politics

China's parliament: Japan has no right to criticize air defense zone

48 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.

48 Comments
Login to comment

So, the Chinese parliament now has no right to criticize South Korea's new ADIZ. Way to back yourselves in to a corner guys.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Do these Chinese guys ever stop ? They just seem to come out with one dumb statement after another, and proceed with some type of provocative action and then continue with more dumb rhetoric.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Biden has promised to go to war with Japan over these uninhabited rocks. That is backing yourself into a corner, if he thinks Americans will support that he is already beyond senile. regarding unilateral declaration of ADIZ, every country has done that in the past, it doesn't require cooperation. I think Japan buying the islands and nationalizing them is what kicked this hornets nest in the first place, basically all to line Ishikawa's mate's pockets. Japanese, Chinese and American citizens being played for suckers over some rocks and a bit of fat cat cash.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

This is the moment when you walk away from the muttering idiot, question why we give it all our money, and start changing how we live on

6 ( +7 / -1 )

"China's National people's Congress"

I'll be the people didn't elect those clowns.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

At this point the world should just pay little to no attention to China and at most the best reply I can think of worth any effort is to simply say "whatever" while rolling your eyes and moving on...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Stop selling the belligerent one resources and stop buying its rubbish cheap goods, then see it start to chew its own head off !!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I'm sure Xinhua epitomizes the truthfulness of everything.

No, really.

Next we will hear that criticizing or disagreeing with China violates its sovereignty.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

You know what ? God Bless South Korea, they have proven that there is alot of noise but nothing really to fear. No one is going to war, maybe a slight skirmish, someday, I've said before it may do each side some good to fire a few rounds down range, or over the bow, so to speak, just to keep the others honest, maybe they could hold joint war games or something, but truly there is a rough kind of tranquility going on, no matter what others may have tried to railroad it. Happy Holidays in Asia, everyone, never mind the bluster. Christmas came early-Peace on the seven seas†

2 ( +3 / -1 )

China should take a break until after christmas.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

maybe the usa should declare and expand its zone up to and over the senkakus, going north over alaska.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

See ,China , what you have done? One breaks the law , others will follow and break the law, soon everybody will break the law ...then there will be no law.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@anbinh,

What law? What kind of law is China breaking?

What China is doing is just want to sustain the "Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation".

What's wrong to force Japan to give up the territories that occupied after WW1 which is defined in the "Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation"?

What's reason for Japan to against China to do so?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Maybe Mongolia should declare an ADIZ zone over China, since they controlled it in ancient times. Or maybe all countries should just declare the same zone, and everyone would have to report their flights to everyone. At least that would get countries talking to each other.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

That's it, I call dibs. No one called it. Well, I just did. So what are ya going to do now China?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think we Americans will absolutely have the common sense and decency to back our allies all the way to the front line and beyond. Weather "fearless leader" (Barack im-afraid-of-conflict-as-commander-and-chief-of-the-armed-forces Obama) allows us to, or not is anyone's guess. If someone walked into my house and said i wasn't allowed to have my TV cause they had dibs even though I BOUGHT IT LEGALLY (as did the jap govt) I'd shoot them in the face. Twice. Gotta double tap. This is idiocy on China's part.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

China is a vurus.. somehow we need to stop it..

4 ( +7 / -3 )

That certainly is quite a coincidence because I think China's parliament has no right to say that Japan has no right to critcize China's supposed air defense zone.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

mgglifeDec. 08, 2013 - 09:43PM JST What China is doing is just want to sustain the "Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation". What's wrong to force Japan to give up the territories that occupied after WW1 which is defined in the "Cairo >Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation"?

Japan's administration of the Senkakus is in accordance with the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation .Why PRC supporters keep bring this it is a mystery. It is PRC that is trying to re-write the results of WWII and the above agreements.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@mgglife, you can click on posters like OssanAmerica , USinJapan2 and many others... they already have plenty of answers for you. And btw if China still insists , in our civilised world , we have something called International Court of Justice , China can sue Japan for matters related to Senkaku island like Australia is sueing Japan for whaling. But China can not just simply have ADIZ covering senkaku and threatens everybody with "emergency measures" .

3 ( +5 / -2 )

pot

kettle

black

0 ( +2 / -2 )

from looking at that map, china really doesn't have much airspace. they should be given more.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Now Korea and Japan have declared air defense zones. Exactly how are they going to defend? Ospreys? All of this is just another reason why the USA thinks it has to spend, spend, spend to "protect" them. What a waste of USA taxpayers' money.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

...these are the same mob whose cities can't breathe proper air, has thousands of social problems that make the parties involved downright....civilized. Corrupting themselves in the very worst way and a ticking time bomb for Chinese society--they'll be back to 'work camps' and urinating/defecating on themselves soon enough in their own pigsty.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I don't see anything wrong with Koreans declaring their own zone. But I see Japan has the biggest zone and is still bitching and crying to big bro for help.

In the end, if it comes to war, whoever stands last is the man. Japan did not stand after 2 a-bombs, even after they tried desperately with their suicidal mission called "flying coffin". Now, she wishes US to fight the war for them. But big bro is not that stupid. If he listens to his btch for verything, then he's not the big bro and more.

So if wingers are so brave, they should try to fight their own war. Then it's a story of who has more bombs and bigger land to absorb them.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The only country that WANTS to start a war is China. Only militant dictatorships want to start wars. The only people who want to start a war a china supporters. Whining about 70 year old history does not justify China's military and territorial expansionism at the expense of all the other Asian countries. Somehow, China believes that they can convince the world that Japan is the "aggressor". The world is not stupid. If China does start a war it will be doing so with the whole world.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

mgglife

What's wrong to force Japan to give up the territories that occupied after WW1 which is defined in the "Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation"?

China ceded the Senkaku islands 20 years before WW1 started.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

OssanAmerica

"Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation" defines that Japan's territory only include the original islands of Japan, even exclude Okinawa, let along the disputes islets with China.

So where is protection movement in your statement?

Tamarama

your answer is a trick. The point is not before WW1 or after WW1, the "Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation" clearly defined the territory of Japan.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

OssanAmericaDec. 09, 2013 - 05:22AM JST

Somehow, China believes that they can convince the world that Japan is the "aggressor". The world is not stupid. If China does start a war it will be doing so with the whole world.

Agree, Ossan. The world is not stupid. Norway, UK, EU, now Australia are speaking up against China. If China wants to start a war, they should be prepared to fight against the world.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

mgglifeDec. 09, 2013 - 11:30AM JST OssanAmerica "Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation" defines that Japan's territory only include the original islands of Japan, even exclude Okinawa, let along the disputes islets with China."

So where is protection movement in your statement?

The Cairo declaration states that territories that were taken by violence or greed shall be taken away from Japan. The Senkakus were never taken by war or force, hence there was no violence. There was no greed as there was no objection from any country since no country considered these uninhabited rocks to be theirs. They were incorporated in accordance with international law after a search to ensure thy were Terra Nullius and ultimately incorporated in January 1885 without complaint from any part of the international community. The Sino-Japanese War did not terminate until April 1885 when the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed, in which China (Qing Dynasty) ceded certain territories to Japan such as Taiwan and the Pescadores. No mention was made of the Senkakus because neither Japan nor China considered them Chinese at the time. Hence the Senkakus were exempt.The Postdam Declaration states: "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." One would be hard put to find islands any more minor than the Senkakus. Furthermore, the "We" in "as we determine" included China. Which was represented by the Republic of China. China for the first time in 2012 declared that the Senkakus were "taken from China" in the Sino-Chinese War of 1884/85. If one takes the position that the PRC has inherited the rights of the Qing Dynasty, then it follows that the PRC must abide by the position of the ROC which "determined" together with the other victorious allies that the Senkakus were minor, not taken in war and therefore exempt. Hope this helps.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

All Japan has to do is sit down and negotiate with China over a mutually satisfactory solution to the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands dispute. Japan has time and again refused to do so, while hypocritically demanding that Russia negotiates over the northern territories, and South Korea negotiate over Takeshima. There is one word to describe Japan`s stance; hypocrisy

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

aussie-musashiDec. 09, 2013 - 01:41PM JST

Your comments make no sense.

All Japan has to do is sit down and negotiate with China over a mutually satisfactory solution to the Senkaku / Diaoyu >islands dispute. Japan has time and again refused to do so,

Chinese diplomacy is "What's mine is mine" and let's negotiate what's yours. If I came over to your house and claimed your car, would you negotiate with me?

while hypocritically demanding that Russia negotiates over the northern territories,

Russia is occupying the four southern kurile islands in violation of the Cairo declaration which states that the allies are not to gain territory from Japan. The four islands were never taken in war as they became Japanese by way of the Russo-Japanese Treaty of 1855. Because of this violation, and the fact that the USSR invaded them after Japan declared it's surrender, the US, UK and the European Parliament consider them Japanese territory under Russian occupation. Therefore there is nothing wrong in negotiating over them since Russia is willing to do so. This contrasts to the bullying tactics of sending ships and planes like China does.

and South Korea negotiate over Takeshima. There is one word to describe Japan`s stance; hypocrisy

Japan has never tried to "negotiate" with South Korea over Takeshima. Japan has asked South Korea to settle the issue at the International Court of Justice THREE times and each time South Korea has refused. Note again, that Japan does not send ships and planes to "bully" South Korea on the issue.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

OssanAmerica

Let's see how many unreasonable thing in your statement.

"The Cairo declaration states that territories that were taken by violence"

This mybe states in "Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation", but how about the statement that defines the Japan's territory only include the original islands? why you missed this?

"was no greed as there was no objection from any country since no country considered these uninhabited rocks to be theirs. "

Eeven all Taiwan people and China mainland people all got out off their home to street to oposite this during the last 60 years means no objection? So , then what is objection in your mind?

3.

They were incorporated in accordance with international law after a search to ensure thy were Terra Nullius

As stated in 2, although Chinese people keep raising evidence and set oposition to the incorporation of Japan, the international law can be used here to insist that these islets were no owner? LOL..

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

mgglifeDec. 09, 2013 - 02:08PM JST OssanAmerica Let's see how many unreasonable thing in your statement. 1."The Cairo declaration states that territories that were taken by violence"

This mybe states in "Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation", but how about the statement that defines the >Japan's territory only include the original islands? why you missed this?

The term "original islands: is subject to the exclusions, such as being "minor" and "not taken by violence or greed:. You can not cut off part of a sentence and keep just the part you want to apply.

2."was no greed as there was no objection from any country since no country considered these uninhabited rocks to >be theirs. "

Eeven all Taiwan people and China mainland people all got out off their home to street to oposite this during the last >60 years means no objection? So , then what is objection in your mind?

There is no record of an objection from ANY country in 1885 when the islands were incorporated. Objections raised 68 years after the incorporation does not represent an objection at the time.

3."They were incorporated in accordance with international law after a search to ensure thy were Terra Nullius"

As stated in 2, although Chinese people keep raising evidence and set oposition to the incorporation of Japan, the >international law can be used here to insist that these islets were no owner? LOL..

I have no idea what you have to LOL about. International law would undoubtedly find that the Senkakus were indeed Terra Nullius as China has no evidence of habitation on them.Chinese (PRC) maps from the 1950s and 1960s show the Senkakus as Japanese Territory. The possibility of oil and gas deposits became known only in 1968/69. China made a claim for the first time in 1971.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

OssanAmerica

I have to LOL on your "NO".

There is NO record of objection from ANY country. China has NO evidence of habitation.

And The Goventment keep saying NO evidence fo the comfortwoman.

So I have to LOL. How can Japan say "YES"? what kind of big evidence is big enough can make Japan say "YES" ? huh?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

mgglifeDec. 09, 2013 - 02:59PM JST

OssanAmerica

I have to LOL on your "NO".

There is NO record of objection from ANY country. China has NO evidence of habitation.

And The Goventment keep saying NO evidence fo the comfortwoman.

So I have to LOL. How can Japan say "YES"? what kind of big evidence is big enough can make Japan say "YES" ? huh?

Keep talking nonsense, paper tiger. I hope CCP and PLA are reading my post, I know they do. The world is thinking ahead. We have a plan for you.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The Chinese have no right! no rights! They didn't get the okay from the American regime of global terror..... they need to get an okay from teh Americans to be okay. Reminder to the world that anything you do, you need to get an okay form the Americans......

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

globalwatcher

These are not nonsense, these are the logic weakness of their opinions.

Igore the disadvantage things, insist the imcompleted view. This is all the people like OssanAmerica is doing.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

mgglife

your answer is a trick. The point is not before WW1 or after WW1, the "Cairo Declaration" and "Potsdam Proclamation" clearly defined the territory of Japan.

Then why did you mention WW1 in the first place?

Ossan is right. China has no proof of ownership at all in history. The islands do get mentioned in the odd text, and appear on one or two maps, but nothing concrete in terms of ownership. Potsdam, Cairo and the San Fransisco treaty offer no respite from that.

China could always mount a case and take it to the International Court. But they won't, because they know they've got donuts. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Those islands are legally and rightfully Japanese. Until Japan decides to give them to Taiwan.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Ossan: "Chinese diplomacy is "What's mine is mine" and let's negotiate what's yours. If I came over to your house and claimed your car, would you negotiate with me?"

How many times have you used that tired old analogy? So let me counter it again by saying, first: cars are not land. Second, if the car was mine and was stolen from me, there is a dispute as to ownership, even if bought by a third party by those who stole it. As for the "What's mine is mine" policy, no one has stated that position clearer than Abe, my friend. Abe himself has stated numerous times the island issue is not a dispute and China needs to understand that, which is part of why, like you, he's now eating crow.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Tamarama

China has no proof of ownership at all in history.

About the "NO" problem, I had mentioned before. It is Japan always said No proof, No proof of this, No evident proof of that.

About the International count, someone raised a instance of Austraila of Whaling. It doom to be fail. And actually, Japan government never raise this to international count. and when Taiwan raise this to international count, Japan refused for the reason, Taiwan is not a country.

So what a smart trick!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The Senkakus were never taken by war or force, hence there was no violence.

You are indeed good at self deceiving, OssanJapan.

The fact is the whole world knows that the Japanese navy only managed to grab those islands after they destroyed the Chinese navy towards the end of the 1894-1895 Japanese invasion and when they were on their way to invade Taiwan.

The routes of the 1894-1895 Japanese invasion can be seen here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/First_Sino-Japanese_War.svg

Japan colonized the Ryukyu kingdom in the 1870s but spent another 2 decades preparing for the invasion of China because it was believed that China had a more advanced naval force than Japan. According to wikipedia,

"The prevailing view in the West was that the modernized Chinese armies and navies would crush and defeat the Japanese. Chinese armies like the Anhui Army and Beiyang Fleet were commended and admired by the Western observers. They perceived China as militarily stronger.

Japan looked like it would lose, according to the German General Staff. A British advisor to the Chinese military, William Lang, was interviewed by Reuter. He praised the state of the Chinese armed forces and its training, modern ships, guns, and equipment. He stated that "in the end, there is no doubt that Japan must be utterly crushed", and viewed Japan as fated to lose the war."

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Ossan: "A "personal insult" means that I call you or your mother a prostitute. Referring to the Comfort Women as "military prostitutes" as indicated in US Army Report 46 is NOT an insult, personal or otherwise."

Yeah, no, not a personal insult at all; telling a woman who was raped that she's a prostitute isn't a personal insult. Saying her nation is the main reason for human trafficking and Japan's current sex slave problem is not at all personal to anyone. I'm glad you completely played into my point about your lack of objectivity despite claiming to be objective. Nice work.

"Please refrain from posting content that makes no sense just for the sake of arguing."

I'm sorry you don't like being shown wrong, but them's the breaks. My comment made complete sense; you said China plays by rules of "What's mine is mine", and I said Abe and Co are doing the same. That only makes no sense to those that don't wish to see the facts. How's that crow, by the way?

Moderator: You can 48 hours off from posting.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

China plays by rules of "What's mine is mine", and I said Abe and Co are doing the same. That only makes no sense to those that don't wish to see the facts. How's that crow, by the way?

People will believe what they want to believe no matter the truth. hatred are deep seeded within it soul, it is blind to all others in it anguish to lash out.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Guru29Dec. 10, 2013 - 12:25AM JST The Senkakus were never taken by war or force, hence there was no violence. You are indeed good at self deceiving, OssanJapan.

The long details of the opinions of the Chinese navy in the Sino-Japanese War that you posted bear no relevance to my statement. There was no battle at the Senkakus, there was no Chinese surrender, neither side considered it a part of the war. Until 2012 when China suddenly claimed that it was taken in war. This is deceit.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What a silly statement by the parliment of the PRC. very silly. Uh, they themselves have no right to criticize other nations for protecting themselves. It is like a thief complaining to the police that they have no right for arresting him for stealing. I this case the attempted theft is Pacific Rim wide, China has ongoing fights with every neighboring nation, EVERY ONE. Japan is the first to stand up and is being very rational, careful and reasonable about it I give them great credit.

I am also very grateful to OssanAmerica and others for such excellent posts and rebuttal of the usual same old attempts by pro Chinese posters, some of whom i suspect of being actual official Chinese efforts to fog, obscure, twist and obfuscate the issues.

The Senkakus are Japanese. Japan has every right to defend them in thought, policy and action.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The long details of the opinions of the Chinese navy in the Sino-Japanese War that you posted bear no relevance to my statement.

The difference in military strength is certainly relevant since that is the key factor that caused Japan to postpone its sneak attack on China to 1894 and its invasion of Taiwan and the Diaoyu Islands to 1895.

According to official Meiji documents, Japanese Home Minister Yamagata Aritomo ordered Okinawa Governor Nishimura Sutezo to survey the Diaoyu Islands in 1885 and planned to set up a national landmark on the islands afterwards. However, Nishimura reported in his survey that these islands had long been discovered, named and recorded in official documents by China, and that the plan was inappropriate at that time since “this matter is not unrelated to China”. Yamagata subsequently consulted with Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru. Inoue advised that the plan should “await a more appropriate time” since two months earlier the Shanghai-based The Shanghai Mercury issued a warning that Japan planned to seize Chinese islands near Taiwan. Inoue therefore advised the Home Minister that the plan should be postponed and further instructed that the matter must not be made public through official gazettes and newspapers to avoid “inviting China’s suspicion”.

And the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894: “Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted.”

However, after a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War between 1894 to 1895, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

According to official Meiji documents,

Not this crap again.

The correspondence simply proves that the Japanese government were conducting their due diligence to survey the territories in question as to leave no doubt the islands were terra nullius. To put it more simply, if in fact the Japanese government at that time knew that the islands belong to Qing, they would of flat out stated so by the foreign ministry in response to the interior minister memo where it stated "...and showed no particular trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty.."

-1 ( +1 / -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