politics

China tells Japan it will not tolerate violations of sovereignty

103 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

103 Comments
Login to comment

What possible talks can they have? China says these are our islands, the entire continental shelf belongs to China. That does not leave room to talk. They will say joint exploration but reign as soon as they get possession of the islands. They will come up with some excuse.

0 ( +15 / -15 )

Shoot first, kill! Talk later!

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

If the continental shelf argument is what China is basing their stake on, what is their excuse for the Spratly islands/South China Sea islands dispute?

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Almost all Japanese know that Gaimusho and Zeimusho are the dirtiest part,rotten, of Japanese politics. The major problem these Japanese diplomats is that were indoctrinated in the "china school",so, what to expect these moron? It's time to cut diplomatic relations with china permanently.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

I'm quite, quite sure that nothing will come of these talks in terms of 'settling' the dispute. Hopefully at the very least they MIGHT result in calming tensions and resuming trade/exchange.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

The people and societies of both Japan and China would be much better off with positive relations and constructive bilateral dialog. Given that, I hope these talks can bring the two sides closer to some sort of amicable settlement.

There are many people of Chinese ethnicity who live around my neighborhood in Japan, some first generation others whose ancestors came many generations ago. Plus, Japanese people in my community derive significant revenues from well-heeled Chinese (and Taiwanese and Korean) tourists who visit here in droves. These residents and visitors from other parts of Asia have all added a lot to the vibrancy and quality of life of my community and many other communities throughout Japan.

Likewise, many thousands of Japanese people call China home, and countless Japanese companies rely on China for their global viability.

Both sides would be wise to show a commitment toward positive relations, a willingness to show empathy toward the other side, and a readiness to meet halfway.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

China's negotiating position, in a nutshell, is, "Give up your territorial claims or we will riot for the next 20 years."

4 ( +11 / -7 )

What possible talks can they have?

You're forgetting that it was Japan which decided to send this envoy to China. China wasn't the one who made Japan send an envoy.

I think it's pretty clear to me. Japan to China:

"please what can we do to make you guys be not mad at us, this is all a misunderstanding, we want to work with you to resolve this problem, now can you please lift your economic block on us and let's talk things over, pretty please?".

-18 ( +4 / -22 )

Virtuoso: "China's negotiating position, in a nutshell, is, "Give up your territorial claims or we will riot for the next 20 years.""

While Japan's is: "There is no dispute, which is why I am here. We ask for your understanding and cooperation."

Ie. Neither is going to budge an inch.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case.

Nicholas Kristof

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

1 ( +5 / -4 )

smithinjapanSep. 25, 2012 - 01:49PM JST

While Japan's is: "There is no dispute, which is why I am here. We ask for your understanding and cooperation."

Exactly.

Japanese suck big time at negotiation skills. They never budge from their initial position and just ask the other side to understand why they are right.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

These islands originally belonged to China. If you look at centuries old JAPANESE maps, you'll see that they were Chinese. They however we annexed by the Japan in 1895 during the Sino Japan war. This therefore leaves a foul taste in the mouths of the Chinese. The island then went into the hands of the US and were then handed back to Japan in the 70's. Chinese ever since has disputed ownership. In addition, if you argue that Russia should hand over the four islands in the north due to them being the spoils of war, then what can you say about the Senkakus or Daiyo. Im sorry to say but both country's deep seeded insecurities are not helping the situation.

I'm not arguing that the islands belong to China but rather, the ownership is not so clear cut as the Japanese are implying. Honest textbooks would help!

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Not discussed was the corner desk in the room. First claimed by one side, then the other....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

talks; it's ours, no it's not, Yes it is, no it's not, Yes it is, no it's not, Yes it is, no it's not, Yes it is, no it's not, Yes it is, Ad infinitum!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Officials of both sides have to learn the wisdom that drive the German and France to move forward after they had been fighting each other over decades , and build a stronger Europe together. Culturally and racially there are much more differences between German and France than between Chinese and Japanese. And we Chinese tend to not hate Japanese although we have had wars between us. Look into the mirror, we can just see we are almost same Asian. We have to put the continental concept in mind and stop fighting each other for nothing. Chinese, Japanese and Korean should unite together as a core for Asian continent .Or we can move further more to become one country and select the leader by vote.Then all the territorial disputes will be over.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@YuriOtani

That would seem highly unlikely, as they have already been conducting joint development of related undersea resources in the area since an agreement was reached in 2008. I believe.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Maybe they should agree in advance to jointly develop and share the undersea mineral resources, and then submit the dispute regarding territoriality to the ICJ.

Then nobody would lose out on the energy reserves, and the joint development would foster cooperation.

The only exclusive economic rights at stake might be the fishing rights.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

Zhang called the Japanese government’s purchase of the islands “a grave trampling on historical facts and international jurisprudence.”

Great. Then World Court up, or shut up.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

As I earlier stated, this meeting was more or less just an exercise in pointlessness. What did they really hope to accomplish? China certainly knew what they were going to say; did Japan just hope they might get a different response because they bought islands they already owned? All this meeting REALLY accomplished is showing how dubious Japan's stance is.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

sf2k, I like the corner desk bit. That's pretty accurate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

returning to the consensus and understandings reached between our two countries’ leaders

Now we have a consensus and understanding? Is this a Jedi mind trick that will work outside of China?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Zhang called the Japanese government’s purchase of the islands “a grave trampling on historical facts and international jurisprudence.

The Chinese really need to improve their memory. I wouldn't class anything past the 1970's as 'historical' or 'ancient times'.

I've read something recently that is rather interesting of a letter sent in 1920 to a Japanese fisherman by the Chinese which recognized the Senkaku Islands as being Japanese and the original copy is stored at the Yaeyama Museum in Okinawa. Not to the mention that for the 76 years after Japan incorporated the Senkaku Islands in Japan and before China kicked up a fuss, Chinese maps, textbooks, news articles and documents recognized these islands as being part of Japan.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

China tells Japan it will not tolerate violations of sovereignty

Zhang called the Japanese government’s purchase of the islands “a grave trampling on historical facts and international jurisprudence.”

Might be the translation but notice how China carefully words everything saying the land is there's, just saying "don't take our land" (with no reference to the islands) and "you are hurting our feelings" (with regards to the islands)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

it just boiled my blood knowing those ridiculous claims by china saying that everything is theirs, stop the thinking "Do as I say , not as Do" and FREE TIBET!!!

2 ( +6 / -5 )

If Japan did not mention who is who the private ownership that own the island and purchase it. Then the issue who is who have the sovereign right of those island will not be so complicated.. And the conclusion is that China was right after all. Ishihara was so rushhhhh.....and move in wrong direction.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It seems that four things can happen. China can relinquish its claim, Japan can relinquish its claim, both countries can ignore the issue of sovereignty, with nobody landing on the island, or the two countries, maybe including the US, can fight. To be honest, I don't know which of these paths people will choose, but the first two don't seem likely.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

One new article mentions fighting with water cannons, while another mentions survellience drones. I guess they may choose the fifth option...pestering one another in small ways without killing anyone. It's a weird choice, but I guess it would beat an all-out war.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Zhang called the Japanese government’s purchase of the islands “a grave trampling on historical facts and international jurisprudence.”

And, he is right!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Zhang called the Japanese government’s purchase of the islands “a grave trampling on historical facts and international jurisprudence.”

Japan's claim of sovereignty over these islands is indeed a serious violation of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and 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 (China, Russia, UK and US) determine."

Remember, Japan received two nukes for defying the Potsdam Declaration?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I've read something recently that is rather interesting of a letter sent in 1920 to a Japanese fisherman by the Chinese which recognized the Senkaku Islands as being Japanese and the original copy is stored at the Yaeyama Museum in Okinawa.

Please read.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

"The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.

Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status."

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Virtuoso:

" China's negotiating position, in a nutshell, is, "Give up your territorial claims or we will riot for the next 20 years. "

Yep. Ironically, that is pretty much the same negotiating strategy employed by the muslim fundis in the ongoing mohammed riots world-wide.

I hope neither succeeds.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Guru29, the Peoples Republic did not exist when the Cairo Declaration or Potsdam Declaration occurred.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Not to the mention that for the 76 years after Japan incorporated the Senkaku Islands in Japan and before China kicked up a fuss

Please read.

http://www.mofa.gov.tw/official/Home/Detail/4ad52054-ebc7-452c-a6c1-d182b25c8001?arfid=2b7802ba-d5e8-4538-9ec2-4eb818179015&opno=027ffe58-09dd-4b7c-a554-99def06b00a1

"After the disputes of sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands occurred in 1971, Japan claimed that, “From the 28th year of the Meiji Period (1895) till now (1971), no objection from foreign powers had been made to Japan’s use of these islands”. Based on the historical circumstances, this claim is both invalid and misleading. During the period between 1895 and 1945, not only the Diaoyutai Islands, but also the entire island of Taiwan, were subject to Japanese occupation. Given that the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895 stipulated that China cedes to Japan “the island of Formosa [Taiwan], together with all the islands appertaining or belonging to the said Island of Formosa [Taiwan]”, China accordingly did not challenge Japanese use of either Taiwan or the Diaoyutai Islands.

Between 1945 and 1972, while the Ryukyu Islands were put under the trusteeship of the United States government, the Diaoyutai Islands were merely subject to US administrative control, which conferred no sovereignty over them. After the war, the people of Taiwan, particularly fishermen, continued to use these islands as in the past without interference. As the Diaoyutai Islands were placed under a system of trusteeship administrated by a temporary Administering Authority, rather than being effectively controlled in the name of a sovereign State, there is no issue concerning explicitly or tacitly recognizing any claim of sovereignty by another state (none existed) over the disputed islands between 1945-1972."

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Bad2Dbone

"it just boiled my blood knowing those ridiculous claims by china saying that everything is theirs, stop the thinking "Do as I say , not as Do" and FREE TIBET!!!".

Don't make mistake. Tibet is the province of China.

Ryūkyū Kingdom was an......... Shhhhh....don't let the Ryūkyū peoples hear it.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

YuriOtani: "Guru29, the Peoples Republic did not exist when the Cairo Declaration or Potsdam Declaration occurred."

Neither did the current government of Japan. What's your point? The current government of Japan most CERTAINLY did not exist in the closing days of the war when Russia took the Kuriles, either. So are you saying they belong to Russia by that argument?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Guru29, the Peoples Republic did not exist when the Cairo Declaration or Potsdam Declaration occurred.

You have no idea that PRC is regarded as the legal successor of ROC and it has replaced the ROC as a permanent member of UNSC?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Neither did the current government of Japan. What's your point?

Good one! Thanks.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Japanese suck big time at negotiation skills. They never budge from their initial position and just ask the other side to understand why they are right.

Regrettably, I must agree. One of the classes I teach is Negotiation, and the jump in enrollment when I changed the description from "equitable compromise" to "persuasion tactics" was immense. It's the one thing that really bugs me about the Japanese: they don't recognize the existence of passive-aggressiveness.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Don't make mistake. Tibet is the province of China.

As opposed to China's regular old aggressiveness.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Between China and Japen, the sovereignty of these islets is not clear because when China's Zhou Enlai and Japen's Kakuei Tanaka talked about erecting diplomatic relationship in 1972, both of them agreed to suspend this issue and let it be discussed in the future. However Taiwan(ROC), from the beginning due to WWII end related documents, own sovereignty of these islands no matter how CN and JP discussed or even the US "temporarily" gave it's administration to JP.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I wonder that if China has ever sent a real estate tax bill the private owner in Japan.

If china did not do that before, why?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Chamkun: Suppose a thief stole your car and later rent it to another guy, should you sent that guy a contract and to request some money from him? actually that guy already paid rent to the thief! (truly the "private owner " did rent the islet from JP government around 1900)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nah, Chamkun should just let the other guy drive the car for 70 years, until he finds out there may be money under the seat. Then he should file a complaint.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

smithinjapanSep. 25, 2012 - 05:29PM JST

YuriOtani: "Guru29, the Peoples Republic did not exist when the Cairo Declaration or Potsdam Declaration occurred."

Neither did the current government of Japan. What's your point? The current government of Japan most CERTAINLY did not exist in the closing days of the war when Russia took the Kuriles, either. So are you saying they belong to Russia by that argument?

@smith, none of us did. I am having trouble understanding.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hi, why Japan tried to keep in secret the "video" about the collision of the Chinese chip? Why Japanese government tell to everybody about the ownership of the island? If the problem is internal, it was much more intelligent to keep the sales of the islands in secret. That is why I think, they are not so wise.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan has screwed itself and shot itself on the foot and I really have no sympathy for them. All this could have been avoided, and Japan still could have held onto the island if they didn't make so much noise, angering China by nationalizing the island on the anniversary day when they back stabbed China during the 1930's war in China. All this smacks as a deliberate attempt by Japan to laugh in the face of China, instead of showing remorse and sensitivity for what they did. This is just a very bad provocation by Japan, and the Chinese have every right to be angered (although I don't agree with their mob street violence which makes them look uncivilized). Japan should have left this alone, and there wouldn't be this problem. Japan already had its own problems with Korea, because Japan was angered by Korean president's visit to Takeshima which is held by Korea. Japan accused Korea of insensitivity.. but my god... talk about hypocrisy by Japan - they not only did the same, but did far worse, against China that they accuse Korea of doing. Does Japan think they own Asia now? We're all supposed to bow down to Japan and do as Japan says?

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

I was listening to a foreign translation on a demonstration by some of the Nationalist groups here in Japan on this issue. The person that was being interviewed described China as acting like the "Nazis" in their claims for these islands. I found that quite interesting for several reasons. I guess this Nationalist guy didn't fully understand what he was saying, since the Nazis and Japan were on the same side during WW2. And these guys seem to want to go back to some of the militaristic ways from then, so I guess it was lost on him that calling out the Chinese acting as if they were Nazis would be what they wanted to do back in the 40's. I guess that just goes to show that you can rile up people with dropping names and making false statements, and if they are not aware of their past, they will fall for anything.

One thing I don't get in this whole situation, why does Japan wait until now to make the claim? What was taking so long for them to stake a claim now?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I am with YankeeX to a large degree. The three things I have read are largely pro-Chinese position (the last by a Japanese scholar) http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf http://chinajapanusrelations.blogspot.jp In Japanese http://www.mahoroba.ne.jp/~tatsumi/dinoue0.html I think that the Japanese claim is mainly based upon the law of claiming and that if one makes a claim and no one opposes it then the territory becomes yours. China was upset but they did not bother to complain until the oil was found. So the Japanese say that they waited too long. I think that this terra nullis (spelling?) law is rather Western centric. It is international law now, agreed, but to apply this "international" law retroactively when it was not accepted at the time in China (whose population makes up quite a lot of the world's population) seems to be too Western-subservient, or Western-admiring or at the same time "we were the first and remain the only Westerners in Asia and Westerners (us included) were always, even then, retroactively, right".

A real can of worms. Compromise is needed, soon. Japan needs to stop being so Western leaning, methinks. America won't even protect their island. Perhaps when the Chinese invade and the US does not help, the Japanese will learn to be friendlier with their Asian neighbours. If truth be told, the Chinese are more friendly towards the Japanese than their American/Western friends, at base, methinks. All in my humble and probably incorrect opinion.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Chucky makes at least one good point too. The timing of the nationalisation was awful!

Was the nationalisation really on one of the Chinese "days of shame:" the anniversary of the Mukden Incident (18th of September)? Not quite. Precisely one week prior to the anniversary. The Japanese nationalised the islands on 11th September. But still, far too close to the anniversary of the Japanese trickery (Mukden Incident in 1931) that started the main imperialistic war. Over and above the oil, it is the association with past imperialism that upsets the Chinese. The Japanese, or we Japanese (I count myself as part Japanese), should have at least avoided a time near any of their three "shame days," (Mukden, Nanking, and another) if only in order to achieve Machiavellianly positive outcomes.

If I were more conspiratorial I would think that Americans are encouraging this sort of gaff, e.g. by funding that gairaigo speaking Ishihara, so as to apply the old divide and if not conquer, remain powerful in Asia gambit because this whole fracas benefits America's international influence.

Both the Chinese and the Japanese have suggested (I believe) joint use of the resources and the resources are the only thing really of value to the Japanese. The Japanese and Chinese could and should be friends, but ignorance, bad timing, stubbornness and an entirely uncharacteristic lack of a desire for harmony prevents it. Stop looking down on the Chinese! Sure the violence of their demonstrations make them look (it is only a very small minority of Chinese) uncivilised, and sure the regime is using the issue to political advantage (as are Japanese politicians!), but there are also good reasons for the Chinese to be upset imho.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I sometimes despair of the world: petty squabbles over hunks of rock, scrabbling over natural resources and a reluctance to move towards clean renewables and all this nationalistic trash talk. In the end its never the rich old powerful people who end up paying in blood, sweat and tears, they are long gone before things get nasty.

Ordinary people should look at what is in their best interests, on both the Japanese and Chinese sides, and reject old rich men's attempts at creating disharmony and destruction.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If I were more conspiratorial I would think that Americans are encouraging this sort of gaff, e.g. by funding that gairaigo speaking Ishihara, so as to apply the old divide and if not conquer, remain powerful in Asia gambit because this whole fracas benefits America's international influence.

I really don't think this has any basis. And how did they fund Ishihara?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

globalwatcher: "@smith, none of us did. I am having trouble understanding."

That's my point! None of us existed then (well, some of us might have been alive then, for sure), but the current governments of many nations have radically changed since that time. YuriOtani always tries to rebut people's governments about the PRC's claims to the islands by saying the PRC did not exist at the time the islands were agreed upon, but all others were the same as now.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

China will not tolerate any violations of its sovereignty, just look what they did in Tibet. Mustang. Mongolia. Turkistan. The list of Peaceful Chinese intolerence is long and bloody.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I really don't think this has any basis. And how did they fund Ishihara?

I agree. This has no basis. But if I were into promoting US influence in Asia I would make political, or island buying, contributions to Mr. lets-buy-the-islands Ishihara since the biggest winner in this game is the US, who can stand back 'neutral' as its two biggest economic rivals fight each other. I know of no basis whatsoever for the reality of any such chicanery but I mention it because this conflict is so bad for both parties, and only serves the interests of a third party. The Chinese and Japanese should bury their hatchets, and the Japanese in particular should lower their level of "Western 'International' law was always and intrinsically international" stance, and compromise.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

While we are waiting for the result of this meeting, I think by China's statements they are totally determined in their decision.

Each has their own opinion, I believe both China and Japan understand the significant outcome more than any members here but Japan sending their vice foreign minister to China instead of China sending theirs to Japan could mean 3 things:

1) Japan believe China has the upperhand on the issue thus decided to make their first move of easing tension instead of waiting for China.

2) Japan do not believe China has the upperhand but decided to make their first move of easing tension just for the sake of being humble as well for both interest.

3) Japan believe both side would suffer and decided to make their first move of easing tension as they think China do not understand the consequences and worried it would continue making things worse if nothing is done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan surrendered unconditionally after WWII. Since then Japan is very quiet and gentle. This year they are very assertive and promoting nationalism.

Japan has dispute with China and Taiwan. Japan also has dispute with South Korea. Japan also has dispute with Vietnam. Japan has dispute with Russia in north. Japan has dispute with Philippines and Brunei in south. Japan can not get along with every neighbors. Japan also want to host the Olympic as friendly nation.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Back in the 1930s Germany used the same tactics against it's peaceful neighbors and see where it got them.

Time for a Japanese Churchill to tell China to stuff it!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Athletes, very good comment but guess what every thing you comment can also be said about CHINA, except for the wanting to host the olympics, right??

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Nobody will never give in !!!!!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I guess that is what Japan also would like to say. How about going ICJ? Although ICJ probably finishes the problem, they do not seem to like this idea. It's useless to say which is wrong or not in a comment section like this...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

China was upset but they did not bother to complain until the oil was found.

The same can also be said of Japan's claim since all the 3 parties (Jp, Roc & Prc) only started to reclaim sovereignty over their lost islands around 1970 when the US was in the process of handing over the "administration rights" to Japan. Even though the US stressed that the "administration rights" have nothing to do with sovereignty, Japan quickly disagreed when they took over the "rights" in 1972.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Both the Chinese and the Japanese have suggested (I believe) joint use of the resources and the resources are the only thing really of value to the Japanese.

Actually only the Chinese side had suggested joint development of resources at the Diaoyu islands. The Japanese side disagreed but counterproposed the joint development of resources in the East China Sea within or near to the Chinese side.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Elbuda Mexicano: Athletes, very good comment but guess what every thing you comment can also be said about CHINA, except for the wanting to host the olympics, right??

Not quite. China has over 20 neighbours and has worked out border issues with a number of them (including Russia) over the last few decades. Since we are at it, I am just curious if you could say the same thing for Japan. In another word, when was the last time Japan showed any true will of negotiation? (Hint: GIVE and take:-))

Of course, one can never know what happens next. Many people keep bringing up China's territorial disputes with Philippines and Vietnam. Few seem to know that the Chinese map has been more or less this way long ago, even before PRC was founded, yet not much was heard until rather recently. For instance, my impression is that Philippines didn't start to make claims until 1997. Vietnam can't be much earlier, either, not before they needed China to push out the Americans.

Hope by now you won't be surprised that the government in Taiwan essentially takes the same position as the government in Beijing on any of these disputes. And if you ever care to look, Taiwan still controls a big one right in the center of the South China Sea.:-)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Guru29: Actually only the Chinese side had suggested joint development of resources at the Diaoyu islands. The Japanese side disagreed but counterproposed the joint development of resources in the East China Sea within or near to the Chinese side.

Exactly.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Actually only the Chinese side had suggested joint development of resources at the Diaoyu islands. The Japanese side disagreed but counterproposed the joint development of resources in the East China Sea within or near to the Chinese side.

Thank you. In that case I hope that Japan considers the Chinese suggestion before it is irrevocably withdrawn, if it has not been already.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Man I'm fed up of reading news with headlines titled "China tells this", "China claim that", China p*sses of anyone! How about China STFU because you're as annoying as a spoiled, overfed child!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Hey Zhing Zhang Chinese minister of BS, your bullying tactics are getting noticed by everyone. Thankfully the rest of the world is not like China and nobody will let you treat them the way you treat your poor citizens. None of the islands you claim were ever part of China, Taiwan was never part of China, and certainly the Spratleys and others around the Philippines were never part of China. Even an infant knows that. Go home and stop your bullying.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

China = greedy fat spoiled brat.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Don't bother to try diplomatic channel with Communist Chinese Government again. Now it's clear and US is duty to protect Japanese Sovereignty. If American has failed to stand up front of Japan and then Japanese Government and Japanese peoples have only one choice to protect their sovereignty by themselves. Japanese neighbor Communist Chinese, Communist North Korea, former Communist state Russia and hostile South Korea are pushing Japan to own Nuclear Weapon in near future is inevitable. If Japanese peoples like it or dislike it but they have to accept reality if they want to live peaceful and protect their sovereignty. Now Communist Chinese Government is intensively extend its military power especially Navy. There's no one can deny Communist Chinese ambition for to control East and South China sea and Asia Pacific region. If no one stops Communist China and then Japan, North Korea, Philippine, Vietnam, Brunei and other South East Asia Countries' fishermen can no longer fishing in their foreshore. Every time I look at Communist China claimed territory in East and South China Sea I felt really threatening by Communist China. New found wealth is making Communist China to become monster evil on the earth. Every one knows to sorting out problem with Communist Chinese Government by diplomatic channel will be failed but good try by Japan. Now ball is Communist China and US hands.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

In the legal world when you give up your claim and fail to make it clear for a prolonged period of time this works against you. The legal concept is called laches. It is similar to, but not the same as being time barred by a stature of limitations. China did in fact fail to establish it's claim from 1885 through 1970. This is especially pertinent as the period includes both 1945 and 1949. An interesting question is that as the United States had used the Senkakus are a live fire/bombing range from 1945 to 1978, during that time did China ever complain to the U.S. that they were bombing Chinese territory? Why would China allow that if they really believed it was their territory? Why would the U..S. do it if THEY believed it was Chinese territory? All the screaming, yelling,rioting, threatening both economic and military can not over come these issues. Which is part of why China has failed to attempt to settle this dispute at the ICJ. The other reason being that doing so would set a precedent, and Phillipines, Vietnam and Malaysia would jump on the opportunity take China to the ICJ. China has no intent on "settling" this issue, their only acceptable soplution is that Japan hands the islands over to them. this is the same approach they are taking with all of their smaller Asian neighbors with whom they have disputes. China is unilaterally confirming the fears of the free world, the basis of the military alliance headed by the United States which is obviously designed to "contain" China's military and territorial expansion.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It's obvious that China does not tolerate violations of Chinese sovereignty but doesn't care about violating other nations' sovereignty.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

These islands originally belonged to China. If you look at centuries old JAPANESE maps, you'll see that they were Chinese.

I challenge you to support the claim that any premodern map, let alone Japanese, maps, show the senkaku islets as part of China.

You can't. Because they do not exist.

In short, you state a falsehood. And it is an important mistake on your part, because it contributes to the lie that China has any claims on the islets that pre-date 1971. And that lie is the kind of important lie that will someday cause China to pick a fight with Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"As I earlier stated, this meeting was more or less just an exercise in pointlessness. What did they really hope to accomplish? China certainly knew what they were going to say; did Japan just hope they might get a different response because they bought islands they already owned? All this meeting REALLY accomplished is showing how dubious Japan's stance is."

Like a few other J officials sent to China, just a trick or posture of doing something..the rank of these officials kept degrading given the neighbors ( SK & China ) understood the way Noda does : sending someone to talk & doing something just the opposite or even worse : sending someone to talk that becomes a systematic signal of launching tougher measures -- they learnt how to read this childish tactics. Hence, sending some to talk as a camouflage, Noda will stage a BIG talk at the UN gathering on September 25.. Donot need a sophisticated decoding technique to understand his next move. At the end of the day, JAL will thank him for buying a few tickets on empty flights to China !

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Get real... and remove the past from your thoughts and stay in current reality.

China just launched their first Aircraft Carrier TODAY and declared that it was to protect their sovereignty (which includes territory) and their intentions are for "peace" for the rest of the world by being able to "assist" during "disasters".

It takes many years... a longer than 5 years to get an Aircraft Carrier along with the needed aircraft to put into place. They and the rest of the world knew of it. Does this put another perspective on why and how China is acting?

Now the Chinese people are further "motivated" to act tough and tougher.... especially in the oceans....

How can the rest of the world, especially those in SE Asia and Japan respond?

What OPTIONS do Russia, Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan (known as China's adversaries in the area) have in resolving the multitude of problems now being forcibly created by China?

China already have strongholds in every country including Japan by having bought major pieces of Real Estate and businesses in Japan. No one knows who controls them or what they are really doing with them.

Now with the introduction of the carrier... the scene and the scenario has changed dramatically....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Economically most seem to know the "trap" laid out for the world by China using the money the rest of the world poured into China for cheap labor and cheap products. Now the world cannot "afford" higher priced items. There are very few production facilities within most of the other countries to be able to produce at the prices China can. Besides, the rest of the countries invested in China and even gave up their technologies to train the Chinese workers. All China has to do is 'take over" what is already there and "sell" to the rest of the world. They can even control the prices and make even more profit.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ok, so Japan's opening postion is that the islands are Japanese territory.

China says Japan must take "actions to amend its errors, returning to the consensus and understandings reached between our two countries"

So China thinks that the islands are Chinese territory. But I don't get the part about "returning to the consensus and understandings" because Japan has never said that the islands are Chinese territory. So already China is blowing smoke.

OK, at least we have a starting point. But China throwing it's weight around is not a solution. Nor is it a good negotiating tactic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ossan,

Laches comes from English common law. It does not apply directly to international law. I think you mean to state the same principle applies of English common law can be applied here.

They cannot. Domestic law is not analogous to international law.

Further, before 1972, China never claimed on the Senkakus. No source, Chinese or otherwise, substantiates that any government or dynasty ever claimed the islets. You can go back as far as you want into the 15th century, and you got nothing. You have oblique references in a few Chinese sources referring, perhaps, to their existence. Perhaps. To be sure,. in the pre Opium War Chinese world view, all the world belong to China, and I suppose the current claim still rests on that conceit.

Even if some distant past dynasty had made some sort of claim, which none ever did, they NEVER exercised authority over the islets. They never landed there, set up shop, or had anyone there paying them "tribute" -- as Korea, Vietnam and at some times what is now Tibet. But paying the " tribute" did not mean Korea and Vietnam belonged to China. Even Chinese nationalist today don't make that argument. (though you can bet your tail-bone they will if they think it in their interest)

Simply put, the Chinese claim on the islets is non-existent. And their beef with Japan only began after, as you point out, the US returned the islets back to Japan. And after some oil and mineral rights were found...

So you have at least that right. But you err in arguing that China as a whole is expansionist in the manner you characterize. It may use these kind of "arguments" to assert its authority where it has none, and try to push around its neighbors. Yeah, but that day is not today. China simply does not have the power.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Taiwan shows its true stripes. When are they suppose to rejoin their brothers and sisters on the mainland? Suppose they will turn over all of that nice American tech as well. Well at least there will not be a big war there but now China can relocate and re-aim all of those missiles towards Japan. With all of the internal problems in Red China or soon to be China, they need something to distract the population from such bad policies as the one child rule, forced abortions and the new ultra rich screwing the working poor. Even if they got the Ryukyu islands it would never be enough, they would just re-aim toward the Japanese home islands. I see this move by the Republic of China as a backstabbing of a country that has stood besides them for years.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

YuriOtani, after all that love affair between Japan and Taiwan, why would say something like that? lol...

Now it's clear and US is duty to protect Japanese Sovereignty. If American has failed to stand up front of Japan and then Japanese Government and Japanese peoples have only one choice to protect their sovereignty by themselves.

Kobuchan, the US has no obligation to get involved in nationalist squabbles that Japan created for itself. Most Americans would not support their troops getting killed because of Japan's nationalism. Japan can't get the bomb because Japan is part of the non proliferation treaty. If Japan pulls that stunt, it will be isolated from the rest of the world. Half your country is radiated already through nuclear incompetence, why would you want to play with that stuff again?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

JTDanman;

I disagreee that the doctrine of Laches has no application under internatonal law. Gentini (Italy v. Venez.) (Italy-Venez. Comm’n 1903) in JACKSON H. RALSTON, VENEZUELAN ARBITRATIONS OF 1903 720, 730 (1904) (barring Italy from asserting a tort claim that was thirty years old); Spader (U.S. v. Venez.) (U.S.-Venez. Comm’n 1903), in VENEZUELAN ARBITRATIONS OF 1903 161, 162 (1904) (barring the United States from asserting a contract claim that was over forty-three years old); Sarropoulos v. Bulgarian State (Greece v. Bulg.), 4 Ann. Dig. 263 (Greco-Bulg. Arb. Trib. 1927) (barring Greece from asserting a tort claim that was fifteen years old); Kahale v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, 43 I.L.R. 290, 299-300 (U.N. Admin. Trib. 1968) (holding that employer’s one-year delay in asserting a right against employee did not justify barring employer’s argument under laches); However, if your statement that China has never made a claim prior to 1972, notably between 1885 and 1972 is correct, then this issue naturally loses it's relevance. I also stand by my position that China most certainly is on a territorial (as well as military) expansion agenda, a fact recognized by White Papers of all major democratic pacific powers. It appears that you dismiss this view on he grounds that China "does not have that kind of power". I believe to the contrary, that while China certainly lacks the kind of power needed to openly engage for example the United States, it certaibly has enough power for limited engagements and conflicts, sufficient to apply the threat of force and force itself to dictyate it;s unilateral terms to it;s smaller neighbors. This kind of opinion is not only emanating from the car smashing patriotically educated crowds but from top PLA generals as well. Youa re also applying the rational assemement that China would not engage in any conflict until it is "ready" to do so. But when you consider China's unique situation; a one party government that must keep it;s population satisfied or risk losing control, perhaps even an anti-government movement, the potential for conflict becomes far far greater. This is really what is behind the US "containment" alliance in the Pacific.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China has the same problem with Japan, Philippines and Vietnam. China 's big talk that they will not tolerate any violations of its sovereignty. Even in the South China Seas, whcih Philippines have recently renamed it West Philippines Seas, Chinese vessels have remained in Panatag Skoal aand have even roped off the area to ward off Filipino vessels. There are two Chinese CMS and FLEP ships. There are no fishing boats. Philippines have same problems with China's "agressive policies". This is now a growing global concern.

Let China attack Japan, and see what the international response will be. The violent outbursts of mobs that attacked Japan related businesses will probably backfire on China. With the world economy struggling, damage has already been done. What is clear is that there will be a sharp downturn in business dealings between Japan and China.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Japan should take firm stance in their position. Japan should negotiate Chinese with their strength, because they have it. Japan has one of most sophisticated militaries and weapons in Asia, and the region’s most respected navy. In comparison, sure China has much much larger military force, but quality of the equipment and the lack of having latest weapons is a problem. Japan's quality versus quantity of Chinese. So OK, let me outline a few of the conditions of the war, otherwise it will be impossible to argue this. China cannot use its nukes for whatever reason. Can't use em'. If it's just a war between China and Japan, no South Korea, North Korea, USA or Russia. If you would like you could just make it that there is a war between China and Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. So it would be an air and naval battle, China's fleets and aircraft vs modern and sopisticated Japan's air and hi-tech weaponary. No need to involve ground forces in this. Just control of the seas and skies. The goal is just to wipe out the other guys naval and air units, nothing more. Japan has excellent chance with their sophisticated weapons. I wouldn't take Japan lightly. U.S. will supply all the needed weapons.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

since japan come over china to discuss the issue , it shows that japan need and scare of china more than the opposite way . in the situation like this y should not china make its face bigger and strongly frighten japan . therefore if there is another meeting between the 2 country , japan should choose to face up to china in its homeland . china clearly tell japan to get ready to defend its self , japan should get ready to give bad behavior china a lesson , go for japan , please ! the rest of the world trust you and also think you are able to teach china this time on be half of world . you ( japan ) are deserved to be the teacher of idiot china

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

In the legal world when you give up your claim and fail to make it clear for a prolonged period of time this works against you.

Please read what the ROC says about it.

http://www.mofa.gov.tw/official/Home/Detail/4ad52054-ebc7-452c-a6c1-d182b25c8001?arfid=2b7802ba-d5e8-4538-9ec2-4eb818179015&opno=027ffe58-09dd-4b7c-a554-99def06b00a1

"After the disputes of sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands occurred in 1971, Japan claimed that, “From the 28th year of the Meiji Period (1895) till now (1971), no objection from foreign powers had been made to Japan’s use of these islands”. Based on the historical circumstances, this claim is both invalid and misleading. During the period between 1895 and 1945, not only the Diaoyutai Islands, but also the entire island of Taiwan, were subject to Japanese occupation. Given that the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895 stipulated that China cedes to Japan “the island of Formosa [Taiwan], together with all the islands appertaining or belonging to the said Island of Formosa [Taiwan]”, China accordingly did not challenge Japanese use of either Taiwan or the Diaoyutai Islands.

Between 1945 and 1972, while the Ryukyu Islands were put under the trusteeship of the United States government, the Diaoyutai Islands were merely subject to US administrative control, which conferred no sovereignty over them. After the war, the people of Taiwan, particularly fishermen, continued to use these islands as in the past without interference. As the Diaoyutai Islands were placed under a system of trusteeship administrated by a temporary Administering Authority, rather than being effectively controlled in the name of a sovereign State, there is no issue concerning explicitly or tacitly recognizing any claim of sovereignty by another state (none existed) over the disputed islands between 1945-1972."

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

support the claim that any premodern map, let alone Japanese, maps, show the senkaku islets as part of China.

You can find one Japanese map here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/1786年中国往琉球海路图2.jpg

The Diaoyu islands (釣魚臺) is near to the centre in pink.

If you are interested, you can find even more information here:

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

the way Noda does : sending someone to talk & doing something just the opposite or even worse : sending someone to talk that becomes a systematic signal of launching tougher measures -- they learnt how to read this childish tactics.

Good point.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Even if they got the Ryukyu islands it would never be enough, they would just re-aim toward the Japanese home islands.

YuriOtani, the fact is China did not ask for Ryukyu but instead proposed a joint occupation/ administration with the US with an eye for future independence from Japan during the Cairo Conference in 1943. And President Roosevelt did not seem to oppose the idea then.

From 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.""

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

joint occupation/ administration of the Ryukyus with an eye for future independence from Japan during the Cairo Conference in 1943.

And that's probably the basis of the UN trusteeship as stated in Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty:

"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 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands).... Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters."

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Even if they got the Ryukyu islands it would never be enough,

YuriOtani, it is not because of China that Ryukyu has not been able to achieve independence. The main reason is that the US and Japan will never let Ryukyu go.

This is what President Eisenhower said in his State of Union Message in 1954 regarding Ryukyus/ Okinawa:

"We shall maintain indefinitely our bases in Okinawa. I shall ask the Congress to authorize continued material assistance to hasten the successful con-clusion of the struggle in Indo-china. This assistance will also bring closer the day when the Associated States may enjoy the independence already assured by France. We shall also continue military and economic aid to the Nationalist Government of China."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So it would be an air and naval battle, China's fleets and aircraft vs modern and sopisticated Japan's air and hi-tech weaponary. No need to involve ground forces in this.

You have forgotten Chinese missiles such as DF21, DF31 and the latest DF41.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Guru29...you have not forgotten continuous boring copy/paste. We all know your history lessons of Senkaku. Put into your own words.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Noda government no longer represents Japanese people's sentiment and will about Senkaku. I hope they will not do anything stupid before Jiminto takes charge.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Guru29 Sep. 26, 2012 - 05:17AM JST You have forgotten Chinese missiles such as DF21, DF31 and the latest DF41.

Missiles are one-shot weapons. You don’t get to reuse them the way you would a jet fighter or a destroyer. That means, in wartime, China has to win fast or lose. China’s entire inventory of conventional ballistic missiles, for example, could deliver about a thousand tons of high explosives on their targets. The U.S. Air Force’s aircraft, by comparison, could deliver several times that amount of high explosives every day for an indefinite period. And if Japan needs them, U.S. will supply all the weapons to Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The PRC is built on the lies of communism and stained in the blood of tens of millions of innocent lives. There is no logical argument that could justify their further encroachment on the peace of this world. The PRC should perish and the people of China should be set free, but greedy and weak minded capitalists from around the world have bought into and are complicit in China's crimes through their globalist agenda that continues to rape and pillage the resources of the Chinese people for the benefit of a few.

Barring an outside force from some GOD or an alien race yet unseen, there is little that humanity can do to stop the guns of WAR. China, now on the path of a conquerer, engorged with its new economic might, is heading toward the inevitible conflict with Japan (and eventually the United States) for dominance of Asia and the World. Before the year is out, Israel will attack Iran to prevent a potential nuclear strike and the middle east will burn. America is going to be heavily compromised with its involvement in protecting the flow of oil to the West and the political battle at home for the next President of the United States.

This is the time that China will likely strike against Japan. It will start with a military suprise attack on the Japanese navy protecting the contested islands and the PRC flag will be raised above them. China will conclude that they have settled the issue and believe that the United States cannot oppose them and the Japanese dare not challenge their economic, military and political will. They will be wrong on all accounts as both Japan and the United States will be forced to act by their own people and China will lose the fight to dominate these islands. They cannot stand against the military might of the United States and irregardless of the debt or financial entanglements that Japan and America have invested in the PRC economy, the people of those nations will rise up and demand WAR. China will not be able to back down and it is highly likely that this will result in the beginning of WWIII. 2012 will indeed be a bad year for humanity and the prophecy of Armageddon could really come true!!

If it was up to me, I'd recommend that China give Russia the contested areas on its border and that Japan give the Senkakus to China and that the Russians give the 4 Kurile islands back to Japan and everyone could walk away winners, but that will never happen...LOL!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ossan

None of the cases you cite are on point. We are talking about here about territorial disputes between nations, not private claims against a private party from another nation, or another nation. I apologize for not making that clear initially, that we are talking about a territorial dispute between two nations.

Regarding that, it should remain in the forefront everyone's mind here that China's claim on the Senkaku islets ain't even tenuous: it it non-existent. They NEVER exercised authority over them. Never. That is why China does not go to the ICJ. They would lose. China knows this.

You and I understand this. Many here and elsewhere simply do not. They assert the islets are part of China. They are not only wrong here, they are not even ignorant here. They are willfully ignorant. This is a very serious problem, because the source for their willful ignorance is an injured nationalist pride. Injured not only from Japan's predation of the first part of the 20th century, but the West's in the 19th and 20th.

So yes, you are quite correct that China's nationalism is part of the problem here. But do not forget why so many in China are defensive, overly agressive and in a word chauvanists. You are a patriotic fellow. Try to put yourself in China's shoes and imagine the past 150 of US history with things like:

-- China started a war with the US in the 1850s so they could sell drugs to Americans and make up the trade imbalance

-- China, leading Japan and other East Asian Nations, set up foreign concession in our capital, where Chinese law was in affect.

-- Japan invaded the US and killed 30 million people

-- China backed US communists in our struggle with Japan. They lost and fled to Hawaii, where the Republic of America harries us to today with undying communist Chinese Support.

-- A United Carribean Alliance declared war on China, who invaded, set up a friendly regime, which went through an economic miracle and is now the third largeset economy on the planet. Oh yeah, The Carribean allance also attack the US and murdered milliions of Americans.

-- The Zapotec Rebels in southern Mexico declared independence in 1945. In 1950, they invaded Mexico. China invaded Zaptoteca and moved into Mexico. We then fought a war with China in Mexico to a draw, where the independent and communist Zapoteca controlled Mexico City. To this day, China and Zapoteca are bossom buddies.

And so on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Now, our Filipino amigos, after asking the USA to get out of their country, have to deal with the Chinese trying to take over the Spratlys, maybe our Japanese amigos will learn a tough and valuable lesson on how to deal with CHINA INC.?? Sure, it would be nice if all of the countries of the world could just smile and get along, but sadly enough we have bigger countries and smaller countries, the bigger ones like China can try to bully smaller ones like Japan, Korea, the Philippines etc...but I guess the Chinese have studied American history and know about the so called American Manifest Destiny idea, now we can sing a new song, in Chinese to the tune of Your land is my land??

3 ( +3 / -0 )

ArmusSep. 26, 2012 - 06:29AM JSTChina will not be able to back down and it is highly likely that this will result in the beginning of WWIII.

Let's make it clear. Despite China introducing a wide range of new hardware in recent years, including jet fighters, helicopters, destroyers, submarines and a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier, China still lacks many of the basic systems, organizations and procedures necessary to defeat a determined, well-equipped foe. Take, for example, aerial refueling. To deploy large numbers of effective aerial tankers requires the ability to build and support large jet engines, something China cannot yet do. In-air refueling also demands planning and coordination beyond anything the China has ever pulled off. As a result, tanker aircraft are in short supply in China.

That’s putting it lightly. China operates just 14 small tanker for off-loadable fuel. the U.S. Air Force alone possesses more than 500 tankers, each off-loading around 100,000 kilograms of fuel. So while China in theory boasts more than 1,500 jet fighters and only around 300 Su-27s. In reality it can refuel only 50 or 60 at a time, assuming all the H-6 tankers are working perfectly. In an air war over Senkaku/Daiyou, hundreds of miles from most Chinese bases, only those 50 fighters would be able to spend more than a few minutes’ flight time over the battlefield. China could take a similar approach to leveling its current disadvantage at sea. Submarines have always been the most potent ship-killers in any nation’s inventory, but China’s subs are too few, too noisy and their crews too inexperienced to take on the U.S. Navy and Japan Navy. Once the shooting started, the Chinese submarine force would be highly vulnerable.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Number one thing here is China can not be trusted.

They make promises and then break them when it suits them.

Time for all nations that have been betrayed by China to make an alliance against them.

Japan needs to get rid of Article 9 from the Constitution and start arming up.

The moment China sees that it will wet it's pants and start acting like a civilized partner.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Smith actually the Japanese government is the same. The Emperor never left power, the government keep going under the "guidance" of the Americans. There was still the PM and the Diet. It would of been a disaster if the Americans would of dismissed the government. How could they have kept order? Anyhow the China of Potsdam is the Republic of China and not the Peoples Republic of China. However Japan no longer has diplomatic relations with this government or the vast majority of countries on earth. Taiwan can not get the islands since no diplomatic relations means no treaties. Red China took the mainland from the legal government by force killing millions of people. This government is still controlling the mainland today. The communists seized control and still are thugs to this day.

The reason Red China will not attack is because they would lose the fight first and their freedom/lives second. About atomic weapons, they can not use them without committing suicide.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think that insane leaders make insane choices and if America is forced to defeat a Chinese move to take over the Senkakus (probably using a Carrier strike force), the conflict has a high probablility of escalating. The Chinese under stress to avoid a humiliating defeat over the Senkakus would use a nuclear device to threaten Japan and America. They believe that blasting an uninhabited island with an atomic device would be a show of force, but they dn't understand US military protocols. When that happens, America will be forced to launch an immediate total strike to destroy China's nuclear capabilities using stealth cruise missles against the government and then submarine launched nuclear weapons against all Chinese military units that have nuclear capabilities (airplanes, subs and ships), nuclear facilities/ICBM sites and all Chinese submarines. It's part of the American military strategy that once an enemy demonstrates their intention to use atomic weapons, the United States must immedietly use the necessary options needed to destroy that nations capacity to wage nuclear war in a first strike and surprise attack as they will not engage in diplomacy after a nuclear device is detonated!!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

That...is an unlikely scenario. Cruise missiles are immensely high maintenance weapons. It is not beyond considering that the much vaunted Chinese nuclear option is actually rusting away in the various water-filled silos throughout the country.

But even if we assume that they do have a working ICBM, and China manages to fuel it without detection from the many eyes that are watching quite intensely right now, and we somehow don't have enough time between the launch and the impact to target and destroy the missile, and the nuclear strike is actually carried out...

Nuclear retaliation would still not be a good option, let alone the first one. Surgical strikes, precision bombing, that is what is needed. There is barely even a need to send in ground troops, to be frank, even though they will certainly be sent in, and will likely encounter heavy resistance near the major cities. But even at that, the distribution infrastructure of China is such that it isn't self-sustaining (and I frequently warn the business I teach at this). In other words, without subsidy and continuous monitoring, goods don't get distributed, and a city under siege will collapse in a remarkably short time with little effort other than to confiscate weapons as people leave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Elbuda MexicanoSep. 25, 2012 - 10:26PM JST

Athletes, very good comment but guess what every thing you comment can also be said about CHINA, except for the wanting to host the olympics, right??

Both China and Japan are bully boys! They are richer and more arrogant too. Japan wipe off debt to Myanmar(Burma)! Not to every nation. China is buying friends with money. They want to buy Brazil and Mexico too. On the contrary to Japan, China is very friendly with Russia, North Korea and Brunei. Japan has no friend among the neighbors.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

quoting Futurama " Ch1n4 Kiss my metal shiny 4$$!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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