politics

Obama: U.S.-Japan treaty applies to disputed islands

46 Comments

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

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

There you have it, a big line in the sand.

If China wanted to find out the extent to which the US supported Japan on this issue, they know now, if they didn't before. Whilst they might, and probably will make further attempts to needle Japan about this, ultimately a military move to control them will be a point of engagement with the US, and I doubt China will do this.

At least in the near future.

I think it poor that the region needs an external player to watch over it, but the truth is, it does. That it is the US is the result of their post WW2 manoeuvring and hegemony - and that's the bed they have to lie in, for better or worse.

16 ( +16 / -0 )

((No mention of the Korean administered Dokdo / Takeshima))

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Just because Obama says so? There is no decision about the actual sovereignty of the islands. "Administration" is not "sovereignty". Give the islands to Taiwan.

-13 ( +6 / -19 )

It is an important step ratifying openly - in a public statement - what is a historical fact.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

For once, in total agreement with President Obama. I just hope his actions will match his words in the unfortunate circumstance that time comes.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Statements like this are helpful, I guess, though somewhat shy of what is actually needed.

Though, I think Japan would be foolish to actually believe the United States would support the Japanese if the Chinese invaded the Senkakus. Instead, I think the US (and Japan) are banking on the threat as being sufficient enough to dissuade the Chinese. It seems to be working so far...not sure for how long, though.

He told the Yomiuri that the U.S. will continue to take steps to reduce the impact of its military presence in Okinawa, but added “it’s important to remember that the U.S. Marine Corps presence on Okinawa is absolutely critical to our mutual security. It plays a key role in the defense of Japan.”

Unfortunately, this is true for now. Until Japan can take care of its own security environment, those bases are there to stay. Best way to get the Marines (and other US forces) off Okinawa? Get rid of Article 9 and start taking care of your own security. Japan should be doing that anyway, because I don't see the US as a reliable partner in a war against China.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

a simple statement, may bring some happiness to Abe and no unhappiness to Xi !

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Obama can not defend his beloved Ukraine from "Evil Empire" and dare talk about "protection of American allies in Asia". Day by day American foreign policy looks out more and more stupid.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Japan has territorial rows not only with China but also with South Korea and Russia -- over Senkakus (Diaoyus), Takeshima (Dokto) and Northern Territories (Southern Kurils). So the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies to those disputed islands also? It seems it does, for Japan regards them as its own. How will Obama deal with these problems without angering the other relevant nations?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

China owns 80% of the US's debt. CHINA OWNS THE US. And the Chinese military and the US military do drills together. "Nations" are a lie. There are NO NATIONS. There are only corporations. Nations are just sources of taxes and bodies for battlefields, i.e. slavery.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

So the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies to those disputed islands also?

Korea administers Takeshima, and Russia the Kurils, so no.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

President Obama has finally confirmed America's mutual security treaty applies to The Senkaku Islands. Was that ever in doubt? What was questioned was Presidents Obama's resolve to follow through the terms of that security blanket.

“The Senkaku islands are administered by Japan” and therefore fall under the U.S.-Japan treaty, he wrote. “And we oppose any unilateral attempts to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands.”

How opposed?

Say for instance President Obama's is opposed to the Russia annexing of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula. President Obama's is also opposed to pro-Russian separatists remained firmly entrenched, occupying public buildings in cities throughout Eastern Ukraine. President Obama's has stated on record his opposition to the ongoing impasse to facilitate the delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance amid the conflict in Syria.

On Thursday will the joint statement mention The Senkaku Islands by name?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Kakurenbo, exactly! There's a recently published study by two Princeton and Harvard economists that essentially concluded that same point.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens/homepage/ materials/Gilens/and/Page/Gilens/and/Page/2014-Testing/ Theories/203-7-14.pdf

" Japan has territorial rows not only with China but also with South Korea and Russia…" @voiceofokinawa, you might like to know that US and Canada have also long had territorial disputes. FYI.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

tamarama:

" There you have it, a big line in the sand. "

Yeah. Except, remember all the countless other lines in the sand that Obama has drawn and then forgotten? This is worth the paper it is written on. Japan will have to defend the Senkakus by herself.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

KakurenboApr. 23, 2014 - 04:02PM JST

China owns 80% of the US's debt. CHINA OWNS THE US

I think it makes China vulnerable. China goes bankrupt if US stops payment to the bond holdings of China. If you look at the history, there are precedents that the US froze foreign assets.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

OK, then Obama wouldn't mind endorsing this to congress and have it signed would he? This type o "inclusion" has been insinuated for over a decade verbally. How about putting it on a piece of legislative paper and make it count?

And whoever said China owns 80% of US debt is just another misinformed and frankly, how should I say this without offending anyone, a stupid stupid person without any sense of intelligent and common sense. Please stop reading the bs from where ever you got that info from. Its just doesn't look good on you.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

“The Senkaku islands are administered by Japan” and therefore fall under the U.S.-Japan treaty, he wrote. “And we oppose any unilateral attempts to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands.”

The US values stability. Tokyo/Takeshima and the Northern Territories were not mentioned, but clearly the same principal is in effect: Diplomacy, not force.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Now Obama is sounding like a republican. That's my boy. The ww3 is set. US and its allies against the tripod(Russia-north korea-china). As the apostle Peter from the christian bible said: "the world will not be destroyed by water the second time, but by fire." Fire, which is now in our time, 'nuclear war'

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Pandabelle (Apr. 23, 2014 - 04:15PM JST),

Korea administers Takeshima and Russia the Kurils, so the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty doesn't apply to these cases, you say. Maybe, that's Washington's official stance on these problems.

OK. But then suppose that administrative hands changed over the Senkakus with China administering the islands now and Japan's SDF trying to retake them (which is what the SDF is training now), would U.S. forces come to Japan's aid? According to your theory, no.

Poor Japan! What's the use of having U.S. forces maintain so many bases in Japan, especially in Okinawa as if it were a U.S. military colony, with so much operating costs borne by Japanese taxpayers? They naively believe that the security treaty is for their protection and Japan's putative sovereignty.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Got that China!? Stay away or get slapped.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"The Senkaku islands are administered by Japan" and therefore fall under the U.S.-Japan treaty, he wrote.

...Abe could have said that........

1 ( +1 / -0 )

US Bonds ----- China owns almost 25 %. Japan owns almost 25 % by increasing while China decreasing, So, sooner or later, Japan will hold more bond than China, Anyway, USA won WW II, not China, It is wise Obama support Japan right now. In case China begins the new war, Japan can use new kind of weapons while China will use old fashioned manpower and weapons. All calculated, I'd bet.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Please read an article posted on msn.com's web page under the heading: Obama Asia Tour Starts With Scathing Attack by China State Media. It is a very telling response to the US, and leaves nothing to the imagination China's state media issued a scathing attack on the United States just hours before Barack Obama touched down for a week-long tour of Asia on Wednesday. The Xinhua news agency published a commentary slamming the U.S. as a "myopic" superpower that was trying to "cage" its Asian counterpart. Obama landed in Tokyo around 6 a.m. ET and will visit Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines over the next five days. The trip is part of a wider attempt to "rebalance" and "pivot" toward Asia.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

toshiko, China owns less than 10 percent of US national debt and Japan owns less than 10 percent. This debt is in the form of Treasury bills and not bonds. They can not demand payment in full before the mature date. While they can "dump" them, it would allow the Federal Reserve to retire the debt for pennies on the dollar.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

That's a good start by Obama. Let's hope he keeps going in the same manner.

It's not a matter of "caging" China, it's a matter of stopping naked aggression by a nationalistic government.

I would love to see China try to unload it's US bonds on the open market. The result would be rather interesting. And probably not what China expects, because I doubt the wheels would come off the global economy. And if they did China would suffer too. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, aren't they?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing is new here. Obama just repeats what has been said all along. What’s new here is “the United States is deepening its ties with China.” This means the US is turning more and more toward China and sees China in a more favourable light. “Our engagement with China does not and will not come at the expense of Japan or any other ally,” this means we cannot expect any more than that for the allies. And, from USA Today, “Obama's short stay in Japan – barely 36 hours – and the absence of first lady Michelle Obama are taken as signs in Tokyo of waning support from Washington,” and “Even Russia is making claims in the region. Moscow announced last week that it would reinforce defenses on the southern Kuril Islands, which Russian occupied at the end of World War II and which Japan wants back. For six consecutive days last week, Russian bombers — capable of carrying nuclear weapons — flew loops around the Japanese archipelago.” It seems that Russia is also “deepening its ties with China.”

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There you have it, a big line in the sand.

Don't think a statement like that will make any difference since the Potsdam Declaration (Ultimatum and terms of surrender for Japan) which was co-drafted by China and the US says

"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine". And the price for defying the Potsdam Declaration as pronounced in the Ultimatum is "prompt and utter destruction".

And the Japanese government did accept the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and many other official documents.

So it is very clear that the three parties involved, that's China, Japan and the US all agreed that Japan deserves "prompt and utter destruction (that's be nuked)" for claiming territories that have not been certified to be part of Japan by the 4 countries.

Therefore, even if China were to execute the the Potsdam Declaration and nuke Japan, there would be no basis for the US to stop China.

If the US really wants to make a difference, it can always declare the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) as illegal and the 2 atomic bombs which was executed according to the Potsdam Declaration a mistake. And the San Francisco Peace Treaty which was written based on the Potsdam Declaration and agreements made in other conferences will also become illegal. Then we will have a restart of WWII with the US fighting on Japan's side.

Japan has territorial rows not only with China but also with South Korea and Russia -- over Senkakus (Diaoyus), Takeshima (Dokto) and Northern Territories (Southern Kurils). So the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies to those disputed islands also?

The truth is all those territorial disputes were resolved by the 2 atomic bombs and various WWII peace treaties/agreements such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Potsdam Declaration. For example, Article 2 (c) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty says "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands"

However, after the Cold War started, instead of withdrawing from Japan, the US changed its mind and wanted to maintain its military bases in the Ryukyus permanently and tried to keep Japan as its protectorate for as long as possible.

In order to make Japan totally isolated by its neighbors and remains helpless and fully dependent on the US, the US government then started to encourage/instruct Japan to violate all WWII peace treaties it signed with the US government and reclaim territories it lost to the Allied (especially China and Soviet Union). That's how Japan's current territorial disputes with its neighbors came about.

Then in 1956, the Soviet tried to win Japan over by giving 2 of the 4 islands to Japan to settle their territorial dispute, this was initially supported by the Japanese foreign minister, Shigemitsu Mamoru. However, when the Americans learnt about it, the US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles (the person in charged of drafting the San Francisco Peace Treaty during MacArthur time) quickly warned Shigemitsu that if Japan dared to comply with the San Francisco Peace Treaty to cede 2 of the 4 islands to Soviet Union, it could say goodbye to the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa) forever and the Ryukyus would then be part of the US.

As a result, Japan reclaimed all the 4 islands it ceded in the San Francisco Peace Treaty as demanded by the US and has not been able to conclude a peace treaty with Russia to this day.

As for the territorial dispute between China and Japan, if the US did hand over the Ryukyu Islands to the UN for independence as it agreed with China during the Cairo Conference and as what was stated in Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, then there will be no dispute. However, when Japan started to get in touch with China by around 1970, Henry Kissinger made the decision to transfer the administration of the Diaoyu/Senkakus to Japan but "without handing over their sovereignty" in order to create discord between the 2 countries.

However when even doing so did not stop Japan from establishing a peace treaty with China in 1972, Henry Kissinger became very angry and said the following:

"Of all the treacherous sons of bitxhes, the Jps take the cake. It's not just their indecent haste in normalizing relations with China, but they even picked National Day as their preference to go there"

And when Japan held a 2+2 meeting with Russia a few months ago, Obama retaliated by asking his Pentagon spokesman to make the announcement on the same day that the US had no plans to defend the Diaoyu/Senkakus with Japan.

As for the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo islands), early US drafts of the San Francisco Peace Treaty explicitly recognized it as part of Korea, but in December 1949 - immediately following the establishment of the PRC, but before the outbreak of the Korean War, US treaty drafts reversed course and assigned the islands to Japan. Even though the actual San Francisco Peace Treaty did not mention the Dokdo islands, the US government did inform the government of South Korea that it regarded the Dokdo islands as Japanese without citing any reason.

From all the above, it is very clear that the US doesn't really care who the real owners of those islands are but it will forever use these territorial disputes it created for Japan after WWII to keep Japan as its protectorate for as long as possible.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

1895 = Sino-Japanese War 1895 = Japan claims the islands

Coincodink? :)

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Guru29, you crack me up. "Bring it on!", Obama told you. What are you waiting for after all?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So it is very clear that the three parties involved, that's China, Japan and the US all agreed that Japan deserves "prompt and utter destruction (that's be nuked)" for claiming territories that have not been certified to be part of Japan by the 4 countries.

Despite your complete and utter lack of understanding of the declaration itself, I must applaud the very wide impretation by you which clearly signifies how "war mongering" state of mind the Chinese nationals of today have become.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Senkaku islands are administered by Japan and therefore fall under the U.S.-Japan treaty, he wrote. “And we oppose any unilateral attempts to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands.

This is as plain as it will ever get, the only people that don't get this are the Communist Chinese 50-Army members. Or the brainwashed.

If Communist China makes the mistake of thinking the US of A is weak, then they will get a rude awakening.

KakurenboApr. 23, 2014 - 04:02PM JST China owns 80% of the US's debt. CHINA OWNS THE US.

Wow! Talk about believing the hype. Where are you getting your numbers from, wait, don't tell me and wherever it is please stop and go somewhere else. Luckily I am here to save you from yourself.

You are falling for the hype and a misperception brought about by the leftist media that has an agenda to push. The US itself is the biggest owner of it's own debt. The US owns roughly 75% of it's own debt.

Foreign ownership of the US's debt is around 19%. Communist China is number one with 8%. The biggest owner of the US's debt is the SSA with 16%.

Top three foreign nations that own US debt

Communist China $1.272 tn 8% Japan 1.210 tn 7% Belgium 341 bn

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/11/who-holds-our-debt/

Guru29Apr. 24, 2014 - 04:03AM JST Don't think a statement like that will make any difference since the Potsdam Declaration (Ultimatum and terms of surrender for Japan) which was co-drafted by China and the US says

You always bring up the same argument to try and make some sort of point. But, each and every time you are corrected, but you just don't seem to get it.

But, what can anyone expect from a member of the Communist Chinese 50-cent Army.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Sir_EdgarApr. 24, 2014 - 04:21AM JST 1895 = Sino-Japanese War 1895 = Japan claims the islands Coincodink? :)

What China supporters are unable to answer is why, If Japan had defeated China (Qing) in the Sino-Japanese War of 1884/85 wherein they were in a position to make territorial demands on China and get the to hand over major islands like Taiwan and the Pescadores just by demanding it, would they have bothered to go through the incorporation process with just the tiny Senkakus? This above all is prima facia evidence that nobody considered the Senkakus to be Chinese or anyone's hence they were indeed Terra Nullius. Why complete the incorporation in January 1885 if Japan believed they were Chinese and could just demand it in April 1885 at the Treaty of Shimonoseki? The current attempt by China to claim the Senkakus is merely part of the territorial expansion agenda across the East and South China Seas, ie; theft through intimidation.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Guru (29 Apr. 24, 2014 - 04:03AM JST),

If you are American, you are very candid to admit how sneaky and crafty U.S. foreign policy toward the region has been. All these territorial rows are undoubtedly the creations of foxy Washington policy makers as is often pointed out. Can you be proud of being an American?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If Communist China makes the mistake of thinking the US of A is weak, then they will get a rude awakening.

Communist China does not exist, as China is an oligarchy, not a communist state.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Guru29

I'm afraid you lost me here:

Therefore, even if China were to execute the the Potsdam Declaration and nuke Japan, there would be no basis for the US to stop China.

Because it's a load of rubbish. Think before you type. You really think China would attempt to 'nuke Japan' over the Senkaku Islands?!

Try to keep it sensible, tiger.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Guru29Apr. 24, 2014 - 04:03AM JST

Don't think a statement like that will make any difference since the Potsdam Declaration (Ultimatum and terms of surrender for Japan) which was co-drafted by China and the US says

And the price for defying the Potsdam Declaration as pronounced in the Ultimatum is "prompt and utter destruction".

Excuse me. An ultimatum is issued BEFORE a war starts. An utlimatum is also know as a conditional declearation of war. Potsdam Declearation, which was meant to end the war, is not an ultimatum. You should look up the dictionary.

Therefore, even if China were to execute the the Potsdam Declaration and nuke Japan, there would be no basis for the US to stop China.

WW2 was over 69 years ago. Are you still fighting the war?

At the end of the WW2, the US occupied Senkakus. In 1951, the Senkakus were put under US trusteeship by San Francisco Peace Treaty. In 1972, the Senkakus were returned to Japan along with other Okinawa islands. In 1972, China and Japan agreed in the Joint Communique to end the state of war and to maintain territory. China did not wrote any objection to the Senkakus in the communique. The absence of objection to the Japanese occupation of the Senkakus in the Joint Communique concludes the territorial disputes in favor of Japan.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Guru your constant copying and pasting the same old WWII garbage on multiple threads all over JT is getting really boring.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Guru29

The Republic of China signed the Potsdam Declaration; and since it still exists, the PRC can't be recognized as its successor for purposes of international law.

Since everything you argued depends upon that recognition, your entire claim is invalid.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If Communist China makes the mistake of thinking the US of A is weak, then they will get a rude awakening.

During the Korean war, commies fought with bamboo sticks without having meals. They lost huge man power which can be called as waste. However it was the fraction of their mass population. They could afford to waste more if it is not less. I guess they will not blink for sending insects like bamboo army again. I do not doubt that USA is weak in hardware. However commies and Russia have already stolen the stealth jet designs from US manufacturers. Therefore USA is weak in software. US needs more Anti Virus and Cyber security.

According the Art of war, if the enemy is invisible, it will control the rival fate. That world is no longer in Saving Private Ryans. If US can disable commies major computer Servers, US will no need to use single bullet for flying the flag on PRC shore.

However Mr Putin will not tolerate stars and stripes flags flying on his backyard. He will say Uncle Obama has crossed the red line. Mr Putin can cross the black Sea or South China Sea whatever he wants.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In 1951, the Senkakus were put under US trusteeship by San Francisco Peace Treaty. In 1972, the Senkakus were returned to Japan along with other Okinawa islands.

Please read the San Francisco Peace Treaty carefully. According to Article 3 of the treaty, the Ryukyu islands (excluding the Senkakus) were supposed to be handed over to the UN trusteeship system (UN system for decolonization) for future independence, not US. Are you pretending that you don't even know the difference between the US and UN?

And according to Wikipedia,

"The United Nations Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations, was established to help ensure that trust territories were administered in the best interests of their inhabitants and of international peace and security. The trust territories—most of them former mandates of the League of Nations or territories taken from nations defeated at the end of World War II (i.e. Japan) have all now attained self-government or independence, either as separate nations or by joining neighbouring independent countries."

The fact is the UN trusteeship system did help many former colonies throughout the world to gain independence since its foundation as can be seen from its website:

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced back to the agreement made between China and the US during the Cairo Conference:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization. (UN trusteeship as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty?)""

In 1972, China and Japan agreed in the Joint Communique to end the state of war and to maintain territory.

And the following is written in the Joint Communique:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

And Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration says:

"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 (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

WW2 was over 69 years ago. Are you still fighting the war?

Obviously it is Japan that's still fighting the war, otherwise why would Japan be reclaiming territories it lost to the Allied in the various WWII peace treaties/agreements?

Guru29 The Republic of China signed the Potsdam Declaration; and since it still exists, the PRC can't be recognized as its successor for purposes of international law.

Are you mistaking Taiwan as China? As far as the UN is concerned, the PRC is the legal successor of ROC and it has replaced the ROC as a permanent member of UNSC.

If Japan did not recognized the PRC as the legal successor of the Potsdam Declaration, why then did Japan write the following into its 1972 joint communique with the PRC:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

But, what can anyone expect from a member of the Communist Chinese 50-cent Army.

I am not a supporter of the CCP. I don't live in China and I'm not even Chinese.

Because it's a load of rubbish. Think before you type. You really think China would attempt to 'nuke Japan' over the Senkaku Islands?

The fact is almost all experts in this field agree that the issue could be escalated easily into a major war or even a world war. And since Japan agreed that the price for claiming territories that have not been certified to be part of Japan by US, UK, China and Russia is "prompt and utter destruction", how could the possibility of nukes be ruled out?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

CH3CHO Apr. 24, 2014 - 09:16AM JST In 1951, the Senkakus were put under US trusteeship by San Francisco Peace Treaty.

China does not recognize this SF treaty. If you remember, the 1951 San Francisco Treaty was drafted by the U.S. with the assistance of Great Britain. Significantly, neither the ROC or PRC were invited to participate in the peace conference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please read the San Francisco Peace Treaty carefully.

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese

1943 "private" dinner hardly makes for a good case. Sorry. Although the idea was circulated, it was decided that this was not an option.

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 (US, UK, China and Russia) determine

False. "We" are "U.S., Britain, and Republic of China" and the Soviet's basically "adhered" to it. Both U.S. and Britain signed the Treaty of Peace and the Republic of China signed a separate treaty whereby there was no "relinquishment" of Senkaku.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Guru29

The Potsdam and Cairo declarations in effect were little more than the intended actions of states who agreed to the declarations desired to take in the in the future when conditions were permissible. These two documents is that even if such documents were recognized under international law as binding, the binding force of any international agreement is limited to signatory nations and cannot extend to third party nations that are not signatories, nor can it demand obligations of third party nations. Japan was not a signatory to either declaration, hence the documents have no actual force in international law, as Taiwan was a territory of Japan at the time the document was signed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan was not a signatory to either declaration, hence the documents have no actual force in international law

The Potsdam Declaration isn't just a declaration, it is the conditions of surrender for Japan.

And it became binding on Japan when Japan signed or publicly announced the followings:

Japanese Instrument of Surrender:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."

Imperial Rescript of Emperor Hirohito

"Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

Emperor Hirohito's Radio Broadcast

"We have ordered our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration."

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system

Japanese always like to say they do not know the difference between the US and UN. However, you statement just confirmed what I have been saying. If it is US trusteeship, why is there a need for the US to seek approval from the UN to put the Ryukyu islands (excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between north latitude 25 to 26 degree) under the UN trusteeship system for decolonization?

Excuse me. An ultimatum is issued BEFORE a war starts. An utlimatum is also know as a conditional declearation of war. Potsdam Declearation, which was meant to end the war, is not an ultimatum.

You are wrong. This is the definition of an ultimatum from wikipedia:

An ultimatum is a demand whose fulfillment is requested in a specified period of time and which is backed up by a threat to be followed through in case of noncompliance. An ultimatum is generally the final demand in a series of requests. As such, the time allotted is usually short, and the request is understood not to be open to further negotiation. The threat which backs up the ultimatum can vary depending on the demand in question and on the other circumstances.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guru29 (Apr. 25, 2014 - 03:22AM JST):

According to Article 3 of the treaty, the Ryukyu islands (excluding the Senkakus) were supposed to be handed over to the UN trusteeship system (UN system for decolonization) for future independence, not US.

Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty stipulates Nansei Shoto south of 29 degree north latitude to be placed under the trusteeship of the U.S., excluding the Osumi Island Group. Nansei Shoto is the nomenclature coined by a predecessor of the Japanese Coast Guard circa 1887 and officially entered in a map in 1888. It covers the archipelago extending from the Osumi Islands, Tokara Islands, Amami Islands, Okinawa Islands, Miyako Islands and Yaeyama Islands. The Senkaku Islands are registered with Yaeyama Island Group, thus being included in Nansei Shoto .

Certainly, there's no mention of the Senkaku Islands in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but their inclusion is taken for granted once Nansei Shoto is mentioned just as Haterumajima in the Yaeyama group and Taramajima in the Miyako group are.

Tokara Islands were returned to Japan in 1952, Amami Islands in 1953, and the rest of Nansei Shoto in 1972.

1 ( +1 / -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