politics

U.S. gov't gets tough on China over isle dispute with Japan

49 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

49 Comments
Login to comment

Yes, the tough tone is as good as a loud fart. Afterall the Obama regime needs to hide the fact that China is the biggest financer of US Treasuries which means if its not for Chinese money, the US values and way of life would have been bankrupted. To begin with, the American's started this in the first place.

-27 ( +6 / -33 )

"My own view is that we've seen a lot more restraint from the Japanese than we have from the Chinese. I think the Chinese are taking advantage of every opportunity to escalate the situation and to make their claim on the ground, if you will, irreversible."

That's why the Chinese need to be opposed at every turn. The Chinese might pull something similar to what they did on Damansky Island. On March 2, 1969, a group of Chinese troops ambushed Soviet border guards on Zhenbao Island. The Soviets suffered 59 dead, including a senior colonel, and 94 wounded. The Chinese might fire on the Japanese out of the blue just like they fired on the Russians. Japan needs to seriously take this into consideration. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

21 ( +23 / -2 )

Tiger, the biggest buyer of US treasury bonds is the US itself - through the Federal Reserve. And although China holds more bonds than any other country, Japan is only a touch behind it.

More importantly, China can't just liquidise its US debt on a whim. First, the US could simply delay a payment. Second, trying to force the issue could crash the US and world economies. Does China live on some other planet where it wouldn't be affected by that, or would this be a suicide strategy where it tried to bring the world down because of some small, uninhabited islands?

With respect to the article, it's noteworthy that Bonny Glaser is saying China's being deliberately provocative. This is someone who previously wrote on how previous Taiwanese administrations "provoked" China into being a bully by peacefully trying to assert the fact they weren't part of China (not even declaring independence). If Glaser is saying China really is lacking restraint, it almost certainly is.

19 ( +22 / -3 )

Of course, Obama's hoping to sell a TON of very expensive military hardware to Japan has nothing to do with changing his stance from pro-China to anti, has it?

-18 ( +5 / -23 )

The U.S. "failed to significantly enhance strategic trust"

I read this as "failed to believe China's propaganda."

Tiger, nice insinuation in the name. No wonder your position sounds like a Chinese nationalist. Please come to the Hermitage, I doubt you will be a tiger there. Instead, you will run for freedom the moment your minders lose you.

I suppose another way of making your statement is, it has been U.S. dollars that has financed Chinese growth. China can't do anything with the money other than buy American products, which it refuses to do. So, it buys debt.

How did China obtain such a trade imbalance and such a large dollar reserve? By hiding or burying the internal and external costs of manufacturing to make it cheaper than the rest of the world. By hiding, I mean government support of private companies that would be criminal in developed states. By burying, I mean poisoning their employees (and eventually customers) with shoddy work conditions. No wonder companies are looking to move their manufacturing to more responsible countries. Apple is already making a move in that direction by beginning to manufacture computers in the U.S. ... Sorry China.

If China starts shooting, many Americans will decide that enough is enough and get their cheap plastic toys and clothing from someone more responsible, like Vietnam, the Philippians, and Japan.

China needs the world more than the world needs China's cheap manufacturing. China is expecting the world to blink.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Of course, Obama's hoping to sell a TON of very expensive military hardware to Japan has nothing to do with changing his stance from pro-China to anti, has it?

Don't forget about the support for nuclear power and all that the US gets from that as well!

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Bertie, I am sure the U.S. is trying to be friendly with China. It hasn't worked because China thinks the world should follow their twisted logic.

The U.S. must protect its allies from an expansionist China. The recent equipment purchases by Japan has been improvements to four F-15s, an old but still kickbutt plane, and Patriot missile defense systems to protect against China's proxy, North Korea, and now maybe China.

Japan can buy whatever it wants because it has been a reliable ally and partner and has done a lot of good things for the world since the fascist Japan of WWII, which China resembles more and more.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

tmarie, the support for nuclear power was decades and decades ago when companies like GE came in to help Mitsubishi Heavy build reactors. Japan is now almost as good as France, the U.K., or the U.S. on anything they want to do with nuclear. They can build a bomb in a matter of weeks or months. But why? Japan isn't the same country that invaded China.

However, I was impressed that China is making strides with new concepts for nuclear power stations. They are being very novel and adopting technology that other countries wish they could. In that sense, Cheers for China.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

tmarie-san,

Don't forget about the support for nuclear power and all that the US gets from that as well!

Yes. You have a point.

And there is the "protection money" of 8.6 billion + dollars that Japan pays to the U.S.A.

These things must have swayed Obama's opinion.

Add it all up and the U.S.A. simply cannot afford to be neutral with regards China.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

'Tis but words. What's more, Japan's 'veiled warning' was only issued in the presence of the US -- not alone, of course. These two nations are so busy patting each other on the back and making back-room deals that they don't know how badly they are screwing themselves. The US certainly won't go beyond words because they NEED China, but they'll keep up the bombast because it gets them what they want in and from Japan.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

I guess the writing has officially been posted on the wall. Question remains what will China do when the USA is pushed into being physically present in that area ?? Go ahead Japan, fire those warning shots China would be foolish to push the red sun ( red button ) . There isn't any other presence that is going to deter the USA from honoring the treaty they have signed with Japan.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Shumatsu_Samurai: Yes your right, the US can just write off the debt, how ironic. Ask people to buy bonds and write them off as trash, exactly the America regime.

viking68: No I'm no Chinese prisoner hurry for freedom. If your somewhere in Kyoto University, I might be living next door. China growth financed by US? I guess we all benefit from global trade, next thing you might say is Japanese growth is financed by US, since the US forced our government to appreciate the Yen, our economy has been suffering for more than a decade. You think communist popaganda is corrupt, I think there is nothing as corrupting to the mind as Western media to its own people who had never seen further than Texas. China has been asking to buy, computers and telecommunications from US but the Americans are only willing to sell the Chinese, McD, Starbuck, I love NY shirts and kitchen wear. All of which are manufactured in China a discount.

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

Hey Viking, does the Obama regime not support Boeing? McDonald Duglas? CNN (its popuganda vehicle)? The Oil Companies which Mr Bush runs, the government path the way for aggression in the middle east so that US companies can exploite resources.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

China is just a barking dog and it does not take a lot to shut a barking dog!

7 ( +11 / -4 )

" How did China obtain such a trade imbalance and a such a large dollars reserve?"

It is largely through the uncontrolled spending of the Americans over the past years. It 's time they tightened their belt and start paying up, not only to China but Japan Korea, Singapore and many other Asians and Oil rich middle- Eastern Countries

1 ( +4 / -3 )

China Resolutely opposes Reality ..the sub text of this silly example of Sino Bullying should be. Get real China and move on with your lives....Japan owns the islands in question and the resources underneath them. Time to accept it and move on.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The US treasury bonds that PRC is holding cannot simply transfer to PRC or the Waun would become so expensive that their export inductry will collapse. Another point is that PRC holds the US Treasury bonds to ensure their currency within the International currency market. This is the same with most export based nation.

Without it they will require to pay a premium everytime they purchase natural resources on the international market.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

China is not the largest owner of U.S. Treasuries, they are the largest foreign owner which amounts to about 11%. The U.S. taxpayer is the largest owner of U.S. debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/business/economy/22charts.html?_r=0

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Writting is on the wall, but like Saddam Hussein the PRC is not willing to read it or if they have read it they do not believe it.

With the right wink and a nudge the PRC would fall into civil war faster than you can say,"shrimp fried rice".

3 ( +6 / -3 )

this will not end well

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

BertieWoosterJan. 23, 2013 - 03:32PM JST Of course, Obama's hoping to sell a TON of very expensive military hardware to Japan has nothing to do with >changing his stance from pro-China to anti, has it?

The United States has never been "pro-China". It has always supported Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and other allies. And even if you're right that the U.S. will benefit from arms sales, why is China helping? It is China, having relied on the west to raise it's economic status and sold everyone the big "Peaceful Rise" lie, that is now showing it's true colors.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

China actually believes that they can dictate policy to the United States, much less confront it militarily. China needs to wake up and smell the pu-ar tea because they are going to be in for a real rude awakening. Let's hope the few moderates in the CCP politburo are smart enough to contain the hawkish PLA influence, as it will lead to great suffering for everyone.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

All these china fanboys when the west stops business with china it will collapse. I like the people of china. Its the chinese government who needs realize they are not intimidating anyone they are just making powerful enemies. You dont need war to bring down china. The people of china should spring into action and take their country back from this regime

6 ( +6 / -0 )

So now this has become China and the USA, with Japan being relegated to the "boots on the ground" and the immediate beneficiary on one side - did they call in big brother after all?

This is like the opening moves of a chess game, or two fencers who've never met before - probe and test, see how far and where to push. Back in the Cold War when the USA & the USSR did this it was purely a matter of muscle with the only stakes being, well, WW3. Between China & the USA it's a different story; the two have allowed themselves to become deeply linked, so a real blow up would just be irrational.

But there can be limited engagement tiffs, just look at families, lovers, friendships, business colleagues - it doesn't have to result in knock-down, all out death matches. China probably feels they need to know how far they can diddle with the USA, and the USA probably feels it needs to make clear, knowing they're being diddled with, that they can only be poked so far.

If the two schoolyard toughs fully step into this, then Japan can sit back and watch. The only problem then will be if someone unexpectedly throws rocks and sets things off. If not, the two toughs will poke at each other, then settle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why not simply agree on simple principle: there is dispute between China and Japan on the Islands, but the dispute will be looked into later on. Period. Probably, in fifty years time so many things will have changed and people will think differently. If is a matter of resources under the sea bed, why not explore them together in a consortium?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Four years later, Obama is starting his second term with his administration taking a tough tone on China over a territorial dispute with U.S. ally Japan, prompting a rebuke from Beijing on the eve of his inauguration.

I will wait until the dust of confirming Kerry (SoS), Hagel (DS), etc, into Obama's new cabinet has settled before I make this "tough tone on China" a policy for his second term.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

China is loosing it's respect in the world of public opinion with uncivilized rhetoric of several hundred years ago document when they want us to forget what they did to their own people just 40 some years ago and probably doing it now.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

the problem is Japan does not admit that there is a dispute. Japan doesn’t even want to use the ICJ and neither China for the belief that the ICJ is pro-America. China proposed a dialogue with Japan since the beginning but Japan refused. Japan didn’t even admit that there was an agreement between the two former leaders to shelve the issue for the next generations to solve. For 40 years China kept its promise but Japan broke it so that Japan can help the US in their “pivot to Asia” policy. If you read the news from both sides, you will see that China never is the first one to escalate the tension. J govt has been going around bad-mouthing China, the aim is to portray a negative image of China and create distrust for the benefits of Japan and the US. From the news you can also notice that Chinese PM never said anything to provoke Japan, but there are numerous provoking comments from Abe J PM. About the resources, both Japan and China were in talk about developing the resources together but China broke it off after the dispute happened. It is very hard to trust the words of high-level Japanese officials, back-tracking and denying of their words are the norm.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

Do you even know why China buys lots of bonds from the US government ? They are not being nice. That's the only way to keep their currency low, which makes Chinese products cheap for other countries. They can sell all the US bonds if they want. But then Yuan will go up in value and their products won't be so cheap any more.

Chinese products that are not cheap, well, not many people will be buying them if i have to take a wild guess.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

flowers Jan. 24, 2013 - 06:24AM JST the problem is Japan does not admit that there is a dispute. Japan doesn’t even want to use the ICJ and neither China for the belief that the ICJ is pro-America.

What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing. Regardless if Japan or China went to ICJ, there is no guarantee that loser of the case will not follow the ruling that was not in their favor. Nobody is going to enforce the ruling anyway. So what does it matter? What is important the most for Japanese or Chinese politicians is the public opinion, and they will not respect the ruling that is not favorable on the sovereignty Senkaku/Diaoyu. So your back to square one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I think State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said there was “nothing new” in Clinton’s remarks.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

flowersJan. 24, 2013 - 06:24AM JST the problem is Japan does not admit that there is a dispute. Japan doesn’t even want to use the ICJ and neither China >for the belief that the ICJ is pro-America.

No, the problem is that China is trying to steal territory from many of their neighbors. And it is China which refuses to take the issue to the ICJ, preferring to use physical bullying tactics,

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Sfjp330, I agree with you there that ICJ means nothing. But Japan has used the question “why China does not take the dispute to the ICJ?” for its own advantage, which seems like China is afraid to lose. I read some where about the Nicargua vs USA case, apparently the ICJ ruled against the US but the US still had its way in Nicargua. So, it seems the ICJ is pro-America and there is no point for China to go this route. Also, I’ve read a lot of articles from both sides; China seems to have an upper hand in producing the evidence of sovereignty over the islands while Japan’s claims are very weak and contradictory. However, a lot of people seem to have a misconception that China cannot be trusted so whatever Japan says is the truth despite of all the evidence to the contrary.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=JP

Declarations Recognizing the ICJ's Compulsory Jurisdiction

" Japan

9 July 2007

I have the honour, by direction of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to declare on behalf of the Government of Japan that, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, Japan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, over all disputes arising on and after 15 september 1958 with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date and being not settled by other means of peaceful settlement.

This declaration does not apply to disputes which the parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to refer for final and binding decision to arbitration or judicial settlement.

This declaration does not apply to any dispute in respect of which any other party to the dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice only in relation to or for the purpose of the dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of any other party to the dispute was deposited or notified less than twelve months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court.

This declaration shall remain in force for a period of five years and thereafter until it may be terminated by a written notice.

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.

9 July 2007.

(Signed) Kenzo Oshima Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations."

Hope this helps to clarify the minds of some China/Korea-lovers but rabid Japan detractors (who strangely enough are just too happy to remain in Japan)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Then take the Daiyo/Senkakus dispute to the ICJ.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

it's about time the u.s. started earning its keep in okinawa. i mean, they've been saying they are here to protect us, it's time they start demonstrating that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@ OssanAmerica

"The problem is that China is trying to steal territory from many of its neighbours. And it is China which refuses to take issue to ICJ, preferring to use bullying tactic."

OssanAmerica, You have claimed that China refuses to take the case to ICJ, you may be correct or you may not. Until this stage all I read and heard is a lot of sabre rattling on both sides and aggravated comments from third party.

In another article I commented that ICJ, UNCLOS and ITLOS objective is to have disputed parties resolved their differences through negotiation and mediation.

If China takes Japan to ICJ and with either party come up trump will this be the end of the whole saga. If this is so then by all means let ICJ settles the dispute but if not the consequences of the conflict would drag on for generations. Negotiation and resolve the dispute to both parties benefit is the key to this dispute.

As we all knew both China and Japan have so called historical evidences and supporting Treaties and agreements that favour individual country. The arbitration in the ICJ would also include the LAW OF THE SEA.

Under the EEZ and Continental Shelf Prolongation as I have stated in the article on Japan Talk of Warning Shot Heats Up China Dispute that China would applied the Continental Shelf Prolongation Claim and sight the 2700 Nm deep OKINAWA TROUGH as the dividing line for both Country which under the EEZ is legal. It also could sight the Concept of Distance as in the case of Libya/Malta case which ICJ concluded that Distance the is legitimate evidence - China(Taiwan is 120 Nm from Senkaku/Diaoyu Island and Okinawa is 260Nm from these Islands. So this is to China advantage.

Therefore to resolve this to the benefit of both parties they should give discussion and negotiations priority over sabre rattling and the arbitration by ICJ.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Then take the dispute to the ICJ"

It's up to China, the complainant to take the case to the Court, not Japan's job.

Defendants have never, ever gone to court on behalf of the plaintiff!

Japan is obliged to respond, China is not a part of the compulsory jurisdiction (neither is Korea).

Now think why these two (China/Korea) won't want to go the ICJ's route.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Peeping tom:

As I noted earlier, this will not end well. as for the ICJ, well it's about as credible as the UN on anything. When a nation really wants something, it will ignore the UN and all other international apparatus and take what it wants. China definitely seems to be leaning that direction

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Peeping_Tom

I think that this is where the significance of the assertion by the Japanese government that:

There is no dispute

comes into play.

I believe that Taiwan has tried to have the case raised there, but don't have the requisite status, or something along those lines.

You should check the passage you quoted above:

Japan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, over all disputes...

If Japan doesn't recognize the dispute, China can't bring it up at the ICJ.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Ubikwit

"Japan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, over all disputes...

If Japan doesn't recognize the dispute, China can't bring it up at the ICJ"

With all due respect that's not what the passage is all about. It refers to the fact that in order to bring Japan to the Court China/Korea must accept the same obligation, i.e the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, which neither of them do at the moment.

This is nothing to do with whether Japan recognises a dispute or not. All China/Korea have to do is accept the court's compulsory jurisdiction and Japan is obliged to respond to the case.

Peeping_Tom is no expert but he's got an LLB from London University, where amongst other things he was taught how to interpret statutes.

Taiwan is not a UN member, thus is barred from applying to the ICJ.

If China/Korea are certain of their claim why not come to court then?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ Peeping_Tom

As a graduate and practitioner of Law from London University, I assume it is International law you are specializing in then you would appreciate the Issues here between Japan and China would eventually have to settle this dispute by negotiation.

AS both Countries can put forth seemingly valid arguments based on International Law. If the finality comes to the Delimitation Principle, the International Law of maritime Delimitation is afflicted with an " international ambiguity" and as a result cannot provide clear normative cues for the resolution of disputes relating Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

Therefore my argument is that both countries should resolve this through negotiation, the preferred objective of ICJ and UNCLOS.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Peeping_Tom

If that is in fact the case, then I think it would behoove China to get with the program and sign whatever treaty it is that relates to recognition of the ICJ.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"perceptions the United Staes was in decline"

It's not just a perception, it's reality, and the U.S. is going to suffer at least 4 more years of decline.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ubikwit

Precisely!

As things stand Japan is open to any disputes, provided the challenger(s) signs up for the court's compulsory jurisdiction.

Japan does not have to agree, the case will go ahead whether they want it or not!

Conversely, China (and Korea for that matter) need to agree prior to a challenge be lodged at the ICJ.

It's not difficult to see who's "afraid" of going to court, isn't it?

The question one has to ask is why wouldn’t he who claims to have a better title not come to court.

There is a hierarchy of titles and, I'm afraid Japan's appear stronger than China's, regardless of the fact that China might have known of the islets for a millennia before Japan ever did.

The fact China/Korea don't sign up to the compulsory jurisdiction appears to indicate a real fear of not having enough evidence to back up their claim in the court of law.

If you owed me £1000 and I had no way of asserting my case before a judge (for the lack of evidence in its myriad forms) it would be quite risky to go legal. On the contrary, if I had an IOU signed from your good self, or had witnesses or any other customary evidential form, you would be done for, or so to speak.

The Palmas case is a precedent for these types of disputes and its ratio would indicate a defeat for China was this case to appear before the ICJ.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Peeping_Tom

There is a hierarchy of titles and, I'm afraid Japan's appear stronger than China's, regardless of the fact that China might have known of the islets for a millennia before Japan ever did.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. It would seem that China is more worried about the other disputes it is engaged in coming before the ICJ than this one.

In this case, the islands are referred to by the Chinese names on Edo period Japanese maps, and there are diplomatic correspondences from the Meiji period referring to the islands as belonging to the Chinese, basically, before they were sequestered as war booty. Then there are the treaties after WWII in which Japan relinquished all such territories.

Frankly, I can't see where Japan has a chance to legitimate its claim to these rocks before the ICJ.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

ubikwit

There is also plenty of evidence that appear to negate your assertions, including:

-Recent Chinese maps clearly indicating Senkaku as part of Okinawa (with Japanese names);

-The fact that no other persons than Japanese have lived on the islets;

-Japan administers the islets and there are Japanese markings on them;

-Chinese letter stating Senkaku is part of Okinawa;

-The relatively long period that took from acquiescence of Japan's possession to a China claim, etc.

Proximity is irrelevant but, if that was an argument the islets are closer to Yonaguni than to China or even Taiwan; I see regular references that they are thousands of miles from Tokyo but, no one bothered to check they are closer to a Japanese island than to any other country!

Nowhere on the peace treaties are the Senkaku mentioned as a territory Japan had to return.

As an added piece of advice for you, no judge will imply terms on a contract; if you wish a clause to be part of it make sure to legislate for it!

You cannot claim party's intention that the Senkaku were to be returned. If that was the case then the islets would have been named and described/identified, as were the Pescadores, Taiwan and the Paracels. By not naming them the parties clearly meant to exclude them.

You may disagree but that's how it works.

Always remember to read before putting pen to paper in the process of signing anything.

As mentioned the Palmas case is the Precedent for this and other similar cases. Familiarise yourself with it and you'll see that China is already on the losing end and that's mainly why they won't come to court.

China will not go to court because she will lose under the stipulated on the aforementioned Palmas case.

If their title is stronger as you submitted then why don't they validate it so that the whole world can see it?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Peeping_Tom

That is interesting information, as is the Palmas case. I think it would be interesting to see how the court would rule, as this case is quite dissimilar to the Palmas case in that it is not a dispute between two colonial powers, and the history of the rocks goes back several hundreds of years.

Maybe the two governments will be able to peacefully negotiate their way out of this and not cause their citizens so much grief in the interim.

Incidentally, I assume that you have noted that the UN has accepted China's claim to present an opinion on the continental shelf issue.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Chinese might pull something similar to what they did on Damansky Island. On March 2, 1969, a group of Chinese troops ambushed Soviet border guards on Zhenbao Island. The Soviets suffered 59 dead, including a senior colonel, and 94 wounded.

In response, Soviets shelled chinese territory nearby of Damanskiy Island by unit of up-to-date BM-21 multiple-rocket-launchers, killing up to 5 000 chinese soldiers. The lesson was learned by chinese. Since 1969 they did not attempts to attack Soviets / Russians.

-1 ( +0 / -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