politics

China tells Japan to respect its sovereignty over islands

64 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

basroilJul. 17, 2012 - 05:49PM JST

In the 19th century, Japan territory was keep expanding. It is true that Okinawa native were fishing there before the sino-japanese war. That Islands were not legally belong to Japan yet. Okinawa by itself became part of Japan in 1871. After 1895, Japan was a winner of War therefore it was no longer defacto realation with the Islands. It became an legal and rightful owner. When Japan lost the World War II, Japan territory was no longer large like before the war. Japan by itself governed by USA. They surrendered that unconditinonally. Treaty will be wriitten by winner not a loser of war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AthletesJul. 16, 2012 - 02:18PM JST

Sino Japan war treaty was singed in 1895. Actually it was biased to Japan. As Tamarama repeated said that that Taiwan is more rightful owner.

Except that the islands were incorporated a decade before and not covered in that treaty.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@ OssanAmericaJul. 14, 2012 - 10:27PM JST

Not according to China.

When Ching dynasty surrendered that Islands to Japan, People repulic was not born yet. Who cares about China at that time? It was a sick man of Asia.

Sino Japan war treaty was singed in 1895. Actually it was biased to Japan. As Tamarama repeated said that that Taiwan is more rightful owner.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is becoming clear to me that China has her own world view, and international law is not yet part of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nandakandamandaJul. 15, 2012 - 01:17AM JST

It is important to watch what China is attempting to do throughout all the seas to the east of the country.

Especially considering one of their ships "accidentally" ran aground in one of those islands just a few hours ago.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It is important to watch what China is attempting to do throughout all the seas to the east of the country. It would be a great mistake to take any one of these disputes in isolation. Here is a good description and map of how much ocean China is trying to take from The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc., and it sheds direct light on what is happening with the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands. Look at this and decide exactly who is being expansionist!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18842839

As China builds up her navy, she obviously feels tempted to flex her new muscles and use the fleet to pick out weaknesses and stake claims which will surely be difficult to reverse.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

AthletesJul. 14, 2012 - 03:42PM JST> Historillay, legally, geogrphically and geologically that islands belong to Taiwan.Taiwan is not a run away rouge state >of China.

Not according to China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

just-a-bigguyJul. 14, 2012 - 03:04PM JST

Joint exploration already, spread the wealth and everyone benefits. That was what exactly the Japanese is against!

No Japan has shown a 70 year history of being negotiable. China on the other hand in the last two decades has become a selfserving spolied brat eagfer to turn it's newfound economic power into military power to "bully" all of it's neighbors.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Historillay, legally, geogrphically and geologically that islands belong to Taiwan.nTaiwan is not a run away rouge state of China. It is known as Republic of China and one of the co-founder of UN security council. Until 1971, Taiwan was a member of UN and had a veto power as security council member. Due to the strategic and economic opportunity from China,it was isolated by major powers. Taiwan has own arm forces and indepedent political structure. Uncomfortable truth is Taiwan is sovereign except in name only.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joint exploration already, spread the wealth and everyone benefits.

That was what exactly the Japanese is against!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's all about $.................

" This came as Beijing invited bids for exploration of oil blocks in waters claimed by Vietnam, which sparked protests on the streets of Hanoi. "..........................

Would be interesting to see where the bids come from. That would be a good indication of " international support " for japan/China 's claim.

Joint exploration already, spread the wealth and everyone benefits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TamaramaJul. 12, 2012 - 08:21AM JST According the Geographic survey of soil and rock, Taiwan is a real rightful genuine owner of that islands.

Taiwan's claim would carry more weight if it were a universally recognized sovereign nation, rather than a run away rogue Chinese province.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

TamaramaJul. 12, 2012 - 08:21AM JST

Geographically, these islands look Taiwanese. Politically and legally they are Japanese. China really needs to think long and hard about what it stands to lose from this issue, as opposed what it stands to gain.

You have to remember Taiwan was a colony of Japan before. There is no justification about someone who owned island during the colonial time is a righful owner. For example,Taxas was owned by Spain and Mexico before. However Taxas is belong to USA now. According the Geographic survey of soil and rock, Taiwan is a real rightful genuine owner of that islands.

China lack the interest about that islands in ancient time. They started to show interest when they realized that islands are potienal for oil and gas. For peace and stability, both Japan and China have to give up the claim of islands.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do not get sucked in. This is how China plays. Whoever pulls a gun first will be a loser. Keep negotiating to keep China away.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

just-a-bigguyJul. 12, 2012 - 02:34PM JST

@Bob Sneider: Japan's expansionisms at present is no difference like 1930s, it was due to their statesmen infighting >causing deadlock and lack of progress that lead to public frustrations over their government! A few aggressive >politicians intended to seize power through nationalisms and the revives of ultra-xenophobia(except USA) to achieves >their objectives! Very resemblance Germany 1920s after defeat and hunilations(the trawler incident 2010) when >people sees depressions and desperated! Of course the entire disstability was approved by America's rightist think >tanks like Heritage foundation where backing Ishihara's bid of the Islands!

The only country closest to Pre WWII Germany is the one party dictatorship called PRC. Simularly it is threatening all of it's peaceful neighbors and on a territorial and miltary exapansion agenda. All of Asia (except North Korea-you can keep that one) is turning to the United States to counter the Chinese threat.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Dont think the island belongs to China... at least in my mind and since I was born the island always belonged to Japan. One of the posters said it best.

1) Georgraphically speaking belongs to Taiwan 2) Politically and legally belongs to Japan 3) China?! I don't know where their claims come from!!

And for that matter, Taiwan is not another "rock" that belongs to China. Taiwan is Taiwan... a separate and legally standing country with their own laws, constitution and democratically elected government. Only reason why Taiwan isn't recognized globally is political pressuring from China.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

nigelboyJul. 13, 2012 - 12:03AM JST

Nope. They were incorporated prior to that. They're not part of Treaty of Shimonoseki nor are they part of any territory taken by force or greed from other nations. It was simply a terra nullius before Japan's incorporation.

Ryukyu kingdom had some claim over the islands (in fact, the larger ones were considered part of it according to Chinese scholors), and they were formally accepted into Japan in 1879 along with Ryukyu (which had been a tributary and then fief ). In fact, the former Taiwan VP acknowledged that it was not Taiwanese land in the 70s.

Lets not forget that China only laid claims after resources were found, before that they didn't really care at all.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

nandakandamandaJul. 12, 2012 - 07:31PM JST The only country in that whole ocean area that is consistently expansionist, (apart from the United States), is China.

I think you are grossly mistaken. The United States hasn't been "expansionist" since the 1800s. The US does get involved economcally and militarily in foreign countries but we don't claim that land or declare it was always a part of the United States. Our obvious agenda is to establish democratic nations and develop alliances, something that sometimes works (Germany, Japan), turns into a longterm mess (Iraq, Afghanistan) or works in unexpected ways (Vietrnam). But the US agenda is nothing like the one displayed by China towards it's neighbors.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I would say that the treaty of Shimoneseki 1895 was a very unjust treaty of victors imposition after the Sino-japanese war, wouldn't you?

And the territories that Japan once gained from that treaty was relinquished after the war.

That treaty is the whole justification of the Senkakus being japanese, rather than them being Chinese.

Nope. They were incorporated prior to that. They're not part of Treaty of Shimonoseki nor are they part of any territory taken by force or greed from other nations. It was simply a terra nullius before Japan's incorporation.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Stuff like this actually makes me look forward to Ishihara putting a kouban on those damned islands just to ram the point home to China that it can't change reality just by making public statements with stuff outside of China.

This is a false issue - China is just setting up the next nationalist complaint among young Chinese to divert them from domestic injustice, and that will poison the next generation of good relations.

Crazy stuff

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

basroilJul. 12, 2012 - 06:36PM JST

Glad you agree that Japan owns the islands. China is actually making the stance that the transfer was done "illegally" under the dynastic system,

I would say that the treaty of Shimoneseki 1895 was a very unjust treaty of victors imposition after the Sino-japanese war, wouldn't you?

That treaty is the whole justification of the Senkakus being japanese, rather than them being Chinese.

Maybe you think the treaty of Utrecht has equal validation and Gibraltar has always been British?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Let me make a phone-call to God in order to verify China's "indiputable claim". I'm sure he does all the land title conveyancing.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think you might misunderstand something here. Unless you count tax revenue as "private donations", then the money which will be used is coming out of our pockets. Ishihara originally pressured bureaucrats to make "voluntary " donations, raised a shedload of cash which I would be very interested to see accounted for, and then the Central Goverment agreed to pay for the islands anyway.

Nigel said it well, however you still seem to misunderstand something about the issue. There is a difference between the national government purchasing the islands vs what Ishihara did, which was raise private donations, no tax money what so ever, to buy them.

If the national government purchases them, that's a different story. However if Tokyo buys them, then it will be through, 100% private dontations. The national government only got involved because Ishihara started the ball rolling.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@GW Interesting that you say this is an act of a desperate CCP trying to hold onto power. Chinese support for the CCP is at one of its highest points since the revolution - delivering double digit growth rates, pulling the majority of its population out of poverty and fulfilling its promise to elevate China to its 'rightful' place as Asia's hegemon. I don't follow your logic about desperation but I do see a point where the Chinese will demand a foreign policy reflective of its economic might. This issue could be a yardstick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Someone mentioned the word 'expansionist'. Japan, expansionist? Ha, ha, ha, gimme a break. They have been so quiet and on the back foot, that some countries like to come out and prod and tickle and try to get a reaction.

The only country in that whole ocean area that is consistently expansionist, (apart from the United States), is China.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

DogJul. 12, 2012 - 01:41PM JST

A change of government doesn't invalidate its existing territorial integrity without agreement of the new government that replaces the ancien regime. Isn't that japan's logic for still claiming the Southern Kuriles and the Dokdo Islands?

Glad you agree that Japan owns the islands. China is actually making the stance that the transfer was done "illegally" under the dynastic system, as it wants to ignore two treaties with the last emperor, as well as one done by the interim government.

China only announced their claim to the islands after JAPAN discovered resources there. They had twenty years to bring it up between the treaty that allowed the islands to remain Japanese. It's more or less as if Mexico wanted Texas back because it was once "their" land.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Like with Russia and the Northern Territories, possession is 9/10ths of the law.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Seems appropriate that the Chinese would use ancient diplomacy to make claims over ancient islands...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“As for our Japanese partners’ reaction—I do not care,” Medvedev said in comments carried by the government’s official website.

“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.

“Why? Because why would we discuss the presence of the head of the Russian government on Russian territory,” Medvedev demanded.

At last, I found something common between Japanese and Russian...Cheers...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Bob Sneider: Japan's expansionisms at present is no difference like 1930s, it was due to their statesmen infighting causing deadlock and lack of progress that lead to public frustrations over their government! A few aggressive politicians intended to seize power through nationalisms and the revives of ultra-xenophobia(except USA) to achieves their objectives! Very resemblance Germany 1920s after defeat and hunilations(the trawler incident 2010) when people sees depressions and desperated! Of course the entire disstability was approved by America's rightist think tanks like Heritage foundation where backing Ishihara's bid of the Islands!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Japanese have not given up on their expansionist policies yet...

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

The true Chinese government are in Taiwan (Republic of China) that was the founding countries of UN. And yes for the longest time- the emperor of China didn't stress or emphasize these islands and its value. While the Japanese WERE the aggressive nation, taking over one by one, and eventually colonizing and occupying Taiwan, there was no doubt that everyone wants a piece of candy. Currently the history is based on "Who got a flag and warship there first belongs to who." So whoever tries and comes in second- becomes the bad guy. Long time ago, there are APAC or UN, therefore there is no dispute or "military threats." Historically Japan has been the aggressive guy in the modern 18000-1900 taking up islands and claiming their fate.

And yes- Philippine government can keep their mouth shut. They just a little dog that are willing to bark and be mean to both China and Taiwan. Sadly no big dogs cares about how loud a small dog barks.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

basroilJul. 12, 2012 - 01:02PM JST And a whole 55 years before the People's Republic of China even became a country (and 17 years before the last dynasty fell and China became different territories). Between 120 years and 60 years, I think 120 years is far more.

That has to be some of the weirdest logic I ever read, even more wierd than the claim that the Senkakus have always been Japanese.

A change of government doesn't invalidate its existing territorial integrity without agreement of the new government that replaces the ancien regime. Isn't that japan's logic for still claiming the Southern Kuriles and the Dokdo Islands?

Or are we up to the usual japanese ploy of what is correct and just for the Japanese goose is not applicable to the non-japanese gander?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

DogJul. 12, 2012 - 10:33AM JST

1895 is a little more than a 100 years ago.

And a whole 55 years before the People's Republic of China even became a country (and 17 years before the last dynasty fell and China became different territories). Between 120 years and 60 years, I think 120 years is far more.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

DogJul. 12, 2012 - 11:32AM JST

You need to go and do a bit of basic legal reading and look up the term Ultra Vires

I might charge the japanese government rent for Sydney harbor bridge and I may eventually sell the Japanese government Sydney harbor bridge, but it doesn't mean that at the end of this the Japanese government will own Sydney harbor bridge.

I can't sell what I don't legally own.

Interesting, since by treaties signed between China, Japan, and US after WWII, these islands (and the ones disputed with Korea) were not excluded from Japan and therefore Japanese territory. All the purchase would do is return private land to public domain, much like purchasing land for roads and train tracks.

And the current owners can sell the land to whoever they want for whatever price they want, they legally own the land and have for many years now. Who they sell it do doesn't change the fact it is a Japanese territory though.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

time for japan to test a thermonuclear devise as a scientific experiment like they do with whaling...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You can thank corporate greed and stupidity for this problem. Without that money China would not be the rising threat it is. Something many people saw coming. But the corporates only see profit opportunities. So here we are.

Plain and simple, China is a threat to the rest of Asian unless she is contained, strongly, definitively and without hesitation.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

And always remember that Taiwan is another of these offshore islands that China 'owns' or will shortly if they can get the Taiwan government to join in baiting the old enemy Japan. I read a political commentary in a Chinese online national newspaper yesterday suggesting that by challenging the Japanese here, the Chinese are really aiming to get Taiwan friendly and onboard by using the issue of sovereignty over the above-mentioned islands.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I guess the time to shoot it out is near. Japan hasn't learned crap in the last 67 years and is bound to repeat the mistakes of its past once again!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Nigelboy.

You need to go and do a bit of basic legal reading and look up the term Ultra Vires

I might charge the japanese government rent for Sydney harbor bridge and I may eventually sell the Japanese government Sydney harbor bridge, but it doesn't mean that at the end of this the Japanese government will own Sydney harbor bridge.

I can't sell what I don't legally own.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

. Unless you count tax revenue as "private donations", then the money which will be used is coming out of our pockets

The Central government has been paying rent to the owner so there was already money being used "coming out of our pockets".

Ishihara originally pressured bureaucrats to make "voluntary " donations, raised a shedload of cash which I would be very interested to see accounted for, and then the Central Goverment agreed to pay for the islands anyway.

Ishihara made it public around April that Tokyo intended to buy Senkaku from the owner using Tokyo's budget stating "I'd prefer the Central government to buy but I don't trust them". And of course, the opposition mainly from the left bitched about the use of Tokyo's tax money. Then, Ishihara set up a donation account specifically for the purchase and development of Senkaku which I believe, was the plan for the beginning for he knew he would get sizeable contributions and support silencing the left. Now, the central government has stepped in possibly to save the declining approval rating of Noda's cabinet.

As the lease expires March of next year, it will be interesting how this pans out domestically as well as how China will react because once it's transferred to Tokyo or the Central government, the activities (survey, construction, frequent in/out of Japanese) will commence where the Chinese government can no longer create the illusion to her people that their territory is under Chinese control. (See nandakandamanda's post)

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Since you used the word "indisputable" that must mean they belong to you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am sorry to say this, but China today really dont need to take crap from anyone.

Simple facts are that nobody will mess with China, and Japan really shouldnt play with fire especially now. Give up the useless rocks already and stop wasting money and resources on it.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Herve Nmn L'EisaJul. 12, 2012 - 09:13AM JST

As usual, the chinese are full of ... stuff. The islands have very long been part of Yaeyama as fishing grounds and definitely NOT under chinese sovereignty.

For the Japanese, 1895 seems the beginning of time. Again Japan is trying to dictate the international narrative and again Japan will fail.

I stand on the fence with this issue. but the one thing I don't buy into is the the islands have been Japanese since the beginning of time.

1895 is a little more than a 100 years ago.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

China are not going to back down....this is going to get pretty ugly

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Pukey2, please be aware that Ryukyu is also claimed by China.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The islands have very long been part of Yaeyama as fishing grounds and definitely NOT under chinese sovereignty.

That's strange. I thought Yaeyama used to be part of an independent kingdom called Ryukyu.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Ivan I think you may misunderstand something here. The money being raised to purchase the islands is not coming from any public funds whatsoever. The money, 100% of it, is from private donations.

Yubaru, I think you might misunderstand something here. Unless you count tax revenue as "private donations", then the money which will be used is coming out of our pockets. Ishihara originally pressured bureaucrats to make "voluntary " donations, raised a shedload of cash which I would be very interested to see accounted for, and then the Central Goverment agreed to pay for the islands anyway.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201207070062

Now I'd like to see how our tarsally-challenged Governor plans to make good on his promise to defend the islands, now his little display has provoked a reaction from China.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Probably doing this in hopes that the general public in China will forget about the Bo Xilai scandal.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This is going to be very interesting, as to how it plays out. So what is the official status of the islands? Have they been Chinese territory for centuries, or do the Japanese (a Japanese family) really own them?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Jobert these islands are not part of Japan being a part of Okinawa. Japan needs to send in the heavier ships now and arrange for an air cap. Being weak toward china is a sin that generates it own punishment.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Why China is so afraid of UNCLOS when it is a signatory? It is its tactic to resort to bilateral talks in which it can intimidate the weaker nation, a prey on the predators paw. It's a shame for this growing superpower to exercise its military might against the weak and lowly neighbors. It's like robbing a poor fellow with its meager food in his hand while he is enjoying a sumptous food on his table. China: let these nations live on their own. Do not grab what is not yours just because you have the means. You are bound to obey international laws

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Had a quick read through some online Chinese mainstream papers yesterday and they act as if they really believe these islands do belong to China.

For example they said how could Tokyo plan to buy them when China is unwilling to sell? There is not a hint of recognition of the present owner.

Their patrol ships were sent there yesterday on a 'routine' patrol to make sure everything is as it should be...

I am not sure whether Japan is aware of the depth, the emotion, and the one-sidedness of the Chinese view. I suspect China may be getting ideas from S Korea.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

As usual, the chinese are full of ... stuff. The islands have very long been part of Yaeyama as fishing grounds and definitely NOT under chinese sovereignty.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

GW makes a great point which wasn't addressed previously.

The Communist Party will have their convention in Fall and one thing the leadership, namely Hu Jintao cronies, don't want the public to see any weakness.

Since the islands were owned by an individual, there was very little if ANY activity on the islands by the Japanese so China was able to create an illusion to their own population that China was preventing any activities by the Japanese there. If and when the government buys that land and survey/construction starts where Japanese are coming and going at their at will, it's going to create a doubt among the Chinese population.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

As I have been saying for a few years China is either going to implode, explode or BOTH, questions are only how & when. With China showing a lot of potential aggression towards ALL its neighbours that strongly suggests its domestic situation is becoming harder & harder to maintain the status quo.

The fools that lead China are looking more & more desparate, I wud not be surprised if they decide on aggression to one or more of its neighbours in order to prolong their rule in China.

Clearly China is on a bad bad road, no matter which way it goes the %$#@ is going to hit the fan, imo opinion any furhter investment in China is EXTREMELY unwise, but that also will lead to China ruin, simply put China is in for major pain pretty much unavoidable.

The region around China needs to prepare for this inevitable set of fireworks, the fuse has clearly already been lit!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

China is just like anyone else who wants to get what they can out of a situation. Since the islands have been sold at least twice I don't see where they would belong to China. But China, Taiwan and Japan are claiming ownership. I doubt any country would go to war over the isles. I know China would not start one, so ahead Japan an buy them.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

It is clear that these islands are the property of China. Their proximity supports their argument in a logical way. I am quite confident that China is not lying about this situation.

I'm extremely doubtful that Japan's government is telling the truth. It is not intentional that I doubt Japan's honesty. It is based on an evident consistent form of behavior by it's government that brought ONLY me to almost zero confidence in anything Japanese have to say on such matters.

These islands belong to China and they should assert their sovereignty over the islands even if force is necessary.

-16 ( +5 / -21 )

Geographically, these islands look Taiwanese. Politically and legally they are Japanese. China really needs to think long and hard about what it stands to lose from this issue, as opposed what it stands to gain. The countries with a vested interest in the region are already watching China very closely, as the Filipine Minister alludes to. An aggressive, expansionist China isn't going to be good for anybody.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Ivan I think you may misunderstand something here

That qualifies as an understatement of the year so far. You're too kind Yubaru.

Manila also wants ASEAN to condemn a standoff last month between Philippine and Chinese ships over Scarborough Shoal, an outcrop in the South China Sea.

Let's see. You had USS George Washington station near the coast of Vietnam after three days in which China test ran their first aircraft carrier while during 2011, Vietnam and U.S. conducted joint military exercize in South China sea under protest from China. India also participated in joint exercize with Vietnam, and a joint gas development between those two countries.

Most overused BS used here is "Japan doesn't get along with her neighbors". However, I must ask "who gets along with Japan's neighbors"?

7 ( +11 / -4 )

So I'm assuming, now that we've estblished Chinese sovereignty is in effect, we don't need to throw away billions of yen - raised by elevating our tax rate "to save the nation's economy", not for hubristic land grabs - on Ishihara's little imperial folly?

Ivan I think you may misunderstand something here. The money being raised to purchase the islands is not coming from any public funds whatsoever. The money, 100% of it, is from private donations.

There is no land grab either from the Japanese side. The islands are privately owned and leased by the national government. The only reason China and Taiwan started making any claims to the islands, which were returned to Japanese control at the same time Okinawa was returned to Japan in 1972, is iirc, because in the later 80's I believe there were findings made that there could be potentially valuable natural resources in the area.

No claims prior to that.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

It's no wonder that kids now a days here in Japan have a hard time listening to their parents and teachers telling them not to fight between themselves when adults can't take their own advice.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So I'm assuming, now that we've estblished Chinese sovereignty is in effect, we don't need to throw away billions of yen - raised by elevating our tax rate "to save the nation's economy", not for hubristic land grabs - on Ishihara's little imperial folly?

Perhaps the Governor might learn from this, and consider other strategies than xenophobic, bull-at-a-gate shrieking the next time he wants something? Nah, thought not.

I'm waiting for his pronouncement before lunchtime about how unfair it all is. But I bet you he still keeps the cash raised from bureaucrat dupes.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Blah blah blah. Keep spewing your crap China.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites