politics

Japan says isle dispute should not hurt bilateral ties with China

78 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

78 Comments
Login to comment

Japan created their own problem. Now they want Chinese understandings that Japan is a victim? What do Japan expect from their aggressive action toward Chinese fisherman around Senkaku? These Chinese fisherman were minding their own business and trying to make a living. There is no reason for J-goverment to increase the Japan Coast Guard activity around Senkaku when history shows Japan arrested only 7 people in 14 years. There was no problem with Chinese fisherman for three decades prior to 8/11 and after the fishery agreement between China and Japan, and Japan created this problem.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

“You should put a few submarines and military fleets near the island, and when you see Japanese, immediately open fire ... said a Chinese microblogger. “Chinese officials are too timid. Even if this could start a war, Japan will not dare.”

What a war mongering fool. This brave net wsarrior should be on a Chinese Warship when the US 7th fleet answers. Someone needs to send him a link to the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty text. And China supporters whine about "Japanese Right-Wing"?? LOL

9 ( +14 / -5 )

sfjp330Aug. 21, 2012 - 07:30AM JST Japan created their own problem. Now they want Chinese understandings that Japan is a victim? What do Japan expect >from their aggressive action toward Chinese fisherman around Senkaku? These Chinese fisherman were minding their >own business and trying to make a living.

You consider ramming a Coast Guard ship from behind twice as "minding your own business"? Japan didn't create this problem, China did. And they are doing it all over the East and South China Seas. Try looking at the big picture.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

OssanAmerica Aug. 21, 2012 - 07:35AM JST What a war mongering fool. This brave net wsarrior should be on a Chinese Warship when the US 7th fleet answers. Someone needs to send him a link to the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty text. And China supporters whine about "Japanese Right-Wing"?? LOL

If you didn't know, both countries talk nonsense, and idea of hate is a problem. The Japan right wing talks about same thing as Chinese do. There is no difference. Memories run deep and 70 years didn't make a bit of difference for two countries. Problem is Japan does not want to work for better relations and will continue believing themselves as a victim of war.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

and stressed that a feud over disputed islands in the East China Sea should not damage ties between Asia’s two biggest economies.

That seems a bit naive to me. Folks are saying Japan needs a stronger defense to protect these islands from the Chinese, but you hope that won't "damage ties"? In any case, Japan is not necessarily being portrayed poistively in the U.S. press on this issue. They are referring it as one of Japan's many teriitorial disputes-- Russia, China, SK, Taiwan -- and making it appear Japan is simply not willing to solve them in a mature manner.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I'm sure the efficiency of the Chinese government to protect Japanese nationals reflects Japanese governments desire to protect foreign nationals, as was well demonstrated by the incident involving a certain South Korean national, J-coppers and a pack of uncontrollable vicious animals.

Ossan, you just keep hiding behind U.S's back, after creating the problems in the first place. China, South Korea, Russia, they all have more friends in the area than Japan. And how is Japan making up all the troubles it causes to U.S? Clock's ticking, patience running out. You really believe any fleet will come to you? Because of ink on a piece of paper? Paid by who? That is just an international treaty, and everybody knows exactly in what way Japan respects international treaties.

Japan really should look into making more friends around the neighbourhood instead of talking big and then cowering behind the back of somebody who has wider interests in peace in the area. World gets fast tired of the antiques of eternal jr high school boys.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

OssanAmerica Aug. 21, 2012 - 07:57AM JST. You consider ramming a Coast Guard ship from behind twice as "minding your own business"? Japan didn't create this problem, China did. And they are doing it all over the East and South China Seas. Try looking at the big picture.

Does people really know the true story other than what you read? You believe in everything that J-goverment told you? I guess you do. That is the problem of how accurate the incident was told by JCG. This is so different than the version that Chinese fisherman told. This incident happened far away, 15km outside of Senkaku island. These fisherman were minding their own business like they had done for the last two-three decades from the fishing agreement. The point is they didn't land on the island but were arrested. How often prior to 8/11 did the Japanese Coast Guard arrest Chinese fisherman? Hardly any, don't you think, and why change now?

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

There is no reason for J-goverment to increase the Japan Coast Guard activity around Senkaku when history shows Japan arrested only 7 people in 14 years. There was no problem with Chinese fisherman for three decades prior to 8/11 and after the fishery agreement between China and Japan, and Japan created this problem.

Enough with the distortion sfjp330. 14 "nationalists" have been arrested and deported because they landed in Senkaku since 1997. They are not fishermen. The fishermen's arrests were of the September of 2010 where he illegally entered the coastal territory and subsequenly rammed the CG ship. The violation of "fishermen" entering illegally into Japan's coastal area are 233 cases in 2007, 201 cases in 2008, 158 cases in 2009, and as of September 2010, 443 cases. (Cabinet meeting October 22nd, 2010)

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I don't know who owns these islands but I do know that Japan is discovering that it can't have it both ways by allowing nationalists provoking and yet trying to distance itself from their actions. This is China, a country with a sometimes irrational government and a population easily whipped up for political purposes. At some point, the Japanese are going to have to proceed in a different direction policy wise, such as more hard line or not. The status quo doesn't seem an option.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nigelboy..ramming of the fishing vessel took place 15km outside of Senkaku and these JCG vessels that can do better than 20knots in the ocean and couldn't get away from the slow fishing boat to intentionally create a incident. You know that these fisherman bothering anybody other than the fishing and JCG could've left them alone. Now you make it sound like your the spokesperson for J-goverment, but how much of the right wing truth is really there? Sounds more like alot more of hot air coming from Japan.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

This incident happened far away, 15km outside of Senkaku island.

They were fishing well within 22 km of Kubajima on the morning of September 7. In fact, the fishing vessel rammed into the JCG vessel North nortthwest of Kubajima within 12km. The second collision with the another JCG happened within 15km of Kubajima at 10:57 am.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

nigelboy Aug. 21, 2012 - 08:37AM JST They were fishing well within 22 km of Kubajima on the morning of September 7. In fact, the fishing vessel rammed into the JCG vessel North nortthwest of Kubajima within 12km. The second collision with the another JCG happened within 15km of Kubajima at 10:57 am.

So where do the 1998 fishing agreement with China apply to JCG going after Chinese fisherman?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

ramming of the fishing vessel took place 15km outside of Senkaku

Source please.

these JCG vessels that can do better than 20knots in the ocean and couldn't get away from the slow fishing boat to intentionally

??? The point was NOT to get away but to apprehend and inspect or they violated the law by encroaching the coastal waters. The proper protocol is to inspect the fishing boat for any illegal catches made in that area.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

nigelboy Aug. 21, 2012 - 08:37AM JST They were fishing well within 22 km of Kubajima on the morning of September 7.

22 km = 14.4 miles. Let me see, Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles from its baseline. So what your saying is that this fishing boat was outside of territorial waters? So what does this fishing boat that is 22 km of kubajima has to do with anything?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So where do the 1998 fishing agreement with China apply to JCG going after Chinese fisherman?

The area where both Japanese and Chinese can ship are JOINT Management area which is not coastal waters (within 22 km or 12nM). Have you not be reading what I stated????

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Interesting how we don't see Japanese protesting and destroying Chinese products. Who are the aggressors?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

nigelboy Aug. 21, 2012 - 08:41AM JST ??? The point was NOT to get away but to apprehend and inspect or they violated the law by encroaching the coastal waters. The proper protocol is to inspect the fishing boat for any illegal catches made in that area.

The problem is when did the rules change? The JCG from 1998 to summer of 2011 left these Chinese fisherman alone. Why all sudden J-goverment decided to go after these innocent fisherman? You have the inside information. Was it worth it?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

sjp330Aug. 21, 2012 - 07:59AM JST "OssanAmerica Aug. 21, 2012 - 07:35AM JST What a war mongering fool. This brave net wsarrior should be on a Chinese Warship when the US 7th fleet answers. Someone needs to send him a link to the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty text. And China supporters whine about "Japanese Right-Wing"?? LOL

If you didn't know, both countries talk nonsense, and idea of hate is a problem. The Japan right wing talks about same >thing as Chinese do. There is no difference.

No there is a huge difference,. The right wing in Japan is a small limited bunch whose main activity is to annoy everyone else with their stupid back trucks and loudspeakers. The best they can do is to try and affect public opinion which for the most part doesn't care much for them. In contrast, Nationalism-ie; right-wing is state sanctioned and found accross the board in China. The government even uses it to control the masses. Couple thart with China's current military and territorial expansion agenda and you are comparting a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. Japans limited nationalism is not a threat to anyone since theirt Article 9 prohibits them from starting any war. Compare that with China which openly threatens it's neighbors with war asnd is considred the biggest threat by all Asian nations.

Memories run deep and 70 years didn't make a bit of difference for two countries. Problem is Japan does not want to >work for better relations and will continue believing themselves as a victim of war.

Memories? No, hatred rund deep, only when the CCP government allows it to continue for it;s own use. Japan is the one talking about not wrecking relations while China is talking war. So which one is not working for better relations?

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

OssanAmericaAug. 21, 2012 - 08:57AM JST Memories? No, hatred rund deep, only when the CCP government allows it to continue for it;s own use. Japan is the one talking about not wrecking relations while China is talking war. So which one is not working for better relations?

But who actually follow through with the war? China never invaded Japan. What happened in 1931-1945 with over 6 million deaths in the neighboring countries? Again, Japan is the victim?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

sfjp330Aug. 21, 2012 - 08:05AM JST

"OssanAmerica Aug. 21, 2012 - 07:57AM JST. You consider ramming a Coast Guard ship from behind twice as "minding your own business"? Japan didn't create this problem, China did. And they are doing it all over the East and South China Seas. Try looking at the big picture."

Does people really know the true story other than what you read? You believe in everything that J-goverment told you? I >guess you do. That is the problem of how accurate the incident was told by JCG.

I watched all 6 video clips on youtube. You know, the one that got the JCG officer busted? I saw it with my own eyes. Did YOU?

This is so different than the version that Chinese fisherman told. This incident happened far away, 15km outside of >Senkaku island. These fisherman were minding their own business like they had done for the last two-three decades from >the fishing agreement. The point is they didn't land on the island but were arrested. How often prior to 8/11 did the >Japanese Coast Guard arrest Chinese fisherman? Hardly any, don't you think, and why change now?

Such incidents did not occur earlier because when told to leave the Chinese ships left. This one had a drunk captain who instead of just leaving decided to cause damage. That's why he was arrested. Do you really trhink anything has changed? If a Chinese vessel is intercepted and leaves when instructed three is no incident, it doesn't even make the news.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Were you there?

Neither were you.

Let's see. A Chinese fishermen who rammed the two of the JCG boats versus JCG. Let me sleep on it. (sigh)

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

hereforever: It's an entirely different sentiment in Japan vs. China but I will say that the police in Japan would not by and large stand by while people rioted and destroyed private property. You know the J police would never allow that to happen for a moment.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

DoLittleBeLateAug. 21, 2012 - 08:04AM JST

Ossan, you just keep hiding behind U.S's back, after creating the problems in the first place.

Who created the problems? China. By making a claim AFTER oil/gas was found.

China, South Korea, Russia,>they all have more friends in the area than Japan.

Completely false. China and Russia have no friends because they only look after themselves. And South Korea has no friends because it's incapable of distinguishing between friends and foes.

And how is Japan making up all the troubles it causes to U.S? Clock's >ticking, patience running out. You really believe >any fleet will come to you? Because of ink on a piece of paper? Paid by >who? That is just an international treaty, and >everybody knows exactly in what way Japan respects international treaties.

China is causing us far more problems than Japan. THe Defense of Japan is nmpot only a treaty obligation, it is in U.S. Interests. Considering that China has been afraid of taking Taiwan for 50 years because of the fear of the United States, your arguments are rather silly.

Japan really should look into making more friends around the neighbourhood instead of talking big and then cowering behind the back of somebody who has wider interests in peace in the area. World gets fast tired of the antiques of eternal jr high school boys.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

The problem is when did the rules change? The JCG from 1998 to summer of 2011 left these Chinese fisherman alone. Why all sudden J-goverment decided to go after these innocent fisherman?

Not really a significant rule changes other than fact that these Chinese fishermen were inside the coastal waters which the exemption doesn't apply. Hardly innocent. That's probably just your imagination since you obviously don't know the Fisheries Agreement and don't have the capacity to look up the reports.

-1 ( +6 / -6 )

OssanAmerica Aug. 21, 2012 - 09:01AM JST. I watched all 6 video clips on youtube. You know, the one that got the JCG officer busted? I saw it with my own eyes. Did YOU?

This was a big joke on JCG. The JCG ship runs beyond 20knots and can run cirlces around the slow Chinese fishing boat. The JCG should've walk away, since the drunken captain was't hurting anybody. Maybe this fisherman has taken previously the same path 100 times and never were bothered the JCG. JCG just wanted confrontation. Big deal. Do you think JCG made a good decision to confront this poor fishing boat? You see the fallout from the stupid mistake that JCG made.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

sfjp330: you apparently haven' t learned from the past. War is not good. There are no winners. What happened in the past stays in the past. Don't make WWII and reason to start a WWIII. Your blood is the same color as mine. Chinese are not bad people, neither are Japanese, American, Russain, etc. certian individuals are. Don't be one of the individuals. I am sure you are a good person. Peace on Earth brother. (or Sister)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Great headline- dispute should not hurt bilateral ties. Then everyone should have thought about the consequences before hand. Obviously they didn't.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Problem is Japan does not want to work for better relations and will continue believing themselves as a victim of war.

Oh, yeah. It's not like China ever play the victim card at any opportunity they ever get...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The Japanese government's behavior is brazenly hypocritical:

Senkaku - Since it controls the islands and China is so powerful, Japan says "Oh, let's keep this quiet. Don't be so upset, China, please!"

Dokdo - Since it doesn't control the islets and Korea is weaker, Japan is raving mad and says "I'm going to make this a sh*tstorm! Let's take this to the ICJ!!! Sanctions! No meetings with Korea! What else?!!!"

Kowtow to the strong and crush the weak. Typical bully behavior.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Japan created their own problem. Now they want Chinese understandings that Japan is a victim?

So what's new? They have been doing this for decades re WWII.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Kowtow to the strong and crush the weak. Typical bully behavior.

Brings to mind the saying "at your throat or at your feet", which used to be used to refer to Germany.

2 ( +1 / -1 )

Since it controls the islands and China is so powerful

??? Since they are powerful, shouldn't they be controlling the islands. Perhaps you got it other way around there.

Japan is raving mad and says "I'm going to make this a sh*tstorm! Let's take this to the ICJ!!! Sanctions! No meetings with Korea! What else?!!!"

I wouldn't call raising an issue at a U.N. body without military threat "make this a sh*tstorm"

Although I don't like DPJ and their lawmakers, Gemba is correct.

"Actually, the ROK side did not respond to the lawsuit twice before. We believe that our assertion is sufficiently reasonable. However, we have not filed the third lawsuit. That is not only because the ROK side has not responded to the lawsuit but the Government of Japan as a whole gave certain consideration to the influence of such a lawsuit upon overall Japan-ROK relations. I think the visit to the island by the President of the ROK made such consideration unnecessary, and therefore we need to make the international society sufficiently understand Japan’s position. For that purpose, we will consider such a lawsuit."-August 11th, 2012

-1 ( +5 / -5 )

sfjp330Aug. 21, 2012 - 09:00AM JST "OssanAmericaAug. 21, 2012 - 08:57AM JST Memories? No, hatred rund deep, only when the CCP government allows it to continue for it;s own use. Japan is the one talking about not wrecking relations while China is talking war. So which one is not working for better relations?" But who actually follow through with the war? China never invaded Japan. What happened in 1931-1945 with over 6 >million deaths in the neighboring countries? Again, Japan is the victim?

The 1931-1945 war is over and past history. China signed a Treaty of Frienship with Japan in 1972 settling all matters and putting it behind them. They reaffrmed it again in 1978. So why are you talking about it like it's current news? China's aggressive behavior towards all it;s neighbors is what's current news. Oh and China did try to invade Japan twice in the 1200s. But that's also nothing more than history.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

sfjp330Aug. 21, 2012 - 09:11AM JST "OssanAmerica Aug. 21, 2012 - 09:01AM JST. I watched all 6 video clips on youtube. You know, the one that got the JCG officer busted? I saw it with my own eyes. Did YOU?"

This was a big joke on JCG. The JCG ship runs beyond 20knots and can run cirlces around the slow Chinese fishing >boat. The JCG should've walk away, since the drunken captain was't hurting anybody. Maybe this fisherman has taken >previously the same path 100 times and never were bothered the JCG. JCG just wanted confrontation. Big deal. Do you >think JCG made a good decision to confront this poor fishing boat? You see the fallout from the stupid mistake that JCG >made.

Your answer obviously means you did NOT watch the videos.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Perhaps Japan could tell folks like Ishihara to shut up?! Tit for tat and neither Japan nor China can play the innocent card in all of this. Bad for trade, bad for rep and just silly ego games.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@OssanAmerica: Since 1951, Germany has paid more than $61.8 billion in reparations to Israel and Jewish victims all over the world. Even today, the German government continues to make compensation payments. Between 1992 and 1998, the German federal government paid out about $647 million to the Jewish Claims Conference.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p19_reparations.html

And China did not try to invade Japan. It was the Mongols.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

How do you make links work, btw? Mine are always broken.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Classic japa-logic! We'll ignore your please and claims, but we want to be your friend.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Examples of war reparations made pursuant to the San Francisco Peace Treaty

-Reparations amounting to US$550 million (198 billion yen) were made to the Philippines, and US$39 million (14.04 billion yen) to Viet Nam.

-Payment to the International Committee of the Red Cross to compensate prisoners of war (POW) of 4.5 million pounds sterling (approximately 4.54109 billion yen) was made.

-Japan(which include individuals) relinquished all overseas assets (approximately US$23.681 billion: approximately 379.499 billion yen) (The figure is during the 1950's!!!!)

Examples of war reparations made pursuant to individual peace treaties and other treaties

Reparations amounting to US$200 million (72 billion yen) were made to Burma, and US$223.08 million (80.3088 billion yen) to Indonesia.

Economic aid to Korea for $800 million.

-3 ( +5 / -6 )

Major issue between China and Japan. I wonder if this is going to affect Sony, Capcom, and other companies business?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'd I have to say the above J compensation figures pale in comparison to the billions Germany paid out as Sir Edgar points out. The only exception being the " relinquished Japanese assets overseas" which I would imagine to be property/ assets that Japan,s military and industrial concerns acquired in the occupied countries and had to give up after loosing the war. Same as " German assets" in occupied Europe eg. Sudetenland .

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'd I have to say the above J compensation figures pale in comparison to the billions Germany paid out as Sir Edgar points out. The only exception being the " relinquished Japanese assets overseas" which I would imagine to be property/ assets that Japan,s military and industrial concerns acquired in the occupied countries and had to give up after loosing the war. Same as " German assets" in occupied Europe eg. Sudetenland .

Nice try. They are non-military assets. Secondly, German individuals have claimed or are claiming their assets because it was not in the agreement unlike the Treaty of Peace which Japan executed where they specifically stated that they HAD to relinquish everything.

-4 ( +5 / -8 )

@OssanAmerica Actually America created this problem by unilaterally giving control of the island it took control of to Japan without agreement from the regional neighbours after WWII. Japanese and Chinese should not fall for the trap that American's created to jutify their control of Japan!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Actually America created this problem by unilaterally giving control of the island it took control of to Japan without agreement from the regional neighbours after WWII. Japanese and Chinese should not fall for the trap that American's created to jutify their control of Japan!

In which 46 other nations gave an authority to do so. Also, please bear in mind that neither Republic of China (still a member of the Allieds) nor PRC ever disputed nor asserted their claims for over 25 years when the UN discovered that there was an underwater resources there. In fact, both entitties even went as far as to acknowledge that they were Japanese territory in their respective offical government maps. (late 60's).

-3 ( +4 / -6 )

And as has been explained to you numerous times dip sh1t, the US has given the Japanese administrative rights ONLY. And the US has not given sovereignty of the islands to Japan. Please how many times do you need to be told this. Are you dense or what!

This was addressed in another thread but I'll repeat.

The 1971 Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands Article 1 states

"With respect to the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, as defined in paragraph 2 below, the United States of America relinquishes in favor of Japan all rights and interests under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, effective as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement. Japan, as of such date, assumes full responsibility and authority for the exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands. "

Not merely just an administration. "An authority for the exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands. " Sounds like soverignty to me.

Also bear in mind that China wasnt even a member of the UN for many of those 25 years you mention so as a non member (due to the US refusing to acknowledge them) how exactly can they then argue a claim sheez your dumb

Actually, ROC was a member of of U.N. until PRC took over. In essence, they just took over ROC's Permanent member of Security Council. Secondly, a non-U.N. states can still make their claim as evidenced by the Rusk documents regarding Takeshima with in regards to Korea which became a member when?? Nice try Cletus.,

-4 ( +3 / -6 )

Lets ditch this China threat and Chinese right wing make up their mass population, its blown out of proportion by the press. I’ve been to China on exchange, these people are all about capitalism not nationalism. Money talks louder than anything in China.

@OssanAmerica: Where do you get all that popuganda? The American Gun Lobby?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Well, it's good that SOME cooler heads should prevail. This island roe should not harm the nations economic ties, nor hopefully social ties much. Let right-wing fools have their moment and then everyone go back to trying to cooperate and improve ties.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Regardless of what unfolds the greater populations of both countries absolutely hate each other

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

nigelboy .

I've been accused of being a paid whaling activist, a paid pro nuclear advocate, and a paid spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Finance Ministry, MAFF, Office of the Cabinet (please bear in mind that none of them get along each other)

Whatever, you should get out in the real world and find yourself job, instead of trolling 24/7 on JT.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

OMG, we are discussion the Senkaku islands. You mention the Okinawan islands and Daito Islands which are 350km EAST of Okinawa. While the Senkaku's are WEST of Okinawa. You provide a quote that not only doesnt even mention the Senkaku's but refers to a completely different island group around 600 km EAST of the ones we are discussing. Wake up Nigel boy

Apparently, you couldn't find the agreed minutes executed on the same day that the said agreement (which is the subsequent agreement of the Treaty of Peace) was executed

Regarding Article I: The territories defined in paragraph 2 of Article I are the territories under the administration of the United States of America under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, and are, as designated under Civil Administration Proclamation Number 27 of December 25, 1953, all of those islands, islets, atolls and rocks situated in an area bounded by the straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the listed order:

North latitude East Longitude 28 degrees 124 degrees 40 minutes 24 degrees 122 degrees 24 degrees 133 degrees 27 degrees 131 degrees 50 minutes 27 degrees 128 degrees 18 minutes 28 degrees 128 degrees 18 minutes 28 degrees 124 degrees 40minutes

http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/JPUS/19710617.O1J.html

Really maybe you should go talk to the US state department then

State Department is under Executive Branch which is one of the three branches of the U.S. government.

Under the Constitution of United States,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, since the Congress ratified the Treaty of Peace (Legislative Branch) and the above(Judicial Branch), when push comes to shove, what resulted from the Treaty and the susequent agreement stands.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Just in case you whine about the agreements after the execution of a treaty..

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties under Article 31 states

The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:

The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:

(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;

(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;..

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I was thinking of taking a vacation in China but seeing the xenophobic behavior of its car-trashing mobs in Chengdu, I think I'll give it a pass and go somewhere safe. Maybe Taiwan.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@nigelboy, you seem well informed. I sorry to see some other posters froth at the mouth and show their ill breeding.

@tamanegi

Regardless of what unfolds the greater populations of both countries absolutely hate each other

With all due respect, I hope that you are wrong. I hope the general population are smart enough to know better. I hope they care more for their kids than they care for war.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@smith

Well, it's good that SOME cooler heads should prevail. This island roe should not harm the nations economic ties, nor hopefully social ties much. Let right-wing fools have their moment and then everyone go back to trying to cooperate and improve ties.

Could not agree more. Well said!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Looks like the government succeeded in diverting everyone's attention away from real domestic problems. God those guys are good!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I am chinese but not from China. Japanese people seem to hate chinese people. So I wonder if I go to Japan, am I going to be hate by the Japanese?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the Chinese activists who landed the Senkaku island last week was reportedly a man who joined a free Tibet movement and burned the national flag of China. If so, he was paid. And I wonder who is behind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan's claim over those islands is clearly a violation of the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan.

In the Potsdam Agreement, it was clearly stated that:

"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."

Since Japan agreed with Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Potsdam Declaration became Potsdam Agreement, the primary peace treaty or instrument of peace that enabled the ending of WWII when Japan announced the acceptance of it in the Imperial Rescript of Surrender and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy says: "The 1971 Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands Article 1 states"

Point 1. The 1971 treaty between Japan and the US must be read in context with the previous treaties signed between the two countries. These include the Potsdam Agreement, the primary peace treaty that they entered in 1945 and the San Francisco Peace Treaty that they entered in 1952.

Point 2. When a new treaty runs in conflict with a previous treaty, the previous treaty must first be nullified with approval from all the parties concerned.

Point 3. In Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the US claimed that it would apply to the UN to put all the islands in dispute under a trusteeship to be administered by it exclusively. Since the other 3 concerning parties of the Potsdam Agreement, i.e. UK, China and USSR held veto power in the UN, if they did approve the trusteeship, then the trusteeship would be considered valid. Otherwise, it would be considered invalid. Since USSR openly opposed the SF treaty, it is unlikely that the trusteeship were ever approved.

Point 4. When the details of the Reversion Agreement between Japan and the US were disclosed in 1971, both the PRC and ROC (a concerning party of the Potsdam Agreement and a permanent UNSC member) publicly denounced the reversion, i.e. the transferring of trusteeship of the islands in dispute from the US to Japan. The reason being that they opposed the transfer of Chinese territory to Japan under a trusteeship. Since the transfer of trusteeship was not approved by the UN (a requirement of the SF treaty) and was rejected by China, a concerning party of the Potsdam Agreement, the reversion treaty is obviously illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan says Isle ( related political ) dispute should not hurt bilateral ( economic ) ties with China..let's pray though.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Guru29

We've done this before but I'll bite.

Invalidate the treaty of peace as well as the subsequent agreement that follows in conditions outlined in the said treaty.

Hence, the real issue now becomes, does Japan have strong case in regards to the soverignty of Senkaku under the international law?

Yes.

Point 1: Potsdam Delcaration has no bearing on the merits of the claim since we are basically referring to a third party judge and NOT the "we" parties mentioned in the said declaration.

Point 2: Japan incorporated the islands peacefully under the international customs and law at that time.

Point 3: From the time the islands were incorporated until 1971, there are NO CLAIMS by ROC or PRC in regards to the ownership of the islands. In fact, both government issued maps indicating that it's Japanese territory up until the 60's.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nigelboy says: "Potsdam Delcaration has no bearing on the merits of the claim since we are basically referring to a third party judge and NOT the "we" parties mentioned in the said declaration."

What third party are you talking about? The "we" of the Potsdam Agreement as clarified by Japan are US, UK, China, Russia. All the four nations had territorial issues with Japan in 1945 and can't be considered third parties.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nigelboy says: "Japan incorporated the islands peacefully under the international customs and law at that time."

That is a lie.

Japan annexed those islands during a Japanese invasion in 1895. Japan only felt comfortable to annexe those islands after it destroyed the Chinese navy almost completely during the war. Prior to 1872, all major maps of Japan portrayed the kingdom of Ryukyu as an independent country and Taiwan and Diaoyu islands as part of China not part of Ryukyu. In 1941, a Tokyo court also ruled that the islands belong to Taiwan, not Ryukyu.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nigelboyAug. 22, 2012 - 01:52AM JST Hence, the real issue now becomes, does Japan have strong case in regards to the soverignty of Senkaku under the international law?

No they don't. In 1971, the U.S. Department of State told Japan at the time that any territorial dispute over the islands should be addressed by the parties concerned, noting that administrative rights and sovereignty are separate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What third party are you talking about? The "we" of the Potsdam Agreement as clarified by Japan are US, UK, China, Russia. All the four nations had territorial issues with Japan in 1945 and can't be considered third parties

You're not understanding. What we're talking now is the determination of the soverignty based on neutral third party not speculating on what these "we" power were going to do for they are deceased. We don't have a time machine.

Japan annexed those islands during a Japanese invasion in 1895. Japan only felt comfortable to annexe those islands after it destroyed the Chinese navy almost completely during the war. Prior to 1872, all major maps of Japan portrayed the kingdom of Ryukyu as an independent country and Taiwan and Diaoyu islands as part of China not part of Ryukyu. In 1941, a Tokyo court also ruled that the islands belong to Taiwan, not Ryukyu.

The islands were used by Japanese businessmen during the 1880's with no sign of Qin ever exercized soverignty on it. With continued UNINTERUPTED operation there, it was decided to incorporate those prior to the execution of Shimonoseki Treaty.

Your 1941 Tokyo court is a mere urban legend that lacks anything to back this up. (no lower court decision, Tokyo courts did not rule fishing areas/disputes)

Martin Lomeyers states..

"The Court’s decision is neither known nor does the Court’s procedure have a solid legal value. Children of former witnesses reported about the Court procedure. The Court procedure, which has only allegedly taken place, lacks reliable sources. But it cannot be proven that the procedures took place or that a ruling was given."

The above BS is explained here.

これはおそらく那覇在住の中国人陳哲雄氏あたりからの情報のように思えるが、だいだい尖閣列島の領海内は、 戦前戦後を問わず漁業権の設定されているような水域ではなかったことである。このようなところで漁業権をめぐる争 いが法的におきる余地はない。またある記事は一九四四年といったり、陳氏は大正年間といい、常氏は年代をいわ ず、他方陳氏は大審院、常民は最高裁といった具合に、年代も一致せず、事件の内容もあきらりかでなく、具体性が まったくない。戦前の大審院と戦後の最高裁が、あたかも同一のものであるかのように扱われている。最高裁にせよ 大審院にせよ、最終審であるから、その前に事件か下級審で審理されたはずである。しかしこれらのことにはまった く触れていない。

To summarize, prior to the Pacific war, Japan did not set/stipulate fishing zones within domestic prefectures/territories. One article states that this so-called hearing took place during 1944, while another person claims it was done during the Taisho era, and another doesn't even state the year such hearing happened. In addition, one claims this took place at (大審院) which is the highest court before the end of the war while the other claim this happed in high court 最高裁 which is post war. In either case, if such hearing happened in those highest courts, there must of been a decision made by the lower courts prior to submitting this case to the higher courts.

.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

nigelboy Aug. 22, 2012 - 03:57AM JST What I want is an official claim for either ROC or PRC or Qing for that matter between 1895~1970.

The Chinese navigational records show the islands as Chinese for many centuries, and a 1783 Japanese map shows them as Chinese as well. Japan purported to “discover” the islands only in 1884 and annexed them only in 1895 when it also grabbed Taiwan. You can also make a case that Japan claimed bogus terra nullis, belonging to no nation.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Chinese navigational records show the islands as Chinese for many centuries, and a 1783 Japanese map shows them as Chinese as well. Japan purported to “discover” the islands only in 1884 and annexed them only in 1895 when it also grabbed Taiwan. You can also make a case that Japan claimed bogus terra nullis, belonging to no nation.

You're deflecting. Where is the official complaint all that time between 1895 and 1970?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

nigelboy Aug. 22, 2012 - 04:23AM JST You're deflecting. Where is the official complaint all that time between 1895 and 1970?

In the years from 1894 until 1900, Japan refer to the islands around Taiwan with Chinese names. Why suddenly Diaoyu/Senkaku became terra nullius after 1894 when Japan annexed Taiwan and other islands? Clearly, the exercise was to pre-empt any counterclaims by China or to legalize what they were stealing Japan surveyed the islands for 10 years and determined that they were uninhabited. That being the case, in 1895 it erected a sovereignty marker that formally incorporated the islands into Japanese territory.

Before Japan defeated China in 1894, Japan went surveying the islands in the East China Sea. the Chinese named since Ming period as the Diaoyu centuries back. Therefore, in 1884 Japan took an interest on Diaoyu ten years before she defeated China in 1894 in the First Sino-Japanese War. China used it as a marker in its route from Fuzhou to Naha, now in present-day Okinawa, and where occasion demands, its fisherman would seek temporary refuge from the raging sea storms, thus its name Diaoyu means “Fishing Platform.”

It just does not make sense that the Japanese, with nothing to gain, would spend ten years meticulously surveying the islands before 1894. Oil or gas had not been discovered or reported to be around the vicinity for Japan to be interested, at that point of time the need for fossil energy was not critical to Japan. Why would Japan embark on a non-viable survey for ten years to determine without any doubt that Diaoyu was terra nullius? If, as Japan claims, the ten years spent surveying the islands would mean they were likely to encounter Chinese fisherman taking shelter there in a storm and not actually terra nullius, would Japan have accepted that the islands were visited by Chinese fishermen?

Then why Japan did not lay claim to Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands before 1894 the year Japan vanquished Qing China’s navy? Why wait until 1896 after Japan forced an unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki on China in 1895 to pass an imperial decree to make Diaoyu a Japanese territory? Surely it is obvious that Japan had not surveyed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands to verify that it is no man’s land or uninhabited, because Japan could not as Japan knew the islands belong to China.

That accounts why Japan could not claim to discover the islands unless by outright war of conquest, which Japan did in 1894, and issued an imperial decree in 1896 to make Diaoyu a part of the Japanese Empire after the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Thus it would appear to me Japan is disingenuous, as Japan well knew long before her 1894 defeat of China, the Senkaku Islands were named as Diaoyu, a fishing platform for Chinese fishermen to take refuge in storms and route markers. To say Japan surveyed ten years the islands she called Senkaku Islands was a pretence Japan did not hear of the name Diaoyu used by China centuries before Japan called it Senkaku Islands.

The truth is very much lacking from Japan. Now, why terra nullius and not res nullius (a thing that has no owner)? To claim terra nullius is to say no one ever lived there before, and at the point of time, the discovery was made. Thus, having ‘proved’ terra nullius, Japan purported to land in Diaoyu and claims it as a discovery. That was what precisely Japan trying to legitimise their theft and answerable to no one with what is suspiciously a big lie.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nigelboy Aug. 22, 2012 - 03:57AM JST What I want is an official claim for either ROC or PRC or Qing for that matter between 1895~1970.

Japan never offers historical or political evidence to show Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands belongs to Japan. A puzzling fact is how the U.S. maintained Diaoyu and then hand over the islands to Japan in San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 during the Cold War where People’s Republic of China was not recognized and Taiwan, recognized as the legitimate China, refused to participate. U.S. gave away a territory that does not belong to her, and to Japan who has no legal right to possess it. The Cairo Declaration of 1943 decreed that Japan must unconditionally return all Chinese territories annexed or stolen by her up to 1914.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

sfjp330

All those paragraphs for nothing. Really sad.

As Palmas case indicates, "title by discovery is only an inchoate title" In other words, just because some navigator voyaged seas, discovered an un manned island, and decide to name it and place it on a map does not equate to title.

As you correctly stated, there were no such interests in gas/oil back then because the technology was limited. The survey was conducted off and on and it took at lot because face it, the land was not that much worth to the government. They were simply done (rather lazily) because of a request from a Kyushu businessmen who wanted to operate there (Bonito processing/fishing).

And your argument that Japan couldn't of known it was terra nullius, well. THE FACT THAT QIN, ROC, NOR PRC ever made an OFFICIAL CLAIM to these island from 1895~1970 basically proves this, does it not???

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

nigelboyAug. 22, 2012 - 03:53AM JST The islands were used by Japanese businessmen during the 1880's with no sign of Qin ever exercized soverignty on it. With continued UNINTERUPTED operation there, it was decided to incorporate those prior to the execution of Shimonoseki Treaty.

Send me a link on this subject.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Send me a link on this subject

Send you a link to what specifically? Can you find a source that states interuption by the Qing government existed? If not, my claim stands.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

its nothing to do with my salary so it don't matter who owns that island.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy says: "From the time the islands were incorporated until 1971, there are NO CLAIMS by ROC or PRC in regards to the ownership of the islands."

Then could you explain why a claim from China is necessary during 1945 to 1971 when Japan had lost the war, lost the sovereignty over Ryukyu and those subsidiary islands of Taiwan and agreed that its sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands that are to be determined by China, UK, US and USSR?

However, in 1971 when the details of the Reversion Agreement between Japan and the US were disclosed, both the PRC and ROC (a concerning party of the Potsdam Agreement and a permanent UNSC member) did publicly denounce the reversion, i.e. the transferring of trusteeship of the islands in dispute from the US to Japan. The reason being that they opposed the transfer of Chinese territory to Japan under a trusteeship. Since the transfer of trusteeship was not approved by the UN (a requirement of the SF treaty) and was rejected by China, a concerning party of the Potsdam Agreement, the reversion treaty is obviously illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And nigelboy, could you explain why a claim from China could be helpful from 1895 to 1945 when China and Japan were effectively in war? I.e. China was fighting to regain its lost territories by force and not by mere words. Why would you think mere words is a better way to fight against fascist Japan which was trying to annexe the whole of China and even Russia during this period?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy says: "Potsdam Delcaration has no bearing on the merits of the claim"

So you are declaring the 5 party Potsdam Agreement, the primary peace treaty or instrument of peace that enabled the ending of WWII which states that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine" as illegal?

Now I could see that legal specialists and historians throughout China are urging the Chinese government to bring up Japan's violation of the Potsdam Agreement to the UN which was founded based on WWII conferences such as those in Potsdam. That's see whether the UN will declare the Potsdam Agreement as illegal like what you believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guru29

It's not about debating the legality of the Potsdam Declaration. Since we do not have a time machine to go back, we can't speculate on what the 4 allied members would of decided. Hence, the merits of the case are based now strictly on Japan's and China's legal claims to the islands.

It's simple. Your position is that since Potsdam Declaration wasn't followed and United States unilaterally gave the islands to Japan, it's not fair. OK. I got that. But the question now is who does it belong to based on the current international law.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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