COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
politics

Gemba: U.S.-Japan security treaty covers disputed isles

40 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.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

40 Comments
Login to comment

disputed East China Sea islets claimed by Japan and China are covered by the Japan-U.S. security treaty

Maybe. But no way any U.S. assets will be put in harms way to protect a few islets for Japan's sake. People in the U.S. may drive Honda's and Toyta's and Nissan's, but they aren't going to support having the potential for U.S. blood being spilled so Japan can keep some rocks.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

These needs to be said publicly not by Gemba, but by Panneta. China is not going to take it seriously otherwise.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

“I did not bring up the topic today, but it is mutually understood between Japan and the United States that (the islands) are covered by the treaty,” Gemba told reporters after meeting U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in Tokyo.

Soooo... judging by the wording, Gemba is just ASSUMING this, no ?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Japanese, even someone at the highest level in the cabinet, has a habit of confusing wishful thinking and reality.

“I did not bring up the topic today, but it is mutually understood between Japan and the United States that (the islands) are covered by the treaty,”

I don't even know what this means. if he did not bring up the topic, how can it be mutually understood? and understood by whom? did they communicate by telepathy?

miscalculations and wishful thinking have always played a major part in the outbreak of war. it's like watching a train wrack in a slow motion.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Maybe. But no way any U.S. assets will be put in harms way to protect a few islets for Japan's sake. People in the U.S. may drive Honda's and Toyta's and Nissan's, but they aren't going to support having the potential for U.S. blood being spilled so Japan can keep some rocks.

Then pray tell what is the purpose of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America? Here is the first article of the agreement;

ARTICLE I The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. The Parties will endeavor in concert with other peace-loving countries to strengthen the United Nations so that its mission of maintaining international peace and security may be discharged more effectively.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

An American representative did not say this. Furthermore, before we lift a finger to get involved with this, it'll have to go through Congress.

No, this guy lied. There is nothing written about these islands in the Security Pact. This false statement is done to present a facade that the U.S supports Japan's claim to these islands.

Readers....be honest with yourselves. The truth is....Americans are focused on their election. Your problem with China is not going to be a topic of debate. You know this to be true.

What Gemba really wants is to use American lives to support their war while they kick back.

You didn't even want our Osprey here.

Anybody notice that Okinawa is REAL quiet these days. There are no protests asking Americans to leave.

Hey Okinawans....you should ask the U.S to leave now. As you all can see it's real quiet now.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Soooo... judging by the wording, Gemba is just ASSUMING this, no ?

No. The State Department has said this over and over. They take no position on sovereignty, but will honor their treaty obligations to defend Japan, including this area.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I did not bring up the topic today, but it is mutually understood between Japan and the United States that (the islands) are covered by the treaty,”

Yeah right,... just before you're gonna go in mob handed, you don't ask your top boy whether he's got your back.

Either this guy is a first rate tool or he didn't ask because he knew the answer he was going to get was not the answer he was going to like.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

lol, wishful thinking from Japan.

Japanese... lol....

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

So the US says we're staying out of it, then Japan claims the US sides with Japan? Oh dear. Sorry, don't believe that was said. If it was. wu didn't the US come and say that publicly?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

No, this guy lied. There is nothing written about these islands in the Security Pact. This false statement is done to present a facade that the U.S supports Japan's claim to these islands.

That is only if you believe that the islands belong to China. If you believe the islands are Japanese territory then the Security agreement covers them as well.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The US is in a difficult situation here, if anything happens, militarily that is, and they do nothing to support Japan, they are admitting that the islands are not Japanese territory.

On the other hand, if the US supports the Japanese on this issue it openly is stating then that they believe the territory is Japan's and would further inflame the issue by getting itself involved in a dispute with China.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Chucky you should be at chinadaily, not here. Gemba is telling the truth. USA will not get involved in diplomacy or anything like that, but when China sends a navy ship you can see USA raising their jets. Also. With so many missiles, who needs to send pilots?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

but when China sends a navy ship you can see USA raising their jets. Also. With so many missiles, who needs to send pilots?

Isn't China playing wars games in the area with their ships right now? No sign of the US coming to bail out Japan.... Out of a problem Ishihara created.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

wu didn't the US come and say that publicly?

Over and over again, the US has said that it stands by its treaty obligations to Japan regarding the islands, but takes no position on sovereignty. You just can't hear it, or you want to twist it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEgeQJqRZPM

Also, see below, even though you don't want to believe it. They are saying this over and over.:

(Xinhua) China vows to defend islands

During a Wednesday news briefing, US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked whether the US supports Japan's rival territorial claim over the Diaoyu Islands, which belong to China. Nuland said that the US does not have a position on the sovereignty of the islands, yet she reiterated that the US see the islands "falling under the scope" of Article 5 of the 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, a defense pact that promises Washington's needed support to help Japan protect its "territory".
1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let me try that again. I don't know why it didn't copy, but I'll align the text and see if that works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEgeQJqRZPM

Other text:

(Xinhua) China vows to defend islands

... Nuland said that the US does not have a position on the sovereignty of the islands, yet she reiterated that the US see the islands "falling under the scope" of Article 5 of the 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, a defense pact that promises Washington's needed support to help Japan protect its "territory"....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

US/Japan Peace Treaty.

hmm, I have not heard anything from the US State Department yet. Is there any misjudgement in Panetta's speech yesterday? These messages are conflicting in my opinion.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

FarmboySep. 18, 2012 - 09:02AM JST

The pretense for the continued US presence in Japan is under siege.

From Nikkei.com (2012/07/31)

Okinawa Required For U.S. Defense Of N.E. Asia, Not Japan: 1967 Document

A high-ranking U.S. official based on Okinawa made clear in 1967 that the United States did not need the Pacific island to defend Japan but rather for the security of Northeast Asia, according to Japanese diplomatic records declassified Tuesday.

The remark, made just before the government of Prime Minister Eisaku Sato launched full-fledged negotiations with the United States for the island's reversion to Japanese control, suggests that the U.S. side was focused on Okinawa's geopolitical importance for the security of the region.

That stands in contrast with the long-held position of the Japanese government, which has viewed U.S. forces stationed on Okinawa as a necessary deterrent for the country's defense.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Fine by me if the US and Japan want to work out something different. This seems irrelevant to the current situation, however.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sorry, that last note was a response to saidani.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

<>.. Nuland said that the US does not have a position on the sovereignty of the islands, yet she reiterated that the US see the islands "falling under the scope" of Article 5 of the 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, a defense pact that promises Washington's needed support to help Japan protect its "territory"....

so what the US is saying is that they will honor their treaty obligations but do not necessarily agree that senkaku islands are japanese territory. what does that mean? that if china invades the islands, the US may then decide that they are not japanese territory and therefore have no obligation under the treaty? clearly the US is leaving themselves the option to opt out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FarmboySep. 18, 2012 - 09:34AM JST

In fact, not irrelevant at all when one considers that, along with Japan, other interests in NE Asia include US commercial interests in China. One of those interests include a possible joint partnership with China's oil company, CNOOC to develop the resources of the South China Sea, a move contingent on sovereignty issues.

From China.org.cn

However, a researcher from the Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said that the issue of disputed sovereignty was the main reason for current apathy over development. "If China's grip becomes stronger on the South China Sea's sovereignty, we will see more oil companies participating [in development]," the researcher said.

So, since China needs technological help to develop the area, it needs these partnerships, providing impetus for "China's grip becomes stronger on the South China Sea's sovereignty" as they appear to be doing with the Senkakus. Of course, if US companies are involved, which side would the US support, corporate interests or its ally Japan? This is why the US refuses to make a stand. It needs wiggle room.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what does that mean? that if china invades the islands, the US may then decide that they are not japanese territory and therefore have no obligation under the treaty?

No, it's NOT up to the US to decide sovereignty. The Senkakus were under US administration during the war, and administration was turned over to Japan. The US has a defense treaty with Japan, and the Senkakus are specifically part of that treaty.

This isn't rocket science, and it isn't confusing. The US finds this situation inconvenient and difficult, because it doesn't want to annoy China, and because it wants to trade with China, but if the islands are attacked, the US will get involved.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This is why the US refuses to make a stand. It needs wiggle room.

Well, I agree that the US wants wiggle room. They are trying to walk a happy path between business interests and defense agreements, but they can't let the defense obligation to Japan slide or the whole situation unwinds. They are really hoping this problem goes away. It will become a mess for everyone if it doesn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These islamds are not new to the sea or whoever have watched over them for the past 50 years, 100 or 1000 years. The US Govt is run by global big business. Oil, resources & finance maybe even military industry... What do they want to do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the Americans who are aware of the misguided way Japan seems to think it can abuse the US-Japan relations for its nationalist quarrels, should waste no time and contact their government to voice their opinion. It would be inexcusable to see Americans get in harms way to satisfy Ishihara's twisted little fantasies.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the US position on the Senkaku Island, and how that position would affect a US response were China to force the issue.

Here is the answer:

The United States does not have an official position on the merits of the competing sovereignty claims.

The US repeatedly has asserted that the islands are included within the U.S. Japan Security Treaty. Meaning that a defense of the islands by Japan may compel support from the United States military.

In October 2010, Hillary Clinton clearly recognized that the islets fall within the scope of the Japan-U.S. security treaty.

The most recent assertion by a US diplomat of this position occurred only last month. Here is the money quote:

"The Senkakus would fall within the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security because the Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the government of Japan since they were returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972."

<http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/07/168715.html

Were China and Japan come to blows over the islands, the US would come to Japan's defense. Were China to attempt to wrest control of the island chain though force, the US would respond with force. This response would be in accordance with our treaty obligations to Japan. The so-called mutual security treaty in the bed rock upon which our foreign policy for the entire region rests.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Crystalyle

An American representative did not say this. Furthermore, before we lift a finger to get involved with this, it'll have to go through Congress. No, this guy lied. There is nothing written about these islands in the Security Pact. This false statement is done to present a facade that the U.S supports Japan's claim to these islands.

Is this what you are assuming or you have your source to know for sure? I thought US Japan treaty always has covered Okinawa prefecture. Also I saw an interview video that the assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt M. Campbell said when US returned Okinawa in 1972 to Japan, Senkaku was included.

I think if many Americans do not like America gets involved this kind of situation in military level, the US needs to chose a president who is willing to terminate the treaty. Other wise what you said is sounding only your wish. Yes, politically US takes no side but military level in case of any preemptive strike at Senkaku,the US has no choice. Unless America is willing to brake the treaty.

it'll have to go through Congress.

Really? I am curious to know. Is this you or you have a base to support this. I mean if US gets involved some situation based on UN resolutions or PKO? I would understand. But the under US Japan treaty which covers Senkaku as well, in case of any preemptive strike happens and need a self defense, we still need to go through Congress? I have no idea. Because since 1960, we have not had this sort of situation.

Any way, I am only taking about a technicality.Not what I want to see. What I want to see is the discussion about this treaty. That is needed for the both countries. Japan got a bill from the US this March to pay $7,2billion to move US marine to Guam. When America needed a financial support for the first gulf war, Japan paid more than any one else. The same amount of Kuwait as the subjective nation. Papa Bush made a speech about it. Japan has supported US defense system for long time. Of course the US could have paid more, the war ended much sooner than people thought,so as a result. Japan paid more. However US sent men&women in uniform,that is incalculable and valuable that something Japan can not do.We have obligation each other in a military level not political level. I feel the many people who post here have some confusion in this area.

What I want to say is that it might be about time to reconsider this arrangement since it is completely different world now and 1960. Also,Japan needs to discuss our constitution that was promulgated in 1946. Because the article 9 and this treaty has a fine balance to defend Japan also not intimidating any Asian countries around Japan. At his moment, I have no opinion yet. I do not know the best possible way to maintain the order in Asia. But one thing clear is, US will be the part of it. Let us pray we will not have any military escalation this time.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Chamkun The US does not have to go as far as to terminate the whole treaty. This isn't a "yes or no" contract, but rather a matter which is open to interpretation. The US will do what it wants to do, it does not owe anything to Japan. If the US lawmakers have any common sense, they will acknowledge the facts that led to this escalation, and that Japan, or Ishihara in particular is to blame for it. So far, the Chinese government comes away as much more mature and adult about the island matter. It is the Japanese side that seems to try to provoke by buying these islands (which they claimed to belong to Japan anyway, so there's a flaw of logic already). The US will be backed by the whole world if they decide that Japan has to stand on its own if it chooses to bully it's neighbours into military action. To Ishihara, and all Japanese that are not outspoken against him and his mob, one can only say, be careful what you wish for, and don't suppose anybody will support you if you act like a childish bully.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The US does not have to go as far as to terminate the whole treaty. This isn't a "yes or no" contract, but rather a matter which is open to interpretation. The US will do what it wants to do, it does not owe anything to Japan.

It's not about owing Japan, it's about honoring its agreements, and it will do that. The hidden truth is that the US thinks the Chinese position is insane, but they will never say that. It would be rude.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Farmboy I don't see any signals from the US supporting your view on this. Panetta has gone out of his way to stress that this matter has to be settled peacefully by the two parties involved. It is very telling that the US has not even given a warning to China - all they are saying is that both sides are in the wrong. If you know about Diplomatic speech and phrasing, which I suppose you don't because you misinterpret the determination of the US to acknowledge that the treaty applies to this case, you will understand that the US does not, and will not, support either side in this (childish) conflict. The US will not have to "honor the agreement", because the agreement is not applicable if Japan is the aggressor. Japan will have a very hard time to explain how China is the aggressor after Ishihara forced the government to make facts and buy the islands. To repeat myself: If any Japanese person thinks the US would put only one piece of hardware, not to speak of personnel in harms way over this, they are living in dreamland.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Those Osprey's ain't lookin' so bad after all, eh?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Gemba, did you just piss on your own boots? How is your comment going to help current situation?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I did not bring up the topic today, but it is mutually understood between Japan and the United States that (the islands) are covered by the treaty,” Gemba told reporters after meeting U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in Tokyo.

You can be sure the topic DID come up, despite what he says.

Japan saying it didn't come up is a way to keep things from de-escalating and helping China to save face. It's the corrrect non-confrontational move, and the Chinese government probably understands this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry: a way to keep things from escalating

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HansNFranz If the US lawmakers have any common sense, they will acknowledge the facts that led to this escalation, and that Japan

Do you think the escalation is Japan`s fault? I guess it depends on what each individual believes which country has Senkaku. I believed Senkaku clearly is part of Okinawa prefecture. That was true during the US occupation. Kurt M. Campbell said that also, at least when he made a comment when the Chinese boat incident 2 years ago. Do you think the US ruled Chinese island till 1972? This is not a personal feeling augment. Simply for me, makes no sense. China said nothing(They were allies) when they saw SF treaty #3 1952 then US took it. china said nothing. It returned 1972, China said nothing.The JinminNippo(A major New Paper in China) indicates Senkaku as Japan on 1953 Jan.8th. many maps they published indicated the same way.

However the UN team found the potential gas, the story changed. Japan did not feel good but being patient. After they expanded their military base on the Paracel Islands in74, then after US left from Philippines more bases on Spratly Islands , and 1992 China promulgated an unilateral Senkaku territorial law.Then many times, their navy especially last few years they have gone through near Japan or Japan territory often. Japan has been provoked by them for long time. If this happened other countries, I am sure that the most of the country would not to be patient as Japan.

I appreciate for letting me know your understanding about US JPN treaty but I had to express my disagreement for the point of your opinion that Japan escalated the situation. We have been very patient for long time.

Also, When China successively has destroyed their own satellite with their missile and a Chinese submarine surfaced off in 6.5 miles behind US Air carrier, Pentagon understood what these things meant. After that China tried to negotiate with the US to divide the pacific Honolulu as a dividing point for the navy presence. The US did not like the idea. If Senkaku becomes free route for Chinese Navy, Okinawa mainland and Taiwan would be hard to defend and they can come into the pacific as they want. Senkaku was strategically important to US. That why I thought whatever the political rhetoric it is, Japan and US has some main concern together. I ma not sure if the China suggestion is the manifestation of Sinocentrism or not. But many Asian countries are afraid of their move. One thing you might not know yet is, China has already officially discussing that Okinawa mainland it self is pat of China since November 2011. If that were true, at least Senkaku is China makes sense. People in Okinawa do not want to be Chinese. We can not make another Uighur situation.

The way Mr. Ishihara provokes China is not appropriated by all Japaneses,either. But basically what the gov. tried to do was buying a land form a Japaneses private owner.Not sovereignty it self.We can not buy that any way. If US Gov. buys a private land from a private US owner on Hawaii changes no reality. But as a result of this,Japan gave some reason for China that they can capitalize on it. Since JUSCO was destroyed by Chinese demonstrators this weekend.The one store`s loss is already larger that the price of the island. I do not think that is demonstration but a terrorism if you see the picture of JUSCO, anyone can see why I said a terrorism.

I said many things more that I was going to, my main concern was even if we have a US Japan treaty, if American solders are killed for the sake of Japan, Japan(Average people) is not ready to take that as reality. the same time, if America does not show the strong presence now to China, America as our deterrent power might not be working.A preventative strategy is more important for me. Because once it starts, the exit strategy will be so difficult between Japan and China.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Paneta has publicly stated that the us will back Japan if it is attacked.

http://times247.com/articles/japan-electronics-firms-halt-production-in-china.mobile

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Anyone with common sense can figure out that the US will in no way accept the islets to be under Chinese territory, so close to Okinawa. They're just not taking any sides now, as nothing serious has happened. But wait till a thousand Chinese trawlers will linger around Senkaku. Once an aggression there is observed (from either side), the US will pick a side. The Japanese Embassy has closed already. Not good. I remember my embassy also did so last year. And that was just because of Fukushima. Am having wishful thinking for a peaceful solution to this crises, but nobody else seems to smell troubles o)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

blah blah blah

Everyone is wrong.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The US is going to stay out of it until a missle comes to Japan. Then you bet they will get involved in a heartbeat!

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