politics

Japan recalls Beijing envoy

78 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.

78 Comments
Login to comment

Calling Japan an Asian power is over egging it a bit, don't you think? Once maybe, but now...?

3 ( +10 / -7 )

The East China Sea (東シナ海) is called Higashi Shina Kai in Japanese. The Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory. China should not interfere in Japanese domestic affairs.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

@Geoff Gillespie ha, ha! @CrazyJoe the last line says it all. ("...increased in both economic and military might.") Though I do wonder at the military bit. Have more of the Chinese youth really signed up?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

He was a successful businessman and what he talked in medias were highly evaluated thus the government appointed him as an ambassador. The government may now be regretting that the post should have been for a career diplomat.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China, meanwhile, expressed its strong opposition to a Japanese plan to buy the islands from the family that Tokyo >recognises as the legitimate owner.

China can express all the opposition they want but there isn't a single thing they can do about it. What are they going to do? Invade the islands and face the US 7th fleet? Don't think so.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

OssanAmerica

China can express all the opposition they want but there isn't a single thing they can do about it. What are they going to do? Invade the islands and face the US 7th fleet? Don't think so.

There is plenty they can do, they can ban rare earth exports to Japan, they can stop buying Japanese. After all Japan needs China more than China needs Japan. And they can keep sending vessels to the area to really annoy the Japanese.

Maybe if the Japanese had taken the more mature approach to this matter rather than taking the provocative line of buying the islands then this situation wouldnt have arisen. And remember while the US my in theory be obliged to assist Japan in a military sense if things go bad over these islands there is no way the US would help Japan if they where the ones who start anything. And you can bet China would do everything to ensure it was Japan that did cause any incidents.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

Easy. Make a show of dumping a few barges full of ash from the tsunami there. The Chinese will never go there then.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Cletus, what should Japan do? Surrender these islands and the seabed to the 12 mile limit?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Japan's import from China amounted to 13,413 billion yen and China's import from Japan amounted to 13,086 billion yen in 2010. (goods and services)

2 ( +5 / -3 )

YuriOtani

Cletus, what should Japan do? Surrender these islands and the seabed to the 12 mile limit?

Did l suggest that Yuri. My point is that the actions of the J government is provocative, and when they get an angry and totally expected response from the Chinese then they turn it around and complain. Remember it was the J government who failed to silence Ishahara when he was carrying on about these islands. Then the J government took up where he left off and now are complaining that the Chinese are annoyed.

If the Japanese truly want to resolve the issue then take it to the ICJ to determine who really owns the islands, because lm sorry but just because Japan says it owns them doesnt make it so now does it?

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Japan has every right to defend it's territory and object to China repeatedly sending boats there in what is clearly provocation. Any country would do the same. Whilst geographically these islands don't look very Japanese, they are owned by the Japanese in the same way Russia owns the Southern Kurils - which aren't very geographically Russian. The only way they will get them back is via lengthy and skillful diplomacy, possibly coupled with some baksheesh. Unless you want a war.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

CletusJul. 16, 2012 - 07:59AM JST "China can express all the opposition they want but there isn't a single thing they can do about it. What are they going to do? Invade the islands and face the US 7th fleet? Don't think so.

There is plenty they can do, they can ban rare earth exports to Japan, they can stop buying Japanese. After all Japan >needs China more than China needs Japan. And they can keep sending vessels to the area to really annoy the >Japanese.

No Cletus you;re chiock full of misaguidance. The Chinese aren't stupid. They've already played the the Rare Earth hand and alerted the entire world to the risk of relying on China. The new development of alternate sources worldwide by all countries, the USA, UK, Canada and yes, Japan has skyrocketed since that incident. China needs Japan and the rest of the world more than the other way around, they are still an export based economy that can't grow without foreign buyers. As for sending vessels to "annoy" the Japanese, yes that's exactly what they're doing, but all the annoyance in the world isn't going to make the islands theirs.

maybe if the Japanese had taken the more mature approach to this matter rather than taking the provocative line of >buying the islands then this situation wouldnt have arisen. And remember while the US my in theory be obliged to >assist Japan in a military sense if things go bad over these islands there is no way the US would help Japan if they >where the ones who start anything. And you can bet China would do everything to ensure it was Japan that did cause >any incidents

Japapan's approach is very mature, it's buying, either municipilazing or nationalizing Japanrese property. What's immature is China sill "si8nce ancient times" argument. The US isn't "just in theory" obliged to defend Japan, it';s called thje US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty which has been the cornerstone of US-Pacific policy for 52 years. Don't kid yourself. As for "Japan starting anything" what is there to start They ownm the islands and as you yourself pointed out China is the one annopying them. And how can China cause Jappahn to "stat siometuing" when they are contrained by ASRticle 9 of their constitution? In contrast the China is theatening all of it's smaller Asian neighbors. By the way, Australia also considers China a threat and in linked security wise with both the United States and Japan. Best to read up on what's happening in that part of the world. This isn't just a China-Japam issue.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

CletusJul. 16, 2012 - 07:59AM JST

There is plenty they can do, they can ban rare earth exports to Japan, they can stop buying Japanese. After all Japan needs China more than China needs Japan. And they can keep sending vessels to the area to really annoy the Japanese.

They already have in the past.

They belong to the WTO and other international trade organizations, all of which stipulate that politics have no place in trade. They have already been sued by the rest of the world for effectively banning rare earths exports (which they control 95%+, for some ores 99%+) while allowing free and cheap domestic use. China also can't stop buying Japanese products, mainly because their customers expect certain components to be Japanese. Big one is capacitors used in practically all electronic devices, but also included are massive quantities of low oxygen copper and certain types of steel. Without those China would lose customers. And that's before being sued by Japan and others in international court.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

CletusJul. 16, 2012 - 08:48AM JST

If the Japanese truly want to resolve the issue then take it to the ICJ to determine who really owns the islands, because lm sorry but just because Japan says it owns them doesnt make it so now does it?

They have treaties in 1890s, 1900s, and 1945 all stating that Japan owns the islands. The developer of the last treaty, the US, has also stated that the islands are Japanese and were not signed over after potsdam. A former Taiwan VP also stated the islands are Japanese. What's there to go to court over?

It's not like the case with the Koreans, where those islands were not handed over in the treaties, the US said they were not Korean, and the Koreans just sent military ships and squatters to forcefully take over the island. If that case isn't brought before the international courts, why should this one be? Just because China thinks so?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

China can just use its military to take over the island, since its much closer to them than Japan. Japan couldn't do anything, and the United States will refuse to listen to Japan's pleas to aid, since its neutral in the conflict. I think USA will support China's claims, because it needs China's support much more than Japan's.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

OssanAmerica

No Cletus you;re chiock full of misaguidance. The Chinese aren't stupid. They've already played the the Rare Earth hand and alerted the entire world to the risk of relying on China. The new development of alternate sources worldwide by all countries, the USA, UK, Canada and yes, Japan has skyrocketed since that incident.

Yes alternative sources have been examined for example the Japanese government offered companies subsidies to stop their reliance on Chinese minerals, but the fact remains Japan needs China's minerals. After all China controls 35% of the rare earth deposits worldwide but has 90+% of the exports. And yes while they have lifted the ban they have also drastically lifted the prices they are charging for these minerals (in 2010 the price went up four fold). And despite trying the Japanese and western nations are having trouble sourcing from other countries.

As for sending vessels to "annoy" the Japanese, yes that's exactly what they're doing, but all the annoyance in the world isn't going to make the islands theirs.

Your right it wont but it will keep the Japanese on edge. And besides, what laws are the Chinese breaking by sending their vessels to the islands? If they are breaking no laws then whats the issue?

Japapan's approach is very mature, it's buying, either municipilazing or nationalizing Japanrese property.

Really! So Japan carrying on and "buying" its own land is mature. Yeah sorry but thats funny. So firstly we have the massacre denying mayor of Tokyo angering the Chinese with his denial comments then he says he will buy the islands. And that annoys the Chinese and understandably so. Then the national government does nothing and then announces they will buy them. That is REALLY mature.

What's immature is China sill "si8nce ancient times" argument.

Funny, you call China's claim immature yet its not that much different from Japans "since ancient times" argument. So l guess you agree that both are being immature. Right???

And interestingly that it hasnt been mentioned yet but the people who currently own the islands is demanding that the Japanese government construct a naval base on the islands, now that will really calm the issue now wont it?

The US isn't "just in theory" obliged to defend Japan, it';s called thje US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty which has been the cornerstone of US-Pacific policy for 52 years. Don't kid yourself.

So you really think that the US will come to Japans aid if it is Japan that causes an incident? Dont kid yourself, the US has already stated that it wants the issue resolved peacefully. So really if Japan causes an incident do you think the US will risk jumping in to assist considering the implications that it will have to other nations.

As for "Japan starting anything" what is there to start They ownm the islands and as you yourself pointed out China is the one annopying them.

Correction... Japan says they own the islands. Which means absolutely nothing. Japan could say they own Hawaii but it doesnt make it so now does it? The islands ownership is in dispute hence the problems and until that is resolved (and not by Japan or China saying oh we own them) then its an ongoing issue.

And how can China cause Jappahn to "stat siometuing" when they are contrained by ASRticle 9 of their constitution?

Well lets see the JCG has a bad habit of bumping their vessels into other peoples ships.... It only takes an accident to start a much bigger issue.

In contrast the China is theatening all of it's smaller Asian neighbors. By the way, Australia also considers China a threat and in linked security wise with both the United States and Japan. Best to read up on what's happening in that part of the world. This isn't just a China-Japam issue.

Hmm nice comment there. Considering we are talking about Japan / China here how is that relevant. But seeing you touched on it. So its only China that is threatening other nations hey? So what about the Japan / Taiwan issue over the same islands. Or Philippines / Vietnam issue over the Spratly's. You seem to point the finger at China as being the problem yet its you who cant see the bigger picture. Take the Spratly's, yes China has a claim there as do 4 or 5 other nations and those other nations also fight and argue between themselves about their claims. But you dont mention that. I guess it just gets in the way of your China bashing.....

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Maybe if the Japanese had taken the more mature approach to this matter rather than taking the provocative line of buying the islands then this situation wouldnt have arisen.

I would clarify this if I were you. In this case it is not prudent to group all Japanese together on the issue. One idiot started the ball rolling and that idiot continues to pressure the national government to take a nationalist stance and NOBODY in the region wants to see Japan go down that course again.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I know who that "idiot" is.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Japan is playing with fire here. So far China has not mobilized its Propaganda machine to stir up anti Japan sentiment but if they do..... you can bet it will get ugly. This does not bode well for Japanese industry.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

basroil

They have treaties in 1890s, 1900s, and 1945 all stating that Japan owns the islands. The developer of the last treaty, the US, has also stated that the islands are Japanese and were not signed over after potsdam.

Ok lets see, the treaty of 1890's prior to this treaty the agreed boundary between the Ryukyu Kingdom and China was to the east of the Diaoyu islands. When Japan took over Ryukyu and it became Okinawa the boundary remained the same. Then Japan incorporated the Diaoyu islands in 1895. When the war with China ended with the Treaty of Shimonoseki in November 1895 China ceded "the island of Formosa together with all islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa". Remember at this time the islands where still called Diaoyu by all parties (the Japanese did not change the name until 1900), so where these islands part of the treaty? If they where then Japan had to give them up as part of the Potsdam treaty, because under the Potsdam treaty and the Cairo declaration

Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914 and all the territories that Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.

Now you also claim that the US believes the islands are Japanese. Sorry but that is incorrect, the US supports the Japanese administration of the islands yes but they are neutral on the question of sovereignty. However in the past the US has also said.

The United States believes that a return of administrative rights to Japan, from which these rights were initially acquired, in no way damages the Republic of China's claim of sovereignty; nor can the United States, in transferring the administrative rights over these islands, grant Japan an expansion of the legal rights that it [Japan] had prior to giving them to the United States.

So it is not as clear cut as people would like you to believe. Hence it should be taken to the ICJ to be determine who actually has sovereignty over these islands.

If that case isn't brought before the international courts, why should this one be? Just because China thinks so?

Well l could ask you, why shouldnt it be, just because Japan says they are their islands?

Japan claims them as their own, Taiwan claims them, China claims them. So who is right and who is wrong. Let an impartial judge decide.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Yubaru

I would clarify this if I were you. In this case it is not prudent to group all Japanese together on the issue. One idiot started the ball rolling and that idiot continues to pressure the national government to take a nationalist stance and NOBODY in the region wants to see Japan go down that course again.

Yes one Japanese idiot started the ball rolling l agree, then the Japanese government (you know the people the represent Japan) took up where he left off and have continued his crusade on a national stage. So yes l will clarify for you. The Japanese (as represented by their elected government) have been very provocative with their actions.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Yes one Japanese idiot started the ball rolling l agree, then the Japanese government (you know the people the represent Japan) took up where he left off and have continued his crusade on a national stage. So yes l will clarify for you. The Japanese (as represented by their elected government) have been very provocative with their actions.

Actually the Noda administration has taken the issue under advisement, and they have not been pushing the issue at all. The Chinese are by continuing to flame the fires by sending ships into the area.

Personally speaking here, until the issue is decided by an impartial court, none of the countries involved in the issue should be allowed into the area. If the UN had enough manpower or a Navy, they should patrol the seas to enforce the off-limit zone that I propose.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Japan claims them as their own, Taiwan claims them, China claims them. So who is right and who is wrong. Let an impartial judge decide.

This is one thing that I often chuckle about here; China sees Taiwan as a break-away province and still believes that it is a part of China itself. However I read somewhere and for the life of me I can not remember where, that on this issue China recognizes Taiwan's rights in the area as well.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yubaru

Actually the Noda administration has taken the issue under advisement, and they have not been pushing the issue at all.

Really, well maybe someone should tell that to the media "Noda's plan to buy disputed isles risks China's anger".... Or this one "Japan wants to buy the Senkaku islands, at the center of a bitter territorial dispute with China and Taiwan, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda reportedly said Saturday."

That is a lot more than taking under advisement l would think...

The Chinese are by continuing to flame the fires by sending ships into the area.

Let me ask you this, is it illegal for China to send ships to this area? Are they breaking any laws by doing so?

Personally speaking here, until the issue is decided by an impartial court, none of the countries involved in the issue should be allowed into the area. If the UN had enough manpower or a Navy, they should patrol the seas to enforce the off-limit zone that I propose.

I completely agree, just because Japan or China say they are their islands means nothing. I have said several times no that this should be taken to the ICJ to determine who the islands belong to. And until such time both nations (and Taiwan) are barred from the area as you suggested.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Japan is playing with fire here. So far China has not mobilized its Propaganda machine to stir up anti Japan sentiment but if they do..... you can bet it will get ugly. This does not bode well for Japanese industry.

What nonsense. China has nothing to gain from stirring up anti Japan sentiment. The uneducated masses in China may go for it, but more and more people in that country are aware that Japan today is not Japan of 70 or more years ago and they also know Japanese products are superior. China won't get any support from other countries in provocation toward Japan and other Asian countries.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Ossan: "China can express all the opposition they want but there isn't a single thing they can do about it. "

On the contrary, if China decides to land ships on these islands and claim them permanently there's nothing JAPAN can do. So long as China doesn't fire any shots and there is no violence and death, the US wouldn't dare step in, for one they wouldn't want to start a war over a few rocks, but more importantly for the US China OWNS so much of it that if they demanded their repayment suddenly the US would be utterly screwed.

No... if China wants the islands and takes them there isn't a thing Japan can do about it but raise a fuss, and they know it.

Japan has the better claim to these islands for the same reasons Russia and Korea have the better claims in the other disputes. And as with those disputes, patience and good politics further ensure Japan's claim. Unfortunately, the powers that be in Japan have unwisely decided to rattle their wooden swords and create even MORE tension and bombast, and, well, it's pretty clear where that's landed the issue. Tokyo should drop it's silly desire to buy the islands Japan already owns, and both nations should simmer down and return to talks on joint development of the gas fields, leaving the issue of ownership of the islands to time (in which, as I said, Japan will have even greater claim), for if it comes to force, Japan will lose them guaranteed.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Historically the disputed islands came under dispute was due to post WWII issues, Japan colonised nearly all of Asia. When we surrendered, many of these colonies went back into its traditional ownership, except for Taiwan and the disputed islands. The islands where then placed in supervision by America and when America had enough control over Japan, it gave the islands to Japan, without consulting China how historically had a claim as is with Taiwan. Causing this mess! All a part of Western Colonialism in Asia. We need to focus on our traditional values as Japanese and not errode our sence of culture by substituting Western ideology into our mainstream. Japanese youth these days lean too much towards Western values and our traditions are lost.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

smithinjapanJul. 16, 2012 - 10:36AM JST Ossan: "China can express all the opposition they want but there isn't a single thing they can do about it. " On the contrary, if China decides to land ships on these islands and claim them permanently there's nothing JAPAN >can do.

Are you on drugs? Artcle 9 of the Japanese constitution allows the self defence orces to defend Japanes territory. In addition the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty will be invoked as the US Sec of State has already made clear. And China does not have the testicular fortitude to confront the United States. That they haven't invaded Taiwan for the last 50 years is proof of that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CletusJul. 16, 2012 - 09:40AM JST OssanAmerica Yes alternative sources have been examined for example the Japanese government offered companies subsidies to >stop their reliance on Chinese minerals, but the fact remains Japan needs China's minerals. After all China controls >35% of the rare earth deposits worldwide but has 90+% of the exports. And yes while they have lifted the ban they >have also drastically lifted the prices they are charging for these minerals (in 2010 the price went up four fold). And >despite trying the Japanese and western nations are having trouble sourcing from other countries.

And that will change over the next few years. If you think th status quo will remain after China showed their hand to the whole world you;re grossly mistaken.

"As for sending vessels to "annoy" the Japanese, yes that's exactly what they're doing, but all the annoyance in the world isn't going to make the islands theirs."

Your right it wont but it will keep the Japanese on edge. And besides, what laws are the Chinese breaking by sending >their vessels to the islands? If they are breaking no laws then whats the issue?

They are breaking Japanese laws. And the "annoyance is all part of the intimidation game that China is playing with Vietnam, Malaysia, Phillipines, etc....

Really! So Japan carrying on and "buying" its own land is mature. Yeah sorry but thats funny. So firstly we have the >massacre denying mayor of Tokyo angering the Chinese with his denial comments then he says he will buy the >islands. And that annoys the Chinese and understandably so. Then the national government does nothing and then >announces they will buy them. That is REALLY mature.

It;s al;ot moremature than ignoring siome deserted islands for centuries then suddenly claiming to have owened them from ancient times after oil is found. Who does China think they're kidding?

Funny, you call China's claim immature yet its not that much different from Japans "since ancient times" argument. So >l guess you agree that both are being immature. Right???

Why don;t you read up on thesubject before posting a book about it? Japanese hjas nevr clasimed to own the islands "since ancuient times" like China's silly and unsubstantiated position. Japan incorprated those islands in gthe late 1800s as Terra Nullis, in accordance with proper international protocol.

And interestingly that it hasnt been mentioned yet but the people who currently own the islands is demanding that the >apanese government construct a naval base on the islands, now that will really calm the issue now wont it?

So what? If it;s Japanese territory they can build a naval base a planetarium a shopping mall whatever they like. But the naval base to keep an eye on your PLA navy is definitely the most useful idea.

The US isn't "just in theory" obliged to defend Japan, it';s called thje US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty which has been the cornerstone of US-Pacific policy for 52 years. Don't kid yourself.

So you really think that the US will come to Japans aid if it is Japan that causes an incident? Dont kid yourself, the US has already stated that it wants the issue resolved peacefully. So really if Japan causes an >incident do you think the US will risk jumping in to assist considering the implications that it will have to other nations.

China is the only country causing "incidents" with all her neighbors. All og wehom are turning to the US to counter China's exapansion and aggression, and yes, the United States stands by her allies.

As for "Japan starting anything" what is there to start They ownm the islands and as you yourself pointed out China is the one annopying them.

Correction... Japan says they own the islands. Which means absolutely nothing. Japan could say they own Hawaii but >it doesnt make it so now does it? The islands ownership is in dispute hence the problems and until that is resolved >>(and not by Japan or China saying oh we own them) then its an ongoing issue.

Sorry but the islands are Japanese because if China tried to take them they would answer to the United States. And they are afraid to do that. End of the debate and as I said, China can whine but can't do anything about it. BTW you really had me fooled about the Ozzy thing. Good job!

And how can China cause Jappahn to "stat siometuing" when they are contrained by ASRticle 9 of their constitution?

Well lets see the JCG has a bad habit of bumping their vessels into other peoples ships.... It only takes an accident to >start a much bigger issue.

Well ifso then China needs to keep it;s vessels out of Japanese territory. Not so hard is it?

"In contrast the China is theatening all of it's smaller Asian neighbors. By the way, Australia also considers China a threat and in linked security wise with both the United States and Japan. Best to read up on what's happening in that part of the world. This isn't just a China-Japam issue."

Hmm nice comment there. Considering we are talking about Japan / China here how is that relevant. But seeing you >touched on it. So its only China that is threatening other nations hey?

It's relevant because anyone who can read the news knows that China considres all of gthe east andsouth China seas to be it's own territory. There are mulptiple aticles on it right here on JT. Read them.

So what about the Japan / Taiwan issue over the same islands. Or Philippines / Vietnam issue over the Spratly's. You >seem to point the finger at China as being the problem yet its you who cant see the bigger picture. Take the Spratly's, >yes China has a claim there as do 4 or 5 other nations and those other nations also fight and argue between >themselves about their claims. But you dont mention that. I guess it just gets in the way of your China bashing

You just don' get it do you? All of the disputing nations are not using force and aggression. ONLY CHINA IS.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Japan is playing with fire here. So far China has not mobilized its Propaganda machine to stir up anti Japan sentiment but if they do..... you can bet it will get ugly. This does not bode well for Japanese industry

Yes, it's all neat and tidy if your developed country kowtows before the cheap labour exploiting Chinese Communist Party, but the buck has to stop somewhere.

Japan could hardly be called a leader among nations, but it has one advantage over the other OECD states, we don't borrow money from them. You could say it has a second advantage considering Japan doesn't have good relations with China to begin with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica

They are breaking Japanese laws.

What Japanese laws would they be? And be careful how you answer this because l have had a look at some of your comments from earlier this year. Remember what you said when Japanese coast guard vessels came within a couple of km's of the Australian coastline. What was your comment then? Ah thats right, they have broken no laws (you also claimed Australian law didnt apply). So basically its ok for Japan to do this to another nation but when China does EXACTLY the same thing to Japan your tune changes and its illegal..... Hmm that is funny Ossan

And the "annoyance is all part of the intimidation game that China is playing with Vietnam, Malaysia, Phillipines, etc....

Yep and the same game Vietnam plays with Philippines, Japan plays with Taiwan, Japan plays with Russia. You try to make out that China is the only one that does this. EVERY single nation involved in territorial disputes take these actions. Not just China.

It;s al;ot moremature than ignoring siome deserted islands for centuries then suddenly claiming to have owened them from ancient times after oil is found. Who does China think they're kidding?

Actually thats the funny part, see you only see what happened in the 70's. You tend to conveniently forget a few things. As China wasnt part of the UN or recognised by the UN how could they make a legal claim on the islands. They did this as soon as they could. Also if you seriously think that China had no interest until the 70's after the oil was found care to explain the US comments to China before that, that say that by giving the islands back to Japan the US is not determining sovereignty..... That predates the oil find, it predates China's official claim on the islands and it shows both the US and China had discussed the islands prior to administration being handed back to Japan.

And as for ignoring the islands for centuries yeah ok if you call 70 years centuries, and China was a bit preoccupied fighting Japan for much of that time after Japan invaded them.

Why don;t you read up on thesubject before posting a book about it? Japanese hjas nevr clasimed to own the islands "since ancuient times" like China's silly and unsubstantiated position. Japan incorprated those islands in gthe late 1800s as Terra Nullis, in accordance with proper international protocol.

Sorry buddy cant understand your writing there. To many spelling mistakes. But if Japan ignores evidence of habitation which they did when they claimed the islands well.....

So what? If it;s Japanese territory they can build a naval base a planetarium a shopping mall whatever they like. But the naval base to keep an eye on your PLA navy is definitely the most useful idea.

Yeah on disputed islands. A naval base will really calm tensions now wont it. Very mature idea that.....

China is the only country causing "incidents" with all her neighbors.

Really, did you miss the JCG vessel ram the Taiwan coast guard vessel the other week?

Sorry but the islands are Japanese because if China tried to take them they would answer to the United States. And they are afraid to do that. End of the debate and as I said, China can whine but can't do anything about it.

The only whiners are the Japanese. These islands are in dispute. China or any other nation can send vessels there all they want and they are doing nothing wrong whatsoever.

BTW you really had me fooled about the Ozzy thing. Good job!

HUH what are you talking about???

Well ifso then China needs to keep it;s vessels out of Japanese territory. Not so hard is it?

Like Japan keeps its vessels out of other nations territory hey? Karma is terrible isnt it?

You just don' get it do you? All of the disputing nations are not using force and aggression. ONLY CHINA IS.

Oh dear, more China bashing. Japan has rammed other nations vessels, Vietnamese have fired on Philippines planes in Spratlys, and there are other examples. Yet you claim ONLY CHINA uses force. OOPS your wrong!!! To quote you Ossan try reading!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

China is just testing the waters so to speak.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

VietNam and The Philippines are victims of Chinese gluttonous and ravenous claim of the South China Sea and Japan is also the victim of Chinese gluttonous and ravenous claim of the East China Sea. Chinese attitude, no matter how big the efforts of the PAID CHINESE FORUM MEMBERS participating in many international newspapers like JAPANTODAY are, the whole world knows that the CHINESE IS THE IMMATURE PRATES of the SOUTH and EAST CHINA SEA. The world's most dangerous pirates since time since ancient time, far more dangerous than the Pirates of the Carriebean with the black curse.

Chinese uptake of the issue saying UNDISPUTED SOVEREIGNTY SINCE ANCIENT TIME will not work at all at ICJ.

China has the full-rights and all the privilege to go to the ICJ regarding the South China Sea Issue and the East China Sea but they would not, even though they could, because all their claims are insane and ambiguous.

Who gave China the right to own the East China Sea up to just 12 miles of Okinawa. (the ancient ambiguous FAKE map????)

Who gave China the right to own the whole South China Sea with Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines to have just 12 miles from the shore? (the ancient ambiguous FAKE map????)

Well, China can go to ICJ anytime and let us know and we will go there to witness the verdict on Chinese insanity of UNDISPUTED SOVEREIGNTY SINCE ANCIENT TIME.

I hope that Japan will pursue it promise to sell to the Philippines 10 fast-patrol ships and 2 ships of 1,200 tonnage and they will equip it with the powerful radar and antiship missile.

China is poisoning its citizens that the Philippines and Vietnam are militarizing the south China Sea (and are very aggressive as if they were the victims) by allegedly sending warships (painted Gray color ship) whereas China is only sending white-color ships owned by Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Security but 10 days ago, their missile FRIGATE 560 was stuck at a shallow shoal 35 miles just off Palawan, Philippines. They rescued it yesterday without calling the Philippines because they keep on insisting that the Philippines own only 12 miles from the shores of Palawan and they owned 1,200 miles from their mainland shores. They are taking advantage that that the Philippines does not have surface radar unlike Japan which can see everything 200 miles from its shores.

For short, CHINESE (HANS CHINESE) was not the owner, discoverer of the whole South China Sea and the East China Sea. They were pirates in the ancient time as still these days.... a very dangerous pirate group.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Cletus the difference is Japan is not claiming Australia and they were not told to leave. Look I am not a diplomat but a warrior. If a foreign warship (it has a gun) enters Japanese waters and refuses to leave it is an act of war. The national government is being spineless. If they do not leave fire shots in front of their bow and if still not sink them. China is betting on a spineless response. A Koga class "destroyer" should be confronting the Chinese incursion. If our waters are not protected from invasion we will lose them and next Chinese warships will be found 12.5 miles off of Japan. Practicing attacking Japan and one day it will not be a drill but a real attack on Japan.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

YuriOtani

Cletus the difference is Japan is not claiming Australia and they were not told to leave.

No they are not claiming Australia, and yes they where told to leave several times yet they ignored those requests. And l reiterate Karma is a ***** aint it. You sail into other countries waters and ignore requests to leave yet when China does it to you you complain and moan. Well l for one am sitting back smiling at the irony.

Look I am not a diplomat but a warrior. If a foreign warship (it has a gun) enters Japanese waters and refuses to leave it is an act of war.

Yep you certainly are not a diplomat as your response to everything is war war war. By the way as a female in the JSDF you would have been in a support role not a combat role. So its easy to talk tough as a fobbit....

A Koga class "destroyer" should be confronting the Chinese incursion.

Sorry you mean a Konga class dont you?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Look I am not a diplomat but a warrior.

Well you sure aren't a diplomat...

Look I am not a diplomat but a warrior. If a foreign warship (it has a gun) enters Japanese waters and refuses to leave it is an act of war. The national government is being spineless. If they do not leave fire shots in front of their bow and if still not sink them. China is betting on a spineless response. A Koga class "destroyer" should be confronting the Chinese incursion. If our waters are not protected from invasion we will lose them and next Chinese warships will be found 12.5 miles off of Japan. Practicing attacking Japan and one day it will not be a drill but a real attack on Japan.

Have you ever thought of the implications of what would happen if Japan did go to war with Chine, even in the long-range term, spanning many decades? Undoubtedly China will be in an advantageous position.

You are feeling threatened and scared because there are big bad Chinese battle ships, and you're urging the government to "do something about it". Your hostility is not a sign of strength, but it comes from feeling threatened...

Anyway not that I'd disagree with some of those things but attacking and sinking their ships is going overboard.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ownership of these islands can basically be attributed to the spoils of war, and unfortunately for China, they signed them away in 1895 in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. But prior to that, apart from appearing on maps made by Chinese sailors, the Chinese 'ownership' of them appears pretty legally flims at best. Even their assertion that the Potsdam Declaration returns ownership of the Islands to China is completely clutching at straws. Whilst China may feel aggrieved by it's ancestors decision to sign the islands over, it's got no legals right to assume control of them, as it well knows. It would have done that a long time ago if it did.

One of it's main problems in that regard, however, is the fact that China itself recognises the islands as Taiwanese territory, or the territory of the Republic of China. One of the main allies of the ROC is the United States, who sells billions of dollars worth of weapons to them and provides Military training to the armed forces. So the PRC are snookered on 3 fronts. They may choose to ignore their international treaties and to act with belligerance but that will lead to them unltimately losing a whole lot more than they stand to gain by assuming control of these islands.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Tamarama

Ownership of these islands can basically be attributed to the spoils of war, and unfortunately for China, they signed them away in 1895 in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. But prior to that, apart from appearing on maps made by Chinese sailors, the Chinese 'ownership' of them appears pretty legally flims at best. Even their assertion that the Potsdam Declaration returns ownership of the Islands to China is completely clutching at straws. Whilst China may feel aggrieved by it's ancestors decision to sign the islands over, it's got no legals right to assume control of them, as it well knows. It would have done that a long time ago if it did.

So let me just make sure l have this right. You are saying that in your opinion China lost these islands as a result of the peace treaty they signed in 1895? Is that correct?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Media is over heating that Island issue for a few days. US secretary of state tried to discuss about that issue in Cambodia which is a host nation of Asean summit. It is frutiless because host nation by itself biased to China. Many Asean nations by themselves do not want to offend China. China is a supply chain of their export industry and huge market for their economy. In the reality, not only Japan is spinless about China but also Asean and USA too.

China is a banker of USA. Cliton understands that her salary and almost entire wages of Marines come from treasury bonds. If the bonds are sold almost entire amount, there will become nightmare for wothless greenback for tomorrow. Marines wallets will be empty. Back in Feb, Congress approved raising the debt ceiling level of limit. It there is no more debt comes from selling bonds, the whole structure of welfare, state and defence will not be functioning anymore.

US has no obligation to defending Japan for every territory dispute. Japan has dispute with not only China. Russia, Taiwan, Some Asean nations & South Korea too. If US 7th fleet have to fight with every nation, there will be never ending nightmare like Afgan. It is not the national interest of USA.

At the end, money talk! Instead of waging the war, China can afford to buy Island like Japan too. Why not they bid them as an aution? It is peaceful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan is not acting pacifist at all. All it does these days is escalating its disputes with Russia, South Korea, and China. Peace and Love as you preach in Japan? I think not!!!

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Cletus:

Vietnamese have fired on Philippines planes in Spratlys, and there are other examples.

Really? I haven't heard any incident between Philippines & Vietnam yet. Some Vietnamese poachers have been caught/arrested in Philippine waters, yes.

You will need to show us the link for this firing "incident" between Vietnam and the Philippines.

No strained relations between Vietnam & the Philippines. That is, not yet as strained as say occupation of China of Scarborough Shoal and Half Moon Shoal (and with a PLA Navy Frigate running aground at that), and Filipino fishermen being fired at by Chinese vessel (links can be provided).

Don't use the Vietnam/Philippines relationship to justify China's relationship with Japan or Vietnam.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@YuriOtani

Cletus, what should Japan do? Surrender these islands and the seabed to the 12 mile limit?

Not surrender, but stop laying claim to every other island more than 300 miles away from Japan, now that would be a good start.

Start acting like a country that got off very very very lucky considering all the evil things, Your Country did from early 1900's until you were forced to stop at the barrel of gun.

This is what happens when a whole generation of Japanese, are raised to believe their country did nothing wrong, you wind up with a 100-million people who truly believe they are the victims... You're NOT... You were the aggressor, and your country stole those islands from China, during your invasion of China 70+ years ago...

Start living life, thanking your lucky stars everyday, for everything you have now, and how easily you got off from all the trouble and people you killed during WW2..

That would be a good start...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Tamarama: "Ownership of these islands can basically be attributed to the spoils of war,"

I'll remember this the next time Japan whines about the Kuriles.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If any government in the world deserved to be bashed, it is China's. As days go by, they are becoming a bigger threat to not only peace in South Asia but to general world peace. It could well be that the Chinese government itself is out of control:

"In addition to the People’s Liberation Army Navy, at least four other government agencies or ministries operate patrol craft or have a degree of authority over maritime-related issues. At a forum hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington DC, one Chinese participant stated that even if a procedure were developed to resolve the territorial disputes, it is not clear which agency within the Chinese government would have the authority to settle the issue. And that’s how you go from bad to worse."

China is actually making claims to virtually the whole of the South China Sea. http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/07/15/the-south-china-sea-from-bad-to-worse/

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Cletus: Yes alternative sources have been examined for example the Japanese government offered companies subsidies to stop their reliance on Chinese minerals, but the fact remains Japan needs China's minerals.

Every country needs everyone else. When you get to economies of this size there is no magic bullet you can send over and hurt your opponent without hitting yourself in the face at the same time.

smithinjapan: but more importantly for the US China OWNS so much of it that if they demanded their repayment suddenly the US would be utterly screwed.

As above. Surely after being on these boards for so many years you've actually learned a thing or two about the debt situation. At this point I can only assume you choose to be innacurate.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

mirai2012

Really? I haven't heard any incident between Philippines & Vietnam yet. Some Vietnamese poachers have been caught/arrested in Philippine waters, yes.

There have been incidents reported in the past were Vietnamese forces have fired on Philippines airforce planes. All you need to do is look.

Don't use the Vietnam/Philippines relationship to justify China's relationship with Japan or Vietnam.

Dont come here and tell me what to do and what not to do. 2. Read my post again. My comment was in response to another poster saying this " All of the disputing nations are not using force and aggression. ONLY CHINA IS." which is false hence my comment and example. This poster is obviously bashing China and saying only China is aggressive when obviously that is false.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )

stop laying claim to every other island more than 300 miles away from Japan

The Senkaku Is. are about 150 km (a little over 90 miles) from the nearest Japanese land, 170 km from Taiwan and over 300km away from the nearest Chinese island.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Ch1n4SailorJul. 16, 2012 - 01:27PM JST

Start living life, thanking your lucky stars everyday, for everything you have now, and how easily you got off from all the trouble and people you killed during WW2..

America's biggest mistake.

The US should have allowed the Chinese to have been part of the occuppying force and allowed the Japanese to experience some of the cruelty and barbarity that they themselves had been dishing out in the rest of Asia.

Then, maybe then, the japanese would have come to understand why they were so hated and why there still is a lot of hostility towards them. Also we wouldn't be in this mess now because Japan would have taken their medicine as a defeated nation like a big boy.

Basically the German model of 1945-90 should have been replicated here.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Cletus

So let me just make sure l have this right. You are saying that in your opinion China lost these islands as a result of the peace treaty they signed in 1895? Is that correct?

That's not just my opinion, that is what happened.

Smithinjapan

I'll remember this the next time Japan whines about the Kuriles

Do. It's entirely applicable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tamarama

"So let me just make sure l have this right. You are saying that in your opinion China lost these islands as a result of the peace treaty they signed in 1895? Is that correct?" That's not just my opinion, that is what happened.

Very good thanks Tamarama, so you believe that China lost the islands as a result of the 1895 treaty. Then in that case 1. the islands where Chinese prior to 1895 (according to you). 2. The Cairo declaration called for "All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China." and also "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed."

Now as you claim the Chinese lost these islands as a result of a peace treaty following war with Japan then you are saying the islands were Chinese and as Japan got these islands as a result of the 1895 treaty (the same treaty that ceded Taiwan to Japan then you are effectively saying Japan should return these islands to their rightful owners in China.

Thanks for making that point so well.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

for if it comes to force, Japan will lose them guaranteed.

Although the Chinese Navy is current the second biggest in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Chinese_Navy_ships

the Japanese Navy, err... the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force isn't exactly a pushover either - with or without the aid of the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_ships_of_the_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force

There have been incidents reported in the past were Vietnamese forces have fired on Philippines airforce planes. All you need to do is look.

I've been looking for this and haven't come across any such info and have not come across any such incident, only China shooting Vietnamese, China bullying Philippines, China killing South Korean coast guard, China bullying Japan...

so please provide a link to this (Vietnam vs Philippines incident), I can provide you links for all the above incidents if you want.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Cletus:

Google/Yahoo Search cannot provide me this information. Hence, the burden of proof is yours (by showing us a link) because you made the claim that Vietnamese forces allegedly fired on Philippine planes. If such proof exists and is promptly presented, then this may also show that China is not the only aggressor you say you wanted to point out.

Allow me to rephrase my previous post:

Unless you have proof of strained Philippine & Vietnamese ties (such as firearm firings etc) please do not use the Vietnam/Philippines relationship to justify China's relationship with Japan or Vietnam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Very good thanks Tamarama, so you believe that China lost the islands as a result of the 1895 treaty. Then in that case 1. the islands where Chinese prior to 1895 (according to you).

No, it doesn't mean the islands were Chinese prior to 1895. On 14 January 1895, during the First Sino-Japanese War, Japan incorporated the islands under the administration of Okinawa, stating that it had conducted surveys since 1884 and that the islands were terra nullius (Latin: no man's land), with there being no evidence to suggest that they had been under Qing empire's control. After China lost the war, both countries signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki in April 1895 that stipulated, among other things, that China would cede to Japan "the island of Formosa together with all islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa (Taiwan)".[7] wikipedia

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Cletus

Don't try to structure my argument for me in an attempt to fortify your own. It's so unbecoming.

so you believe that China lost the islands as a result of the 1895 treaty

Are you suggesting they didn't sign them over at Shimonoseki?

Then in that case 1. the islands where Chinese prior to 1895 (according to you

No, according to you. I said they 'signed them over'. I mentioned nothing of prior 'ownership'.

The Cairo declaration called for "All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China

And yet it's the Potsdam Declaration that was imposed upon Japan, and they ultimately agreed to. Which states, in relation to territory; Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine. At which time the United States controlled them under occupation until 1971, when they restored them to Japanese control. So I guess they chose not to give them to China after all. Is that not historically accurate?

Now as you claim the Chinese lost these islands as a result of a peace treaty following war with Japan then you are saying the islands were Chinese and as Japan got these islands as a result of the 1895 treaty (the same treaty that ceded Taiwan to Japan then you are effectively saying Japan should return these islands to their rightful owners in China.

Nope, that's all you brother. All you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

mirai2012

Google/Yahoo Search cannot provide me this information. Hence, the burden of proof is yours (by showing us a link) because you made the claim that Vietnamese forces allegedly fired on Philippine planes. If such proof exists and is promptly presented, then this may also show that China is not the only aggressor you say you wanted to point out.

Let me just say this, l am happy to merely correct the earlier posters error when they claimed that the ONLY country that acts aggressively in these territorial disputes is China. Now interestingly since making that incorrect claim and being corrected that poster is no longer taking part in the discussion. So did the person know they where making an incorrect statement? As for the point they made that only China acts aggressively well there are several actions by other nations that show this to be not true. For example a recent incident where a JCG rammed (bumped) a Taiwanese coast guard vessel. And a previous issue where Vietnamese forces opened fire on Philippines military. Now my sole point here is that the original poster claimed that the PRC was the sole country that is aggressive. Obviously not the case.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

All readers back on topic please. Posts that do not focus on Japan's stance in this dispute will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tamarama

Cletus Don't try to structure my argument for me in an attempt to fortify your own. It's so unbecoming.

Im sorry l am merely using your actual words and pointing out to you that you are effectively saying exactly what l am saying.

"so you believe that China lost the islands as a result of the 1895 treaty" Are you suggesting they didn't sign them over at Shimonoseki?

Not at all. You stated that the Chinese signed these islands over to Japan in 1895. You have said this numerous times. And l am not disagreeing with you.

"Then in that case 1. the islands where Chinese prior to 1895 (according to you" No, according to you. I said they 'signed them over'. I mentioned nothing of prior 'ownership'.

Im sorry, you have confused me. You said China signed the islands over to Japan. Then hope exactly does one sign over something they do not have ownership of? If China did not own the islands then how did they sign them over. And remember YOU said "and unfortunately for China, they signed them away in 1895". So if China signed them away as part of the treaty then they must have possessed them. You cant sign away something you dont own as part of a treaty.

And yet it's the Potsdam Declaration that was imposed upon Japan, and they ultimately agreed to. Which states, in relation to territory; Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine. At which time the United States controlled them under occupation until 1971, when they restored them to Japanese control. So I guess they chose not to give them to China after all. Is that not historically accurate?

I guess you just read the wiki notes hey. The US handed administration of the islands to Japan not sovereignty. And at the time that administration was handed to Japan the US also said :

The United States believes that a return of administrative rights to Japan, from which these rights were initially acquired, in no way damages the Republic of China's claim of sovereignty; nor can the United States, in transferring the administrative rights over these islands, grant Japan an expansion of the legal rights that it [Japan] had prior to giving them to the United States.

Nope, that's all you brother. All you.

Actually lets review what YOU have said

China ceded the islands to Japan as part of the 1895 treaty - how does one cede something that they dont own. Can l cede your car to the police if lm convicted of speeding? No because l dont own it. Same here. You made the statement that China ceded them so China must have owned them. The Potsdam and Cairo documents clearly state any land Japan seized or gained through war (not only WW2) was to be seized. This is how Japan also lost all the islands it got after WW1 from the Germans. The US when returning the islands stated that even though administration was being returned to Japan it in no way was an indication of who owns the islands and this continues to this day.

Sorry but you made the statements.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

l am happy to merely correct the earlier posters error when they claimed that the ONLY country that acts aggressively in these territorial disputes is China.

Are you really missing the point so badly, or are you merely concerned with semantics? The only common denominator in these disputes is the distrust and hatred of the belligerent way the Chinese government is dealing with the situation.

"China refused to look at a written code of conduct being drafted to govern navigation, resources and related issues in the South China Sea, one of the world’s most important waterways. It also blocked discussion – let alone resolution — of the conflicting territorial claims in the region. "China claims exclusive rights to virtually all of the South China Sea, including its vast reserves of oil, gas and ocean resources; four other countries and Taiwan claim large parts of the region, as well. The disputes have led to increasingly tense standoffs between China and its neighbors. The weeklong security talks, hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), dissolved amid charges of Chinese bullying, without even a customary closing statement."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

billyshears

Are you really missing the point so badly, or are you merely concerned with semantics? The only common denominator in these disputes is the distrust and hatred of the belligerent way the Chinese government is dealing with the situation.

LOL Billy, it is you that is missing the point and you highlight that fact with this very post. Yes China is belligerent no argument here. Is China the only belligerent country involved? According to you and some others yes. If you actually look beyond wikipedia you will see that ALL countries involved in these disputes have at one time or another used their military in a belligerent manner. And my point is yes China is throwing its weight around but other nations have been as well. You seem more than happy to point to China and yell BULLY. But you fail to see the others involved in the same light despite the fact that there have been clashes over these islands that have not included China.

These islands are in a state of dispute between nations and to take the moral high ground take the case to the ICJ and get a ruling then once and for all ownership is determined. If then and only then ownership is deemed to be Japan l will whole heartedly support this. Likewise if ownership went to China, Taiwan or anyone. Until then its merely a game of he said she said and it achieves nothing except fueling nationalistic cries for action and this is a dangerous thing.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

China has been bullying and claiming islands they think belong to them. The best solution for this is to check on the sea boundaries where the islands are situated so as to know who have the rights. This all about greed and business. Even Spratly Islands that's rich in natural gas have been in long dispute. Btw... what is the job of this United Nations..... scrapped that org if it's not functioning.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You seem more than happy to point to China and yell BULLY.

No, not me. Not wikipedia. Every other country involved in all these disputes is yelling BULLY at China. Only China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

billyshears

'You seem more than happy to point to China and yell BULLY." No, not me. Not wikipedia. Every other country involved in all these disputes is yelling BULLY at China. Only China.

Which is amusing dont you think, considering Taiwan and Japan recently played bumper cars with their coast guard ships around the islands. Dont see Japan screaming about that. Hardly rated a mention but if it was the PRC there would be people calling for nuke strikes on Beijing.......

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The UN respects the notion of a continental shelf but also terra nullis claims. I think that China objects to the "terra nullis" law. I think (correct me if I am wrong) that this is a Western idea that Japan got into when it decide to impersonate the Western powers and create its own empire - possibly a case of if you can't beat em join em. China did not and got right royally abused. Now they have modernised their industry, they are saying "No you can't go claiming 'terra nullis' around the coast of our ancient and massive nation". I think that they have a good point, as well as a big navy. Japan needs to find a compromise.

Generally I am with Tiger_In_The_Hermitage.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Cletus

You said China signed the islands over to Japan. Then hope exactly does one sign over something they do not have ownership of? If China did not own the islands then how did they sign them over. And remember YOU said "and unfortunately for China, they signed them away in 1895".

I did indeed, but it is you that is attributing Chinese ownership of the Islands to the act of ceding them in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, not me. I've made no reference to any ownership of the islands pre-Shimonoseki. But that is academic anyway, given that the main historical point here is that China did cede them to Japan in perpetuity and with full sovereignty in 1895. That is the legal precedent, and until Japan decides to hand them back, they remain Japanese.

The United States believes that a return of administrative rights to Japan, from which these rights were initially acquired, in no way damages the Republic of China's claim of sovereignty; nor can the United States, in transferring the administrative rights over these islands, grant Japan an expansion of the legal rights that it [Japan] had prior to giving them to the United States

Which is exactly what they should have done and said. Why do you think they didn't give them to China?

The Potsdam and Cairo documents clearly state any land Japan seized or gained through war (not only WW2) was to be seized.

Nice try. The wording is quite different between the two, with quite different meanings.Not the historical precedent you are looking for at all. Cairo -"All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China." and also "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed." (Keeping in mind my definition of 'cession', above) Potsdam (The one imposed upon Japan that it agreed to, ie the relevent one) Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine

And did they determine that the Senkakus were to be returned to the Chinese, by way of action or deed? Clearly, no.

But I'm curious. Seeing that you are arguing so vehemently that they were Chinese owned before Shimonoseki, what historical precedents are you using?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Tamarama

But I'm curious. Seeing that you are arguing so vehemently that they were Chinese owned before Shimonoseki, what historical precedents are you using?

As you are having difficulty understanding your own argument l will break it down for you.

Is it possible to cede something that is not yours? If you cannot cede something that is not yours then how can YOU say that China ceded the islands to Japan in 1895?

Do you see the issue you are claiming China ceded the islands to Japan in 1895 but then you are claiming the islands where not Chinese pre 1895. How on earth is that possible. I think you need to go back and review your arguments as you seem confused yourself.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

As you are having difficulty understanding your own argument l will break it down for you.

Oh, I'm fine with what we are talking about. You are the one trying desperately to derail the discussion by arguing the semantics of an arbitrary point. Whether they legally owned them or not, the main point is they forfited all rights to the islands, in perpetuity, in a legally binding agreement under International Law, in 1895. But go ahead - build another straw man, Cletus.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Everyone needs to sit down and work something out like rational adults with a little give and take on all fronts. It's the only way this is going to end well. Sooner or later there will be a confrontation which will ignite this like dynamite, then everyone will lose.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That Islands were under japanese rule after 1895. Pre 1895,' china was ruled by Manchu dynasty. Treaty was singed between Manchu government and Japan..Repulic or. People republic of China was not founded yet. If Japan did not lose world war Ii , it may be rightful owner. However when they lost the war, many nations reclaimed territory. Why not China claimed at that time? That islands administration was transferred to Japan in 1971 by US.

Geographically and Geologically,it is more Taiwan than Japan. Legally, Japan may be or may not be owner. Historically it was belong to china under Manchu rule. There is no credibility about China has legitimate claim rights. Back in19th century, that Islands were neglected by Qing dynasty(Manchu empire).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No matter how much you think that the Chinese love Japanese products and Japan.... the Chinese govt is quite adept at propaganda and stirring up their citizens. A couple of more moves on the chess board like this last one could prove to be a tipping point. The Japanese far right are trying to stir this nest up... they're sick of Japan's pacifism and believe the only way Japan can become a power again is through a strong military. Politicians like to play games... they're a breed apart that loves power and manipulation. China is just itching to finally prove itself to be a military power and Japanese politicians are foolishly playing into their game. The Chinese are launching successful space missions and their pride is welling up. Beware.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The same recall was used in a row over the Northern Territories/Kurils with the Russians. Japan's envoys to these countries must get used to roundtrip back home as the Foreign Ministry's new way of expressing their grievances however donot dare recalling permanently the envoys. Skillful move as some may judge so, albeit meaningless in itself.

The neighboring countries donot the US Secretary Clinton as a formidable figure to confront, Mr. Gemba.. May be one day he could manage to do so..one day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Correction in capital letter -- sorry for the typing mistake

" The same recall was used in a row over the Northern Territories/Kurils with the Russians. Japan's envoys to these countries must get used to roundtrip back home as the Foreign Ministry's new way of expressing their grievances however donot dare recalling permanently the envoys. Skillful move as some may judge so, albeit meaningless in itself.

The neighboring countries DO RESPECT the US Secretary Clinton as a formidable figure to confront, Mr. Gemba.. May be one day he could manage to do so..one day."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

..chinese doesn't respect neighbors...

..but funny thing to be recorded in history,

"greed drags chinese to demise"

...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i hope japan would even make better community in disputed islands.. i heard in philippines they already set up school in the lands that these chinese wants to get

simple rule- if there are citizens there and they got harmed by these greedy chinese, under the defense treaty with US, US will at all times help allies defend from its aggressor..

after the disappointment at Asean meeting in cambodia, asean contries decided to ban all chinese products... including those who illegally enter the country by riding into wooden crates at the expense of their... Uh, life?

...China = big + useful = dai + ben

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Geographically and Geologically,it is more Taiwan than Japan.

Zenpun, geographically they're more Okinawa than Taiwan. Other Okinawan islands are physically closer than Taiwan is, and other Okinawan islands (Yonaguni in particular) are further west than these islands are. The end of the Ryukyu chain is its westernmost point in Yonaguni (from which Taiwan can be seen, on a clear day, whereas there is no possibility of seeing Taiwan from these islands. You might have a shot at seeing Ishigaki from them, though.).

Note that no Taiwanese people ever made use of the waters around the islands, whereas Okinawans have for centuries (since the 17th-century-to-Meiji-era Satsuma regime, if not earlier), and the Kyushu-based private owner did after that. Plenty of fishermen have worked in the area, and none of them have been Taiwanese.

Now let's think about something: the Taiwanese name of the islands are 釣魚 (Tiao-yü) What does that word mean? What does the Japanese name of the main island in the group, 魚釣 (Uo-tsuri) mean?

They both mean "fishing", of course. How can the Taiwanese (let alone Mainland China) claim that agroup of islands called the "Fishing Islands" belong to them, when the only people actually fishing there have been Okinawans? Case closed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All in all everyone's opinions are directed at the government of China and government of Japan. All people in power have a different view than those without power.

Why is the Chinese government allowing the navy as well as the private fishing vessels to invade Japanese waters?

What can Japan do about it?

If the Japanese people cannot unite as it was before WWII, Japan does not have a chance. Why does Japan continue to allow exporting of technology and expertise? Why does Japan and the rest of the world allow key essential products to be made in China? Until such time as the general population unite behind the country, Japan will remain weak in the face of Chinese threat

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They both mean "fishing", of course. How can the Taiwanese (let alone Mainland China) claim that agroup of islands called the "Fishing Islands" belong to them, when the only people actually fishing there have been Okinawans? Case closed.

If there is no justification that fishing from Okinawa native mean the case have settled. We have no privilege or power to close that case. It is between claiming nations and ICJ. In 1971, US transfered administration to Japan however US did not admit that Japan was a rightful owner.

In the history Okinawa was known as Ryūkyū Kingdom. It became part of Japan in 1871. It was not very far from 1895.

From 1895 to 1945, Japan was a legal owner because they won the sino japanese war. When Japan lost the war in 1945. they surrendered to allied force unconditionally. They did not make pre condition for leaving some islands for them. If Japan made it back then, there is no legal conflict will rise in that 21st century.

Japan lost some territory of Korea and Taiwan from 1895 treaty. When Japan lost the war, that treaty was no longer concrete. It is also true that China or Taiwan has no rights of legitimate claim too. Treaty was singed between Qing dynasty (Manchu empire) and Meiji restoration of Japan. Republic or People republic of China was not founded yet. Territory lost occurred before on their watch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pls correct the first sentence as

There is no justification that fishing from Okinawa native means that case have settled. Fish are non citizen of any nations and moving freely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sino-Japan relations are entering a new phase.

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