politics

Ishihara wants to buy Senkakus to keep 'burglar' China out

128 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

128 Comments
Login to comment

Article failed to disturb a very peaceful morning here in Japan.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Shintaro Ishihara told journalists that Beijing’s drive to take control of what Japan knows as the Senkaku Islands and China knows as Diaoyu, was a stage on their journey to get control over the whole Pacific.

Ah much like Japan did many years ago. But wait he wouldnt mention that as he denies any wrongdoing on Japans part right!

“The Chinese have declared that they will take bold steps to break Japan’s control (of the islands), including sending more vessels,” Ishihara told reporters at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Tokyo.

Seems he forgot to mention the new Chinese airbase that is nearly finished a mere 380km from these islands. Its a wonder he isnt using that to whip up some nationalistic support for his purchase....

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Shintaro Ishihara told journalists that Beijing’s drive to take control of what Japan knows as the Senkaku Islands and China knows as Diaoyu, was a stage on their journey to get control over the whole Pacific

Oh yes, can definitely see this. As soon as they set foot on those godforsaken rocks in the back arse of nowhere they will immediately start invasion plans for Tokyo - the only bit of the whole Pacific that actually DOES fall within his jurisdiction.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

amazing how history gets forgotten "their journey to get control over the whole Pacific."

5 ( +10 / -5 )

It would be better to settle this in the UN and save the money. If the Chinese reallly believe the islands are theirs, then they will certainly disregard any transfer of property between a Japanese family and the Japanese government. IThe islands are either Japanese or they aren't, and the transfer would be meaningless. To use the metaphor above, the burglar breaking into his own house isn't a burglar, so the question of ownership must be settled first.

I actually think Japan has a good argument for ownership in this case, but who will enforce that idea? I don't think Japan can, and the US won't risk war to settle such a small dispute. Better to try to use the UN, and the lure of more international trade, since China is a big trading partner.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Shintaro Ishihara told journalists that Beijing’s drive to take control of what Japan knows as the Senkaku Islands and China knows as Diaoyu, was a stage on their journey to get control over the whole Pacific

Yeah, and he knows this because it's what his beloved Japan tried to do in the first half of the last century...

If he moves his own house to the islands and lives there, then I'd have a little respect for old blinky.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

"amazing how history gets forgotten "their journey to get control over the whole Pacific"

which country were you thinking of: America, another?

-15 ( +5 / -20 )

Ishihara never fails to amaze. What is more amazing is that a strongly worded and very public denunciation by the central government re Ishihara's ranting hasn't happened. Perhaps there is more behind the scenes than we know and he actually has central government backing for this venture? If not, this would be akin to the Mayor of New York attempting to dictate foreign policy to the Federal Government. Obviously not his the job Ishihara was elected to do. He should stick to what he is being paid for and that is being the Governor/Mayor of Tokyo-to not the Foreign Minister.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@OMGhontoni

Its more than about just the islands/rocks - its also the zone/sea around the islands. Its nothing to do with an invasion of Tokyo as you suggest.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

The rare earth exports to japan will cut off if this 'fossil man' keep making noises!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

He is always in provocative manner against especially China. It it good for Japanese government? I think NO. Whether we should be provocative, even though we should claim Senkaku is Japanese's island, the government should control everything over the dispute of the island because this issue directly should link with our natural resources that Tokyo is not involved. As some people mentioned early on, the involvement of UN is a natural way in. No matter where it is about territory issue, that would be reasonable.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I enjoy Ishihara's press conference which is held every Friday and broadcast live on MTV (metropolitan government TV station). I think we need a person like him. He is a Rush Limbaugh of Japan.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

In a few decade from now, possibly, U.S. can no longer be anti-Chinese due to its own financial crisis and collapse of the dollar, and it might abandon Japan and moves away from control of the Far East, Taiwan may be taken in by China, Korea may move toward North-South conciliation and a pro-China position, and Southeast Asia may have settled under China’s umbrella. As to Japan, after being abandoned by the U.S. while still taking the position of opposing China, Senkaku might be the thing of the past.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

He says the islands are not "too expensive"? Good, then he can use his own money for the purchase, and not ours.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

These islands belong to Japan. There is no negotiation needed and Japan controls this territory. What China might do is slip some civilians in to occupy our territory. Just like they have done with the PI. So to take these islands China will need to use force. Japan has the military to oppose them and with the Americans help defeat the invasion. This will be a defining moment, they will either be with us or against us.

Cletus, the past is the past and I do not feel at all responsible for the actions of my ancestors. If China takes these islands next will come Okinawa and home. Appeasement did not work in Chamberlains time and it will not work today. The line with China needs to be drawn. One needs to confront the bully as the only thing they respect is force.

-6 ( +13 / -19 )

@minello7

How can history be forgotten here if it is NEVER even taught?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

YuriOtaniMay. 30, 2012 - 08:39AM JST These islands belong to Japan. There is no negotiation needed and Japan controls this territory.

If Japan has definite ownership without doubt, why did Japan offer to explore resources jointly with China? Sounds like a big concession by Japan if you ask me. If Japan owns it, they didn't need to ask China. It shows Japan has a weak claim and they know it.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

YuriOtani May. 30, 2012 - 08:39AM JST Japan has the military to oppose them and with the Americans help defeat the invasion.

Confusion about where U.S. defense commitments apply could lead to serious miscalculations by Japan claiming disputed Senkaku islands. Japan could become unwarrantedly provocative if they believe that they have U.S, backing. China could underestimate a U.S. response. There are times in international relations when ambiguity serves the interests of peace and security. This is not the case with mutual defense treaties.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

“The Chinese have declared that they will take bold steps to break Japan’s control (of the islands), including sending more vessels,” Ishihara told reporters at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Tokyo. “In other words, they are readying to break into someone else’s house.”

So, Ishihara claims Japan owns this 'house' he speaks of, but in order to avoid having China break into Japan's house he wants Japan to buy it?

In other words, Ishihara having Tokyo buy the islands won't change a single thing one way or the other -- if it's already someone else's house China's 'breaking into', how is changing the name on the door going to stop that? And if Japan 'clearly' owns these islands, as Ishihara claims, why bother with joint development of the gas fields around it?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The Senkaku islands belong to Japan. All the gas fields surrounding the islands belong to Japan. Ishihara is absolutely correct with his actions.. If China tries to strong-arm and threaten the Kurihara family, their is little that they can privately do. However If Tokyo buys the islands and controls them, the government of Japan can use military force to protect them from China. Thus any provocation from China will be seen as an act of war.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

YuriOtani

These islands belong to Japan. There is no negotiation needed and Japan controls this territory.

Well that is obviously up for debate. You say they belong to Japan, China says they belong to them, Taiwan says they belong to them. And your allies the US says while you (Japan) may administer them your claim is weaker than China's. Interesting isnt it? So to say they are yours is merely your opinion nothing more.

What China might do is slip some civilians in to occupy our territory. Just like they have done with the PI.

Ah so you are worried that they will do EXACTLY what you have done. Oh those dastardly Chinese, how dare they do what we have done already....

So to take these islands China will need to use force. Japan has the military to oppose them and with the Americans help defeat the invasion. This will be a defining moment, they will either be with us or against us.

Thats the highlight of my day, you have the military might to oppose them. Oh that is hilarious, thanks Yuri l cannot stop laughing at that. That is so funny. You military (cough, cough) couldnt stop a thing let alone the Chinese if they where determined to take these islands. And as for your statement about the US helping.... Is this the same US you want out of Japan? The same US bogged down in Afghanistan, the same US that is going broke and slashing its armed forces. MMM I wouldnt count on that one too much Yuri.

Cletus, the past is the past and I do not feel at all responsible for the actions of my ancestors.

Of course you dont Yuri, but you expect everyone else to now dont you. You refuse to feel any responsibility for your countries past actions but you constantly bemoan the US actions against your country in the past. So you refuse to feel any responsibility while demanding others do. Love it.

If China takes these islands next will come Okinawa and home. Appeasement did not work in Chamberlains time and it will not work today. The line with China needs to be drawn. One needs to confront the bully as the only thing they respect is force.

MMM you had better get some force behind you before you go threatening the bully, just in case that bully calls your bluff. Because right now you have nothing but empty threats and words and an antagonist in Tokyo who is over riding the national government and stirring a hornets nest.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

peanut666May. 30, 2012 - 09:21AM JST. However If Tokyo buys the islands and controls them, the government of Japan can use military force to protect them from China. Thus any provocation from China will be seen as an act of war.

Remember, Japan and China is one of the largest trading partner. Do you think goverment of Japan want to risk everything for a piece of a rock in the middle of the ocean? What is going to happen to 20,000 Japanese companies that is operating inside China? What if Chinese goverment freezes all their bank accounts and saids Japan companies cannot tranfer the monies back home? Japan will end up with depression.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I agree with an earlier poster, yes japan should buy them and general ishihara move there!

I'll pay his fare one way of course!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

sfip330, these islands fall within Japans EEZ and not China's. America has already announced they will defend Japan. The only problem I see is a Japan perceived as weak. That would give China the go ahead and take these islands by force. Once China attacks it will give the go ahead for the sdf to respond. There will only be a conflict if China wants a conflict.

So this could be one of those defining moments in history. Whose side is America on?

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Ishihara, who has made a career out of provocative remarks,

Only in Japan can you make a career out of being a moron

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Rick EarlyMay. 30, 2012 - 08:04AM JST What is more amazing is that a strongly worded and very public denunciation by the central government re Ishihara's ranting hasn't happened. Perhaps there is more behind the scenes than we know and he actually has central government backing for this venture?

Exactly. At this point, central government silence on the this idiotic behavior can only be interpreted as acquiescence. Otherwise, he needs to be told in no uncertain terms to cease and desist.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It's old men like Ishihara that send young men away to die gloriously in war.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

to keep 'burglar' China out

It takes one to know one, huh Ishihara?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Ishihara is an self serving fool. But being outspoken in Japan commands popularity. Osaka's mayor has learned that.

BTW if he plans to buy the islands who is he going to pay the money to? China?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

YuriOtani

these islands fall within Japans EEZ and not China's.

Actually you are wrong there Yuri. According to the majority of maps showing Japans EEZ these islands fall outside of your EEZ and that is because there are unresolved territorial claims going on with these islands. Also you may need to check a map as the closest Japanese territory is 140 odd km from these islands and the closest Taiwanese territory is 160 km from these islands placing the islands within both nations 200 km eez. So until a definitive answer is made as to who these islands belong too, and that means not you or the nutjob in Tokyo but the UN or ICJ then you can posture all you like but your claim is just that a claim.

America has already announced they will defend Japan.

Yes they have said that, but they have also said this "State Department spokesman Philip Crowley separately told reporters the United States takes no position on the sovereignty of the islands."

1 ( +8 / -7 )

I'm with Rick and Wanda above. Why doesn't Central Government - you know, the people whose job it IS to decide foreign policy - tell this shrieking clown to keep his deranged views to his own bailiwick?

He doesn't decide foreign policy. He has no army with which to make good his promises of defending the territory. And he's not even making the smartest move with regards to luring the Olympics here.

Has he even deigned to let us in on the secret of how much of OUR money he's spending on his little game of LebensRaum?

Please, people of Tokyo - this man is embarrassing you on the world stage. If China turns off the Rare Earth, what paltry blips of economic growth you do have will flatline immediately. Do yourselves a favour and demand he grow up. For such a very old man, he's an awful lot like a spoiled little boy.

And Mr Noda - act like a leader and put this buffoon in his place.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

these islands are obviously japanse territoly but the fact is no meaning against china. i think he who wishes to begin a war between china and japan are the US and Ishihara, china might not want to start war until her own economy power would be strong enough and be stable. this isnt good situation for japan and china, its not good timing for both countries having this issue. hope someone like UN will work for relief this tention.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Racist nutter.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I don't understand what Ishihara is trying to do. He says he wants to secure the islands to Japan by buying them from their Japanese owner. Why the hell would China acknowledge the title of land as legitimate in the first place? If he thinks China will accept this "land buy', then maybe he'd be interested in buying the Sydney Opera House from me....I'll just need to....ummm..."dig" up the land title. I'm sure it was around my office somewhere.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Here's the situation - a group of rocks claimed by Japan but is nowhere near the rest of Japan, let alone the capital, but right on the doorstep of Taiwan and not too far from mainland China. Ishihara can keep an eye on the rocks by, as a poster suggested, moving there himself. He'll have wildlife to keep him company. He won't go mad, because he's there already.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

These islands belong to Japan. There is no negotiation needed and Japan controls this territory. What China might do is slip some civilians in to occupy our territory. Just like they have done with the PI. So to take these islands China will need to use force. Japan has the military to oppose them and with the Americans help defeat the invasion. This will be a defining moment, they will either be with us or against us.

Cletus, the past is the past and I do not feel at all responsible for the actions of my ancestors. If China takes these islands next will come Okinawa and home. Appeasement did not work in Chamberlains time and it will not work today. The line with China needs to be drawn. One needs to confront the bully as the only thing they respect is force.

Oh Yuri, I find this quite hilarious coming from you. I've seen you spout some very anti-US sentiment on here and on another forum you use to visit. But now you're expecting the US to back Japan's shaky claims to a small group of uninhabited islands? Get real! The old nationalists might agree with Ishihara's pathetic ramblings but I highly doubt anyone else would. I also doubt the US would back military action on Japan's behalf to take these islands, especially if one old coot in Tokyo keeps stirring the pot.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Here is the truth plain and simple. If the islands are actually Japan's then Tokyo does not have to buy them. If they are really and truly Chinese island then the purchase is illegal and the Chinese can move it anything. My view (which I think is a majority view) is that the Chinese do not have a chopstick to sand on in claiming ownership of those islands. That being the case, there is no point of Tokyo buy those islands and wasting money that could go to some better cause. Ishihara's purpose in all of this is promote himself. So in the end the people of Tokyo will in actually be buying Ishihara.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's obvious Ishihara has never read the book "How to win friends and influence people".

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@OMGhontoni

Its more than about just the islands/rocks - its also the zone/sea around the islands. Its nothing to do with an invasion of Tokyo as you suggest.

@888naff - I didnt suggest it - Ishihara did. Read the article.

But being outspoken in Japan commands popularity. Osaka's mayor has learned that.

Which is strange really, isnt it, given that these people in authority are always telling the minions that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. Seems that the nail only gets hammered down if it doesnt have self-serving political connections.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I hope China outbids Ishihara for the islands.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So this could be one of those defining moments in history. Whose side is America on?

America's.

Don't doubt it for a second.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

cactusJack, Red China will not be allowed to buy those islands. They are well within Japans EEZ extending from Okinawa. In fact they are part of Okinawa.

Cletus, either America supports Japan or it does not. If they say we will defend Japan except for disputed parts. Then their treaty is not worth anything. If they defend these islands than Japan can be secure under their protection. America being non decisive like about Kuwait in 90 will lead to conflict.

Stephen Jez, if America refuses to help Japan, then they will be kicked out. This is the best part, Japan can prevent them from reinforcing the South Koreans. Look at the map, what does a neutral Japan mean for the southern faction? Oh I am not anti-America but pro Japan.

One last time, the sins of our ancestors our not our sins. Bad things happened in the past, we can only prevent them from happening again. Okinawa is part of Japan and ceding part of Okinawa for peace will lead to China demanding for the entire prefecture. Do not know about you but I would rather be dead than red!

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

nowhere near the rest of Japan, let alone the capital, but right on the doorstep of Taiwan and not too far from mainland China.

150 km from Yonaguni Island (Japan), 170 km from Taiwan, 340 km from China.

Not that distance is or should be the deciding factor. The Falklands are 580 km from the coast of Argentina, 12800 km from London. American Samoa is 1100 km from Fiji, 4100 km from Hawaii, 7755 km from mainland US. The persimmon tree in my neighbour's garden is closer to my back door than hers, but they're still her persimmons.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120518a1.html

According to this article he has been trying to buy these islands PERSONALLY for the last 40 years!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

YuriOtani

Red China will not be allowed to buy those islands. They are well within Japans EEZ extending from Okinawa. In fact they are part of Okinawa.

Yeah, maybe you should review your map Yuri, you say they are well within your EEZ. Well they are also well within Taiwans EEZ too. Which is why they are "disputed". Now you are claiming that they are part of Okinawa. Proof please? You can not just make a statement and expect it to be fact when the rest of the world including your allies do not support your stance. I could say l own Tokyo but it dont make it so without a shred of proof. Fact. The islands belong to no-one until an international body decides the 3 way dispute. Just because you ADMINISTER them doesnt mean they are yours as your friends the US has previously said.

Cletus, either America supports Japan or it does not. If they say we will defend Japan except for disputed parts. Then their treaty is not worth anything. If they defend these islands than Japan can be secure under their protection. America being non decisive like about Kuwait in 90 will lead to conflict.

MMM the same America you repeatedly call on to leave, the same US you openly constantly critisise. Gee Yuri you want them out then you want them to support you. Please make up your mind. One day you demand they leave, the next when something goes against you you want them to go to war on your behalf..... Phew thats confusing.

Stephen Jez, if America refuses to help Japan, then they will be kicked out. This is the best part, Japan can prevent them from reinforcing the South Koreans. Look at the map, what does a neutral Japan mean for the southern faction? Oh I am not anti-America but pro Japan.

Nope Yuri you are definitely anti US one only needs read your diatribes so you are fooling no-one. And Japan would not dare stop the US reinforcing S Korea. And besides a Korean war would be very very bad for Japan as it would be for Korea. Or dont you see the bigger picture.

One last time, the sins of our ancestors our not our sins. Bad things happened in the past, we can only prevent them from happening again.

Funny one Yuri, and one last time. You trot out this line constantly while every other day you attack other nations for their past actions. You are becoming to predictable Yuri.... "I dont live in the past" you say, then you say "but the US did this and that and you little fables about what happened to your people etc etc". For someone who claims to not live in the past you sure do like to throw it up a lot. Maybe you should go back and read some of Yuri's greatest comments. There are some good ones that makes a tall tale of what you just said. And they are very recent too.

Okinawa is part of Japan and ceding part of Okinawa for peace will lead to China demanding for the entire prefecture. Do not know about you but I would rather be dead than red!

Dont fear Yuri your safe where you are in the US

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Chinese Government: Sorry Mr. Ishihara. Diaoyu Islands are not for sell at this time.

BTW YuriOtani, we will never be kicked out. I understand your feelings about Okinawa but I must remind you. Japan is of little threat to the U.S. Here's a simple equation to remind of where our relationship stands - U.S > Japan. History has it written as this U.S 1 - Japan 0

I only mention such things when it sounds like you are biting the hand that feeds you.

China holds a large portion of U.S debt. We might cut a deal with them.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

either America supports Japan or it does not

You can be confident in knowing that nobody on this globe will support Japan to start yet another war.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Did Ishihara even bother to ask if the islands were even for sale in the first place? Who is trying to burglarize who?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Everytime Ishihara opens his mouth, I feel embarrassed for Japan.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

China holds a large portion of U.S debt. We might cut a deal with them

Yup, you've got it right, Netninja. I hate to think China is cutting a check to me every month. I am not for Romney, but he may select Donald Trump as a running mate. Who knows. Both of them have been pretty outspoken against unfair trade practice of China. Maybe this is just a show to get themselves elected. But if they are really serious, we (Japan, USA and China) will be in a hell of mess. I hope not.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

A range of viewpoints here, and interesting to see how opinions can change based on the wording and news articles. Most gaijin see anything Ishihara says as nonsense, and so in this case many are taking a stand against Ishihara and Japan. But no reason to rush to arms against Japan because Ishihara is in the middle of things.

Not that I agree with everything Yuri says, but completely agree with his stance on this island issue. I'm an American living in Japan, and have been following these developments closely over the years. The Senkaku Islands are in fact viewed as Japan's from the U.S. perspective, and that's that. Whatever "claims" Red China might have had on the islands in the past are no longer relevant.

Japan does not need to be pushed around by China. Stand your ground Japan, and be proud. Your country is one of the most beautiful, safest, cleanest, and overall best places to live in the world. Believe me, no one is saying the same about China.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

@YuriOtani As much as I may disagree with you I want you to know one thing. You've got some grit about you, which is a good thing. Now, as a fellow blogger on this site and just someone that respects you for who you are I would TELL you NOT to get behind this old geezer.

Yuri....Ishihara is over the hill with his foot caught in the door at the looney toon asylum. Whether we know each other or not I would wrap my arms around you and not let you throw your life away for an old politician who's johnson doesn't function anymore.

Be realistic. The islands are NOT really in dispute. It's just sabre-rattling by old men who think they are powerful still.

As I mentioned earlier, you've got some grit about . Be more selective who you use that energy for.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

daveinjapan

Not that I agree with everything Yuri says, but completely agree with his stance on this island issue. I'm an American living in Japan, and have been following these developments closely over the years. The Senkaku Islands are in fact viewed as Japan's from the U.S. perspective, and that's that.

Dave, l think you need to try again. The US government have said in the past that they " The U.S. position on this issue is longstanding and has not changed. The United States does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands. "

So far from saying that the Senkaku's are part of Japan they infact are remaining out of the debate. What they have said is that as Japan currently administers the islands they are part of the mutual defence treaty. That is a big difference to what both yourself and Yuri are claiming. The US does not infact support your claim that Japan is the sovereign owner of the islands.

Whatever "claims" Red China might have had on the islands in the past are no longer relevant.

Actually they are relevant, they are as relevant as Japans past claims on the islands. Or would you take the same view that whatever claims Japan has to the northern territories in the past are no longer relevant?

-1 ( +7 / -9 )

How can some people actually say these islands belong to Japan? People seem to forget that back in WW2, japan made a bunch of claims on islands that weren't theirs, and senkaku/daioryu may very well belong to china as well.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@Cletus

The US does not infact support your claim that Japan is the sovereign owner of the islands.

That is the key word that for some reason a lot of people are glossing over, deliberately, selectively or are just in pure denial.

@Bob

People seem to forget that back in WW2, japan made a bunch of claims on islands that weren't theirs

You just said it "people seem to forget" but I'm sure Japan had very serious...ahem...logical reasons as to why they made such claims.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Stephen Jez, if America refuses to help Japan, then they will be kicked out. This is the best part, Japan can prevent them from reinforcing the South Koreans. Look at the map, what does a neutral Japan mean for the southern faction? Oh I am not anti-America but pro Japan.

Yeah, kick the US out. That will work since Japan has a standing military force of it's own and all that right? You know what? Why don't you send your local Okinawan mayor to Hawaii to "protest" the bases in Okinawa to the US directly. How many times have backwards politicians from that backwater little island done that now? Not that it would matter, he'd come back and call his trip a success and all the apathetic uchinanchu wouldn't even give a second thought to how he just blew their tax dollars on a government paid vacation.

Keep contradicting yourself, it's entertaining. Boy I wish I would have saved some of your posts from the other forum (not around anymore) so I could post them here and show how big of a hypocrite you are.

One last time, the sins of our ancestors our not our sins. Bad things happened in the past, we can only prevent them from happening again. Okinawa is part of Japan and ceding part of Okinawa for peace will lead to China demanding for the entire prefecture. Do not know about you but I would rather be dead than red!

Guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no big deal then either?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It's obvious Ishihara has never read the book "How to win friends and influence people".

Nah, he was too busy writing ero rape stories....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Stephen Jez

"One last time, the sins of our ancestors our not our sins. Bad things happened in the past, we can only prevent them from happening again. Okinawa is part of Japan and ceding part of Okinawa for peace will lead to China demanding for the entire prefecture. Do not know about you but I would rather be dead than red!"

Guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no big deal then either?

Stephen, when it comes to Yuri she firmly believes that Japan does no wrong and should forget its past as you can see from her statements. But if you dare mention what another nation has done to Japan she will scream how poor Japan suffered at their hands blah blah blah. It is hilarious to watch the double standards in action.

0 ( +7 / -8 )

Hilarious people here are defending China...the same China that published an article during the American occupation of the islands as part of US territory...the same USA that would then legally give the islands to Japan. China still did not dispute this...until around 1970 when possible oil was found in the surrounding area. China's claim is economics and nothing else, they could care less about the history of it. Even in Taiwan, in 1970 it was published as a territory of Japan..but shortly after (after the discovery of possible oil/minerals) they disputed it. It's nonsense.

0 ( +6 / -5 )

If the good ole US of A wasnt willing to defend the Falklands for Britain -with a population of several thousand ALL wanting to remain British, and historical claim before said antagonist even existed- then I highly doubt the USA is going to help Japan defend a few rocks.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

CharlieCard

Hilarious people here are defending China...the same China that published an article during the American occupation of the islands as part of US territory...the same USA that would then legally give the islands to Japan.

No Charlie what is hilarious is your version of events. China and Taiwan actually said in the late 60's while the US was still administering the islands that they had claims on the islands. Also the US gave Japan administration of the islands NOT sovereignty over the islands. Infact the US state department to this day still refuses to acknowledge Japans claim to sovereignty over the islands. And this is well documented. There is a big difference between giving Japan administration of the islands and giving them sovereignty something that never happened.

China still did not dispute this...until around 1970 when possible oil was found in the surrounding area. China's claim is economics and nothing else, they could care less about the history of it. Even in Taiwan, in 1970 it was published as a territory of Japan..but shortly after (after the discovery of possible oil/minerals) they disputed it.

Funny both China and Taiwan announced their claims in the late 60's prior to the finding of minerals and oil. Which just makes your comment nonesense. Until this is sorted out by the UN or ICJ then it remains in limbo and non of the 3 parties are right or wrong in this. What is even funnier is Japan is launching a court case to determine sovereignty of the islands. And where will this be heard? In the Japanese judicial system, now there is a unbiased result right there. lol

It's nonsense.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

...the same USA that would then legally give the islands to Japan. China still did not dispute this...until around 1970 when possible oil was found

Since the islands were transferred to Japan, that gives a total waiting time of -1 years.

All this information is readily available on the net. Do you just enjoy flinging bullshoot or what?

China's claim is economics and nothing else, they could care less about the history of it.

As true for China as it is Japan! Do you get dizzy from all this spinning?

Even in Taiwan, in 1970 it was published as a territory of Japan..

Published? What the heck does that mean? Was this by the government, or some company?

Denying facts, twisting them, inflating them ruthlessly, seeming making things up on the fly and not bothering to do the math even. Seems to be pretty standard for most of those supporting Japan's claim. I just don't know how people like this can greet their mothers with a smile. I would feel nothing but shame.

I support Japan's legal claim for one simple reason: well established military control. I don't like to say that, but its the way the world works. But that said, Japan should give them back willingly, to Taiwan, as the islands were clearly stolen during the first Sino-Japanese war.

But you know, its pretty funny that Japan finds itself in the same pair of shoes as the Koreans over Dokdo, but the Japanese don't even flinch in their hypocrisy.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

market rumour china might pay 1 billion$ for senkaku and korea to counter with a 2 nillion$ offer. 10 billion yen is peanut compared to this

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Once again, the posters on this site hate facts. The official chinese propaganda mouthpiece (people's daily) in 1953 published an article stating that the Senkaku islands (occupied by the US) are part of Japan's territory. As for Taiwan it was a STATE prescribed textbook that stated the islands are japanese...also the National Defense Research Academy and the China Geological Research Institute of Taiwan in 1965 published a World Atlas showing Senkaku as part of Japan's territory.

And I know again, that you guys hate facts here...but China did not dispute sovereignty until AFTER the UN discovered possible gas and oil. You can even look up the NYtimes article from 1970 when China first claimed sovereignty, it was AFTER oil was discovered, and the article mentions this...several times.

2 ( +8 / -5 )

Whilst I would agree with many posters here that Ishihara should not, let's just say, be doing this there are things I don't understand: currently the islands are privately owned and leased to the Japanese government. If purchased by the TMG then they would, in a sense, still be privately owned. Assuming that the lease agreement allows it, will the government continue to lease the islands from their new owner, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government? Assuming that they don't then who is responsible for what? Are the TMG responsible for their security or, as the islands are part of Japan, the government. If the government then what is the point of the purchase by the TMG? The TMG has no armed forces apart from the MPD, are they going to build a couple of Kobans there?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@ valued_customer, about Dokdo I personally want Japan to just cede the islands to Korea so the two countries which have so much in common can finally start fixing their relations...however the funny thing is historically, Japan has an even stronger case for Dokdo than it does for the Senkakus. In fact this was the official US position in the 1950s "[T]he United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty ... Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute.""

Also Japan is not sending fisherman or warships to Dokdo like China does in the South China Sea..it simply is asking Korea to go to international court over this, in otherwords Japan is so confident historically and legally of winning that Japan is risking to lose face and the islands entirely if the judge were to rule against them. Seems much more reasonable than China and not the "same pair of shoes".

2 ( +5 / -3 )

CharlieCard

Once again, the posters on this site hate facts.

Funny was about to say the same about your argument.

The official chinese propaganda mouthpiece (people's daily) in 1953 published an article stating that the Senkaku islands (occupied by the US) are part of Japan's territory.

MMM 1953, just after the Korean war. Link please????

As for Taiwan it was a STATE prescribed textbook that stated the islands are japanese...also the National Defense Research Academy and the China Geological Research Institute of Taiwan in 1965 published a World Atlas showing Senkaku as part of Japan's territory.

Yes and? And in the late 60's they made a claim on the islands. So your point is?

And I know again, that you guys hate facts here...but China did not dispute sovereignty until AFTER the UN discovered possible gas and oil. You can even look up the NYtimes article from 1970 when China first claimed sovereignty, it was AFTER oil was discovered, and the article mentions this...several times.

Maybe you could look up the timeline of the Senkaku islands dispute (there is lots of reading on the matter) and you will see that in the late 60's PRIOR to the oil/gas find both China and Taiwan made statements claiming the islands and these claims are also documented and therefore FACT! And whats more the fact is the US state department DOES NOT support Japans claim to the islands. As l have said before and feel free to look it up. The support Japans administration of the islands but not Japans claim. Infact it is documented that some in previous US administrations believe China has a stronger claim than Japan. And as you like ot say that there is FACT!

-3 ( +5 / -9 )

when China first claimed sovereignty, it was AFTER oil was discovered,

And you accuse us of hating facts? Just above you claimed China first claimed sovereignty AFTER the U.S. gave the islands to Japan. China claimed the islands in 71. The islands reverted in 72. But you just try to blow by that with no acknowledgement, no apology, no nothing? And you accuse us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands

Yes, I am sure the Chinese did not care much about those islands until oil and gas was discovered. Its very much like you didn't care about that carboard box your neighbor took from your garage until AFTER you found out it had money in it. It doesn't change anything. This is not about motives. Its about FACTS.

Also, how maps are drawn is pretty low rung when it comes to proof of valid claims.

You can even look up the NYtimes article from 1970 when China first claimed sovereignty

China claimed sovereignty before then, just not officially. Officially it was 1971. And here is why: In 1971 the PRC replaced the ROC in the U.N. and first took its seat on the security council. And surprise, surprise, that is when the PRC made its claims. Hell, the U.S. did not even recognize the PRC officially until 79! But you expect everything to be neat and clean and filed in a timely manner! I am sure they would love you down at the IRS, but let me tell you, the qualities they love are despised by everyone else for good reason.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Now I'm just waiting for the article about China pulling out of the direct trading with Japan due to Ishihara's comments.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I don't know what is more pathetic, Ishihara's attemopt to buy these islands, the public offering up their cash to buy these islands or all of Yuri's posts on here demanding the US military (whom she rants about all the time) help Japan in this quest.

Cletus, you have more patience to deal with a certain poster than I do. 100% agree with all your posts on this. Been classic reading.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

To comment on some of the comments:

Japan certainly invaded lots of places it wasn't entitled to in WWII, but that doesn't mean China is entitled to do the same now. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Cleo hits the nail on the head with the comment about persimmons. The geographical proximity of the islands to China or other countries is not relevant to their sovereignty.

Cletus is also right, strictly speaking, to say that the US has not gone so far as to recognise Japanese sovereignty of these islands. However Hillary Clinton has stated that they are covered by the US-Japan Security Treaty. In other words, the US will defend them on Japan's behalf if China attacks them. But I think there's plenty of room for doubt about whether the US would actually do so.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Yuri Otani,

Do you really think that China wants Okinawa, and Kyuushuu and then all the way home...meaning Shinjuku? Really?

"One last time, the sins of our ancestors our not our sins. Bad things happened in the past,"

But, it might help the whole relationship if those sins were acknowledged.

Here's something that I wish Japanese would consider. Do you really think there are lots of Americans who would support sending soldiers to die to defend Japan's claim to a bunch of islands close to China? Especially when the man at the center of it all has made a career out of bashing the US, denying atrocities by Japanese in China?

And as an Okinawan, how far do you want to take the fight in this "defining moment in history". If there is a battle, (and Ishihara gives the impression he wants one - calling people burglars is not the most diplomatic language), it is one thing if it's between a few ships at Senkaku, but if it escalated, remember that missiles aimed at Kadena etc, would not be a great prospect for your relatives still in Okinawa.

I'll tell you what the defining moment in history would be. The US pulling out of Japan, saying you're on your own. Then watching how tough Ishihara and Yuri Otani are. I dunno. When I see dozens of cops running from a naked man in the moat, and hear story after story of policeman being arrested by citizens after chikan and steaming underwear, I wouldn't be placing my money on Japan.

Maybe AKB48 can do something about this....?

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Bravo Yasukuni!!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Is it just me or does Ishihara always seem like he's puffing out his chest, scowling and double-dog daring China to start something. He comes across as such an irritating punk abusing someone behind his big friend. So it amazes me that so many people like him when he really just seems so obnoxious.

And as an aside, a Japanese person bringing up the example of Chamberlain is just ...ironic, isn't it?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I am sure that some day soon the right-wing imperialistic views of this outspoken nutcase are gonna plunge Japan into war with china. China is not to be toyed with or bullied cos they will go military. This situation needs to be handled delicately and by someone with some political charisma. This loon has about as much political charisma as a turd in a thermos.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tokyo - the only bit of the whole Pacific that actually DOES fall within his jurisdiction.

Please stop being insensitive to the residents of the Bonin Islands and other Metropolitan overseas territories who pay Tokyo taxes.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

wasn't okinawa a long time Chinese vasal state when it was the Ryūkyū Kingdom? on that notion wouldn't have the chinese have a larger claim on those islands?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

amazing how history gets forgotten "their journey to get control over the whole Pacific."

and let's see the result of that failure in Asia: there's G7 member Japan and poverty stricken elsewhere.

Tokyo is the light of the Orient. I cannot bear to imagine how horrible Japan or the rest of Far East would be without her.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Mr Ishihara worrying about China breaking into Japan's house? Given time they'll own everything of value in it anyway.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Please stop being insensitive to the residents of the Bonin Islands and other Metropolitan overseas territories who pay Tokyo taxes

Geez - have hairs, will split em

2 ( +2 / -0 )

In a way, the past claims on the Senkaku islands are irrelevant to today's conflict. Whichever power has the ultimate claim of true sovereignty over the little pieces of island really doesn't matter in the state of the pacific politics today: both countries are now fighting over it purely for international standing and economic advantage.

Even if China truly owned the islands in the past, Japan will still try to claim it, because it would make them lose face if they were to be seen to give it up without a fight. And similarly, even if there was a fact or some proof that could show Japan as the rightful owners, China will never give up the islands gracefully.

Whatever the case, however, such territorial disputes aren't likely to be resolved by simply a local government "buying" them over from their private owner. What matters is that Ishihara's move is going to reinforce a Japanese claim on the islands simply for the fact that it is tax payer money spent on those uninhabited rocks. From that perspective alone, Ishihara's doing a good thing for Japan.

However, personally, I would very much rather he spend tax payer money on helping develop infrastructure, improving living conditions, or any number of things that benefit Japanese people more concretely than some disputed islands on the pacific. As a governor of a local government, poking his nose into the international scene without the central government's approval is little more than buying political capital for his own selfish gain. He would be helping serve Japan more as a politician If he would direct his efforts and attention to the areas that are already under his jurisdiction instead of spending tax payer money to gain more territories. It's sad when politicians use their position and power for selfish reasons and try to cloak it under doing good for the nation as a whole.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Buy the islands, plant this idiot to defend them, leave him rations and bring all the ships back. It's the perfect win-win. Who can complain about that? Oh yeah, and let him bid for the Senkaku Olympics 2020.

Go Ishihara! (No really, please...go!)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

on that notion wouldn't have the chinese have a larger claim on those islands?

No Dennis. The people of Okinawa are the only ones with a claim to it because they are the PEOPLE OF OKINAWA. There are no people of the Senkakus.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Buy the islands, plant this idiot to defend them, leave him rations and bring all the ships back. It's the perfect win-win. Who can complain about that?

Please, we don't want any more media attention do we?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fishermen from Yonaguni and the Yaeyamas have been making use of the waters around the islands for over a century; possibly longer. Based on this, I wish the mayor of Ishigaki or Yonaguni would stand up and declare the islands to be part of one of their towns -- a much more diplomatic solution that gets the faraway Tokyo windbag Ishihara right out of the picture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

which country were you thinking of: America, another?

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No Dennis. The people of Okinawa are the only ones with a claim to it because they are the PEOPLE OF OKINAWA. There are no people of the Senkakus.

And funny, didn't the Ryukyu people claim that THEY owned the Okinawa islands? Now Japan "owns" them... Hmmmmm....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Believe me, no one is saying the same about China.

no one, as in 0 in the entire world? hard to believe. i like china, as no one hates an entire country 100%.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

cleo:

150 km from Yonaguni Island (Japan), 170 km from Taiwan, 340 km from China.

Not that distance is or should be the deciding factor. The Falklands are 580 km from the coast of Argentina, 12800 km from London. American Samoa is 1100 km from Fiji, 4100 km from Hawaii, 7755 km from mainland US. The persimmon tree in my neighbour's garden is closer to my back door than hers, but they're still her persimmons.

Cleo, dear, can you tell me how a small island like Yonaguni compares to the four main islands of Japan? I'd say even using the word miniscule would be too much. Please take a look at a map.

The Falklands are much larger and are inhabited by people who wish to remain part of the UK. And the Americans certainly had no business invading Hawaii, let alone forcing her Queen to abdicate. And as for your neighbour's garden - does the size compare to that of Japan? Her garden is one whole piece of land - not isolated lumps of soil. Poor analogy.

Those rocks should either be part of Taiwan or Ryukyu (not Okinawa and certainly not Tokyo).

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Actually I agree with Cletus more often than Ishihara. Think what he wants to do is to put a presence on those islands. That will prevent a group of Chinese fishermen from taking possession of those islands.

If China thinks they can take military action against Japan with only token American protests it will happen. Just like Kuwait in 90. The threat of war is not from strength but perceived weakness.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The threat of war is not from strength but perceived weakness.

And if that is the case, those islands are for China's taking.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And to add to that Yuri, if China wants to take those Islands, who's going to stop them? Japan is NOT in any position to make grand threats. Japan would just have to suck it up, period.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I'm not sure for what USMC stays and drills in Okinawa even demanding to have a substitute air base if Americans might not really want to defend Japan when a conflict actually breaks out over the disputed area which is part of Okinawa. Maybe we should be careful not to be left out on a limb like a trapped underdog against a country which will be nearing the U.S. both economically and militarily. So the best way is to leave it on the shelf indefinitely as suggested by Chou En-lai and continue commerce (Chinese were clever). The threat of war is mostly from a gloating third that plays both ends against the middle.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

can you tell me how a small island like Yonaguni compares to the four main islands of Japan? I'd say even using the word miniscule would be too much. Please take a look at a map.

I did look at the map, to see how far from Japan, Taiwan and China these islands are. Yonaguni is as Japanese as any other bit of the country. Ask the people who live there if they wish to remain Japanese or become Taiwanese or Chinese.

Didn't your wife tell you that size doesn't matter?

the Americans certainly had no business invading Hawaii

Fine, proclaim independence for Hawaii. That puts the tiny island of American Samoa even further away from America. It's still American. The name is a giveaway.

as for your neighbour's garden - does the size compare to that of Japan? Her garden is one whole piece of land - not isolated lumps of soil.

Still hung up on size? What holds in miniature also holds in the bigger world. (eg, if it's wrong for me to thump my neighbour in order for me to take possession of her persimmons, it's equally wrong for my country - any country - to thump another country in order to take possession of its resources.) My neighbour also has an allotment, what you might call an isolated lump of soil quite separate from the one whole piece of land that is her garden. The veggies she grows there are her veggies, not the veggies of the people who live near her allotment.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

bass4funk the Maritime SDF has the same ships that the US Navy operates. The Chinese operate ships that are derived from the Soviets. True the Chinese have more ships but it just makes more targets. Russian equipment has failed all across the globe. This battle will be all about who has the best electronics and not numbers.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Lol at the two guys still not liking facts. Taiwan and China did not claim sovereignty until after oil was discovered. Nothing else to discuss really. It doesn't matter at all if they quietly mentioned it to the US, it obviously wasn't a big enough deal until oil was discovered that they officially announced. Not only that, everysingle source and article I have found does not mention ANYWHERE that China claimed sovereignty over the islands before oil was discovered. As I showed before, official taiwanese and government agencies published articles and maps showing Senkaku as a part of Japan's territory. This indisputable. Unless you want to claim they made some kind of "mistakes" there is simply no argument against this and it's not my fault or Japan's fault that they published official documents saying it was japanese territory and did not claim sovereignty until after oil was found. That's China and Taiwan's fault and it dminishes their argument.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

BTW China is making the same ridiculous arguments in the South China Sea. Oh oil is around there? Those islands have been a part of China since ancient times!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

CharlieCardMay. 31, 2012 - 03:14AM JST Taiwan and China did not claim sovereignty until after oil was discovered. Nothing else to discuss really. I have found does not mention ANYWHERE that China claimed sovereignty over the islands before oil was discovered. As I showed before, official taiwanese and government agencies published articles and maps showing Senkaku as a part of Japan's territory.

China’s claim to Senkaku is based on the discovery of unclaimed territory and range of Chinese government contacts and references going back to 1372. Japan’s claim is based on the discovery of supposedly unclaimed territory, despite the fact that J-government was well aware of China’s historic claim when it began to take an interest in Senkaku in 1885. The J-goverment officials failed to complete surveys of the islets to confirm Senkaku's alleged unclaimed status, but also recognized that Japan needed to negotiate with China. In 1895, when Japan, by then defeating China in their 1894-95 war, adopted a cabinet decision that the islets were Japanese territory. Yet even that cabinet decision was not made public until after the WWII. In 1895, the gun was pointed to the head of the defeated Chinese officials, and what choices did China have regarding Senkaku issues? There was no negotiation and Chinese complied to Japanese demand of giving up islets to save their life.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

That Ishihara is a known nationalist and rightwing leaning politician in a democracy where he is a minority, means nothing when compared to the one party Chinese dictatorship that is on a military and territorial expansion agenda theatenming not just Japan but all of Asia, . Get your fascists in perspective folks. China is considred a threat to not just Japan and other Asianm nations but the United States, Australia and India as well. As for the U.S, position the Secretary of State has already declared that the Senkakus fall within US defense borders, a fact which may be the only thing keeping China from playing the same game they are doing with the Phillipines and Vietnam. So nothing to argue about there. The Senkakus were incor[porated as Terra Nullis into Japan by the proper international protocols. It was never taken in a war and therefore remained part of Japan after WWII ended. According to China all of Asia was once Chinese thousands of years ago and is undeniably Chinese territory. The world isn't buying it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Cleo,

I do not know who the Senkakus belong to, but the Falklands, American Samoas and Hawaii are not the proper comparisons. These are not territories that are in dispute between close neighbors. These were acquired by UK/US during periods of military expansion in far out territories, i.e. they were conquered and physically settled. If the American Samoas had been right off the coast of Mexico and the dispute is between US/Mexico, or that the Falklands are right off the coast of France and the dispute is between UK/France, they might be more proper analogies.

The closest analogies I can think of are the Dokdo Island and Gibraltar. Note Spain is making an increasingly assertive claim on Gibraltar as evident by the Queen of Spain's absence at Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee dinner.

Again, I have not read enough to say the Senkakus definitely belong to Japan or China or Taiwan. But if you put your self in China's shoes, you too would probably make a claim on the Senkakus simply on strategic grounds.

Many Japanese (especially the likes of Ishihara) have shown little contrition for its atrocities during WWII. Would you want a country that has invaded you and inflicted horrors and that does feel too bad about its past to be so close to you? Maybe another spring board for their Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere?

Even if China kicks out the communist government and replaces it with the most benign/democratic government in the world, it'll likely make a claim on the Senkakus simply because they are so close to China's most populated coastal areas and they would complete Japan's encirclement of the East China Sea.

0 ( +2 / -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 ( +2 / -3 )

I think Cleo was just trying to make a point about distances - unless I read wrong.

The wife and size line was a little below the belt though ...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The request by the U.S. was made to China to use the Diayou/Senkaku Islands as bombing targets during the Cold War. If Japan owns these islets, why didn't U.S. ask Japan instead of China?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I do not know who the Senkakus belong to

Neither do I. Simply pointing out that the 'but they're closer to X so they should belong to X' argument is 1) factually incorrect and b) irrelevant.

Is Spain claiming Gibraltar for its recently-discovered oil reserves? If not, it's no more a valid comparison than the Falklands or American Samoa.

I very much doubt that anyone in their right mind, even in China, is seriously concerned about Japan restarting its Greater East Asia Prosperity Sphere. It's all about the natural gas that might be there.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

yasukuni - yes I was, and yes it was. :-)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

In more enlightened countries such racist sproutings have led to a gaol sentence.......

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ask the people who live there if they wish to remain Japanese or become Taiwanese or Chinese.

Why not ask Okinawans what they preferred before Japan invaded and took over? Yuri, did you forget that part of your history?

Yuri, you can go on and on about the size of the SDF but at the end of the day, IF Japan were to use them in a combative stance and you suggest, the rest of Asia would be up in arms - and rightly so considering the history of this country which you seem to want to forget.

Do you really think the US would throw away all the business opportunities and economics help China is giving them for Japan? A country that is so far behind in debt, so out of control in spending, job lose, nuclear safety,.... A country that is so old and has a huge population issue? I don't. Reality check. The US isn't going to jeprodize their cheap goods and trade for Japan. Japan isn't worth it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Ask the people who live there if they wish to remain Japanese or become Taiwanese or Chinese.

Cleo's right here - self determination is all it boils down to in the end. The UN's Human Rights legislation has pretty much every base covered for those born and bred and so the ONLY way to take any of these so-called disputed islands these days is by force. Sabre rattling makes headlines but the politicians couldn't give a flying 'cos they know international law is on their side.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Cleo,

Distance may not be the determinative factor in a territorial dispute, but it is an important one. None of us would want a neighbor whose main house is miles away to assert a claim against a piece of soil right under the window of our bedroom. It's kind of common sense. I find it interesting that you do not mention the Kuril Islands dispute between japan and Russia. In that case, Japan's position is more analogous to China, and Russia's position is more analogous to Japan.

As for oil reserves, it's probably an important factor, but not likely the most important one. As I mentioned, China would most likely be concerned about a geopolitical (from a military standpoint) encirclement of the East China Sea by Japan.

I am visiting China right now. The Chinese people do not trust Japan. Chinese government propaganda play a role. But more importantly, it's because Japan is not contrite about what it did to China and its people during WWII. The rhetoric of the likes of Ishihara and Japanese politicians' visits to Yasukuni certainly do not help. From other Asian countries' standpoint, If a convict does not agree what it did was wrong and is not remorseful, what is to say it won't commit the same offense again? Japan was a nice country with nice people pre-WWII, and look what happened...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It is interesting how countries blame the Japan of today for our ancestors crimes. Japan paid a heavy price for the war and that includes the innocent people of today. Why am I not surprised that when they run out of argument the Pacific war is brought up? Germany is brought up a lot but Europe has not forgiven them as the Allies have not forgiven Japan. It always goes back to history and the crimes of our ancestors.

Now China is claiming what is a part of Okinawa. They present evidence that is false and go back on treaties. Understand this basic fact, if China can void a treaty since it was forced on them for losing a war, Japan can do the same. After all the peace treaties after the Pacific war were signed at the point of a gun. What is the difference? Thinking like this leads to the next war.

This has become a bore and degraded to Japan bashing. These islands are part of Okinawa which is part of Japan. Any attempt to take them is an act of war.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

OssanAmerica

That Ishihara is a known nationalist and rightwing leaning politician in a democracy where he is a minority, means nothing when compared to the one party Chinese dictatorship that is on a military and territorial expansion agenda theatenming not just Japan but all of Asia, .

Actually it means a whole lot. It means that this man is meddling in affairs that as the MAYOR of Tokyo he should butt out of and leave to the national government afterall they are the ones that make policy and foreign policy not some tinpot mayor with illusions of grandeur.

Get your fascists in perspective folks. China is considred a threat to not just Japan and other Asianm nations but the United States, Australia and India as well. As for the U.S, position the Secretary of State has already declared that the Senkakus fall within US defense borders, a fact which may be the only thing keeping China from playing the same game they are doing with the Phillipines and Vietnam. So nothing to argue about there.

Yes agreed that the Senkaku's fall under the mutual defence treaty. Why is that? Oh thats right because Japan administers the islands. Now the key word there is ADMINISTERS!!!!! Ossan what is the US's view on Japans sovereignty claim over the islands do you know? Thats right they do not support Japans sovereignty claim now do they.... Funny that. So they are happy for Japan to administer the islands but are not supporting the sovereignty claims. Funny how you and others fail to see or make mention of that when you say the US supports Japan on this matter.

The Senkakus were incor[porated as Terra Nullis into Japan by the proper international protocols. It was never taken in a war and therefore remained part of Japan after WWII ended.

So if it remained part of Japan all along then answer me this. Why in August 1970 did Japan declare the islands part of Japan by passing legislation. Surely if they had ALWAYS been part of Japan this would be unnecessary, why did the US take over administration of the islands from Japan and in 1971 return ADMINISTRATION to Japan. Not sovereignty but administration. Hmmm but you claim they had always been part of Japan obviously not according to the Japanese and US.

2 ( +5 / -2 )

YuriOtani

Yuri, Yuri, war this war that. Really!!!! Is that your answer to everything. It seems everytime someone says something your answer is to threaten war. You obviously havent learnt from the past and maybe that is why people bring it up because you like the dictator of Tokyo have not learnt from your past. Maybe instead of repressing it and pretending you where the victims you could face the cold hard facts. You got what you deserved for your actions, now toughen up live with it, acknowledge it and understand as long as people hold a mentality like the mayor (and you) your true victims will not like you, will not trust you, and will harbour grudges against you. Hardly unexpected now is it.

It is interesting how countries blame the Japan of today for our ancestors crimes.

MMM but your happy blaming the US and allies for their supposed actions against your people during the war. Interesting how you apply double standards to this. Maybe you should read some of your previous posts dear.

Japan paid a heavy price for the war and that includes the innocent people of today.

Japan paid a small price actually compared to the death, destruction and damage it wrought on the nations it attacked. They got off fairly lightly actually. Oh you lost 1 million civilians compared to the 16 million who died at your hands. I think you got of VERY lightly.

Now China is claiming what is a part of Okinawa.

Oh so suddenly it is part of Okinawa? Wow when did that happen? You just decide that one did you.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It is interesting how countries blame the Japan of today for our ancestors crimes.

Coming from you that is hilarious!!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Cletus, so if Japan can fight and win a new war, then anything it can dictate to the losers is right? Any means of winning the war are right as well? I do not believe this to be true. Anyhow when have I ever said Japan was right to occupy Korea, attack Manchuria and China? Then in their paranoia attack the Allied powers.

Where do you get the figure of a million Japanese dead? There were the air attacks on Japan, the attack on Okinawa and then all of the war losses. R. J. Rummel estimates the civilian victims at 5,424,000. Then there were all of the civilians that starved to death or died of disease. What you fail to realize is the militants of the Japanese Empire had no more regard for the health and welfare of the Japanese people than the other countries. They took over the Nippon nation by force and then set out to do the same to other nations.

Anyhow these islands were part of the Ryukyu kingdom. They are a natural part of the island chain. As long as Okinawa is part of Japan, they are part of Japan.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Oh Cletus, if there is a new war Red China will have to start it.

-2 ( +2 / -5 )

What is up with the "red China" comments? Is that suppose to scare people or something?

Yuri, as someone from Okinawa, I would have thought you would understand the issues with Japan and their island grabbing. Your home island was never part of Japan until they declared it was. Of all people on this board who should see a problem with Japan and claiming islands, it is you. Instead, you'll argue that they are Japan's , that Japan should fight from them.... What's that saying about history, not knowing it, having to repeat it....

5 ( +9 / -3 )

All readers, please stop sniping at each other and make sure your comments focus on what is in the story. Posts that do not will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why buy them if they are allready Japanese owed? The owner ishiharasa friend so he needs tax payers money?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Robert Roo because the national government has done a series of forced leases. Nothing at all new for Okinawa Prefecture. They do this to "appease" Peoples Republic "Red" China. Use this title to show a difference from Republic of China "Taiwan", who also claims these islands. Anyhow if my understanding is correct, it is felt that an actual Japanese presence on the islands would prevent a snatch and grab by the communists. They have just done this with an island that belongs to the Philippines. Send in the fishermen and then "police" to protect them and Chinese territory from the actual owners. Unlike the PI Japan has the forces to confront an invasion but do they have the willpower to do such? Then add in a possible non response by the USA and it equals perceived opportunity for invasion. For all of the people who say it will not happen, it has just happened! Their appetite stimulated by success they will move forward with the next and next. Weakness including the perception of such equals war and not peace.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

here's a solution even Ishihara may like. Let Japan be a new province of China.............one country that will dominate. All others like Korea ( both N. and S. ) will in time fall in step ( bonus point, solve the Takeshima problem ). BUT since the Japanese are so much more superior than the rest of the other Asians in intelligence, martial spirits, arts etc, it is inevitable that the japanese will eventually be the leader of such nation. A 21st Cent. Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, in a manner of speaking.............

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

oberst have no wish to live as a part of Red China. If America would desert us then it would be time to get a atomic deterrent force. I grew up believing Red China was a foe. Despite what some of my friends in Okinawa say about them, still feel they are the true foe. They almost got me to be soft on the communists.

I have been reading some of Ishihara's writings and they are routinely mistranslated into the other languages. Thus the gentle readers in the other parts of the world get the wrong impression. While he is still in right field some of what he writes is understandable. The thief is at the door and the national government is too afraid to lock it.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Yuri, you really use the word "war" a lot. Just sayin..

Just wondering, my "below the belt" comment got five minuses. Was that a collective groan at my weak attempt at humor? :)

I think I'm officially an oyaji.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well I also say it is not Japan that will start any conflict. Look a strong signal from Japan and the United States will prevent any conflict. I look at it as if England and France would of stood up to Hitler. If people think I picked up my dislike from Japan they are wrong. I picked up my dislike from my associations with Americans. Watching AFN to learn better English. While I pick on Americans sometimes they have their good points. Red China on the other hand is the definition of spawn. Anyhow it is interesting to read his stuff. It is about being proud to be Japanese and not being a racist.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

exciting comments guys - Let the U.N. handle things.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

CletusMay. 31, 2012 - 09:37AM JST OssanAmerica That Ishihara is a known nationalist and rightwing leaning politician in a democracy where he is a minority, means >nothing when compared to the one party Chinese dictatorship that is on a military and territorial expansion agenda >theatenming not just Japan but all of Asia, .

Actually it means a whole lot. It means that this man is meddling in affairs that as the MAYOR of Tokyo he should >butt out of and leave to the national government afterall they are the ones that make policy and foreign policy not >some tinpot mayor with illusions of grandeur.

Ishihara has openly stated that he iis "meddling" in this matter because the J-govt is unwilling to do what the vast majority of the J-popuklace would like to see done. This can happen in a democracy. It can not happen in a one party authoritarian dictatorship. You've got opinioions about a mere Mayor of a city but no qualms about a giant military and economic dictatorship buyying all of Asia?

Get your fascists in perspective folks. China is considred a threat to not just Japan and other Asianm nations but the United States, Australia and India as well. As for the U.S, position the Secretary of State has already declared that the Senkakus fall within US defense borders, a fact which may be the only thing keeping China from playing the same game they are doing with the Phillipines and Vietnam. So nothing to argue about there.

Yes agreed that the Senkaku's fall under the mutual defence treaty. Why is that? Oh thats right because Japan >administers the islands. Now the key word there is ADMINISTERS!!!!! Ossan what is the US's view on Japans >sovereignty claim over the islands do you know?

Yes I do know. The United States does not suppprt China's advances into the East and South China Seas.

Thats right they do not support Japans sovereignty claim now do they.... Funny that. So they are happy for Japan to >administer the islands but are not supporting the sovereignty claims. Funny how you and others fail to see or make >mention of that when you say the US supports Japan on this matter.

The US has no need to comment about sovereignty when they've already made it clear that any attempt to take the Senkakus by military foprce will receive a military response from gthe United States. Do you somehow think that some commentabout recognizing sovereignty would be more threatening to China? And Australia hasn't made any comment either, but it is party of the US- Japan-Australia security alliance which clearly is designed to thwart Chinese military and territorial ambitions.

The Senkakus were incor[porated as Terra Nullis into Japan by the proper international protocols. It was never >taken in a war and therefore remained part of Japan after WWII ended.

So if it remained part of Japan all along then answer me this. Why in August 1970 did Japan declare the islands >part of Japan by passing legislation. Surely if they had ALWAYS been part of Japan this would be unnecessary,

Because China suddenly made a claim after realizing that there were oiil/.gas deposits in the area. Since China under any form of government never made any such claim until then it was not necessary.

why did the US take over administration of the islands from Japan and in 1971 return ADMINISTRATION to Japan. >Not sovereignty but administration. Hmmm but you claim they had always been part of Japan obviously not >according to the Japanese and US.

Nonsense. The entire US occupation did not take away Japanese sovereignty, it merely adminstered occupied Japan from 1945 to 1952. Everything that GHQ carried out had to pass through the Japanese govt and their laws to go into effect.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To OssanAmerica: i'd love to eviscerate your stomach and let your guts fall out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To OssanAmerica: i'd love to eviscerate your stomach and let your guts fall out

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To OssanAmerica: I'd love to smash your ugly face in and then cut it to ribbons. Stupid idiot

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