politics

Gemba rebukes Japan's envoy to China over Senkaku remarks

52 Comments

Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba has rebuked the Japanese ambassador to China for publicly making comments that expressed his opposition to Tokyo Gov Shintaro Ishihara's plan to purchase the disputed Senkaku islands.

In comments made in an interview published Thursday in Britain's Financial Times, Ambassador Uichiro Niwa criticized Ishihara's plan, saying it could cause a grave crisis and jeopardize decades of economic relations between Japan and China.

In Tokyo, Gemba told a news conference Friday that Niwa's view was not in line with official government policy, TV Asahi reported. "The change of ownership is a domestic matter that does not concern the international community," Gemba said.

Gemba also told reporters that he had rebuked Niwa and that he had received a letter of apology from the ambassador, along with assurances that he would not make such comments again.

Meanwhile, Ishihara told a separate news conference Friday that Niwa needs to learn more about the history of his own country before making such comments. "He is not qualified to be Japan's ambassador to anywhere," Ishihara said, Jiji Press reported.

Niwa was formerly president of trading company Itochu.

As of June 1, donations to buy the islands had topped 1 billion yen from the private sector and various organizations, the Tokyo metropolitan government said.

The four islands, currently leased by the Tokyo government, belong to a family in Saitama Prefecture, the Kuriharas, who bought them decades ago from descendants of the previous Japanese owners.

Ishihara has not revealed the expected cost of the islands, saying only they would not be “too expensive.”

© Japan Today/AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

Gemba seems to be a very rare thing indeed, a Japanese politician with tact and diplomacy. Of course he will be ridiculed by the right wing dinosaurs back home. Ishihara is a dangerous little man, China could quite easily crush Japan without breaking into a sweat. Ishihara and his supporters need to remember that.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

So Gemba rebukes a man who is thinking clearly and speaking fairly solely for the sake of way-ward and racist politics. I hope the man rebuked knows that he was completely in the right, and the idiot Gemba (and needless to say Ishihara) in the wrong.

'Meanwhile, Ishihara told a separate news conference Friday that Niwa needs to learn more about the history of his own country before making such comments. “He is not qualified to be Japan’s ambassador to anywhere,”'

I wish this guy would just disappear. He's a moron the likes of which are incomparable, and if anyone's unqualified to represent Japan and the government, well Ishihara takes the cake.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Meanwhile, Ishihara told a separate news conference Friday that Niwa needs to learn more about the history of his own country before making such comments.

.................... I not even sure what to say, if you look at history you will see that the islands are grey with treaty after treaty changing the ownership....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Mr.Niwa is the man with wisdom and vision. But, sadly,he was overwhelmed by people, short sighted and mindful of political interest. Japanese and Chinese have to learn something from the relationship between France and Germany. After having fighted for hundreds of years, paying huge human and material cost, they finially come togather and help build the EU. Culturally and racially, there are much more differences between France and German than that between Japan and China. If a Japanese walk down the street of any city in China, nobody would look him or her twice because he or her looks just like a Chinese. Why the France and Germany can sort out their difference but we, Japan and China, can not. The European is smarter than Asian? From the event like this, we have to admit it is true now. If the most sophasticated Asian countries like Japan and China can not make a model for the rest Asian countries, Asian's future is doomed. As a Chinese I have had some contacts with some japanese. I really can not find much difference between us, except you have a much clear goverment. For the well being of the people in both countries and from that to whole yellow race people,I hope one day we can unite as one country and we can elect a president,no matter he or her is Japanese or Chinese.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Smith - Niwa is taking his Trading Company / Keidanren background line, which is basically for Japan to get down on its knees and do the bidding of China in any situation that could possibly interfere with the ongoing project of Japanese business to relocate as many operations there as possible and for them to remain there making money for senior management of Japanese businesses.

Gemba is correct - as a matter of Japanese govt policy, the purchase by Tokyo govt is a domestic land ownership issue. The Tokyo purchase, diplomatic aggro set aside, wouldn't have any direct bearing on the question of sovereignty. Having unaccountable faceless bureaucrat ambassadors pursuing business agendas counter to the national interest, saying whatever China wants to hear all the time is not good for Japan, or for resolving any dispute over these islands (or more specifically, the oil and gas around them, since that is what prompted PRC's claim...)

Peace

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Very dodgy.

Genba apparently backing Ishihara's moves makes it look like the govt. was in on the Tokyo governor's plan all along.

But then he says it's a 'domestic matter.'

I would agree but only because I'm viewing it from the Japanese side.

 China - obviously - sees it very differently.

But the ambassador is correct - going further on this issue will very likely unwind Japan-China relations and may even lead to an armed clash.

Which I think is why the issue has not - apparently - been elevated to government level on the Japanese side (even though I think JGov backs Ishihara to the hilt), which would very likely ignite an already highly contentious issue - which makes Ishihara's move smart from every angle, despite what some foreigners think of his racist attitudes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In Tokyo, Gemba told a news conference Friday that Niwa’s view was not in line with official government policy, TV Asahi reported. “The change of ownership is a domestic matter that does not concern the international community,” Gemba said.

So the government agrees with Ishihara on this?? I don't think you can call it a "domestic matter" when it is very clearly and international one. Get rid of Gemba and give Niwa the PM position. Seems like one of the only government guys with a brain and an idea of how to deal with international issues.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

“The change of ownership is a domestic matter that does not concern the international community,”

Then why is Ishihara making thinly veiled attacks on China by saying things like buying these islands will "keep the burglars out"?

“He is not qualified to be Japan’s ambassador to anywhere,” Ishihara said,

Hilarious, coming from a man who thinks writing soft porn qualifies him to be governor of Tokyo!

7 ( +8 / -1 )

OMG, you're mixing people up.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"He is not qualified to be Japan’s ambassador to anywhere,” Ishihara said,

"Ishihara is not qualified to make foreign policy decisions", Ivan Coughanoffalot retorted, adding that the Governor was welcome to kiss his ring.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"Gemba seems to be a very rare thing indeed, a Japanese politician with tact and diplomacy." Really? It seems to me he is just fearful of Ishihara, whom nobody asked to mingle in foreign affairs. People obsessed with prewar ideologies endanger this nation's future. Ishihara is doing himself a disservice with that Senkaku Island idea. If he earnestly wants the Olympic Games in Tokyo again he should stop angering the Chinese.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

“He is not qualified to be Japan’s ambassador to anywhere,” Ishihara said

And Ishihara, mayor of Tokyo, is "qualified" to be making pronouncements about who is eligible to participate in international diplomacy?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the title of this story be, "Genba Rebukes Japan's Ambassador to China...."? Since when has "Tokyo" been a country?

Moderator: Quite right. It has been fixed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yeah, sorry I meant to say Niwa when I typed Gemba. Obviously Niwa is the man with tact and diplomacy where as Gemba is a bloody idiot.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

HikozaemonJun. 09, 2012 - 03:49PM JST

Smith - Niwa is taking his Trading Company / Keidanren background line, which is basically for Japan to get down on its knees and do the bidding of China in any situation

Not at all. If you had made any effort to go and read the article, maybe your comment would be a little more intelligent.

What Niwa said was that relations between japan and China are and should be determined at national government level. Ishihara is merely heading a regional government and his intended actions could cause lots of trouble in Sino-Japanese relations. While Ishihara has the power to shatter Sino-Japanese relations, his regional position/powers do not have the authority or power to re-make those Sino-Japanese relations, once he has shattered them with his stupid publicity prank of buying the disputed islands. Niwa never said that the disputed islands were Chinese, he said it was an issue that should be dealt with at state to state level. Gemba is a fool, who was a TV talento before he entered politics. Niwa is a professional life-long diplomat

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The japanese government under DPJ's leadership was chaotic and confusion, they has no idea the boundary of their nation is whereabouts but claiming everywhere is belonging to them!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ishihara isn't qualified to be anything more than a traffic warden. Just give him a uniform, a peaked hat and a stick with a light on it and I'm sure the little facist throwback would be in his element. For how long will this idiot be humoured? Please stop giving this neanderthal power.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

OMG, you're mixing people up.

Then please - correct me? Did Ishihara not say what I quoted?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

kakifry, I don't even think he could handle that!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I sincerely hope Ishihara san is successful with doners' money to purchase the island ,make himself the proud new owner AND MOVE THERE.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Niwa deserves Nobel Peace Prize but unfortunately for Gemba and Ishihara Niwa is Wani and shedding crocodile tears !

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ishihara is right, this is now involving international security, China with its continued strategy on land grabs in the Phillipeans and other Asian country, has one thing and one thing only in their minds.. gas reserves surrounding the island..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

*countries

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look at the Phillipeans already there is Chinese military on several of their islands.. this could happen to Japan also..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The change of ownership is a domestic matter that does not concern the international community

Very funny comment by the Foreign Minister.

I notice that this seems to be a common Japanese approach to controversial matters... an attempt to delineate the discussion in regards to who can and cannot participate.

Anyway, I hope Tokyo does buy the Senkaku islands and this dispute kicks off in a big way... it's very entertaining.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

To quote Shakespeare:

Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Niwa's days are numbered. This isn't the first time he acted out of line as an ambassador. The guy simply does not have the brain capacity to differentiate between the best interests of the nation from the best interests of Itochu.

To a poster who indicated that Niwa is a "life long diplomat" has absolutely no clue as to his background and/or the definition of a diplomat.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

let the Japanese government give up some of its sovereignty already. There's over a billion chinese and a good amount of them aren't that different from the Japanese people. Nationalism isn't going to help anyone. Unless it's aimed at being happy. Maybe China can build a port at the island, make travel of people easier between china and japan.

what's the worst that china can do? they don't stand to gain anything from wrecking the japanese economy.. unless there are other sinister things they want to do to certain types of japanese citizens or something.. but why would the majority of japanese people in such a case throw themselves in the fire..

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Kaesten the main motive is revenge! Like the Koreans they have been brainwashed all of their lives. Think about this, Japan needs some resources too. A nice gas field would go far to run Japan.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

In Tokyo, Gemba told a news conference Friday that Niwa’s view was not in line with official government policy, So can we please have a statement from the government that they support Ishihara and for his plan to buy the Senkaku islands for Tokyo. Then maybe Japan-China relations will be much clearer.??????

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There were two governments leading Japan actually, One is the DPJ and the other is Ishihara's Tokyo metropolotian government, both were based in Tokyo and they were struggling each other!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As representative of the Japanese government, Niwa should not say that transfer of a land ownership within the territories of Japan affects foreign affairs. If he is worried about Ishihara's plan, he might as well have sent his concerns to Tokyo without saying it on an international newspaper. Territorial issues focused in the spotlight can appeal to emotion rather than reason and fan the flame on both sides. Ishihara's plan being announced at Heritage Foundation made me feel uneasy too. Geopolitical power balance is to America's interest. Keeping tension is tacitly desirable. (In that sense America was stupid to tumble Iraq only to let Iran get stronger.) So Japan better keep it in mind that the US, as George Friedman maintains, may shore up China to prevent it from getting too weak if its economy is thrown into confusion in future so that the US may continue to control Japan. National interests should be pursued pragmatically if with severity without being swayed by nationalism. Learn how China settled territorial issues with Russia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

foreign minister Gemba finally took side with Ishihara.. Niwa San, packing up & returning home on the next flight though !

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Whether it's true that the disputed islands are owned by Japan, the comment made by Niwa was so "less-consideration that the cabinet was shocked. Such comments from Ambassadors, that would be careful make it. it should clutter up them. Rather than criticizing somebody, the most important thing for Japan is to control such sensitive topics by government. Otherwise, it should cause many scandals or slipping tongue which probably lead to resigns of cabinet member or related politicians again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again I make the observation that Japan selfishy ignore the Cairo Accords of 1943 and Senkaku should belong to the "Rykyuan Kingdom" where in all lands taken by violence or greed should be returned to the righful owner.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Marion, I do not want for my homeland to fall under the control of the Chinese. As an independent state the Ryukyu Kingdom would lack the needed self defense. We could not afford the American bases even if the population wanted them. Anyhow the Chinese want a weak response. Then they will say these islands are our but you can buy some of the oil/gas. Once it is in their hands they will exploit the fields and send it all to China. They can set up a military base there as well. Losing control of these islands will bring a new military threat to Japan.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Again you are reminded that the Senkakus were not taken by war or greed hence they were exempt from territories taken away from Japan under the Cairo Accords. The only country that is trying to take them by Greed, since 1970, is your beloved dictatorship China. The ones who killed Marines during the Korean War.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

OssanAmerica

Again you are reminded that the Senkakus were not taken by war or greed hence they were exempt from territories taken away from Japan under the Cairo Accords.

So its that cut and dry is it. Japan says that they belong to them so thats the end of it. I dont think so. If these islands where Japanese all along then can you please answer me this, why when the US handed these islands back to Japan in 1972 did they explicitly hand back ADMINISTRATION of the islands and not SOVEREIGNTY. If the islands where Japanese and always part of Japan then they would have handed back sovereignty of the islands like they did with others. Could it be that it is not as cut and dry as you make out.

The only country that is trying to take them by Greed, since 1970, is your beloved dictatorship China. The ones who killed Marines during the Korean War.

No doubt that China is being greedy, and yes they made their official claim in 1970. However that claim was made when finally China had a means of making the claim (i.e joining the UN). What you also fail to see is that around the same time Japan finally declared that these islands where part of Okinawa. So both sides appear to have made an attempt to make these claims around the same time after oil and gas was found. Funny you slam China for doing it but Japan did exactly the same.....

Oh and as for Chinese killing marines during the Korean war! Your point is exactly..... How is that relevant. Because only a few years earlier Japanese where doing the same or have you forgotten that?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Cletus

The Americans only handed back sovereignty, not administration, because they didn't want to rile the Chinese. But by avoiding a short-term problem, I fear they created a long-term one.

Japan officially incorporated the islands into their territory in 1895, so that's a long time before the Chinese claim.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cletus, at least Japan was in an open state of hostilities delivered a bit late. However China did not formally enter the conflict. Perhaps that is their plan to send "volunteers" into the places they want to capture. Lastly these islands belong to Okinawa Prefecture which is part of Japan. Times change people change the land of the sword is now the land of Hello Kitty. I read once when in war you become like your foe. Suppose Japan's foe was better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What you also fail to see is that around the same time Japan finally declared that these islands where part of Okinawa.

?????

Japan declared the islands to be part of Okinawa in 1895.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

nigelboy Jun. 12, 2012 - 05:25AM JST. Japan declared the islands to be part of Okinawa in 1895.

Then Japan should stop complaining about the Kurile Islands. Russia declared the islands to be part of Russia in 1945. Japan lost the war and this is the result of the war just like Senkaku for China.

In 1785, Japan published a map using the same color for the Senkaku/Diayou Islands and China, while using a different color for the Kingdom of Okinawa. Further, the Japanese government’s official “Complete Ryuku Islands Map” and “Okinawan Chronicles,” published in 1874 and 1877 respectively, did not include the Diayou Islands. Only in the 1890s did the Japanese government begin to express an interest in the islands. After Japan won the war, Japan forced China to sign the Treaty of Shimanoseki in 1895 with gun in their in heads. All terms and conditions were dictated by Japan. China had no say in negotiations and you call this a fair treaty? More like stolen but it was the result of a war like Kurile Island stolen by Russia.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In 1785, Japan published a map using the same color for the Senkaku/Diayou Islands and China, while using a different color for the Kingdom of Okinawa.

"Japan" did not publish such map. It was an individual scholar named Shihei Hayashi.

.

Further, the Japanese government’s official “Complete Ryuku Islands Map” and “Okinawan Chronicles,” published in 1874 and 1877 respectively, did not include the Diayou Islands.

It was not incorporated by Japan at that time.

Only in the 1890s did the Japanese government begin to express an interest in the islands

To be exact, it was a businessman named Tatsushiro Koga in 1885 who requested a lease to those islands so that he could operate a fishing/bonito plant. It took roughly 10 years for the government to make an inspection which resulted in their conclusion that Qing China did not own these islands.

After Japan won the war, Japan forced China to sign the Treaty of Shimanoseki in 1895 with gun in their in heads.

Don't know if there was a "gun in their heads" but U.S. did advise China in the drafting. Nevertheless, Treaty of Shimonoseki has nothing to do with Senkaku islands. Please focus.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

In 1931, during Japan’s occupation of Taiwan, Taipei County and Okinawa Prefecture quarreled over control of the Diayou Islands. The Tokyo High Court found in favor of Taipei County, and held that the islands historically belonged to Taiwan. Therefore, Japan in an official capacity acknowledged Taiwan’s traditional sovereignty over the Diayou Islands. China believes that Japan was legally bound to return and relinquish all rights to the Diayou Islands at the end of World War II.

The Cairo Conference of 1943 and Potsdam Conference of 1945, which were superceded by the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, compelled Japan to relinquish its claims to Taiwan and all its islands. Moreover, Article IV of the 1952 Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty states that “All treaties, special accords, agreements concluded prior to this treaty as a consequence of the conclusions of the war, are hereby null and void.” This treaty obligated Japan to return all previously seized Chinese territories, which, according to China, included the Diayou Islands because the 1895 Treaty of Shimanoseki included all islands belonging to Taiwan. Based on the conference and treaty, concludes that Japan specifically ceded its claim to the Diayou Islands to China at the end of World War II.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

nigelboyJun. 12, 2012 - 05:52AM JST. To be exact, it was a businessman named Tatsushiro Koga in 1885 who requested a lease to those islands so that he could operate a fishing/bonito plant.

He asked the Japanese goverment for the lease on these island, but Japan didn't owned the island in 1885, so what is your point?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Nigelboy, Taiwan is the more interesting. Prior to WWII Taiwan was part of Japan. The specifications of the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoski ceded Taiwan to Japan. Upon the coming into force of the 1895 Treaty, all previous claims of China regarding ownership of Taiwan, whether due to history, culture, language, race, geography, geology, etc. became null and void.

At the end of WWII Japan gave up Taiwan. The San Francisco Peace Treaty provides a deceptively clear statement on Taiwan's international position. Specifically, Article 2b states: "Japan renounces all right, title, and claim to Formosa. Where does Senkaku apply to this?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

nigelboyJun. 12, 2012 - 05:52AM JST. Treaty of Shimonoseki has nothing to do with Senkaku islands. Please focus.

Please stay focus. As always, your views are from Japan. China contends that the islets were transferred with Taiwan to Japan by the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, and should have been returned after the Second World War,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In 1931, during Japan’s occupation of Taiwan, Taipei County and Okinawa Prefecture quarreled over control of the Diayou Islands. The Tokyo High Court found in favor of Taipei County, and held that the islands historically belonged to Taiwan. Therefore, Japan in an official capacity acknowledged Taiwan’s traditional sovereignty over the Diayou Islands. China believes that Japan was legally bound to return and relinquish all rights to the Diayou Islands at the end of World War II.

Sigh. Not this crap again. This argument was already presented by a poster named Dog who based it on Martin Lomeyers paper.

"The Court’s decision is neither known nor does the Court’s procedure have a solid legal value. Children of former witnesses reported about the Court procedure. The Court procedure, which has only allegedly taken place, lacks reliable sources. But it cannot be proven that the procedures took place or that a ruling was given."

Thanks for nothing.

The above BS is explained here.

これはおそらく那覇在住の中国人陳哲雄氏あたりからの情報のように思えるが、だいだい尖閣列島の領海内は、 戦前戦後を問わず漁業権の設定されているような水域ではなかったことである。このようなところで漁業権をめぐる争 いが法的におきる余地はない。またある記事は一九四四年といったり、陳氏は大正年間といい、常氏は年代をいわ ず、他方陳氏は大審院、常民は最高裁といった具合に、年代も一致せず、事件の内容もあきらりかでなく、具体性が まったくない。戦前の大審院と戦後の最高裁が、あたかも同一のものであるかのように扱われている。最高裁にせよ 大審院にせよ、最終審であるから、その前に事件か下級審で審理されたはずである。しかしこれらのことにはまった く触れていない。

To summarize, prior to the Pacific war, Japan did not set/stipulate fishing zones within domestic prefectures/territories. One article states that this so-called hearing took place during 1944, while another person claims it was done during the Taisho era, and another doesn't even state the year such hearing happened. In addition, one claims this took place at (大審院) which is the highest court before the end of the war while the other claim this happed in high court 最高裁 which is post war. In either case, if such hearing happened in those highest courts, there must of been a decision made by the lower courts prior to submitting this case to the higher courts.

The Cairo Conference of 1943 and Potsdam Conference of 1945, which were superceded by the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, compelled Japan to relinquish its claims to Taiwan and all its islands. Moreover, Article IV of the 1952 Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty states that “All treaties, special accords, agreements concluded prior to this treaty as a consequence of the conclusions of the war, are hereby null and void.” This treaty obligated Japan to return all previously seized Chinese territories, which, according to China, included the Diayou Islands because the 1895 Treaty of Shimanoseki included all islands belonging to Taiwan. Based on the conference and treaty, concludes that Japan specifically ceded its claim to the Diayou Islands to China at the end of World War II.

As others have alluded to, the Senkakus does not fall under Cairo nor Potsdam. Why do I have to repeat myself? What part of "Senkaku was incorporated PRIOR to Shimonoseki" do you not understand?

He asked the Japanese goverment for the lease on these island, but Japan didn't owned the island in 1885, so what is your point?

If you read what I wrote, the Japanese government investigated the area and found that the islands did not belong to Qing which enabled the government to incorporate the islands in January of 1895. Did I mention it was prior to Shimonoseki? Just checking to see if you are paying attention.

At the end of WWII Japan gave up Taiwan. The San Francisco Peace Treaty provides a deceptively clear statement on Taiwan's international position. Specifically, Article 2b states: "Japan renounces all right, title, and claim to Formosa. Where does Senkaku apply to this?

IT DOESN'T. That's the whole Point!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

nigelboy Jun. 12, 2012 - 07:43AM JST. Japanese government investigated the area and found that the islands did not belong to Qing which enabled the government to incorporate the islands.

How did they investigate? Did Japan asked Chinese goverment about the island? What did Chinese goverment say in 1885?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How did they investigate? Did Japan asked Chinese goverment about the island? What did Chinese goverment say in 1885?

The Japanese government investigated any evidence of effective control/administration of the islands. There were none I.e. Terra nulls.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

nigelboyJun. 12, 2012 - 07:43AM JST. The Japanese government investigated the area and found that the islands did not belong to Qing which enabled the government to incorporate the islands in January of 1895. Did I mention it was prior to Shimonoseki? Just checking to see if you are paying attention.

I casts doubt on Japan's claim. There were many Meiji period goverment documents from 1885-95. These documents demonstrate that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership.

In 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, "Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China's suspicion.…" He then ordered that the matter should "await a more appropriate time" and "should not be made public."

In 1892, the Okinawa governor wrote, "the opportunity to survey the islands again has not yet arrived," thereby requesting the Navy to dispatch navy ship Kaimon." However, miscommunication and bad weather prevented the survey.

In 1894, the Home Ministry wrote, "Ever since the islands were investigated by persons dispatched by police agencies of Okinawa back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted." This was the final relevant correspondence prior to the Sino-Japanese War on Aug. 1894.

In December 1894, after China had suffered some devastating defeats in the war, a secret document from Japan's Home Ministry stated, "the situation today has changed significantly since back then." The Meiji government accordingly incorporated the islands based on a Cabinet decision on Jan. 1895, while the war was still underway. This was never made public and remained unknown to China.

In 1896, Koga Tatsushiro became the first Japanese native to lease the islands. In his biography, he attributed Japan's possession of the islands to "the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces."

These documents clearly show that the islands were Chinese territory obtained as spoils of war. The Chinese do not dispute that the islands, along with Taiwan, were part of Japan from 1895 to 1945. But with the conclusion of World War II, the islands should have been restored to their pre-1895 legal status.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Idocuments from 1885-95. These documents demonstrate that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership. casts doubt on Japan's claim. There were many Meiji period goverment

I beg to differ. Those documents that you refer only goes to show that Japan was trying to avoid any unncessary friction from Qing similar to what Japan has been doing in the recent past in regards to Senkaku. It's only when Japan's victory was sure coming that they didn't have to worry about this friction hence, the erection of the markers.

Furthermore, none of those documents ever state that Senkaku was under Qing like the 1885 memo which states "islands belonging to China" which you cited. During the course of the those 10 years, there has been many commercial activities conducted by the Japanese in the islands and yet there is absolutely no record of any conflict or encounters which clearly indicates that China did not care nor had any interest to exercize effective control over the unmanned islands.

After Japan's surrender in 1945, the Chinese government had ample opportunity to state and argue that Senkaku was part of Formosa but did not do so. In fact, as early as 1951, the Chinese government officially set their boundaries which did not include Senkaku. 台湾省通志稿 which clearly supports the argument that China's interest only came after the announcement of underwater resources by U.N.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

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