politics

China's behavior jeopardizing peace, Onodera says

62 Comments
By Huw Griffith

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

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

62 Comments
Login to comment

China isn't interested in peace over this issue.

This is an issue linked to pride and power and winning for Beijing. It's deeply rooted in the way China sees itself, and it's history and political and social schisms for the last 120 years, and I get the feeling is something they see as the ultimate exclamation mark on the rise of the New China. To take something from Japan. To subjugate their old master. To test if there really is resistance to their power and rise in the East, and whether the US are really serious about trying to prevent it.

When the Japanese Government purchased those Islands a few years ago, it opened up the possibility of finding a diplomatic solution - a mutually satisfactory solution, should they have wanted to. But China's reaction since has absolutely excluded that possibility. It has forced Japan's hand increasingly the other way - to now seriously thinking about how they will defend the Islands if they need to.

That's not peace. That's not being a good neighbour.

China have an axe to grind, and the sparks are flying. You only need to read the Chinese posters here on JT to see the Nationalistic venom that is barely concealed in each post as a result of the ramped up Nationalist rhetoric.

It's sad, and won't end well.

18 ( +25 / -7 )

So its clear then that China will not stop, continue it's military and territorial expansion, with the full intent of accomplishing it's goal of becoming the dominant strategic power in Asia after kicking the United States out of the western Pacific. No, it's not going to end well at all.

14 ( +20 / -6 )

Just a matter of time before Japan wakes up and finds china station on those islands

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Do you know why Japan uses “no dispute” stand? Not because there is no dispute per se but because it can remove its obligation under the ICJ rules. If Japan admits there is a dispute it will be forced to accept the ICJ’s decision without recourse should China decided to take it to court.

Japan is the signatory for Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory. ALL CHINA has to do is sign the EXACT SAME DECLRATION and bring forth the suit and Japan has no choice to not only show up but to abide by the ICJ decision.

So what are you waiting for China?

15 ( +23 / -8 )

nigelboy Oct. 30, 2013 - 08:15AM JST So what are you waiting for China?

The question is whether the China can be bound by UNCLOS courts and tribunals, including its arbitral panels. China ratified UNCLOS in mid 90's, but seven years ago, China filed a statement with UNCLOS saying that it "does not accept any of the procedures provided for in the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes of the Convention." These provisions of the Convention refer to "Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions" the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an "arbitral tribunal" which may refer to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), and a "special arbitral tribunal."

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

japan never learned their idiot mistakes.

-29 ( +6 / -35 )

Isn't it interesting how the accuser is often guilty of what he accuses the other person of doing.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

-18 ( +8 / -26 )

The question is whether the China can be bound by UNCLOS courts and tribunals, including its arbitral panels.

We're not talking about UNCLOS.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

OssanAmerica Oct. 30, 2013 - 08:42AM JST People can read news from various global sources and they know that it is China that is provoking Japan and other Asian countries.

Japan has to deal with the plain fact of China's ever growing leverage with the U.S., not just by being the leading purchaser of debt and keeping the U.S. economy humming along, but as the world's largest market potential for American goods and services, and keeping North Korea in check with strong influence over the closed nation. Facts are China has grown to a critical state of importance to much of the rest of the world's nations as well due to its market, as a manufacturing base, and its capital investments. The growing political influence now from entire Asia, Africa to the Middle East as economic muscle. China is important player to the rest of the world not just the U.S.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

This is not a dispute between China and Japan, but part of China's expansion throughout the East China Sea and South China sea against the nations of Japan, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam.

Interesting report with visuals and audio about Chinese actions in the South China sea against the Philippines:

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/?emc=eta1

9 ( +15 / -6 )

You need to have dispute in order to present your case to International Court of justice's, if there is no dispute why bother with it.

Japan say there is no dispute and want to go to ICJ ?, is this japan version of ICJ?

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

nigelboy Oct. 30, 2013 - 08:50AM JST We're not talking about UNCLOS.

So, perhaps it’s not surprising that China’s now also beginning to push its case legally, invoking UNCLOS’s provisions on delineating continental shelf rights beyond its 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Japan is talking about UNCLOS.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

So, perhaps it’s not surprising that China’s now also beginning to push its case legally, invoking UNCLOS’s provisions on delineating continental shelf rights beyond its 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Japan is talking about UNCLOS.

Sorry sfjp330. There is already a precedence set forth where a median line is used for overlapping EEZ in ITLOS between Myanmar and Bangladesh. China can argue part of the Pacific Ocean based on continental shelf but since there exists a first island chain, their recent submission to the Limits to Continental shelf will be limited to East China Sea.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Japan say there is no dispute and want to go to ICJ ?

By suggesting there is no dispute, I believe Japan is merely saying they think they are right. I don't think they are suggesting there is no disagreement.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Onodera is right, of course...

14 ( +17 / -3 )

Japn and China are the same in many ways.

-17 ( +5 / -22 )

What a pathetic pair of losers these two countries are sometimes. "China, stop poking your sister. Japan, stop teasing her." Get real and grow up, you bunch of snivelling twerps, before Uncle Sam has to come along with a giant paddle and provide some adult supervision.

-22 ( +4 / -26 )

yyj72, It's a sad state of affairs when Uncle Sam is the provider of 'adult' supervision.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Japan, the first to throw the stone now accusing China of being aggressive? Frightened by the daily taunting emanating from Abe's mouth Abe is trying to talk big and swagger around the world stage thinking that America will come to its rescue no matter what. However, should Abe push his luck too far Japan might have to re- experience the same reconstruction brought about by American atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Will Japan never learn? Again using the same tactics that were used to push its citizens to invade China and Southeast Asia?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China needs to realize that it cannot have everything that it sees. Next time you see Hua Chunying on TV, watch her face language! You will see that she is saying what she was told to say which is something in conflict with her personal mind. She's a bad liar!

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Of COURSE China is the bad guy, Onedara! Japan is the perfect, innocent victim in all this. They have done no wrong. It's a one-way street.

-14 ( +9 / -23 )

It's easy to adopt the simplistic view that China is the big bad bully and Japan is the victim of China's territorial greed, but what do the pro-Japan posters here think of the fact that the cool-headed and rational Taiwan also claims ownership of the islands?

The below article from 2 weeks ago was published on Taipei Times: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/10/16/2003574632

While I don't understand the Senkaku issue in any depth, to me this suggests there is more to it than the simplistic view of China claiming territory that they have absolutely no claim over. Some posters here have suggested all Taiwan wanted was guaranteed fishing rights and then they stopped talking about it since then, but as the news article suggests, Taiwan's claim over the islands is far from over.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

sfjp330Oct. 30, 2013 - 08:52AM JST

Facts are China has grown to a critical state of importance to much of the rest of the world's nations as well due to its market, as a manufacturing base, and its capital investments. The growing political influence now from entire Asia, Africa to the Middle East as economic muscle. China is important player to the rest of the world not just the U.S.

Right. The Question is if the rest of the world can live with China peacefully. Does China respect rule of international law? If China thinks it can do whatever it wants because of its new gained power, and if it thinks international law is nothing, it will follow the footsteps of Imperial Japan before WW2.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Do not trust China. They will get away with whatever they think they can, even to rule you.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Of COURSE China is the bad guy, Onedara! Japan is the perfect, innocent victim in all this. They have done no wrong. It's a one-way street.

agreed, so? it's time for Japan to stop PR (Provocation and Rhetoric) and act now.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

I hardly see any changes from this article as both of their economy is still kicking which maintain the current tension.

How many nation out there voices out the same thing as Japan?

If very few people complain his food is terrible would the fast food outlet take it seriously compare to half of its customers started to complain?

What we should concern is the future outlook of both Japan and China's economy which I believe would change their mindset on such issue as stronger economy would lead towards stronger military.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

China doesn't see Japan as a friend, and vice versa.

Won't change anytime soon.

Dangerous tensions would continue.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

what do the pro-Japan posters here think of the fact that the cool-headed and rational Taiwan also claims ownership of the islands?

Who says Taiwan is cool-headed?

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Chinas next step will likely be to regularly circle Japan with an increasingly big fleet. This move will be perfectly legal but still aimed at the goal to raise fear and unrest among Japanese. I bet the aim is to force Japan to give away the islands freely. Then the whole change was all legitimate. It is a symbolic game, not a real escalation to war. They know perfectly well that one nuke on Japan is ten on China. Nothing has changed about that.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

“We would have to take firm countermeasures, and all consequences would be the responsibility of the side that caused the provocation,” China’s defense ministry said.

That being of course the side that sent spy drones into a neighbor's airspace.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

sfjp330Oct. 30, 2013 - 08:52AM JST "OssanAmerica Oct. 30, 2013 - 08:42AM JST People can read news from various global sources and they know that it is China that is provoking Japan and other Asian countries." Japan has to deal with the plain fact of China's ever growing leverage with the U.S., not just by being the leading >purchaser of debt and keeping the U.S. economy humming along, but as the world's largest market potential for >American goods and services, and keeping North Korea in check with strong influence over the closed nation. Facts >are China has grown to a critical state of importance to much of the rest of the world's nations as well due to its >market, as a manufacturing base, and its capital investments. The growing political influence now from entire Asia, >Africa to the Middle East as economic muscle. China is important player to the rest of the world not just the U.S.

Please provide the link to where you copied and pasted this from. We are well past the old "China is important economically" line. All major nations are important economically. What is a fact is that China is not the growing market paradise that the world envisioned, not has China moved closer to democratic ideals as the world had hoped a higher standard of living and increased middle class would bring.

smithinjapanOct. 30, 2013 - 01:04PM JST Of COURSE China is the bad guy, Onedara! Japan is the perfect, innocent victim in all this. They have done no >wrong. It's a one-way street.

All of Asia considers China to be the biggest threat to security in the region. And we get this usual gem. "China's PLA to Troops: Prepare for War" http://www.voanews.com/content/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-pla-prepare-for-war/1585348.html

2 ( +11 / -9 )

!The PRC, are acting out a drama in the hopes Japan will concede just on the basis of how China is now posturing itself militarily, and now leaking news and propaganda such as, "China's PLA to Troops: Prepare for War" http://www.voanews.com/content/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-pla-prepare-for-war/1585348.html They are using their current policies to take advantage of their threat in the region, and thus far with the exception of Japan, who has now stepped up to resist their overt actions and provocations made it clear that they will not allow China to run over them. China also knows that there will be no winners in this dog fight! It is clear that the PRC wants Japan to capitulate, and as was mentioned quite some time ago too “share the disputed Islands”, as they have clearly skirted any approach to present their claims to the UN and too state its case before the world. This only shows that they in fact have no case. China winter is coming; you might wish to address that issue as well, soon food shortages will be an annual issue left on your doorstep to deal with…

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Sentiments, I really doubt that. China is actually quite a smart country. China is the new kid on the world block and unless it implodes internally will probably take over the US as the world's number one economy within 20 years. China controls its population with the anti-Japanese rhetoric, but Japan does a similar thing with China, especially since the extremist Abe took over. China will not acknowledge Japan's control of the waters around senkaku because they dispute ownership. They will continue to enter these waters, but they won't land or attack because they would risk the mother of all beatings if they did.

Japan would be stupid to shoot at any Chinese vessel in disputed waters or disputed airspace, but even more stupid to believe the US would actually back them in a war with China. What the US says and what the US does are totally different things. No one should believe America honours any interests apart from its own and a war with China is not in America's interest. The cat and mouse will continue for another decade at least, because China knows she is not yet powerful enough to do anything else. Japan should not give China an excuse to have its mobs out against Japanese industry again though, because this hurts Japan more than China.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

"Who lost China?" A revolution to overthrow the CCP is in order but that would upset the fancy applecart you'all are making all those pretty pennies from... picture a democracy on the mainland and you can picture a peaceful Asia. Can't picture it? Be ready for war.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Wow, the Chinese posters must enjoy posting here. If this was the Chinadaily, any post that disagreed with the official party line would be censored straight away... I understand where both sides are coming from. China was the target of bullies for centuries and copped it from the Europeans and from Japan. The Japanese on the other hands have been sitting and offering apologies and repaying their debt to the Chinese for generations. Now, they are starting to get a bit of economic might and are getting their sails up and full of confidence. Think of a kid who was picked on at school who then turns around and goes looking for fights with those who were mean during high school. It's very petty.

The Japanese on the other hand are sick of the complaints from a government which is in no way grateful for what the Japanese have done for them and provided for them over the past few decades. Several generations have come and gone and the current generation are still being blamed and endlessly criticized for what their grandparents and great grandparents did. The Chinese have adopted a victim mentality and are whinging and complaining about everything from these islands, to changing the constitution, to honoring war dead.

The current generation however, is not to blame for what their grandparents did, and a country has a right to honor those brave men who made the ultimate sacrifice and fought and died to defend their wives, children, towns and country. To deny people that right especially after so long is disgraceful. I know that China is prepared to sacrifice millions in a potential nuclear war and obviously a few dead people means nothing to their government, but to a nation such as Japan, honoring the dead is a necessity whether China likes it or not. Perhaps the Chinese don't understand that individuals are not responsible for the actions of a nation.

Either way, I feel sorry for both the people of Japan and the people of China. The antics of governments are threatening to drag countless more people to their deaths. It is a disgrace and i thought the world had moved past such petty disagreements. I sincerely hope that both sides can come to some agreement in the very near future before things get messy.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Clearly, we got an situation of aggressiveness vs. passive aggressiveness here, and both countries might end up to be the own victim of the zesty nationalism.

No one knows , at this juncture, what exactly the fiasco will be. Nevertheless, one of the outcomes will be certain: if the conflict over those inhabited islets between two neighboring counties continue to be escalated on current course and velocity, The lasting repercussions will be experienced by the entire world in the geopolitical and economical arenas. I assume the people here know that In modern lethal warfare, no countries can claim a really absolute winner.

I think that the US will intervene soon and try to ask both countries to tone down the warmongering enthusiasm.

For those nationalists from Japan and China in this forum, can you guys grow up and get a life ? :)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Japan has right of self defense like all other nations. Japan's article 9 of constitution renounces war, the possession of war potential, and the right of belligerency by the state. Tanks, fighter jets and battle ships are for self defense. You can not defend your nation by pistols. Japanese military ships and aircrafts never cross the Japan-China median line in southern region where the Senkaku island located. But China does. If Mr. Abe is hawkish because he wants to revise constitution to be normal country which can exercise the right of self defense, what do you say about China. China has ICBM with nuclear war heads, aircraft carrier, but Japan does not have those.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

japan's the one who made this issue front and center by nationalizing it, upsetting the status quo of possible joint development which had been in place for thirty years. japan will lose international support if it keeps pressing this issue and pretending to be the victim

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Well the US has no choice really than to respond and aid their allies. It may seem a bit hawkish but the US has its chance to try to stabilize relationships now (5-10 years) or it ill be to late. A withdrawal from the powerplay in Asia now will put the US in the backwater for a long time and that means an abundance of lost business.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

only proves that Japanese media is basically the same as Chinese media so what is the point of having this forum for discussion

This discussion forum gives strong evidence that the Japanese is not basically the same as the Chinese media.

If you are interested in data, check out the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It is hard to understand the Japan government’s domestic actions with its bilateral commitments after the trawler incident. Not only were the legalities of the 1997 fisheries accord in regards to effective high seas jurisdiction violated by Japan but the broader, commonly agreed principle of shrewdly building separation between territorial and fisheries issues in the East China Sea too was unilaterally re-interpreted. And indeed while Japan does possess right to assert extra-territorial jurisdiction on the high seas under certain internationally recognised principles, to do so in this immediate case relating to territory widely considered in the region to be in dispute is politically injudicious to say the least.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

what one more war with the pretext of peace or national interest and so on gonna do , nothing really just another news on a TV screen and some random people trying to care or not but in the end remain helpless anyway . People dying for dirt and that is the simple truth of human history and people in power are the one who either will benefit or their predecessor and if war do occur what could have the dead died for,patriotism maybe but is it really worth it .

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I wonder what it'll take for China to grow up and stop trying to bully its neighbours as it proceeds on its expansionist crusade? I hope they knock it off before this turns into a second Cold War, and certainly before it escalates into actual war. They have to realise that their actions don't just affect the region, but has global repurcussions, namely on the stock market. If China attacks Japan, America is obligated to assist. If the US assists, then the UK will as well, since our goverment is full of spineless morons who live to brown nose the POTUS. I see two options to resolve this without violence. Either China can grow up and stop being so antagonistic, or Japan can take this issue up with ICJ. Both sides will have to abide by ICJ's decision, regardless of what it is.

I also think it's a bit rich for China to say that shooting down drones is an act of war, and all consequences are the responsibility of the nation that caused the provocation. But sending the drones in IS the provocation. Defending one's country is not an act of provocation. The pot calls the kettle black.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Fox Cloud: "I wonder what it'll take for China to grow up and stop trying to bully its neighbours..."

Classic. A number of wingers and Japanophiles argue this kind of thing, then do their best to avoid looking into mirrors. It takes two to tango. Last I checked, relations weren't all that bad until JAPAN nationalized the islands and started this whole bruhaha (well, okay, until Ishihara talked about it, anyway). Perhaps China will 'grow up' when other nations' children stop trying to tell them what to do. You canNOT seriously talk about China growing up and stop bullying neighbours in defense of Japan.

"Either China can grow up and stop being so antagonistic, or Japan can take this issue up with ICJ."

Japan has clearly stated there is no dispute, so why would they go to the ICJ?

"Both sides will have to abide by ICJ's decision, regardless of what it is."

Ummm, no, the ICJ's decisions are non-binding. Even if both sides agreed to go and said they would swear by the ICJ's decision, the losing party would definitely not do so.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

You canNOT seriously talk about China growing up and stop bullying neighbours in defense of Japan.

Its not about a defense of Japan. Its all about China. On her demerits.

All by herself.

We got TIbet. That alone makes China the bully everyone should condemn.

But there is more. Oh, so much more.

There is Taiwan. China continually threaten Taiwan. "the renegade province."

There is the war with Viet Nam in 1979. Remember that one?

How about the occupation of Kashimir Aksi Chin?

Face it, Smith. China is all over the place.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

JTDanMan: You completely miss the point, again! No one is saying China is innocent; the point is that Japan is just as guilty of being childish and aggressive as China is on the island issue, and that is not helping whatsoever. I mean, seriously, you have Abe issue a statement Japan is going to be more aggressive and then you're shocked the next day China enters Japanese sea and/or airspace? You have Japan white-wash textbooks and aim for a more 'progressive' view of history (ie. deny Nanjing and other atrocities) and you wonder why China blasts out a bunch of rhetoric? You have a PM who says there is no island dispute (but the other island disputes are disputes!) but wants talks, and you wonder why China gets upset?

"There is the war with Viet Nam in 1979. Remember that one?"

Way to back up your argument! Last I checked the war in Viet Nam was between the US and Viet Nam, not Japan (although they helped feed US troops, and China and Russia backed the Viet Cong with weapons), and I'm quite sure you have the date wrong by a decade.

"Face it, Smith. China is all over the place."

So is discrimination and a lack of ability to see that China is NOT the only nation pouring fuel on the fire. The instability in the region is NOT solely the result of China, but of neighbours not getting along and provoking each other. Again, it is NOT a one-way street. Face it.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

smithinjapanOct. 31, 2013 - 02:11PM JST

Japan has clearly stated there is no dispute, so why would they go to the ICJ?

That is very easy. Read this UN general assembly address by PM Noda. http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/assembly2012/67_address_pm_en.html

Supporting the United Nations in promoting the "rule of law" continues to be a huge challenge. Once again, in cooperation with the United Nations, I call for nations to recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ as Japan did and for non-member countries of the ICC and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to join at an early date.

There are still a number of territorial and maritime disputes in many parts of the world. It is the philosophy of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as a shared principle in the international community, to settle disputes in a peaceful manner based on international law. Japan, under any circumstance, is determined to comply with the principle and seek peaceful solutions based on international law. The world should pay more attention to the role the international judicial institutions can play in the peaceful settlement of disputes.

First, China should recognize the "compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ" to join the club. http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3

Then, since Japan has already recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ, China can file a law suite on Senkaku dispute at ICJ. Japan cannot walk away because of compulsory jurisdiction.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Take a look in the mirror for the last two years. It is quite clear that the escalation of rhetorics comes from China. Japan is slowly starting to respond, just as they should if they wish to keep face on the world arena. Believe it or not but impression management is still important and Japan needs to step up. If China withdraws both surveillance, boats and rhetorics Japan can continue as a peace loving nation. But during the current state of affairs it would be plain stupid (read invitation) to not prepare. The complicating aspect, from my point of view, is not the facts as reported in media, but rather the question of everyones right to their own view on things or not. If the answer is yes then China is right to complain and act as they do in order to get heard by others. They simply act in a way that make sense to them. Of course the same goes for Japan. On a positive side the conflict could force both parties to dig up some crap from their earlier relationship and find ways to move forward. The negative side would of course be an escalation or a standstill. China should try to look at the world with new glasses, less based on old stories/grudges and military power. If you show your neighbor your gun, they will soon get one to. Its only human. As strange as it may sound I think Japan should stop listening to SK and China over issues concerning ww2. Just move on and make new friends over the world. If they cant let the past go then let them keep it. If they want a respectful discussion about what happened back then, invite them and publish new texts.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

smithinjapanOct. 31, 2013 - 03:20PM JST

"There is the war with Viet Nam in 1979. Remember that one?"

Way to back up your argument! Last I checked the war in Viet Nam was between the US and Viet Nam, not Japan (although they helped feed US troops, and China and Russia backed the Viet Cong with weapons), and I'm quite sure you have the date wrong by a decade.

It seems smith really does not know there was a war between Vietnam and China in 1979, in which China invaded Vietnam and killed more than 10,000 vietnamese.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Way to back up your argument! Last I checked the war in Viet Nam was between the US and Viet Nam, not Japan (although they helped feed US troops, and China and Russia backed the Viet Cong with weapons), and I'm quite sure you have the date wrong by a decade.

Wow.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

CH3CHO: "That is very easy. Read this UN general assembly address by PM Noda. "

And who is the current PM? Why have current Japanese leaders said flat out, "There is no dispute"?

"It seems smith really does not know there was a war between Vietnam and China in 1979, in which China invaded Vietnam and killed more than 10,000 vietnamese."

Yeah, as much a 'war' as Grenada, since you want to be so literal. And anyway, the main reason for the attack was the treatment of ethnic Chinese by the Viet Namese government. In any case, I don't see China still claiming the lands as theirs -- they left quick quickly, in fact, and have not gone back.

BTW, since we're talking about wars against Viet Nam, how many did the Japanese kill when they invaded and colonized parts of Viet Nam? So once again, we are back to the fact that it is NOT a one way street. Ah, but let me guess... that was all history (as Japan rearms itself and prepares to change the constitution) and should be forgotten but China's past atrocities should all be remembered?

Agression begets agression, bottom line, and no one in this is innocent.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Yeah, as much a 'war' as Grenada,

Someone can't count.

Granada: 123 dead China-Vietnam: 30,000 dead

China's invasion pretty much destroyed parts of North Vietnam.

And anyway, the main reason for the attack was the treatment of ethnic Chinese by the Viet Namese government.

No, it was Vietnam's invasion into Cambodia, which was an ally of China's. China was afraid of the fact that Vietnam was a proxy of Russia. China left because Vietnam was a much more formitable enemy than they had expected and they know better than to go back.

many did the Japanese kill when they invaded and colonized parts of Viet Nam?

Sorry, that will not play. The present country of Japan and its government is not the same as the were when Japan colonized Vietnam. China and its government have not had any major governmental changes since the Vietnamese invasion. Of the two, China is way more of a concern.

Ah, but let me guess... that was all history

The 2008 Tibetan unrest is not distant history. Can you find something comparable in Japanese recent history?

Agression begets agression, bottom line, and no one in this is innocent.

In recent history, China has been clearly more aggressive than Japan.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

smithinjapanOct. 31, 2013 - 06:07PM JST

And who is the current PM? Why have current Japanese leaders said flat out, "There is no dispute"?

It does not matter. As I have written, if China recognizes the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ, Japan cannot walk away from ICJ on Senkaku dispute, because Japan has already recognized compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ.

Smith, not knowing a historical event such as Sino Vietnamese war is not a shame. Covering up the lack of knowledge by attacking others is a shame. Why do not we have some pleasant discussion here?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Smith

I am sorry Smith, but your blithe dismissal of China's diplomatic history and current policies are just oh so much nonsense. Japan is not "just as guilty of being childish and aggressive as China is on the island issue." Japan has possession of the islets. China does not. That is all the difference, and China does not respect that international norm.

That is the reason for short list I offer above. Since you chose the word 'childish' It demonstrates the China does not play well with her neighbors.

Since you chose the word 'aggressive; China uses as a tool for international diplomacy force four times since the Korean War -- Which I will give it pass, as it was a 'defensive war', intialy at least. First in 1950, China invaded Tibet, then in 1959 it squashed the Tibetan uprising against the Invasion, then in 1960 it invaded Burma to clean out the Nationalists, and the India in 1963, where it seized portions of the Himalays. And finally a punishment excursion into Viet Nam in response to Viet Nams invasion of Cambodia.

Here is the list of Japan's 'aggression" since WWII:

[chirp chip chirp]

Words have meaning. Childish and aggressive mean what they mean. Other than China, only two of Japan's neighbors consistently criticize Japan's style of diplomacy, the two Koreas. And we all know the problems with their nationalist whitewash motivating their whinging.

All of China's neighbors criticize and voice concern about China's bullying.

Finally, Japan has territorial disputes with two of her neighbors other than China. ROK, Russia. China has territorial disputes with everyone.

And let's not forget about China still claiming Taiwan.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Finally, Japan has territorial disputes with two of her neighbors other than China. ROK, Russia. China has territorial disputes with everyone."

Please JTDanMan, at least be factually correct.

If Japan has disputes with South Korea, North Korea, China, Russa, and Taiwan (if you want to count it as a country), then what other neighbors does Japan not have disputes with?

China does not has a border dispute with Russia, Mongolia, Laos, Myanmar, Pakistan, Nepal, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, North Korean, Afghanistan. And while China does have disputes over islands with more than a few countries, it only has land disputes with two: India, Bhutan. This is despite the fact that China share a land border with 14 different countries. In particular, the border dispute with Russia was particular difficult for China to resolve, as it had to give up a large part of what it traditionally claimed. For example, take a look at what Taiwan claims to be part of China, which is a more traditional view of what China was (hint: it includes Mongolia).
0 ( +1 / -1 )

And notice how Japan's "aggression" means harshly worded letters.

While China sends undercover military in fishing boats into the waters and drones into the airspace around the islands.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Smith,

It appears you're all over the place once again, repeating the same errors that many have tried to correct you with links to support them, yet you keep repeating these errors over and over.

As CH3CHO alluded, by simply signing the "Declarations Recognizing the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the Court", the decision becomes "binding". By simply signing this, China can bring forth a suit regarding Senkaku and Japan has no choice but to adhere to the jurisdiction and judgement of ICJ. In a way, this is how China can make this an official U.N. sanctioned "dispute" which Japan must answer to. On the flip side, since China has not signed the declaration nor showed any willingness to do so, Japan's position is that there is "no dispute".

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It takes two to start a fight.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Does China respect rule of international law?

Does international law allow Japan to violate WWII peace treaties/ agreements such as the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), San Francisco Peace Treaty and Japanese Instrument of Surrender?

The fact is Japan did agree that it would have no claim over those islands in those peace treaties/ agreements. For example, Japan even agreed to give up its claim to the Ryukyu islands, the long island chain in-between Japan and the Diaoyu islands for the US to hand it over to the United Nations under the UN trusteeship system (UN system for decolonization) for future independence in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

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 Ryukyu islands but excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between 25 to 26 degree north latitude )...

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced back to the following agreement made during 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)""

By the way, the UN trusteeship system did help many 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.shtml

And from Wikipedia,

"The United Nations Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations, was established to help ensure that trust territories were administered in the best interests of their inhabitants and of international peace and security. The trust territories—most of them former mandates of the League of Nations or territories taken from nations defeated at the end of World War II—have all now attained self-government or independence, either as separate nations or by joining neighbouring independent countries."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Guru29Nov. 01, 2013 - 11:59PM JST Does China respect rule of international law? Does international law allow Japan to violate WWII peace treaties/ agreements such as the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), San Francisco Peace Treaty and Japanese Instrument of Surrender? The fact is Japan did agree that it would have no claim over those islands in those peace treaties/ agreements. For >example, Japan even agreed to give up its claim to the Ryukyu islands, the long island chain in-between Japan and >the Diaoyu islands for the US to hand it over to the United Nations under the UN trusteeship system (UN system for >decolonization) for future independence in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. 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 Ryukyu >islands but excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between 25 to 26 degree north latitude )... And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced back to the following agreement made >during 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)"" By the way, the UN trusteeship system did help many 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.shtml And from Wikipedia, "The United Nations Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations, was established to help >ensure that trust territories were administered in the best interests of their inhabitants and of international peace and >security. The trust territories—most of them former mandates of the League of Nations or territories taken from nations >defeated at the end of World War II—have all now attained self-government or independence, either as separate >nations or by joining neighbouring independent countries."

QUOTING EXTERNAL ARTICLES: Please post a single paragraph and a link to the article. Posting of a full article will result in the post being edited to size.

http://www.japantoday.com/moderation_policy

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Please post a single paragraph and a link to the article

You want a link to the San Francisco Peace Treaty?

Here you go.

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Thank you. That's all that's needed. Not an 8 paragraph page of copied text..

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites