaty with the American will be void and ALL of their troops would be kicked out of Japan. If American is not our friend then they are our foe. We will see what happens.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

lol, China addmitting that their claims about Senkaku's are groundless. Never heard about stranger strategy in foreign affairs. I wonder if the Chinese 'elites' aren't back to opium doping again coming with such words as a sober man couldn't make up dumber argument ;)

11 ( +13 / -2 )

YuriOtaniSep. 22, 2013 - 07:52AM JST The American will either keep its obligation to defend Japan or not.

The PLAN haven't arrived at the Senkakus have they? Clearly the Chinese government has more faith in our statements than you do.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

China says it is ready to talk to Japan over an increasingly heated maritime row, but only if Tokyo declares the islands to be disputed.

What is there to discuss? China knows that Japan claims the islands. They want them. Neither party is going to move. There's the entire "discussion" in one line.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica,

About your "Terra Nullius In International Law", I have questioned many times even on the begining. It is impossible that it was no owner before 1895, you are keeping stearing over this question over and over again to use this so called "Terra Nullius In International Law". This was what I mean, if you can explain more. This is why I emphase "I care" about this point, why you insisted that "Nobody cared". The truth is I am keep saying I care I care. But you still said nobody care.

I would like you cease flooding the forums with CCP propaganda attempting to justify China's actions, and explain why China refuses to take their claim to the ICJ.

actually I am justify Japan's unrational. You Japanese can't answer my question directly, this proved that these are lots of tricky logic with you by ignoreing something like "Nobody cared". Actually many people care about this.

I do not see the Taiwan Coast Guard cruising the Senkaku/Diaoyu waters every day, do you?

No Coast Guard for Taiwan only means Taiwan is weak, this proved nothing more. This help nothing for proving these islets not belong to Taiwan. right? So what's your logic here? no Coast Guard no ownership? this is ridiculous.

About "LEGALLY", actually every one you raised were unsteady.

That fact that there was owner before 1895 that proved your international law ILLEGALL, right?

About the take to ICJ, I emphasis your tricky already, you are playing the tricky between China and Taiwan.

One more question:

There are still a lot of islets smaller even than a ball that arround Japan have no name and have not been drawed in the map of Japan , so China can incorparate them now?

If the answer is Yes, I will suggest the China gov't to do this right now.

If the answer is No , why Japan can do this on the dispute islets Senkakus /DIaoyu

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

It is time, high time, that the region tell the People's Republic to go F itself. In is causing undue and useless stress in self-serving and idiotic territorial demands. I am hoping that the Chinese bubble economy will pop soon. That is the only way I see the Chinese containing their hubris.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The Chinese do not care what the rest of the world thinks. They see themselves as the "middle kingdom" again. However, unfortunately this time it does not mean the middle of the world, it just means they are in the middle, that is, they are not as bad as poor countries (at least in coastal China) but not as good as rich countries. China will always be just stuck in the middle.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

China strangely rules out the option of going to the ICJ, by which they can automatically have Japan accept that the islands are disputed. And the US stands neutral on the sovereignty of the islands and seems to suggest that Japan get around the table as China urges instead of having the matter settled at the ICJ. Japan should always remember the two-sidedness of diplomacy; Biden can be affable to Xí Jinping a good financial customer while chiding Abe for any action that may raise tensions in the East China Sea, setting aside the sales of state of the art weaponry.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ossan: "This is the classical "What's mine is mine, and let's negotiate over what's yours" diplomacy that China is under the misimpression that the world will buy."

That's funny, because that's EXACTLY what Japan is doing in this situation. "The islands are ours and there is no dispute. Now let's talk and improve relations!" And yet when SK says there is no dispute, Japan whines and people demand it go to the international courts. They can believe the islands are theirs (in both cases) all they want, but to deny there is a dispute is simply ludicrous.

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

1895? What does that have to do with the difference between legality and administrative rights?

If you base you argument on 1895, then there is NO administrative rights given by the US to Japan since whatever that was allegedly claimed by Japan would legalize not only Ryukyu, Diaoyu/Senkaku, and the entire Manchuria.

1895 means nothing. Its has no legal foundation because Japan invaded China when the Ryukyu was a vassal state of China. Since the current stance of Japan is that the socalled disputed islands administrative rights belonged to Japan, that means it negated the ownership rights claimed by the Japanese of 1895 or otherwise, there wouldn't be any administrative rights given by US (a third party) to Japan ( a claimant).

So the entire 1895 argument is completely defeating the purpose of any legitimacy of the administrative rights currently claimed by Japan.

Its not cunning, its plain stupendous. Just because Japan is trying to justify its means based on a premise that it wanted the 1895 (demand, since Japan was an invader) to be true but cannot accept it to be true due to its current circumstance of accepting an administrative rights that shouldn't have been given its no more outrageous and evil than the CCP.

At least the CCP's argument is direct. Its not hiding behind anything or trying to kill two birds with one false premise by trying to obtain ownership based on a false 1895 treaties and justifying its current legal stance by accepting a third party authorization on administrative rights. You simply CANNOT have both. And you CANNOT argue for both. It has to be one or the other. That's what these neo-nationalists want to muddle the issue and the public by claiming on something that is simply false.

Japan's real concern is not only pertaining to the disputed islands but the entire Ryukyu kingdom which is what Japan is fearing if it had to let go of the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku. It ain't about the Diaoyu/Senkaku, its about opening the lid on Ryukyu/Okinawa's legitimacy.

Once Japan give in on this issue, the neo-nationalist will fear that they will lose Okinawa in future. But that's impossible so long as US is stationed there. And the fact that US recognizes Japan's sovereignty rights on Okinawa will give Japan plenty of legal ammunition to stand its ground. Not even China can dispute that. That's why they simply insisted on Japan's stance on agreement on having a dispute. Which is actually true per Japan's own stance.

If Japan itself cannot clearly and legally separate itself from understanding what's legal ownership and administrative rights, then clearly something is of dispute by any legal standard.

-16 ( +2 / -18 )

China carried it's dead horse to Washington in hopes that Obama can make it run. This is a dispute that was settled after the Shino-Japan war. Japan won and claimed the territory outright. If China thinks that land taken after a war should be returned, then they should let Tibet be free. Again... dead horse and China *whack *whack

10 ( +11 / -1 )

China just fabricated the issue. There is no issue. If they had had an issue why China waited till the oil was found and all the maps was stated as Senkaku till then in China. When America was using Senkaku as a bombing range in'' China territory'' Why they said nothing. America did not think they took over China,either. If China thinks there is any issue. Go to ICJ. Japan will win 200%. Otherwise, back off China.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

smithinjapanSep. 22, 2013 - 09:27AM JST "Ossan: "This is the classical "What's mine is mine, and let's negotiate over what's yours" diplomacy that China is under the misimpression that the world will buy." That's funny, because that's EXACTLY what Japan is doing in this situation. "The islands are ours and there is no >dispute. Now let's talk and improve relations!"

Oh really smith? Please name one island or territory which China controls that Japan is claiming and wants to negotiate.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Islands belong to China. Case closed. Even the whole Ryukyu chain was subjected to China. Japan agreed with China, (mediated with US president to partition Ryukyu in two, southern part to go to China,and northern part to go to Japan : 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.231

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

http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/diaohist.html

-21 ( +2 / -23 )

seraphine

The two nations, Japan and China originally agreed the islands would remain disputed. It was Japan that then cunningly purchased the islands which has led to this entire uproar.

Where did you get that wrong impression? Japan's position has never changed. If you got that idea from a well known Chinese propaganda, that is not the fact. I think you are talking about the casual 45 sec. conversation of Kakuei Tanaka and Shu onrai. The Chinese translator who was between them has already stated how she translated the conversation. You stated that" Cunningly purchased the islands"That was originally owned by Japan till 1932. then Japan government sold to Japanese the private owner. But that has nothing to do with sovereignty.According to the law, China has never possessed the islands. By the way, has China ever sent a real estate tax bill to that individual? I know they have not. China has not governed the islands. Then openly the Japanese government purchased the islands back as a domestic real estate transaction which has nothing to do with China. It was none of China's business.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

It is impossible that it was no owner before 1895, you are keeping stearing over this question over and over again to use this so called "Terra Nullius In International Law". This was what I mean, if you can explain more. This is why I emphase "I care" about this point, why you insisted that "Nobody cared". The truth is I am keep saying I care I care. But you still said nobody care.

Why is it impossible there is no owner before 1895?

Terra Nullus basically goes like this. You see a piece of land you want. As far as you know it belongs to no one. So you declare, "I see this piece of land. As far as I know, no one owns it, so I'm taking it."

Now, if someone else owns the piece of land and gives a ****, they come and say "Hey, no! Wait! That's not an unowned piece of land! Its mine!" Then the negotiations start (there's no court in 1895).

If no one objects for awhile, it becomes internationally recognized as belonging to the initial declarer.

@highball7 As far as I know, Japan's claim is that it has sovereignty (which by default means the administrative rights) over the Senkaku islands.

The thing delegitimizing Japan's claim to Manchuria is the Potsdam Declaration, which makes Japan abandon any claim to things claimed by "greed" after 1895.

As for the Senkaku islands, Japan claimed them separately from the process that it got to get Taiwan. (Actually, to de-legitimize the acquisition of Taiwan from the Treaty of Shimonoseki is a rather hypocritical reversal on the part of the West - and one they are probably regretting).

The idea that Japan actually owns the Okinawa island set is actually guranteed by the Treaty of San Franscisco. That was why they can even give the US the administrative rights until 1972 (actually, they didn't have much choice, but on the legal books that's how it went).

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Abe, are you listening?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Japan started a research in 1885 spending 9 years before Japan registered Senkaku as the part of Okinawa Japan. Japan had asked China before Japan registered it.China admitted that in UN that China signed the document for Japan.From that moment, China did not claim their ownership for over 70 years. Then after over 70 years, suddenly China claimed that the islands are China after the oil was found. China should admit that we became interested in the oil not those rocks. Also their opaque military expansion which is about 30 times more last 25 years, China needs the area for their tactics reasons as their free sea lane.That is so conspicuous. Their behavior for Senkaku is a true manifestation of Sinocentrism. If China really thinks that the islands are China, instead of sending Chinese ships and plains, send documents to ICJ. So that the world will be the witness for this case. I think China would not do that because they know that Senkaku is Japan and they have no way to win at ICJ.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Lspiro,

You CANNOT be more wrong!

Before 1978, China was not a member of the UN, so it had zero say or representation globally. It will be like a rape victim trying to ask for help when there's no police or legal representation around.

China had been arguing and claiming these islands for decades. This dispute IS NOT RECENT. It predispose the alleged finding of natural gas in the region which no one has provided any evidence of.

Japan has an advantage over China only because it was an ally of US and was an earlier accepted member to the UN before China. So even if China wanted to ask for help, no one would've cared or listened.

Another reason which cannot be more obvious is that pre 1990 China is simply too weak economically and militarily to consider a fight with Japan. That's why the protest were merely literal with all considerations which evidence of those are overwhelming on their English Official News such as xinhua.

People are "paying attention" to this issue only because the current China has developed into a giant that's relevant to its size and Japan is slipping continually in the past decade. Does China really need Japan as a distraction? NO, its got Taiwan, SCS, Vietnam, Philippines and India. It can pick any type of fight with anyone.

China really didn't "choose" Japan to fight with. Japan gave itself in with its OWN need of neo-nationalism to distract its populace on all sorts of issues ranging from Tsunami, Nuclear meltdown, staggering economy and diminishing global economic influence....etc. No including its needs to pacify the older generation whom are generally more conservative and nationalistic in nature. Japan needs this farce as much if not more than China. If not, who did you think Ishi forced the issue to cause Oda its regime and bring it back to the LDP, the conservatives?

There is nothing territorial about this farce. ITs all political.

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

avigator Islands belong to China. Case closed. Even the whole Ryukyu chain was subjected to China.

It does not matter. The law is there. History does not decide sovereignty. Otherwise the contry like China will produce more Tibet, more Uighur. Okinawa will not be the part of China. Okinawans do not want to be Chinese.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Ossan: "Oh really smith? Please name one island or territory which China controls that Japan is claiming and wants to negotiate."

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. China claims the islands are theirs and Japan claims they are not. Hence, a DISPUTE. But since you clearly avoided my point about the hypocrisy, why doesn't Japan go to the international court with China on this, when they are so desperate to do so with SK on Dokdo? And why do you defend Japan on this island issue but start blaming SK (even talking about prostitution!) when the shoe is on the other foot?

Once again, you cannot deny there is a dispute, plain and simple. The two nations are fighting about it, no? THAT equals dispute. They can both claim the islands as their own until the cows come home, but that they are both doing so means there is a dispute, obviously. I'm not downplaying China's less than subtle attempts to get the US to pressure Japan to the table, I'm just saying for Japan to argue there is no dispute is just plain stupid.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

The American will either keep its obligation to defend Japan or not.

“The” America has made it clear that they will uphold the requirements of the treaty. And speaking as someone from America, you should have more faith. I did not leave Japan during the 3-11 earthquakes as many foreigners did, and I won’t leave after “the big one” hits in a few years. I will always stick with Japan and my fate will be that of the Japanese. I would even join the Japanese military and defend it against China personally if it comes to that.

Right now, Japan is America’s #1 friend. Do not underestimate us.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. China claims the islands are theirs and Japan claims they are not. Hence, a DISPUTE. But since you clearly avoided my point about the hypocrisy, why doesn't Japan go to the international court with China on this, when they are so desperate to do so with SK on Dokdo? And why do you defend Japan on this island issue but start blaming SK (even talking about prostitution!) when the shoe is on the other foot?

For Takeshima, Japan has been asking Korea to go to ICJ because Korea is illegally occupying the island. Korea refuses. For Senkaku, Japan has had administrative rights to the islands, so why would Japan take China to ICJ from their side? If China believes that there the island is theirs, then China should ask Japan to go to the ICJ, which they have not.

This is not hypocracy, simple logic.

A dispute would only be internationally recognised if taken to ICJ. Why doesn't China do this?

10 ( +12 / -2 )

If the Japanese continue to pussyfoot the islands - they have no one there and no flags - then, give the islands to the UN. Make them UN property and that way the Japanese and Chinese can start to fight about something else (we all know the Chinese will never give up about the entire sea near them). Just a thought.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Just give me the stupid rocks and ill ban everyone from them, they'll become my own private man cave!!! I'll have a pool table, darts and a juke box and a sign saying "Xelent peple only!! no stoopids" on the beach.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

We have never thought about pushing the U.S. out of the region

woo hoo which region ?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

China says it is ready to talk if Japan admits isles are disputed

It seems that China shows a clear strategy that demonstrates there is a dispute to the world if Japan admits it. While looking at disputes such as South China Sea, Tibet, Uighur, etc. unless these disputes get better, Japan would not admit there is a dispute between two countries, because too many troubles are going on over there.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

well lets face it, people look at President Obama as not being effective- so you go for the gusto- get him to pressure Japan to claim the islands as disputed themselves- then China swoops in and takes them.

then next up is okinawa and the rest of the china sea

of course they don;t mean for the US to leave Japan- just remove all aircraft carriers and submarines- leave a research vessel or two. move out all the bases, they will promise not to annex Taiwan

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

smithinjapanSep. 22, 2013 - 10:48AM JST

Ossan: "Oh really smith? Please name one island or territory which China controls that Japan is claiming and wants to negotiate."

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. China claims the islands are theirs and Japan claims they are not. Hence, a >DISPUTE. But since you clearly avoided my point about the hypocrisy,

Please answer my question- what territory under Chinese control does Japan have a claim? There is no hypocrisy because your attempted comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

why doesn't Japan go to the international court >with China on this, when they are so desperate to do so with SK on >Dokdo

Because if you had any experience with any judicial system in the world, you would know that it is up to the claimant to bring an action. I can not file an action in a court on the grounds that you are claiming my car. South Korea and Takeshima are not relevant to this article, but there is an example of Japan suggesting THREE times to South Korea to settle the matter at the ICJ and THREE times South Korea has refused, obviously because they have no confidence is winning in a court of law since they illegally occupied it. Here Japan is the one who has a claim sop Japan is the one willing to take it to the ICJ.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Once again, you cannot deny there is a dispute, plain and simple. The two nations are fighting about it, no? THAT equals dispute.

That only holds up if you have no understanding of law. The type of dispute you're talking about is not what China is demanding Japan recognize.

They are demanding that Japan relinquish claim to sovereignty and place the ownership of the islands in the legal category of "disputed".

Despite your persistent claims to the contrary, Japan's refusal to relinquish sovereignty do not constitute "hypocrisy" in light of Takeshima and the Northern Territories for the simple reason that those territories are recognized internationally as having disputed ownership. The Senkakus are not considered disputed by any third party.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

The dialogue of this meeting will be reminiscent of the seagull scene in Finding Nemo. "It's mine" "it's mine" "mine" "mine"........

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@LSpiro

Blackmail is a sign of underhandedness, described perfectly by the very rare Japanese word “さもしい ”. You may have underhanded coworkers, but you keep trade relations with them and otherwise try not to mind their presence for the sake of overall peace. But you can never trust or befriend such a person.

Thank you for your letting me know the word "underhandedness". Japanese really hate "underhanded" people, or maybe countries. We respect people of honor with honesty (honorable poverty, maybe), which are the ideas lacking from our neiboring two nations (or three?) recently.

If China believes that Senkaku islets belong to them, why don't you go to the ICJ? Japan would take it because it has declared to respond to any suit against it at the ICJ. Japan would follow the decision of ICJ honestly.

"Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory"

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3

When you have a land, house or something, and if somebody else caims it is his, what would you do? Maybe you just argue back it is yours. The person claimed might start a lawsuit, but not from your side. It is obvious.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

It would be more interesting if this can be brought to the ICJ. i think Japan should win this one. but if they win, is China going to end their sailings around the islands! i think no.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Japan contends that China has no historical basis to claim the islands and charges that Beijing is trying to challenge Tokyo’s rule through military intimidation.

An accurate and concise rendition of the situation.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It’s out of the question. It’s "invasion by communist China" that exists. If the Senkaku Islands is lost, sea lane defense of Japan will become weak sharply. The same may be said of the Okinawa U.S. base. Communist China is invading every corner of the earth.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

China did not pay attention to the islands until oil was discovered. But then subsequent surveys showed most of the oil was actually unser Okinawa. Then serious editorials began appearing in Chinese English media questioning the Japanese sovereignty over Okinawa. It is all about the oil. Even though the oil would power China about 1 week, it is still ready to do battle. And don't forget, if you read comments on English media, Chinese will not end hte war until at least 30 million Japanese are dead.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Japan does not own the Islands! UN, USA and EU do not recognize Japan as the owner. US only recognizes that Japan has the Administrative rights. Having administrative rights does not mean Japan owns the islands. Period! Why is Japan afraid to go to the International courts to resolve this issue if Japan believes it has solid evidence that Japan owns the island.

Take this issue to the international court and let them resolve it. China is willing but Japan is not.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Rocks, not isles. What a waste of time, money and everything.

Give them to Thailand and have done with it already!

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

"Having administrative rights does not mean Japan owns the islands. Period! "

yeah, right. same thing could be said about Tibet, right? Also tell that to the phillipine and vietnam about the spratly island issue.

"Take this issue to the international court and let them resolve it. China is willing but Japan is not."

also, yeah, right? Then why didn't China bring it to the ICJ themselves? and why china against the idea of the phillipine bring their issue with china to the ICJ?

seriously, what does china think of itself? just because of economic developments that they think they are so great that are on pair with the US and Russia perhaps. Sorry but chinese fanboys, you still have a long ways to go to reach to those 2 nations. In this world, only US and Russia is able to bent things as they wish, got it!!!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Asianhometown

All nations that are signatory of the San Francisco treaty ackowledges and recognizes Japan's administrative rights. On the otherhand there are no nation that acknowledges or recognizes PRC's. There was no UN when the treaty was signed so that is not a problem.

Basically you are re-hashing the same thing that had been refuted countless times. Japan does not recognize that there is a dipute so Japan is not the one that going to ICJ. The ball is in PRC's court. Japan is waiting for PRC to file a complaint towards ICJ if PRC believes they have a legitimte case.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

China, just do the rest of the world a favour and shut up.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Will the CCP/PRC one-party communist dictatorship admit it has no intention of ever holding free multiparty elections for "China's" leaders and as such remains illegitimate. Admit this "dispute" before trying to enter into honest "negotiations/talks" with nearby countries with a legitimate democratically elected leadership, like Japan, like the ROC Taiwan, like much of the rest of the truly advanced free world.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

i am amazed by how many people do not know basic law, the push for Japan to go to the international court for a ruling - when the islands are not in dispute. show the lack of understanding.

Japan is the defendant- the claimant as pointed out at least twice here must go before the court. - China is keen to have Japan itself state that the treaty is in dispute- understand that all this hangs off a written agreement= signed by parties.

not some ancient dialogue- postulated years in the past- a document that can be produced- so there is no dispute - Unless Japan states there is.

then there is a case for others to take to court- and that is why Korea , Taiwan and China are not going the legal option

4 ( +5 / -1 )

the foreign media I use, The Times and BBC, both use the word 'disputed'.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Japan needs to put a Casino on this island as soon as possible and invite the Chinese and Koreans. Make it a good place for criminals to off-shore their money to keep the politicians happy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

smithinjapan

For someone who gives the impression to be better than anyone Japanese and to know everything, your insistence on this issue smacks of ignorance bordering on imbecility.

Despite the fact you've been told countless times that Japan is the defendant here, you still insist they should be the ones taking the case to the ICJ!

Again, just for you:

China must take Japan to Court as China is claiming, not the opposite! That China does not should tell you how strong they believe their case IS NOT.

Moreover, Japan cannot refuse China's invitation to come to Court because Japan is a compulsory signatory which surprise, surprise China is not. Again adverse inferences would easy be drawn of the fact China refuses to sign for the Court's compulsive jurisdiction.

In relation to Korea:

Japan is the claimant therefore they want to take the case to Court; Korea refuses!

Any thoughts on why that is? Is it because Korea knows that even the US maintains that Korea's possession is illegal? That chances are Korea will lose badly should they elect the legal route? I really don't know in my own ignorance; you tell me, since you seem to know everything!

Again, guess who is not a signatory of the ICJ's compulsive jurisdiction here?

By your own reasoning, shouldn't Russia take Japan to court? After all Japan is claiming the Kuriles which Russia occupies (illegally), isn't it?

C'mon now, it's an open secret your distaste for anything Japanese and support of anyone whom you perceive to possess an adverse interest Vis Japan, but you're going to have to change your tactics on this one because you're plain wrong.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

yourockSep. 22, 2013 - 10:00PM JST the foreign media I use, The Times and BBC, both use the word 'disputed'.

Because the news sources are using the word to mean a difference in opinion/position between two sovereign nations. This article refers to the use of "disputed" in a legal sense- the recognition of which would prejudice Japan's position.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I am surprised the news actually came from Washington.

Well, Japan has no dispute as Senkakus always belong to Japan. Ignore and the case closed. Next?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Lspiro,

Japan is not America's #1 friend. Canada is America's #1 friend, then comes Mexico, UK, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Japan and South Korea are only the lower totem on being America's top friends.

How do you gauge this? Look at the type of personnel handling matters on SK and Japan, the type of budget allocated to deal with the said countries and the US dependency on the policies on the said countries and the picture is clear.

That's not to say Japan is not important, its very important. But its not America's #1 friend.

Secondly, Diaoyu/Senkaku cannot be compared with Tibet because the UN recognizes TIbet as a sovereign territory of China. Yes, China invaded Tibet and killed tens of thousands of Tibetan. That's on the Chinese.

With Diaoyu/Senkaku, if the US GAVE sovereignty of the islands to Japan in retrospect, then there will be NO debate or dispute. Problem is US did not give sovereignty right but administrative rights to Japan.

Since Japan in 1951 ceded the rights of Okinawa/Ryukyu including Diaoyu/Senkaku to US in Trust, the part of history prior to any Japanese ownership pay Japan's claim that prior ownership of any territory should be nullified when a treaties is sign would defeat Japan's own assertions. You CANNOT have it both ways when it suits you. That's the biggest flaw in Japan's argument for ownership or legality.

If Japan's argument is valid, then everything that were nullified would be invalid. Just because Japan did its homework on surveying the resourcefulness of the islands doesn't give it any rights to claim an uninhabited island as its own. Uninhabited doesn't mean unclaimed. The whole argument from Japan is Japan adversely possessed the islands in 1895. Problem is there was no such property law as adverse possession or ownership by discovery since the islands were labelled frequently in navigational maps by the Chinese traders and fishermen. It was not undiscovered or unclaimed.

Then Japan argued that because of the treaty of shimonoseki that Japan should own everything it conquered. Well that is completely false after Japan lost in WWII as everything Japan conquered and invaded were nullified.

So the treat of shimonoseki has NO play in any of this. If Japan argues for it, then it will further legitimize the islands as NOT belonging to Japan. This is the 1st part of where Japan's argument is flawed.

The 2nd part is the CEDING of the ENTIRE Ryukyu/Okinawa territory to US. Well, per Japanese standards, if you argue that the treat of shimonoseki is valid, then these islands most certainly don't belong to Japan and belongs to US. Because Japan ceded them until 1972.

Japan likes to argue that well, neither China, Taiwan or anybody else complained all that time so clearly they don't own anything. Think about those periods before talking out loud. Both of them were undergoing invasion by the Japanese and a host of others to start off the century, then it was WWII, and then a massive civil war and the post war split between the KMT and CCP. KMT needed Japan and US's support to survive so its reasonable that it couldn't say anything drawn up by the US.

CCP didn't belong to the UN so even if it did complain which it complained PLENTY. There were articles over articles and protests by university students and scholars all over the major cities in China over these islands but no one cared because it was CCP China before 1978. Its a nation that no one gave a damn because if anyone gave a damn, no one would just sit by and let that cultural revolution and great leap forward movements in China to simmer and rapidly killing themselves. The world's opinion was,"one less commie, one less enemy".

Does it matter what China's position and opinion was prior to 1978? NO. China didn't matter but it doesn't mean their rights should've been violated! That is their position and the premise of arguing this dispute.

Clearly there is a dispute. Do you know why US didn't cede sovereignty back to Japan? Because US didn't want Japan to have it. That is the ONLY reason why. Because in 1969, backed by US and UN, surveys claimed there might be POTENTIAL, not real or confirmed but potential natural gas around the islands. Guess who wanted those resources? USA. So how do we get it? By owning or refusing to recognize sovereign rights of these islands to anyone. If we can't own it, no one shall have it. So what if Japan has administrative rights. You can't drill and extract and making you impotent. And by giving Japan AR, other nations around can't drill and extract either, making them impotent. win win for the US.

That is the story about Diaoyu/Senkaku. One last note, Do you know why Diaoyu was important to China since the 15th century? It was a group of islands with a distinct shape of Fishing that stands out as navigational markers prior to satcom. It does have historical value and were actually quite important for the sea routes way back. Not just some piece of rocks laying around.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

I'm English but I think America will back Japan. They are very worried about China's growing military power. They are slowly moving their military hardware to Asia and they've even got South Korea to agree to build them a massive naval port, which is currently under construction. I wouldn't be surprised if there was in fact a future war between China and the US someday. As for for me, personally I think China is the bully here and i support Japan in this matter.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The world would be a saner place if the finders Keepers, Losers Weepers rule became international law. China's dispute with Japan is bogus. Japan's territorial dispute with Russia Nd South Korea is equally bogus.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Food for your thought.

Common nouns in a language are very ad hoc for naming objects. There's no reason why things are called as they are in languages. Proper nouns are different from common nouns in that there's always reasons behind why they are called by such and such names.

Kubajima or Huangwei Yu in Chinese in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands was an important landmark for ancient Ryukyu (Okinawa) seamen and traders navigating on the Naha, Okinawa-Fuchuan sea lane. These seafarers, who were thoroughly familiar with the Senkaku waters, called this landmark "Kubajima" because, according to one theory, the island was covered full with kuba (or Areca) palms. But I think it was called by that name because the island's shape is exactly like that of another island Kubajima, that is located about 40 Km west of Naha, Okinawa Island, on the same sea route. Isn't Chinese "Huangwei (Yu)" a phonetic conversion of Kuba(-jima) ? Note that the k-sound of Japanese ordinarily corresponds to the h-sound in Chinese. Or did the Chinese thought the island was inhabited by chimeric animals with yellow tails or hair?

The name Senkaku comes from English "Pinnacle Islands." Nineteenth-century Royal British Naval seamen called the islands by that name for obvious reasons. Approaching the island group northward from Ishigaki Island, they must have been struck with the similarity of the first approaching island to Bartolome Island in the Galapagos, famous for its Pinnacle Rock.

Ancient Ishigaki islanders called the island (group) "Iigun-jima." "Iigun" means the head of a dive-fishing spear. The reason why it is so called is similar to how the highest mountain in the Japan Alps in Honshu is called "Yarigadake." The top of the rugged mountain reminds one of the head of a spear ("yari").

Why did the Chinese called the island (group) Diaoyu, a fishing island? Did unworldly men, as often depicted in ancient Chinese drawings, go there and spent days angling for fish? Isn't "Diaoyu" a semantic conversion of what Chinese royal missions to and from Ryukyu heard from Ryukyuans aboard tributary ships that were usually provided by the Ryukyu King?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

With Diaoyu/Senkaku, if the US GAVE sovereignty of the islands to Japan in retrospect, then there will be NO debate or dispute. Problem is US did not give sovereignty right but administrative rights to Japan.

False.

Okinawa Reversion agreement of 1971 states

..."Japan is willing to assume full responsibility and authority for the exercise of all powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands;?

All powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction=sovereignty.

Due to China's protest, U.S. basically took a neutral stand by recognizing the "administration" portion of what was given back to Japan. But the agreed minutes defining "Ryukyu Islands and Daito" clearly indicates Senkaku as the territories in which U.S. gave "all powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction".

Then Japan argued that because of the treaty of shimonoseki that Japan should own everything it conquered. Well that is completely false after Japan lost in WWII as everything Japan conquered and invaded were nullified.

Japan stance is that Senkaku was not part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. If it were, Senkaku would of fallen under the jurisdiction of Taiwan and her province right after the treaty. The inconvenient FACT that it was incorporated prior to Treaty of Shimonoseki by Okinawa Pref and remained that way for decades clearly indicates that this territory was not part of "conquered and invaded".

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The 1951 S.F. Treaty placed the Ryukyu Islands which includes Okinawa Islands into a U.S. trusteeship system, without the approval of China. But the U.S. only got the right to exercise powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory, which excluded the sovereignty. When the U.S. handed over the right of the Ryukyu Islands to Japan in 1971, the sovereignty was not included.

The recent Japanese government's "purchase" of Senkaku/Diaoyu breaks promise of the mutual consensus of "putting disputes aside" and seriously undermines the China-Japan relations. Japan had made a wrong judgment of the current situation.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

sfjp330Sep. 24, 2013 - 03:22AM JST The 1951 S.F. Treaty placed the Ryukyu Islands which includes Okinawa Islands into a U.S. trusteeship system, >without the approval of China. But the U.S. only got the right to exercise powers of administration, legislation and >jurisdiction over the territory, which excluded the sovereignty. When the U.S. handed over the right of the Ryukyu >Islands to Japan in 1971, the sovereignty was not included.

Synonyms for "sovereignty" are jurisdiction, rule, supremacy, dominion, power, ascendancy, suzerainty, hegemony, domination, authority, control, influence, etc. It appears that the rights given to the United States do ultimately comprise sovereignty.

The recent Japanese government's "purchase" of Senkaku/Diaoyu breaks promise of the mutual consensus >of "putting disputes aside" and seriously undermines the China-Japan relations. Japan had made a wrong judgment of >the current situation.

There is no written record of any such "mutual consensus" to which you make reference. There is a report of an alleged "verbal agreement" to shelve discussions on the Senkakus, but the topic does not appear anywhere in the 1972 Sino-Japanese Treaty of Friendship. Regardless, the Japanese government's purchase of 3 of the 5 islands breaks no promises, were a purchase from Japanese civilians, and in no way affected Chinese claims. The evidence is that 1 of the 5 islands has always been owned by the Japanese government and even used by the US as a live bombing training site until 1978 without a peep from China. Attempts to lay blame on the Japanese governments purchase of 3 of the islands are nothing more than absurd PRC propaganda, not only because the J-govt already owned 1 of the islands but they bought the islands to keep them Gov Ishihara from building on them as that would potentially aggravate China. But China used that action as a pretext to come open with their territorial expansion plan, which has been in effect for years prior. The 2010 fishing boat that rammed JCG vessels was ordered to the Senkakus by the Chinese govt to create an international incident.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

In 1895, after China lost the Sino-Japanese War, both countries signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki which stated that China would surrender the island of Taiwan together with all islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Taiwan. The tricky part here is that there was no agreement as to who had control over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands prior to this, so it is debatable as to whether or not the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands were actually included as part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. This is important because the treaty was open to discussion when Japan lost World War II in 1945. The Treaty of S.F. nullified prior treaties concerning the area. There is a disagreement between the Japanese, Chinese, and Taiwanese governments as to whether or not the islands are implied to be part of the “islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Taiwan” in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. China and Taiwan both dispute the Japanese claim to the island by Japan’s reasons to turn down the request to incorporate the islands in 1885.

It seems that China really didn’t put up too much of a fuss about these islands for almost 75 years, until after it was discovered that there might be oil reserves under the sea surrounding the islands. The study was conducted in 1968, and the Chinese started getting really adamant over their claims to the region, especially with the U.S. handing control of the region over to Japan.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There is nothing to talk about, Japan owns the islands and that's all there is to it

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The only talk Japan should have with China over the Senkakus needs to be at the end of a gun. After the Senkakus, the PRC will demand Okinawa. After that, one of the principal islands of Japan. And then, of course, more and more.

It's time that Japan started thinking about recovering Manchuria and North Korea. These are parts of Japan.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Wulfe N.Straat>

0

Good| Bad

Wulfe N. StraatSep. 24, 2013 - 05:52AM JST

The only talk Japan should have with China over the Senkakus needs to be at the end of a gun. After the Senkakus, the PRC will demand Okinawa. After that, one of the principal islands of Japan. And then, of course, more and more.

It's time that Japan started thinking about recovering Manchuria and North Korea. These are parts of Japan<

Do it boy all are you just talk, No Action talk Only is that all you are good for, same topic everyday like with the usual group singing the same old tune.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Nigelboy,

That's what I said. Do you not understand the word "IF"? And why should US cared so much about China's protest again if there is absolute clarity about ownership and sovereignty about those islands?

How many times do I have to say this, China has been protesting since the 50s. Its all over the literary media and publication which incidentally were the same publications that the Japanese confiscated during WWII and made them for its own use.

History is written by winners. In this case, its really the US that won so we wrote that part of history despite protest from anyone. Japan simply got "lucky" that it surrendered and we forgave a large part of its cruelty and punishment as trade-offs of being an occupied territory under our rule. Its no secret that any agreement or law written during those periods were all designated and controlled by US. Nothing Japan can say or do were without US's approval, including any bi-lateral agreements. That part is clear.

So the mere fact of literary expressions in 1971 or 1972 matters zelch. Only one player was at the game. With or without China's protest, those islands were never meant to be given back to Japan due to its strategic location in waterway and potential natural resources. US knew about these Chinese protests for many years, it chose to consider its protest just when their relationship with the Soviets turned for the worse with the possibility of a gap for US engagement? Why do you think everything turned on China's way starting from 72?

These islands were basically concessions made by US. Just like everything else Japan had benefited from post WWII where its punishment and suffering should've been much greater. You should be thankful for what you have instead of getting greedy on getting back to that glorious past. Losers can't be choosers.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

china's refusal to take their case for the senkakus to the ICJ is because legally, they don't have a case. china's case is based on an old map which shows that in addition to the senkakus, they own parts of russia but their bullies so they don't want to mess with russia.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@sfjp330

In 1895, after China lost the Sino-Japanese War, both countries signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki which stated that China would surrender the island of Taiwan together with all islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Taiwan.

so the islets had owner before 1895 as you stated upper, right?

so the so called "Terra Nullius In International Law" which Japan keep basing on is actually unsteady, right?

Please answer me.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I hope the J-government does not walk into this trap. If they agree to these talks, then suddenly the discussion will turn from "disputed" to a time-table for handover.

If the Chinese communists want to lay claim to the Senkakus, they should address the International Court, instead playing these military and diplomatic games.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

PRC mentallity.......I am ready to talk peacefully with you if you admit that your house is mine! But, before we talk you must let me move in.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Joebigs,

Do you not understand the English language? China is simply asking for something that a 5yo would understand, which is for Japan to admit that there is an "existence" of a dispute on these islands. China is not saying that Japan must cede the islands in order to get back on the table.

Admitting there is a dispute is extremely reasonable and it is factually true that this is an existing dispute over the islands. A monkey can tell you that. What part of that don't you understand? Why must you people keep on putting false words on China's side?

You don't have to like or respect China but you can't put words on their mouth when it simply ain't true. To which you are no better than them when you're falsely accusing them.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Since Japan in 1951 ceded the rights of Okinawa/Ryukyu including Diaoyu/Senkaku to US in Trust, the part of history prior to any Japanese ownership pay Japan's claim that prior ownership of any territory should be nullified when a treaties is sign would defeat Japan's own assertions. You CANNOT have it both ways when it suits you. That's the biggest flaw in Japan's argument for ownership or legality.

Actually, it doesn't. This is what the Japanese actually gave up:

Article 3 Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands) ...Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

The whole thing about trusteeship never actually activated, so it was only the 2nd part. Compare this to how Japan surrenders sovereignty:

Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

Note the difference? In short, they gave up the administrative rights of the islands, but not the sovereignty. If she did not have sovereignty or would give it away, they would lack the legal authority to give up the administrative rights. And the world signed the treaty, thus recognizing all this.

Uninhabited doesn't mean unclaimed. The whole argument from Japan is Japan adversely possessed the islands in 1895. Problem is there was no such property law as adverse possession or ownership by discovery since the islands were labelled frequently in navigational maps by the Chinese traders and fishermen. It was not undiscovered or unclaimed.

Like it or not, a notation on a navigational map does not indicate ownership. At best it might be somewhat useful, if China contested the terra nullus claim in 1895, as proof that they at least knew about this island.

Then Japan argued that because of the treaty of shimonoseki that Japan should own everything it conquered.

As I understand it, Japan does not use the Treaty of Shimonoseki, except perhaps as a point that goes like "We got Taiwan through Process A, and Senkaku through Process B." Thus, they are clearly separate issues, and everyone at least implicitly accepted it as such at the time.

The 2nd part is the CEDING of the ENTIRE Ryukyu/Okinawa territory to US. Well, per Japanese standards, if you argue that the treat of shimonoseki is valid, then these islands most certainly don't belong to Japan and belongs to US. Because Japan ceded them until 1972.

Read above. The text of the treaty is clear. There was no transfer of sovereignty, only of administrative rights. The United States can only hand back the administrative rights because that's all it received in the first place.

Japan likes to argue that well, neither China, Taiwan or anybody else complained all that time so clearly they don't own anything. Think about those periods before talking out loud.

Nice try, but sovereignty is not one of the things you can concede, no matter how bad things are. You don't speak up, sorry.

There were articles over articles and protests by university students and scholars all over the major cities in China over these islands but no one cared because it was CCP China before 1978.

Since I'm sure that the CCP would already have deployed any scrape of paper going in this general direction, especially after they were caught with that map calling those islands the "Jianjiao" (the Chinese reading of the kanji Senkaku), I have to assume that any such claims are much exaggerated.

Do you know why US didn't cede sovereignty back to Japan?

It was impossible in any case because that would require that they actually have it ... they didn't.

Do you not understand the English language? China is simply asking for something that a 5yo would understand, which is for Japan to admit that there is an "existence" of a dispute on these islands. China is not saying that Japan must cede the islands in order to get back on the table.

OK, suppose that tomorrow, China makes a claim on Tokyo. Do you think Japan should "admit" the "existence" of a dispute for the ownership of Tokyo?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

That's what I said. Do you not understand the word "IF"? And why should US cared so much about China's protest again if there is absolute clarity about ownership and sovereignty about those islands?

Then why are you putting "if" to an argument that Japan never made? Japan's argument is that they legally possessed the islands via incorporation under terra nullius. Upon incorporation, they'd been effectively controlled without a single protest from China for more than 75 years.

As to your second part, if I were to guess, it probably has to do with U.S. administration at that time working towards normalizaing relations with PRC.

How many times do I have to say this, China has been protesting since the 50s. Its all over the literary media and publication which incidentally were the same publications that the Japanese confiscated during WWII and made them for its own use.

You can say as many times as you want but unless you could provide the source to this regarding Senkaku (which you have not) it's an empty argument considering the fact that there are at least three documents during that time confirmed and admitted by PRC that the island belongs to Japan(People's Daily 1953, World Atlas 1958/1960)

Face it. China has no legal standing whatsoever so they are left with this childish tactic equivalent of a 5 year old kid holding his breath. "Admit the dispute!!!" waaaaaa

5 ( +8 / -3 )

looks over at China in annoyance *

Okay guys, this is has gotten old, so lets get this out of the way.

There was a War. You Lost. Territory was taken by the Victor and even Mao ZeDong did not raise a fuss over it. You are just trolling the locals to distract from your own internal problems. It's old hat at this point. Get your coat, get out tha Door. And sit in your house and think about why people don't like you overly much

2 ( +3 / -1 )

highball7Sep. 24, 2013 - 03:03PM JST Joebigs, Do you not understand the English language? China is simply asking for something that a 5yo would understand, which is for Japan to admit that there is an "existence" of a dispute on these islands. China is not saying that Japan must cede the islands in order to get back on the table.

Highball, there is a reason we don't allow 5 yos to run a government.

Take a look at the language that the PRC is using," But first, Japan needs to recognize that there is such a dispute. The whole world knows that there is a dispute " do you see what they want Japan to do, yes it's the English language, but there is more behind those words than some folks can understand.

Let me help you out, first off the PRC is in a vise, they created this entire fiascal hoping that Japan would have caved like other nations, but it didn't and now the PRC needs to defuse the problem, but they also want to save face.

The proverb "you can't eat the cake and have it still" fits prefectly here.

Now, look again at next line," I believe there will be a day when the Japanese come back to the table of dialogue the PRC is trying to place blame on Japan for this entire fiascal rather than admitting they erred.

Now, here comes the part you discover how to play diplomacy, if you are in a position that is correct you don't admit that you are wrong.

The PRC wants Japan to admit they are wrong, yes a 5 yo child would go along with this, but an adult would not.

That's why we don't allow 5 yo children or adults who think like 5 yos to run governments.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The whole world knows that Japan and China have the dispute over these islands so to dispute there is no such dispute Japan is thinking like a silly thief worrying that by admitting the existence of the dispute can lead to admitting of such guilt. China is matured enough to say that there is a dispute so both sides should sit down and talk about it. Eventually Japan will have to admit that the excuses, such as incorporation based on terra nullius, China silence, absence of islands’ names in the treaties, discovery of resources, and no dispute, are downright silly. Japan is telling the world that we are all wrong because the dispute doesn’t exist, so who do you believe?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

There is nothing remarkable about the recent escalation Senkaku/Daioyu islands dispute. One gets the impression that the Japanese and Chinese diplomats on both sides are merely going through the motions. One side reiterates its decades-old position, and the other is obligated to respond, then it's back to business as usual. Diplomats are known for their limitless patience. Everybody knows that Japan will never relinquish the islands, which China claims as its territory.

Time will tell who was right. For now, the U.S. is probably regretting that it let itself get dragged into this conflict in the first place. U.S. does not deny that its goal was to provoke a never-ending Chinese-Japanese dispute while protecting Japan with its military bases. These "principled and consistent" positions dating many decades back look out of place in a today's world. The U.S. probably would have preferred to forget about consistency this time, as its support for Japan only serves to bring China and Russia closer together, but U.S. just could not abandon a position it has held for many decades.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

NO way. Japan must not meet them if they set the condition before a meeting. Chinese politics has the way to do things. They have been fully capitalized on the 45 sec. casual conversation between Kakuei Tanaka and Shu Onrai in 1972. They only hear what they want to hear. NO more meetings and no more tricks. Only the case we should meet them is that, talking the both leaders without any condition. As a result of our talk, what China requests Japan becomes a fact, fine. But not before our face to face meeting. If China is too chicken to have an unconditional face to face meeting, Just leave and go to ICJ to make the 3rd party make involved in this case. At this stage, I much prefer that way. The way they have been changing the issues and details based on their convenience, I can not trust Chinese government for this particular issue.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Flowers: Imagine you have a nice car, and have all the necessary legal documents as proof of ownership. Then a local thug turns up and says I want your car, give it to me. Of course you might have a 'dispute' with the thug over his bogus claims, but none-the-less that does not bring the legality of your ownership of the car into dispute.

For Japan, there is no legal dispute over who owns the islands. THE CCP are attempting to fool the Japanese into accepting their position might have validity which would turn it into a legal dispute. A dispute or argument requires 2 parties, and at the moment only 1 party is blowing hot air over this issue, and squealing because no-one else is buying into their unsupportable claims.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

flowersSep. 25, 2013 - 07:20AM JST

The whole world knows that Japan and China have the dispute over these islands so to dispute there is no such dispute Japan is thinking like a silly thief worrying that by admitting the existence of the dispute can lead to admitting of such guilt

When does China recognize there is dispute over independence of Tibet? When does PRC recognize there is another Chinese nation in Taiwan? When it does as the rest of the world does, Japan may think of the "dispute".

But then again, how does recognizing "disputes" promote friendship between the two countries? I think it will just lead to a situation no one wants and there is no way out.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

yourockSep. 22, 2013 - 10:00PM JST the foreign media I use, The Times and BBC, both use the word 'disputed'.

Ossan I know everything America writes:

Because the news sources are using the word to mean a difference in opinion/position between two sovereign nations. This article refers to the use of "disputed" in a legal sense- the recognition of which would prejudice Japan's position.

Well please correct foreign media then. You know better than the Times and the BBC. Really? These islands are disputed, who are you kidding? Just yourself then.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

yourockSep. 26, 2013 - 12:53AM JST "yourockSep. 22, 2013 - 10:00PM JST the foreign media I use, The Times and BBC, both use the word 'disputed'. Ossan I know everything America writes: "Because the news sources are using the word to mean a difference in opinion/position between two sovereign nations. This article refers to the use of "disputed" in a legal sense- the recognition of which would prejudice Japan's position. Well please correct foreign media then. You know better than the Times and the BBC. Really? These islands are >disputed, who are you kidding? Just yourself then.

I am sorry that my explanation went over your head. I do not need to correct the foreign media, they are using the term correctly in their context. It is you who has not grasped the concept of a legal definition. Without which this article would not make sense as evidenced by your continued confusion.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The resources in question are a very big issue but not the biggest threat. Needless to say, having China in your own back yard would be devastating from a military AND economic standpoint. If you give an inch, they will take a mile. Fair warning.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

SecularBeastSep. 25, 2013 - 01:41PM JST @Flowers: Imagine you have a nice car, and have all the necessary legal documents as proof of ownership. Then a local thug turns up and says I want your car, give it to me. Of course you might have a 'dispute' with the thug over his bogus claims, but none-the-less that does not bring the legality of your ownership of the car into dispute. For Japan, there is no legal dispute over who owns the islands.

If you owned the car, why would you pospone to talk about the issue for the future? In 1972, Japan could've said there is no dispute, but China's Zhou Enlai and PM Tanaka of Japan agreed on Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands issues being put aside for the time being, until the next generation finds a solution when they opened the diplomacy.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SecularBeast, your analogy doesn’t fly; you can’t simply say you have the car for awhile so it is yours. You didn’t do the title search, you didn’t announce to the world, you made up all the papers in your house. So, now the rightful owner came knocking at your door and you kept saying there was no dispute because you’ve had the car. The fact remains you don’t have title to that car and you are afraid because nobody believes you. Legality or whatever the dispute remains and nobody can deny it doesn’t exist. You only deny it if you don’t have enough evidence to support your claims.

CH3CHO, China’s never tried to deny any disputes, but what you mentioned about Tibet and Taiwan are internal matters just like Okinawa of Japan and Quebec of Canada. There is only one China and the whole world knows that, so it doesn’t make sense to make the comparison to the dispute between China and Japan. For many decades the islands dispute has existed but we didn’t hear much about it because China put a lid on it. The lid was opened when LDP wanted to use the dispute to get back into powers. Japan’s created all these mess and now told the whole world that there is no such dispute. The funny part is at first Japan admitted that there was the dispute but then later changed its position when it realized that its claims are not full proof.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

flowersSep. 26, 2013 - 07:50AM JST SecularBeast, your analogy doesn’t fly; you can’t simply say you have the car for awhile so it is yours. You didn’t do the title search, you didn’t announce to the world, you made up all the papers in your house.

That by far is one of the silliest attempts to justify your employers position. If you own a car you don't need to yell it to the world, it is yours same with Senkakus they are Japanese.

Now as for your employers new face saving tactic, well like they say, that dog don't hunt and that new master plan won't either.

The PRC's back is against an international wall and now it has to find a way to blame Japan and make Japan admit that it is the one that is wrong even though it is the PRC that is dead wrong.

But as with most silly stratagems conceived by 5 year olds this one will blowback on the PRC.

Maybe a few highballs were involved in their thinking process.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Resign yourself to a position of weakness and then we'll negotiate with you. Right, I see what you did there, China.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

OK, I lets bite. How about accepting that the Senkakus are disputed, under the condition that the PRC admits that the annexation of Tibet is disputed. And yes, of course, its claim to the souvereign country of Taiwan.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I wonder if the average schlub in China buys their government's position on the 'disputed islands'.....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What, do the Chinese think that Abe is the Japanese version of Neville Chamberlain? Peace in our time, right?

There's nothing for Japan to admit; this is just a grab for resources by territorial expansionism on China's part. They are playing the same game in India and the Philippines. They haven't learned a thing from history. If China doesn't drop this tactic it's going to lead to problems.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

JoeBigs, “announcing to the world” is one of the conditions to gain title in the international law. None of your neighbours seemed to know that you owned that car, and very sneaky in the way you acquired that car too I might add. The rest of your comment seemed to escape me. If you think PRC is my employer, you are dead wrong but I really wish it to be true though. I can say that I love China and I also love Japan, but from my reading and talking to a lot of people I can be certain that the islands really belong to China. What “face saving tactic” you are referring to? Isn’t it true that there is a dispute and we wouldn’t be here arguing back and forth if there is none? If Japan is matured enough then admits it so that a discussion can go forward. The problem here is that J gov’t has used “no dispute” tactic so it would lose face if it admits that the dispute exists and it would path a way to more legal problems. Basically it is an avoidance tactic instead of confronting tactic that is used by China. You just can’t avoid facing the issues forever. It is a political game that LDP is playing, so wait until the Japanese economy is faltering further and its political position is in jeopardy then it will turn to China for an instant boost to its economy. The way China has been handling these issues with Japan is very admirable. As China insists that there should not be third party interference, China didn’t go around seeking support like Japan. Now it turns out that the only support that Japan has is from the Philippines, used to have Vietnam too but Vietnam has been wiser up. Think about this with all the efforts and political maneuvering that Japan put in to seek support if the rest of the world does not support Japan, then Japan is definitely in the wrong.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

JoeBigs, here it is “under the Palmas decision, three important rules for resolving island territorial disputes were decided: Firstly, title based on contiguity has no standing in international law. Secondly, title by discovery is only an inchoate title. Finally, if another sovereign begins to exercise continuous and actual sovereignty, (and the arbitrator required that the claim had to be OPEN and PUBLIC and with good title), and the discoverer does not contest this claim, the claim by the sovereign that exercises authority is greater than a title based on mere discovery.” You can argue until the cows come home, but the facts remained that Japan incorporated of the islands in secret. I just don’t understand why you have to bring up Tibet. Tibet is part of China, even UN accepted that, and the independence movement is the internal affair of China. A lot of countries have insurgents who want to proclaim independence and use all sorts of ways to achieve their aims. The world would be more peaceful if no country should interfere in other country’s internal affairs whether it be for ideology or human rights. Every country has its way to advance forward. “You may love something for Japan, what you would love is to see it under the PRC's control like most of your friends and employer,” your words here really make me laugh. It is highly unlikely that China would want Japan to be under its control. Being close friends maybe, but it is very difficult because Japan is a pet of the US which always wants to interfere in other countries’ affairs causing destructions and countless deaths in its path. Wait until Japan gains its independence then friendship can develop further. BTW I have to thank you for insisting that PRC is my employer.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

flowersSep. 27, 2013 - 07:46AM JST JoeBigs, here it is “under the Palmas decision, three important rules for resolving island territorial disputes were decided: Firstly, title based on contiguity has no standing in international law. Secondly, title by discovery is only an inchoate title. Finally, if another sovereign begins to exercise continuous and actual sovereignty

And this entire arguement of yours ends with a few simple posts........

"China’s official People’s Daily as describing — on Jan. 8, 1953 — the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan’s territory"

Here is something funny, in 1945 the PRC was not a nation and was not involved in the Treaty of San Francisco, but as stated above in 1953 it did admit that Senkaku was part of Japan. Look up the People Daily article of January 8, 1953.

I won't bring up the Invasion of Ryukyu of 1609 and how Ryukyu came to be known as a tributary of Satsuma nor the Taiwan Expedition of 1874.

Nor, will I get into the Treaty of Shimonoseki and the fact that Li Hongzhang and Li Jingfang signed and agreed to it on behalf of the Emperor of China.

Now, what I find really funny is that the PRC (which didn't exist in 1945) changed it's mind about the Islands in 1968 when oil was discovered!

Hmmm, I wonder if the fact that oil was discovered had anything to do with their reversal?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

There's a reason why Shanghai's a verb.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

hineSep. 21, 2013 - 05:40PM JST

The two nations, Japan and China originally agreed the islands would remain disputed. It was Japan that then cunningly purchased the islands which has led to this entire uproar. . And now the US has to defend it because of their commitment to Japan under the alliance.Its ridiculous."

No, Japan never agreed to any such thing. Do you have any evidence of such an agreement, or are you just parroting Chinese propaganda? If you have any such evidence, kindly produce it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

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