politics

Japan summons China envoy over ships near disputed isles

69 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

69 Comments
Login to comment

China admits the island belongs to Japan, US says it belongs to Japan, the UN says it belongs to Japan.

Even if China thinks they should belong to China they currently DO NOT and you are entering Japanese waters.

Take it to international court if you want them back.

12 ( +21 / -9 )

“The Chinese side argued its position and said it could not accept Japan’s protest,”

Japan: Wakarimashita... ?

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

This kind of non-sense news by China is really sad to hear. Chinese people must know why Japan also insist that Senkaku island is Japanese territory as same as China insists about that, and Japanese people also must know that. After both of countries know that, two countries might be able to have a conference officially. In my opinion, China is just like a same as North Korea even China is second biggest economy country and contribute for world economy because whenever they show their unsatisfactory toward foreign country, they usually choose to show that in bad way such as killing fishermen of Vietnam and attacking to foreign ships illegally. If China continue to do that kind of action, then China should be removed from permanent members of UN because that kind of country which does not have a moral should not be in important position in international society. JPN should be it instead of China.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

US said they dont take stands, the UN said they didnt take stands also. what kind of international court? maintaied by the USA? is that nation who always claiming being spied on by others actually proved to by the biggest spy.

-14 ( +6 / -19 )

So what happened to that big ship Japan launched the other day? They can't stop sailboats or other boats? Is it another Yamato? Thing is, when you say the reason you built ships of war when you're a pacifist nation to defend borders, wouldn't you think they would defend them?

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

Japan have crossed the Red Line when it nationalized those islands. (Even though there was a gentlemen agreement between Japan and China in the 70s to shelve the island dispute and work together for peace)

Japan pushed and China is shoving back.

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

Take it to the International Court of Justice. US must take a stand, UN must take a stand, everybody in the world must take a stand. Remember the Balkans? An assassination of a royal heir could spark the first world war, what will an assassination of territorial waters lead to? It's everybody's business, not only one between China and Japan.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I think there is a reason why neither China nor Japan are bringing this to the ICJ. I have been reading about the ICJ, seems that members of the UN Security Council can just veto a decision if they dont like it like what happened with Nicaragua vs. United States, we just vetoed the ruling. Also due to absence of binding force, you can just ignore the jurisdiction. I would assume China would just veto the ruling (if it is against them) as a permanent member of the Security Council or just ignore it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Taiwan wanted to bring the island dispute issue to ICJ but Japan always refuses, I wonder why.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

@hsien90210,

That is the point! the truth is These islets belong to Taiwan but not the mainland of China.

So Japan refuses the proposals from Taiwan . but when it come to China, Japan propposes to ICJ.

Another truth is Taiwan is too weak to confront Japan for these islets, so China stands forward.

China is willing to see Taiwan get back these islets. Chinese and China government never said Taiwan isn't the owner.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

China signed the treaty in 1952 about this exact issue. The truth is that no one cared about these islands until they found energy in the ground, suddenly China and gang shifted gears....

5 ( +12 / -7 )

Don't think that's going to have any real effect....

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@hworta269,

Did you mean if China had not signed the treaty in 1952 and every one cared about these islands at that moment, these islets should be China's, is this correct?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

There's a saying "repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

China is willing to see Taiwan get back these islets. Chinese and China government never said Taiwan isn't the owner.

Of course, since China says there is "One China." Taiwan is China, Japan is China, Phillipines is China, Vietnam is China. One China. Probably, the US is China, too, but they haven't realized it yet. They need to look at their appliances to realize it.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

@ Farmboy,

China says there is "One China." Taiwan is China, Japan is China, Phillipines is China, Vietnam is China.

Are you sure about this?

Would you please provide the source of this?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Taiwan has proposed submitting the dispute to international jurisdiction, but Japan is only willing to submit the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute to the International Court of Justice, while maintaining that "no dispute exists" over the Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands. This double-standard is contrary to the spirit of the universality of the Rule of Law.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@ Farmboy,

Yeah, I know about this. And I read through the url you provided.

I can't find even one word for Vietnam and Phillipines. This is my question indeed as you have mentioned "Phillipines is China, Vietnam is China".

And for Japan, no any similar meaning about "Japan is China" is found.

So please provide the source for your previous points.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

This all started because Japan did not get any official recognition when they said it was annexed in 1895. May I ask JT readers why is it done in such secretive manner? How come no one knows about it?

For those who are not lazy take a good look at the map, it is closest to Taiwan and centuries old China never been there before? It's true China acknowledge it when Taiwan was invaded in the same year but after the war ends, all those invaded by Japan is to be given back to China and this is where the confusion started.

No solid documents supported whether those islands belong to Japan or China BEFORE THE WAR as come on, how big those islands compare to Taiwan? Even today I think some islets are not yet named which located near China and Japan.

Now readers should know why countries do not dare to even mention about the issue and US avoid it as much as they can. This is between China and Japan, nothing more, nothing less.

I stand on my ground that Japan started the problem last year and so far I have not heard of cooperation as an option which they did it before and should consider such option seriously so both may return to the point when they are doing so well together before it's too late.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

IRobin,

My tone is not serious, and I know that is hard to catch if you are not a native speaker, but it is true China is currently having disputes, mostly naval disputes, with all those countries about territory. The feeling from China is perceived, outside of China, as expansionary. China is pushing territorial issues in all those countries, and in other countries as well..

It is not pushing territorial issues in the US. That joking comment refers to the fact that so much of US equipment is made partly or completely in China that China seems to be a very strong presence in the USA.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

IRobin,

If you want some background about current disputes, here is something you may find interesting. I don't know about the quality, but it gives general background.

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

0 ( +3 / -3 )

gogogo, China cannot take this issue to international course anymore than Japan can take the Dokdo issue to international court. Both sides need to agree to a court case, and not only does Japan not agree, Japan insists there is not even a dispute. I personally think senkaku should remain Japanese, but it is not possible for China to resolve this in an international court unless Japan agrees to take the case to an international court. Since Japan currently owns the islands, why would they risk it, especially as a decision would be non-binding. Same goes for Dokdo and the Koreans. hsien90210 is correct about this.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

China is just using the same tactics they did in Tibet, the World should unite make this country realize its wrong doings not because of Japan but for also for the nearby countries which China having disputes.....it started with Taiwan, Hongkong, Philipiines, Vietnam, Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and Japan.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

How about just sinking the islands... that way everyone will shut up!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Pointless.... instead of China bashing, everyone in Asia should be US bashing, they created this mess in the first place.

But what really concerns me is that if China sends their ships to territory they claim and we send our ships to territory we control, the bigger the ships both of us send the bigger the chance of conflict. I don't want anyone to die or get hurt. Although there are lots voices inciting violence, I beg to differ. Talking is cheaper and more civilised, the cost of that aircraft carrier should have gone to healthcare and education.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Japan has to abide with ICJ jurisdiction if the other state is also included in the list. China nor the USA nor South Korea is a part of this agreement.

So neither China nor South Korea can take their issue to the ICJ unilaterally as they have themselves not agreed with this jurisdiction clause. On the other hand, if they are included, then Japan would have to get involved with the ICJ.

Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory The States parties to the Statute of the Court may "at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court" (Art 36, para. 2 of the Statute). Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the Court by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court, and, conversely, it has undertaken to appear before the Court should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more such other States. The Declarations Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court take the form of a unilateral act of the State concerned and are deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Folks seem to forget that the only nation wishing peace is Japan.

Funny how the supporters of the PRC that live here are worse than the ones living in the PRC.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

neobios: --"It's true China acknowledge it when Taiwan was invaded in the same year but after the war ends, all those invaded by Japan is to be given back to China and this is where the confusion started."

Japan never invaded Taiwan. China (ch'ng) lost the Sino-Japan war and Taiwan was ceded to Japan based on a treaty. Japan never gives Taiwan back to China (KMT or Communist), USA won the Pacific war, owned Taiwan from Japan, asked Chiang Kai-shiek to temporarily take care of Taiwan. Thus legally Taiwan still belongs to USA.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Folks seem to forget that the only nation wishing peace is Japan.

Yeah... the only nation wishing peace... by siding with the US... provoking China...

-5 ( +4 / -10 )

Japan's nationalisation of the islands didn't start this dispute. China's economic blackmail by withholding rare minerals in order to force japan to release the fisherman who rammed japanese coastgaurd was the ignition point.

9 ( +9 / -1 )

hsien90210

Taiwan wanted to bring the island dispute issue to ICJ but Japan always refuses, I wonder why.

Taiwan isn't a member of the UN, and as such the ICJ is closed to them.

They have never requested that the case be brought to the ICJ because they can't.

japan has never refused Taiwan's request, because one has not been made.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Time Japan started defending its territory, send the SDF down to these islands and patrol the area and sink any red flagged vessels that sail into the zone, see if these bullies to the east still want to rattle sabers.

China north korea and any other nation that wants to make war should get it , the world cannot stand by and let these morons take and do what ever they want.

The islands are japan's territory china cannot just plant a flag and say they are theirs sheesh.

Thumb it down who cares you all wish you had the cajoones to speak how we all feel.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

JoeBigs: "Folks seem to forget that the only nation wishing peace is Japan."

Exactly! They are wishing peace by attempting to change the constitution! They are wishing peace by launching warships! They are wishing peace by saying the government should 'stand up' to China!

Only a fool would seek to 'wish peace' by proactively seeking war.

-14 ( +4 / -18 )

@smith Actually proactively seeking defense is probably the best deterrent to war... unless you're advocating to roll over and play dead everytime the local bully steals a little bit more of what you have and he wants!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

oedo1: "@smith Actually proactively seeking defense is probably the best deterrent to war"

Proactively seeking DEfense? Please! Define article 9 and explain the reasons for changing it.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

@smithinjapan

Have you read this?

<http://www.comparativeconstitutions.org/2012/08/why-japan-should-amend-its-war.html

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Saxon SaluteAug. 08, 2013 - 04:22PM JST gogogo, China cannot take this issue to international course anymore than Japan can take the Dokdo issue to >international court. Both sides need to agree to a court case, and not only does Japan not agree, Japan insists there is >not even a dispute

You fail to mention that to date China has never suggested the ICJ as a means of settlement. Hence Japan has never responded. This contrasts with Takeshima where Japan has asked South Korea to settle at the ICJ 3 times and South Korea has always refused.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Ossan: "You fail to mention that to date China has never suggested the ICJ as a means of settlement."

Japan has made it quite clear that they do not consider there to be any dispute (with China... they kind of contradict themselves with others) and does not need the ICJ. But you're correct, they DO turn around five minutes later and say they want the ICJ for Dokdo.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Is ther ANY QUESTION now, why there is so much US Military in Okinawa ? ( don't BOTHER to TRY to say they are not "Necessary" ) This is PRECISELY the reason they are all THERE !

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I bet these remote islands are still disputed 20 years from now.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Thing is, when you say the reason you built ships of war when you're a pacifist nation to defend borders, wouldn't you think they would defend them?

They are wishing peace by attempting to change the constitution! They are wishing peace by launching warships! They are wishing peace by saying the government should 'stand up' to China!

Only a fool would seek to 'wish peace' by proactively seeking war.

sneeringinjapan. Really, do you voluntarily stay in this country you despise so much? Your ranting makes you incoherent. You regularly accuse Japan of hiding behind the USA (it's called a partnership, you know. Countries all over the world have them.). And then you turn around and complain when the government mentions changing the consititution in order to be more independent. You sneer when Japan doesn't attack vessels that make incursions into its territorial waters, but you'd be the first to complain if they actually did. Still here? Why? This Abe government doesn't suit you and it's not going to change anytime soon...

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Good post hatsoff

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Bravo, hatsoff, I totally agree.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

don't we have a big new ship designed to scare off the foreign wind from china?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The islands belong to Japan. That's an indisputable fact.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

iWorldAug. 08, 2013 - 02:17PM JST

Japan have crossed the Red Line when it nationalized those islands. (Even though there was a gentlemen agreement between Japan and China in the 70s to shelve the island dispute and work together for peace)

Japan pushed and China is shoving back."

That there was some agreement to "shelve the island dispute and work together for peace" is nothing but fiction promoted by Chinese propaganda. There was no such agreement. If there was, kindly provide the link so we can see it and see who signed it. You cannot because there is no such agreement. Under international law the Senkaku Islands belong to Japan. China's so-called "historical claims" mean exactly nothing in law. If they did half the world could claim the other half.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It is strange that this article suggests that the isles are disputed but the waters around them are Japan's territorial waters.

I would like to suggest that if the islands are disputed, so are the waters surrounding them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

i think leaders of the two countries always have the chance to talk on this one, which is still could not really looks clear (whether they will do that), and the future also still holds the same views, still dreaming of a peaceful (and friendly) asia as it should be and as the world might also expect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Tom Thompson

That's an aircraft not big ship. We can't point on a horse but insist to say it is a sheep.

And the 'big sheep' just like a slap to the face of A-bombing memorial. --- This is quoted from News of France.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

China's goal is really quite clear, they know they cannot take over the islands, they will seek to have Japan capitulate, and "share them with China", therefore achieving their intention all along. Get the resources underground by bullying, intimidating, and pushing Japan into a corner! Japan must maintain its sovereignty, and push back, if not what is lost will never be regained, this will also spark renewed interest in North Korea, intimidating Japan for aid, and resources as they have put it ”tribute” that is owed them!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I am interested to know what supporters of the Japanese view think of the fact that Taiwan also claims ownership of the same islands.

In regards to disputes between China/Japan and Korea/Japan, I often hear how the Chinese and Korean governments are cleverly using the disputes to deflect attention away from internal problems. But I've never heard this same occupation about Taiwan. Why is that?

I am Korean and have only passing interest in this issue, but I do think that the Japanese view that China is being a big bully is questionable.

Below is a link to an article by a Taiwanese academic:

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Mitch Cohen

Posting the same blog that was basically busted in the other thread? As I posted do you have to bring a link to a blog that is nearly a year old of Nicholas Kristof who has a grudge against Japan?

Here is the Japanese version of Wiki of your beloved Nicholas Kristof and it isn't nice.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8B%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B9%E3%83%BB%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B9%E3%83%88%E3%83%95

One more point, Taiwan has not made any further mention about Senkaku after the fishing treaty had been established so it's over.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

How was it 'busted'?

I am not familiar with this Kristof individual (much less my 'beloved'), but that piece is by a Taiwanese academic.

Han-Yi Shaw is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan.

Japanese wiki version? I don't speak Japanese enough to read articles. Care to explain why this apparent grudge held by Kristof discredits an article by this Taiwanese scholar?

One more point, Taiwan has not made any further mention about Senkaku after the fishing treaty had been established so it's over.

You are sure that Taiwan has given up their claim? Really?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Kristoff, even with his grudges, though later also wrote: "Thus, China agreed with the United States and Japan that, in the event of the Ryukyu Islands’ return to Japanese administration, the United States should also return the Senkaku Islands to Japan."

I think the ICJ would be a good start!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@gaijintraveler

Or if the surrounding waters are not in dispute, the islands shouldn't be either...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

SamuraiBlue - my question was whether the Japanese view that China is making a baseless claim is still valid, given Taiwan has also made claims to ownership.

This is a genuine question to you and others who share your view. So far you've only managed to deflect attention from the core of my question.

In case you were wondering, my view is that the truth is somewhere between the Japanese view and the Chinese view.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Japan has made it quite clear that they do not consider there to be any dispute (with China... they kind of contradict themselves with others) and does not need the ICJ. But you're correct, they DO turn around five minutes later and say they want the ICJ for Dokdo.

Another lame comparison of Takeshima by smith, once again.

Korea does not consider Takeshima to be in dispute. Japan disagrees. Hence, Japan suggests to go to ICJ. Japan does not consider Senkaku to be in dispute. China disagrees. Hence, China.....

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Mitch Cohen

If you check the history books you'll find that Taiwan official dispute towards Senkaku has been fairly recent since former PM Lee Teng-hui had official declared that Senkaku belongs to Japan. So it's basically the same as PRC's cropped up claim unlike the Takeshima issue in which ROK invaded Takeshima after the war when Syngman Rhee declared the Syngman Rhee line in 1952.

One has nothing with the other and trying to mix the two separate issues only shows sign of desperation of the Koreans since I have never heard of the Chinese using that kind of argument.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Those claiming Senkaku are Chinese KMT (party) men in Taiwan--immigrants from China Mainland and currently ruler of Taiwan, but not native Taiwanese, as represented by their ex president Li tieng-hui, a native Taiwanese.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Those claiming Senkaku are Chinese KMT (party) men in Taiwan--immigrants from China Mainland and currently ruler of Taiwan, but not native Taiwanese, as represented by their ex president Li tieng-hui, a native Taiwanese.

Taiwan is only interested in fishing in the area (it is a historical fishing ground for fishers in Yilan county, hence the name Diaoyutai which literally means fishing island). China on the other hand...I think they have other intentions, in which Japan should by all means oppose if they do not agree with it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

smithinjapanAug. 08, 2013 - 09:29PM JST Ossan: "You fail to mention that to date China has never suggested the ICJ as a means of settlement." Japan has made it quite clear that they do not consider there to be any dispute (with China... they kind of contradict >themselves with others) and does not need the ICJ. But you're correct, they DO turn around five minutes later and say >they want the ICJ for Dokdo.

Please stop responding to my posts as you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If you check the history books you'll find that Taiwan official dispute towards Senkaku has been fairly recent since former PM Lee Teng-hui had official declared that Senkaku belongs to Japan. So it's basically the same as PRC's cropped up claim unlike the Takeshima issue in which ROK invaded Takeshima after the war when Syngman Rhee declared the Syngman Rhee line in 1952.

The bottom line is that Taiwan also claims ownership of the islands, therefore the assertion that China is making a totally baseless claim is highly questionable. In fact it gives the Chinese claim legitimacy. Far from the Japanese view that there is no dispute and the case is closed, there are enough disputable facts to make even Taiwan chime in and make their case.

One has nothing with the other and trying to mix the two separate issues only shows sign of desperation of the Koreans since I have never heard of the Chinese using that kind of argument.

Why are you unable to have a discussion without throwing in insults? In discussions I take that as a sign that I must have made some good points. Maybe your downplaying of the Taiwanese claim of ownership shows your desperation?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The bottom line is that Taiwan also claims ownership of the islands, therefore the assertion that China is making a totally baseless claim is highly questionable. In fact it gives the Chinese claim legitimacy.

Taiwan also claims Mongolia, all of the People's Republic of China and small assorted bits of Russia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Bhutan, India, Pakistan and Tajikistan. No joke.

The areas that Taiwan claims have also been claimed by the PRC - who have claims to the territories of nearly a dozen more countries.

What all of these claims have in common is this: The underlying belief that all territories who had diplomatic/trade relations with the Qing Dynasty at any point remain the property of China.

That's pretty much it. If that is enough to stake a "legitimate" claim, what of the claim to Mongolia?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A RealistAug. 09, 2013 - 12:27AM JST That there was some agreement to "shelve the island dispute and work together for peace" is nothing but fiction >promoted by Chinese propaganda. There was no such agreement. If there was, kindly provide the link so we can see it >and see who signed it. You cannot because there is no such agreement. Under international law the Senkaku Islands >belong to Japan. China's so-called "historical claims" mean exactly nothing in law. If they did half the world could claim >the other half.

quote from the article;

"Nonaka, who is leading a delegation of current and former Diet members on a visit to China, told reporters Monday, “Just after the normalization of relations, I was told clearly by then-Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka that a decision was made on the normalization by shelving the Senkaku issue.

“As a living witness, I would like to make clear (what I heard),” Nonaka said after meeting in Beijing with Liu Yunshan, the fifth-ranked leader of the Chinese Communist Party."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/05/national/japan-china-agreed-to-shelve-senkaku-row-in-1970s-nonaka-says-in-beijing/#.UgWQRG33NPl

2 ( +2 / -0 )

<>

The intention is to own Okinawa through Senkaku. With Taiwan practically annexed, the Philippines another one in wait, the three will form a defensive line against imperial USA.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

tmtmsnbAug. 10, 2013 - 12:12PM JST The intention is to own Okinawa through Senkaku. With Taiwan practically annexed, the Philippines another one in >wait, the three will form a defensive line against imperial USA.

A very honest description of China's intent. However for China to accomplish this they must break the first island chain by taking over territories that belong to other smaller countries by way of creating disputes and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. In other words, it is China that is displaying "imperialism". This makes them the aggressor hence China will be contained from Japan south through the PI, Malaysia, Australia, Singapore to India by the United States and it's allies.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The more China plays imperialism by creating disputes and applying diplomatic and economic pressure, the tighter the collaboration among Japan and USA and ASEAN countries will be. Make you wonder is there wisdom to go with its size and strength.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

hatsoff, you feel short! One need only follow the very same number of commenter’s spewing the very same negative crap each and every time! They have absolutely no support from readers who take some thought about what they read and then comment about. One only needs to look at the comments by the very same number who continue to comment with their negative BS that they write about on every article. Enjoy your freedom of speech, and relish in the readers who post their negatives about your comments, it is a pity you are so apparently “far left”, and even more so that you are so not the voice of reason! hatsoff, you expressed what I am sure so many of us feel. Good job!

2 ( +2 / -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