China's lines around islands suggest more conflict

Third party? This ain't some property dispute. This is sovereignty dispute. There is no organization that can handle this in human history aside for the proclamation by Church and God. And neither Japan or China have that kind of faith.

So we turn to the primary choice of resolving conflicts, by words backed by money and guns. Or directly go to war.

Who has more money and guns and friends at this point in Asia? You tell me. Name one country that will come to Japan's aide over these disputed islands. Name one. Mind you, US already said we're out of this. Name another.

Ultimately, whether the territorial dispute can be resolved peacefully will depend very much on only one factor- whether Japan will comply with the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and the conditions of surrender i.e. the Potsdam Agreement which says

"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."

If Japan will comply with the Japanese Instrument of Surrender as it promised in 1945, then the case is considered closed.

On the other hand, if Japan refuses to comply with the conditions of surrender , it will simply mean a resumption of WW2. However, even if that is the case, China can still avoid a resumption of war by getting an international organization such as the UN to get Japan to comply.

That's probably the reason why the Chinese FM Yang pointed out in the recent UN General Assembly the fact that Japan's claim of sovereignty over these islands is a serious violation of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Agreement and also the UN Charter while refuting the Japanese PM Noda.

and the Japanese coast guard firing a water cannon at Taiwanese boats approaching the islands.

Wrong!

The Japanese coast guard fired water cannon at Taiwanese boats in Japanese waters.

"China hastily published the map to help maintain public outrage over the Japanese government’s purchase of some of the islands from their private Japanese owners."

More childish PRC propaganda.

The goal of China is not to own empty islands their goal is to own whatever they can.

China sees that it's new found wealth will be fleeting when their bubble bursts and they want to rob as much as they can to feed their starving nation.

Two excellent posts on this subject.

http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2012/09/paper-on-parade-diaoyutai-islands-on.html

Paper on Parade: The Diaoyutai Islands on Taiwan’s Official Maps: Pre- and Post-1971.

"This research report is the first to present irrefutable evidence of the ROC government’s change of position from excluding to including the Diaoyutai Islands in the ROC’s territory in the early 1970s. The evidence lies in cartographic information produced by the ROC government before the 1970s, which had always tacitly assumed that the Diaoyutai Islands were part of the Ryukyu Islands, not under the ROC’s sovereign control. Not until 1971 and 1972 did the Taiwanese government modify official maps—such as national atlases, military topographic maps, and maps in national textbooks—labelling the Diaoyutai Islands as part of Taiwan or using the “Taiwanese name” (i.e., Diaoyutai Islands, Tiaoyutai Islets) to identify these islands."

http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2012/09/senkakus-round-up-again.html

Senkakus Round Up... Again.

... are Chinese scholars arguing that if China says someone paid tribute to it at some point in history, China can determine the sovereignty in its favor. I doubt one can find many Korean, Mongolian, Tibetan, Japanese, Thai, or Vietnamese scholars to support this. It is hard to imagine a mindset more self-serving and expansionist than this.

It is home to a growing population of goats - the offspring of a pair brought there by right-wing Japanese activists in 1977 - as well as moles, crabs, Okinawan ants, albatross and lizards, and plants including azalea.

its populated by japanese goats so its must be japanese! :D

The parties could legally resolve their dispute if they submit it to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg, Germany, or their own court.

china will never go to ICJ as they never respect the rule of law in the first place.

China hastily published the map to help maintain public outrage over the Japanese government’s purchase of some of the islands from their private Japanese owners.

Does China think "public outage" is going to win over a signed contract that China signed giving the land to Japan? They even admitted they didn't know what they were doing and signed it over, if there should be any outrage it should be directed to the Chinese leadership.

Funny how China has only now gotten around to making a detailed map of a group of islands they claim they have controlled since "ancient times."

Funny how China has only now gotten around to making a detailed map of a group of islands they claim they have controlled since "ancient times."

Nobody were really interested in those small islands until Japan make it a big deal. Ex-leader Deng XiaoPing even suggest to 'leave differences aside, find common ground' with Japan, which include this issue. Japanese dig shits out of deep hole, now nobody can ignore it anymore.

Noda said Japan will win if matter is referred to ICJ. Is he going to do that real soon?

Who cares what the Chinese do in their countries? They can burn down the entire countries and make as many bogus maps as they wish. These islands belong to Japan a historical part of the Ryukyu Kingdom.

china will never go to ICJ as they never respect the rule of law in the first place.

The question is: when will Japanese summon their greatest courage to put this in front of ICJ?

Like the Koreans and Russians say "we control these islands, they belong to us." Why should Japan give in to the Chinese? Korea and Russia will not to the ICJ, why should we?

In negotiating the Zhou-Tanaka agreement 40 years ago both parties decided not to make explicit mention of the islands and instead leave the issue to be covered at some other time. That's the best solution, and really the only feasible way forward

So far as news about new maps being the hottest items in bookstores is concerned, apparently the same phenomenon will never be seen in Japan. Already news about the whole dispute is fading, on the verge of being forgotten completely by the average J-person as with any other news that comes and goes. So long as nothing violent further takes place in China and no one gets hurt or dies, trust Japan will continue to maintain peace over the whole issue, with no plans to do anything on the island for years to come and the conflict itself can hopefully return to its quite manageable state. While fundamental relations with China are by no means to be taken lightly, there is only so much that Japan can do on its part while there are other critical issues on its plate which need to be addressed by the government. Japan clearly needs to move on, in whatever direction it has to.

Every country have their own congress, parliament and Japan have The National Diet In addition to passing laws, the Diet is formally responsible for selecting the Prime Minister.

Is the Governor of Tokyo city is the one to decide anything by ovetaking and disregarding the power of Japan National Diets? If not. Then Japan should not say that by purchasing the islands is to maintain stability......

What can we expect? It came from a Chinese company that makes ripped-off versions of Apple products.

tian4670Oct. 01, 2012 - 10:59AM JST "china will never go to ICJ as they never respect the rule of law in the first place."

The question is: when will Japanese summon their greatest courage to put this in front of ICJ?

No the question is when will China show the courage to bring this ti the ICJ? Japan already has control of the islands, it can't bring a claim against itself. It';s upto China to do so...but they can't because their legal arguments are frivolous at best and concocted and ridiculous at worst. And if cHiuna did bring this to the ICJ, nt only will Japan respond, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Vietnam will be happy to take China to he ICJ. With over 17 territorial disputes with it;s asian neighbotrs, China is hardly going to show any courage and do the right thing.

tian4670Oct. 01, 2012 - 10:45AM JST

"Funny how China has only now gotten around to making a detailed map of a group of islands they claim they have controlled since "ancient times."

Nobody were really interested in those small islands until Japan make it a big deal

Japan didn't make it a ig deal. China has single handely made this into a big deal. Whether the islands are owned by Japanese civilians or the Japanese government makes no material difference to China's claim. The Japanese government bought the islands to revent Ishijara from developing them, an act they felt would cause China to tun it into a "big deal". But they totally miscalculated the degree of belligerence and confrontatioon the Chinese gpovernment was prepared to dis out, effectivly severing 40 years of good relations.

Ex-leader Deng XiaoPing even suggest to 'leave differences aside, find common ground' with Japan, which include >this issue. JAPANESE DIG SHIT OUT OF DEEP HOLE, now nobody can ignore it anymore.

I agree that China is truly a big shit pile,

Noda said Japan will win if matter is referred to ICJ. Is he going to do that real soon?

No it can't bring a claim against itself. Is China going to do that real soon? Or is it just going to try to brainwash the entire world with lies and keep printing new maps?

@callmeB

Name one country that will come to Japan's aide over these disputed islands.

At least on Facebook, a lot of people from Vietnam and the Philipines have expressed solidarity with Japan. It's just unofficial but so is China's pubic outrage. Oh, did I say "pubic"? Sorry, it's the acting like they have just reached puberty - sorry, maybe it's a Freudian slip or something.

While we are discussing allies and China, please now name one country that will come to China's aide over these disputed islands. North Korea? Maybe they'd mumble something anti-Japanese again if they recieve enough food or weapons. But military aid? Not even they are that stupid. So who are you left with? Pretty sure the Russians would laugh in your face. South East Asian countries don't like China either, and they'd sooner grow two heads than assist China in taking sides against Japan.

All the R-Wingers are queueing up : Noda, maehara, Abe.. And prepared to take on the Chinese head on. Banging the fighting drum & marching ahead ! This is the only chance to show you are a man standing for Japan !

"While we are discussing allies and China, please now name one country that will come to China's aide over these disputed islands. North Korea? Maybe they'd mumble something anti-Japanese again if they recieve enough food or weapons. But military aid? Not even they are that stupid. So who are you left with? Pretty sure the Russians would laugh in your face. South East Asian countries don't like China either, and they'd sooner grow two heads than assist China in taking sides against Japan."

When it comes to actual fight, not a single country will explicitly take side but too happy to see the second & third largest economies to hurt each other. Interestingly J-FM kept self insuring numerous times that the US 'will' protect Japan under the security pact ( the real US move would only be proven when war breaks out ) as this is not in the US interest at all. History will tell how many times such treaties / pacts are lip services.. The ONLY thing that remains eternal is INTEREST ! By the way, caught between the cross fire between the J-bashing & C-bashing camps here, may I suggest the choice of language used to remain 'clean' as it used to be my pleasure to 'meet' friends at JT after eight, please don't spoil the platform. Thank you !

Guru29Oct. 01, 2012 - 08:42AM JST

"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."

Guru, a great post. Senkaku was a part of Okinawa. Okinawa went to the US under the military occupation, and then returned to Japan. You are shooting your own foot in your claim.

Although the US won't say it openly - not that openly - it is in our interest to defend Japan in this conflict. You don't have to take my word for it though, check this article out for cross reference

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/world/asia/24navy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=asia

Little excerpt, quote from admiral Willard leader of the US Pacific Command

“Of particular concern is that elements of China’s military modernization appear designed to challenge our freedom of >action in the region,” the admiral said.

China can publish all the revised maps they want to, they aren't fooling anybody into thinking that this is just "iron fist in velvet glove" aggression. I'm glad the Japanese are not caving in. Somebody has to start to stand up to China. They can't simply start claiming every rock they care to no matter how many maps they revise.

China is publishing new maps with new Islands and seas as part of them. Finally it will cover all planet earth. Poor stupid Chinese people believe those high school education...

Now you see in the facebook people from many countries are opposing China... Not just on this Island issue. Over all attitude of them...

The only solution to this Island is handle this over to UN and when the ICJ court case is over the winner take it...

Guru29 Oct. 01, 2012 - 08:42AM JST That's probably the reason why the Chinese FM Yang pointed out in the recent UN General Assembly the fact that Japan's claim of sovereignty over these islands is a serious violation of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Agreement and also the UN Charter while refuting the Japanese PM Noda.

In the Cairo and Potsdam Agreement, Chiang Kai-shek, Chairman of the Nationalist Government of China issued the Potsdam Declaration which outlined the terms of surrender for Japan during World War II in Asia. The Chinese Communist Party, "proclaimed treaties made with foreign powers by the 'traitor' Chiang Kai-shek to be null and void". Chiang Kai-Shek fled to Foremosa in 1949. So how does Chinese Communist Party recognize the Potsdam Agreement? They are completely a different goverment that overthrew Chiang Kai-Shek's goverment. Heck, U.S. did not fully recognize People's Republic of China until 1978.

In the Cairo and Potsdam Agreement, Chiang Kai-shek, Chairman of the Nationalist Government of China issued the Potsdam Declaration which outlined the terms of surrender for Japan during World War II in Asia. The Chinese Communist Party, "proclaimed treaties made with foreign powers by the 'traitor' Chiang Kai-shek to be null and void".

Source please. Don't tell lies if you know nothing.

Guru, a great post. Senkaku was a part of Okinawa. Okinawa went to the US under the military occupation, and then returned to Japan. You are shooting your own foot in your claim.

A standard response from the Japanese. And as usual, the Japanese will conveniently ignore simple facts such as

-the US is not the representative of UK, China and Russia, the other contracting parties of the Potsdam Agreement. And therefore it lacks the power to annul the Potsdam Agreement unilaterally.

-the US is not equivalent to UN and it can't terminate the UN trusteeship that Japan entered into with the UN according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty unilaterally.

-the US said it did not hand over the sovereignty of the Ryukyus and Diaoyu islands to Japan because it lacked the power to do so.

Guru29 Oct. 02, 2012 - 05:41AM JST Source please. Don't tell lies if you know nothing.

The usual way in which a formal transfer of territory is effected under international law is by cession, which typically consists of an agreement between the ceding and acquiring state. No such cession has occurred here. As has been seen, the Republic of China did declare the islands to be a part of China subsequent to the surrender, and such declaration might be considered an annexation of this territory. However, in view of the fact that Chiang Kai-shek, in accepting the Japanese surrender, was acting on behalf of the Allied Powers, it may be questioned whether any such attempted annexation would have validity in international law. Normally, military occupation does not have the effect of transferring sovereignty over the occupied territory to the occupant. Furthermore, the whole history of the San Francisco and Sino-Japanese Peace Treaties casts doubt on this interpretation.

Guru29Oct. 02, 2012 - 05:43AM JST

Guru, a great post. Senkaku was a part of Okinawa. Okinawa went to the US under the military occupation, and then returned to Japan. You are shooting your own foot in your claim.

A standard response from the Japanese. And as usual, the Japanese will conveniently ignore simple facts such as

-the US is not the representative of UK, China and Russia, the other contracting parties of the Potsdam Agreement. And therefore it lacks the power to annul the Potsdam Agreement unilaterally.

????

Hello. No clue what you are saying here. Please elaborate further.

the US is not equivalent to UN and it can't terminate the UN trusteeship that Japan entered into with the UN according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty unilaterally.

????

Hello, hello, you are pushing me further away. I am now more clueless.

-the US said it did not hand over the sovereignty of the Ryukyus and Diaoyu islands to Japan because it lacked the power to do so.

It is getting more crazier. I guess I must request that you to rewrite these whole issues here, so everyone can understand your stance. Thanks.

PT24881Oct. 02, 2012 - 12:33AM JST All the R-Wingers are queueing up : Noda, maehara, Abe.. And prepared to take on the Chinese head on. Banging >the fighting drum & marching ahead ! This is the only chance to show you are a man standing for Japan !

The entire country of 1.3 billion is right wing and you're concerned about these guys?

@Guru

Ultimately, whether the territorial dispute can be resolved peacefully will depend very much on only one factor- whether Japan will comply with the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and the conditions of surrender i.e. the Potsdam Agreement which says

"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."

If Japan will comply with the Japanese Instrument of Surrender as it promised in 1945, then the case is considered closed.

Completely agree with you, I am by NO means any fan of China, but Japan is like a recovering alcoholic that just can't seem to remember driving it's car through a crowd of people, then having the nerve to ask the people they hit, for damages.

Korean Defense Minister got it 1000 percent right! Japan needs to teach history about what it really did not all that long ago.

Completely agree with you, I am by NO means any fan of China,

Korean Defense Minister got it 1000 percent right! Japan needs to teach history about what it really did not all that long ago.

@Sailor of CHINA , sounds like you know history more than anyone, so it is very easy for you to do this for me. Will you please tell me a history after the Declaration of Cairo Accord? Very easy for you to do, right?

I am going to sound like a broken record but some people seem to believe that there is only one interpretation of history, the one they were taught or the one they learnt in their own books when they were kids - or later. It never occurred to them that other people might have a different point of view and that that different points of view might have some truth in them. I consider it a duty to be loyal to my host country (the US) but need to point out that even in the WWII winning camp, many allies do not agree with the interpretation of some facts appearing in US history books. Now on the issue of the islands, it seems a few facts have been established, among them that Japan used a process that was legal to acquire them back in 1895, that the US returned them under Japanese administration in 1972 and that the maneuvers China is executing are what countries would do to stake a claim EXCEPT the disgraceful and underhanded tactics consisting in stirring up their brainwashed masses.

@globaltrotter

@Sailor of CHINA , sounds like you know history more than anyone, so it is very easy for you to do this for me. Will you please tell me a history after the Declaration of Cairo Accord? Very easy for you to do, right?

No, I would be happy to explain in detail many of the things Japan did from say 1895 ~ 1945 and exactly why Japan should consider itself lucky just to be a FREE and PROSPEROUS country today.

But I'm sure you're inbred with this Japan Victim-hood mentality, so I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of my time to attempt it. Enjoy your freedom and you're welcome...!

The islands make a strange setting for a potential conflict zone. The largest is less than 4 square kilometers (1.5 square miles). It is home to a growing population of goats - the offspring of a pair brought there by right-wing Japanese activists in 1977 - as well as moles, crabs, Okinawan ants, albatross and lizards, and plants including azalea.

Really? Did JT read this blatantly wrong Chinese propaganda?

According to Taipei Times (yes, Taiwan publication):

a Japanese businessman named Koga found that the main Senkaku Island held a fresh-water spring that could sustain about 200 people. He then brought workers, food and supplies to the main Senkaku Islands and built houses, reservoirs, docks, warehouses, sewers and farms for tuna fishing and canning. The tuna cannery business continued until World War II.

Clearly, for the purposes of international law, the Senkaku chain qualifies as “islands” because they are capable of “sustaining human habitation.”

This is important because under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea — to which both China and Japan are parties — an “island” brings to its owner a 200 nautical mile (370km) “exclusive economic zone” and sovereign claim to the resources and seabed minerals therein.

So... why do the Chinese, and UN even insist these are "rocks" (land masses that cannot sustain a human population) and not "islands" (land mass that can sustain a human population). Japan actually developed the islands until the war, and nobody ever complained until 1971 after gas and possibly oil were found.