politics

China warns U.S., Japan, Australia not to gang up in sea disputes

115 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

115 Comments
Login to comment

China is trying to claim the world

21 ( +30 / -9 )

Not exactly.. china sea and some small islands definitely, the world? Definitely not.

-17 ( +7 / -24 )

Not exactly.. china sea and some small islands definitely, the world? Definitely not.

At least there are enough disputes for some pleasant reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Territorial_disputes_of_China

9 ( +12 / -3 )

No cause for concern, Australia annually commemorates ANZAC Day, a day which remembers the Japanese Bombing of Darwin, in which mainstream centiment is anti-Japanese but also they are anti-chinese dispite China literally fueling the Australian economy. If China stop buying the Australian economy will feel the heat right away. This is the western alliance for you, the Americans imposed taxes on imported Australian beef / lamb and other agricultural / poultry exports but yet they share the same race hence dispite the lack of trade benefits the Australian are still on the American leash, else Australia will not form alliance with Japan.

-28 ( +6 / -33 )

China is simply jealous because they have no allies. Oh wait! I forgot about NK.

18 ( +25 / -8 )

I urge communist PRC "to respect facts, distinguish right from wrong, be cautious, and stop all words and deeds that are not beneficial to the proper handling of the issue and undermine regional stability."

Oh, and it would really be nice if they'd stop trying to tell other people what to do.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

@Onniyama,

China never jealous about this.

Abviously China can join or build allies, but China claimed never joint any allies.

There must be a reason. and the reason maybe is that it is not a good thing to be in some allies.

-20 ( +3 / -21 )

PRC's logic: These so-called territorial disputes are really not international disputes at all because the territories do and have always belonged to China, so they therefore are merely domestic disputes in which other nations have no business meddling. Move along...

10 ( +16 / -6 )

AUS+USA+JP "ganged up" is still smaller than CHINA. That is like an up and coming bully telling the 3 smaller nerds I cant beat you up if you get together.

China can make its own allies. Too bad no one wants to. China wasnts to rock it ALL alone! Even the "EVIL Americas" have more allies than eneimes. China is too busy selling poisending food, coutnerfit muesem tickets, spearding its polluation, over its neighbors. Seriously The ONLY reason China and Japan are not BEST BEST friends is because their goverments are filled with stupid old men who cant let the past be the past. Guess who imporatnts and exports the most between Japan, China, and Usa. EACH OTHER!!!! Half the toursits that go to Japan are Chinese. Half the tourists that go to China are Japanese. Every time they fight about something stupid, the are just hurting their own econemies. JP and CN goverments. GROW UP! oh yeah... I guess that goes the same for USA too.

-11 ( +9 / -20 )

The Australian are still on the American leash, else Australia will not form alliance with Japan

If you are surprised why the Australian-American security relationship is so strong than go back and consult that history you referred to, the one where the US saved Aus from Imperial Japan.

As for the relationship with Japan and China, Aus is heavily dependent on both for trade and tourism, so we wont be the ones promoting any wars, containment policy or island stealing (unless the US says 'go' which may be inevitable).

10 ( +12 / -2 )

China does not respect international laws. That is the center of problems. They do not respect international laws, so they do not discuss in terms of laws, prove their argument or show any piece of evidence. They just rule that the islands are theirs. Welcome to the New World Order of China.

People outside of China take it for granted that nations must obey the international laws. China has not reached the stage of recognizing international laws. The issue is if the rest of the world can put China under rule of international laws or not.

15 ( +21 / -6 )

The howling of a loser holding back tears of desperation.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

David Elson@ You are right, Australia has never really benefited from the alliance with America, its just one of phycological and racial conditions.

-16 ( +4 / -20 )

Many nations want to be an ally of a strong nation just like the USA, but the truth is the strongest nation is the fewer, the the common nations are majority.

whatever the USA is stronger , he can't conquer the majority. and when the majority getting more and more stronger, there will no place for the USA to express his strong.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

How has China not respect or recognize international laws?

If these disputed islands, not islands but disputed islands because they are in dispute claimed by one party, while there is NO sovereign rights given, claimed or recognized by ANY party with those islands with any sort of international treatises or laws, then how can you say that China is not recognizing or respecting international laws when they actually have a legitimate claim?

Outside of this particular dispute of the islands, name one other matter that China has not respected or recognized international law?

Let's take a further analysis on this, the WTO, if a country is deemed disrespectful of international law, then a violation of any agreement at WTO would fall under this category. If that's the case, then every single country on earth has recently, meaning within the past 5 years, disrespected international law with China, US, EU and Japan in the forefront.

So CH3CHO, your post is like saying a driver has violated the speed limit on the road, so he must be disrespectful of the law. Its petty and pathetic.

-13 ( +6 / -19 )

@CH3CH3, You are the same with someone OsscanAmerican here, talk about international law all day, actually, all the international laws you are pointting at are base on unsteady conditions, if you can list, I can prove any of them invalid.

But what you are happy to say, the others are illegal or showing no respect to international law.

what kind of behavior is this?

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

What is China trying to get at here? The U.S has an obligation to protect Japan hence the 1947 U.S imposed pacifist constitution. So if Japan is attacked, the U.S is just suppose to sit by and watch? Because it sounds like that is what China is trying to tell them.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

We urge the relevant countries to respect facts, distinguish right from wrong, be cautious, and stop all words and deeds that are not beneficial to the proper handling of the issue and undermine regional stability.

This is noted.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

America, its just one of phycological and racial conditions.

Similar culture and history, not exactly race.

People outside of China and America take it for granted that nations must obey the international laws. China has not reached the stage of recognizing international laws, whereas the sole ruling super power USA makes and breaks international laws as it sees fit.

There. FIFY. Sadly I dont this will end well. History has show what happens when rising stars tangle with falling super powers and it's not pretty. Why cant every one shelve the endless disputes and focus on trade and internation exchanges.

Why not allow shared access to maritime areas? ~ whether it's the disputed islands between Japan-Korea, Japan-Russia, Jap-Taiwan, Japan-China, China-Everyone.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

China needs to focus the Chinese masses attention away from Beijing to other places, so we can forget about Tibet, etc...right??

13 ( +14 / -1 )

dispite China literally fueling the Australian economy

You have that literally backwards. Oz sent AUS$158 bil. in minerals and fuel to China last year. Oz is fueling China.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

International law says that a country that first established effective control of the land gets the initial territorial rights over the land. A country that respects international laws will discuss with its neighbors when it established effective control and show the proof of such effective control. China does not do this kind of things but just send armed boats or troops to its claimed territory. That is the proof that China does not respect international laws.

When China Japan Joint Communique was signed in 1972, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai said he did not want to talk about Senkakus, which was under Japanese control at that time, even though he cloud have raised objection to it or could have written reservation in the Communique. Since the Communique has a clause to preserve territory, Senkakus were set as Japanese territory.

When China Japan Peace Treaty was concluded in 1978, Chinese vice premier Deng XiaoPing said that Senkaku issues should be left for future generations to be solved, but Japanese side did not agree or disagree, and the Peace Treaty does not mention anything about senkakus. If China wanted to reserve their right to the Senkakus, it could have written something in the treaty or it could have exchanged letter of understanding with Japan. Maybe under Chinese law, unilateral words of Deng Xiaoping are more important than treaty agreed and ratified by the two nations.

China should show its effective control of Senkakus before 1895. As former PM Noda said September last year, Japan is open for settlement through international laws. If China can show older territorial title than Japan's 1895 title, Japan will concede the islands to China.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Tigger In The Hermitage

No cause for concern, Australia annually commemorates ANZAC Day, a day which remembers the Japanese Bombing of Darwin, in which mainstream centiment is anti-Japanese but also they are anti-chinese dispite China literally fueling the Australian economy

Firstly, what does this have to do with the topic? Absolutely Nothing.

Secondly, you are wrong about the Anti-Japanese sentiment. Australians are mature enough to understand that what happened in WW2 occurred 71 YEARS AGO in a completely different geo-political reality. It's a time of commemoration and reflection, NOT a Nationalist slanging fest. Australia and japan are absolutely friends.

Thirdly, Anti-Chinese?! Are you paranoid? Wrong again.

If China stop buying the Australian economy will feel the heat right away.

So will the Chinese economy - you are delusional if you can't see the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is the western alliance for you, the Americans imposed taxes on imported Australian beef / lamb and other agricultural / poultry exports but yet they share the same race hence dispite the lack of trade benefits the Australian are still on the American leash, else Australia will not form alliance with Japan.

Australia is a highly Multi-Cultural country these days, so the 'race' thing is moot. Trade is different to alliance, we all know and accept that. Japan is Australia's second biggest trading partner, and again, Australia as a mature nation does not hold grudges for eternity for past conflicts.

The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for China, or the Chinese. China continues to hate because it is not a mature, balanced, worldly nation yet. It is so obsessed with Japan that it wants desperately to overtake, and ultimately punish Japan, despite taking billions and billions of dollars from Japan in Foreign Aid and other forms of assistance. You seem to very conveniently overlook all the incredibly benefits Japan has provided for China over the last 60 years. Japan has been instrumental in China's rise.

You would do very well to remember that.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

Japan has been instrumental in China's rise. You would do very well to remember that.

Agreed. And a lot of the manufacturing occurring in China today still uses tech licensed from Japanese firms (where acquired legally). I'd say China has a lot more to gain in keeping their heads down than provoking USA/Japan into a war they cant win.

China's modern prosperity is built on trade (replacing America, Germany and Japan as the 'world's factory'), it would be relatively easy for America and her allies to block all trade and send China back to the 70s. Thus aside from rattling the sabre I dont see China taking the first strike. Too much to lose, too little to gain.

17 ( +19 / -2 )

Hmm....this Rhetoric seems familiar. Can't Call it the Russian Bear. Welcome, Dragon, it's beena while since we've heard this sort of thing. Pull up a table and have a seat.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

There is more than one way to skin cats. Start with the Chrysanthemum then the Kangeroo and the trilogy will end on its back. What is needed is long term strategy. America are is all about short term.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pot calls kettle black. Take your own advice, then china off.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

China needs to be careful threatening Australia like that, you know aussie has an alliance with NZ and they will back the Anzac brothers to the hilt. NZ will send both of their ships, and i'm sure they'll send the 6 guys who know how to fire the rifle.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Why did John Kerry raise the maritime disputes issue in APEC where has long been considered inappropriate to discuss issues of political security or sensitive and controversial topics? Simply because Obama didn't come and the US can't put up with that China play like a king in the conference! Nobody could defeat the US except that brothers (Dem. & Rep.) fighting at home and this is a perfect example. So Tea party is the best friend of China no matter how he orally mentioned!

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

@CH3CHO,

China had once effective controled these islets before 1895 for a long time, the ships of UK that went through there should get the permission of Chia, you know that at that time the technology of map is not so developed as now, China keep provideing the prove but you keep ignoreing them.

and then Japan controled these islets,

but now, China's ships come in or out freely. The effective control had already changed.

How to use the international law here? from which time to use it? why only choose the Japanese part?

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

“The United States, Japan and Australia are allies but this should not become an excuse to interfere in territorial disputes, otherwise it will only make the problems more complicated and harm the interests of all parties,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said on Monday."

It always kills me that they say this with a straight face. As if China themselves are not the cause of these "territorial disputes". Of course what they are really saying is don't group together to stop us, we want freedom to bully our smaller neighbors with impunity.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Ch3Cho,

None of what you mentioned are internationsl laws!!! I think you are confusing Bilateral Treaties between 2 sovereign nations with laws setup and recognized by the UN.

In 1972, China is not part of the UN nor has UN or the rest of the world include China in any form of agreement of treaties. And since it was US and Japan and decided matters on a territory which was being disputed at the time by a sovereign UN member ROC (Taiwan) as well as a non-UN member PROC (China), which the agreement in 1972 did not involve either nations, that point is moot. Neither ROC or PROC has any duty or responsibility to adhere or agree to anything of said treaties that didn't consult or recognize them in the first place.

In 1978, depending on what month you are referring to, there is no grand bargaining agreement as well noted on this particular island dispute. Since the power of administrative rights was given and administered by US to Japan, it was not consulted with China so China does not have to recognize it because it was a Bilateral agreement between US and Japan. It was not an International Law stipulated by the UN or by either disputing parties on ROC or PROC.

If China or Taiwan were not the parties involved in those Bilateral Treaties, then they do not have any responsibility to respect or recognize it. To simplified for you, if you and John Doe set up a contract and agree on purchasing said widgets or blackacre on island A, B, and C while those islands neither belonged to any party that registered its absolute sovereign rights to any international bodies or being recognized by any of its neighboring parties that holds historical interest over them, then the legal transfer of said widgets or blackacre only pertains between those said parties. And to accent the ridiculous of this legal transfer, it only listed the administrative rights, not sovereign rights.

So why does ANY third party have to respect or recognize a bilateral agreement that violated those third parties' security and svereign rights? There is NO international law here. That's a made up term by you in this case.

If there is a UN resolution or declaration stating that those particular islands' sovereign rights in absolute belong to ONE certain party with unimpeachable integrity, then you can say One party, in this case China has disrespected international law. Which in this case and in reality, China was simply doing what's best for China, much like Japan and US was doing what's best for themselves.

No law is broken or "disrespected" here. But I will say China is absolutely disrespecting Japan in every way by every method possible. And its understandable because they don't like Japan. The same thing as Japan is disrespecting China in every way by every method possible. Nothing wrong with that either. Just don't confuse emotions with laws. Japan's law and agreements with others not including China has no value in China.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Tiger_In_The_HermitageOct. 07, 2013 - 04:42PM JST

David Elson@ You are right, Australia has never really benefited from the alliance with America, its just one of phycological and racial conditions.

You are not very well informed, and that is really no surprise, as your comments right or wrong are pro PRC. I understand your right to express yourself in any way you please, another benefit not held out to the Chinese people, as the threat of imprisonment always looms over them! Never the less, the US government acknowledging Australia's part in WW2, have freely given 10,000 green cards to Australians every year for those wishing to live and or work in the US! Granted that isn't very much, but what has China done? Those dogs want to eat up the world, one can only surmise from their reactions and by their statements, demonstrate that they are now getting worried! Good be afraid, be very afraid, and start acting like the PRC preaches! Respect the sovereignty other regional nations. Your incursions are so ridiculously overt, how could the US, Japan and Australia not push back just a little!

10 ( +12 / -2 )

mgglifeOct. 07, 2013 - 09:30PM JST

@CH3CHO,

China had once effective controled these islets before 1895 for a long time, the ships of UK that went through there should get the permission of Chia

Good. If China could prove it, Japanese government would concede the islands to China. That is what PM Noda said at UN general assembly last year. Just prove it, rather than sending boats. But why is it only UK?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

China said on Monday the United States, Australia and Japan should not use their alliance as an excuse to intervene in territorial disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea, and urged them to refrain from inflaming regional tensions.

Yeah because that's not what alliances are for, right? (Oh, wait...)

It's interesting how they've tried to make it all the OTHER countries who are "inflaming regional tensions" rather than themselves. I'm sure China sees its own actions as acting in the country's best interest, while futilely attempting to disallow any other country from doing the exact same thing.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

China...go to the boo boo chair and take a breath. You aint in control of Australia. If Australia stopped sending resources China would crash and burn... What would China cause Australia if they stopped sending resources? Ahhh probably no cheap products...thats about it.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@CH3CHO,

China proved it for many times along with other materials.

because at that time, few nations went into that area.

I never said only UK.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

In other words, communist China wants to say "let's me bully around as I want". China has no face, their words are irrelevant. They are using money to buy favors across the globe. Oops...."it's a matter of internal policy"! Let's freedom rings in Tibet one day and sooner is better.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

If you are surprised why the Australian-American security relationship is so strong than go back and consult that history you referred to, the one where the US saved Aus from Imperial Japan.

The US saved Australia from Imperial Japan? When did that happen?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

mgglifeOct. 07, 2013 - 11:35PM JST @TheDevilsAssistant Actually, I laugh too, but the reason is opposite, someone or nation is so believe in the USA. LOL, MY GOD!

People are laughing at your posts which are cryptic at best and psychotic at worst.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

China sounds a lot like Japan did back in the 1930s.....

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

China's modern prosperity is built on trade (replacing America, Germany and Japan as the 'world's factory'), it would be relatively easy for America and her allies to block all trade and send China back to the 70s. Thus aside from rattling the sabre I dont see China taking the first strike. Too much to lose, too little to gain.

Good point. By forming this alliance along with others, they are essentially able to block the life line of China by controlling the sea lanes. All China can do is bark for, if push comes to shove, these alliance could realistically force China to starve.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

I have a good idea, how about we stop bickering each other knowing it would not affect anything at all on the situation while wait and see whether China will become the next Nazi as some of you believe or end up doing business as usual.

The US government is shutdown at the moment so let's see the outcome. If US do default then we might see China's true colors but if not we can discuss whatever comes next.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

China didn't start this. It was Noda who started it and it is Abe who refuses to talk about it. Japan can't be a trouble maker in Asia.

Japan shouldn't behave like a third class nation, play a role of trouble maker.

China won't move away, she is always there as a neighbor. Japan can't pivot out either.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

mulan

China didn't start this. It was Noda who started it and it is Abe who refuses to talk about it. Japan can't be a trouble maker in Asia.

Who told you that? Mushu?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

@USNinJapan2

Senkaku issue existed even before US transfer administrative right to Japan. It didn't become an issue when Japan and China reestablished relationship. It didn't become a problem when China waived Japan's war compensation. It didn't become a problem when Japan and China become integrated economically. It didn't become a problem before Noda and Abe, because Japanese people and Chinese people have wisdom to handle it.

What makes Abe think that it is a problem now ? If Abe can't handle the problem amicably, he should resign and let an able man to do the job.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 02:15AM JST China didn't start this. It was Noda who started it and it is Abe who refuses to talk about it. Japan can't be a trouble >maker in Asia.

Yes they did. Noda actually tried to maintain relations with China by preventing Ishihara from building on them. But China had made plans well before to try to take the Senkakus and used the J-govt purchase of 3 of the 5 islands as an excuse to start a diplomatic conflict.

Japan shouldn't behave like a third class nation, play a role of trouble maker.

Newsflash. Japan has been considered a first class nation for many decades. While China only got rid of the hole-in-the-ground public toilets in the last two decade. China is the trouble maker in Asia today.

China won't move away, she is always there as a neighbor. Japan can't pivot out either.

China can change, the Chinese people can find better life in a democracy and China can become a good member of the international community. Unless you enjoy authoritarianism.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

@OssanAmerica

Noda rejected Chinese advice not to "purchase" the Islands. That is not respectable, that is unilateral, that is coercive, that is aggressive and that won't change status quo of disputation. China was behind in last a few decades, but China also was a superpower for thousand years. China catches up so quickly, is it something that you should be reminded ? China is a good member of the international community, don't try to imply that she isn't. Did China force Japan to do things against Japanese will ? Don't force China to do what Chinese don't want to. Democracy means to respect will of 1.6 billion people.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

It is so abundantly clear who the Chinese readers are. Happily on this issue they have only shown the typical party line, that China is a loving and a benevolent country and as well as a world partner. No one buys that nonsense! The PRC, and its rabid child the DPRK who has just slammed Seoul's pact with US, are the ones who now perhaps understand that the world is not their playground, That freedom loving nations who enjoy liberties the Chinese do not and as such now shows China the world will not sit by and perhaps in a little stronger set of terms advise them that if they continue they will meet with objections which has apparently given them some pause. I am in no way saying that a war will erupt, I am saying that of late both the PRC, and the DPRK, have been running around causing so many overt acts, they needed to be given a dose of reality. Let them object all they wish, and one comment about “Did China force Japan to do things against Japanese will? Don't force China to do what Chinese don't want to. Democracy means to respect will of 1.6 billion people”. shows the true ideology of the Chinese, still have that little red book under your pillows?

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Is this a naked threat ?

I don't think Japanese people want another war with China, and I don't think Japanese people want threat China or contain China.

Japanese people and Chinese people have a lot things to share and a lot of things in common and have similarity in doing a lot things. But on thing that Japan and China differ in last 200 years is that China didn't invade Japan.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Japan is reluctant to try to change the US-Japan alliance even if they were dissatisfied with it. At the same time they do not desire a Japan with a strong military either. Japan could become a U.S. or Chinese colony if its people do not act to protect themselves. Japanese no longer have the image of Japan as a national identity. Japanese only think of their town, their family, their company. That is why Japanese are unable to change Japan on their own.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I knew it. If China keeps up their stupidity they're going to find out that they have no true friends nor allies. Just a whole lot of peeved people.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I see the big red dog is barking once more. China reminds me a lot of Argentina, rattling the sabres with another country over disputed islands instead of focusing on the issues at home. China doesn't care about the Senkakus/Diaoyu, only the resources available in the region, in much the same way that Argentina doesn't care about the Falklands, only the gas and oil. Britain was able to prove it's claim on the Falklands, and so far Japan is the only one with proof of a claim to the Senkakus. But China won't back down on the issue. Admitting that you're wrong is no longer considered a sign of maturity, but a sign of weakness. They're stuck in that mind set. They're going to keep sending military ships and jets into the area, destabilising the integrity of the region, and the Japan/Australia/USA is eventually going to say "enough is enough" and cut off China's sea trade routes. They'll establish a trade embargo, and China will suffer heavily for it. Maybe when they've regressed into a third world country, they'll finally learn some humility and apologize for acting as petulant children.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Fox Cloud Lelean Oct. 08, 2013 - 06:52AM JST Japan/Australia/USA is eventually going to say "enough is enough" and cut off China's sea trade routes. They'll establish a trade embargo, and China will suffer heavily for it. Maybe when they've regressed into a third world country, they'll finally learn some humility and apologize for acting as petulant children.

How is Japan, Australia and U.S. going to do that? Japan depends on China for 21 percent of their GDP. and 20,000 Japanese companies in the mainland China. U.S. and Australia also depends heavily on the trade. What if China freezes all their bank account and their companies? Then what?

These neighboring countries could never get together to form a grand alliance against anyone. Even with a planned increase in a budget, a resurgent Japanese military would take decades to build and would never be able to challenge China outside of mainland Japan. The U.S. can't subsidize the worlds third largest economies defense forever. Japan's spending of billions are nothing compared to the cost of the fleets, aircraft, and military personal U.S. subsidize their defense with. Do you really think Japan would spend almost nothing (1 percent GDP) on defense if U.S. didn't assure for their safety. Indirect subsidize and direct subsidize all the same.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 03:26AM JST @OssanAmerica Noda rejected Chinese advice not to "purchase" the Islands. That is not respectable, that is unilateral, that is coercive, >that is aggressive and that won't change status quo of disputation.

The J-govt has always owned 1 of the 5 islands. What difference does it make to China or their silly claim whether the J-govt bought 3 more? And they bought them from J-nationals not Chinese. As early as 2003 the Chinese PLAN had declared their intent to break the first island chain and taking the Senkakus would be the first step. Fomenting territorial disputes as a means expanding territorial claims was well underway on the Chinesesode before the Noda administration bought the 3 islands. In 2010 the Chinese government through the wholly controlled East China Seas Fisheries Research Agency, which controls over a thousand Chinese fishing boats, ordered the trawler to the Senkakus to ram the two JCG vessels in order to start an international incident to pave the way for an all out effort to take the islands. No, it did not start from Noda or the J-govt buying 3 of the 5 islands, that is pure C-govt propaganda.

China was behind in last a few decades, but China also was a superpower for thousand years.

So was Greece, Egypt, Rome etc etc. How is that relevant to today?

China catches up so quickly, is it something that you should be reminded?

Perhaps you need to be reminded that China was able to do so with help from others, starting with JAPAN, with which it signed the 1972 Treaty of Friendship reaffirmed in 1978 and completely ignored now that China got what it wanted. Japan built the first electronics factory in China at THE REQUEST OF CHINA in 1978. Western nations followed afterwards leading up to today's economic position. Do terms like gratitude, appreciation and humility not exist in the Chinese language?

China is a good member of the international community, don't try to imply that she isn't. Did China force Japan to do >things against Japanese will ? Don't force China to do what Chinese don't want to. Democracy means to respect will >of 1.6 billion people.

Sorry but China is NOT a good member of the international community. The entire world would like it to be. But all China's Asian neighbors feel that China is the biggest threat to the region. Respect the will of the people?...who are legally not allowed to voice an opinion contrary to the official government position, can be prosecuted for advocating democracy, have no vote in selecting their leaders. China is a one-party dictatorship that is protected by the PLA. Do you think this represents the "will" of the 1.6 billion Chinese people? Do not confuse your pride in China or it's culture with the Authoritarian Chinese regime.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@Fox Cloud Lelean

You are not a Japanese, are you ? East China Sea is water link Japan and China and is shared by both since Japan ever existed. East Asia has nothing to do with Australia, get out.

Japan and China can handle the dispute.

Abe isn't smart. He should remember that Japan-China friendship treaty forbid use force for dispute. To use MDT with others is wrong, is against Japan's treaty with China, and isn't in Japan's national interest.

East China Sea is China's front yard, and also Japan's backyard. To make trouble at own yard is simply stupid.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

OssanAmerica Oct. 08, 2013 - 07:34AM JST China is a one-party dictatorship that is protected by the PLA.

China's political system is not much different than Japan. Japan is pretty much a one party system. How you could have a democracy with only one party in control? Yet, Japan is consistently listed as a democratic country. The model does seem much closer to a socialist one.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@OssanAmerica

You don't understand law, do you ? Which international law says that an individual can hold a title of sovereignty ?

What Noda nationalized is just a piece of property, has nothing to do with sovereignty. Japan gave up her title for the claim by accepting potsdam declaration. Case is closed.

China has 14 neighbors, land linked, the largest number in the world, and most territorial disputes with neighbors are resolved through negotiations peacefully, without single bullet. You call that the biggest threat to the region ? How many neighbors does Japan have and how many of them are happy with the way that Japan handles disputes ? Dose Japan resolve any disputes with neighbors without threat of force ?

Japanese people and Japanese business are welcomed in China and their help are greatly appreciated and reported in China, publicly, from the president to ordinary farmers. China never down plays Japanese friendship.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@mulan

China tries to have better perception internationally, but they are having a credibility problem on how other countries view China on improving its image overseas. Still many people in international community question what China is actually trying to do. Not too many people understand the Chinese culture, values and institutions of China. U.S. is very clear with their objectives. U.S. policies are for democracy and values of human rights that attracts many countries. Most people do not know what is China's core values, and the character of China's soft power cannot be identified. China actually has no soft power because the values comparable to western democracy or human rights are absent in China. China's government has promoted the "harmonious society" but this has been taken as a joke by many of its own people who clearly understand the real purpose of the slogan.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 02:37AM JST

Senkaku issue existed even before US transfer administrative right to Japan. It didn't become an issue when Japan and China reestablished relationship. It didn't become a problem when China waived Japan's war compensation.

All during that time, Senkakus were under Japanese control. If China had no problem when Senkakus were under Japanese control, they are undisputablly Japanese territory. Mulan, this is how international laws work.

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 03:26AM JST

Noda rejected Chinese advice not to "purchase" the Islands. That is not respectable, that is unilateral, that is coercive, that is aggressive and that won't change status quo of disputation.

Chinese president does not have any right to make the prime minister of a foreign sovereign nation to behave as China wants. Chinese should understand this well. Thinking that foreign nations should act as "advised" by China is "unilateralism". There is nothing coersive in the land purchase deal between the Japanese citizen and the Japanese government.

What is more important is there is no written agreement between China and Japan that status quo of Senkaku should be kept unchanged. A piece of unilateral "advice" from Vice Premier Deng Xiao Ping does not bind a foreign sovereign nation.

Learn international laws. Prove Chinese effective control of the islands before 1895, and Japan will concede the islands to China.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I AGREE WITH CHINA'S REMARKS. I believe diplomacy should be used in lieu of threats. I also believe after WWII the US signed up authorizing some lands to go to Japan. Therefore, under these agreements, China & South Korea are losing some land.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Seems the only china support is coming from those that also still support their own suppression and that of the tibetans. No surprise here.

But there are international laws that China does not obide by and one alone is China's claim within Philippines 200 mile economic zone. Go home China, you are thousands of miles from your homeland you thieves. Don't you Chinese understand yet that your leaders have still only one objective, control and power and they have that over you and you like it. Very very much a society based on totalitarian rule and the mindset based on the rule lies, deception, censorship and isolation.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@CH3CHO

You don't understand laws at all, do you ? China protested each time and every time, how come Japan controls ? Control means Japan acts as state owner but Japan never has the title.

Japan knows that the disputable nature of the Islands and should be respectable to other side's feelings. Japan is rude, coercive and aggressive when Noda broke promises existed between Japan and China for 40 years to unilaterally "purchased" the Islands. If Japan doesn't respect international diplomatic norms of territorial protest by both China and Taiwan, China does right thing to send in ships. You ask for it and you get it.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Japanese people and Japanese business are welcomed in China and their help are greatly appreciated and reported in China, publicly, from the president to ordinary farmers. China never down plays Japanese friendship.

LOL. Right, except when mobs of Chinese riot against and damage the Japanese embassy/consulates, destroy Japanese businesses (even ones owned and operated locally by fellow Chinese), and demonstrate against Japan whenever the PRC gov't throws them an anti-Japanese bone. If that's your definition and standard for showing welcome and appreciation then perhaps Japan should reciprocate in kind in order not to seem rude. Of course they won't, because the Japanese are civilized.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@tyvtgo1US

If you are a Filipino, you have no business in East Asia Sea, get out. You are a trouble maker in South China Sea, stay there, would you ?

The Islands claimed by China in South China Sea has historical basis. Chinese claimed Islands are as close as within 160 miles from PH coastline. Similar situation happens through the world, from Europe to North America, Asia isn't any special.

Last thing, stop dragging Japan into South China Sea to make troubles. Already troubles are being made in East China Sea.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

All readers back on topic. Please keep the discussion focused on what is in the story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry but after the war, the US was the occupying force and the islands could have started ours. :-) so no matter what history, history from that time should be seen as any other war where those that once had control, no longer does. Sorry China for your bad luck. That why US puts its support towards Japan and gave Japan administrative control of them, again, sorry China for your loss. I have experienced the borrow mindedness of my Chinese friends over time and can understand how they could not imagine if everyone that had lost something back through history, all of a sudden wanted to reclaim it. Could you imagine the chaos that we would be experiencing today!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@CH3CHO,

Learn international laws. Prove Chinese effective control of the islands before 1895, and Japan will concede the islands to China.

what if you or Japan gov't always ignore the evidences that China or other nations provided? Just like the problem of comfort woman, there are uncountable evidences, but Abe keep saying there is no evidence...

if you can't answer this, please never ask for others to prove it, because it is too irrational .

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Wow spell check really screwed up my post . Could have started ours= could have stayed ours.?

Borrow= narrow

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 10:13AM JST

China protested each time and every time, how come Japan controls ?

It was you who said China had no problem with Japan occupying Senkakus. If China wanted to protest, it should have put something in the text of Joint Communique or the Peace Treaty.

Japan had free access to the islands all the time, while China had no access to the islands. Japanese government issued the ownership title to the Japanese owner. The ownership was recorded in the land registry of the Japanese Government. Japanese local government collected property tax from the Japanese land owners. Japanese government borrowed the islands from the land owners so that no person without government permission would go to the islands. These facts make it clear that the islands were under Japanese control.

Noda broke promises existed between Japan and China for 40 years to unilaterally "purchased" the Islands.

Who made that "promise" and when? An agreement between nations must be signed and ratified. Who signed that agreement?

If Japan doesn't respect international diplomatic norms

What norms? The Japanese owners had the right to sell the islands. Japanese government had the right to buy the islands. The land purchase does not affect territorial rights of any country. The deal is by no means a diplomatic issue.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

@tyvtgo1US

Which international law says that occupying force can make decision of sovereignty ?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 10:53AM JST

Which international law says that occupying force can make decision of sovereignty ?

You are right. An occupying force cannot unilaterally decide the sovereignty. The rule also applies to China.

Japan has solid case after 1895. What China has to do is to prove its effective control before 1895.

mgglife, you have never presented any evidence that China had effective control of the islands before 1895.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@CH3CHO

You don't study history, do you ? You don't know potsdam declaration, do you ? Japan abandon her claim when she accepts the declaration, you don't understand it, do you ?

If "control" is a factor for territory claim, without sovereignty, then Japan should be part of US now, then Japan should gives up her claim of Islands taken by Russia now.

Do you understand ?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

sfjp330Oct. 08, 2013 - 07:49AM JST "OssanAmerica Oct. 08, 2013 - 07:34AM JST China is a one-party dictatorship that is protected by the PLA. China's political system is not much different than Japan. Japan is pretty much a one party system. How you could >have a democracy with only one party in control? Yet, Japan is consistently listed as a democratic country. The model >does seem much closer to a socialist one.

That's really nonsense. The 3 island were purchased by the govt when the DPJ was in power. Now it's the LDP. When has China been run by anything other than the CCP since the PRC was founded? Furthermore the JSDF protects the country regardless of what party is in power, as is the case in all democratic nations. Not so in China.

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 08:27AM JST @OssanAmerica You don't understand law, do you ? Which international law says that an individual can hold a title of sovereignty ?

Sure do. It's you who is confusing equitable title with national sovereignty.

What Noda nationalized is just a piece of property, has nothing to do with sovereignty. Japan gave up her title for the >claim by accepting potsdam declaration. Case is closed.

You clearly have never read the Potsdam Declaration text which refers to "minor islands being excluded". You don't get more minor than uninhabited rocks. Furthermore Japan was to lose territories taken by force. The Senkakus were not, although China now makes this fabricated claim about Japan having taken it in the Sino-Japanese War. Even though the Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the war and listed Qing territories to be handed to Japan makes no ,mention of the Senkakus. Case is closed, China has no legal basis for a claim.

China has 14 neighbors, land linked, the largest number in the world, and most territorial disputes with neighbors are >resolved through negotiations peacefully, without single bullet.

Peacefully? China has invaded India. They have invaded Vietnam. They have used force with the Philippines.

You call that the biggest threat to the region ? How many neighbors does Japan have and how many of them are >happy with the way that Japan handles disputes ?

ASEAN calls China the biggest threat to peace in the region. China's non-transparent military and overt territorial expansion which is self declared makes them a threat. The US, Australia, Japan, India all agree.

Dose Japan resolve any disputes with neighbors without threat of >force ?

Since 1945 Japan has NEVER even attempted to solve any disputes with the threat of force.

Japanese people and Japanese business are welcomed in China and their help are greatly appreciated and reported >in China, publicly, from the president to ordinary farmers. China never down plays Japanese friendship.

You have forgotten the anti-Japan riots, the smashing of cars and stores, damage to the Japanese consulate?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 11:18AM JST

You don't study history, do you ? You don't know potsdam declaration, do you ?

Potsdam Declaration

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

Cairo Declaration

The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion.

Republic of China was one of the Three Great Allies and promised it will not expand its territory. Since Senkakus had never been Chinese territory, making Senkakus Chinese as spoils of war violates Cairo Declaration, for so doing is expansion of territory. Because of one China policy, the promise of Republic of China is binding to Peoples Republic of China, just as it inherited UN membership from Republic of China.

"Such minor islands as we determine" were largely determined by San Francisco Peace Treaty. Japanese sovereignty of Okinawa Islands was confirmed and Okinawa was put under US trusteeship. Then, US put Senkakus under occupation as a part of Okinawa trusteeship. China did not make any objection to the US occupation. In May 1972, Okinawa was returned to Japan and Japan occupied Senkakus. In September 1972, China Japan Joint Communique was signed, while Senkakus were under Japanese occupation. The communique had a clause of mutual preservation of territory. No objection was written in the communique. So, China is deemed to have consented to the disposal of Senkakus by San Francisco Peace Treaty and Senkakus are Japanese.

You see. Japanese claim after 1895 is solid. China has to show its effective control before 1895.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

@CH3CHO,

You see. Japanese claim after 1895 is solid. China has to show its effective control before 1895.

This can prove nothing.

There are lots of isles arround Japan which have no name not drawed in the map of Japan, can other nations from now to show effective control on them to prove they are the owner? Can use the reason that Japan show less effective control over them?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

China said on Monday the United States, Australia and Japan should not use their alliance as an excuse to intervene in territorial disputes

US is struggling to pay the bills, interest of sky rocketting debt and wages of public servants at the moment. It is not the national interest or economic benefit for minding other business. Actually Senkaku was a US territory before. US does not want and leaving disputed nations for settlement. Will Japan and Australia join US forces for another adventure in the middle east? Likely answer is NO. Therefore American blood and money should not be wasted for Japan and Australia interest.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

US is struggling to pay the bills, interest of sky rocketting debt and wages of public servants at the moment. It is not the national interest or economic benefit for minding other business. Actually Senkaku was a US territory before. US does not want and leaving disputed nations for settlement. Will Japan and Australia join US forces for another adventure in the middle east? Likely answer is NO. Therefore American blood and money should not be wasted for Japan and Australia interest. >

Two questions;

1) how are the disputes Islands' Australia's interest?

2) What makes you think that Japan would be so aggressive in defending their perceived territory if America wasn't backing their security to the hilt?

No one would benefit from WW3, but Japan will benefit if it can maintain it's existing maritime territory (bountiful natural resources lay beneath the sea), and America certainly benefits if it's number one economic competitior is contained and restrained within a ring of America's allies (Taiwan, Japan, SKorea, Filipines; with Vietnam recently being added to the list).

I can see China has its eye on retrieving long lost territories, but regardless of any long forgotten treaties, if Japan and America don't agree, China just won't be getting it back (same goes for Taiwan).

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Mulan

I think you have a selective view of history - a 'Red' set of spectacles, if you will.

The fact is that there is virtually no evidence proving that these islands were considered Chinese before 1895. There are a couple of maps that have the islands marked, but ownership is not clearly stated. Knowing about something is not the same as owning it. Then there is the issue, and the legal precedent, that China ceded the islands to Japan in 1895. Irrefutable historical fact.

The Islands were then placed under the administration of the US under article 3 of the San Fransisco Peace Treaty - but were not renounced by Japan, a salient point, and one that China or Taiwan did not object to at that time. In fact, neither China nor Taiwan raised any concerns over this arrangement until 1971. Atlases and Maps printed in Beijing by the Chinese Communist party for schools in China and Taiwan in 1950's, 60's and 70's have the Senkakus clearly marked as Japanese territory.

Ultimately, the US handed the administration of the Islands back to Japan, so there is no real dispute here. The Islands sit equidistant between the closest Japanese Island, and Taiwan - and a LOT further away from China, so even on purely geographical grounds, China comes last.

China has no real claim here, despite China's best efforts to twist and re-shape the argument in their favour. You are simply regurgitating that official party line.

Your nationalistic pride might be dented by this fact, but it's simply true. China has no compelling case here.

I am neither Chinese, Japanese, nor American and I can largely view this issue without emotion or favour.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

China does not respect international laws.

Actually it is Japan that does not respect international laws since Japan's claim over these islands is a violation of all major WWII peace treaties and agreements such as the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), Japanese Instrument of Surrender (agreement to the terms of surrender), San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.

The followings are some of the relevant clauses that showcase Japan's violation.

Potsdam Declaration:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

Japanese Instrument of Surrender:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."

Imperial Rescript of Emperor Hirohito

"Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

Emperor Hirohito's Radio Broadcast

"We have ordered our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration."

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Article 2 (c)

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

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 29 deg. north latitude (that's the island chain between Kyushu and the Diaoyu islands)...

And this is the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as described by a disclosed US document:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization (UN trusteeship as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

When China Japan Joint Communique was signed in 1972, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai said he did not want to talk about Senkakus

They did talk about the sovereignty issues between China and Japan in general. And Japan did promise to comply with Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration which says Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine.

This is what the 1972 China-Japan treaty says:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Guru29Oct. 08, 2013 - 05:44PM JST

"Such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine" include Senkakus. With regard to US and UK, it is clear because of San Francisco Peace Treaty and following US occupation of Senkakus under Okinawa trusteeship. With Soviet Union, it is cleared by Soviet Japan Joint Declaration of 1956. With China, since China did not raise objection to occupation of Senkakus by Japan when China Japan Joint Communique of 1972 was singed, China is deemed to consent to Japanese sovereignty of Senkakus.

You see. Japan maintained sovereignty of Senkakus because of Article 8 of Potsdam Declaration. Once it is confirmed that Senkakus belong to Japan, China no longer has any right to change the Japanese sovereignty of Senkakus.

In addition, Cairo Declaration prohibits territorial expansion of China. Senkakus had never belonged to China and grabbing of Senakakus by China is nothing but territorial expansion, which is prohibited by Cairo Declaration.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Japan has more than 6000 Islands and the territory can't be described in potsdam declaration without making a long list. The term "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." is there for a reason.

Senkakus are never associated with the above mentioned main Islands and separated from them not only by vast distance but also deep trench.

If Abe has the same basis as some here claimed they have, China is in big trouble. Chinese have to teach not only history, friendship, international law to Abe when they talk, but also geography and arithmetic.

By claiming back Senkakus/DiaoYu doesn't mean China expands, it is part of China. I believe "expand" means into the four main Islands mentioned above. China claim back Heilongjing, Jilin, Liaoning and Taiwan, do you call that expansion too ?

Some Japanese disappointed me.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

There are lots of isles arround Japan which have no name not drawed in the map of Japan, can other nations from now to show effective control on them to prove they are the owner? Can use the reason that Japan show less effective control over them?

That's not the point. As many international legal precedence indicates, effective control consists of such actions as incorporation, setting up markers, executing exclusive commercial licences, assessing taxes, etc. What Japan is claiming is that Japan did this without any interuptions from China for decades. Furthermore, China has never, prior to 1895, showed the above referenced actions which constitutes effective control. The mere fact that People's Daily article and their World Atlas recognized them as Japanese territory during the 50's and 60's clearly indicates that Japan did in fact, incorporate them as terra nullius. Bringing this to ICJ will be a joke and an embarrassment to PRC. No wonder they are resorting to this stupid game of cat and mouse.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

With regard to US and UK, it is clear because of San Francisco Peace Treaty

That's just a lie. The San Francisco Peace Treaty merely stipulates that Japan must give up its claim over the Ryukyus (Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg north latitude) for the US to hand over these islands to the UN under the UN trusteeship system (UN system for decolonization) for future independence. The San Francisco Peace Treaty does not mention the Senkakus/ Diaoyu which is further south to south of 29 deg north latitude.

By the way, Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty actually does not deviate much from what was originally agreed between the US and China in the Cairo Conference:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization (UN trusteeship for decolonization as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

Therefore, it is clear that on the territorial aspects, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was mainly drafted based on what have been agreed between the allied countries in Potsdam Declaration and various other conferences held between them before the end of WWII.

US occupation of Senkakus under Okinawa trusteeship.

It is the UN trusteeship system, the UN system for decolonization. The trusteeship did help plenty of former colonies throughout the world to gain independence since its foundation as can be seen from its website:

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtmlAs can be seen from its website:

With Soviet Union, it is cleared by Soviet Japan Joint Declaration of 1956.

That's another lie. Not only that the Joint Declaration between Japan and Soviet Union has got nothing to do with the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, it doesn't supersede the Potsdam Declaration too. In fact, none of the four allied countries has nullified the Potsdam Declaration even until now.

With China, since China did not raise objection to occupation of Senkakus by Japan when China Japan Joint Communique of 1972 was singed, China is deemed to consent to Japanese sovereignty of Senkakus.

That's another lie. Both China and Taiwan (ROC) did lodge formal protest to the US for handing over the administration of Ryukyu and the Senkakus/ Diaoyu to Japan as the Senkakus/ Diaoyu is Chinese territory and the US ought to have handed over Ryukyu to the UN for future independence as agreed between China and the US in the Cairo Conference and according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Further more, the Joint Communique of 1972 between China and Japan says this:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

Japan maintained sovereignty of Senkakus because of Article 8 of Potsdam Declaration.

How is it so when Article 8 of Potsdam Declaration actually says the exact opposite:

"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

Cairo Declaration prohibits territorial expansion of China.

Then why does Cairo Declaration say "All the territories Japan has taken from China shall be restored to the Republic of China." and not the other way round?

By the way, you have posted plenty of lies in your post. Why don't you go and learn some real history about Japan instead of telling lies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@nigelboy

Since when a single map can determine territory ? Each year and every year, there are million map printed for variety reasons. Some for tourists, some for navigation and some for territorial purposes.

Only the first map has value to claim territory, based on international law that first discovery, first own.

China may had map that didn't mark Senkakus but it is very different from saying that it is Japan's, or saying it isn't China's.

As I said, map alone never is an evidence for claim. It has to be th first map that matters.

I have a feeling that some Japanese get crazy about the basis. If Abe has the claim, admit it and talk about it and let law determine who owns it. Refuse to talk about the dispute is in fact a showing of weakness.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Since when a single map can determine territory ? Each year and every year, there are million map printed for variety reasons. Some for tourists, some for navigation and some for territorial purposes.

It doesn't. Historical maps are rarely given weight in terms of evidence. However, from an individual who aren't familiar with the subject, it's an embarassment to China as it clearly indicates that their claim or assertion began after the discovery of underwater resources by U.N.

The Japanese government position is that there is no dispute. Personally, I say there is no dispute for the simple matter that China has not proposed to settled the issue via the official legal organ in U.N. called ICJ.

Like I said, China has no case.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@nigelboy

How many territorial disputes are resolved by international court ?

China has all evidence and law to prove the case, yet China doesn't reject Japan's claim, that is a sign of strength.

Do you see the difference ?

Japanese can have any positions she would like or prefer, but common sense is that you can't take bizarre positions.

I have strong case for China but if China decides to share the Islands with Japan, I will support it too.

In the end, the friendship between two great nations matter most. If it means sacrifice, then let it be.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

How many territorial disputes are resolved by international court ?

If both parties signes the declarations recognizing ICJ jurisdiction, then all.

China has all evidence and law to prove the case, yet China doesn't reject Japan's claim, that is a sign of strength.

Haven't seen one yet. Until they show up to ICJ and present their case, I see it as a sign of weakness.

I have strong case for China but if China decides to share the Islands with Japan, I will support it too.

Sorry. China doesn't have a reputation of "sharing". It's their own fault for having such image.

In the end, the friendship between two great nations matter most. If it means sacrifice, then let it be.

Just shut up and take it to ICJ.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 09:51PM JST Japan has more >than 6000 Islands and the territory can't be described in potsdam declaration without making a long list. The >term "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor >islands as we determine." is there for a reason.

I'd say you are wrong. How much more MINOR can islands get than some uninhabited rocks? And the only proven habitation were a couple hundred Japanese, with no evidence or record of Chinese habitation?

Senkakus are never associated with the above mentioned main Islands and separated from them not only by vast >distance but also deep trench.

Distance and trenches have no bearing. The Potsdam agreement referred to Japanese Territory and no one doubted that the Senkakus were Japanese or that they were not taken in war.

If Abe has the same basis as some here claimed they have, China is in big trouble. Chinese have to teach not only >history, friendship, international law to Abe when they talk, but also geography and arithmetic.

China is hardly in a position to "teach" anybody anything. Other than perhaps how to keep 1.6 billion people under control through totalitarian means.

By claiming back Senkakus/DiaoYu doesn't mean China expands, it is part of China. I believe "expand" means into >the four main Islands mentioned above. China claim back Heilongjing, Jilin, Liaoning and Taiwan, do you call that >expansion too ?

We are talking about the Senkakus. They were never Chinese. It is territorial expansionism. All part of the Chinese PLAN's long term goal of challenging the United States, according to them.

Some Japanese disappointed me.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@OssanAmerica

"We are talking about the Senkakus. They were never Chinese. "

I am convinced that you don't study history. It is not only my view but also many Japanese scholars' view that Senkakus were part of China before was taken by Japan.

But the point is that Japan renounced it at the end of WW2. That is very important legal basis.

As for the dispute itself, many Japanese and Japanese leaders recognized the dispute.

Tanaka even gave lectures about it to junior politicians.

All above is very well publicly stated facts through publications and interviews, by Japanese in Japanese.

Again, we have separate two issues here, 1. dispute, 2. sovereignty.

China's position is that she recognizes the dispute but firm on sovereignty. Abe's position is that reject the dispute and firm on sovereignty.

Abe's denial isn't helpful in resolving the issue.

I hope Japanese people push and support Abe to admit the fact that it is disputed and from there both sides have a candidate talk about sovereignty.

I think China is more flexible and friendly than Abe.

Abe has no authority to take Japan to an died end and leave a broken relationship with China to future generation.

If he wants PM, he has to acts like a PM.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"China said on Monday the United States, Australia and Japan should not use their alliance as an excuse to intervene in territorial disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea, and urged them to refrain from inflaming regional tensions."

Or else, what exactly?

Hollow threats and projecting their own behaviour onto others betrays the CCPs insecurity, and its inability to reasonably justify its attempted land grabs in the region.

A message from democratic Australia to the CCP: Sod off, you can't tell us what to do or who to be friends with.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@mulan. In a war, specifically in this war, the US took control of these territories, fact in history! So they were ours, law or no laws. So being ours as we forcefully occupied them and ownership, we were the ones to give administrated control to whoever we decided, it was our choice as we took claim to them. I do not know how much simpler that can be. You fight a war won it and what you won, it is yours period. Same as Philippines after the war ended and Philippines was an unicorperated territory of the US. When you win a war, it means you have the ownership of what you won. Is that hard to understand, it has been a part of history from the beginning of time. Do not play dumb.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

sfjp330Oct. 08, 2013 - 07:49AM JST OssanAmerica Oct. 08, 2013 - 07:34AM JST China is a one-party dictatorship that is protected by the PLA. China's political system is not much different than Japan. Japan is pretty much a one party system. How you could have a democracy with only one party in control? Yet, Japan is consistently listed as a democratic country. The model does seem much closer to a socialist one. - See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/china-warns-u-s-japan-australia-not-to-gang-up-in-sea-disputes#sthash.6vnAseGE.dpuf"

How can you say that Japan is a "one party system" when several parties are represented in its parliament and in fact the government just recently was the DPJ? In a democratic country like Japan any political party is allowed to run candidates in an election. In China there is no political opposition allowed and no universal suffrage and no free elections. The two political systems are totally different; Japan is a democracy, China is an autocracy. Do not try to pretend that they are the same.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@tyvtgo1US

"law or no laws. ... You fight a war won it and what you won, it is yours period. ... When you win a war, it means you have the ownership of what you won. Is that hard to understand, it has been a part of history from the beginning of time. Do not play dumb."

Based on what authorities you made such an unlawful statement ?

Read "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314" before you make any further moronic post.

It seems that some people here never learn from the past, they still worship the same old dark side.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Mulan no matter how much you want to argue that black is white and the sky is green will not make it true. China teaches its own history apparently compared to the rest of the world that acknowledges. Take this argument over to other countries in the UN and China will be shown up for re-writing history the PRC government wishes it would be. China is a country but it is not the rest of the world. There is a saying, "get out of your own back yard to know what goes on beyond the gates." China thinks its own back yard plays the same as the rest of the world. Which is never ever ever going to work on a global scale.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

mulanOct. 08, 2013 - 11:54PM JST @OssanAmerica "We are talking about the Senkakus. They were never Chinese. " I am convinced that you don't study history. It is not only my view but also many Japanese scholars' view that >Senkakus were part of China before was taken by Japan.

Well you are very incorrect. Likewise I am convinced you learn history only from official CCP government sources. The Senkakus were not part of China. Japan incorporated them as Terra Nullis in January 1885 after conducting the required search that they were not owned. Chinese maps from the 1950s and 60s show these islands to be Japanese Territory. China's position only changed after the discovery of potential oil/gas deposits in the area leading to China's claim in the early 1970s. There is no record or evidence of Chinese ever inhabiting these islands. In fact the on;y evidence of humans is a couple hundred Japanese that worked a fish factory there.

"Inside the Ring has obtained a classified Chinese map that is likely to further muddy Beijing’s territorial claims. The 1969 map, produced by the People's Republic of China map authority and labeled “confidential,” lists the islands as “Senkaku,” the Japanese name, and contains a dividing line south of the islands indicating that they fall within Japanese territory. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/15/inside-the-ring-145889960/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PRCmap-senkakuislands.jpg

http://www.commentary.com/chronicles/senkaku-diaoyu-dispute_mofa-201209-exhibit4_map-1960.pdf

How about a January 1953 article from je PEOPLE'S DAILY? http://www.commentary.com/chronicles/senkaku-diaoyu-dispute_mofa-201209-exhibit2_peoples_daily-1953.pdf

But the point is that Japan renounced it at the end of WW2. That is very important legal basis.

No Japan did not renounce it. Please actually read the Potsdam Declaration and you will see the words "minor islands" as being excluded. Furthermore the Senkakus were never take in war which was the basis of taking territories away from Japan.

As for the dispute itself, many Japanese and Japanese leaders recognized the dispute. Tanaka even gave lectures about it to junior politicians. All above is very well publicly stated facts through publications and interviews, by Japanese in Japanese.

Again, we have separate two issues here, 1. dispute, 2. sovereignty. China's position is that she recognizes the dispute but firm on sovereignty. Abe's position is that reject the dispute and >firm on sovereignty. Abe's denial isn't helpful in resolving the issue.

Japan's LEGAL POSITION is that there is no dispute., Just like Russia says there is no dispute in the Southern Kuriles. and South Korea says the same for Takeshima. China wants Japan to agree that there is a dispute to weaken Japan's position. They aren;'t going to comply as there is no benefit for them to do so.

I think China is more flexible and friendly than Abe.

Yes it's easy for the thief trying to steal someone's house to be more flexible than the person living in the house. The thief has nothing to lose since he had no house to start with. And China is showing it's friendliness by sending government ships to what they call the "disputed islands" every day? In society we call that intimidation. And it's not friendly at all.

Abe has no authority to take Japan to an died end and leave a broken relationship with China to future generation.

If agreeing to anything China says and groveling at their feet is what you consider a "relationship" all countries are better off without a relationship with China.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

A Realist Oct. 09, 2013 - 01:51AM JST How can you say that Japan is a "one party system" when several parties are represented in its parliament

If you look at the history, the LDP consistently maintained control of the government from its creation in 1955 to 1993, practically monopolized government leadership and control in Japan. Japan had one-and-a-half party system for almost four decades.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

OssanAmerica Oct. 09, 2013 - 03:37AM JST Japan's LEGAL POSITION is that there is no dispute., Just like Russia says there is no dispute in the Southern Kuriles. and South Korea says the same for Takeshima. China wants Japan to agree that there is a dispute to weaken Japan's position. They aren;'t going to comply as there is no benefit for them to do so.

Neither side wants the settlement of this dispute to set an unfavorable precedent for the resolution of other similar troubles. For China, the sovereignty of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands has a strong implication for concern with their sovereignty in the South China Sea. The reason that China cannot soften its attitude toward the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands is clear. If it softens its posture over the Senkaku/Diaoyu, it might be considered as softening of its position on the Spratly and Paracel islands disputes in the South China Sea. For Japan, the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute also implies Japanese attitude toward the territorial disputes with Russia over the “Kurile Islands” and with Korea over the Dokdo Island. Any softening on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute might undermine the Japanese claims to both the “Kurile Islands” and the Dokdo Island. Since international credibility is taken into account, both China and Japan are adamant and steadfast in their claims to the disputed islands.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

sfjp, As I have stated earlier I believe China miscalculated when they decided to go "open" with their shot at the Senkakus. Thjey did not expect Japan to resist this hard, for reasons you correctly point out. And China has put itself in a positon where it can not back out either, nor just with respect to the South China Sea disputes but in terms of having to tell the Chinese public that they are unable to get the Senkakus "back" after they convinced the very same public that Japan "took them". Personally I hope we see demonstrations against the CCP dictatorship.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Guru29

Do you know what "trust" means? The sovereignty right of Ryukyu Islands remained with Japan. It just trusted the islands to the US. The situation is like Hong Kong. The sovereignty of Hong Kong remained with China but it is governed by UK. In 1972, the trust was terminated and Japan recovered administrative rights of Ryukyu, while the sovereignty remained with Japan all the time.

It was the understanding of the all signatory to the San Francisco Peace Treaty that Ryukyu Islands include Senkakus. That is why US occupied Senkakus based on trusteeship. If Senkakus belonged to China, US occupation of Senkakus would be nothing but US occupation of part of China. Do you admit that China was under occupation of the US?

China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States

I know. But that Joint occupation of Ryukyus never happened. President Roosevelt died years before San Francisco Peace Treaty. Chiang Kai-shek was confined in Taiwan at the time of SFPT. China cannot say US occupation of Okinawa was joint US China occupation.

Every nation that signed San Francisco Peace Treaty will laugh at China if China says Japanese occupation of Senkakus is violation of Potsdam Declaration. US returned Senakaus to Japan, after checking all the international laws and was convinced that it does not violate any international law.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

*>`@mulan???

Senkaku issue existed even before US transfer administrative right to Japan*

Really? When? How? What?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I see a lot of pro PRC claiming without proof that the Diaoyu belong to China. Prove it. Japan, as has been repeatedly pointed out here, have solid claim sating back to 1895. Can China provide evidence, actual evidence of sovereignty before then? No, apparently not. I've seen mention of "being on the first map" as evidence. Really? Pretty sure that when the Roman Empire drew up maps, it didn't claim the surrounding nations as its own. It went out and conquered those lands before claiming them. Are you suggesting that I could chart a previously undiscovered Pacific island and claim it as my own? I'd love to see that happen. At best, I'd get to name it. But I would have no claim over it, even if I set foot and planted a flag. I'm sure the Chinese leader could teach PM Abe some things, if he would actually talk to Abe that is. No, he's too busy rattling the sabres behind the scenes and saying nothing face to face. How courageous and strong. Japan has held sovereignty since 1895, as has been acknowledged by China. Control was taken from them by the UN in accordance with post war treaties, but Japan never renounced the islands. They were later returned to Japanese administration. Throughout this whole time, China had no objections. Then the UN says that there's a lot of valuable resources around the Senkaku's and suddenly China has an issue with the islands. How transparent. About as transparent as their military activity. I've seen Abe being criticized, but China's leader isn't any better. If he were, he would maturely bury the hatchet and admit Japan has sovereignty. Take it to ICJ, and settle the issue once and for all.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

China warns U.S., Japan, Australia not to gang up in sea disputes

China. In that case, as long as China refrain from disrespecting the territory of Japan, Vietnam, India, Philippine, also make Tibet, Uighur and other ethnic grope people free and treat them respectfully. Disband the department of Okinawa autonomy in the gov. of China. Make all the information available for the people of China and free internet access situation. Do not fabricate history. Make the military budget transparent like other countries. Do not control information. Stop anti Japan education. No more tactful deception. Do not control your media. China release all illegally arrested prisoners include some Chinese professor Shu Kenei at Toyougakuen Japan.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

China can complain all it wants but it does not change the facts that it's bullying is not working and wont work and will never work with countries in the region that have self respect and so they should just quit this silly effort to grab resoruces and territory using 19 century tactics and stone age aggression.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Ho-hum. China warns, China urges, China refutes, China advises, China rebukes, China denies, etc., etc., etc. Does anybody care? Does China ever wonder why it is so mistrusted and disrespected?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

China warns, China urges, China refutes, China advises, China rebukes, China denies, etc., etc., etc. Does anybody care?

If you ask Japanese businessmen, American businessmen and Australia businessmen, they do care about China more than their families. China is an irrestiable enormous market for their goods and service. No nation on that earth has rising consumption of huge population. Of course politicians from both nations are uncomfortable for China human rights record and hard line policy for territory dispute. However politicians are influenced by wealthy business people. Not the other way around.

According marketing wisdom, China tennis super star Lina is sponsored by Australian Crown Casio Ltd. US Shoe giant Nike is sponsoring ecountless sporting events for expansion of market in PRC. Japanese car makers Toyota and Honda are fierecely competing for market share in China too. Their languane is profit instead of politics.

Militarily, China is inferior and backward. However it has the gravity of explosive market power for attracting business people from all over the world. There is no suprise that it will flex market muscle for political gains.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

what are they going to do, poison our chicken choy mein? China, never going be accused on taking the high road on anything

3 ( +4 / -1 )

U.S.A. in dire condition today! Disfunctional government, cash shortages, raging poverty, failing cities, internal turmoil, inflation, unemployment, not the Empire you once knew, not the Disneyland illusion at all. Caution, this may affect theor decisions?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It appears that China has boxed itself into a corner with no way out. China against the world. I wonder who will win? I am putting my money on the world.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Australia just wants to do business and for state actors to all get along. We don't consider any country an enemy in any sense of the word. We have friends in the US military, but we also trade a lot with China. We're not going to be forced to "pick a side" between the two powers. We have our own agenda that goes beyond petty nationalism and neo-tribalism.

Let's face it. This world is not really a world of nations and peoples anymore. It's a world where the major corporations of the world are the nations, and their employees are the people... and they are all global.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

China is trying to claim the world

Ha, why shouldnt / wouldnt they want that? Back when the British were the super power, people would of viewed America in the same way they see China now.

What Im getting at is can you blame them? No, most countries want to rule the world - all of which will do terrible things behind close doors if you give em the chance.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I swear, if China were to grant Tibet independence, some people would find a way to criticize the move and accuse China of some Machiavellian machination. For some, China just can't do anything right and is trying to claim the world.

China is just trying to defend their claims to some islands near their mainland, and their claims are not much more or less valid than the similar claims of Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, Brunei, Russia, South Korea, North Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam. Its just that some people want to make this all about slamming China and are not interested in facts and the big picture. Its lame and pathetic and we all know who is doing it.

Everyone involved needs to grow the hell up, including China, but also many posters here.

Some evidence that gets overlooked (intentionally) is that there is a Japanese map from 1785 clearly giving the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands Chinese names, that Japan claimed the islands while in a state of war with China and that the Chinese made their claim to the U.N. just as soon as they were able, and that was when they were finally recognized and admitted by the U.N. after being ignored for decades.

And I am not even saying the islands belong to China. I am just sick to death of all this childish behavior on both sides. Grow up people. See how it suits you.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

People all over the world, regardless of what country they are from have a tendency to slam dictatorships and authoritarian rule. Many Chinese outside of China are highly critical of the PRC. There is no doubt that China is using it's economic and military force to "bully" it's smaller Asian neighbors. So they really have nothing to complain about if democratic nations like the U.S., Japan, Australia maintain alliances and support these smaller weaker nations.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

China dropped the gloves and wants Japan to pick it up alone because they have fear whole world will chase them back like they did with Hitler.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

china wants japan weak. china wants korea weak. china wants manila weak. china wants vietnam weak.

beginning to see a pattern here?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

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