China rebukes Japan over plan to nationalize disputed islands

Just can't imagine that the Japanese government is willing to pay Y20.5 billion to a bogus owner for something that is already under their control.

Commonsense will tell us that any private ownership would have been rendered null and void in 1945 when Japan lost the war and gave up its sovereignty over the Ryukyu and Diaoyu islands according to the Potsdam Agreement and subsequently, the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

That is the reason why the Diaoyu islands and Ryukyu islands can't even be found in any map of Japan either published by Japan or other nations in the world between 1945 to 1971 such as this one:

http://retromaps.tumblr.com/image/30107477891

There is no reason in International Law and Maritime Law that Japan cannot assume sovereignty over lands that are part of her sphere, just as China is intending to do with other areas, so both can play at that table. I did not see the owner offering to sell the islands to China ....instead they offered them to Japan and I am glad they made the right decision to move forward on that. China needs to learn that international relations are not controlled by bullies but by reasonable exchange between nations, all of whom are equal in such things.

There is no reason in International Law and Maritime Law that Japan cannot assume sovereignty over lands that are part of her sphere

Well, Japan did agree that the sovereignty of those islands must be determined by China, Russia, UK and US according to the Potsdam Agreement which says:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

A violation of the Potsdam Agreement will also constitute a violation of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender which says:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated."

And a violation of the Potsdam Agreement will also constitute a violation of the 1972 China-Japan treaty which says:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Postsdam Proclamation."

And Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation says:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

"Analysts say Noda's solution - owning the islands and not doing anything with them - is the best thing he could do because it will go some way to assuaging nationalist fervor at home while not annoying China too much."

Oh, the Analysts and their profound analysis. How cute. We said the same thing here in JT forums on day 1, and Noda thought about it before us all.

As a matter of fact, I am curious how far will China go with its claims. It feels like China decided to check where the border line is.

Whoever the owner is, he/she is quids in and quite probably will be listed in Guinness as the 'worlds most epic land banking winner'.

Guru29: Beilieve the purchase price is JPY2bn, not 20bn.

Guru29: Seeking to go by Potsdam or the SF treaty I dont think will help your position which contradicts with the argument made by China resisting to apply these agreements they were never officially part of. These islands would obviously not be included in any map of Japan during that time because they were under US occupation, as with the other islands of Okinawa. Also important to note that, interestingly enough, they were shown as Japanese territory in maps used in China during that time. All goes to show that no one really argued against the basic understanding at the time until natural resources were discovered in the area in the late 60s. I take the position that estoppel should naturally apply in this case. Having said that however don't think this issue will be resolved during my lifetime.

Seems like a monumental waste of money. Clear winner: Landowner. Follow the money, as they say...

On issues concerning sovereignty and territory, the Chinese government and people will never ever yield an inch,

So the issue will never be resolved, great... I'm glad to see humanity has matured. Goes for both sides.

Just throw a bone at PRC and they will be happy..

Japan prospects the underwater oil field under the name of joint cooperation and draws lines for areas that can be exploited. Japan gains 85% of the stake in tender and another 5% tax of all the oil that had been excavated within the area while PRC gains 15% of the tender.

Japanese companies bidding tender have first selection while PRC has second and the private companies are each and all responsible in setting up the oil rigs while Japan has the responsibility of safety inspections and issuing of digging permits based on monitoring and safety.

This makes absolute sense. Senkaku are Japanese and will always be Japanese. Chinese can't even take Taiwan back, so no hope of taking Senkakus.

Seeking to go by Potsdam or the SF treaty I dont think will help your position which contradicts with the argument made by China resisting to apply these agreements they were never officially part of.

There is no doubt that China is a contracting party of the Potsdam Agreement. Even Emperor Hirohito confirmed that in the Imperial Rescript of Surrender which says:

"To Our Good and loyal subjects:

After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in Our Empire today, We have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

And China is obviously a contracting party of the 1972 China-Japan treaty signed in Beijing which says:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

they were shown as Japanese territory in maps used in China during that time.

I haven't seen any map that says the Ryukyu islands and Diaoyu islands were part of Japan between 1946 to 1971. Not Japanese maps, not Chinese maps and not western maps.

China needs to learn that international relations are not controlled by bullies but by reasonable exchange between nations, all of whom are equal in such things.

A hilarious sentiment considering how the US behaves.

This makes absolute sense. Senkaku are Japanese and will always be Japanese. Chinese can't even take Taiwan back, so no hope of taking Senkakus.

Well, China could take Taiwan back, in half a day, without breaking a sweat. It is just the rest of the world and possible repercussions from that that make them think again.

Why is it that when giving the reference of location they refer to Taiwan as a whole, but then refer to Tokyo instead of Japan as a whole. It really makes the comparison sound bogus. Why not say 170km from Japan (Ishigaki Island, Okinawa) instead?

In Beijing, the foreign ministry reiterated China’s claims over the islands, which lie around 200 kilometers from Taiwan, and 2,000 kilometers from Tokyo.

Why does the distance from Tokyo matter at all? How many kilometers are the islands from Bejing, and why not print it here too?

The islands are closer to Okinawa prefecture territory, which (doh!) is a part of Japan. By refusing to acknowledge this fact it makes it appear to the casual reader that the islands are closer to Taiwan so they should be considered a part of their territory.

Nationalizing the islands won't take them away from being a part of Okinawa, it will just mean that they are owned by the national government and people would have to get permission to visit them, (land on the) as they do now already.

I haven't seen any map that says the Ryukyu islands and Senkaku islands were part of Japan between 1946 to 1971. Not Japanese maps, not Chinese maps and not western maps.

The Senkaku Islands and Okinawa were under control of the US Military during the period in question and that is why.

Guru29:

There is no doubt that China is a contracting party of the Potsdam Agreement. I was referring to the People's Republic of China who was not a party to the Potsdam agreement, which is infact why the 1972 China-Japan treaty was needed in part to confirm the mutual understanding in regards to the territorial rights of Taiwan, and never the senkaku.

I haven't seen any map that says the Ryukyu islands and Diaoyu islands were part of Japan between 1946 to 1971. Not Japanese maps, not Chinese maps and not western maps. Chinese maps: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/77_S4.pdf

Again, would obviously not be in Japanese maps indicated as Japan during the time of US occupation.

Wow, what a great way to spend 2 billion yen of the taxpayers' money. Has anyone thought to check to see who the "owners" of the island are? This is about as useful a purchase as Ishihara blowing endless amounts of Tokyo's funds in failed bids to get the Olympics.

@Amidalism

I'm assuming because a large majority of the readers of that article probably don't know names of cities in Taiwan, nor do they know the exact location of Ishigaki Island. They are using reference points that the vast majority of readers would understand.

" prompting an angry rebuke from Beijing which vowed to “never yield an inch.”

What a dumb thing to say, Of ourse they are going to yield. What are thbey going to do? Invade the stupid islands?

"It can't possibly be China's, since we bought it -- here's our receipt!" This is a really dopey example of wishful thinking. Japanese might be able to con themselves, but they can't con the other claimants.

@CrisGerSan law ... unfortunately paper law is just that , followed by those who wrote it to the point where it's convenient and enforced on those one holds some leverage or power over. Once it's inconvenient to either the lawmakers themselves or outside forces, holes will be found. Always, everywhere. Legal usually is local as well. The whole world round. I'd hate to see the pacific area blow up over a thing like this. Even the americans seem ready to brawl over some right of passage dispute. It feels like its heating up and i don't like it

@Virtuoso

"It can't possibly be China's, since we bought it -- here's our receipt!" This is a really dopey example of wishful thinking."

No. Despite the opinions of many posters on this site, the Japanese government isn't stupid.They know the Chinese won't recognise their ownership. They bought the islands to keep them out of the hands of Ishihara and his extremist cronies, who would have done their best to escalate the dispute given the chance. Unfortunate that they had to spend tax money on such nonsense, but the alternative would have been to seize them, which is behaviour frowned on in a democracy.

.

Well if I were the owner, I shall put those rocks for an auction! That would be the best way to resolve this without any dispute! And China please dont talk about ancient history, Tibet is not part of China and you leave that territory first and then talk about Senkaku Islands!! Japanese owner wants to sell his property to Japanese government which is PRESENTLY under Japanese territory, so this is none of Chinese or Taiwanese business!

Legal, The Peoples Republic of China did not come about until 1949. It was the Republic of China (Taiwan) that was a member of the agreement. Also it was the Soviet Union that did the signing and not the nation of Russia. These islands are part of Okinawa which is part of Japan. The people of Okinawa do not want to be a part of either China.

As always if there is war, The Peoples Republic of China would have to start it. Japan already controls these islands, part of our defensive zone.

Has anyone thought to check to see who the "owners" of the island are?

Question for you here, if the government didnt know who the owners are then who would they be buying them from in the first place?

Wow, what a great way to spend 2 billion yen of the taxpayers' money

Actually if you stop and think about it for a moment it's a great purchase for the government instead of paying lease money for the islands, which they have been doing up until now, they own them and can now develop them as needed or leave them alone.

They bought the islands to keep them out of the hands of Ishihara and his extremist cronies

For that, the Japanese government just need to tell the truth that ownerships as agreed between any private individual and the government of Imperial Japan were rendered null and void in 1945 when Japan lost the war and gave up its sovereignty over the Ryukyu and Diaoyu islands according to the Potsdam Agreement and subsequently, the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

That is the reason why the Diaoyu islands and Ryukyu islands can't even be found in any map of Japan either published in Japan or other nations in the world between 1946 to 1971. So obviously, they were not regarded as part of Japan by both the Japanese government and the US government between 1946 to 1971.

Again, would obviously not be in Japanese maps indicated as Japan during the time of US occupation.

According to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, US occupation of Japan would have ended officially in 1952 following the signing of the treaty, not 1972. So obviously, the Ryukyu islands and Diaoyu islands were not regarded as part of Japan by both the Japanese government and US government between 1946 to 1971.

Even the people of Ryukyu know this basic fact.

http://www.imadr.org/multi/Okinawa is a Japanese Colony.pdf

"The 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty divided Okinawa once more from Japan. In return, Japan gained independence. Okinawa belonged to no one and nobody protected her human rights. She was placed under the military dictatorship of the US Military High Commissioner. In order to build military bases, Okinawan lands were requisitioned. This meant destroying and wiping out the landowners’ harvests, livelihoods, cultures and pasts.

For the Okinawans, their land is where they live, where they celebrate their ritual feasts, it is part of their souls and their bodies. This land has now been taken away for a span of 65 years. There are instances of American soldiers who have killed or harmed Okinawans escaping punishment by simply being returned to America. The responsibility for this colonial status of Okinawa lies not only with America, but also with Japan, which put up Okinawa for sale in return for its own independence."

"Noda's solution - owning the islands and not doing anything with them"

That's it, Noda, waste our tax money!

SerranoSep. 11, 2012 - 08:40PM JST "Noda's solution - owning the islands and not doing anything with them" That's it, Noda, waste our tax money!

And that's the smartest move so far. Do you know why there is so much noise? Because China can't really do anything other. All the tensions are verbal or harmless. This will not last forever. One can't maintain high level of screaming, when one can't really do anything. The idea is to wait until the steam blows off, when Chinese understand that they are not an inch closer. After that, Noda will reappear and ask: "So, are you ready to talk now, or should we wait longer?". It is a very constructive position, which comes from the understanding the situation. Everything has its price. Relationships with China cost much More, than those money. But nothing will work if local nationalistic pyromaniacs will supply more and more gas to the fire.

Konsta Sep. 11, 2012 - 10:21PM JST Do you know why there is so much noise? Because China can't really do anything other. All the tensions are verbal or harmless. This will not last forever.

I wouldn't take it lightly. Whenever great powers have emerged or re-emerged on the scene, Germany and Japan in the early decades of the twentieth century, to cite two recent examples, they have tended to be particularly assertive and therefore have thrown international affairs into violent turmoil. China will be no exception. China is investing heavily into their Navy, a clear sign that they intend not only to protect their coastal shelves but also to expand their sphere of influence far out into the Pacific and beyond. Naturally, they do not trust the U.S. and India to do this for them. Given the stakes, and given what history tells us about the conflicts that emerge when great powers all pursue legitimate interests, the result is likely to be the defining military conflict of the twenty-first century, if not a big war with China, then a series of Cold War style standoffs that stretch out over years and decades.

Guru29: Again the fact of the matter is plain and simple. The islands were not shown as part of Japan in the Japanese maps strictly because the whole of Okinawa was under US occupation at the time. I believe there is a new twist in this debate now suggesting that this is actually about the territorial rights to the whole of Okinawa. Quite in line with the new views rising within China that the whole of Okinawa should infact be part of China. Hope the communist party remains capable of containing the whole situation and the directions of things in China.