Japan Today

Japan protests China's seabed names related to disputed islands


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


©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

@ Steve Anderson ( or actually my highly educated chinese friend)

Good try Steve !! But I won't play this ping pong game of words with a mouthpiece of the CCP.

US of terror - You wrote this 4 times, you must hate the USA.

Terrorists of Hong Kong - No one in the media uses this term except the CCP.

left out the part where China attacked and occurred, brutally, Japan. - Maybe you were too angry to notice your mistake.

Australia is the yapping lapdog of the US of Terror. - Wow, all this rude name calling!! You are an angry person. It's very Wolf Warrior Diplomacy-like!!!!

Here is a link to related to this topic. Please take special note of the last 2 lines of the article!!!


Thanks for your time!!!

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Yup china only understands kick a hard kick on chinas arse will put them to their senses just like India did on Ladak

11 ( +13 / -2 )


It is unwise for you to say anything as most of what you write doesn't make any sense!!

You fail to recognize that your own country, the middle kingdom, is disrupting peaceful harmony globally with its aggressive, selfish and unfair behavior in many places around the world.

Shall I point out a few?

Trade relations with the US

Trade and racism relations with Australia

Bullying of Taiwan

South China Sea disputes with Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and more countries

Broken promises to the people of Hong Kong

Territorial claims with India

Territorial claims with Japan

Trade disputes with the EU

Discrimination of Africans in Southern China

and more. . . .

You can search online about any of the listed topics through a variety of international media outlets except the notorious Global Times.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

It is wise to fight against the evil. It is wise to support Hong Kong people in their fight for basic human dignity. Its wise to agree with Australia that the whole world should know where is the origin of the virus. Is it Wuhan lab or is it Wuhan wet market ? It is wise to condemn imperialism and new age colonization behavior of mainland  China.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

PM Abe should walk the walk instead of just talk the talk.

Do what SK did in Dokdo!

Change the name and immediately land troops to effectively gain physical control of the isles.

If Suga just talk and talk but not walk the walk like what the Brits did in the Falklands then it will just prove to the world that a territorial dispute indeed exists . Japan vs Taiwan vs China .

Negotiate or go to war!

That's a hard fact.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Australia is the yapping lapdog of the US of Terror, and along with the US of Terror, continually provokes China. The last provocation just a couple of months ago in the South China Sea. You expect China, or any other country for that matter, to just cop it and not react?

Australia provokes no one. China creates its own issues and blames them on others. Australia sails and fly's in International waters and air space in the South China sea and that provokes no one except the country of thieves attempting to claim ownership of international sea and air space against international law.

Australia called for an investigation of covid-19 and because China can not control an international investigation it claims Australia is causing trouble. Another China beat up of the truth. China lies and cheats and claims victim status on issues of its own creation and things that are its own fault.

Anyone claiming otherwise is likely a state sanctioned mouthpiece for the CCP and should not be trusted.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

China is the one bringing a claim to Japan's contril of the Senkakus. Only China can file a claim with the ICJ or any other UN forum concerning this issue.

However, China is not a signatory to the agreement which recognizes ICJ jursidiction and accepts ICJ ruling. Japan is. China also has declared that it will not recognize international forum jurisdiction or rulings which pertains to it;s "sovereignty".


3 ( +6 / -3 )

The only way would be for all these nations to band together and stand up to the bully.

Try talking to your Chinese colleagues about politics and intl affairs, they never ever fail to bring up the Opium War: enslave the Indians and push drugs on the Chinese. They’re out for revenge.

I blame the US for letting China creep up and become the bully the world has to deal with today, all the while the US was fighting Iraq for weapons that didn’t exist.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"If Japan beings this to court, China will refuse to cooperate and vice versa."

And exactly on what "terms" is Japan to take this to Court?

Since when is the "thief" required to go to Court and prove that a robbery was not committed?

You need to re-read Ossan's post.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The UK v Chagos Islands is a different issue altogether; the case was referred to the Court for an advisory opinion only.

A judgement would have been another matter.

“A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “This is an advisory opinion, not a judgment. Of course, we will look at the detail of it carefully.”


2 ( +2 / -0 )

While the rest of the civilized world tries to resolve differences Chian seems hell bent on creating new ones.

There needs to be stronger muscular response to both military and economic.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is unwise to be antagonistic against China, let alone to act as a barking dog.

China is turning into a rabid dog, and there’s only one thing you can do with them....

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You fail to recognize that your own country, the middle kingdom, is disrupting peaceful harmony globally with its aggressive, selfish and unfair behavior in many places around the world.

It’s not a failure to recognize. They know what they’re doing. It’s more and what are you going to do about it? They’ve been bullied and now want to be the bully.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

 If there are two conflicting claimants to a find, it must be brought to a court for legal judgement, that is, the International Court of Justice.

Good in theory, but only if both sides agree to respect the verdict, and as is usual in these cases whoever brings the case, the other side will almost inevitably refuse to acknowledge the court or outcome! Its happened before, most recently with the UK and the Chagos islands. The UN said that the expulsion of the population was illegal and the territory should be handed back, but the UK denounced the findings. Result -Stalemate and the whole circus begins again.

If Japan beings this to court, China will refuse to cooperate and vice versa. Best compromise would be joint sovereignty on a rotational basis, but that unlikely to find support on either side. Or the islands are administered under UN control but again, unlikely to pass as China could veto it.

This is not going to be resolved easily nor quickly! Japan will probably have a peace treaty with Russia before it settles things on the Senkaku Islands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Senkaku waters used to be Okinawa fishermen's most favored fishing grounds, but they rarely go there for fear of being drawn into trouble. However, early in May a Yonaguni Fisheries–registered fishing boat was chased by two China Coast Guard ships and on June 21 another fishing boat registered with Yaeyama Fisheries was also chased by a China Coast Guard ship and ordered to leave the area.

If the Senkakus are China's sovereign territory in all respects, they have every right to order Japanese fishing boats to leave the Senkaku waters. But this claim of China's to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is very dubious, subject to close scrutiny and examination.

Simply claiming the islands are part of "our" territory and resorting to force won't resolve the problem at all. It will only exacerbate the bilateral relations, causing mutual mistrust, enmity and eventually the most abominable consequence — an armed confrontation.

A war over the possession of the Senkakus/Diaoyudaos is a lose-lose game for either party, a victor or loser. This must be prevented by all means.

0 ( +1 / -1 )


What you say may be true. But even if a court hearing is not possible, you can at least appeal to man's sense of rationality and justice. You can't act openly under the sun if you know what you do is against reason and justice.

So if it were not for International Court of Justice to hear the case, it should be brought to and discussed at a voluntarily organized civic forum. For starters, how about a discussion on this thread?


0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Chinese side says they don't have any territorial ambition anywhere/anytime but that if its sovereign territory is infringed, it will never fail to make its utmost to defend its soveraignty. 

The catch here is will China resort to armed force even if its claim to an area is internationally disputed and unresolved? That's the reason why China's neighboring countries are all wary of China.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Can anyone claim to the moon or the Antarctic as his own? Can anyone claim to uninhabited islands located far in oceans? Suppose there were aliens or inhabitants there already, could he still claim to the moon, the Antarctic or oceanic islands? 

Claiming to the moon, the Antarctic or the Senkakus is nothing but an anthropocentric or ethnocentric view that shouldn't be taken granted; such taken-for granted greed is subject to close re-examination in terms of jurisprudence or universal philosophy of law.

Let the Senkakus lie there as they are as no one's territory and as the mankind's common treasures.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Both sides are like bickering boys, each shouting out the same thing at the other: “Senkaku/Diayou islands are part of our sovereign territory historically and under international law.” If there are two conflicting claimants to a find, it must be brought to a court for legal judgement, that is, the International Court of Justice.  At a court hearing, it’s imperative to summon a third party, that is, Okinawa, and hear what it has to say about the case as a most relevant witness.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Here's what Okinawa has to say;

Common nouns in a language are very ad hoc in naming objects. There's no reason why things are called as they are in languages. However, proper nouns are different from common nouns in that there's usually reasons behind -- why they are called by such and such names.

Kubajima (久場島)or Huangwei Yu (黄尾鱮)in Chinese in the Senkaku/Diaoyudao Islands was an important landmark for ancient Ryukyu (Okinawa) seamen and traders navigating on the Naha (Ryukyu) -Fuchuan sea lane. These seafarers, who were thoroughly familiar with the Senkaku waters more than anyone else, called this landmark "Kubajima" because, according to one theory, the island was covered full with “kuba” (or Areca) palms. But I think it was called by that name because the island's shape is quite like that of another island called Kubajima, that is located about 40 km west of Naha, Okinawa Island, on the same sea lane. When necessary, the former was called "Iigun Kubajima" to distinguish it from the latter.

Wasn't Chinese "Huangmao (Yu)" (黄毛)as recorded by Chen Kan (陳侃, 1534)and "Huangwei (Yu)" recorded elsewhere, meaning yellow hair or tail, a phonetic conversion of Kuba(-jima)? Note that the k-sound of Japanese (and Okinawan) ordinarily corresponds to the h-sound in Chinese. Or did the Chinese think the island was inhabited by mythic animals with yellow tails or hair and so named it as such?

The easternmost island in the chain is officially called Taishojima in Japan, but historically it used to be called Kumi-Akajima by Ryukyu seamen. Here, too, we see the same mechanism of nomenclature as in the case of Kubajima. There's an island called Akajima in the Kerama Islands whereby Kumi-Akajima in the Senkakus must have been named after this with Kumi added to differentiate it from the original.

The Chinese calls this island Chiwei Yu (赤尾鱮), meaning "red-tailed island." Does it mean the Chinese believed the island was inhabited by animals with red tails? Isn't it a semantic conversion of what Ryukyu seamen called Kumi Akajima (久米阿嘉島), which could mean "Kume Red Island" in folk etymology?

The name "Senkaku" comes from English "Pinnacle Islands." The HMS Samarang made a port at Ishigaki Island three times and on its second port calling in May, 1845, it launched out upon an exploration of the hitherto unheard-of island group which the islanders called Iigunjima. Approaching the islands northward from Ishigaki Island on May 8, they must have been struck with the similarity of the first approaching island to Bartolome Island in the Galapagos, which is famous for its Pinnacle Rock, thus calling the island group Pinnacle Islands. The Japanese name "Senkaku" was coined after this by a natural history teacher named Hisashi Kuroiwa, in 1900, who hailed from Kochi Prefecture in Shikoku and taught at Okinawa Normal School.

The Meiji government called the largest island in the chain "Uotsuri-jma", which is an apparent translation from the Chinese "Diaoyudao". It also called the adjacent islands lying southeast of it "Kita Kojima" (North Islet) and "Minami Kojima" (South Islet) respectively. The Chinese names "Bei Xiaodao" and "Nan Xiaodao" definitely come from these Japanese names.

Ancient Ishigaki fishermen called the island (group) "Iigun-jima." "Iigun" (rhymed with "eagle") means the head of a spear used in dive-fishing, a fishing method probably unknown to the ancient Chinese. The reason why it is called so is similar to why the highest mountain in the Japan Alps in Honshu is called "Yarigadake." The top of the rugged mountain reminds one of the head of a spear ("yari").

Why did the Chinese call the island (group) Diaoyudao meaning "fishing island"? Did unworldly men, as often depicted in Chinese drawings, go there and spent days angling for fish? Or have Chinese fishermen come here to engage in blue-water fishing since ancient times? Note, however, that blue-water fishing started only in modern times with the development of modern refrigeration technology.

Isn't "Diaoyudao" a semantic conversion of what Chinese royal missions to and from Ryukyu were explained to by Ryukyu seamen and traders traveling together aboard the same tributary or trading ships? Note that Chinese royal envoys came to Ryukyu Kingdom 25 times during the period from 1373 to 1866; during the same period, Ryukyu seamen, traders and the Ryukyu King's appreciatory envoys sailed to China more than 200 times.

All these linguistic and historical facts must be taken into consideration before anyone says anything definite about sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyudao Islands.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

It is unwise to be antagonistic against China, let alone to act as a barking dog.

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

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